Linux-Advocacy Digest #96, Volume #28 Sat, 29 Jul 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Does Linux support USB already? (sterling99)
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of
Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (Loren Petrich)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Drazen Kacar)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Slipping away into time. (Craig Kelley)
Re: PCMCIA Problem (Bob Hauck)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:59:50 GMT
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 00:27:30 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 06:22:17 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Why does "I find it nauseating" need to be backed up with facts? Those were
>>
>> It's a meaningless statement by itself and is entirely subjective
>> and without any real meaning. It has NULL informational value.
>
>So why did you get so uptight about it then? I'm sorry for you that you'd
You didn't state it like it was meaningless opinion.
[deletia]
>> >You've got a serious problem there guy.
>>
>> The translation: "I have no clue what I want, and wouldn't know
>> what my ideal interface would be if it bit me in the ass."
>
>Does that happen before the signal reaches your brain, or is there a malady
>internal to your brain causing it to happen? At least in the former case, it
>may be treatable.
If you can't actually describe what is wrong with what you have,
it is absurd to think that you have any clue what you want. At
best you just seem to be on an anti-Microsoft jihad.
>
>> Personally, I think you're just a mindless troublemaker.
>
>How ironic.
>
>Meanwhile you've again leapt up onto your high horse and told me,
>matter-of-fact, that I don't know what I'm talking about while offering no
>credentials of your own. Your words are worthless and frankly I'm surprised
Credentials are not required. I'm not the one making the vacuous
claims and avoiding any attempt to add any useful detail to them.
>you know how to use that new-fangled "internet" thing at all.
It would not surprise me if I have been flaming morons like you
here on the net since before you even started computing.
>
>Perhaps for the next discussion you'll have the decency and mental facilities
>necessary to read what was written as opposed to making up what you wanted to
>see written.
I read what was written: empty accusations.
That's what they remain despite your attempts to distract the
discussion with personal attacks.
You can't even articulate what precisely is 'wrong'. Nor can you
offer any suggestions regarding alternatives, not even unrealistic
ones.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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 (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 29 Jul 2000 19:01:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>As a PhD student in the US, I have lived on lower pay than a minimum wage
>worker, and I was still fairly comfortable. Certainly vastly better off
>than anyone in any communist country, and no worse off than a grad student
>in any other country. Now I have some part time work on the side and I
>am very comfortable, despite earning less than the average secretary.
>And despite my relatively humble income, my living standards are not
>vastly different from those of the profs at my school.
>I just don't think this "big bad capitalism" thing you're putting on
>holds water.
And have you gotten promoted as a result?
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 11:57:03 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Here is the NY Times using that "nasty word" in an article title:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/06/biztech/articles/27note.html
>
>
> http://www.geekgirl.com is another example.
>
The first URL is usless unless you have an account with them, so I can not
comment on it. For the second one, I don't think that a quotation from a
trademark registeration which quotes a dictionary definition of the word and
then contradicts that definition is very convincing of anything--in relation
to this issue.
> That being said, I offer my apology to mjcr@mindspring, only because I
> do not wish for him to be offended by something I might have said.
Thank you.
> Now let's all stop arguing about semantics and get back to some
> advocacy.
But there is still one point still in contention and that is your
intentional out of context citation of the beginning of the "I saw it in the
sky today" thread and you inappropriate comments in relation to it as an
attempt to try to maliciously discredit me. Since there can be no valid
reason for that action of yours, I do request a apology for that as well.
Then the issue settled.
------------------------------
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 (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 29 Jul 2000 19:08:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>Actually, high level CEO's are "on the job" at nearly all hours of the
>>day, (other than having sex with their wives...well, usually). When
>>the CEO is at lunch, he's working. When he's coming home from the
>>office, he's working (why do you think they still use chauffers?
>>That's right...so they can CONCENTRATE ON THEIR WORK while sitting
>>in their private, moving office). When the go to a football game,
>>they are working. When they work in a game of golf, they are working.
>Which is to say they don't actually *work* for a living.
Which raises the interesting question of why stay on the job if
one can retire tomorrow and live a fat and lazy lifestyle for the rest of
one's life. So there must be something other than money that's at stake
here, unless those yacht payments are impossible to keep up with.
I think the real problem is that business leaders often act like
some ruling elite; I think that many libertarians project their bad
experiences with business onto government, or at least non-military
government.
