Linux-Advocacy Digest #213, Volume #28 Thu, 3 Aug 00 15:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux, easy to use? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Nik Simpson")
Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (SemiScholar)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch! (Richard Webb)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch! (Steve Wilbur)
Re: maximum (?) linux
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Nik Simpson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:05:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 2 Aug 2000 16:16:15 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I alreaddy told you its a DOS box on LIE-nux.
>>
>>You can't spell "already," and xterm doesn't have a command line.
>>It requires a shell for that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>C/
>
>What happen's when you open an xterm? A DOS box pops up,
>compleat with a COMMAND prompt.
In an occasional continuing series on the reeducation of those
that need it in the computer industry, I have taken it upon myself
to answer this question correctly. :-)
First, there are multiple elements in a DOS box; it's not that simple
in the NT world, although I don't know the specifics. If I'm
not totally mistaken, NT has to in essence emulate an 8086 PC by
trapping certain instructions and reconstructing the character
video display which, in an 8086 PC, is stored at 0xb800:0000.
I don't know how it does it at this time, but suffice it to say
that the visible window of a DOS box may not be that simple.
(This doesn't mean the user or application programmer is
aware of all this, of course, or is it clear to me where the
various parts are in fact accomplished; NT is a multifaceted beast,
as is Unix+X. It is also possible that NT is using something like
named pipes or pseudo-TTYs; see below.)
Second, an xterm is not a DOS box, but is similarly complex. It
consists of three components (four if one counts the Tektronix
graphics emulator window, which is now rarely used):
1. A display window (and associated control process).
2. A subprocess/shell.
3. A pseudo-TTY (pty), which one can liken to a data bridge, allowing
the control process to send and receive keystrokes to
the subprocess.
The control process (xterm proper) has a small memory buffer that
is used to hold text output that is ultimately sent to the display
window when required. Note that the window subsystem of an xterm
is a little simpler as it is not required to emulate memory, but
simply needs to process characters as they come in through the pty --
and all characters in fact come in through the pty.
The neat thing about ptys is that they are totally unaware on the
slave side that -- or, for that matter, who -- is controlling them,
and sh is just a program; any program can be in fact run, including
vi, emacs, jed/joe, elm, and even a complicated CAD application that
displays windows of its own (the only requirement here is that the
program knows where an X server is). It is also possible, though
rarely employed, to open an xterm with special options from another
program and use it for a display console (most programs don't bother
and let the user run the xterm; the programs can then use standard in,
standard out, and standard err and don't really care who interprets
or feeds the data streams).
As for the prompt (in the case of Unix or Linux, the default prmopt
is '$', '#', or '%', depending on context, shell, and whether the
user is root or not -- the prompt can be customized by setting the
environment variables PS1 and PS2), it's issued by the shell.
In NT's DOS box, it's probably issued by CMD.EXE or COMMAND.COM,
depending on whether one brings up a DOS box or a command prompt.
(The differences are subtle, but there.)
Things are further complicated in the Unix world by the existence
of multiple terminal emulators (xterm being the granddaddy).
However, all of them do more or less the same thing.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:08:44 -0400
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8mcah9$15co$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > And on just what authority other than your own prejudice do you base
this
> > opinion, after all hotplug PCI is supported in Windows.
>
> If you knew anything about computers, you would know that swapping a
processor,
> logic board or RAM is very, very different than swapping "hotplug PCI
> devices".
You'd be surprised how much I know about computers, why do you think I was
getting NDA presentations from Unisys about this platform more than three
years ago? And, there is a lot of similarity in supporting hotplug from the
I/O bus and hot plug from the memory bus, doing either can have disasterous
consequences for the applications and OS if not done properly and the
problems are very similar both electrically/mechanically and from a software
perspective.
>
> > Microsoft are known
> > to be doing things specifically for this Unisys box in terms of support
for
> > partitioning, how can you be so sure that support for hot plug of other
> > components will not be implemented?
> >
>
> I trust their own utter inadequacy.
>
> >>They ARE possible under solaris/eeprom, AIX, etc.
> >
> > Of course they are, the OS vendor built in the support for particular
> > hardware configurations, there is nothing magical about it and nothing
that
> > prevents the same from being done for W2K on the Unisys platform.
> >
>
> Then why havent they done it yet?
Because they haven';t had a hardware architecture that could possible
support it until the Unisys box was developed. No point in developing a
capability for hardware that you don't have.
