Linux-Advocacy Digest #959, Volume #29 Tue, 31 Oct 00 10:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Linux (Andres Soolo)
Re: Linux (Andres Soolo)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux? ("MH")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (John S. Dyson)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Once agian: Obscurity != security (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX! ("Chad
Myers")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Chad Myers")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (2:1)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft (.)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (2:1)
Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft (.)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (2:1)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (2:1)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Date: 31 Oct 2000 14:05:35 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Hauck <bobh{at}haucks{dot}org> wrote:
>On 30 Oct 2000 17:46:56 +0100, Bruce Scott TOK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I don't understand these memory leaks. Is the cause of this known?
>
>Writing giant applications in C and/or C++.
Is this just careless programming or is it something stupid in the IO
buffers I keep hearing about?
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
sign the Linux Driver Petiton: http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Date: 31 Oct 2000 14:07:27 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ian Davey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK) wrote:
>>>That it is. I hate it when I have a bunch of Netscape windows open,
>>>including email, a couple of message replies working, a couple of
>>>websites on different desktops, etc. Close one window, and it all
>>>disappears. That's just when they plugged the memory leaks enough so I
>>>can leave it running for a few days at a time.
This wasn't me, it was the guy I responded to...
>Could you be using "Exit" instead of "Close" when you close that one window?
>That is one of Netscape's annoyances. I can't count the number of times I've
>accidentally hit exit (which shuts the whole app down) when I meant close
>(which closes just that window).
This has happened to me (also under the PDF reader). But still I do get
the bus error when it has been open for a while or some stupid whizbang
shockwave thing tries to come up (no, I never bother to download
plugins).
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
sign the Linux Driver Petiton: http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: 31 Oct 2000 13:24:16 GMT
Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> functionality and implications of major and minor library releases, how
> to compile, what the different layers of the UNIX/X11 model are, and he
> doesn't ever have to type cryptic commands in ASCII .TXT files to
~~~~
Troll sign! Troll sign!
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A motion to adjourn is always in order.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: 31 Oct 2000 13:28:34 GMT
Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ever hear of password security, superuser rights, logs ?
>> No ... I'm not supprised, your a Windows user, right ?
> Ever hear of breaking into the Pentagon? Not a Windows shop.
What's that to do with virii?
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Americans' greatest fear is that America will turn out
to have been a phenomenon, not a civilization.
-- Shirley Hazzard, "Transit of Venus"
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:34:13 GMT
"Andy Newman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8tk12f$614$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> >Which "fixes" are present in Win98 you can't download for free ?
> >
> >Similarly with NT, perhaps you've heard of service packs ?
> >
>
> You didn't get it did you. All versions of Win are fixes
> to the previous one. It's only recently with Win2K that
> they're getting the complete set of functions together in
> a package that's half-well implemented. It's taken long
> enough.
And this isn't the same in Linux? Reading the feature list
for Linux 2.4, you'd almost think it was NT 3.51
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:51:32 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tltpq$5q4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To the Wintrolls.....Go Away! This post has nothing to do with you.
> >
> > During the time I've tried to advocate Linux,
> > I keep getting flamed about how I'm not doing
> > advocating Linux correctly.
>
> Any advocacy is better than nothing. Ideally we want to be as honest
> and realistic as possible. We want to set realistic expectations,
> and we don't want to make rediculous claims (like "using Linux will
> get you laid":-).
Now if that isn't a completely flawed concept of advocacy.
Linux will get you laid is your example of <sic> rediculous<sic> claims?
I think it goes without saying that if Linux got anyone laid, said relaxed
anyone would not be in here babbling like a lunatic day in and day out.
I post here during my coffee break. Usually every morning.
Then I go about my business for the rest of the day & night.
Most of the regulars seem to post at all hours.
I guess it's not true that they only come out at night.
But, it makes perfect sense in explaining the why and what cola.
These are the facts as I see them:
The majority of regulars make absurd claims.
Don't back up these claims with facts.
When called on these 'facts', they make excuses.
Perhaps even threatening to "sue" you for libel.
Many lin_advocates can't spell.
Is it that you don't have a spell checker?
Don't know how to use it?
Or is the spell checker *that* lousy?
You want to see your words in lights, feed your ego,
run your virtual mouth, yet you won't take the time to see that your message
is coherent?