--
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] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:43:42 GMT
On 29 Jul 2000 11:57:44 -0500, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Remember how we always laughed at people when they'd stay stupid things
I'm laughing now, at the advocate who does not think before posting.
>well, it turns out that Linux onces again "innovates" - it's now possible to
>actually, physically destroy your hard drive using some simple code (link
>provided)...
But not by accident, and not unless you are root, and not just on
Linux. This being a problem with the IDE _hardware_, it would affect
all other systems that support IDE. Some of _them_ do not have any
security at all so any user can do this.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:43:44 GMT
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:31:32 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>But part of the "code bloat" of X is that it is network transparent, which
>makes it somewhat overdesigned for a standalone PC.
In a business environment, few PC's are "standalone" any more. Even in
the home, networking is becoming standard. And in a networked
envoironment, this "bloat" is very useful.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Does Linux support USB already?
From: sterling99 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 12:06:52 -0700
Mariano--
check out this URL-- http://www.suse.cz/development/linux-usb/--
it has lots of linux-usb-related links, including a patch for
the 2.2 kernel & some other, newer kernel info, and a table of
supported devices & the authors.
Jon
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mariano Cividino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I have a USB Zip drive, printer and scanner and Red Hat 6.1
doesn't seem to
>> support USB devices.
>> Do someone know if current Linux distributions support USB
and how to
>> configure then?
>
>Linux 2.2 does not support USB (generically speaking --
keyboards and
>mice are exceptions).
>
>Your only option right now is to use the 2.3 development
kernel, which
>should come out as 2.4 stable sometime in the next few months.
>
>--
>The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
>Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP
block
>
>
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one
of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: 29 Jul 2000 19:13:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> And what happens if you die? Should your mother be killed,
>> or left to die by her own means?
>There's always my brother, and if he dies, my cousins.
However, if Mr. Kulkis gets into a car accident far away from his
brother, and everybody else starts acting in Kulkis fashion, then the
last thing he will ever experience will be people around him snickering
good riddance to a total loser and how we must rid the gene pool of those
who get into car accidents.
--
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] (Drazen Kacar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 29 Jul 2000 19:03:05 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Drazen Kacar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
I said it in gnu.misc.discuss, BTW. FuT set without advocacy groups.
> >Depends on what "it works" mean. For example, Sun's make has rather nice
> >debugging features, ie. when make complains about something in the
> >Makefile, you can find the problem with minimum effort. With GNU make it's
> >not nearly so easy.
>
> Features can be copied. It is code that cannot be copied. Adding this
> to GNU is most obviously both preferable and easier than trying to
> control Sun's make.
I can agree that it's preferable to add the feature to GNU make. However,
I don't know what you mean by "trying to control Sun's make."
> >Now, if you have a source where GNU make works fine
> >on some architetures, but it produces bewildering errors on yours,
> >I suppose you'd like to be able to correct the problem in 5 or 10 minutes.
> >If you have to use GNU make, you'd probably have to spend much more
> >time. These things happen.
>
> Hey, I'm not being a hard-ass. To me, this all seems a good reason to
> use the GPL whenever and wherever you can, not an argument that it
> always has the least bewildering errors.
To me, this all means that interoperability is good. However, there are
situations when interoperability causes more grief (for the developers)
than good. Make example is in this category, but which approach is
better depends on every particular project.
> GNU is always the best choice yes, even when its broke, and it should,
> by its nature, always be the easiest to decide to use when supporting a
> make implementation.
Even if there are other free make implementations? If so, does it mean
that GNU tar should also be preferred, even if there are other free
tar implementations? Or any other GNU tool, for that matter?
--
.-. .-. I don't work for my employer.
(_ \ / _)
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:21:16 GMT
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:25:50 GMT, Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:49:25 GMT, Daniel Johnson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>[snip]
>> >I see. So congress should *contract out* OS design to
>> >'experts', this leaves the obvious question of who gets
>> >to choose these experts.
>>
>> ...little bodies like ANSI, ISO, the ACM and IEEE
>> might be a good start.
>
>I see. But I do not think current law mandates this; and
>that's why in the various ongoing lawsuits these
>organizations are not consulted much.
>
>Perhaps you would like to propose a new law, placing
>some or all of these bodies in charge of computer technology,
>and making it a crime to deviate from their standards?
Just regulations for federal contractors would be sufficient.
