Linux-Advocacy Digest #436, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 09:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("PLZI")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:09:04 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vplo7$5eu5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> mark wrote:
> >
> >> > This is a high price to pay for Microsoft's attempts to copy the
> >>
> >> It' not so much the attempt, but the INABILITY to do it properly
> >> which is the problem.
> >>
> >>
> >> > functionality of the Mac finder.
> >> >
> >> > Mark
> >>
> >
> >Interestingly enough, Mac OS X seems a lot like windows.
> >Who is copying whom?
> >
> >
>
> Mac OS X will seem a lot like windows to a windows user
> because Microsoft have been trying to copy the Mac finder
> for years and years. Each release of Windows gets a bit
> closer to the Mac.
No.
I can believe this for 3.11/95
But not for the rest of it.
Once the GUI was a standard, they didn't change it.
Well, they did in whistler, but you can still have the familiar windows GUI
if you really like it.
It's now Mac times to copy windows.
_______________
http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/06/04/0608rzqa.html
Q: Will Mac OS X include a Windows NT-like Task Manager?
Mac OS X includes a task manager. You can access it by using the
Option-Apple-Escape keys. Presently, you can only force-quit from this menu.
However, a more advanced tool called Process Viewer is located in
/System/Administration. This has the ability to monitor system usage per
application as well as the force-quit function.
_____________
http://www.salonmag.com/tech/review/2000/10/25/os_x1/
Mac OS X: AS WINDOWS AS YOU WANNA BE
Apple's new operating system has learned a few tricks from Microsoft -- and
added some neat features of its own
______________
Overall, I don't think that I like the new interface very much.
It scream "I'm pretty, look at me!"
> It will, however, act a lot more like unix because it's
> a unix like kernel and OS underneath the GUI bits.
I was talking about how it's going to look.
Hopefully, it will prove that a *nix system can actually be usable without
being overly complex.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:23:48 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vplo7$5eu5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> mark wrote:
> >
> >> > This is a high price to pay for Microsoft's attempts to copy the
> >>
> >> It' not so much the attempt, but the INABILITY to do it properly
> >> which is the problem.
> >>
> >>
> >> > functionality of the Mac finder.
> >> >
> >> > Mark
> >>
> >
> >Interestingly enough, Mac OS X seems a lot like windows.
> >Who is copying whom?
> >
> >
>
> Mac OS X will seem a lot like windows to a windows user
> because Microsoft have been trying to copy the Mac finder
> for years and years. Each release of Windows gets a bit
> closer to the Mac.
No.
I can believe this for 3.11/95
But not for the rest of it.
Once the GUI was a standard, they didn't change it.
Well, they did in whistler, but you can still have the familiar windows GUI
if you really like it.
It's now Mac times to copy windows.
_______________
http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/06/04/0608rzqa.html
Q: Will Mac OS X include a Windows NT-like Task Manager?
Mac OS X includes a task manager. You can access it by using the
Option-Apple-Escape keys. Presently, you can only force-quit from this menu.
However, a more advanced tool called Process Viewer is located in
/System/Administration. This has the ability to monitor system usage per
application as well as the force-quit function.
_____________
http://www.salonmag.com/tech/review/2000/10/25/os_x1/
Mac OS X: AS WINDOWS AS YOU WANNA BE
Apple's new operating system has learned a few tricks from Microsoft -- and
added some neat features of its own
______________
Overall, I don't think that I like the new interface very much.
(http://www.apple.com/macosx/usingosx/desktop.html)
It scream "I'm pretty, look at me!"
_________
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/01/26/aqua/index1.html
http://www.asktog.com/columns/034OSX-FirstLook.html
Talks about the Aqua UI and its disadvantages
_________
I've some of those complaints about whistler Pro skin, which take too much
attention to the UI.
But at least I can change those
> It will, however, act a lot more like unix because it's
> a unix like kernel and OS underneath the GUI bits.
I was talking about how it's going to look.
Hopefully, it will prove that a *nix system can actually be usable without
being overly complex.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:23:59 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vplo7$5eu5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> mark wrote:
> >
> >> > This is a high price to pay for Microsoft's attempts to copy the
> >>
> >> It' not so much the attempt, but the INABILITY to do it properly
> >> which is the problem.
> >>
> >>
> >> > functionality of the Mac finder.
> >> >
> >> > Mark
> >>
> >
> >Interestingly enough, Mac OS X seems a lot like windows.
> >Who is copying whom?
> >
> >
>
> Mac OS X will seem a lot like windows to a windows user
> because Microsoft have been trying to copy the Mac finder
> for years and years. Each release of Windows gets a bit
> closer to the Mac.
