Linux-Advocacy Digest #491, Volume #29 Fri, 6 Oct 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? ("Drestin Black")
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (.)
Re: food for thought...flame suit on (Keith Peterson)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
Re: To all you WinTrolls (Michael Marion)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? ("Ken
Blake")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (.)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: RAID on Win2k Pro ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:14:12 -0300
El vie, 06 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El jue, 05 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >Cancerous cells are single cells. And insofar as you have people under
>> >you, then you have infected others and your section is no longer part
>> >of the corporate body.
>>
>> I have not infected others, since my personal positions and values are not
>> imposed on them. I don't believe in proselitism.
>
>Then you're a benign tumour cell.
In what ways is my behaviour akin to a tumour? Am I soaking resources through
the analog of vascularization?
>> Not at all. And I don't conform to their ideals any more than theirs conform to
>> mine. I call that "choosing where I work".
>
>Of course you don't.
Oh, I do call it that. That's why I work in this corporation and not in others.
>> >> > They beat up annoying shareholders over there.
>> >>
>> >> You saw Black Rain once too many.
>> >
>> >Is that some kind of movie?
>>
>> Yup. Maybe you saw Rising Sun, instead.
>
>Does seeing the advertisement count?
I don't recall the ad, so I don't know. Maybe you just read too much jingoistic
literature of some kind.
>> >"some" includes ALL large anglo-american corporations and nearly every
>> >small one. Every public corporation acts psychopathic as a matter of course.
>>
>> So, corporations in general don't have a tendency to psychopathy, except in
>> some circunstances?
>
>Corporations in general DO have an EXTREME tendency to be psychopathic, except
>under same bizarre circumstances.
Such as being in Japan? That's not so bizarre.
>In particular, every corporation in South America is going to be psychopathic.
Any particular reason why?
>> >> rather, the shareholders, (which BTW, in another subthread you declared had no
>> >> corporate decision-making power)
>> >
>> >Reference.
>>
>> Memory, really.
>
>Better get a test for Alzeihmer's.
I recall I suggested that a manager quitting the corporation would have some
corporate decision making because he could buy stock. I recall you saying I was
wrong.
>> >Shareholders qua shareholders are psychopaths. Shareholders qua humans are
>> >usually not psychopaths. This is another example where circumstance creates
>> >a *completely* different person.
>>
>> You are imposing schizoid behaviour on people.
>
>Ahhhh, so you're a psychologist now?
Never said I was. You are suggesting people act in two completely different
ways applying totally different values, switching in an instant. That sounds
pretty schizoid to me.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 16:11:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> >> There is some discussion as to whether a proton can and will decay or not
>> >> (i.e., what is its half life). Many of the larger "elementary particles"
>> >> decay fairly quickly.
>
>> Christ, you just pull out all the stops to try to convince us you're
>
>And what the fuck do you think the previous poster did?
He pointed out that you're an idiot.
>> some kind of fricken' genius, don't you? Its pretty damn amazing how
>> you intent concepts like 'meta-stable state' and 'quantum tunneling of
>> black holes' sooner or later.
>
>> >They don't /irreversibly decay/ thus they don't age.
>>
>> Thus, they aren't animate physical beings.
>
>And because crab blood isn't red, it can't be blood.
Boy, you really do suck at logic, as much as any other branch of
philosophy, don't you?
>> >Yes. They just don't age, and that's a lot more than humans are capable of.
>>
>> Humans can escape aging as easily as corporations do: metaphorically.
>
>Define "metaphor" and prove that statement. You claim to be concerned
>with rigour; prove it.
Courtesy of Merriam-Webster:
Metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally
denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to
suggest a likeness or analogy between them.
That certainly works sufficiently for me, though I do prefer the more
extensive discussion available in the aforementioned Handbook of
Literature. Unfortunately, I had to return my copy to the person I
borrowed it from.
If you cannot think of a valid analogy for describing a human as
'immortal', or a corporation, then I don't see why it is I am the one
being accused of 'rigor'. As that immortal author Anonymous puts it,
"Give a monkey a brain, and he'll swear he's the center of the
universe." Or was that the ageless wisdom of Mark Twain?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: 6 Oct 2000 15:11:12 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > How _do_ you turn off DMA on an IDE disk in NT? Probably a registry
> > > key that's documented someplace in the bowels of MSDN. Where granma
> > > won't ever find it.
