Linux-Advocacy Digest #834, Volume #27 Thu, 20 Jul 00 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linux is just plain awful (Patrik Arvhult)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Jeff Szarka)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (MH)
Re: help - could i clone a linux redhat os? ("Rich C")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Maximum Linux
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:23:02 -0400
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
>> You have made an error; libA is *written* prior to progB -- before
>> progB was even an idea, someone wrote libA. I put things on a specific
>> time line -- and you shifted it.
> No, I ignored it, because it is irrelevant. It doesn't make any
> difference what order things are written in, only their presentation as
> a finished "work" in profitable commerce.
T Max, here, has erred in suggesting that copyright only applies to
things which bring profitable commerce, and does not recognise that in
the example as given by Roberto and repeated by me ... the authors of
libA, progB, and libC are not necessarily one and the same. Therefore,
he makes the predictably stupid mistake of suggesting that the order of
creation of libA, progB, and libC doesn't matter -- even though the
example specifically stated that libA existed before progB, which
existed before libC. This is the sort of all-too-common error which has
made him the fool that he is today.
>>> Books are "written". Programs and libraries are "designed" and "coded".
>>> You are simply confusing the coding with the creation of intellectual
>>> property, because no other copyrightable works have any function, and
>>> therefore aren't designed, they are merely written.
>> Incorrect. Programs are written. The process of writing a program is a
>> combination of design and code.
> The process of writing a book is simply the process of writing a book;
> it does not have any functional requirements nor structured results.
T Max here again doesn't recognise the *work* to creating a book --
that many authors work from an outline and/or a precis. He also ignores
the many "...for Dummies" books which do have functional requirements
and have specific structured results of the writing process. These
books most certainly go through a full design and development process
... like software. But don't tell T Max that -- it would ruin his
preconceptions of what he thinks the reality of IP are...
[Later, Max claims that no one is discussing his examples; that could be
because his examples have been debunked and people have moved on until he
reconnects to reality.]
>>> If it needs to be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" by law,
>>> then it most certainly wouldn't be proper to assume that it is fixed
>>> simply because it is in a tangible form, nor assume that it is always
>>> in a tangible form.
>> "Fixed" in this case does not mean 'unchanging'. Rather, consider that
>> Oracle has a copyright notice from 1977 - 2000 for its software. As
>> each version was released, its copyright was fixed on the release year
>> and version.
> That's almost humorous. Fixed most definitely does mean unchanging. As
> in "fixed in a tangible medium of expression"; once fixed, it has been
> expressed.
[Max here has written his responses in complete ignorance of the fact
that Lee Hollaar has posted the relevant sections of law which make it
quite clear that fixed does NOT mean unchanging, only that there is the
possibility of distributing an 'unchangeable' copy.]
>> And software most certainly *is* in a tangible form -- it can be
>> manipulated.
> [...]
> Ideas can be manipulated, by logic. That doesn't make them tangible.
> Words written on a page are tangible. The ideas behind the words are
> not. Your confusion on all of these matters is caused, at root, by your
> perception that "software" means both all the time. In fact, it only
> means one of them at any one time, but it could be either one depending
> on context. Software is simply "that part of a computer most easily
> changed"; it has no tangible existence as a physical substance.
[Here, Max demonstrates his venerable prowess in physics and the nature
of the physical and tangible. This, despite the reality arrayed against
him.]
>> Can you perceive software? Absolutely -- whether it's running or not.
>> You can look at, print out, modify, etc. the source code, which means
>> that it is most certainly tangible.
> And only the source code. So why would you use a library and make your
> work a derivative of someone else's? To make it more acceptable to the
> consumer, of course, because of the efficiencies of shared libraries.
> But in terms of an author's control of "his work", it turns your
> supposedly original contribution into a mere portion of a compilation of
> several author's works.
[Max ignores the fact that binary forms of software are merely
translations from human-readable to machine-readable. If software is
generally accepted to be under a single copyright for two forms, then
there's no issue. If not, then the machine-readable is a direct
derivative of the human-readable, which means that there is STILL no
issue. Not that Max understands anything remotely close to reality on
any topic that he's discussed to date.]
>>> It may indeed be the case that this same assumption is shared by many
>>> who professionally interpret the statute, but that doesn't make it any
>>> more sound; argument by popular opinion is not my goal.
>> The courts have interpreted the statute that way. That's not popular
>> opinion, that's law.
> I thought the courts had interpreted the statute in RMS's favor?
> Otherwise, fgmp wouldn't exist, right? What am I missing?
[Max misses the point that, to the best of my knowledge, the FSF has never
been to court and the GPL is wholly untested.]
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:18:43 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> I did not assume that there was any need to enforce a maximum
> >> quantum. So long as all processes implement the notion, no
> >> enforcement is necessary.
