Linux-Advocacy Digest #194, Volume #30 Sun, 12 Nov 00 17:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years? (James Hutchins)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Matt Gaia)
Re: Word 2000 - just as shitty as ever? (Julian S Visch)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis - Who is this guy? (Goldhammer)
Re: Linux get new term? (Doc Bill)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Patrick Raymond Hancox")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:12:38 GMT
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote...
>
> [..]
> > > If you stupidly associate PNG's with Adobe Photodeluxe then what do
you
> > > expect????!!!! Install a basic image viewer and fix up your
associations.
> >
> > Adobe stupidly did it for me, I guess. How are you supposed to deal
> > with programs that twiddle the associations?
>
> Because they don't feel the user should burden themselves with knowing
> about file associations and that they exist. They practice what you
> preach. :-)
>
> Thankfully, others are seeing the light and prompting the user to create
> the associations. The user then has to ask or find out what a file
> association entails, then they can make an informed decision and control
> their system in that respect.
They may very well have asked during the install. How do you make
an informed decision about whether a program you haven't installed
or used yet should become the default handler for any data type? And
if windows is supposed to hide all of this stuff, why would the users
be expected to know what the extension or the data type means?
> > The computer is supposed to work for you, not the other way
> > around.
>
> You have to set it up to work for you. It cannot set itself up.
This is the part of the argument I really can't understand. How
can it be important for Windows to hide these details if in
fact you are forced to understand them better than the people
who set up the defaults?
> > Control is when you pick the application to manipulate any particular
> > data type yourself.
>
> A competent Windows user is never denied this ability. Use drag and drop
> or simply open the application of choice and use file -> open.
Outlook express (rember the problem here?) does not give you any
file->open or open/with. I assume you can drag and drop if you
have sufficiently cluttered your desktop with handlers but that is
rarely convienent.
> > Conceptually, letting a data object pick or provide
> > its own methods sounds appealing, but it has never matched the way
> > I do things.
>
> Actually it's the system setup that determines what application is used
> to open the attachment automatically after double clicking. This is all
> done by associations, which is manipulatable.
Yet there is no way to tell it the difference between an email
attachment and a trusted file (the whole problem here and the
one that no one is addressing).
> > Only if you start with certain preconceptions. If you learned unix
> > years before windows existed, the windows approaches often
> > seem bizarre, especially if you track all the variations in its
> > short lifespan.
>
> I feel the same way about UNIX since I learnt Windows and OS/2 before
> looking at Linux.
The claims of variations in unix versions are overblown - mostly hype
from one vendor or another about how their additions are better. In
fact it has always been easy to write programs that compile and run
in almost all versions and shell and perl scripts are generally portable.
> > The entire unix manual, 3 sections that included
> > the command line tools including the shell, system calls and
> > c-library functions fit in a small book.
>
> So?
So the claims of complexity are equally overblown.
> > Everything done with
> > that set of instructions will still work virtually unchanged 20
> > years later.
>
> So?
You'll find out.
> > Of course X added some complexity...
>
> Aaaaaaaahhhhhh! You stopped there quickly eh? :-)
X is often unecessary, and it is the same everywhere.
> > The thing to be cautious of is the mailer that doesn't handle them
> > correctly for you.
>
> The user doesn't handle the mailer correctly.
The correct way is to delete the mailer if it treats attachments
the same as files.
>
> If you have an ignorant user, you need a sysadmin to guide that user or
> simply take away control from the user. Very nice arrangement in a
> corporate setting. Not so nice in a SOHO user situation where the blind
> is leading the blind or there's no one to immediately turn to. They have
> to LEARN.
The sysadmin can explain the difference between the content of an
email attachment and files that the user has blessed with his trust, but
if the mailer has no way to express that in action, what can they
do about it?
> Keeping up with his systems development is a moving target. Keeping up
> with the world in general is a moving target. There's nothing strange
> about that. We are well suited to dealing with a changing environment
> because we can learn!!
