Linux-Advocacy Digest #180, Volume #30 Sat, 11 Nov 00 16:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Craig Kelley)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Craig Kelley)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Craig Kelley)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: OS stability ("Mike")
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Konqueror a great web browser (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true (Bob Hauck)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Matt Gaia)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:05:34 GMT
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote...
>
> > In outlook email if you do the same, you are executing it with the
> > application
> > the sender wanted to be associated, not any choice that you have
> > made.
>
> I don't know about you, but I control my associations and hence I'm the
> one determining which application is used and not the sender.
How nice for you. If you would like to do the same for a few hundred
people in remote offices and check them after every program
install then I could be as safe as if they used a reasonable program.
If you aren't willing to do that, don't try to tell me it isn't a real
problem.
> Take for example, I associated .reg files with my text editor. Are you
> saying that if a sender sends me a file with a .reg extension with the
> intention of messing up my registry, that they will determine what
> application is used to run the reg file (regedit in this case)?
Until you reinstall the OS, or a program that decides to make
itself the default handler for something.
> For text files as well?!!! That's very bad. This is why I wonder how you
> guys use that damn application, among other things. I use The Bat! and I
> can easily manipulate which extensions produce a warning and which don't.
Obviously, everyone just ignores the warning. What's a Bat, and why
should you be forced to need one?
> > Then you think it is correct that the sender should chose what happens
> > when you open instead of the recipient? And you continue to think
> > that knowing all the trouble it has caused?
>
> I've already dealt with this ridiculous way of looking at things.
The trouble is indeed ridiculous and entirely predictable. You are
the one looking at things in the wrong way.
> >
> > Then you always assume the sender's choice is good for you?
>
> The sender never chooses for me. *I* choose what application is used
> automatically. I can choose not to use the associated application and
> instead use another. All this is readily available at your finger tips.
Will you take care of that for all my users? Or stop suggesting that
it is easy?
> > Why?
> > If you didn't name the attachment, this isn't something you chose.
>
> I definitely cannot choose that. :-) My lack of control however ends
> there. Once it reaches my Inbox, even when using the annoying OE, I'm
> still in control. It's the ignorant user who isn't.
You mean the normal user. There is no reason to allow any user
to have his machine at risk from viewing email.
> > Keeping you from knowing what is about to happen is not friendly.
> > Doing what the sender chose instead of the recipient is not friendly.
>
> When a typical, ignorant user double clicks a file, he/she hopes that
> Windows will open or run the file with the appropriate or a compatible
> application. They get a thrill out of things happening for them in that
> fashion. In fact they often get annoyed when the dialog asking what to
> open the file with, comes up. MS knows this and Apple knows this. This is
> why they implemented file associations. I've had complaints from users
> when they groped with an unassociated files context menu and could only
> get their attachment viewed, which is meaningless to them, because they
> don't understand what they're seeing and they know that the sender
> wouldn't have intended to send the gibberish that's in front of them.
> They saw this experience as a bad and tedious one.
That has nothing to do with email. Saying that email contents must be
treated exactly the same as your own files is like saying you must
treat someone who mugs you on the street exactly the same as a
guest in your home. It's a nice sentiment but clearly unworkable.
> The sender can take advantage of such users plain and simple. They
> correctly realize that this is the type of user that like decisions to be
> made for them. Ignorance is the problem.
Ignorance on the part of the email handler design in not exposing the
difference between trusted and untrusted content.
> > The wall does not prevent any choice you might make, it is to
> > keep someone else's choice from being the wrong one for you.
>
> I'm quite alright thank you. I make my choices and not the sender. Other
> users choose to allow the sender to make choices for them by being happy
> with things happening automatically for them. But hey, having them learn
> that such an approach is dangerous and teaching them a more informed
> approach is too much. One can't burden them with that.
If you are offering to do it for them, I'll accept your claim that it is
easy. Otherwise, we need a different approach.
> I agree that they should be provided simple means of controlling their
> associations but they simply have to learn the basic principles.
Why on earth should anyone have to learn some peculiar OS's concept
of file management just to view email?
> > That is pretty scary... Nothing but windows does that, and
> > in email the content type is specified by MIME headers which
> > are a cross-platform standard.
>
> Nothing but Windows has had to cater to the joe user in such a way and at
> such a large scale. It's through Windows that computers have reached the
> homes of the joe user. You can't expect Windows to be and behave the same
> as a system designed for professionals who are very much in the know?
Nothing but windows has started from a system with no concept of
security and multiuser access. File associations are irrelevant
here, I am talking about the fact that email is not the same as files.
> Look at Linux development as they try to cater to the average userbase.
> Look at where the Linux GUI is going.