> >
> >Isn't it just neater to implement this once? Are you against shared
> >libraries as well?
>
> Not for OS services, no. The dubious amount of "sharing" that goes on
> in some environments do raise my interest, though. But that is beside
> the point. Do you believe that *mandating* all functionality as shared
> libraries is appropriate?
Are you aware of the cause and effect relationship between defect rates
and repetition?
>
> Yes, I agree with you that it is "neater" to implement it once. The
> question, however, is if it is *necessary*, IMHO.
Are you aware of the cause and effect relationship between dfeect rates
and repetition?
;->
> No, you misunderstand my comment. Part of the value of desktop systems
> is that they can crash without causing problems in the rest of the
> network.
Irrelevant in a non-networked situation.
> Not enough effort has gone in to handling crashes elegantly,
> either. Auto-save of documents, for instance, and restoration of
> application state, should be operating system level services, in my
> opinion.
And . . . are. ResierFS, for example.
> When something inevitably happens, it is often more efficient
> to deal with it well rather than to try to eliminate it entirely.
Correct. Which is why your implication that to do their jobs correctly
means programmers must write defect free code was just wrong.
> Insistence that I read a list of dense technical textbooks
Nobody insisted this.
To understand OS design issues would require the reading of a list of
"dense technical textbooks", but to understand a single issue, it is
sufficient to read just one section of one book.
> >There is debate about everything. Some people would still argue that the
> >Earth is flat.
>
> A valid point, and clearly your impression of the issue, in retrospect.
> But if people had still been falling off the edge of the earth in the
> 1900s, would you still feel this was so unsupportable an argument?
Where is your: "falling off the earth" in the CMT vs. PMT argument?
> I do
> not try to argue from a position of ignorance. I was merely arguing,
> and I was coincidentally and honestly ignorant (about the lack of
> minimum quantum in CMT), which isn't the same thing at all.
CMT has a maximum quantum. But no enforement capability. Hence, PMT.
The issue *IS* OS vs. Application control, NOT "maximum quantum".
For examples of "maximum quantum" in CMT systems, see the MacOS
technical literature.
--
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: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:22:45 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> I said "so how come it took so long for someone to tell me across four
> OS advocacy groups? Isn't directing clueless users to information about
> their concerns more appropriate behavior than ridiculing them?
No, not in advocacy groups (and every one of those four groups is a
*.advocacy group).
Most members of advocacy groups use the same reasoning as you do: that
emotion determines correctness.
> My
> position was clearly that making task priority more responsive to user
> needs is important,
And the overwhelming response was that PMT not only does this, but does
it much better.
> and I find it rather unfortunate that nobody thought
> to mention that such things were already being addressed.
I did. Repeatedly.
> I'd also like to say that several people have noted with disdain and
> disfavor my "put down" of engineers, when the only people I meant to
> insult were the people who were ridiculing me.
In that case, your writing needs improvement. Use object identifiers,
not class identifiers, if indeed you wish to send a message only to
specific instances of a class.
> But I'll close by noting that while clueless in a wide assortment of
> ways personally, I have yet to meet an engineer, "real" or otherwise,
> that isn't also clueless in some regards. But I guess that can be said
> of just about any variety or type of person.
Of course.
> Wondering how I can have gathered so many clues, and still be so
> clueless....
The universe is infinite. You, are not.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:28:24 -0400
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> I wrote:
>>>"Fixed" in this case does not mean 'unchanging'.
>> "A work is 'fixed' in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment
>> in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is
>> sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced,
>> or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration."
>> 17 USC 101. (Try to read it this time, Max.)
>> That means that something on a blackboard is fixed, even though I can
>> erase it or change it at some later time, but the image on the screen
>> of a movie theater isn't, because it is just transitory.
> I've read it a dozen times, you pathetic moron. When was the last time
> something on a blackboard was copyrighted?
Literally? Every time someone writes something down on a copyright,
then it is copyright the creator. (Copyright Act of 1976 and
international laws that support that particular copyright convention.)
Often, people give implicit copy permission by placing things on
blackboards, but it's still copyright.
> The statute agrees with me,
> and refutes Austin, who disagreed with me. Get a fucking life. The
> active component of the statute is "sufficiently permanent... to be
> perceived, *reproduced*, or otherwise *communicated* for a period of
> *more than* transitory duration. (emphasis emphatically added)
Ahem. Max, you're not reading and have elided significant parts. Lee
followed this up and said that RAM copies are "sufficiently permanent
or stable" -- and they are perceivable, reproduced, or can be otherwise
communicated. I guarantee that by simply SAVING THE FILE to disk, you
have fixed the form long enough to acquire copyright.
Not that you're willing to understand that.
