Linux-Advocacy Digest #158, Volume #29 Sun, 17 Sep 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jack Troughton)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (OSguy)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (OSguy)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? (Bob Hauck)
Re: How low can they go...? ("James Stutts")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("James Stutts")
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Chad Irby)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (OSguy)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:07:56 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >I hate to break it to you but - you are supporting Windows. You are
> >unnecessarily relying on the very company you are bashing, which only
> >mirrors you ingnorance to the world.
>
> So now "supporting" becomes "relying on"?
No - it becomes "unnecessarily relying on", dim bulb... notice the word
"unnecessarily".
>Why the hell do you think
> they were convicted of federal crimes, you moron?
Why the hell do you think each finding will be thrown out by smarter judges
in the appeals court and higher?
>If it were
> 'unnecessary', believe me, I wouldn't even be seen in the general area
> of such crapware.
>
> >>and which is mandated by my employer. Get
> >> a life, man.
> >
> >Good one, that lie kind of fits together if someone were stupid enough to
> >believe that you don't own a computer and have no access to a non-windows
> >machine, but merely use the one provided by your employer, who by the way
> >has specifically mandated that it shall not contain any free Linux
software.
>
> What the fuck are you talking about? It is less expensive, less
> *commercially feasible*, for me to use monopoly crapware than to
> implement a decent OS with applications that aren't crap. Again, thus
> the federal conviction.
Less expensive than "free". Last time I checked you could get linux for free
and a few others as well as several gb worth of free apps. Most Linux
distros will come with about 1gb worth of free apps. What's more expensive
about that, your dimness?
Get a grip and come to terms with it Max, you are in no way personally
forced to use any software from MS, so quit posting to usenet USING MS
SOFTWARE to BITCH about ms software, it's that simple. If you don't like the
software, don't use it. Is it that hard to figure out?
And quit coming up with these lame assed justifications "being forced to
use it". Until you can prove someone is pointing a gun to your head forcing
you to use the software your a liar.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:03:34 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:17:06, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Jack Troughton wrote:
>>
>>
>> Weather cannot be predicted. I can say that it's going to rain
>> tomorrow, but I can't say if it will rain in three days.
>>
>> OTOH, I can say that it's going to be damned cold come February in
>> Montreal.
>
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> * Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
>> * http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
>> * Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>And yet, he's still not smart enough to move.
Oh, the wit. I'm wounded to the quick.
It must be sad to be so bitter.
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>H: "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"
>
>I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
>C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
>D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
>E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> their behavior improves.
>
>F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
Your .sig is a stellar example of your arousing debating style.
Of course, what it arouses is pity and contempt for the person so
ethically bankrupt that he chooses to use it.
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:30:21 -0500
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:55:37 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(C Lund) wrote:
>In article <eLNw5.5043$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > You're saying there's nothing new? Then I guess I'm as fluent with W2K as
>> > I am with Win98.
>> Your question is somewhat on the order of "So, what's the difference
>> between the Titanic and a speed boat?"
>> It's so obvious, it's not even worth mentioning, and the fact you
>> asked the question shows that, even if we did answer, you still wouldn't
>> comprehend because you don't even have a basic understanding.
>
>And since you and dc *still* haven't managed to provide any specifics,
>I'll just assume the difference is just minor stuff, like a new version of
>the paperclip, 1000 more options for that already useless "recycling bin",
>some new icons, 63,000 new bugs, and so on.
Your lack of knowledge is apalling.
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:37:50 -0500
"David M. Butler" wrote:
> Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>
> >
> > "OSguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Microshaft Sucks! I hope to NEVER buy another product that Gates had a
> > > hand in selling!
> >
> >
> > Strange thing tough...it only seems to be linux users that having problem
> > with windows setup...how come?
>
> Porbably the same reason that Windows users have the most trouble with
> setting up a Linux system... few will admit when their own preference in OS
> actually does something that makes it difficult, or doesn't seem to make
> sense. Both sides are guilty of this one.
In this case, the flaw in your argument is that you seem to think that the
people set up only one OS exclusively. That isn't the case here. I had
installed and used only Dos4.0, Dos5.0, Dos6.0, Dos 6.1, Dos 6.2, Win30,
Win31, and Win95 before I even knew there was a Linux. Once I started playing
with Linux, that converted me to using Linux exclusively on my machine even
though I still installed Win98 and now WinME for my daughter's games on her
machine. In all of the DOS/Windows cases, I've never had a DOS/Windows
install go seamlessly....the problem was usually hardware peripherals usually
deemed 'inferior' by MS, or not having enough memory at the time.....which
happens to mainly be the case with my WinME install <along with installation
programs that support more hardware than the actual OS does>.
