Linux-Advocacy Digest #447, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: C++ is very alive! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Sixth Sense (.)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? ("Mike")
Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats ! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: C++ is very alive!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 20:43:42 GMT
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 12:35:41 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>> However, I don't agree at all with the implication that "real
>> engineers use C++".
>
>No such implication was made. I said "like" C++. This could be any
>language who's langauge has the ability to represent a close resemblemce
>to the CPU.
There are CPUs that can execute Java bytecodes. There used to be
(maybe still are) CPUs that can execute Lisp. Forth is pretty close to
the machine and can do amazing things on small boxes, but I hope you
don't advocate it for development of large systems by a cast of
thousands.
But that's beside the point. Many developers, who deserve the title of
"software engineer" in that they have commensurate education and
background, work in areas where it is not particularly helpful to be
close to the CPU. Yes, we should all have some exposure to such
languages, but there's no reason why they should be the first choice of
working engineers.
During my EE training, I learned how to design an electric motor,
something that I have never once done as a working engineer. If I have
to control a motor with a computer, it is useful background, but
designing motors isn't something that I normally do. Similarly, a
working knowledge of computer architecture, registers, and algorithms
are good background to have. This doesn't mean that you need to use
C++ and assembler for every job or have information about Pentium
registers on the tip of your tongue at all times.
If for instance you are building browser applets, then that's downright
counterproductive, since you can't know what CPU your client has. Even
lots of regular business data processing isn't concerned so much with
ultimate efficiency as with correctness, portability, and development
time. People are costly, and often it makes economic sense to write a
slower program faster.
Engineers are in the business of making tradeoffs. The implementation
language is just one more factor to be considered during the design
process.
>If Java is is the right tool, perhaps, but it is rarely the correct
>tool. There are environment that are very much easier in which to code.
C++ not being one of them.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 15:48:25 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "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.
Only on systems which fail to distinguish between administration
and everyday use...and systems which make it overly burdensome
for the administrator to switch to the administrator account.
There is only one place where I have routinely logged into
a system as root, and stayed logged in as root, all dayk, every day.
And that's because I spent close to a year removing greasy
fingerprints from clueless windows people who were foolishly
trying to administrate a Sequent cluster the same way that they
would a Windows 3.1 machine.
UGH!
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 15:52:09 -0500
mark wrote:
>
> In article <8vqtuv$56ngn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"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.
>
> Which users are these? I'm not aware of any.
>
> >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.
>
> *Who* has to do this - this would be the people running as admin
> with maximum privileges all the time? Of course, if you go around
> re-partitioning, then I can assume you run with max privileges all
> the time.
>
> If your users are that ignorant, you don't give them root passwords.
>
> Nobody but myself has root passwords for my machines.
>
> You've removed the start of this thread, which was that rm -r
> in /etc would need root privileges. You go on later in this to
> say that /etc got fully and totally trashed in your experience, and
> then later corrected that to say that it really happened because
> you re-partitioned the machine.
>
> I'm glad you're not a linux advocate.
> >
> >
> >> >"*Please Note*: A server-class installation will remove any existing
> >> >partitions of any type on all existing hard drives of your system. All
> >> >drives will be erased of all information and existing operating systems,
> >> >regardless if they are Linux partitions or not."
> >>
> >> So if you know all this, why did you do it?
> >
> >Because I didn't know about it *at the time*
> >Gee, it's so hard to rememer that?
>
> I don't know because I wasn't there, so I didn't have to remember
> it. Was it hard to remember?
>
> Why were you installing a server setup on a multi-boot machine?
> This is not sensible.
What????
you've never seen a webserver that had to do double duty as
a LoseDOS95 box during the day?
As I recall, you usually implement this setup on a laptop, too,
so that you can run your webserver while on layover in the airport...
>
> >
> >> >Read what I said, it won't mount on other systems.
> >> >I tried the rescue disk method, and it failed.
> >> >The hardisk was find, I repartitioned it and it worked, no bad sectors.
> >>
> >> What do you mean by 'if failed'. Rescue disks can't fail, they
> >> just boot. That's what they do. If you can't boot the
> >> machine you've bigger problems than you're claiming already.
> >
> >rescue disk to boot.
> >fschk, on one occasion I stopped it after 5 hours (4GB HD, about 3/4 full).