>
> > Being on good terms with several hardware vendors I can sure that the
> > reports are about access to App Server betas are alleged and unfounded.
> > Perhaps you'd care to provide a reference to these alleged reports.
> >
>
> No, other than saying that the complaints coming out of Dell's R&D arm are
> completely documented and legit.
Completely document where?
>
> >>microsoft is digging its
> >> own grave very quickly at this point, and it is only a matter of time
> > before
> >> even very large companies realize that the fake money that theyve been
> >> spending on technology is indeed NOT unlimited. Then theyll have lots
of
> >> decisions to make all about how much money theyre going to be willing
to
> >> give microsoft.
> >
> > As long Microsoft's opposition is as shortsighted and blinkered as you
> > clearly are it has little to concern itself with. Of course the real
> > opposition to Microsoft is a lot smarter than you are, but then again,
so is
> > a house a brick.
>
> This coming from a moron who doesnt know the difference between "hotplug
pci"
> and hot swappable processor modules.
>
You are assuming I don't know the difference, actually I'm well aware of the
difference, I'm also aware of the similarities which apparently have escaped
you.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SemiScholar)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:14:23 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:57:00 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>SemiScholar wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:47:13 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >SemiScholar wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Unix had windows before Microsoft even wrote MS-DOS.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> LOL!
>> >> >
>> >> >It's TRUE, it's TRUE!
>> >>
>> >> Details, details. I was _there_ back then, and I don't remember no
>> >> steenking "windows".
>> >
>> >Hiding in the closet doesn't count, asshole.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> I'm still waiting for the name of the "windows" system used by Unix
>> before 1980. And BTW - Microsoft didn't write MS-DOS.
>
>Correct...like every other Microsoft product, they stole it.
Well, "bought" it. But for a bargain-basement price ($26 in beads,
IIRC). So I suppose you could call that a "steal".
>
>Can you name one software product which Microsoft has developed
>successfully by themselves?
Are you asking me? If you think I'm a Microsoft fan, you couldn't be
more wrong, but I'll take a stab at it.
Lessee... there was "Bob". Hmmm... welll, nevermind that one...
Excel. They stole the idea of a spreadsheet, but they did write the
product. Same with Windows. And NT (although they hired the DEC VMS
guy to do it, but I suppose that counts).
Ummm... well, they did _write_ a lot of things (as opposed to
purchasing them outright like SourceSafe or Visio), but I don't think
I can point to anything they can actually claim to have _innovated_.
Which is why it's always so comical to hear Bill Gates and Steve
Ballmer use the word "innovate". Especially Ballmer, who wouldn't
know innovation if it bit him. All MS ever does is see somebody
else's clever idea and mimic it. And by about the third iteration, it
becomes usable. "Microsoft: Where Quality Is Job 3.1"
But I'm still waiting to hear about that pre-1980 Unix windowing
system. (and emacs doesn't count).
- SemiScholar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbough,soc.singles
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 17:19:06 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>>
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>> >>
Aaron> Loren Petrich wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Stock is nothing more than Pokemon cards unless one is both able
>> >>
Aaron> Pokemon cards pay dividends????
>> >>
>> >> Owning dividend paying stocks is dumb.
>>
Aaron> Depends on the size of the divedend, and the nature of the business.
>>
>> It is incredibly tax inefficient. I suppose if you truly
>> expect the growth to overcome the large tax disadvantage
>> it is OK.
>>
>> But I would be very suspicious of any management team that
>> set itself up for double taxation, and traded my 20% cap
>> gains tax for my ~50% income tax rate. (Plus paid the corporate
>> rate on the same earnings!).
Aaron> Depends on what your needs are.
Aaron> For example, if you are a retiree who wants INCOME, then you want
Aaron> dividends.
No, you can just sell some of the stock. Or buy a low cost growth
fund.
There is no way double taxation makes sense.
Aaron> Similarly, if you are an electric power company, there is no point
Aaron> in needless investments in capital that won't produce additional
Aaron> revenue (i.e. excess capacity for which there is no market).
Bad example. There is a huge demand for extra capacity on the
electrical grid. Loads of addition plants planned.
Even if not, it would be better to use the retained earnings to
invest in something else to boost the stock price rather than
pay it out as a dividend and incurring the double taxation.
Aaron> Thus, there are investors for whom it makes sense to want dividends,
Aaron> and there are companies for which it makes sense to pay dividends
Aaron> rather than plowing profits into capital purchases.
