Linux-Advocacy Digest #168, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 13:13:12 EDT
Contents:
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson))
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Euro2000 football divination service and more..... ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:49:58 GMT
On 17 Jun 2000 17:36:13 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1. It scails down
>
>Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of RAM. Windows
>runs on todays
You mean like a Palm Pilot? Or an embedded system?
That's Odd: M$ seems to care enough.
[deletia]
>2. It's multi-user
>
>Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user. All that meens to me is that I
>have to
>remember a password just to be able to get into my own computer. Users want to get
>their work
...another area where Microsoft itself disagrees with you...
[deletia]
Being able to protect yourself from yourself is a useful thing,
especially given the skill with which some of you detractors
can figure out how to shoot yourselves in the foot.
[other absurdities removed]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: whistler@<blahblah>twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:49:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, No-Spam wrote:
>I've just returned from Perth, where I stopped to examine the increase in Linux
>books at Dymocks Technical Bookshop, one of the better equiped bookstores in
>Perth Western Australia.
>
>Whilst looking thru the entire bookshelf now devoted to Linux (and Unix)
>I noticed a huge set of boxed books marked "The Windows2000 Server Resource
>Kit" priced at $299!
>
>Thats right Two Hundred and Ninety Nine dollars for the things Linux does for
>free, for **ZERO** dollars!
>
Really, you can get printed, specifically bound into a hard or soft covered
book, copies of Linux manuals for free, from where? The same printed Linux
manuals could be cheaper, or they could be more expensive in the aggregate.
Paul
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:55:14 GMT
On 17 Jun 2000 17:37:24 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 15 Jun 2000 23:35:28 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 15 Jun 2000 17:49:50 -0500, Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>>>The funny thing about you UNIX people is that you alwais say that UNIX is
>>>"easy" and then you come back and say you half to type some cryptic-as-hell
>>>command to do something simpal. My favarite is:
>>>
>>> rpm -Uvh
>>
>>There are GUI utilities such as gnorpm so that dumbasses like yourself don't
>>have to type anything. Sorry, try again.
>
>There are GUI utilities such as InstallShield that run circals around any
>slow-as-hell Linux
>GNOME substituit.
InstallSHIELD is just a weak shell scripting language with a
little eye candy in to impress the weak minded (like you).
[deletia]
It only exists due to the inherent inadequacies of the underlying
OS...
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:53:38 GMT
On 17 Jun 2000 17:37:03 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:57:36 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:25:46 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>wrote on Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:45:08 GMT
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:43:51 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>wrote on 15 Jun 2000 17:49:50 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>>>
>>>>>[snip for brevity]
>>>>>
>>>>>>The funny thing about you UNIX people is that you alwais say that UNIX
>>>>>>is "easy" and then you come back and say you half to type some
>>>>>>cryptic-as-hell command to do something simpal.
>>>>>
>>>>>Unix is not easy. Unix is in fact quite difficult.
>>>>
>>>> The simple is harder, however the complicated is at least possible.
>>>
>>>Very true; Unix also likes to combine many small tools in various
>>>well-defined ways. The tricky part is to know all the small tools. :-)
>>
>> Nah, the tricky part is figuring out how a particular task
>> decomposes into many smaller ones...
>
>In other words "wright it yoursealf".
That doesn't even come close to writing it yourself.
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:59:20 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:38:18 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>You are right I haven't. BUT I have tried both the Gnome and KDE file
>managers, the ones a new user will use when he tries Linux and they
>are both slow as molasses.
...if true, likely primarily by changing the conditions of the comparison.
>
>FastFind (indexed file finder) is real fast also, as is Norton
>Commander.
>
>I'm talking out of the box, brute force (no database).
Anything with an "index" is implying a database of some kind and
that it is NOT infact useable "straight out of the box".
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:03:19 -0500
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> Agreed. The lie here is that if you run KDE and Netscape on that 386
> and you're not gonna have much fun.
It's only a lie if someone actually says it. I've never heard anyone pushing 386s for
KDE and
Netscape, have you?
> Linux is more flexibbal than Windows but most people hardly ever learn
> how to use all of Windows so they're never going to care about
> removing parts they don't use or adding other things.
That's true. But is it a reason to cripple the power users?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 09:57:40 -0500
Jacques Guy wrote:
> TimL wrote:
>
> > In fact this person [Tim Palmer] seems to be quite
> > fearful of the command-line
>
> I'd be scared of command lines too if I spelt like him!
You know, sometimes I honestly wonder whether that isn't the great
divide between those who love the command line and those who hate it.
I.e., those who never learned to type hate it because they haven't
mastered the skills necessary to use it, and those who did learn to type
love it because it's so powerful.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:03:33 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:42:18 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I've had some experience with this.
>
>Apps
>----
>
>Netscape doesn't run well on 486 SXs apparently it runs much better on
>DXs. If there SXs, then set up a font server on a fast computer.
>Netscape 4.7 will run on a 486SX33 with 16MB ram if you have all day to
>wait. Try netscape 2.02, but IIRC you have to install a.out
32M is enough to comfortably run Netscape and friends on a full
desktop machine with office applications a couple of large source
tarballs building in the background.