> >The second & third time fschk itself failed to fix the system.
>
> How did a rescue disk fail? They can't fail! They just boot. They
> provide fresh copies of key filesystem management tools, often
> statically linked, so that you can cp,mv, rm, fsck etc., work in
> a ram based root filesystem etc etc.
>
> If you had to repartition the disk, then everything else was trashed
> anyway. Repartitioning seems to happen to you a lot, but not
> to anyone else - why might this be?
>
> Fsck does not take 5 hours on a 4Gb hd. That is a Windows speed
> process. No-one sane would stop an fsck in mid-stream, unless
> they don't know what they're doing, of course.
>
> >
> >I think that the file table itself was screw up.
> >
> >
> >> Why would you repartition? The only reason to do this is if
> >> the partition table has been damaged on the machine. If that
> >> has happened, it is nothing to do with the filesystem on
> >> any partition at all. It will not prevent a rescue disk
> >> from working. How did you know that the partition table had
> >> been damaged? This just doesn't add up.
> >
> >Because I then had to reinstall, and I wanted to make some changes in the
> >partition table for the new install.
>
> The only systems which need reinstalling are windows ones. You
> don't reinstall linux ones because there is no advantage in
> doing so. This is a windowsism.
>
> I think you need to learn a bit more about linux before making
> these posts - your windows experiences simply do not have
> analogues in the linux world.
> >
> >
> >> > >> To make a complete directory structure unusable - no, even
> >> >> >> Windows has never done that on me. Please provide some
> >> >> >> credible evidence of these ludicrous claims.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >FAT & NTFS are indeed more robust than ext2 in this regard.
> >> >>
> >> >> FAT certainly is not.
> >> >
> >> >FAT has yet to take all my files away from a system crush or power down.
> >>
> >> For ext2 to do this, you'd have to have information about every
> >> single file in a given area stored in the cache, which means you'd
> >> have to be editing eg., every /etc file, at the same time.
> >>
> >> I just do not believe this. No-one in the right mind would
> >> even consider doing something that risky.
> >
> >
> >> >> NTFS I don't know much about.
> >> >> Please provide evidence that this has happened.
> >> >> Perhaps you could list the files in /etc which
> >> >> were corrupted, that might help us here. (Although I
> >> >> strongly suspect you can't because you don't know).
> >> >
> >> >You weren't paying attention.
> >> >The whole FS vanished.
> >>
> >> Vanished???? This is isn't the X-files! Further back, you
> >> were claiming that the partition table was damaged. Now
> >> you're claiming that the filesystem vanished - what, every
> >> single bit on the HD just 'went away'?
> >
> >The partition table was fine, I just didn't like the way it was set up, and
> >changed it on reinstall.
>
> Then there was nothing wrong with /etc - you just re-partitioned the
> disk. I wonder how you're going to trim this post to try to hide
> the history to this one.
>
> Your claims go from sublime to ridiculous.
>
> >
> >> You hope.
> >
> >No, I know.
> >There is hardly anything that can curropt the registry.
> >If you know of something, please provide some info about it.
>
> I would suggest you partitioning the machine for reasons known
> only to yourself would be the largest risk to the registry in
> any machine anywhere near you.
>
> >
> >> >The almost sole reason that the registry become curropted is HD failure.
> >>
> >> HD failure is extremely rare compared to Win crashes in my experience.
> >> In fact, I've never had a HD fail (although I do know several folk
> >> who have).
> >
> >Lucky you.
> >On my machine (home one)
> >I'd three failures with WD 1.6 GB HD
> >One with a 10 GB (Seaquest, I think)
> >And one with a 15 GB from IBM
>
> What do you do to your machines which results in damaged partition
> tables, random re-partitions 'cos you feel like it, destroyed...
> this is silly.
>
> >
> >Those are usually bad sectures, btw.
> >In one case over 25% of the disk became unusable.
> >Linux machines usually use older hardware, more prune to mistakes.
> >
> >BTW, what Win are you talking about?
> >I've yet to have Win2k BSOD on me unless it's the screen saver.
>
> The screen saver BSODs?
>
> Linux machines use hardware which is as old as it is. They
> do not usually use newer or older hardware than any other OS
> installed at the same time. Another very silly statement.