>
>> >Don't kid yourself though; You'll need to enforce this, if you
>>
>> No, don't kid YOURSELF. The industry is already well
>> established and definitive bodies can already be quite
>> easily identified.
>
>Sure, but not everyone *wants* to follow the standards;
These are typically greedy intrests who think that without
their own little privately owned standards they can't manage.
This should greatly concern anyone who claims to believe in
the free market. Companies are essentially broadcasting to
the world the fact that they just don't think that they could
tolerate open competition.
>you need to enforce the law to control Eeeeeeeevil people
>like, er, me, who don't give a fig for standards.
You're more than willing to essentially force everyone else
to buy something they neither need nor want.
>
>> This is only problematic for those that blindly defend
>> Microsoft
>
>Well, there are those loonies who are in favor of some
>measure of freedom. They probably wouldn't like
>having the technical decisions of standards bodies
>legally mandated either.
Better a publically elected beaurocrat than a Robber
Baron that only need to answer to shareholders and
mebbe national attorneys general.
Besides, a despot is still a despot, even if the psuedo
Federalist crowd don't see the particular sort of entity
as the type that should concern us when it comes to abuse
of power.
>
>But just fringe folks like that. :(
>
>> and realize that a more genuine meritocracy
>> would demonstrate Microsoft to be in the wrong or at
>> the very least in a very small & self-serving minority.
>
>I'm not sure how a "meritocracy" would demonstrate
>such a thing, even in theory.
Lower marketshare would be the obvious first sign.
>
>[snip]
>> >Odd complaint this. I thought the DoJ's complaint was that
>> >Microsoft's products were *too complete*, not that they were
>> >'tremendously incomplete'.
>>
>> I'm talking about the entirety of WinDOS, not just
>> that part you are only capable of remembering out of
>> convenience.
>
>Hmmm.
>
>So hows it incomplete, then?
It was incomplete. Lack of memory management, lack of device
services, lack of device drivers, lack of memory protection,
lack of pnp, lack of any ease of use interface, a pisspoor
non-ease of use interface.
>
>> >What do you think should be in Windows that isn't?
>
>I think this question should be answered, don't you?
>
>I've quite curious, really.
Today, WinDOS still suffers from lack of Configuration Reliability,
lack of a modern filesystem of any type, pisspoor shared library
management and insufficient security models.
NT itself doesn't handle concurrency well and is still very prone
to being blocked (on the desktop) by some badly coded app.
Did Win9x ever get an abstract tape device driver?
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:23:13 GMT
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:25:39 GMT, Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[snip]
>> >Okay, I *understand* that you oppose *Microsoft* making
>> >product decision decisions that put Netscape at a
>> >disadvantage; I get that part. No need to belabor it.
>> >
>> >I'm asking *who should* make the decisition. Congress? The
>> >courts? An executive agency? Who?
>> >
>> >I understand the "not Microsoft" part already. :D
>>
>> Uh... the market?
>
>The market seems to have decided that it likes bundled
>products and that it likes web browsers as part of the
>software bundled with a computer.
...except the market as a whole, given the existence of
free replaceability, isn't merely limited to the lowest
common denominator.
>
>This isn't just limited to Microsoft. This is now commonplace.
>
>So, apparently we should get out the way and let
>Microsoft put IE in Windows, just like all the other
>OSes on or near the desktop.
Nope.
NO ONE puts a browser "IN" their OS.
Only Microsoft does to muddle the distinction between what
should be a 3rd party product and what is their own.
[deletia]
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 29 Jul 2000 13:32:19 -0600
John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [snip]
> : But SOAP doesn't solve this problem either. Versioned libraries are
> : well understood; there is no reason why you cannot have both libraries
> : installed at the same time (ie, the classic libc5/glibc2 fun)
>
> [snip]
> : > As much as Mr. Jedi sees this as an advocacy game, I'm actually most
> : > interested in reducing some of the risk and uncertainty in this procedure.
