Linux-Advocacy Digest #230, Volume #27 Wed, 21 Jun 00 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("John W. Stevens")
Re: how do i change the system date? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Sam Morris")
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("John W. Stevens")
Re: DirectX equivalent (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: I had a reality check today :( (cubicdog)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("John W. Stevens")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:57:12 -0600
Alan Baker wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Colin R. Day"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >And why would you copy files to an unmounted mount point?
> >
> >Colin Day
> >
>
> How would you know the difference?
You seem to have forgotten that normally only root can mount and unmount
file systems.
> If the OS makes volumes look exactly
> like any other directory, then you have to expect users to occasionally
> forget and treat them like just another directory.
Nope. You don't have to expect this. Users on a properly configured
and administered system should never place files in any other location
than under their home directory, /tmp, or on removable media . . . and
nobody, but nobody who has even one single, tiny clue would ever mount a
file system under anybodies home directory.
> Shouldn't the OS
> protect the user from such errors?
It does. You don't loose anything if you mount a file system over a
mount directory after somebody has copied a lot of files to that
directory.
In fact, on many systems, if you have one or more of those files still
open, you can continue to work on them with no problems.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how do i change the system date?
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:00:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jens Prüfer wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> > In deference to our friend Mr. Tanenbaum, WYSIWYG is a methodology and
> > paradigm to allow creative people to create on the computer what they
> > wish to see in real life. Does one assume that the paintbrush should be
> > allowed to dictate the appearance of a painting to the artist? In some
> > cases, the computer can place things logically, in artistic endeavors, I
> > shudder to think how a computer would evaluate taste.
>
> If you consider all the WYSIWYG so called "word processors" as tools for
> artists and call the result "painting" rather than an ergonomic and easy
> to read document I agree. However I still believe that artists would be
> greatly disappointed by the result they get from MS Applications. Simply
> because WYSIWYG does not work. In fact far more often you see what you
> don't want at all!
>
> > The problem with wysiwyg is that people with no taste attempt to
> > override the computers defaults.
>
> The problem with the defaults (especially WinWord defaults) is that the
> people creating those defaults have not the slightest Idea about
> typesetting!
Like, who picked ARIAL as the default typeface!?!?!?!
UGH!
>
> Documents usually are not works of visual art (great novels certainly
> are to be considered art, but not because of their layout). They are to
> be read to carry information to many people and should therefore follow
> at least basic rules of good typesetting and ergonomics.
>
> So Andrew S. Tanenbaum is right. Even though he does not use LaTeX -- my
> favourite "word processor".
Word processors are actually programming languages.
Examples: roff family, WordPerfect's embedded codes, TeX family, HTML
>
> Cheers
>
> Jens
>
> --
> WYSIWYG is a step backwards. Human labor is used to do that which the
> computer
> can do better.
> Andrew S. Tanenbaum
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:04:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
void wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:08:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Linux IS trying to compete with Windows and is doing quite a poor job
> >of it. The rash of poorly thought out and inconsistent Windows
> >imitation gui's proves that point.
> >
> >Linux should have stayed a CLI operating system IMHO because it is
> >extremely powerful in that application and quite frankly Linux is
> >embarrassing itself by trying to graft a slow and obviously inferior
> >GUI on top of a stable system.
>
> The "Windows imitation gui's" that you speak of are indeed inferior.
> That's because there's more to Windows than its look. Certain of MS's
> competitors understand this. Apple, for example, provides quite a lot
> of useful APIs with MacOS. BeOS is apparently more than just an OS,
> too.
>
> MacOS and Windows were both originally written for systems considered too
> small to support "real OS" features, and this still affects them both
> negatively, IMHO. Windows NT has one foot in that world and one foot in
> the present -- though some parts are quite modern, others are contaminated
> by an archaic mindset. NeXTStep and BeOS were both designed in the age of
> desktop machines big enough for real OSs.
>
> Unix, too, was written before anyone put full-featured OSs on anyone's
> desktop. Before desktops, even. And while unix has had GUIs for some
> time, what's been missing is a rich, standardized desktop environment
> with wide adoption and confidence.
>
> NeXTStep put such an environment on top of a kernel which, though
> certainly somewhat different from traditional unix, does present a
> very unix-like interface. So it can be done, coding-wise. But
> NeXTStep was too expensive to be very popular, I think.
>
> I freely admit that I haven't used GNOME or KDE extensively, but from
> what I've read, it sounds to me like they're on the right track to
> creating something similar. It's my hope that their free and open-source
> nature will help them get more momentum than previous efforts in this
> direction.
>
> I don't like to use Linux, because Linux's design goal is to "take over
> the world" and I prefer a system with the more focussed goal of being a
Wrong.