The *great* majority of posts concern Microsoft, not Linux.
Think about that for just a moment if you would.
What does that say about your group?
You lambaste 'win-trolls'. Truth be told without those very win-trolls you
would have absolutely nothing in here to cast bits about. Try it for one
week. Talk about nothing but what is good about Linux. Make suggestions to
better Linux. Talk nothing about MS. Nothing!
You'll die a tortuous and slow death. Because MS is all you really have to
talk about.
Sad, isn't it.
When called on this very issue one of your most staunch 'guru - status'
comrades, who once claimed to have been a proof writer, no less, threatens
to "sue" anyone who questions his hap-hazard use of the language during his
latest discourse of running MS and the people who write the code at MS down.
But, I see worse in here.
Misspellings, misuse of common contractions. General mangling of words.
Why would I take the word of someone who can't use his native tongue to
express his thoughts properly as technical gospel?
You make the argument about the quality of another persons work being
terrible to the point of embarrassment, then you either can't spell or argue
coherently, or don't take the time to do so. And that somehow gives YOU the
right to make fun of someone ELSE'S work?
Get a clue.
Same with this post.
You're going to give me a lesson on something in which the very lesson is
full of grammar and spelling mistakes? This is logic? A group that advocates
the use of a computer operating system, operated by people who can't
syntactically use their own spoken language, is to be taken as the *be all &
end all* source of computing expertise? My God people. Wake up.
You make the claim that "Any advocacy is better than nothing."
I think your sheep have indeed heeded your logic.
Read this group.
It does just as you advise.
It advocates nothing.
Cola is the true compliment to the universal set of conversational logic.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 31 Oct 2000 13:11:23 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <mY7L5.12298$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Linux source has been open to the good guys as well as the
> bad, so we have an opportunity to plug the holes before they
> are exploited. MS code has never been available to the
> good guys. And now we know it is in the hands of known
> hackers. It could have been before - we just didn't know.
>
>> Sorry, Charlie. Use your brain.
>
> His brain isn't the one in question.
>
When working on FreeBSD, with a little bit of interest in opening some
security holes, I could have intentionally done so... (I just happened
to sometimes unintentionally open security holes though, as any developer
could do by mistake, and being a little bit wreckless.)
In some cases, security holes could be INTENTIONALLY opened, with full
source disclosure, and most people would NEVER notice :-). (In fact,
it is likely that many bugs would not be noticed, even in source form.)
Exposure of source code is no guarantee of security, with either intentional
or unintentional security issues.
John
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:37:33 GMT
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<SNIP>
> I saw 3.5.1 on floppies. I think someone at the company i worked for
> actually installed it. The mind boggles.
I had to install NetWare 3.11 from floppies once... I think it had
somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 floppies? I could be wrong, but
it was some ungodly amount. Inevitably, Disk 24 would be bad and would
screw the whole installation.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once agian: Obscurity != security (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:44:33 GMT
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<SNIP>
> 200,000 open source programmers looking at the code. Only one needs to
> be honest enough to reveal a trojan and then the whole world
> knows. Because of this, no open source programmer even thinks of
> putting a trojan in the code, becuase he knows it would be there for
> the public to see, he'd get caught, and no one would ever let him
> contribute to an OSS project ever again, not to mention he could go to
> jail. Funny how human behavior changes when it's open for the public
> to see.
Of course, this is false, because there are several documented
occurances, the most notable was the cc compiler that would muck with
the login process to create a backdoor. It was compiled into the
original cc, but the source distributed didn't have it, so no one knew.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:47:19 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8NsL5.12430$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> > Meanwhile, Look at sites like microsoft.com, barnesandnoble.com, ebay,
> > NASDAQ, and hundreds of other major ebusiness sites that all run mutiple
> IIS
> > hosts on a single site.
>
> That just suggests to me that IIS is not robust enough to count on one
> machine staying up, but I don't see much of a point here.
So all these sites would run on one single Linux/Apache box? BS, you're
full of it. Yours is a rediculous statement, let alone retarded.
*PL0NK*
-Chad
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:00:41 +0000
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It was NT4. And NT4 installs just fine from a network folder. You
> don't
> > > need
> > > > > floppies.
> > > >
> > > > I saw 3.5.1 on floppies. I think someone at the company i worked for
> > > > actually installed it. The mind boggles.