They have not made the mistake of thinking that email is identical
to your own files and since they have generally paid attention
to history, I don't think they ever will.
> > > You're misunderstanding me.
> >
> > No, I don't think so. Everything you have mentioned
> > so far is incredibly platform-specific.
>
> So?
So why should anyone have to learn something system
specific to view email? Especially on a system claiming
user-friendliness?
> > You can't see that this 'harsh reality' is caused by a bad design in
> > the first place? It shouldn't be masked, it shouldn't exist in the
> > first place. Email attachments are not the same as desktop files.
> > It is the pretense that they are that causes the problem in the first
> > place. Drop the pretense and the problem goes away.
>
> Drop the ignorance level and you don't have to create the pretense.
The ignorance here is that email is not the same as your files. Learn
that and you will understand the rest.
> since
> dropping the ignorance level is a daunting and a slow task in general,
> creating the pretense to increase system usability for such users is a
> necessary evil with its obvious drawbacks.
No it isn't. It is a rather nasty mistake with no redeeming value. It
is like giving out your credit card number to anyone who asks because
you don't realise that there are differences in the situations that make
consistent behaviour inappropriate.
> File associations are created
> without the user really knowing what is happening. They don't wish to
> know anyway, since they just want the thing to work. I think you also
> said that they shouldn't be expected to learn.
Exactly, and this is why they should not be used for email which is
very unlike files.
> >
> > People rarely need to exchange programs that run when you open them.
>
> Oh? You really need to get out. I get a lot of jokes in the form of
> executables. People exchange applications which are packaged as
> executables.
OK, but not in my office. I'm sure there are plenty of people who think
it would be a joke to erase all the files your drives.
> > Maybe never... Getting something that does execute should be noted
> > as something different than a text file or image. This isn't
impossible
> > for the computer to do for you, unless you start with the wrong model.
>
> As I said, most joe users, out of ignorance, just want the thing to be
> run. They don't care how MS does it. Just do it, they say.
No they don't. It is just the only way possible without getting a different
mailer.
> > No, the MIME types tell what data type is enclosed and the mailer
> > should use a safe handler for that type or warn you that there is
> > no safe handler.
>
> An what does the joe user say? Especially when their animated jokes keep
> being labelled as dangerous. And they all have the little .exe at the end
> of their names?
Text files and graphic images are labeled as equally dangerous. Other
mailers just don't do dangerous things because they understand that
email is not the same as your files.
> > This is something the mailer should do for you, and it shouldn't
> > allow its handlers to be changed accidentally as a side effect of
> > installing a new program.
>
> You need to work with some home users and not only those in the office
> setting where help is always near when using your superior setup.
What? I thought you said the only way to survive was to learn all
about the registry and file associations. How is the home user going
to do that?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 Nov 2000 13:07:49 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > >So you can't use Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases without fancy
> > > > >techniques or special filesystems.
> > > > >
> > > > >Thank you for finally ending this thread of this topic.
> > > >
> > > > I'd put it even more strongly than that. It is IMPOSSIBLE to use
> > > > Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases on *any* file system, on
> > > > *any* 32-bit machine, without a recompile using the above options
> > > > and/or explicit use of the xxx64() API and/or multiseeking techniques.
> > >
> > > Note that Postgres does it whether or not the OS supports 64 bit
> > > operations, so it is certainly not impossible. Oracle may not
> > > do without raw partition access but it would not be impossible.
> >
> > You don't need to use raw partitions either. We have an 80GB Oracle
> > database which runs on top of ext2 on an unmodified Linux 2.2 kernel.
>
> Please enlighten us how you manage to do this? Multiple tablespaces?
> Do you span the files out into multiple files? This has a large impact
> on performance...
It does not. A tablespace is considered to be a contiguous group of
information.
It is about 5-10% faster to use raw partitions (even under NT -- look
at Oracle's documentation); but it is easier to managage and more
scalable to use filesystem files.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:08:05 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uj15n$5i9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > No, I have no problem with letting the user choose to run anything
> > he wants, as long as it is really his choice. For example if you
> > want to type in the name of your program to run, or drag the
> > attachment to a program on the desktop, go ahead. What needs
> > to be disabled is the auto-executing something chosen by the
> > sender instead.
>
> You click on the file, you get a message asking you what to do.
> The sender has *no choice* in the matter.
> *You* decide whatever you want to comply with the sender's choice, *not*
> outlook.
> You don't like the sender's choice, *change* it.
In outlook express there are only 2 choices - open and save to file.
Can I give out your phone number as the person to call for advice
every time that warning pops up?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 Nov 2000 13:15:42 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uij0g$a2s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Why are so many of you hung up about filesizes when the
> > comment being discussed had to do with database sizes? A database
> > is not a file.