That conflicts with the first precept: USER CHOICE.
> stable, fast internet platform. But I do think the Linux people are
> approaching their particular goal in a good way. Don't dismiss their
> efforts to create a good open desktop platform just because the results
> haven't been immediate. Of course, I can afford to be ecumenical,
> because I expect GNOME and KDE to work on my FreeBSD machines when and
> if I get around to playing with them again -- that's a nice thing about
> open software.
>
> --
> Ben
>
> 220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:07:20 +0100
> As long as the end user shell is keeping track of things by
> a "name" then it really doesn't matter too much to the end
> user what is being called a "kludge" underneath.
I agree that it doesn't matter what is going on underneath the UI, _as long
as everything works as it should_. I couldn't care less about how a Mac
actually tracks links to files, as long as those links never become
detached.
Unfortunately, it is all too easy to break such links under Windows; if I
move or rename anything involved in the chain of disks and folders needed to
point to a file then shortcuts to this file stop working, and I bitch about
it. :)
--
Sam Morris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...7/6/00: 3rd installation of Windows since March took 6h30m, and that's
without a working modem...
...you can have my Mac when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers...
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:11:33 -0400
"but for basic simple administation, you could say NT was easier (an MCSE
monkey could do it)"
Well, it can be just any monkey :) . Most of the stuff is hidden away in the
help files!!
> Linux makes it a lot easer to administer in the long run.
Yup : Configuration is through readable text files. Even if all hell breaks
loose, if you can boot off an emergency disk, you can run vi ( the unix
text editor) and change things .Compare that with Windows Registry
manipulation when the OS does not start.
> Also, linux installs more easily
Well, I am not so sure. So far, I've used Redhat's packages, and things are
quite simple.
Corel's offering really irritated me because I did not want to edit package
files . But this is a nitpick on the installer.
> > -Used far and wide.
> > -Good software and hardware base.
> > -Eye Candy value(my friend stated that his boss made
> > them move to win nt a few years back because of the way it
> > looked not worked.)
>
> omigod.
Well, so long as said person kept backups of critical data on some other
safe system.
> > NT/2000 CON's
> > -Not well liked by hackers. (They see this as the man to be
> > overthrown this is why you have more problems with hackers
> > virus's and such
To break into , MS has been great! Guess how long they wait to release a
patch ?
> > -Not as stable as others (linux,beos,free bsd, novel)
> > -In a year or two you will be facing another expensive upgrade
> > or be behind in the os war.
Here , here. W2K Pro takes up 64 MB of ram . I need 128MB just to run the
monster. And what does it load up ? a lot of fancy crap that I have no easy
way of disabling ( unless I want to risk trashing the hdd on the next
reboot )
In contrast, I could control every service that could be started on Linux.
>
> >
> > Linux PRO's
> > -Very cheap free to about 1/3 to 1/2 of what nt or novel charge
> Eh? I don't quite understand. It's free (except for a 1 off charge if
> you choose to buy instead of download a CD).
> > -Runs well on low end system (486 web server)
> > -Once set up properly will run well (reports of systems running
> > uninterupted for 300 + days.
> > -At one point there was a rumor that micro$oft ran its hotmail
> > servers on linux boxes cause NT couldn't handle the load.
>
> It wasn't a rumour. IIRC Hotmail runs on FreeBSD, and the attempt to
> migrate to NT4 was a failure.
>
> > -Gaining momentum constant updates with little or no cost.
> >
> > Linux CON's
> > -Not alot shown improvements on high end systems (from
> > comparisons between linux and NT)
> Yes. The SMP isn't so great, but this isn't a con compared to NT because
> it's no worse.
> > -Takes alot of work to get a system setup properly
> That I disagree with completely. The install is easier and quicker than
> NT. It install all the H/W drivers for you and you need to reboot once.
> Things like samba come working out of the box. The additional setup
> needed for a desktop system is minimal after it's first installed.
>
> -Ed
>
>
> > -Lack of Talented people to admin Linux
> > -Cost of Talented people to admin Linux
>
> But (as pointed out earlier) 2 BOFH ($90,000/annum) types are cheaper
> than 6 monkey (30,000/annum) types.
> > -Not a real strong hardware and software powerbase for linux.
Well, RH 6.0's X server handles my G200 card perfectly. In fact, I can get
higher refresh rates from X server than from Windows .
It picked up my modem ( all 3 as I cycled through them ) . They are ISA, and
"plug and pray" is disabled.
It picked up my sound card ( a vibra 16 ) and is in full duplex mode. I have
to mute the mike to prevent feedback!
All I used was "sndconfig" that was installed when I did a full install.
It plays mp3's and audio off the cdrom while I'm writing something, or doing
my accounts , or browsing.