[deletia]
I would be surprised if 16M isn't really enough to run Netscrape
by itself...
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:05:25 GMT
On 18 Jun 2000 09:58:08 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:42:18 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>SECURITY
>>-------
>
>>Prevent anyone displaying on X remotely (man xauth)
>
>No man page or xauth required:
>
> xhost -
>
>will do.
Typically, you will need to explicitly enable a host before
they can access a particular Xserver under Xfree & Linux.
So that part of the manual should be pretty much superfluous.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:09:23 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:20:15 GMT, Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:35:00 -0700, Stephen Edwards
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
><8ic211$htb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >
>> >>There are things that I have seen mentioned in these three news groups
>by
>> >>the supporters of the Microsoft Windows environment that I can not
>reconcile
>> >>with what I have experienced in reality, I would like to discuss one of
>> >>them. Please note that I did not say the Windows operating system,
>since
>> >>there is no such beast. Windows, in all of its incarnations is nothing
>more
>> >>than a graphical environment that runs on an actual operating system.
>>
>> This isn't quite correct.
>>
>> Unix is an actual operating system and X is a graphical shell
>> that runs on top of it. However WinDOS is a different sort of
>> beast. The "whole OS" does not exist in DOS. Most of the OS is
>> embedded into the GUI shell making the boundary between system
>> components murky and DOS itself crippled.
>>
>> They aren't quite comparable... Unix/X vs. DOS/Win.
>>
>If so much is imbedded in the GUI shell, why can I change that shell?
>LiteStep and the other available GUI replacements for Window 9x or NT 4.
You're just replacing the top layer and doing it BADLY.
Run LiteStep and you lose the explorer desktop.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:11:41 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:25:03 GMT, John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:22:35 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I also meant to say (but forgot) that the lifespan of other consumer
>>products is longer thasn 8 years. TVs, fridges etc can have lifespand
>>over 20 years. Technology may have improged, but they have become no
>>worse. Software is not different
>
>You don't expect to be able to drop a '00 Taurus engine into a '57
>Mustang do you? Why should you expect to be able to run a program
Windows is an operating enviroment for a Turing Transputer,
not a physical machine. The engineering constraints are as
different as you could possibly get.
[deletia]
This would be a good example, one to put in whatever textbook
might apply to this subject, of a BAD analogy.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:13:50 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:07:03 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It was the Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:25:03 GMT...
>...and John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:22:35 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >I also meant to say (but forgot) that the lifespan of other consumer
>> >products is longer thasn 8 years. TVs, fridges etc can have lifespand
>> >over 20 years. Technology may have improged, but they have become no
>> >worse. Software is not different
>>
>> You don't expect to be able to drop a '00 Taurus engine into a '57
>> Mustang do you? Why should you expect to be able to run a program
>> designed for the Windows 1.x engine on Windows 2000?
>
>Car analogies are nearly always silly. I presume you know that?
Virtual machine with the capacity to have as many useless features
as you have storage space, for nothing more than the cost it would
take to engineer that feature vs.
Real machine, where any design element will cost you more money
in physical manufacturing and add to the total weight of the
device (which needs to be pushed around by it's own powerplant).
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:05:50 -0500
2:1 wrote:
> > I really do wonder if most Linx users are 13-19 years old with lots of
> > spare time. Thats the point in my life that I would happily spend
> > HOURS setting up something for the fun of it. That's when I couldn't
> > afford anything other than freeware tools and I had to suffer with
> > their poor quality.
>
> As it happens i don't have spare time for reboots, crashes, etc, etc.
> Also, I'm no longer 19 (as of yesterday)
Heh heh. I was going to ask him what age uses happily spend the time
rebooting, reinstalling, and working around problems that their OS imposes
at random times for random reasons.
I'm more than happy to spend hours setting something up, so long as it
stays set up when I'm done with it. It's the black hole that sucks down
endless hours of re-setting (pun intended) that made me move from Windows
to Linux.
Bobby Bryant
Ausitn, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Euro2000 football divination service and more.....
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:12:07 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> About your future:
> I provided service: divination Stock Exchange
OK, I authorize you to take a dollar and run it up to a million on the stock market.
When you hand over the million, I'll pay you back the dollar it cost you.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:20:31 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:36:23 GMT, John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:55:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:35:00 -0700, Stephen Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <8ic211$htb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>>
>>>>There are things that I have seen mentioned in these three news groups by
>>>>the supporters of the Microsoft Windows environment that I can not reconcile
>>>>with what I have experienced in reality, I would like to discuss one of
>>>>them. Please note that I did not say the Windows operating system, since
>>>>there is no such beast. Windows, in all of its incarnations is nothing more
>>>>than a graphical environment that runs on an actual operating system.
>>
>> This isn't quite correct.
>>
>> Unix is an actual operating system and X is a graphical shell
>> that runs on top of it. However WinDOS is a different sort of
>> beast. The "whole OS" does not exist in DOS. Most of the OS is
>> embedded into the GUI shell making the boundary between system
>> components murky and DOS itself crippled.