No.
I can believe this for 3.11/95
But not for the rest of it.
Once the GUI was a standard, they didn't change it.
Well, they did in whistler, but you can still have the familiar windows GUI
if you really like it.
It's now Mac times to copy windows.
_______________
http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/06/04/0608rzqa.html
Q: Will Mac OS X include a Windows NT-like Task Manager?
Mac OS X includes a task manager. You can access it by using the
Option-Apple-Escape keys. Presently, you can only force-quit from this menu.
However, a more advanced tool called Process Viewer is located in
/System/Administration. This has the ability to monitor system usage per
application as well as the force-quit function.
_____________
http://www.salonmag.com/tech/review/2000/10/25/os_x1/
Mac OS X: AS WINDOWS AS YOU WANNA BE
Apple's new operating system has learned a few tricks from Microsoft -- and
added some neat features of its own
______________
Overall, I don't think that I like the new interface very much.
(http://www.apple.com/macosx/usingosx/desktop.html)
It scream "I'm pretty, look at me!"
_________
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/01/26/aqua/index1.html
http://www.asktog.com/columns/034OSX-FirstLook.html
Talks about the Aqua UI and its disadvantages
_________
I've some of those complaints about whistler Pro skin, which take too much
attention to the UI.
But at least I can change those
> It will, however, act a lot more like unix because it's
> a unix like kernel and OS underneath the GUI bits.
I was talking about how it's going to look.
Hopefully, it will prove that a *nix system can actually be usable without
being overly complex.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:24:19 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vplo7$5eu5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> mark wrote:
> >
> >> > This is a high price to pay for Microsoft's attempts to copy the
> >>
> >> It' not so much the attempt, but the INABILITY to do it properly
> >> which is the problem.
> >>
> >>
> >> > functionality of the Mac finder.
> >> >
> >> > Mark
> >>
> >
> >Interestingly enough, Mac OS X seems a lot like windows.
> >Who is copying whom?
> >
> >
>
> Mac OS X will seem a lot like windows to a windows user
> because Microsoft have been trying to copy the Mac finder
> for years and years. Each release of Windows gets a bit
> closer to the Mac.
No.
I can believe this for 3.11/95
But not for the rest of it.
Once the GUI was a standard, they didn't change it.
Well, they did in whistler, but you can still have the familiar windows GUI
if you really like it.
It's now Mac times to copy windows.
_______________
http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/06/04/0608rzqa.html
Q: Will Mac OS X include a Windows NT-like Task Manager?
Mac OS X includes a task manager. You can access it by using the
Option-Apple-Escape keys. Presently, you can only force-quit from this menu.
However, a more advanced tool called Process Viewer is located in
/System/Administration. This has the ability to monitor system usage per
application as well as the force-quit function.
_____________
http://www.salonmag.com/tech/review/2000/10/25/os_x1/
Mac OS X: AS WINDOWS AS YOU WANNA BE
Apple's new operating system has learned a few tricks from Microsoft -- and
added some neat features of its own
______________
Overall, I don't think that I like the new interface very much.
(http://www.apple.com/macosx/usingosx/desktop.html)
It scream "I'm pretty, look at me!"
_________
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/01/26/aqua/index1.html
http://www.asktog.com/columns/034OSX-FirstLook.html
Talks about the Aqua UI and its disadvantages
_________
I've some of those complaints about whistler Pro skin, which take too much
attention to the UI.
But at least I can change those
> It will, however, act a lot more like unix because it's
> a unix like kernel and OS underneath the GUI bits.
I was talking about how it's going to look.
Hopefully, it will prove that a *nix system can actually be usable without
being overly complex.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:19:22 +0000
In article <8vr0i5$5fqd9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vqs65$5e16i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>
>> >The OS would boot, he can only log on as root, and in read only mode.
>>
>> The filesystem initially mounts as read-only, and then it remounts
>> as read-write during the normal boot process.
>>
>> It is a trivial matter to run fsck manually on a read-only file
>> system and fix it. You do not need to attempt to install an
>> OS which cannot read ext2 in order to fix an ext2 system. There's
>> nothing to fix it with if you do.
>>
>> You do not login in 'read-only' mode in Linux.
>
>I didn't deal with the linux at all, I'm reporting what he told me.
>
>> >He doesn't have a floppy.
>> >The slackeware CD in a non-bootable one.
>>
>> You previously said "he has a non-bootable CD, I think".
>>
>> >Win98 CD is a bootable one.
>>
>> This is a newly added claim.
>>
>> But according to you it was corrupted and wouldn't install
>> properly.
>
>One *file* inside a cab was corrupted.