It even contains a X version of winamp.
The only thing I don't do is play games. The ones I play are rather a
"niche" thing ( hardcore combat sims), and I don't expect them to be ported
to other OS'es from win95.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:12:35 -0600
Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > There's no reason for them to even be able to get there unless
> > you're just some troll trying to trump up some artificial problem.
>
> Hey, I didn't invent the situation, someone else did.
Actually, you did invent the situation.
As others have pointed out, this cannot happen if the system
administrator is doing his job right.
> All I said was
> that if the best that the OS can do is let this happen without providing
> some mechanism to warn the user that he or she might be about to save
> files into a "black hole" then it sounds pretty stupid to me.
The OS can and will provide a mechanism . . . one that not only warns
the user, but actually stops them from doing the action.
> I can see the argument that there are situations where you might want to
> be able to do this, but to have it simply happen without any kind of
> warning that what you're about to do might be a little out of the
> ordinary, that I can't call good design.
Fine . . . but we aren't talking about Unix or Linux, so your comments
do not apply.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: DirectX equivalent
Date: 21 Jun 2000 13:10:33 -0500
In article <3950fbaf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Using DirectX under Windows98, I can take complete control over the
>input and output hardware (keyboard, mouse, screen, etc.). Is this
>acceptable under Linux? I guess not. Still, some people do want this
>functionality (for a number of reasons). Let's take a non-DirectX
>example: access to the parallel port. Under Windows98 I can access
>it directly, under WindowsNT/2000 I basically have to write a driver.
>Sometimes, security comes with a price that not everybody is willing
>to pay...
How does this relate to the actual program and it's relationship
to the hardware (if any). Under X, the physical keyboard and
screen may not be on the same machine where the program
runs. If the program talks to physical hardware directly
it is likely to do the wrong thing. What happens when
you run two programs at once that both want to take control
of the same hardware (even in your parallel port case)?
Security isn't the only issue here.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (cubicdog)
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:25:25 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:11:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>That's ok. If Linux can prove it is better than Windows, or Mac, I
>will use it.
I know it is foolish of me to waste bandwidth on this, but
I like being foolish now and again.
Linux needs not *prove* it's self to you or anyone.
It gains in market share through attrition and will continue
to do so.
Linux in the mainstream in five years is not only
conservative but would also be difficult to stop
simply due to the licensing issues.
I don't know about the majority of home
users. I am not clear on what a home
user is exactly. I do know that everyone
I know wants at home what they use
at work. This is logical.
At work, windows rulz, mac droolz
and linux is back there, building up
steam.
I work in Virginia, which recently
passed UCITA, which may or may
not go federal, if not global, but
something like it certainly will.
In view of the liabilities a company
exposes itself too as this law grows
teeth, expect to see more and more
companies wanting GNU type
software licenses to protect them
from endless litigation. What folks
use at work, they will want at home.
This is just one of hundreds of scenarios.
Those who say linux will stay in lab, never
go anywhere and such just aren't paying attention.
Thats all.
Rebutt all you like. It won't change anything.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:17:31 -0600
Alan Baker wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Colin R. Day"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Into a place where they can no longer be found (as is the case once the
> >> mount point is reattached)?
> >>
> >
> >But you can get them back after unmounting.
>
> Sure, if you realize that that's where they'll be, but who's to say that
> you will?
No system can protect a user from their own ignorance.
> Picture it:
>
> You save some files to /usr/yourfiles not even knowing that /usr is a
> mount point that happens not to be available (hey, this is a machine
> used by everybody. Who knows what happens when you're not at it.)
Mistake number one: users should not be able to put files just any where
they want to.
Mistake number two: if that directory is a mount point, it should
already have a file system mounted on it by the time the user gets
access to the machine.
Mistake number three: if that directory is a mount point for file
systems that are *NOT* mounted by the time the system goes multi-user,
then it is a mount point for removable media, in which case the user
cannot copy files to that directory *AT* *ALL* when the removable media
is not mounted.
> Tell me, why should the OS warn you if you're going to move a file into
> what should be a mounted volume that is currently unavailable?
The system will. It will say something like:
cp: cannot create /usr/yourfiles/t.ps: Permission denied
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:21:19 -0600
Alan Baker wrote:
>
> Mundane or not, your entire refutation boils down to: "It doesn't happen
> to me, therefore it doesn't happen".
Nope. His refutation boils down to:
On a properly administered system, permissions should be set so that
this cannot be done.