So, according to you, my preference for Linux suddenly makes it difficult for
me to install Windows. I don't buy that at all seeing that I've always had
difficulties with Windows before I was even using Linux. And, BTW, the only
people I know that don't have difficulty installing Windows on their systems
are the ones who bought a system with Windows already installed, and they
hadn't changed anything in their machine's hardware configuration when they
re-installed or installed an upgrade on Windows. Even then I know some who
had bad crashes (me included) for simply reinstalling the same Windows system
on a machine that already had that version of Windows on it.
I can also tell you that I've never lost more than 3 hours on any Linux
install......This is based on the 3 hours it took me to install RedHat 4.2.
After that, It has only taken me 30 minutes to install Redhat 5.0, 5.1, 6.0,
6.1, 6.2, and 6.95 on any machine. It did take me 45 minutes to install a
Slackware 5.1 System once. And I had none of the Windows install headaches.
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:45:59 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "OSguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Somehow, I was under the impression WinME was supposed to be an updated
> > Win98...and the box says it maintains compatibility with Win95 and
> > Win98. Well, guess what? I found out that anything that installed its
> > driver in the Config.sys section of DOS and expected its driver to be
> > there before WinME comes up is now broken. WinME won't allow any DOS
> > 'legacy' drivers in the system.
>
> This kills me.
So when is the memorial service?
> People bitch about Windows 9x still having legacy DOS
> support, and when they begin to take it out, suddenly those same people
> bitch because it's gone.
I wasn't one of those people. But, yes I am bitching now because my machine
configuration >BROKE<. Why? Because MS decided to remove support for it,
while telling me it is still fully compatible with Win95 and Win98 which DOES
support legacy systems. According to MS, WinME is just a large upgrade to
Win98....nowhere in any of their documentation included (And I got a full
version....no upgrade here) does it say that some legacy peripherals may not
work.
> > Microshaft Sucks! I hope to NEVER buy another product that Gates had a
> > hand in selling!
>
> Tell me, if it had worked perfectly, would you have found some other reason
> to bitch about it?
I would not have bothered to post anything.....My daughter would have been
happy playing her games, I would have been happy because I won't have to ever
touch that machine/OS again.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:43:48 GMT
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 02:06:23 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>: Yeah, they're laughing at CERT.
>Most likely at CERT's effort they are laughing at. It seems useless to
>release security warnings, much less fixes for the exploits.
Yes, it does seem that way because there are lots of sysadmins who
don't pay attention for various reasons, the biggest being that they
are not given time or resources for security. I guess CERT provides
the service of issuing warnings about stuff three to six months late in
order to catch those who forgot or didn't read the initial reports.
That must be it, since they don't seem to be doing much that's timely
and useful to those who do pay attention.
>: Which isn't to say that lots of folks
>: don't pay attention...how many sites still run versions of IIS that
>: are vulnerable to the ".." path bug, which was fixed long ago?
>I see.... As long as one can find an IIS server with old exploits,
>then it's ok to have exploits for Linux however old they might be.
Did I say that? I don't see where I did. Must be your imagination.
I mentioned that particular IIS exploit because it was recently used to
grab a slug of credit card numbers. The other current favorite on NT
seems to be the default MS-SQL password. My point was that all of
these have been fixed and been publicized, yet they are still used to
crack systems. Just like the Linux bugs in the CERT advisory. That's
not the fault of Linux or NT, it is the fault of admins not keeping up
with patches.
>Once again it proves, it isn't the OS or the application which can
>secure a computer. It is the administrator/user of the system in
>question.
I think that was what I said. If you run Internet-exposed servers, you
have to pay attention. All systems have bugs. Paying attention to
security is a big job and lots of companies seem to skimp on resources
for doing it.
What Linux advocates claim is not that Linux has no bugs, but that they
get fixed faster than the bugs in closed-source systems.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:02:11 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said James Stutts in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> What the fuck are you talking about? It is less expensive, less
> >> *commercially feasible*, for me to use monopoly crapware than to
> >
> >Less expensive? Really? You must be a recent computer user, than.
> >Ever priced IRIX?
>
> <chuckle> I didn't mean the explicit price of the package, but the
> overall 'cost', including the 'price' of incompatibility, etc.
Incompatibility? In what way? Our NT clients can communicate quite easily
to our Linux servers. If your arguing source code compatibility, then that
merely
depends on what libraries were used. Incompatibilities exist in the UNIX
world as well.
>
> I'm sick of arguing this stuff, actually. We've gotten it down to where
Then why do you?