>
> > >One I'd win98 up & running, it was a matter of minutes to get the ext2
>> >reader and back everything up.
>>
>> Which apparently took forever, more than one install, the CD
>> was corrupted and the 'experienced' slackware user didn't use
>> fsck to fix his filesystem, he decided to install a different
>> OS which is not capable of fixing his filesystem. I just do
>> not believe this tale.
>
>'experienced'? When did I said that?
>I said he use slackware 7.1 regulary.
>There is a difference here.
>
>> You also previously said that you installed the ext2 reader
>> for Win98 to 'the fat 32 partition'. If you've got one of
>> those already on the machine, then the slackware will be
>> able to write to it - all you have to do is mount it.
>
>As I've said, I didn't dealt with the linux problem.
>According to him, it was a read only mode, and he couldn't mount another FS.
>And no, I don't know any further details about it. Nor did I bother to find
>out.
>
>> Also, if you've got a Fat32 partition on the machine, you
>> must have Win98 already on there, so why were you installing
>> it again?
>
>FDISK, heard about it?
Which means that you trashed the ext2 filesystem, were not able
to save anything to any other filesystem and are generally
confused.
>
>> Or perhaps you might claim that you re-partitioned during
>> this amazing installation, but then, you've destroyed the
>> ext2 partition anyway.
>
>It was another HD, as I clearly stated.
You did no such thing. This also means that you do not
need FDISK, as you stated that you did above.
This is complete rubbish.
>
>> In fact - _how_ are you installing win98 _without_ trashing
>> the ext2 partition?
>
>Another HD.
If there is another HD, which I don't believe, because this
whole thing is a fantasy.
>
>> What's more, you've said he could read the filesystem anyway,
>> so what exactly does he need Win98 for? To read the filesystem
>> he can already read?
>
>To back it up so I can take the second HD and burn it.
If he has booted linux then he can do it from linux. If he
already had win98 on, then he could have used that.
If he'd had a second hard disk, he could easily have built a
new filesystem on that from Linux.
There is absolutely no reason to install Win98 at all.
This complete thing is some kind of weird fantasy.
Sorry, I really do not believe anything you say.
Mark
>
>> You had hours for the last one, and this response seems more
>> than a little weak, although I'm impressed with the amount
>> you've cut - it hides the number of times you've subtly
>> changed the story by subsquently adding information.
>
>I am on dial up, and it sucks.
>I don't reply to posts and leave the entire post as it is, I only leave the
>parts which I'm referring to.
>Read netettique, btw, it might be helpful.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "PLZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:58:29 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <V2_T5.242$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PLZI wrote:
> >
> >
> >Want to reconsider "not useful at all"? Or care to explain how RPC or NFS
is
> >now suddenly not useful, nor open? Wake up. I'm not going to tell you how
MS
> >is suddenly all open and nicest guy on the block and the saviour of
internet
> >community, I'm just trying to explain that for once they did something
which
> >is open (to a degree, as RPC and NFS are "open") and useful.
>
> The items you've listed above were, as I recall, published _before_
> they had been reverse engineered. I believe that they also are
> sufficiently complete in themselves to be usable, whereas my
> understanding is that the CIFS is not enough, on its own, to
> implement the Microsoft file sharing and directory system, which as
> far as I am aware has not been fully published, in 'infomrational'
> form or otherwise. Unless you can find a reference to the rest of
> if, of course?
Now this is where the things get interesting. Now the samba people say, that
they need to implement DC functionality (haven't really looked into this, but
I presume they'd be interested in authentication/authorization mechanisms).
These are not part of CIFS, they are part of networking functionality
provided as a service, which happens to use CIFS (and other protocols).
In essence, they are saying "Ok. GSM standard provides the protocol to move
human speech. And now we have it. To make a phone, we still need to know how
the phone works, how the compression algorithms and SIM card works. So now
provide us the schematics of phone, source code to it, and the schematics of
SIM card. Fail to do so, feel our wrath."
I am NOT saying that MS is Doing the Right Thing when not giving the
intricasies of these services - but I fully understand why they do not give
them. I can come up with tens of examples, where the protocol is open, but
the service which uses the protocol is prorietary.
- PLZI
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:43:14 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vqtur$56ngn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8vpjv9$5autc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In article <8vpeh6$52a0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >He doesn't have a floppy drive.
> >> >> >And there are tools for win98 that can read ext2 fs.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not that come on a Win98 install disk, there aren't.
> >> >
> >> >So? Is there a point here?
> >> >Much of my software doesn't come from the Windows CD.
> >> >Loading tons of application on a CD is convenient, but if MS would
start
> >> >doing this you would hear screams about product bundling.