Nope. It does not ever make sense to almost double your taxes
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:39:04 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > Which is why I adopted the policy of being completely "unreasonable"
> > > in my intolerance for stupidity. I use the full force my Purdue
> > > education to soundly beat the stuffing out of any MS-Losevocate
> > > who tries to trout out the standard MS marketing bilge.
> > >
> > > Those who carry water for a tyrant deserve to be tortured and
> > > humiliated.
> > >
> >
> > Yeppers. Which is why I say you aren't as annoying as Drestin, or Kurt
> > Angle (where we started). You at least have a point, while most of the
> > time Dresty doesn't, other than to piss people off. Why else would you
> > post Windrivel into a *nix group.
> >
> > And I know that this is cross-posted. I'm not removing the cross-post
> > for the integrity of the thread. Maybe sounds stupid, but I think
> > people that pull a thread out of a group just to bad-mouth the people
> > that are in that group are cowards, and no better than the people that
> > originally cross-posted to begin with.
> >
> > I've got nothing against Windows advocates in general, just against
> > those that consider it important to piss off *nix advocates by entering
> > their domain to proclaim what shit we use with no logical information to
> > back them up.
>
> Actually, it's more of a propaganda campaign to scare off those who
> might leave the Microsoft cult.
>
Probably true, at least from what I've seen of it. A lot of the
cross-posting morons are the ones that are scared to death that
Microsoft *might* fall and they will have to learn to use Unix or some
other system. My previous boss had this fear big time. The very idea
of AS/400s being used in the business pissed him off so much that his
number one effort seemed to be trying to teach management how much
*better* the entire network would run if we eliminated the "AS/400
bottleneck" (his words) and replaced it with NT servers. So, rather
than admit that the NT servers were down because of his ineptitude, or
the inherent problems in Windows, every time they would crash, he and
his boss (and occassionally other management) would have a closed door
meeting to discuss why the AS/400 was causing all the problems. I
always found it humorous that the AS/400 people were able to keep
working with the consoles each had set up on their desk, yet they still
got blamed for 'ruining' the network. God am I glad I am outta there.
Anyway, I know there are a lot of people out there that are utterly
scared out of their wits at the idea of having to learn something new.
Like I said, I have nothing against normal, rational advocacy for
Windows (as long as they stay realistic), just don't spout off how
shitty Unix is compared to it in a *nix group. It's not that likely
that Windows will completely disapear in the near future, and I'm sure
there will always be enough 'legacy' from the MS empire to keep all of
those that are so scared of it happening employed through their lifetime
even if the empire itself crumbles.
Irational fears, mixed with lies and FUD, make for stupid, pointless
posts.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Webb)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:30:10 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:13:57 +1200, "Tony Neville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: ........ < snip >
>
>> Steve Wilbur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Even if the people using the software get it for free, get tech support
>> > for free, and even get people to use it on their behalf for free -
>> > there is still a cost - borne by SOMEONE. it's not free. There is no such thing
>as a free lunch
>> Yes, but we don't have people becoming mega-multi-billionaires at our expense
>either.
>Very true. The Royal Family has *got* to go. Maybe they could be
>sold off to pay for a defense fund for Microsoft.
... OK where do put the guillotione ?
( your choice - NYSE, SEC, or the U.N. ... course you could go for an
International court in Uroppe .... :-)
Were IS michael milliken when we need an opinion (re:wealth/greed ) ?
About 2-3 years ago there was an interesin' debate in the Economist
re: Stabb-ility (sic) and the "values" of havin' a Monarcharcy <grin>
Still miss pip.com in CPM tho' ( shewin' me age eh ? )
Richard Webb - Tel: (613) 241-0513 Home Page "http://www.ncf.ca/~dw413/"
E-Mail (Richard Webb) "Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
NCF Hi-tech Directory - SQL Migration data "http://www.ncf.ca/~dw413/rw_colst.htm"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 3 Aug 2000 13:27:11 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Then why don't we see Linux boxes shooting up in popularity?
>>>>
>>>>I guess you aren't looking...
>>>
>>>I'm looking at CUSA, BB, and the other local stores where people
>>>commonly shop. Perhaps you can direct me to someone selling Linux
>>>boxes there?
>>
>>Note that BB does sell an installed Linux embedded in the
>>Tivo boxes from Phillips and Sony.
>
>Note that this isn't a consumer PC; it's a VCR-like recording device
>with no other functionality.