(And while a movie shown on the screen is not there for more than a
transitory duration -- because the movie is merely a series of frames
-- the film or disc upon which the movie is recorded *is* on such a
device.)
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 04:25:36 +0000
From: Patrik Arvhult <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "arvhult musiker.nu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Sometimes a few GOTO statements is the most efficient/optimal coding in C
code. But too many of them isn't nice to read.
Regards / Patrik J. C. C. Arvhult
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
>
> Bob Hauck wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:51:46 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >A friend of mine showed me a kernal-code sample sent to a friend of
> > >his (by a microsoft programmer)
> >
> > >Freaking GOTO statements all over the place.... in C CODE!!!!!
> >
> > I wouldn't be throwing stones...
> >
> > [hauck@lab linux]$ cd /usr/src/linux
> > [hauck@lab linux]$ find -name \*\.c -exec grep -w goto {} \;|wc
> > 6781 15167 123774
>
>
> What I was show was pure spaghetti code that would confuse even the
> most grizzled lifelong BASIC-droid...
>
> I sincerely doubt that the linux source is full of spaghetti code.
> bailouts, yeah...but spaghetti, no.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> 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.
>
> H: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 21 Jul 2000 02:31:20 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:LlId5.36590$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: >
: > Can you be more specific? In what way is VB failing on a large scale that
: is
: > not revealed to us "little scale" programmers who are having no trouble
: > using VB for most anything.
: Can you write a an operating system kernel in BASIC. Say a replacement for
: the Linux kernel?
Actually, it would be possible, but not at all practical. However, it
might be practical to use VB to write a VB application kernel.
The point Drestin is making here, is strictly from an application
programming standpoint, I think.
--
.-----.
|[ ] | Stephen Edwards | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "I'm too polite to use that word, so I'll just say,
| | 'bite me, you baboon-faced ass-scratcher.'"
|_..._| --SEGA's Seaman on the "F" word.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 21 Jul 2000 02:31:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:ckId5.36583$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: >
: > But Perry - in what way? I mean you say it but don't suppor it. How is VB
: so
: > "weak"? Assuming both a C programmer and VB programmer can reach into 3rd
: > party add-ins to complete his/her toolbox - where is VB's primary weakness
: > that makes it *unable* (not just difficult, you suggest unable) to create
: > complex applications. I don't see it.
: Care to write a OS kernel in BASIC?
Care to write an OS kernel is perl? What's you point?
Why are you harping on this nonsense?
--
.-----.
|[ ] | Stephen Edwards | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "I'm too polite to use that word, so I'll just say,
| | 'bite me, you baboon-faced ass-scratcher.'"
|_..._| --SEGA's Seaman on the "F" word.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:38:01 -0400
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:04:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>So, what I want to say is this: I believe RAD tools for Linux is a
>must - especially Delphi and Builder (maybe also VB?). There are plenty
>of M$ programmers out there playing with Linux, and now they too will
>have tools to write some great apps for Linux. I belief we should see a
>huge app explosion within two years after Delphi is available on Linux.
Exactly. Most programs don't need to reinvent the wheel. RAD tools are
perfect for regular everyday applications that real users need.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:40:04 -0500
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:46:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:23:16 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 03:47:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 20:20:20 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:06:54 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:35:47 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 20:55:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Like Compaq, which explicitly supports half a dozen OSs on their
>>>>>>>>>>servers? And if I looked, I'm sure I'd find plenty of others, too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's certainly relevant (NOT) to the common consumer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well sure, but neither is Linux. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When they don't have to go to the same sorts of places they
>>>>>>> would need to go to find a reproduction of some 80 year
>>>>>>> old automobile, then it will be relevant in terms of claims
>>>>>>> regarding "free markets".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cool - they don't. I've got a dozen clone shops within 20 minutes of
>>>>>
>>>>> Fly by night operations with no established reputation and
>>>>> nothing to lose by screwing you six ways to sunday. I can
>>>>> just see the bulk of consumers just overflowing with
>>>>> anticipation with that prospect.
>>>>
>>>>If you say so. They're no IBM, but many have been in business for
>>>>years and years and offer service IBM can only dream of. A customer
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>
>>What? The years and years bit? What?
>
> Certainly.
>
> There was that other fellow with the phone book as well as
> my own first hand experience on the matter.
>
>>
>>> A scant FEW have been in business for years, nevermind years
>>> and years and most have no selection and staff no more saavy
>>> than the typical salesdrone at compusa.
>>
>>I know you'd love to believe that, but that's not the truth.
>
> That's firsthand experience. Something that is likely alien to you.
It takes a bit of maturity (curiously lacking in you, it appears) to
realize that some have a different (firsthand) experience than you do.
When I say some have been around for years and years, I mean it.