Then this should include switching to an OS with tools that have
understood multi-user security concepts from the beginning.
> Of course, typical users show considerable resistance to learning about
> their computers and what's happening because of the fear of information
> overload. "Oh Lord, this is too complicated for me. Will I ever learn it.
> " They're all too happy to hear that all they have to do is double click
> the file and everything will be done for them. The unfortunate thing is
> that associations being messed up is one of the many problems associated
> with such an approach.
This is precisely why the default action must consider the security
context of the object you are touching. The user should not need to
deal with that concept unless he wants to do something unusual.
> The typical user would flip if they are constantly being asked which
> application to open the file with. They often start experimenting instead
> of asking. You watch and see. File associations as they are in Windows
> are there for a reason. UNIX OS's never had to cater to users like that
> which Windows has to cater to. If these types of users do use UNIX it's
> in a setting where the machines are setup and maintained by competent
> sysadmins. The users are ignorant and at home with machines in front of
> them. They wish for things to happen with minimal effort and without
> having to constantly calling for help. For this to happen file
> associations are necessary. These ignorant users are vulnerable and the
> only way to cure their vulnerability is to warn them about dangerous
> attachments and tell them about associations and how they may be
> manipulated.
Again, the argument makes no sense. You can't claim simultaneously that
users need defaults because they can't make choices, yet at the same time
they must know everything about how to configure and maintain those
defaults. If you are going to give them defaults, then the defaults should
do the correct thing.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Hutchins)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:07:41 -0500
Remember how Motif became the darling and crowded out all of its
competitors within very few years? Is that what will happen with GTK+ and
Qt?
I was about to switch from Motif to Qt, but have gotten advice from
several sources suggesting Qt failed to get adopted as the darling of the
unix community and GTK+ has succeeded, so Qt will not be around, or will
be a hanger-on.
Seems like when a tool doesn't "win", all kinds of things happen, like
ancilliary tools don't get developed for it, it isn't kept up with new
developments, good books about it (and about using various tools in
conjunction with it, like databases, graphics libraries, etc.) don't
appear, etc.
Thoughts?
Jim
------------------------------
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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:19:01 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QeqP5.125604$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Easy root exploits are a Linux specialty.
No, I thought Microsoft had a patent on that technology. They
have had no trouble maintaining their lead in the bugtraq stats:
http://www.securityfocus.com/frames/?content=/forums/bugtraq/intro.html
Les Mikesell
[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: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:21:11 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uj0qs$1u1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > They are equally meaningless to someone who doesn't use
> > them. In a building with about 6 computers in every office
> > I can't say I've ever seen a VBS icon, or that I want to.
>
> Your problem.
> You *choose* to intetionly remain ignorant, that is your own problem.
If you think memorizing a VBS icon is a step on the path of knowledge,
suit yourself.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:24:12 +1300
> Okay, here is how you do it.
> Start>Run> "Regedit"
> Go to:
> "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\"
> if there is a sub key call "shell", go to it, otherwise, create it.
> In "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell", delete any previous attempt to do the
> notepad.
> Then create a subkey to "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\" called "notepad"
> create a subkey to "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\notepad" called "command"
> Go to "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\notepad\command\" and double click the
> default value. (called "(Default)" )
> Enter "C:\Windows\Notepad.exe %1" at the edit string box that would appear.
Small correction... put quotes around the %1, so long filenames are
handled properly.
Is there a %* or something similar? This method doesn't work with
multiple files unfortunately.
------------------------------
From: "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
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:26:53 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6NcP5.7668$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Just ask the computing department in my organization that runs
> > Microsoft Exchange. It stores all mail, calendar and related items
> > for everybody in one huge file.
> >
> > They came to us for help when it became corrupt. We had to use linux
> > and some open-source tools to dissect a bad backup tape.
>
> And you're blaiming your incompetent computer dept. operators on Exchange?