>
> >
> >
> >> >And, if we are already talking about it, the registry is not a single
> >file,
> >> >but several.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Damage of 1 or 2 bytes to a monolithic binary file can cause
> >> >> the whole file to be unparsable; to achieve the same effect
> >> >> in /etc., you'd have to damage *every* file in there, near
> >> >> the start of the file *and* each package would have to have
> >> >> non-sensible defaults compiled in (which they don't).
> >> >
> >> >And as I've said, you are very unlikely to damage the registry short of
> >> >damaging the HD itself.
> >>
> >> The registry is as likely to be damaged as any other file.
> >
> >How? Nothing can write to the registry save the OS.
> >And the OS hadnle the registry in a very strict manner, so you can't corrupt
> >it.
> >
>
> Well, apparently you like to re-partition on a whim.
>
> The registry can be corrupted, the OS is not free of bugs (in
> fact its renowned for not being so).
>
> The registry is as likely to be damaged as any other file.
>
> Mark
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
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: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:53:00 +1300
> What I think would be really amusing is to prove where the operating system sends
> banking information to Microsoft. Netmeeting sends your conversation through
> Microsoft servers only if you configure it to. Just like AIM and ICQ et. al. If
> you use your own server then, of course, it does not. The where an who you are
> data extends to geographic data for best routing and your handle and fullname if
> you provided it. Again much like the IMs. I don't hear anything about this
> behavior in the IMs yet when it's MS the standards and reactions are much
> different.
You're damn right the reactions are different. When an application sends
data sneakily to the net, I can stop using that app. When the OS does it
(or even possibly does it... I certainly have no proof) what are we meant
to do?
Of course I can stop using the OS, but it's not quite that easy when you
have to keep your job...
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 15:54:29 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "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.
>
> > >"*Please Note*: A server-class installation will remove any existing
> > >partitions of any type on all existing hard drives of your system. All
> > >drives will be erased of all information and existing operating systems,
> > >regardless if they are Linux partitions or not."
> >
> > So if you know all this, why did you do it?
>
> Because I didn't know about it *at the time*
> Gee, it's so hard to rememer that?
>
> > >Read what I said, it won't mount on other systems.
> > >I tried the rescue disk method, and it failed.
> > >The hardisk was find, I repartitioned it and it worked, no bad sectors.
> >
> > What do you mean by 'if failed'. Rescue disks can't fail, they
> > just boot. That's what they do. If you can't boot the
> > machine you've bigger problems than you're claiming already.
>
> rescue disk to boot.
> fschk, on one occasion I stopped it after 5 hours (4GB HD, about 3/4 full).
> The second & third time fschk itself failed to fix the system.
>
> I think that the file table itself was screw up.
>
> > Why would you repartition? The only reason to do this is if
> > the partition table has been damaged on the machine. If that
> > has happened, it is nothing to do with the filesystem on
> > any partition at all. It will not prevent a rescue disk
> > from working. How did you know that the partition table had
> > been damaged? This just doesn't add up.
>
> Because I then had to reinstall, and I wanted to make some changes in the
> partition table for the new install.
>
> > > >> To make a complete directory structure unusable - no, even
> > >> >> Windows has never done that on me. Please provide some
> > >> >> credible evidence of these ludicrous claims.
> > >> >
> > >> >FAT & NTFS are indeed more robust than ext2 in this regard.
> > >>
> > >> FAT certainly is not.
> > >
> > >FAT has yet to take all my files away from a system crush or power down.
> >
> > For ext2 to do this, you'd have to have information about every
> > single file in a given area stored in the cache, which means you'd
> > have to be editing eg., every /etc file, at the same time.
> >
> > I just do not believe this. No-one in the right mind would
> > even consider doing something that risky.
>
> > >> NTFS I don't know much about.
> > >> Please provide evidence that this has happened.
> > >> Perhaps you could list the files in /etc which
> > >> were corrupted, that might help us here. (Although I
> > >> strongly suspect you can't because you don't know).
> > >
> > >You weren't paying attention.
> > >The whole FS vanished.
> >
> > Vanished???? This is isn't the X-files! Further back, you
> > were claiming that the partition table was damaged. Now
> > you're claiming that the filesystem vanished - what, every
> > single bit on the HD just 'went away'?