>>
>> They aren't quite comparable... Unix/X vs. DOS/Win.
>
>The NT 3.x is quite similar in design to Linux/XF4 if you look at it.
>Wonder how long it takes them to move X into the kernel to improve
>speed? ;-)
Even if that happened, our kernel is modular. The wise sysadmin
would still be able to rip it back out if necessary. So, the
whole point is moot.
[deletia]
>>>That's because real-mode never made its way into Windows v3.x.
>>>In order for Microsoft to move forward, they had to leave some
>>
>> It doesn't matter what the excuse is. The 386 was out by then,
>> they had more than enough information to plan ahead with. They
>> just chose not to.
>
>The 386 was out, but the target platform was the 286. Windows 3.x
So, they could have designed it with both the future and the
present in mind.
>just introduced 386 enhanced mode which provided most of the things
>standard mode did with a few extra bonuses.
>
>>>things behind... real-mode applications were one of those things.
>>>By your logic, we should all be driving cars that still have
>>>oil lamps on them.
>>
>> ...not quite. Computers much like cars are using the same
>> core technology they have been from nearly their inception.
>> Windows is a bit younger than DOS and can't use the same
>> excuses for it's design myopia.
>
>Windows ran on DOS. The design of Windows was inseparable from DOS.
>What are you talking about?
Windows didn't NEED to be built that way. Microsoft merely
choose the path of least effort, and it shows.
>
>>>Would you suggest that every software company simply cater to
>>>every single old-timer out there who doesn't want to upgrade
>>>their ancient OS/application installations? That makes no
>>
>> No, they should design for the future more than the have
>> been (in the case of Microsoft). Software doesn't wear
>> out and OS vendors shouldn't be essentially sabotaging the
>> capital investments of both companies and home users.
>
>So Linux should have a standard binary driver API, or do different
>rules apply to different systems?
You're trying to change the subject.
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:28:03 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:16:51 +1200, Lawrence DčOliveiro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8htk0a$8td$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Vandervies) wrote:
>
>>One difference is that (if I'm interpreting the description correctly)
>>it assumes that if a volume is mounted as `My Files' on one system, it
>>will be mounted as `My Files' on _any_ other system it happens to be
>>moved to; I can mount a filesystem as `/usr/local' on one computer and
>>as '/mnt/goofy/usr/local' on another using the Unix model. Being able
>>to do this has made life a lot easier on more than one occasion.
>
>The only advantages of this would seem to be a direct result of
>limitations of UNIX itself--for example, the special meaning of
>pathnames like "/usr/local". There are no such "reserved" pathnames on
>MacOS (not even the names of the System Folder or the System or Finder
...instead you get possible VolumeName collisions.
>files are hard-coded anywhere).
>
>Thus it is quite clear that this "feature" of referring to an object on
>a removable filesystem by different names on different systems is in
>fact a drawback, since it doesn't allow you to store stable object
>references on that volume, or indeed on any other.
Those "stable object references" have their own problems.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:29:40 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:19:45 +1200, Lawrence DčOliveiro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8htlbb$5q3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Lee
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Lawrence D1Oliveiro
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> b) Mount points (all UNIXes and Linsux).
>>> Pros: Pretends to make all your volumes look like a single filesystem.
>>> Cons: Only *pretends* to make all your volumes look like a single
>>> filesystem (all kinds of within-file-system-only things don't work, like
>>> hard links). Notoriously error-prone: Copy files to a mount point
>>> directory when the volume isn't actually mounted, then mount it,
>>> and--where did those files go? Not only are they on the wrong volume,
>>> but you can't even access them until you dismount the second volume
>>> again!
>>> Verdict: Incompletely thought-out idea. How come the Linux folks are so
>>> focused on being so faithful to UNIX, when they could be *fixing* some
>>> of those long-standing, well-known UNIX problems?
>>
>>Haven't you heard of automount and autofs?
>>It automatically mounts it when accessed
>>and unmount it when not in used for some time.
>
>Instead of solving the problem, all that does is spread it across two
>machines--you have exactly the same problem of non-stable filesystem
>object references on the server machine as you did previously on the
>client machine.
>
>This is why MacOS-style volume-based filesystem references are better.
There's no good reason why a system would need to depend on
"stable references". Infact, such "stable references" don't
seem to provide for any sort of namespace collisions.
Whereas the Unix scheme does.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:30:38 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:23:36 +1200, Lawrence DčOliveiro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Linux is aimed at POSIX-compliance and the old standard filesystem.
>
>Who uses POSIX any more?
Little players like Oracle and Apache...
>
>>We certainly wouldn't like it if critical utilities like Sendmail,
>>XFree86, and such suddenly would stop working.
>
>Why not fix those programs to work with a more modern filesystem? I
>know--because they would then break on UNIXes still using the old
>filesystem. So what you're saying is you're stuck in a vicious circle,
>where you can't fix the OS because the apps will break, and you can't
>fix the apps because the OS will break?
You've still yet to demonstrate what's really "so modern" about
the way MacOS does things...
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