> They didn't do good backups, and now it's Exchange's fault?
>
> -Chad
Which tool include with the Microsoft OS do you recommend for doing
network backups and fixing corrupt tapes?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:32:54 +1300
> > >echo del c:\windows\win.com > authoexec.bat >> null ?
> > >echo del c:\windows\user.exe > authoexec.bat >> null ?
> > >echo del c:\windows\system\kernel32.dll > authoexec.bat >> null ?
> >
> > Pedant point: AUTOEXEC.BAT and NUL.
> > Also, is '>>' the errout redirectory, or the stdout append op?
> >
> > Proof yet again that Unix Makes More Sense(tm). :-)
>
> Well, the first > tells the OS to take the output of echo and put it in the
> autoexec.bat file, the two >> tells the OS to take the results of putting
> the output of echo into the autoexec.bat file and dump them into null.
> It's overkill for echo, of course, but not for other commands.
The first > would tell echo to replace the contents authoexec.bat with
the line "del c:\windows\win.com", except when the >> nul is appended, it
appears to not write to the file at all... I don't know if it works in
Win2k, but it certainly doesn't work on 98.
Is there anyone out there who understands the limited dos command line,
who can explain why this doesn't actually echo to the file? Does DOS
consider the second >> to override the first >?
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:33:09 GMT
The Great Suprendo wrote:
>
> A certain Russ Lyttle, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>
> >> This is a capability that Citrix Metaframe has - "seamless window"
> >> applications. That's where the window looks as though it is running on
> >> your own desktop, ie you don't get a second desktop. This can be very
> >> useful indeed - you can migrate a set of applications to terminal server
> >> without your users being aware of it, retrained or whatever.
> >
> >Believe me, users are very much aware of the migration. All the friggin
> >shortcuts broke is the usual symption. Also the friggin terminal server
> >version is never quiet the same as the old version, it runs much slower,
> >and dies everytime the network gets heavy usage. We stupid users never
> >have any idea whether our problems are something we did, something in
> >the OS, or someone is migrating applications without our being aware.
>
> "stupid users" (ie non-IT people) generally aren't aware of seamless
> window applications being updated - if it's done right. Admittedly it is
> quite a feat to pull off without there being problems, but I have seen
> it done.
>
> >OK, end rant. I just had to spend 1 hour doing my on-line time card
> >because the system administrators silently migrated the application.
>
> Admins who are professional about it will usually warn the users. The
> users usually ignore the warning.
>
> --
>
> ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
Notice how it is always the stupid users or stupid Admins, never the
stupid OS?
>>Desire to do another rant about stupid admins suppressed<<
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: "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
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:34:20 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:iAnP5.5453$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Had you been following the thread, you would've seen several claims
> that ext2 is good for this, good for that, etc. I'm merely pointing
> out ext2's weakness, or rather shortcomings:
>
> - No journaling
> - No support for >2GB files (patch exists but isn't widely supported)
> - Poor reliability (mainly do to, among other things, lack of journaling)
> - Poor performance
> - No support for DAC
> - Shall I keep going?
>
> -Chad
Please do. And elaborate on how it's cost/benefits compare to what has
actually been sold to most people by a certain large company that
apparently doesn't think NTFS belongs everywhere.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:36:30 -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...
And that is why, I'm not saying any further on this topic. :) I know
it's happened, since it did on my computer and I have seen it on a few
other occasions, mostly from W2K upgrades. Claire, Tom, if you don't
want to believe it happens, don't.
PLZI wrote:
>
> "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Registered Linux User #194021
> > It is possible. New computers are all still drawing power as long as
> > they are plugged in. There are hardware functions still running even if
> > the system appears to be turned off. It is possible that the OS set up
> > hardware to keep doing some task (Network card trying to tell the
> > network the computer is connected but off?). If the OS starts some
> > hardware, then the hardware reverts to battery when main power is off,
> > the battery will fry. Rechargables will discharg, reverse polarity, and
> > get things all screwed up. CMOS batteries weren't designed for the kinds
> > of loads they pull now.