> : > Protocols like SOAP interest me because they work at the front end,
> : > improving compatibilities between components. I don't actually think my
> : > interest is bad for UNIX, or that far afield from Miguel de Icaza's
> : > keynote at the Ottawa Linux Symposium:
>
> : RPM runs at the "front end" as well. (unless I'm misunderstanding
> : what your point is, of course)
>
> Let's see if I'm awake enough (long week) to give an example. When I use
> an API to a C library to pick up a batch of information, perhaps:
I think we're talking about different things here, but this is
interesting anyway:
>
> struct *passwd pw;
>
> pw = getpwuid(134);
> printf("his name is %s\n",pw->pw_name);
>
> we're lucky in C/UNIX that we've got a lot of APIs honed over time. They
> don't have to change too much, but consider if I wanted to add something
> to a password entry (a password expiration date?). Expanding the passwd
> stucture breaks binary compatibliity between library versions. Adding a
> second API to collect this new information keeps compatibility but
> increases complexity.
>
> One of the real drags is that any "intermediaries", code fragments that
> used to get a passwd entry and then store or forward it to someone else,
> must change (new struct or new API) to continue their function. This
> despite the fact that they don't have a need to see inside the passwd
> data.
Yes, if some program does something like:
my @pwent = split (/:/, $line_from_passwd_file);
then it will break with time; which is why we have the accessor
functions (ie, getpwent, etc.). XML really doesn't solve this problem
either 'cause if you change something from an array to a hash or
whatever, you'll still have problems.
> (my crack about *.h is based upon the inteface being defined there, in the
> above example <pwd.h>, <sys/types.h>)
>
> In contrast, a name/value system such as an XML allows a module to glean
> as much information has he can understand, and perhaps forward a more open
> set of information he doesn't need to understand. A system:
>
> /* wild pseudocode, but I hope you get the gist */
>
> my_xml_t my_xml_query;
> my_xml_t my_xml_response;
>
> set_value(my_xml_query,"ID",134);
> my_xml_response = getpw(my_xml_query);
> printf("his name is %s\n", get_value(my_xml_response,"NAME");
A well designed data structure can exist either way, though. If
someone were to implement an XML representation of /etc/passwd as an
<array> you'd have the same "problem" we already have.
> burns a lot more overhead at runtime, and I don't think there would be an
> advantage to using XML (or something similar) for intra-module
> comunications. On the other hand XML (or something similar), which
> processes names and values at runtime, would seem to make inter-module
> interactions more flexible.
>
> A second bonus is that 'struct passwd' and such have limited the numbers
> of languages that can play directly with the UNIX libraries. XML (and
> similar) message streams allow a greater number of languages to play as
> peers.
Yes, but most new programs just talk to pam now anyway (which can
handle everything from /etc/passwd to a remote biometric sensor).
Abstraction is usually a good idea.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Slipping away into time.
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 29 Jul 2000 13:41:46 -0600
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> > Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Linux is significantly slower than FreeBSD.
> >
> > 1) qualify the statement; it makes no sense
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,400844,00.html?chkpt=zdnnrlb
Hmmm, it talks about Linux 4 years ago being slower than FreeBSD, and
ti talks about an HTTP test in which FreeBSD was twice as fast, but it
doesn't ever say "Linux is significantly slower than FreeBSD".
Also, the last time I used itk, FreeBSD couldn't do process migration on
an SMP box, which severely limits it's ability to scale with
processors.
> >
> >
> > 2) try them on SMP boxes some time
>
> Their SMP is better also. Read.
Do tell.
Don't get me wrong; I like FreeBSD -- and it definately rocks for fast
static serving (without ugly hacks like kttpd); but you'll never hear
me say "Linux is significantly slower than FreeBSD".
> OH,
> BTW. I'm supposed to be full of it so you can't talk to me anymore.
> So, nobody write to me anymore, Okay.
Ooops! :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: PCMCIA Problem
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:43:44 GMT
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 17:12:33 -0700, EKing-Site <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My notebook has two PC card (Modem & Network Card). Redhat 6.2 assign
>two cards same IRQ, so one can not work.
That should never happen. One thing that can cause it to happen is if
you have an IRQ that Linux thinks is free, but really is not. In this
case you can put an "exclude" statement in /etc/pcmcia/config.opts
exclude irq 4 # for example
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
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?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:52:36 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The one who thinks the original words he used are not themselves
> sufficient for communication of his intended meaning.
Are you saying you don't respect the authority of a dictionary on the
meaning of words?
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
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?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:57:21 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chris seems to have shown his hand by jumping in to try to deflect this
> once too often. It appears that he and JS/PL may very well be the
> official COLA astroturfers.
Yeah well at least mine comes from Yankee stadium and not some
piddling little college ballpark!
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