> > > >
> > > > I have to say I'm surprisd to hear that NT4 works OK on a 486
> > > > considering Win95 doesn't (it's horribly slow).
> > >
> > > Vanilla Win95 is usable on a 486. Heck, vanilla Win95 is usable on a
> 386 if
> >
> > it's horribly slow, though.
>
> Compared to _what_ ?
>
> >
> > > all you're running on it is something like Word. Slow to boot and you
> > > wouldn't want to run much at once, but it's usable.
> >
> > note pad:)
>
> *shrug*. I ran Word 95 on Win95 at school for some time on a 386 w/12MB
> RAM. It was usable.
That was one hell of a 386. Personally, I found that win95 on 386 and
486 was very slow unless you get to the hige end dx2s and dx4s. Win311,
OTHO was fine on a 386.
>
> > > Certainly it's no slower than any other OS offering equivalent
> > > functionality.
> >
> > I've found Linux+X on a 486 much faster than Win95 on a 486.
>
> Using a window manager like KDE or GNOME, I find that difficult (nay,
KDE and Gnome aren't window managers. Neither is explorer.exe
> impossible) to believe.
>
> Or did you not see the "equivalent functionality" part ?
Depends what you count as functionally equivalent: explorer.exe provides
no window management, something even twm does.
FVWM2 can provide more then you get with Windows in some areas, less in
others. Window maker is also fine on an SX/33. That is a very nice WM.
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:55:03 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39fe2f7b$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
> >"David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> At least within the government and military, we can't be towing ships
> >> around harbors just because NT craps out. Now they've got something
> >> worse to worry about. There is much more at stake not just here in the
> >> US but around the world.
>
> >*sigh*
>
> >This old bit of FUD, again.
>
> >It wasn't NT that crapped out, you dolts, it was the database crapping out on
> >a divide by zero. Apparently the guy running the database for the Navy
> >thought it should behave like a pocket calculator and return zero. Some
> >people never learn...
>
> You mean it was someone elses fault that the NT crashed -- and didn't have any
> built-in way to recover from the error?
The APPLICATION (you know, a program) had an error in it. NT never crashed.
There was nothing in the article that ever stated that the OS crashed (except
some ignorant military guy they interviewed who said the whole thing crashed,
but it was obvious he was speaking from ignorance).
Trust me, Linux/Unix applications have errors too.
They could've built an app that monitored the server process and restarted it
in the event of failure, but they didn't.
Another example that the development firm was incompetent.
Another example is that when the server puked, all the clients did as well
which meant they were all dependent upon the server and didn't try to retry.
This same thing could've and probably would've happened on any platform
because it was the APPLICATION's fault.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft
Date: 31 Oct 2000 14:10:50 GMT
Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8tkrg8$7i0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>> Its not semantics actually, its legalities. They changed the kernel
>> without either Cox's or Torvald's approval; therefore it is not
>> linux.
> You want Cox's and Torvalds' approval? Here's where you find it:
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
> That's right - the GPL is the approval of any kernel hacker, that
> anybody can take the source code of the linux kernel (GPL'd software),
> modify it in any way they like, without _ever_ having to ask Torvalds,
> Cox, Father Christmas, or whoever happens to be a kernel hacker right
> now. And they can still call it Linux.
> Bottom line: Mandrake is Linux.
Bottom line: no, it isnt. I didnt say that it is ILLEGAL for
them to do what theyre doing.
But it is most misleading.
=====.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:03:44 +0000
Andy Newman wrote:
>
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> >A socket is a file once you get past the magic of opening it.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> That's the problem.
>
> Sockets are a (very useful) wart. With no file system representation
> you can't manipulate them without special programs. And there's
> an extra I/o mechanism to worry about and its properties. Consider the
> mess that is SysV IPC.
Sockets aren't part of SsyV IPC. That'll be TLI instead.
> Peter said it previously but Plan 9 got it right,
> everything in one name space with a few common "methods" applied to the
> "objects" in that name space (with location transparency thrown in for
That's quite like UNIX: a few common mehtods. Admittedly, the socket
opening method is not consistent with the open() call, but plan 9 is
meant to be better than unix, whilst being heavily influenced by it.
> free, on a per-process basis). When followed to the letter the true value of
> the abstraction is evident.