>
> When you create a tablespace in Oracle, is not the syntax:
>
> CREATE TABLESPACE <tablespace name>
> DATAFILE '<path to data file>'....
>
> What, exactly is the "datafile" if not a file, then?
CREATE TABLESPACE blah
DATAFILE '/u01/datafile1.db' SIZE 2GB,
'/u01/datafile2.db' SIZE 2GB
...
And then, if you need space later:
ALTER TABLESPACE blah
ADD DATAFILE '/u01/datafile3.db' SIZE 2GB
...
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 Nov 2000 13:17:48 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Is Windows NT/2000 a true multiuser environment? My impression is that
> it is not. Comments?
It is capable of being a multiuser system, but you need to spend a
bunch of money on add-on products to make it so.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:21:27 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uj17q$68h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Details?
> >
> > The Microsoft source code is the obvious one, but the same
> > trick has likely worked everywhere Melissa and ILOVEYOU
> > did.
>
> ILOVEU & Melissa didn't mail any of your files to anyone.
> Check symnatec.com for further information.
There was a variant of ILOVEU that came around a few weeks
later that copied all the graphics files it could find (everyone's
browser cache, etc.) over to a different drive and mailed some
stuff off somewhere. I'm not sure if anyone tracked down exactly
what all it did. It filled our server disks and we had to shut some
of them down until we got the latest virus scanners and cleaned
everything. Our office is hardly computer-illiterate - this is just
the reality of having a product like outlook around.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:30:01 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is Windows NT/2000 a true multiuser environment? My impression is that
> it is not. Comments?
It isn't, in that you can't have two users logged into one machine.
However, it is, in the sense that 'services' aka 'daemons' can run under
different users accounts. However, this is nothing like the ability to
allow multiple users to login.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 15:34:33 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
> > But how can that happen? Outlook opens the file using the default
> > associated application as defined by the user of the system. The file
> > cannot determine what opens it. That's ridiculous.
>
> Are you trying to claim that all the people who opened
> ILOVEYOU.TXT.vbs really were well advised about
> how this was different from other email, knew exactly
> what would happen next, and blew up their networks
> on purpose? What is ridiculous is that they had no
> idea, and no way of telling what it was about to do.
If the ignorant user is gungho to make things happen automagically
through file associations, then he should face his own waterloo with that
attitude.
> Also, was it the sender that chose to send this to
> a program interpreter or not?
Hw certainly won't get to my program interpreter doing that.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:36:02 +0000
Clifford W. Racz wrote:
> In using Windows, there is a downside... like this for example.
>
> Dealing With OS Decay: Rebuilding Your Windows System from Scratch
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdhelp/stories/main/0,5594,2531288,00.html
>
> I really don't think Linux has this problem, does it?
After a year of using Windows 98 SE on my home machine, I've noticed the
following:
1. It's pretty noticeably slower than it was.
2. It has a tendancy to hang
3. Various system tools conspire against me - for instance scanreg tried to
restore my registry from six months ago.
My usual solution to all this is as follows:
1. Reinstall Windows 98 SE
2. Wipe the system and start from scratch.
I've only really been running Linux at home for a short while, so I can't
really comment on its long term use. Certainly I have problems with KDE 2.0
which I have reported bugs on (via bugs.kde.org) - how I upgrade later is
either by Mandrake 7.2 or later or by KDE 2.0 or later.
Unfortunately, when I upgrade Mandrake, I tend to wipe the system and start
again. My last experience with upgrading did not work too well.
So which is worse? A slowly degrading Windows 98 SE which I can partially
recover by reinstalling, or wiping both Windows 98 SE and Linux?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:35:25 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:z%gP5.18759$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:QeeP5.245274$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It is not particularly difficult to find x86 equipment with hot spare/hot
> swap
> raid drives or standalone boxes with a variety of interfaces with that
> capability. It is true that most PC hardware is built to be cheap, but
> you can still buy reliability if you want. Even with your exponential
> risk factor, a raid 5 array with a hot spare has to lose 3 drives before
> you get one replaced to take you down, and since you don't have to
> shut down for the replacement that can be a pretty small time window.
Sure, and we're running RAID file servers and the whole shebang. But we're
dealing with statical probabilities here. We want to be able to replace
drives when they fail, but we don't want to wait until our drives fail
before replacing them. Nor do we want to take chances with motherboards,
network interfaces, memory, and so on.
> > Contrary to your assertion, we have found that hardware failures
generally
> > cause computer systems to stop. At that point, NT, DOS, Unix and Linux
are
> > all equally reliable.
>
> But, if you have good filtered power you hardly ever lose anything but
> disk drives, power supplies, and maybe a modem if anyone still uses
> them.
Yes... and that's one reason why we perform scheduled maintenaince.