> >
> > DMA is off by default for IDE devices with NT 3 and 4. You need to run a
> > utility called DMACHECK to turn on it's DMA testing and enabling
function.
>
> That's stupid.
>
oh yea, likes it's SO much easier/smarter(?) to use hdparm instead?
ahhahahaahhaaa
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: 6 Oct 2000 20:12:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>> >Ignorance is bliss?
>> >
>> >Surround yourself with only what you want to hear and ignore anything
>> >contrary to your own opinions...
>> >
>> >ahhh... golden silence...
>> >
>> >silly.
>> >
>>
>> Apparently you missed the part where it was mentioned that
>> you should killfile the idiots on both sides of the
>> debate. I have as many (maybe more) people from the Linux
>> side as I do from the MS side of the OS debate, and I'm a
>> staunch Linux supporter (no, not a zealot, which would
>> explain why plenty of zealots end up in my killfile. I
>> don't mind saying, "there's a problem with X in Linux",
>> and that's not real popular with the zealot crowd).
>>
> I'm no fan of killfiles (made only two exceptions in as 10 times as many
> years) -
Ah, would those be usenet killfiles, dresden?
So, youve been reading usenet since at least 1980?
Tell me, dresden, where exactly were you reading it? Who was Pete Fagan?
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith Peterson)
Subject: Re: food for thought...flame suit on
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 20:16:46 GMT
In article <8rl1ea$9l1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Taken from:
>http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/MontyManley/MontyManley15.html
>
>The Failure of Linux: Credibility and Responsibility
>10/4/00
>By Monty Manley
<snip>
I have to give this guy credit. I agree unequivocally.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 20:19:52 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 06:06:20 GMT, Richard wrote:
> >OO isn't a bunch of "features", it's a philosophy. Calling a function a
> >method doesn't make it one, and calling a structure an object doesn't make
> >it one either.
>
> So how is smalltalk more conformant to the "OO philosophy" than C++ ?
Everything in the Smalltalk language (as far as /you're/ concerned) is
an object that one can see and manipulate from within one's code (in C++
classes and primitive types are not objects). Objects in Smalltalk cannot
access each other's parts (in C++ friends can access each other's private
parts). Programmers don't need to pay attention to operator precedence in
Smalltalk, which would take attention AWAY from the objects themselves
(in C++ you have what, *15* levels of operator precedence?). In C++ blocks
of code don't exist as objects (in Java they don't exist as simple objects).
OO means "everything's an Object" not "polymorphism and inheritance".
The former's a philosophy, the latter's a bunch of comparatively
meaningless "features".
> Again, I reiterate my challenge -- explain why C++ is not object oriented.
>
> You can't, can you ?
You can't grow up, can you ?
> Why can't you ? Because you don't know a damn thing about C++. We know this
> because you explicitly said so. You are, as usual, speaking from a position
> of utter ignorance, and throwing around terms like "high level designer" to
> make yourself sound like someone who knows what they're talking about.
<Nods> that's exactly it. It's not because you're an ignorant child at all.
> > But then, you know nothing about high-level design so it
>
> You keep crapping on about this "high level design" stuff, but you
> have *no* credibility on the subject. You are not a "high level designer",
> you have not implemented or even documented a single "high level design"
> in your life.
And you know this because you know everything about me and because it
would be entirely natural for you to trumpet your own credentials and
the fact that I don't parade them around means that I can't have any,
right?
Grow up Donovan.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 20:22:24 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> Because language is used (mostly) to communicate. If I started referring to the
> united states of satan, I would not communicate who is the subject of my
Of *course* you would. I would have understood you perfectly and so would
most people (including most Americans). They might not appreciate it but
they would certainly understand it.
> discourse. So, I would fail to communicate adequately, thus, I would render
> language into a useless masturbation toy.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 6 Oct 2000 15:25:13 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rfp69$r59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > But, see that "T" in TCO? It's not "CO" which is what your describing
here.
> > Sure, it cost $0 "CO" for the open sores(tm) version versus >$0 "CO" for
the
> > MS solution but you asked about "TCO" - TOTAL cost of ownership.
Ahhhhh...