Yes, but it points out what we've known all along. The user
interface and office apps are the only weak points. Unix
systems have traditionally had an experienced administrator
to configure them and set up scripts and menu access for
the users. Those steps aren't necessary for an appliance
like the Tivo, but for a normal single-user computer it will
have to have a canned, fairly inflexible configuration like
Windows and stock pre-installed apps to work in the mass
market.
>>>>But so far I don't know if
>>>>anyone can preload StarOffice. When OpenOffice gets up
>>>>to speed that will take care of itself. Add a few more
>>>>pretty fonts and you are all set.
>>>
>>>When ? 2001? 2002? 2003?
>>
>>Judging from the plan to have OpenOffice source out by October
>>I'd guess mid-2001 to have a mainstream-usable package. It
>>will depend on how much functionality gets lost when the
>>third-party-licensed parts are removed. Hopefully this
>>won't be as hard to fix up as Mozilla. Meanwhile StarOffice
>>works once you get it installed.
>
>When do you think Linux will be viable in stores?
As soon as someone comes up with a few canned configurations
that can be chosen by picking a name and produce a menu
with all the common applications available. If StarOffice
can be pre-loaded it could be done now. But, if I were
building and selling it I would design in the optional
2nd drive/dual boot with or without VMWare and make it
clear to the customers that they might need to add that
component if this is their only computer and they need
some specialized software not available yet for Linux.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 3 Aug 2000 18:38:24 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Your definition of "console" does not match what the chief engineer aboard
>>the ship,
>
> The chief engineer is obviously keeping something from us about what
> really happened. I am an embedded systems developer. Currently working
> in avionics, several years back I worked on a power plant consisting
> of several large engines. In my experience it is utterly rediculous
> for the control of engines to be critically dependent on a being able
> to access a remote database.
You are not qualified to second guess the chief engineer. You were not
there. You did not work on the system. The system was also a test platform
not an operation one. We do not know the final design and implementation.
Finally, none of your rebutal addresses the fact that you are using the
word "console" in a different context than everyone else. Now, let's get
away from your misdirection and back to the topic: Please provide a
credibile reference to WinNT crashing and contributing to the incident.
>>the developer of the system,
>>and the news agency that broke the
>>story refer to as "LAN Consoles".
>
> You tell me what they refer to as "LAN Consoles". And don't tell me an
> application is a console.
>From the Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary definition of "console":
a combination of readouts or displays and an input device (as a
keyboard or switches) by which an operator can monitor and interact
with a system (as a computer or dubber)
The "LAN consoles" appear to be PCs dedicated to running a special purpose
client application that interacts with a server and other equipment. When
the client application crashes the "LAN console" is inoperable.
>>Please provide a credibile reference to
>>WinNT crashing and contributing to the incident.
>>
>
> Please provide a credibile reference to WinNT not crashing, and what
> it clearly meant by "crashing LAN Consoles". Otherwise, I will go by
> initial press reports and not the cover up that occured later.
I've provided references to the chief engineer on board, the software
developers, and the news agency that broke the story. The initial news
report you desparately cling to have been disconfirmed by the very people
who made it. I've even read that news story and it did not say WinNT
crashed. That is erroneous extrapolation and assumptions made by readers
and perpetuated as Usenet mythology. Please provide us with the credible
source of information where you learned WinNT crashed and contributed to
the incident?
>>The news agency that broke the story says early speculation about
>>WinNT was wrong.
>
> Provide a URL to a news agency that admits it's initial report was
> wrong. Sounds to me like it's more of a cover up than anything else.
You snipped the URL and the citation.
>>Again, other than you, who said "control loop"? No one has said the
>>clients that crashed were part of a "control loop", merely that they were
>>used to operate equipment and that these applications used the database.
>
> Well excuse my use of industry terminology. What I want to know is why
> the failure of a database rendered access to the engine controls
> completely unavailable, i.e. not even an abilty to send manual
> commands to the engine controllers from the consoles.
Bad data from the database crashed the software that controlled
equipment. The system and the software was part of a test platform, not a
completed operational system.
>>No one said it did, but if valves are controlled by application programs
>>that crash an engine may stop running for a couple of hours.
>
> Why do these application programs need access to a database to
> work?? Why isn't there any manual overide available to the operaters at
> the console??
Talk to the designers. The console is just a computer running an
application. I believe that part of the design is that control does not
have to occur at a particular console, merely at one of the many spread
around the ship. Manual controls are probably elsewhere, say the engine
room.