Scheduled maintenaince isn't a bad thing. I don't know of any large company
that doesn't do it, regardless of what anyone thinks about Unix reliability.
If you were to look at our internal computer systems, you would find that
none of them have been up for longer than 6 months or so. But, again, that
has nothing to do with Unix (or any other OS) reliability. In the majority
of companies, uptime is not a good indicator of OS reliability.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:40:41 +0000
Ah, but not all is sweetness and light...
I've logged a few bugs against konqueror:
smb:/pc166/kits
does not work, whereas
smb:/pc166/kits/
does!
ftp:/pc166/kits
does work, but I can't access the files.
Now, of course, Windows 98 SE does the equivalent of smb with no problems.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:44:53 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why should it?
> Linux games? I would hardly call Asteroids or Tetris a show stopper.
And what does Windows come with? Patience? Hearts?
> Text editors? Notepad and Wordpad are fine for average folks.
Ah, notepad is based on a 16 bit control in Windows 98 SE/ME. It cannot
load a file bigger than 64k.
Wordpad is based on the RichEdit control which can load as much memory as
you have... except it literally loads it _all_ into memory.
> Admin tools? Exactly what more does one need to do on a home system?
Well, the admin tools are a bit confusing to me, a Windows user.
> Office Suite? Windows users can D/L StarOffice too, but they are not.
StarOffice price?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Konqueror a great web browser
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:43:50 GMT
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:06:53 GMT, mmnnoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Obviously his point is that Konqueror is faster, lighter, has better
>features, is less buggy, and was developed more quickly than Mozilla
>has been because Mozilla is overengineered in a pointless attempt to be
>all things to all people on all platforms.
First, I should point out that the latest Mozilla daily builds are
pretty good. It is getting there. Now that ssl works I have started
using it for my daily browser with good results.
Second, I disagree that the cross-platform nature of Mozilla is what is
slowing it down relative to Konqueror. I think the big issue is that
Mozilla isn't just a browser. It also supports a slew of other things,
such as IMAP and POP email, an html composer, and a news reader. It
also aims to be more standards compliant and to support more standards
than the other browsers.
Third, the Mozilla people appear to have made a decision to release the
whole thing as a unit, rather than putting out the pieces as they are
done. Maybe that was the wrong decision, but it is a bit late to
change it now. Second-guessing such things is easier than making the
decision in the first place.
Fourth, Mozilla _has_ to be cross-platform, particularly to Windows, in
order to succeed in one of its strategic goals, which is to prevent one
vendor from taking over the html standard. As long as "other" has a
non-negligible market share, MS won't be able to use IE to make the web
into an MS-only place.
Fifth, I don't think a couple of years to redo Mozilla from scratch is
all that unreasonable.
>I really hope it succeeds. The lack of a decent web
>browser for Linux is an enormous deficiency.
For most people, Netscape is "decent". What has been a deficiency is
that there has been only one full-featured browser that was practical
for daily use, one which you apparently don't like. That is changing
now. Konqueror is here, Mozilla is getting real close, and Opera will
be along soon.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:43:52 GMT
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 14:40:36 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Wouldn't having two files slow down performance?
It might actually increase it if they are on two different disks. Even
if they aren't, I don't see how it is going to be much of a hit.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:43:56 GMT
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:03:01 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Come to the Boston area, a good UNIX guy can get $150 an hour. $450 an
>hour if you are an Oracle guru too.
Good thing, what with a decent house in the suburbs costing a million
dollars unless you want to drive an hour each way to work.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Who lives an hour from Boston but doesn't get $150/hour.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 16:03:27 -0500
From: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
You've obviously never heard of hardware probing, have you? Any OS will
probe whatever hardware is on your system to see what is on there (like
your BIOS, etc.) By your previous posts, I can probably assume that you
don't have any knowledge of it besides maybe seeing the word "probing"
on your screen during a Windows setup, if you can even do your own setup
that is.
So now who's credibility is shot?
> An operating system fried your CMOS battery?
>
> So much for your credibility :(
>
> claire
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:03:58 GMT
Probing your hardware and or BIOS settings is far different from
frying your CMOS battery...
claire
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 16:03:27 -0500, Matt Gaia
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You've obviously never heard of hardware probing, have you? Any OS will
>probe whatever hardware is on your system to see what is on there (like
>your BIOS, etc.) By your previous posts, I can probably assume that you
>don't have any knowledge of it besides maybe seeing the word "probing"
>on your screen during a Windows setup, if you can even do your own setup
>that is.
>
>So now who's credibility is shot?
>
>> An operating system fried your CMOS battery?
>>
>> So much for your credibility :(
>>
>> claire
>
>
>-----= 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! =-----
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