IIRC you can make socket files (I've no idea how). Then you don't need
any magic to open them.
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft
Date: 31 Oct 2000 14:11:57 GMT
Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>
>> Its not semantics actually, its legalities. They changed the kernel
>> without either Cox's or Torvald's approval; therefore it is not
>> linux.
> But, in the distribution I have, one of the six CD is supposed
> to contain the source code. Not that I bothered to have a look
> at it: I wouldn't know what to do with it beyond compiling it.
> (Being nurtured on ALGOL, Simula and Pascal, C is a bit of
> a foreign language to me. I can read it, like I can Russian -- I
> do know quite a bit of Russian, but I'm not fluent in it).
> So if the source code has been modified, but is still
> open, isn't that still conforming to the rules? At any
> rate, I had gathered that it concerned only an
> optimization taking advantage of the instruction set of
> the 586 family of chips?
I didnt say it wasnt conforming to the rules, I said its simply
not a linux system. :)
=====.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:05:03 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The burdon of explanation is on you: explain how it is _more_ cryptic.
> > That was your assertion.
>
> I see, so you believe 'ls' is obvious? More obvious than 'dir'?
It is up to you to demonstrate how ls is more cryptic than dir. That was
your assertion. I think they're equally cryptic (since dir makes sense
with 2 entirely different functions).
-Ed
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
> Why don't I use Linux? I'm waiting for Delphi to appear on Linux...
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:11:42 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Or OpenVMS or RISC-OS. Funny, they have similar commands to Windows.
> >
> > how is *. or *CAT in any way similay to dir?
> >
> > how is *dir similar to cd?
>
> They're not. I forgot RISCOS has a few differences in its command.
My point is, if dir and *dir can both make logical sense (name wise) and
both do different things, then the use of ether is not obvious.
Therefore the names are cryptic.
>
> > So Windows is similr to OpenVMS.
>
> And I always thought OpenVMS had a fairly logical and understandable
> command set.
>
> > GNU/Linux is simiar to: NetBSD, OpenBSD FreeBSD Solaris SunOS IriX
> HPUX
> > Tru64 OSF/1 GNU/Hurd System V, Digital UNIX ,etc.
> >
> > Your point?
>
> They are all flavours of UNIX.
GNU's not UNIX. Remember?
> > If *dir and dir can to completely different things in different OS,
> how
> > is either intuitive
> >
> > If find and find can do entirely different things, how is either not
> > cryptic?
>
> Please explain how 'ls' is not cryptic?
You said the DOS commands were less cryptic. It is not up to me to
demonstrate how they are more cryptic, it is up to you to demonstrate
they are less so, which you have not done.
ls is every bit as crytic as dir and *. / *CAT
It is not possible without having names that are too long not to have a
cryptic command set. The thing with command sets is that once you know
what the names mean, they are easy to remember. UNIX and DOS are about
equal in that respect.
and in mscdex any less cryptic than mount (I know they do different
things, but the end result is the same---you can see the CD in hte
filesystem).
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: 31 Oct 2000 14:19:51 GMT
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> blessed us
with this writ:
> On the other hand, corporate decision makers look to the
> publishers for guidence as to what is appropriate for general
> use.
>
> Compaq **could** put 2.4 on their appliance, but the investment
> community would consider it an excessive risk. Dell **could**
> put 2.4 on their laptops, but the stock would dip and corporate
> customers wouldn't go for it.
>
> The "test" or "beta" designation is a red light. Until that is
> removed and stamped "production" (the green light), the corporate
> market won't go for it.
>
Rex, you apppear to be (more) histerical (than usual). This
is*your* job-to talk to those 8000 publishers you have in your
thrall and explain how this works. I.e. that if there is a slight
chance that the new kernel will 'destroy the harddrive' (or
however you yourself put it) then simply renaming it 'final' will
solve nothing- the risk will remain. The learning curve is
steepest right now on the side of the 'industry' that is caught
up in this unseemly craving for Linus-product. Explain to them
that as the kernel assumes a larger footprint geometry takes hold
and they may have to keep waiting for their new, free, toy, er,
keystone.
Or else perhaps the world is nothing but a net of vast
conspiracies and once again I have no clue whatsoever- my usual
(implied) disclaimer.
> --
> Rex Ballard -
Vacuo
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
