Linux-Advocacy Digest #613, Volume #30 Sat, 2 Dec 00 18:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. (Jim Richardson)
Re: Whistler review. (Jim Richardson)
Re: WINDOZE is awful (Adam Majer)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux is awful ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 04:21:45 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 2 Dec 2000 20:12:55
>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> [...]
>> > Now I've found it.
>> > Do you consider unix/linux to be a good OS?
>> > Do you consider Netscape 6 to be a good browser?
>> >
>> > Apperantly, it suffers from exactly the same problem.
>> > Netscape 6 require /usr/local/netscape to have read/write to *all* users.
>> > Since it stores *user spesifics* settings in there, instead of storing them
>> > in /home/<user>/netsacpe
>>
>> Not exactly the same case. It's just a suggested default
>> path (unwise suggestion, I agree). I didn't like it, and I
>> installed to /home/<user>/netscape. Didn't need to get an
>> updated version, just entered the right path in place of the
>> default. However I'm not sure it was necessary, because user
>> specific data are kept in a .mozilla folder on my user home
>> directory.
>
>T. Max & I have been arguing about the HKLM & HKCU in the registry.
Not exactly.
>I complained that too many programmers don't adher to MS recommendations
>about programming, and store user spesific data in the HKLM key in the
>registry.
>Doing this will work on 9x line, where the registry (as the file system) has
>no security whatsoever. But if you try to use such a program on NT machine,
>you get into a lot of problems, as the registry *does* have security and
>permissions, so nobody except the Admin & System users can write to HKLM.
You've brought to light another way the its Microsoft's fault. How is
it if the Win32 apps can use the registry the same way, and its
supposedly the same mechanism, it doesn't work the same between the two
platforms? Wouldn't it make more sense for NT to be the one to
differentiate between user settings and system settings, rather than
providing false support to the application developers?
[...]
>Somehow, T. Max reached the conclustion that programmers that ignore all
>those benefits are wise and that this was MS fault and a definitive proof
>that their OS is "crapware".
I didn't say they were wise. Hell, I'll readily admit its a stupid
mistake to make. But its a secondary mistake; the real bone-head idea
was to get locked into a monopoly. But one can't blame the victims of
the crime.
>He failed to bring a single reason, however frail that storing user spesific
>info in HKLM can be of any advantage to the program.
That's cause I don't give a shit why any program does things one way or
the other, so long as they work. Most apps probably just changed their
ini file settings to registry calls. Being bone-heads, they never even
stopped to think, apparently, that their software may be expected to
work on anything but a desktop PC. How were they to know that the
action of the monopoly in increasing prices and reducing competitive
value would make any desktop PC as likely as not to run a
workstation-level OS? So they cram all their stuff into the local
machine branch instead of the local user branch of the registry (thus
allowing all users of the system to share the settings, since they're
really all the same person). Doing it the way you want would mean that
accidentally "logging in" as a different user would make the software
non-functional. Its easier and slightly more intuitive than doing
things right.
You'd never hear me defend anyone who did this. But it ain't
necessarily their fault; if the OS weren't monopoly crapware, they
probably wouldn't have made this mistake, even if given the opportunity
(which no competitive OS gives them to begin with).
>I was trying to explain to him in terms he might be able to understand,
>although, after his insistance about file extentions comlexity, I'm
>beginning to doubt his knowledge of windows in particular and computers in
>general.
LOL.
>BTW, my testing of netscape 6 aren't unusual, so it seems.
>http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2000-11/lw-11-netscape6.html
Unusual? No. About what I'd expect from Netscape. It only looks good
in comparison to IE. Truth is, its pretty crappy software, from what
I've seen.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: "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, 3 Dec 2000 00:09:31 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:22:20
> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> [...]
> >> I think what you say is most true when the application is large,
> >> well-written, well-documented, and performs a popular function.
> >> In that case, then the project can only be funded by a company
> >> with sources of income from other projects. A good example is
> >> Star Office. Another is IE.
> >
> >(MS)IE is not open source.
>
> No, but it is funded with income from other projects; that was what
> Chris meant.
>
> >Actually, I'm thinking more about things like Apache & MySQL as examples
for
> >how it can work for the benefit of all.
> >The problem is how to make *profit* out of GPLed products.
>
> That is only a problem for people who want to make a profit out of GPL
> code. It does not affect those who develop GPL software or those who
> use GPL software. You seem to be presuming the software needs to be
> sold at a profit, or it can't be written or used, merely because that's
> the way you're used to doing it.
See below.
> >If anyone seen "Cabaret" (a decent movie about pre-nazi germany), you
might
> >remember the song "Money Makes the World Go Around"
>
> But it doesn't make computers run. Software does that, and software
> doesn't cost any money. It can be infinitely replicated. If you
> understand supply and demand, you understand that this makes its value
> effectively zero.