>
> This of course would be the case, IF the the current from tha battery could
> be drawn anywhere in the machine, instead of the CMOS ram chip. Which is not
> the case. Any battery-backup cmos reference circuit diagram will tell you
> why.
>
> - PLZI
====== 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] (Julian S Visch)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Word 2000 - just as shitty as ever?
Date: 12 Nov 2000 21:34:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> I've been finding a fair amount of weird behavior in Word 2000.
|> Not enough to hurt its usefulness, but sometimes annoying.
|>
|> Word 2000 converts to HTML in an interesting way. It adds
|> some fake xml to encode the Style setting. And at least the
|> nesting is correct now. It is still hard-to-read, and has a lot
|> of extra tags in it, but at least this extra crap lets you
|> convert it back to a Word doc without losing any styling.
Try adding a bit of maths to your word document and then converting,
very little gets converted.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:37:24 +1300
> > > Another good one is when you wiggle and release the mouse and it
> > > duplicates the entire tree with 'copy of xxxx' files. I once had a
> user
> > > do that to a web server directory samba-mounted from a unix machine
> > > for convenience. Nothing like user-friendliness...
>
> I saw it happen and it wasn't much more than a wiggle with everything
> selected. I've never tried to duplicate it, so I'm not quite sure what
> the move really was.
Select all the files and then drag them microscopically to the side to
make windoze copy the files to the same folder... instant crap files!
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:37:44 GMT
"Mike Kenzie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8umh9a$cbe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> >
> > One of the new features in the 2.4 kernel is "improved ext2
> > stability and recovery"
>
> Are you implying here that NT is perfect and that there is no need for
> SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4, SP5, SP6, or W2K?
Don't forget W2K's SP1. And if you consistently followed the NT lore
about installing the system on a 2 Meg FAT partition with W2K, you
may find that you don't have space to install SP1.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis - Who is this guy?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:37:55 GMT
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:52:09 GMT,
A transfinite number of monkeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:58:11 -0500,
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: My mistake
>:
>: 15 credit hours of calculus.
>: 5 credit hours of differential equations
>: (best summed up as calculus by ESP)
>
>What on earth are you blithering about? The term "differential calculus"
>is used to describe the process of taking derivatives of functions in the
>real and/or complex fields. Likewise, the process of integration is
>referred to as "integral calculus". You spent 5 hours of time learning
>how to take derivatives??? Perhaps you mean real analysis? Or maybe
>vector calculus?
Ahm, no. He said "differential equations", not
"how to take derivatives." Differential equations
comprise a vast subject: ODEs, PDEs, applied problems
(e.g., dynamical systems, heat transfer, fluid dynamics,
chemical kinetics, etc). Numerical methods for solving
differential equations form a huge topic unto itself.
Typically, for applied disciplines, what one learns
in an introductory course on oridinary differential
equations is:
- linear equations, characteristic polynomial
- integrating factor, variation of parameters
- series methods
- non-homogeneous equations and particular solutions
- applied problems
- some stuff on systems of linear ODEs, if time permits.
- some numerical stuff like runge-kutta algorithm or
predictor-corrector scheme.
In an intro to PDEs, one would learn things like
- separation of variables
- fourier series methods,
Sturm-liouville problem, orthogonal polynomials
- green's functions
- boundary value problems,
- some applications to wave motion, electrostatics,
incompressible fluid motion, heat transfer, etc.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: Doc Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.politics.election,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux get new term?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:41:34 -0800
Support legislation requiring all government run software
to be published "open source". Did you know you can't even
see the source code used for the vote counting machines if
you sign an NDA?
If the government spends my money to develope software, then
as a tax payer I should have the right to use that software.
