Linux-Advocacy Digest #357, Volume #27 Mon, 26 Jun 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (salvador peralta)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Ian Westcott)
Re: OS's ... (Michael Marion)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (Loren Petrich)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy ("Colin R. Day")
Re: What UNIX is good for. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: If Linux is desktop ready ... ("TimL")
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy (Salvador
Peralta)
Re: OS's ... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: slashdot (Salvador Peralta)
Re: stability of culture of helpfulness ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (Loren Petrich)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Re: Microsoft and General Stupidity (sandrews)
Re: If Linux is desktop ready ... (Christopher Browne)
Idiots That Can't Comprehend That Extensions Aren't A Fundamental Structure Of
Computing... (Christopher Browne)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action ("George Leroy
Tyrebiter, Jr.")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:09:52 -0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin R. Day) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> Now Linux has RPM files, an invention to partially help with
> >> installations. However, the effect of requiring other packages is a
> >> real pain in the neck
> >
> >If you buy a distribution, it should have all of the required packages.
>
> What about extra packages not in a distribution?
True, but would you rather try to install something without having
all of the requirements? You are shooting the messenger (rpm)
for telling you that you need stuff. If you have the stuff in ono-rpm
form, or you want to install anyway, you can use the --nodeps
option.
>
>
> Pete
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: salvador peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:10:44 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2000 01:19:04 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
> wrote:
>
> >You could have gotten that Mandrake loaded in expert mode in
> >less time than it took to post all of the complaints.
>
> Actually.. when I installed it in expert mode the install took
> FOREVER. 2 hours at least.
Yeah, you're a really credible source, Jeff. Kinda like asking hitler
to tell you about his jewish friends...
I installed Mandrake 7.1 on the system that I am typing this from, 60
mhz pentium w/80 megs, in about 45 minutes in expert mode. The thing
that took me the longest was deciding what packages to install on the
system. I don't remember being given that same degree of choice on
*any* windows install I have ever done. Of course, I don't remember
having half of the software and libraries available to me out of the box
on windows either. Come to think of it, I couldn't set up ppp as part
of the install, nor networking, I couldn't acquire additional security
software, nor set up multiple user accounts, etc. etc. etc.
------------------------------
From: Ian Westcott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: 27 Jun 2000 00:11:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 04:31:46 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 06:17:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
:>
:>>>
:>>>How many times have you been mail bombed by Windows advocates? Thought
:>>>so. I guess my arguments were too good... I'm not exactly sure what
:>>>other group would send me 300-500 messages saying "Windows sucks" I've
:>>
:>> What? Your "ease of use interfaces" can't deal with a little spam?
:>
:>Did you guys all have a secret meeting and decide to prove me right as
:>many times as possible this week? Seriously... it's like every post
:>gets a response like this. INSTANT validation.
:>
:>For your information... I followed these steps...
:>
:>1) Sort by sender
:>2) Click first message... click last message (while holding down
:>shift)
:>3) Press delete
:>4) Set rule to do this automatically for this sender in the future.
: Then what are you whining about exactly?
This has to be the stupidest argument I've heard here in awhile. I'm
sure you'd be bitching to hell if some Windows lamers mailbombed you.
Ease of easing some effects from a mailbomb (some, not all. My ISP
gives me a finite mail queue, so if it gets full, nothing else will
be going through) does not somehow make everything ok. A mailbomb
from a Linux user is not somehow less reprehensible than one from a
user who runs another OS.
--
Ian Westcott Rakarra@IRC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:12:54 GMT
Pedro Iglesias wrote:
> Do you remember that by 1995 DOS/Windows users were still
> using DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 ? I point that, because I want
> to denote that Microsoft Windows has done a big and good way
> since 1995, and that Millenium and Windows 2000 are much more
> powerful and stable. I mean, in 5 or 6 years, Microsoft has even
Hmm.. so Tim "Im a kkid whoe kant spel" Palmer left... and Pedro "MS has
done a big and good way" Iglesias comes onto the scene (and starts
thread after thread of why windows is better) at about the same time
(about 4-4:30am today).
Seems our player is shifting to another persona.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Harry: "Yeah I called her up, she gave me a bunch of crap about me not
listening to her, or something, I don't know, I wasn't really paying
attention." -- From _Dumb & Dumber_ (1994)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action
Date: 27 Jun 2000 00:13:22 GMT
In article <8j8p3m$qi7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why was it OK for us (and/or our ancestors) to come here and work, yet
>it is not OK for them?
Why don't you defend squatting as the right to live wherever one wants?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:18:56 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:27:58 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> If they're allreddy in Windows, why would they want the option to boot Linux to
>run there Windows app?
> >>
> >
> >Because Linux is more stable.