>>With respect
>>to "properly designed" did you somehow miss the fact that this was a test
>>platform trying out new equipment. That they were running debug versions
>>of the software that permit unsafe operations and has fewer safeguards.
>
> And that's the one time NT crashes the most: when developing, testing,
> and debugging custom software.
Please provide us with the credible source of information where you
learned WinNT crashed and contributed to this incident?
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Steve Wilbur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:37:39 -0800
i guess you're missing my point. per-consumer cost doesn't really
matter to the individual consumer, if that per-consumer cost is very
low as a whole, but still high for the individual consumer. something
can be very cheap for society as a whole, but seem expensive to some
individual members of that society. consider social security.... to
society as a whole (most of which needs/can benefit from it), the tax
you pay every year is nominal. it's cheap. however, to an individual
who will never derive the benefit (say, they get run over by a truck at
50) - the cost is very high. they have spent a lot of money and never
seen a benefit, so that society as a whole gets a cheap product.
there is no such thing as a free lunch.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, the per consumer cost of the 'lunch' is so small as
> to be equivalent to free for all but the most anal retentive
> mathematicians.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: maximum (?) linux
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:52:16 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I too feel that Maximum Linux is a gigantic joke, and in fact recently
> started a thread about exactly this same problem. I feel that the
> magazine isn't about Linux so much as it is about Windows.
I tried Maximum Linux and was equaly disappointed. One thing that I am not
sure about, their stupid act. Are they really that stupid in reguards to
Linux and unix, or are they just trying to act that way to look cool to the
anti-Linux readership? Even when they try to get into more advanced
subjects they just fall short of being useful.
Case in point in volume 1 number 3 August/September 2000 issue, there is an
article "Partition Recovery ER".
The mistakes begin right on the first page of the article with the cartoon.
The style of the cartoons reminds me of those from the early Byte magazines.
But I find a problem in that they put to mask on the chin of the penguins
leaving their mouths and nostrils exposed. The subject of the article is
"Partition Recovery" so they should be working on a harddrive, but they are
operating on a computer's motherboard and power supply instead.
page 50 column one paragraph one, "The program used to check the filesystem
on the drive is named fsck. When files or drive are munged, the drive is
referred to as being fsck'ed. If you need to use this article, you have a
fsck'ed drive. You may even be fsck'ed." Where have we heard that
inaccurate usage before?
Page 52 column two onder the heading "Other Utilities: Alternatives to
fdisk": 'Cfdisk (Get it? "See fdisk"; it's stupid Linux humor!)' What the
author overlooked was the real meaning of cfdisk which is "Curses fdisk".
Curses it the screen handling library to was used to develop the user
interface for cfdisk.
Page 50 column one paragraph three: the author cites an old mini-HOWTO for
partition recovery that he claims promotes software piracy of the commercial
program "Partition Magic". The only URL he provides is for the current
replacement of that mini-HOWTO which is maintained be a different author. I
contacted the magazine's web and ftp sites for any supporting evidence of
the author's accusation, but they have nothing on it. I have not seen the
mini-HOWTO that he cited so I can not judge his accuracy in this respect.
But I will note that the author of the article makes no mention of the fact
that there was shareware package for DOS called Partition Magic, that latter
became freeware. Downloading and using the freeware "Partition Magic" is
not piracy. It was a few year after the original "Partition Magic" became
freeware, that the commercial Software package was developed and was given
the same name. Without seeing the mini-HOWTO that the author was citing, it
is not possible to verify which package the author of the mini-HOWTO was
recommending the download of.
In that same paragraph the author also states, "Duh! If your computer won't
work, how are you gonna search for warez?" He ignore the situation that you
can have a floppy disk or a "live filesystem" on CD that can give you access
to the internet or BBS's. HE ignores the situation of having a host with
multiple harddrives that still has limited functionality or multiple
computers so another computer can be used for on-line access.
The author of this article has also made the assumption that Linux runs on
PC's to the exclusion of other hardware platforms that also run Linux.
Other articles and columns are equally flawed, just like Mae Ling Mak's
column that you mentioned in the previous thread on the subject of this
magazine. In addition to the other problems of that column it also contains
errors that could cause any neophyte who depends on its accuracy to look
like an idiot.
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 15:07:44 -0400
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Irational fears, mixed with lies and FUD, make for stupid, pointless
> posts.
But if we banned such posts from advocacy groups by both sides of the
argument, the traffic would fall by about 90-95% :-)
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