A failure to properly administer a system is not the fault of the
system.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: 21 Jun 2000 13:25:02 -0500
In article <8iqugi$gf0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, your mistake in reference to KDE as a "window manager"
>> entirely nullifies all of your previous points. To make such a
>> collosal mistake as this betrays the true amount of unix knowledge
>> you posess, which would be this much:
>>
>> 0
>
>Although its an easy flame for you, I think that for lusers
>like me, its an easy mistake to make. In all the time that
>I've used Redhat, I thought KDE was a window manager, and am
>only just learning that it isn't. Now, if this does equate
>to having a knowledge level of 0, then yes, clearly linux loses
>points here, most windows users can get to work immediately,
>ie., attain a "knowledge amount" significantly greater than 0,
>even if unable to separate the idea of a user interface from the
>operating system, if only because in the microsoft world, there
>isn't that much separation between the interface and the OS.
>
>So one conclusion to be reached is that unix requires too much
>knowledge to be used by the majority of computer users. Score
>one for Bill, attaining a knowledge level greater than 0 is
>much easier for the windows side of the OS wars.
Huh? Note that it was not necessary for you to know the
difference between an environment and a window manager
to use a distribution. Also, you are just as wrong about
MS windows as demonstrated by whoever it was that managed
to remove IE from win98 and keep it working. As I recall,
even Bill didn't know how to do that...
>But now that I'm at least clear on what KDE is, how can I give
>KWM a spin without running KDE, so I can get an idea how it (KWM)
>ranks as a windows manager? Specifically, I'd like to install
>KWM without KDE, because, for me, in a purely subjective manner,
>KDE disagrees with me, and from my superficial bit of '0-level
>knowledge based investigation', I can't seem to find a KWM tarball.
Just remove all of the other kde components that you have
suddenly decided to dislike. Unless you are horribly short
on disk space there is no particular reason to remove them,
though. You can leave kfm on the disk and run gmc or xwc
if you prefer. Likewise will all of the other parts.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:19:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Learn to read asshole...
> I said Caching (not cashing like YOU prefer to call it) only applies
> to repetitive tasks. For example opening the same directory 15 time in
> a row.
>
> The first opening will be x time, the subsequent openings will be x -
> some factor due to caching (not cashing like you call it)....
>
> The bottom line is, that kfm is several factors slower than Explorer
> in opening, for the first time, cold boot, a directory of a similar
> number of files.
>
> And in my experience it aint even close....
I'll hazard a guess here, maybe its because explorer starts drawing
faster. I've noticed that the windows explorer draws immediately,
it only waits when it needs additional information from whatever
drives are out there. Maybe kfm wants more info before it starts
drawing.
Just a guess tho.
[ snip ]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:28:58 -0600
Rob Barris wrote:
>
> In article <8i8n0e$m5c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Vandervies) wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure you understand my point; what happens if you have, say, a
> > floppy disk called `My Files' and you want to mount some other floppy
> > that's also labeled `My Files' without unmounting the first floppy?
> > If a program is going to look in `My Files' for a file, which `My
> > Files' will it be? (Renaming them `My Files (floppy1)' and `My Files
> > (floppy2)' will work, but this reduces to the exact same thing as
> > different mount points under unix.)
>
> The underlying file specification mechanism on MacOS is not based on
> path names.
Irrelevant. The point was that the OS should stop you from doing
something silly. Now, if I have two floppies, both labeled the same
(say, X), and I put one in and save my files to it, then remove it . . .
when I insert the *OTHER* volume labeled X . . . well, how do you
respond to my screams of outrage (where did my files go!?)?
> You can have four volumes named 'x' mounted, if the user selects a file
> from a certain directory on one of those volumes, say by using the
> standard file picker, the record describing where that files is (an
> FSSpec) contains a volume index, a directory ID value, and the name of the
> file itself. The name of the volume is immaterial here - the file is
> uniquely identified by these three components.
The user does not identify volumes that way, s/he identifies them by
name.
> If you are using a tool or shell which is pathname based, well then the
> doctor said "don't do that" with regard to having volumes with the same
> name online.
Weren't you the one bashing Unix for situations involving: "don't do
that", as an unacceptable answer?
> To assume however that the underlying OS has some kind of
> problem with pathnames is not the right conclusion.
No assumption neccesary. The question is simply one of: how does your
scheme guarantee a unique volume name, thereby removing user confusion?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:32:07 -0600
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Colin Day said
> > > >
> > > > And why would you copy files to an unmounted mount point?
> > >
> > > Because you *thought* it was mounted.
> >
> > I never did that accidentally, although I did it on purpose out of
> > curiosity. It would be an annoyance, but you're not losing data.
>
> Not being able to find your data is functionally the same as having lost it.
In which case, please go hit your sysadmin (virtually, of course, not
literally). If *YOU* are your own sysadmin, then get yourself treated
for a very, very serious mental illness.
You guys really like to create improbably scenarios, and explore what
happens when admins act in idiotic or illogical ways, don'cha?!
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