So there are three merits for open source only in the government:
1. Better accountability.
2. It is a resource owned by the people.
3. Reduced costs.
Bill
"Bradley J. Milton" wrote:
>
> Now that Bush won the election, what does that mean for Linux?
> I understand that the White House uses a lot of Windoze now. Do
> you think this trend will continue under the new administration,
> or is there hope that there will be more support for Alternate
> OS'es for the Internet Age? I think a new Open Source electronic
> voting system could be the answer and would show them the true
> power of Linux -- better grab it before Gates figures out his
> own "embedded" opportunity!
>
> bradley.
>
> How to combine Business and Counter-culture?
> http://www.angelfire.com/rant/milton/
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Patrick Raymond Hancox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Patrick Raymond Hancox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:43:40 -0800
Sounds like your refering to the unix tool "su". There is an (admittidly
weak) su for NT4 in the ResKit. Win2K has that and a thing called "runas"
that does all su type functions and then some. You posted requirements are
met without adding third party software. Any more new ways of defining
"multi-user" you want to share?
************************
Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
(C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp.
C:\>runas
RUNAS USAGE:
RUNAS [/profile] [/env] [/netonly] /user:<UserName> program
/profile if the user's profile needs to be loaded
/env to use current environment instead of user's.
/netonly use if the credentials specified are for remote access
only.
/user <UserName> should be in form USER@DOMAIN or DOMAIN\USER
program command line for EXE. See below for examples
Examples:
> runas /profile /user:mymachine\administrator cmd
> runas /profile /env /user:mydomain\admin "mmc %windir%\system32\dsa.msc"
> runas /env /user:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "notepad \"my file.txt\""
NOTE: Enter user's password only when prompted.
NOTE: USER@DOMAIN is not compatible with /netonly.
***********
It's native to all Win2K versions, no add on cost. Now can you drop this
pointless topic
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is Windows NT/2000 a true multiuser environment?
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > > > My impression is that it is not. Comments?
> > >
> > > Claims that any Microsoft product is multi-user are pure fictions
> > > invented by M$'s marketing department.
> >
> > That would be like your statement here. It should be quite easy to
prove
> > your statement. What multiuser features are missing?
>
> Two or more simultaneous users,, each with their own PRIVATE data space,
> both in memory, and on disk, each user having their own UNIQUE user
> id, which is persistent from login to login.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
>
>
> 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
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> 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 (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her 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.
>
------------------------------
From: "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
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:49:51 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uj3b6$sdg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > >
> > > > Ext2 has no more problems that NTFS - less if you ever let an
> > > > NTFS fill with tiny files.
> > >
> > > Fixed.
> >
> > When, and what do you have to do to old systems?
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q196/0/71.asp (NT
> 3.5,3.51,4.0)
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q120/3/63.ASP (NT 3.1
only)
>
> I *think* that this might be the problem.
> Took some time to find as I didn't know anything spesfic about this
problem.
> Does this sound about right?
Of course you didn't know about the problem. You don't expect MS
to warn you about problems, do you? The first one about each
file taking space that is never released in the master file table is
the problem I meant, and I think it may have eventually killed a
machine I was trying to run. It was running NT 4.0, probably sp3,
and set up by someone who was gone before I took over the job.
> > The split was necessary to remove the licensed third party components
> > that couldn't be released as open source. StarOffice/OpenOffice will
> > have the same cutover, but after that they will probably both just
> > continue to evolve through release points.
>
> That wasn't what I'm talking about, Netscape branched off Mozilla right
now,
> fixing & optimizing the code and getting it ready to commercial release
> state.
> Any time that they will be a Netscape release, they will branch off
> temporarily, getting the code to
If you are using CVS and only have one main development path it doesn't
matter whether you branch new development or not because you can
always retrieve any date or tagged previous version instead of taking
the head of the repository. If you are developing multiple alternatives
at the same time, or things that may never be activated in the mainline
version then you need branches to keep them separate.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