*Developing* software is what cost money.
Which you don't get in return if you GPL it.
> >Buying support for a product you don't know well is a Good Thing.
Especially
> >something as critical as an OS, such a Linux or FreeBSD.
> >That way you get people who get *paid* because they *know* how to fix the
> >system to *help* you.
> >The problem is that you can usually do *without* buying the support.
>
> How is that a problem?
The companies that invested money in making dist/programs/tools that you use
get no money in return.
> >Especially in the examples that I've said: Linux/FreeBSD
> >Plenty of help avialable for free, of course, it might not be as good as
you
> >would get if you paid for support, but it's usually enough.
>
> Strangely enough, what you get for free is often less valuable than what
> you pay money for. Go figure.
Ready to apply this to OS market?
> >Now, assuming that I make a good software, no matter what size it is, I
> >would hope that people can learn to use it without *requiring* my help.
> >Frankly, if I sell support and give the software away, I find myself in a
> >conflict of interests. On the one hand, one of my definations of good
> >software is that it's easy to use or learn.
>
> You have confused "support" with "newbie help", I'm afraid. That's not
> what IT professionals mean when they say "support".
Not quite.
If you've an advance question, you can post it in number of places, and
you'll get an answer for that.
I don't think that there are that many questions that you can get an answer
to on the web.
> >I know this seems like a flame, but I think that those are real concerns
> >when a programmer/company need to decide whatever to GPL their code or
not.
>
> <*chuckle*> Your point might be a tad more believable if it weren't
> entirely up to the programmer whether he GPLs his code.
That *is* what I'm talking about.
You think that companies don't have the same doubts about GPLing the code
their programmers where paid to make?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:02:10 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 06:51:54 GMT,
Chad C. Mulligan, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>> >
>> > Chad, there won't be any company left to visit after they take the road
>down
>> > linux loosers lane... I mean, I don't know anywhere they've dropped
>windows
>> > for linux and survived more than a fiscal year. In fact, I consider it
>an
>> > automatic lie when I hear "We replaced our windows boxes with linux" - I
>> > read: I snuck a copy of linux into a partition I resized with partition
>> > magic (nothing like it in unix world of course) and it's running my own
>> > private ftp site so I can leech files I download at work home.
>>
>> Strange. Auto suppliers around Detroit are using Linux more and more....
>> so that they can more directly work with the auto manufacturers themselves
>> without having to purchase $15,000 Sun workstations
>>
>
>Yeah? Which one the Germans? GM and Ford are both Microsoft shops.
I don't know about manufacturing, but Toyota is rolling out linux boxes to it's
over 1200 nationwide dealers in the US for a dealer network. They say they
chose Linux solutions over "others" for reliability and cost reasons. Claims it
will save them $3 million a year over a M$ solution. They are using Dell boxes
with Redhat installed.
see
http://eltoday.com/article.php3?ltsn=2000-10-24-002-01-AC-LF
oh, BTW, it's considered polite to snip the parts of the post you aren't
replying to, a 1 line reply to a 100 line post is bad form, as is quoting the
sig of the original poster in your reply, especially Aaron's...
Still, if you are stuck with monopolyware, maybe you have no choice. Sad if
that's the case.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:08:45 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 12:04:47 GMT,
Ketil Z Malde, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I know NO ONE in the entire world that would hire someone who is as
>> arrogant to go to an interview and TELL the hirer what they will or
>> will not take responsibility for, unilaterally.
>
>Perhaps you should get out more. I certainly have turned down job
>offers that involved technology that didn't interest me. I know
>people who tell their employer flat out that if they can't work with
>such and such, they'll look for a different job. And they can dictate
>their terms, because they're good, and because it's a very tight job
>market.
Ditto, I pick and choose assignments at the moment, if the economy goes south,
I may have fewer options, but for now, I have to say no a lot more than I say
yes. (It's also a good reason for long hair, If a potential customer remarks
about long hair on men etc, then I know it's not a company I want to work for.)
>
>> besides, you have to go on interviews...? My recruiter calls me to
>> tell me who wants me next.
>
>It is tempting to mention that this is something you share with
>certain women of negotiable affection, but I think I better refrain.
hehe, I am glad you refrained, I don't know if I would have had the strength.
>:-)
>
>-kzm
>--
>If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 16:41:42 -0600
From: Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WINDOZE is awful
> > Maybe you can help me a bit, I have Linux on hda3 with that the start
> > partition. Win95 on hda1 and Win2k on hdb1. But Win2k overwrote the
> > bootloar on MBR on hda. So now, to boot 95 I have to select MBR on hda
> > to start, that starts the win2k loader, and in that loader then boots
> > 95. How can I move the 2k loader to the hdb1? So I can boot different
> > OSes directly from lilo.