> >>
> >> You said you were installing this to fix an ext2 system,
> >> that's the point.
> >
> >No, I said that he did it to *back up* ext2 system.
> >
> >> >He has a non-bootable cd, I think.
> >>
> >> If his CD is non-bootable, then HOW THE HELL IS HE INSTALLING WIN98?
> >> You said he has no floppy and you were installing from a slackware
> >> system which wouldn't boot. For G*d's sake, this is getting more
> >> and more ridiculous.
> >
> >I said *CD*, not *CD-ROM*
> >The CD & Bios support booting from CD, the Slackware CD itself didn't.
>
> Then how did he get slackware onto the machine? This still does
> not stack up! He's no bootable CDROM, he's no floppy, what did
> he do which left him in a position with a machine with slackware
> on it, a FAT32 partition but no Win98?
I don't know.
> This is just not possible.
Of course it is.
A> Boot from win98 cdrom. Insert slackware cdrom, start install from dos.
B> Assuming prior OS, insert slackware cdrom, follow instructions to
install.
C> Copy install files to HD and start installation from there.
Are only the most likely one.
There is more than one way to do something, you know.
> >> >vnetbios.vxd
> >> >you need this file to dial up, you don't need it for windows to work.
> >> >He skipped it because he is an idiot.
> >>
> >> Ah, in Win98 if something goes wrong with the install, the CD cannot
> >> be read, then the installer is an idiot?
> >
> >No, the user is an idiot.
> >An installer is an "it", no a "he"
>
> Er, the user is an idiot because microsoft's CD was broken?
The CD is *not* broken.
Get over it.
It has scratches on it.
The user is an idiot because he could've pointed windows to the *other*
location of those files, and get the file windows asked him too.
> >If he would've known what to do, he would've pointed the setup to the
> >alternative location.
>
> I still don't understand why he's trying to install windows on
> a slackware machine to fix a disk - apparently, he's somehow
> got to re-partition this thing without losing data to get a new
> OS on to fix an ext2 filesystem which.....oh g*d.
Another HD, third time I'm saying it.
> >> >Take a CD, take a screwdriver, scratch the CD, try to read the CD in a
> >> >CD-Rom
> >> >That is (to a lesser degree) happens to CD which are improperly
handled.
> >> >It doesn't matter whose CD it is.
> >>
> >> Ah, so you're now claiming that the CD we're installing from has
> >> been vandalised? Even though the drive doesn't boot anyway?
> >
> >No, it has been handled improperly, and it had scratches, which prevents
> >some of the disk from being read.
> >How does this has to do with a bottable CD?
> >The Drive boot, the Slackware CD doesn't.
>
> Then how did he get slackware onto the machine in the first place,
> and still need to install win98?
see above.
> Which can't help him fix his problem in the first place.
He didn't want to fix it.
He wanted to back up his files *first*.
> >And just to counter your next arguement, no, it wasn't the burned ISO,
> >(which as far as I know, can boot)
> >It was a CD that a friend burned for him, and he didn't make the CD a
> >bootable one
> >
> >> >win98 cd contains several places where the cabs are stored on.
> >> >
> >> So you keep saying, but you also say that the CD doesn't boot,
> >> that he has no floppy and that the existing OS won't start. Since
> >> all of these cannot be true, I don't actually believe you.
> >
> >There is a hell of a lot of a difference between a CD, which is a peice
of
> >round plastic, and a CD-ROM, which is the drives that read it.
>
> No, that's wrong. A cdrom drive is a drive, a cdrom is a cdrom.
I will grant you different terminology in different parts of the world.
Here, a CD is a the media, a CD-ROM is the drive.
> >> >There are more things in heaven and hell that are dreamt of in your
> >> >philosopy, Huratcio - Shakspere (badly spelled, probably)
> >>
> >> You also say that the CD doesn't boot, that he has no floppy and
> >> that the existing OS won't start. Since all of these cannot be
> >> true, I don't actually believe you.
> >
> >See above.
>
> This does not make sense. He now has no means of having got slackware
> on the machine in the first place.
See above.
> >> >> >I wasn't *talking* about Linux, I was talking about why you don't
need
> >to
> >> >> >re-install windows.
> >> >> >Microsoft provide CDs from which it's very much possible to
install.
> >> >> >But CD has a tendacy to get unreadable if you threat them wrongly.
> >> >>
> >> >> You say quite clearly at the start of this thread that the
> >> >> problem was with slackware, and you even say part way up this
> >> >> post that you would install a third party package in order to
> >> >> be able to read the ext2 filesystem.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, but that wasn't what I'm talking about.