Please don't tell me that's wrong; it isn't.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:41:31 -0400
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 13:42:41 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
wrote:
>It was the Sun, 16 Jul 2000 03:40:16 -0400...
>...and Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >This coming from someone who never seems to be able to get Linux
>> >running.
>>
>>
>> I have a mostly working (minus SB Live) Linux installation right now.
>>
>> What were you saying again?
>
>We've heard more than enough complaints from you confirming our
>opinion that, when installing Linux, from the beginning, your
>intention is to have the installation fail miserably on the way in
>order to be able to post flames here.
>
>mawa
How exactly do you explain the fact that I have a mostly working Linux
system right now?
------------------------------
From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:35:14 -0400
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:ckId5.36583$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> But Perry - in what way? I mean you say it but don't suppor it. How is VB
>so
>> "weak"? Assuming both a C programmer and VB programmer can reach into 3rd
>> party add-ins to complete his/her toolbox - where is VB's primary weakness
>> that makes it *unable* (not just difficult, you suggest unable) to create
>> complex applications. I don't see it.
>
>Care to write a OS kernel in BASIC?
Care to get a clue? Really. Of course a very good C++ person can write a BASIC
compiler. But a very good VB person can have a stable, useful DB app out the
door light months faster than the same C++ person.
How many times must the obvious be stated before people like this understand
said obvious? VB is what it is, nothing more. If I had such a tool under Linux
I very well might spend only web browsing time in windows. Care to write a
compiler in tcl? Better yet, can someon write a freaking browser for Linux IN
ANY LANGUAGE THAT ISN'T A POS!!!! I'm using Kfm for Pete's sake! NN is such
garbage....sorry...I just detest NN so...
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: help - could i clone a linux redhat os?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:47:43 -0400
If you are not dual booting, there should be no problem in cloning the
drive. However, if the drive is one of two or more on the source computer,
and the Linux OS is not on the primary drive (hda in Linux terms or C: in
Windows terms: i.e., IDE 0 Master, assuming you have IDE drives) then when
you clone the drive it won't boot, because the boot block is on the other
drive. If it is the primary drive, you should be able to copy it.
Go here:
http://metalab.unc.edu/mdw/HOWTO/mini/Hard-Disk-Upgrade.html
It explains how to copy your Linux system from one disk to another. It even
touches on SCSI a bit.
Once you boot, you may have to make some configuration changes for hardware
differences. If the two computers are identical, there is nothing to do :o)
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
"neo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l8bc7$id9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> hi,
>
> i would like to know if i could clone a redhat operating
> system,i.e copy a running redhat o/s to a new harddisk.which means once
> i i installed the new harddisk in a different machine, i should be able
> to boot redhat immediately.is this possible?.if it is how could i do
> this?
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 21 Jul 2000 02:48:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:44:25 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, in
reply to yet another patient explanation of the law of copyright by Lee
Hollaar:
>I've read it a dozen times, you pathetic moron. When was the last time
>something on a blackboard was copyrighted? The statute agrees with me,
>and refutes Austin, who disagreed with me. Get a fucking life. The
>active component of the statute is "sufficiently permanent... to be
>perceived, *reproduced*, or otherwise *communicated* for a period of
>*more than* transitory duration. (emphasis emphatically added)
Free clue, Max: Lee *teaches* this stuff. In a law school. For money. His
students become lawyers. Who litigate and help decide this stuff.
You appear to be deliberately clueless beyond all attempts to rectify the
situation, actively resisting many different tries to explain just how the
world *is*.
I find it mind-boggling that you're manager of anything for anyone at all,
and can only hope for the sake of the stocholders of your company that your
boss and coworkers thoroughly ignore you in order to minimize the damage
your total lack of ability to understand the real world would otherwise
present.
Trying to discuss with you is thoroughly pointless. Goodbye.
*plonk*
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:54:36 -0500
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:08:48 -0600, "John W. Stevens"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Note, however, that even the Mac is going to PMT. Or, in short, the
>difference is so decisive that the Mac is *BECOMING* Linux.
Interesting word choice. :)
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maximum Linux
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:47:33 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> That's kind of my take on it as well. How about the consitant Window's'
> (the s at the end of window every time)? As far as I know, it isn't
> Windows Managers. I believe this stems from the Windows centric nature
> of the magazine (and the publisher), but it could just be the fear the
> MS is going to jump them if the use the word window without making it
> into Windows. :-)
Unless someone in talking about multiple windows plural of windows is
correct in relations to X in very few situations. "X", "X Windows", "X
Window System", "X Windowing System" are all correct usage. Otherwise
"window" should never be plural in relation to X.
I suspect the magazine's editors and typesetters use a dictionary that
corrects the spelling of window into Windows. <G>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