>
> Lie-nux still crashes you LIE-NUX LIAR!
To say that OS x is more stable than OS y only means that x
crashes less than y, not that it doesn't crash at all.
> >> >Linux, and one of several Office suites available for both
> >> >Linux and Windows.
> >>
> >> Then why doessn't anyboddy use it?
> >>
> >
> >But anybody (i. e.) somebody does use it. Or are you asking why
> >everybody doesn't use it. But not everybody uses Microsoft Office,
> >either.
>
> Most people use Microsoft Office even though StarOfice is avalaball.
>
Most people don't even have computers, so how can they use
Microsoft Office?
> >> >
> >> >WordPerfect for Office is also available for Linux and Windows. The
> >> >import/export features leave a bit to be desired, but you can publish
> >> >pretty sharp documents that can be read by Microsft Office.
> >>
> >> Can you immbed VB scripts? Didn't think so.
> >>
> >
> >Aren't VB scripts just text files? Besides, VB doesn't work in Linux.
>
> One more reasin not to run Lie-nux.
>
Some people might say one more reason to run Linux.
>
> >>
> >> I seariously dout its' 30%, you LIE-NUX LIAR! It probly more like 4%, whitch is
>NOTHING unless your on a 386 and
> >> only Lie-nux losers still have 386s.
> >>
> >
> >It's not the absolute number of CPU cycles, but a winmodem has to hit the CPU
> >in real time.
>
> Its unnoticable unless your on a 386.
>
Or playing network Quake.
> >> >users because we stay on much longer.
> >>
> >> Too bizzy downlodeing kernal patches, eh?
> >>
> >
> >No. And downloading the diff files isn't that bad.
>
> So why do Lie-nuts users half to stay on much longer?
>
Reading Slashdot, checking for new packages, the usual.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:22:28 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Photoshop is avallable for Windows.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Why pay $700 when you can get the functional equivalent for free?
He may have meant GIMP, not LOGO.
>
> >>
> >> ucblogo is not the functionall equivillant of Photoshop.
> >
> >First, you go off on a tangent, then you complain that the
> >tangent isn't pertinent to the matter at hand.
>
> I said that even LOGO was better than the GIMP, but then some Lie-nux nut
> started trying to say that
> LOGO was the functionall equivillent of Photoshop.
LOGO is betterthan GIMP? And who said that LOGO was the
equivalent of Photoshop?
Someone might have said that GIMP was equivalent to
Photoshop.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "TimL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If Linux is desktop ready ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:44:41 GMT
In article <8j8l99$2vp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> TimL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Don't know, why don't you tell us?
>
> Pedro won't so I will!
>
>> Pedro Iglesias wrote:
>>
>> > ... then tell me why the Hell a home
>> > user should to care about compiling sources ? If he/she gets
>> > binaries, what the Hell open source is useful to ?
>
<...>
>
> The driver of the car doesn't need to know anything about mechanics, but
> he needs to know a good mechanic. The Mechanic however, needs a great
> deal more information about the machine than the driver needs. And if
> the mechanic can't get the right parts, he might have to go to a
> machinist, who needs even a higher level of detail.
>
Very well put. I often curse to myself about the Windows machines I support
because I have no FREAKIN' IDEA WTF the computer is doing. Linux wins
hands down in this area and I believe will make it much, much easier to support.
>> > If he/she learns the ./configure;make;make install procedure, why the
>> > Hell should he/she know that awk 1.0.4 prevents gtk from compiling
>> > correctly ?
>
> This is about like the guy who can do his own oil changes and can change
> his spark plugs wanting to know why the timing chain is important.
>
> Normally, a casual user (a "Driver") needs to know very little about
> Linux internals. He will purchase a distribution, with matched
> applications and functions.
>
[snip]
>
> Are there drivers who might get in over their heads (pulling all the
> ignition wires and forgetting which order to plug them back in)?
> Absolutely. That's why it's nice to have a mechanic who makes house
> calls rather than being totally dependent on the manufacturer who will
> tell you to "Get rid of that junker and buy a brand new model".
Again, very well put. This is probably why I use Linux now instead of Windows.
I have way more control over how my computer runs and what runs on it and
how in interacts with me. It gives me the choice of GUI or CLI in so many areas.
(Windows has a poor excuse for a CLI interface. DOS really really stinks IMO.)
/TimL
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:53:54 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> > >It's not the absolute number of CPU cycles, but a winmodem has to hit the CPU
> > >in real time.
> >
> > Its unnoticable unless your on a 386.
> >
>
> Or playing network Quake.
It's all wrong anyway. iirc, winmodems won't even work on anything
lower than a pentium 233 w/mmx. Just more evidence that tim doesn't
know wtf he's talking about.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:45:35 GMT
Yeah we all know your the god of computers! NOT, sorry your credibility
has been gone a long time.