>
> The partition table was fine, I just didn't like the way it was set up, and
> changed it on reinstall.
>
> > You hope.
>
> No, I know.
> There is hardly anything that can curropt the registry.
> If you know of something, please provide some info about it.
>
> > >The almost sole reason that the registry become curropted is HD failure.
> >
> > HD failure is extremely rare compared to Win crashes in my experience.
> > In fact, I've never had a HD fail (although I do know several folk
> > who have).
>
> Lucky you.
> On my machine (home one)
> I'd three failures with WD 1.6 GB HD
> One with a 10 GB (Seaquest, I think)
> And one with a 15 GB from IBM
>
> Those are usually bad sectures, btw.
> In one case over 25% of the disk became unusable.
> Linux machines usually use older hardware, more prune to mistakes.
>
> BTW, what Win are you talking about?
> I've yet to have Win2k BSOD on me unless it's the screen saver.
>
> > >And, if we are already talking about it, the registry is not a single
> file,
> > >but several.
> > >
> > >
> > >> Damage of 1 or 2 bytes to a monolithic binary file can cause
> > >> the whole file to be unparsable; to achieve the same effect
> > >> in /etc., you'd have to damage *every* file in there, near
> > >> the start of the file *and* each package would have to have
> > >> non-sensible defaults compiled in (which they don't).
> > >
> > >And as I've said, you are very unlikely to damage the registry short of
> > >damaging the HD itself.
> >
> > The registry is as likely to be damaged as any other file.
>
> How? Nothing can write to the registry save the OS.
> And the OS hadnle the registry in a very strict manner, so you can't corrupt
> it.
Since you are soooooooo fucking into re-partitioning every
goddamned system you get your hands on....may I suggest
that you spend $50 and get yourself a copy of PartitionMagic..
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
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: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 20:56:26 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 04:17:42 GMT, Mike wrote:
> >
> Word processors can read HTML.
>
> >Netscape still have a difficult time printing it correctly. It's not good
at
> >tables, can't handle arbitrary embedded graphics, has no inherent
equation
> >capabilities, or much of an ability to handle complex page formatting,
not to
> >mention references, footnotes, page numbers, and on and on. That's not a
bad
> >thing: HTML is great for browsers. But trying to substitute HTML for a
word
> >processor isn't viable unless you don't do much.
>
> If you need footnotes, cross references, and all that, word processors are
> going to start choking too, and you really need some publishing software.
>
> >LaTex document are part of the language. But something as simple as an
> >embedded equation in RTF is saved in a long sequence of meaningless
> >characters.
>
> I don't see how that's a problem. BTW, word is useless for editing
equations.
> If you really need to do this, you need DTP software.
>
> >that he hates. It's hard to imagine that Donn could recreate the RTF
> >information for a simple equation using a text editor, and even harder to
>
> I wasn't saying he should. My point is that the fact that MS Word is
> windows-only is a stupid reason to use windows.
I don't have any idea what you're trying to say. Donn said LaTex. I said not
viable. You said HTML or RTF. I said HTML isn't viable, and RTF isn't like
LaTex: it's not a practical language to write a document in. Things like
equations, tables, footnotes, and other stuff were examples to show the
impracticality of HTML and RTF.
Now you say that HTML can be read by word processors, and apply blanket
statements about word processors not being able to do the things I
mentioned. I'm not sure where this fits in, or what it has to do with the
discussion.
All I can say is to reiterate that HTML is not a viable language for word
processing, RTF is not a viable replacement for LaTex, and in industry
(let's not forget that's where Donn was trying to end up) LaTex is not a
viable replacement for a word processor.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats !
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 20:59:58 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Because Gary, Windows (Microsoft) shouldn't have to worry about
> supporting backward compatability with every piece of software that is
> out there.
You mean they are perfectly happy to screw both their software competitors
and their old customer base - and you want to continue dealing with
them? Do you have a choice in the matter?
Les Mikeselll
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 20:55:55 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>mark wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
>I once heard about a non-computer-literate army officer who complained
>that his office's *unlimited* power supply only lasted for 20 minutes.
>
>I guess he thought it was a perpetual motion machine.
>
20 mins must have been a major disappointment :)
Mark
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