> > see, after you've got these stacks of CDs sitting there and it comes
time to
> > actually install, configure and use these items does the "T" portion
kick
> > in. Try sharing those star office files with anyone, what's the
performance
> > of that MySQL database? Need replication? Transactions? full SQL-92
support?
> > stored procedures worth a damn? Did you want security? Compability with
> > everything? Support for everything? I argue that Windows is much easier
to
> > install, configure and use than Linux. It's the "T" portion of TCO you
need
> > to focus on, the "CO" part is easy. Remember, Linux (et. el.) is only
free
> > if your time is worth nothing...
>
> I need a database that is starts at 1.5 terabytes and is growable to 35
terabytes
> with no tweaking, and is also capable of handling 70,000 transactions per
> second. What would you suggest for hardware, software and OS?
Hmmm ok, how about something that does more than that?
http://www.tpc.org/results/individual_results/Compaq/compaq.pl8500.00100601.
es.pdf
Posted today. It beats the previously posted IBM DB2/W2K TPC-C record and is
cheaper. It has 43 terabytes of storage ... big enough for you boyo? Guess
what - it's the new king. I don't see Sun or *nix even remotely close...
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 20:26:50 GMT
Steve Mentzer wrote:
> I hear that quite a bit. Kind of like the Linux folks who lump Win9x and
> WinNT/2k into the same boat. Just like Linux ISN'T windows, win9x aint Win2k.
Ah but the difference is that most windows users complain about linux because
it doesn't look and/or act like Windows. Most linux/unix users complain about
what windows cannot do... not about (or at least not only about) it's look
and/or feel.
> I haven't had a WinNT or Win2k blue screen in a LONG time... so long, I cannot
> remember the last time it happened.
I just had another handful last night on my 2k box. It was stable for awhile,
but I wanted to try my Hauppage WinTV card again since Hauppage came out with
some newer drivers awhile back. I was using a Pinnacle Sys Studio PCTV in the
mean time, but the Hauppage always did have a slightly better picture. Boot
up, open a capture app.. bang. BSOD. Recommended fix: disable ACPI (IRQ
conflicts) which requires a full freaking re-install of 2k to accomplish!
Same hardware config used on same box under linux: Rock solid.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
Half of the people I talk to need a good going over with the old
clue-by-four. - Tracy Reed...Regarding RoadRunner Tech Support
------------------------------
From: "Ken Blake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:23:44 -0700
"Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rkv6i$gl6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Whew ! I read thru over 100 posts here. I was looking for
the answer to
> the original post.
> So, did they ever find out what makes Windows98 freeze up
all the time?
When you ask a loaded question that presupposes something
that not everybody believes is true, don't be surprised when
everyone's answer is not one you like.
--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 16:30:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >Much earlier, I defined 'being' as 'an entity with will'. "beinghood"
>> >is "the property of being a being" ....
>>
>> Yea, fine. How about you just use the term 'consciousness', like every
>> other normal person.
>
>Because NOBODY ever uses consciousness to refer to this?
I don't think that's true.
>How you still manage to communicate in any manner while redefining all
>of these terms is a mystery to me.
The trick is to only redefine things so that they are *more* accurate,
consistent, and practical, rather than simply trying to suit them to
your own private delusions, as you do, and then arrogantly ridiculing
someone who points out that your definitions aren't merely not listed in
a dictionary, but are contrary to it.
>> >He didn't give any objection to my definition of will beyond an irreducible
>> >difference of opinion.
>>
>> He said it sucked, and you revised it, and he said it sucked in a
>> revised way, if I'm not mistaken.
>
>My revisions had nothing to do with what he said. How could they since
>his "objections" were content-free?
You're begging the question; if you are stupid enough to think you can
defend your position by saying that all criticisms are 'content free'
and pretending to speak from an unsubstantiated position of authority,
then you are certainly the biggest cretin I have ever encountered, and
I've had exchanges with some pretty offensive people in the years I've
been posting.
>> Yes, but your definition sucks. If you want to denigrate his because he
>> got it out of a dictionary, you're going to have to provide more than
>> your asinine arrogance to justify the expansion.
>
>I don't need any justification. Try it yourself, if you can't find
>something better then it's justified. If you're unwilling to try then
>it's justified de facto.
Apparently, your stupidity knows no bounds. Yes, you need
justification, or you're position is 'content free', as you say.