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:29:54 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I( was talking about evolution as well. MS still has a long way to
> >go.The ADS can be quite a headache judging by the problems the MS
guys
> >at the places I work are going though! The Unix boxes have wheather
all
> >the "storms" quite nicely. W2K? hardly.
>
> I've had pretty much no problems with AD. Considering I just installed
> it and played with it till it worked I would expect I had more trouble
> than most.
>
> It works very well...
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: slashdot
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:07:25 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TimL wrote:
> Your origonal point was a good one. Perhaps if Hotmail went down Linux
> Advocates would start pointing fingers at NT.
Why would they? micros~1 can't get hotmail to work on nt. Hotmail runs
on Sun Solaris b/c nt can't handle the load. IBM had a similar problem
with NT at their rochester campus when they tried to replace 12 AS/400's
with more than 1000 nt boxes, found that nt couldn't handle the load and
went back to using the 400.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: stability of culture of helpfulness
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:06:19 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc Andrew N. McGuire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> + In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006252222390.4371-
> + [EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> + "Andrew N. McGuire " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + > You are a real piece of work. Learn to spell, get an idea of what
> + > you are talking about, then maybe post if you have something useful
> + > to contribute, troll.
> +
> + I believe that would make you the troll-ee. Nice spelling flame too!
> Not the 'troll-ee', but the *plonker*. :-) Big difference.
Being one who *PLONK*s, I hope.... (As in killfiles)
:)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
==============================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action
Date: 27 Jun 2000 01:13:38 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <8j8p3m$qi7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Why was it OK for us (and/or our ancestors) to come here and work, yet
:>it is not OK for them?
: Why don't you defend squatting as the right to live wherever one wants?
Because as you know it isn't the same issue.
As badly as this whole mess is crossposted, it really would be better
not to pollute it even further with content-free postings.
Joe
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 26 Jun 2000 20:35:39 +0500
>>>>> "Marcus" == Marcus Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That is incorrect. They put a warning message in the Beta
> version of Win3.x, saying that this beta product hasn't been
> tested with this operating system.
> I would consider it poor programming to allow a user to install
> and use a beta product on an untested os without at least
> warning them of the possible problems.
Let us assume that they only did it in the beta version, there are
still 2 problem:
(1) It generated an error message instead of popping up a
dialog box saying that this producting haven't been tested
with DR-DOS.
(2) This was the version that went out to 3 party
developers. What would the developers think?
Charles
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action
Date: 27 Jun 2000 01:39:16 GMT
In article <8j8v42$1fi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: In article <8j8p3m$qi7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>Why was it OK for us (and/or our ancestors) to come here and work, yet
>:>it is not OK for them?
>: Why don't you defend squatting as the right to live wherever one wants?
>Because as you know it isn't the same issue.
"But ... that's *different*".
Is that all you can come up with?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:40:10 GMT
On 27 Jun 2000 00:11:01 GMT, Ian Westcott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>: On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 04:31:46 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 06:17:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
[deletia]
>:>1) Sort by sender
>:>2) Click first message... click last message (while holding down
>:>shift)
>:>3) Press delete
>:>4) Set rule to do this automatically for this sender in the future.
>
>: Then what are you whining about exactly?
>
>This has to be the stupidest argument I've heard here in awhile. I'm
>sure you'd be bitching to hell if some Windows lamers mailbombed you.
That would depend entirely on whether it not it actually served
as an effective DoS attack.
[deletia]
That was never really estabished actually.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:38:33 -0400
From: sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft and General Stupidity
I have to agree with subject of this thread completely.
Jeff Szarka is a prime example!
--
"This company has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.
If the problem persists, contact your vendor or appeal to a higher
court."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: If Linux is desktop ready ...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:46:09 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Rich C would say:
>"Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:KtL55.238$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> ... then tell me why the Hell a home user should to care about compiling
>> sources ? If he/she gets binaries, what the Hell open source is useful to
>?
>> If he/she learns the ./configure;make;make install procedure, why the Hell
>> should he/she know that awk 1.0.4 prevents gtk from compiling correctly ?
>
>a) You don't always get binaries
>
>b) doing a ./configure; make; make install can work on your system (if you
>meet the requirements of the configure script) when a pre-compiled binary
>might not
>
>c) It exposes your kids to the guts of what makes software work
>
>d) It exposes YOU to the guts of what makes software work
>
>e) You can help the author beta test his program, and debug his scripts. You
>can also help with documentation. In short, you become part of the solution.
>And the theory is if you're part of the solution, then you CAN'T be part of
>the problem.