> >> >That is *background*.
> >> >I'm talking about how he reinstalled (twice!) to get rid of a problem
he
> >> >could've gotten rid of without reinstalling.
> >>
> >> You also say that the CD doesn't boot, that he has no floppy and
> >> that the existing OS won't start. Since all of these cannot be
> >> true, I don't actually believe you.
> >
> >See above.
>
> See above. You do not make sense and I do not believe you.
> This does not make sense. He now has no means of having got slackware
> on the machine in the first place.
See above.
> >> >> You also state quite clearly that the Microsoft CD was uninstallable
> >> >> from. You try to claim that he had to use a CD because he had no
> >> >> floppy. You do not explain how he had slackware on the machine
> >> >> in the first place.
> >> >>
> >> >> You now state that even that CDROM failure was the user's fault!
> >> >
> >> >Yes, if you don't keep the CD in its box, if you let your CD get
> >scratches,
> >> >it's your fault that they don't work.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> You also say that the CD doesn't boot, that he has no floppy and
> >> that the existing OS won't start. Since all of these cannot be
> >> true, I don't actually believe you.
> >
> >See above.
> This does not make sense. He now has no means of having got slackware
> on the machine in the first place.
See above.
> >> Ayende - please try telling something truthful - if you don't,
> >> you will surely get caught out here.
> >
> >There are more things in heaven and hell that are dreamt of in your
> >philosopy, Huratcio - Shakspere (badly spelled, probably)
> >
> >Try to think about it.
> This does not make sense. He now has no means of having got slackware
> on the machine in the first place.
See above.
> Ayende - your lies are getting you into a major logical problem
>
> This is not a philosophical problem, it's a simple logical one.
You seem to think that for every question there is only one answer. That is
a philosophical problem on your side.
> If you're going to try to contrive a problem to report here,
> you really do need to do some more research on how linux
> works.
Let me explain to you what I was talking about.
A friend of mine has a problem installing windows.
He tried to solve it by formatting & reinstalling
It didn't work.
He called me, I fixed it without needing to reinstall.
It was an answer to someone who suggested that the solution to every problem
in windows is format and reinstall.
I gave the details about the case only as *background information*.
They are not important!
> Eric Raymond has an excellent 'beginners unix' page, you
> might also try reading the powerup2bashprompt howto (or
> whatever its called).
I'm waiting for a spare computer to install BSD on, I'll check the page
then.
> You could follow it up by reading about init, fsck, ext2 and
> the VFS in linux.
I already did this when my ext2 drives fried themselves.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:44:56 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vqtut$56ngn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> >> I've seen it take out the majority of the WINDOWS directory on 95.
> >> I installed 98 on my sister-in-laws machine, and still had many
> >> problems. A UPS fixed them; she hasn't called me lately.
> >
> >UPS?
> >Unitteruptable Power Supply?
> >Or is it some other abbrevation?
> >
> >
> Yes, uninterruptable power supply. I've not seen it stand for
> anything else in computing. I believe that there is a US
> shipping company which uses the same initials, but I don't think
> he meant that he'd attached a shipping company to his sister-in
> laws machine :)
It's United Parcel Service, btw.
What I don't understand is how a UPS can solve problem in the FS.
It's like changing a monitor to fix the sound card problems.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:48:48 +0200
"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <8vploe$5eu5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
wrote:
> >
> >
> > > >Actually, no, I couldn't.
> > > >If I'm on win9x, I would've to go to Dos(real mode) and do it.
> > > >Otherwise, I would get permission denied or some such error.
> > >
> > > You have to be root user in linux to achieve this, this means,
> > > at the _very_ least you've made a specific decision to do
> > > some admin task. Otherwise you'll get permission denied or
> > > some such error.
> >
> > A lot of users are running as root.
> > In nt/2000, you've to elevate your admin privileges in order to damage
the
> > registry, which is something an ignorant user simply is unlikely to do.
>
> on the contrary, those who run their own unix-like system do not run
> as root most of the time. they run as a regular user and become
> super-user when they need to. in unix, su is quick and easy.
So it is in windows.
runas for cli
Or shortcuts>"Run as another user" or shift right click for gui
*Very* useful.
> a lot of people run as admin in nt because of the lack of "su" type
> facility. logging off and logging back in as admin is a large
> annoyance; most people don't want the bother.
See above.
> there are always plenty of ignorant users to go around, my money is on
> more people (both absolute and proportional to user base) always
> running nt with admin privileges than linux people living as root.
NT usually being mainly a bussiness OS, I don't think so.
But the numbers are higher for both absolute and proportional because NT has
a *lot* more ignorant users than unix.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