Someone else already pointed out your failure to respond to arguments
against your lack of justification, as have I. You would appear to want
to simply ignore them, since they inconveniently refute your position.
But that's not 'de facto justified', that's being a moron.
>> >will more inclusive. Roberto has simply never bothered to justify his
>> >thoughts before and he doesn't give a damn that they're unjustifiable.
>>
>> Yet he was holding his own against your post-modern bullshit until I
>> couldn't resist distracting you, it appeared.
>
>And I'm sure you like to think that you're holding your own against me.
Hardly. I happen to know that I'm showing you to be a fool, now for the
third time (fourth, if you include your recent email response.)
>> Which goes back to my question, which you never answered: are words
>> defined exclusively, or inclusively?
>
>Either, both. It doesn't matter so long is it's rigorous and the word
>is useful with that definition.
You seem to be under the delusion that I would regard your opinion as
superior to my own in what is rigorous and useful. Which would normally
be more rigorous or useful, an exclusive or an inclusive definition.
Logically, a definition cannot be both, so its hardly a false dichotomy.
Have you ever even considered the question? Do you even think you
understand the concepts? Or are you planning to forestall any
discussion of them with your 'either, both' non-answer until you can
conveniently convince yourself that you're not posting from a position
of ignorance?
>> >Fine. Produce a rigorous definition of will that excludes simple
>> >animate objects like self-replicating molecules of RNA.
>>
>> You're asking the wrong guy. I don't think sentience requires 'will'.
>
>Define sentience then in a way that includes cases where will is
>excluded.
I don't need to. You haven't defined 'will' in a way which is accurate,
consistent, or practical enough to be used, and I have no desire or need
for such a concept.
>> Fuck you. I have engaged in enough discussions which describe the
>> distinction between being wrong and trolling to say that you are full of
>> shit. COLA is about advocating Linux, and engaging in general
>> discussion as per the rest of Usenet. I don't have anything against off
>> topic, but that doesn't stop you from being an egocentric moron.
>
>LOL.
>
>Maybe if you got off COLA you might find newsgroups to contrast with
>COLA's general viciousness.
I only post to COLA because I've chased all the morons off of the other
two groups I subscribe to. COLA, I must admit, seems to be an unending
fountain of stupidity along the lines you evidence. The shameful part
is if you weren't such an arrogant idiot, you'd have a unique and
interesting opinion to contribute. I don't find COLA any more vicious
than any of the other fifty or so groups I've read routinely. Just
larger.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:32:49 -0300
El vie, 06 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> Because language is used (mostly) to communicate. If I started referring to the
>> united states of satan, I would not communicate who is the subject of my
>
>Of *course* you would. I would have understood you perfectly and so would
>most people (including most Americans). They might not appreciate it but
>they would certainly understand it.
Well, if I just say "the united states of america", everyone will understand
it. So why take chances, by using a less understandable version?
I could say H2O instead of water, I could say Odiseus instead of Ulysses, I
could say immortal instead of ageless.
However, I would be using a less efficient mechanism of comunication, or
rather, would use the mechanism of communication in a less efficient manner.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 6 Oct 2000 15:32:07 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 17:41:18 +1300, Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I've just set up two dual-processor Redhat GNU/Linux 7 computers both
> >booting with RAID1 for high reliability. I am also making use of the
newly
> >GPLed MySQL on both computers.
> >
> >One computer provides NAT and IPChains firewalling services. Both also
> >provide an Apache/PHP development environment.
> >
> >To set this all up has cost $0 for the software. Knowing that Microsoft
> >provides a lower total cost of ownership ;-) I'd be interested to know
what it
> >would cost to move these computers to a full Microsoft solution.
> >
> >It appears I would need this software:
> >
> >1) 2xNT4 or Window 2000 Server licenses to provide RAID1 on both
computers.
> >2) 4xCPU licences for MS-SQL.
> >3) 1xMS Proxy Server(?)
> >4) 1xOffice 2000 Premium for Mail client, Frontpage, etc.
> >
>
> Don't forget to include biyearly complete replacement of all your software
> frequently necessitated to use MS's latest'n'greatest operating system.
Nobody
> would seriously consider using win31, win9x or even winNT software with
W2K
> production environment.