I have been "exposed" to all of the above, am reasonably comfortable
with all of the above, and, all the same, have to say...
_Hogwash_.
It may be a reasonable idea to have _some larger population_ of people
that are exposed to the things you suggest.
But to consider that _everyone_ be expected to be involved with this
seems quite unlikely to me to be feasible.
-> We don't all learn how to do maintenance on our refrigerators,
stoves, and televisions, which are rather _simpler_ than our
computers.
-> Knowing how to cope with any problems that come up if anything goes
wrong when running "./configure; make all; make install" requires
_some_ degree of "education" in some _rather_ technical matters.
If you suggested that it might be a slick idea for there to be some
portions of the configuration of applications that was exposed via
scripting language, so that users could do a bit of "light"
customization via modifying (say) Python scripts, I might go along
with it.
In contrast, it seems to me to be an _atrociously_ bad idea to
expect that anyone not Rather Interested In Programming do:
"cd /usr/local/src/mozilla; make install"
When few people are up to the task of doing maintenance work on the
computerized embedded systems in their automobiles, or, quite frankly,
doing much more than filling fluid reservoirs when lights come on, I
hardly think it sensible to expect "Joe Sixpack" to recompile Gnumeric
"just for grins."
There are enough times that people I'd consider _reasonably_
intelligent at work provide _worse-than-useless_ diagnostic
information when things break that I would have to call the notion of
there being _much_ likelihood of _useful_ feedback in "beta testing"
Just Plain Nonsense.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
"Now, if someone proposed using people who spam comp.sys.* groups with
political screeds in place of lab rats for drug testing, I'd
wholeheartedly concur". -- John C. Randolph
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Idiots That Can't Comprehend That Extensions Aren't A Fundamental Structure
Of Computing...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:46:12 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED] would say:
>On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:26:10 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:21:46 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>What, a text file whose name doesn't end in "*.txt"? You'll
>>>confuse him, Jedi.
>>
>>Make a little list of all your favorite file extensions.
>
>Some text files don't have any extensions at all.
Oh, no... Not the "extensions" thread again.
As has been explained many times before:
- Extensions are an _artificial_ mechanism that provide a _SUGGESTION_
as to what _someone_ thought might be an arbitrary suffix that
_could_ be suggestive of what is in a file.
- The Unix "magic" mechanism, as documented in various manual pages,
notably:
% man -k magic
magic magic (4) - file command's magic number file
% man magic
NAME
magic - file command's magic number file
SYNOPSIS
/etc/magic
DESCRIPTION
The file(1) command identifies the type of a file using,
among other tests, a test for whether the file begins with a
certain magic number. The /etc/magic file specifies what
magic numbers are to be tested for, what message to print if
a particular magic number is found, and additional informa-
tion to extract from the file.
... continues...
% man file
NAME
file - determine file type
SYNOPSIS
file [ -h ] [ -m mfile ] [ -f ffile ] file
file [ -h ] [ -m mfile ] -f ffile
file -c [ -m mfile ]
DESCRIPTION
The file utility performs a series of tests on each file
supplied by file and, optionally, on each file listed in
ffile in an attempt to classify it. If the file is not a
regular file, its file type is identified. The file types
directory, FIFO, block special, and character special are
identified as such. If the file is a regular file and the
file is zero-length, it is identified as an empty file.
If file appears to be a text file, file examines the first
512 bytes and tries to determine its programming language.
If file is an executable a.out, file prints the version
stamp, provided it is greater than 0. If file is a symbolic
link, by default the link is followed and file tests the
file to which the symbolic link refers.
... continues...
There are a number of ways of ascertaining what is in a file. This
mechanism, whereby the _CONTENTS ARE ACTUALLY EXAMINED_, is the most
successful mechanism that I've seen thus far.
It is perhaps unfortunate that there is not some second "database"
providing some association between file types and "methods" for
manipulating those files; that does not diminish one iota the
successfulness of ascertaining file "type" that /etc/magic provides.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
I knew you weren't really interested.
------------------------------
From: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:54:07 -0700
On 26 Jun 2000 23:31:02 GMT, "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: 1.2 billion people live in China, about a billion live in India. What is the
>: US supposed to do, just let them all in ? ( OK, not all of them want to
>: immigrate. But at least the majority of Chinese University grads want to
>: immigrate, and also would bring their families if they could. Ditto with
>: some of the schools in India. )
>
>Why was it OK for us (and/or our ancestors) to come here and work, yet
>it is not OK for them?
We don't need raw labor like we used to?
It has gotten crowded and we don't have vast stretches of vacant land
like we used to have?
It is different now.
Immigrants make the economy better but there are too many people.
I would rather be poorer and have more open land, personally.
I guess I could move to Canada, but I am lazy.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