> the die-hard Microsoft fans are pulling out all the stops, and the fact
> is that arguing either price or capabilities in a monopoly environment
> is a losing proposition. This is, of course, why we have laws against
> monopolizing and restraint of trade. The rubes can't tell the
If this was true, then why do any commercial UNIX vendors, Be and Apple
exist?
> difference; even if the price is less, its more than it would be with
> competition. Even if the technology is fancy, its crap compared to what
> competition would provide. But there's no convincing the fanatics on
Devlin, you ARE one of the fanatics.
JCS
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:09:30 -0500
"C Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article
<snip>
> Since there evidently is nothing new worth mentioning in W2K there is no
> reason for me not to "knock it" the same way I "knock" Win98.
>
Win98 and Win2k aren't even for the same markets. Win2k is NT5. It has
very little in common with Win98 except the UI.
> I mean - you guys haven't managed to tell me about *one* single new thing
> in W2K.
Active Directory? Game support combined with SMP? Why don't you look it up
yourself?
JCS
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:09:41 GMT
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 05:29:31 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"OSguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Somehow, I was under the impression WinME was supposed to be an updated
>> Win98...and the box says it maintains compatibility with Win95 and
>> Win98. Well, guess what? I found out that anything that installed its
>> driver in the Config.sys section of DOS and expected its driver to be
>> there before WinME comes up is now broken. WinME won't allow any DOS
>> 'legacy' drivers in the system.
>
>This kills me. People bitch about Windows 9x still having legacy DOS
>support, and when they begin to take it out, suddenly those same people
People don't bitch about legacy support. People bitch about
the legacy support being the OS itself.
[deletia]
If Microsoft is as dense on this issue as you are, their
actions start to make some sense.
--
"We came. We saw. We kicked its ass."
-- Bill Murray, _Ghostbusters_
It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well.
-- Rene Descartes
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:11:10 GMT
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 05:33:19 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8q0n8r$ipc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> And I supose that all the MS OS users are current on patchs??? I doubt
>> that.
>
>No, I think that there are lots of users out there under the mistaken
>impression that they can install a Linux firewall and "forget about it"
>because it "just runs". I know people running firewalls on 2 or 3 year old
>copies of Linux or FreeBSD. Never applying even a single patch because they
>aren't Unix people. They just installed the firewall on the advice of a
>unix person that is no longer with the company.
None of that demonstrates why the behaivor you are pointing
out should worry anyone.
[deletia]
--
I don't want a pickle,
I just wanna ride on my motorsickle.
And I don't want to die,
I just want to ride on my motorcy.
Cle.
-- Arlo Guthrie
A pretty woman can do anything; an ugly woman must do everything.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:15:41 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:30:05 -0400, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
>
>> Then why don't you run it instead of tinkering around with pseudo
>> UNIX systems?
>>
>
>Well, lets see now:
>
> 1. We have a need to be able to run the same code on the PC as well as
>S/390. Linux just makes that a little easier.
> 2 We have a need for speed. OS/390 Unix support is not that fast.
> 3. We have an interest in satisfying customer requests that all platforms
>(RS/6000, AS/400, S/390, P/390, PC with x86, PC with IA64) have the same
>interface and the same look and feel.
> 4. Linux is much easier to install and administer than OS/390. I was
>able to install Linux quite easily with no previous experience installing an OS
5) The native OS for the S/390 still handles the bulk of the
work in keeping such real "big iron" running and running well.
Linux just serves as an efficient compatibility layer. It
doesn't in any way interfere with any inherent niftiness that
might motivate someone to by an S/390.
It's a complete win-win situation.
>on S/390.
>
>Hope this helps,
Besides, GNU is in wide use on "real Unix" anyways.
--
You will be recognized and honored as a community leader.
IBM had a PL/I,
Its syntax worse than JOSS;
And everywhere this language went,
It was a total loss.
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:59:26 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund) wrote:
> And since you and dc *still* haven't managed to provide any specifics,
> I'll just assume the difference is just minor stuff, like a new version of
> the paperclip, 1000 more options for that already useless "recycling bin",
> some new icons, 63,000 new bugs, and so on.
There was a Microsoft Developers Conference a while back, and when they
asked their developers what major change Microsoft should make in their
software, the number one answer was "kill off that damned paperclip."
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:19:34 -0500
MH wrote:
> Funny, for a Linux user..who obviously has read TFM for Linux..you
> obviously didn't read, or know anything about MS OS's.
You're right, I've only been installing MS OSes from DOS 3.0 to WinME now, so I
guess I don't know anything about MS OSes. NOT!
Do I go out looking for other magazine articles to read about MS or Windows?