>
Not win3x or win9x for servers, duh. But NT/W2K for production? I can't even
find the strength to type out my laughter and your pathetic stupidity and
ignorance of the 10s of thousands who are doing just that very successfully
and less expensively than oracle or ibm solutions.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: 6 Oct 2000 20:34:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Drestin Black wrote:
>> >
>> > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > How _do_ you turn off DMA on an IDE disk in NT? Probably a registry
>> > > key that's documented someplace in the bowels of MSDN. Where granma
>> > > won't ever find it.
>> >
>> > DMA is off by default for IDE devices with NT 3 and 4. You need to run a
>> > utility called DMACHECK to turn on it's DMA testing and enabling
> function.
>>
>> That's stupid.
>>
> oh yea, likes it's SO much easier/smarter(?) to use hdparm instead?
> ahhahahaahhaaa
Actually, it is. Ive done both.
You, on the other hand, as per norm, have not.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 6 Oct 2000 15:35:29 -0500
"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
like in Windows, rip out a PCI card whilst computer is running, Linux
doesn't give
> a toss, Windows 2000 crashes to a black screen of death. Before you post,
run a
um, what PC do you use? I don't crash when swapping hot-swappable cards...
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 20:36:37 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El vie, 06 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
> >Then you're a benign tumour cell.
>
> In what ways is my behaviour akin to a tumour? Am I soaking resources through
> the analog of vascularization?
The corporate money supply?
You're a tumour because your behaviour is unchecked.
> >> Not at all. And I don't conform to their ideals any more than theirs conform to
> >> mine. I call that "choosing where I work".
> >
> >Of course you don't.
>
> Oh, I do call it that. That's why I work in this corporation and not in others.
And there is such a very WIDE range of corporations; psychopathic, psychopathic
and psychopathic versus psychopathic.
> >Does seeing the advertisement count?
>
> I don't recall the ad, so I don't know. Maybe you just read too much jingoistic
> literature of some kind.
I despise the military and am revolted by jingoist literature. Please try again.
> >Corporations in general DO have an EXTREME tendency to be psychopathic, except
> >under same bizarre circumstances.
>
> Such as being in Japan? That's not so bizarre.
No. Such as being JAPANESE. You have no idea how bizarre their culture is,
do you?
> >In particular, every corporation in South America is going to be psychopathic.
>
> Any particular reason why?
Because South America is under the hegemony of the United States of Satan
(and I thank you for providing this descriptive name) which has destroyed
any national government that isn't obsequious to American corporate psycho-
paths (euphemistically called "american national interests" by most people
in the United States of Satan).
> >> >> rather, the shareholders, (which BTW, in another subthread you declared had no
> >> >> corporate decision-making power)
> I recall I suggested that a manager quitting the corporation would have some
> corporate decision making because he could buy stock. I recall you saying I was
> wrong.
That's correct. Only the biggest shareholders matter at all. As usual,
you confuse a member of the group with the entirety of the group.
Do you have any problems with egomania?
> Never said I was. You are suggesting people act in two completely different
> ways applying totally different values, switching in an instant. That sounds
> pretty schizoid to me.
And you know that people don't behave this way because you are a psychologist,
right?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RAID on Win2k Pro
Date: 6 Oct 2000 15:39:08 -0500
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rgmo7$jri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Drestin and Chad,
>
> > Actually, you need only two copies of Windows 2000 professional - this
> > will provide you with the RAID...
>
> I thought you were both wrong about this but I didn't want to contradict
> you before I got the answer from Microsoft's web site:
>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/library/resources/reskit/samplechapters
/fncb/fncb_dis_gxih.asp
>
> (NB: FT stands for fault tolerant)
>
> "Creating new FT sets, such as mirrored and RAID-5 volumes, is only
> available on computers running Windows 2000 Server. The disk must be
> upgraded to dynamic disk before these volumes can be created. You can,
> however, use a computer running Windows 2000 Professional to create
> mirrored and RAID-5 volumes on a remote computer running Windows 2000
> Server."
>
> Any response?
>
> Regards,
> Adam
You are right - you need the Server edition (not Pro) to create RAID
volumes. Sorry about that. I use server on just about everything (I advocate
pro for end-users but I run server myself ("cause I want to") and didn't
think before typing.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