HELL NO! It has gotten to the point that most articles are 95% Sales hype for
MS, and 3% maybe useful information. And if I want to read the Largest Sales
Brochure for MS that isn't MS generated, I can always go looking for ZD
publications and online services. No Thanks.
As far as all 74 pages of the manual for WinME and installation, full version
yet, Under the "Important Considerations" Paragraphs, there is NO mention that
legacy devices won't work. In fact, the books says that WinME can run all of
the original Manufacturers install disks for the peripherals I need.
> How long has everyone
> else known of ANY OS manufacturer's recommended ram requirements and what
> pure BS it is.
Microsoft and IBM are the only companies that have that reputation. But, up
until now, having the 'recommended' amount of RAM from MS had never before
caused my Harddisk to be continuously 'hammered'.
> Red Hat tells me I need 16 to run Linux. True, but have you
> ever tried to Gnome with that much ram? They all play the same game. Get a
> clue.
Yes, I did run Gnome and KDE with 16Mbytes of ram for years. It worked! In
fact, it still worked faster than anything Windows did, and for the first time
ever, I saw my 586 run 5 tasks in parallel with no slowdowns....a feat never
achieved under Windows.
So it is BS to assume just because MS plays a game, that they all do.
> Read any review of WinME. You'll see the same thing, over and over and
> over.
> And you say you were looking for better performance? IF YOU HAD READ ONE
> WORD ABOUT THE OS you would know NOT to expect that with WinME. That news is
> EVERY WHERE.
"That news is EVERY WHERE" in the big MS Sales Brochure known as ZDnet.
Obviously you seem to think MS is so important, that everyone want to read
about it. Well you are wrong! And I did see an article on CNN....nothing
specifically about legacy, just more about MS hiding DOS more in WinME so
people think that WinME isn't based on DOS.
> What you had was a bunch of crap on your win98 box. 32 mb's of ram is old
> news for windows. If you want to play the game, then play by the rules. You
> can't be a dolt and act as an expert at the same time.
> Or can you?
I'm not going to play by Bill Gates' rules. Just because you want to be a
Gates drone and have him tell you what to do doesn't mean I have to play with
Bill's rules at all. Maybe you should start reading around too, as more people
find that Bill Gates' rules are STUPID. Remember Bill Gates' quotes of a few
years ago? "640K is all anyone will ever need."
> As for real mode DOS support. If you had read anything on WinME, you WOULD
> HAVE KNOWN IT WASN'T SUPPORTED.
OK, tell me where in the WinME 74 pages of the full version manual does it say
my CD jukebox isn't supported. It doesn't say anything in the FM that I've
found. (I sure got bored with all the pictures of Dialog Boxes though.)
> So, you're no different than the 'windoze
> lusers' you castigate. You didn't RTFM, do any research at all, and now here
> you are, bitching and moaning just like the 'windoze lusers' you bitch
> about.
And you just a Fscking Flamer. And a poor one at that. At least when you
flame, you might consider knowing something about what it is you are flaming.
In this case, you obviously have no idea what is even in the WinME package or
what the quality of documentation is. So BLOW IT OUT YOUR ARSE!
You are one of the biggest 'Windoze Lusers' ever seen to date. Now better
check with Bill which post you read next.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:20:44 GMT
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 02:48:43 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:43:06 GMT, Richard wrote:
>> >One of the first things I noticed when I first got Linux was that
>> >there were no extensions, and that seemed stupid. When I asked about
>> >it, someone waved me at magic and file, and that shut me up. It wasn't
>>
>> The point is that there's some typing functionality, and that your
>> shell is actually something that someone could write in LInux. It's
>> not a design limitation.
>
>That's alright, there are plenty of other limitations (many
>of them because of design) in Unix.
>
>> It'd be an interesting project. Like I said, I don't think that it didn't
>> get implemented because of "nasty programmers". I think that it's not
>> the kind of thing that anyone thought of doing.
>
>There is an attitude common among programmers that users are
>supposed to make the effort to learn the system. So if a user
>overwrites /etc by accident because they wanted to restore
>/home from backup then that is Their Fault, and not the fault
Sooner or later, you're going to have to let the user
take the training wheels off. You simply can't get
around that without conspiring to cripple the system.
[deletia]
BTW, there's nothing in Unix keeping one from ensuring that the
user that can restore /home can't overwrite /etc. Although, why
a user would want to overwrite all of /home is somewhat of a
mystery. (IOW, your example is somewhat artificial)
--
For every problem there is one solution which is simple, neat, and wrong.
-- H. L. Mencken
Logic is the chastity belt of the mind!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