>
> Use LILO not the WIN2K loader. LILO to select Linux or Windows 2000. Then
> Windows 2000 to select Windows 95 or Windows 2000. It's not pleasant but it
> works.
How? I have Win95 installed on hda1. and then I installed win2k on hdb1
but it put its loader not on hdb but on hda MBR. With lilo, I can't
start win2k from hdb but I have to go to hda - that's where the stupid
windoze put itself. Oh yes, it overwrote the win95 loader so I have to
use 2k to boot 95 (lilo boots 2k)..
>
> > Also, any way to hide partitions in linux? [using lilo or related free
> > linux stuff]
>
> System Commander can hide partitions but it's not free.
>
> There is also a free partition tool that can hide partitions but is limited
> to 8Gbyte disks. I under the author is working on large disk support but
> hasn't got there yet. Now where did I put that URL...?
>
Oh well, maybe I write some code to lilo so that it will hide partition
(ie. change it's type at boot time so at least windoze will don't know
what to do with it :)
--
...... SPAMER NOTICE .......
ALL spamer shall will be tracked down
and spamed.
-- A. Majer's spam policy
Sec. 1 sub 5 para 19c
====== 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: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 22:49:02 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > >
> <trimmed>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This link provides something more than two setting, in order
> > > > to provide a certain amount of security for NT. Is the
> > > > fellow crazy or you're oversimplifying a bit?
> > > >
> > > > http://bunbun.ais.vt.edu/work/securing_nt.html
> > >
> > > He's downright paranoid. But he's addressing more than just port 139
> which
> > > is what we are discussing. Interestingly I just put up a firewall
> system
> > > using most of his techniques just today.
> >
> > Means that you're paranoid too? ;-)
> > (Sorry I couldn't resist!)
>
> <GRIN>
>
> In security the question isn't: Am I being paranoid? but Am I being
> paranoid enough?
>
LOL!
You're right!
> >
> > > That site pertains to NT 4, Win2K
> > > is easier and IPSEC does most of those steps by policy rather than
> registry
> > > hacking..
> > >
> > > HTH
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 22:53:12 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Kk2W5.4715$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> > There is a difference between support and black magic. No one but
> > you knows where you put those jumpers, and there is a perfectly
> > reasonable way to tell Linux about it that doesn't involve usenet.
>
> What jumpers? I never changed no jumpers.
Oh, so you left them alone. Same thing.
> > As I recall, the problem involved your card settings, not anything
> > to do with the drivers.
>
> Incorrect. I never changed any of my card settings. I edited isapnp.conf,
> because the automatic configuration couldn't seem to do it itself, and get
> it right.
They have to match - there is nothing magic about this - you can change
either, but you can't reliably detect in software what they are. If you
look through the source you will find 'likely' values are probed on
some devices but not the full range of possibilities so sometimes a
particular card will be automatically found, sometimes not. If this
is the case and you set the card to any of the expected values it
will be autodetected. It is generally easier to just tell the system
where to find it than to go check for this.
> For both the SB16 and AHA154x I made no changes to their BIOS or jumper
> settings. I edited configuration files, precisely what I thought Linux
> Mandrake was supposed to do for me.
Given that it is impossible, your expectations were obviously wrong and
you were told that long ago. Please take the complaints to the people
who designed the ISA bus. They can't change it now either. I don't
understand why you think this is a flaw in Linux or Mandrake.
> > Idiot users? All OS's have those. Businesses spend a fortune
> > for whole teams of people to keep some of them working at all.
> > Linux doesn't have that expensive support system - but it doesn't
> > need it that badly either.
>
> Any complex system will need support staff. Why do you think there are
UNIX
> system administrators?
That is exactly my point. Why do you think you should not have to deal with
those complexities, especially if you refuse to use PCI self-configuring
devices?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 22:53:30 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:W1aW5.36434$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You forgot a few of steps!
> > > > >
> > > > > Disconnect data and power cables from floppy.
> > > > > Disconnect data and power cables from CD-ROM
> > > > > Boot and install password on BIOS
> > > >
> > > > Anyone with a screwdirver can remove this & restore floppy & CD-ROM
> > > > It's a bit harder to conjour a modem or a network card with only a
> > > > screwdriver :)
> > > >
> > > > > Now the only way to install software is using DEBUG <grin>.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, I read that the NT/2000 Resource Kits are just loaded
> > > > > with hacking tools.
> > > >
> > > > Hacking tools?
> > >
> > > I mean, "system administration" tools... nltest, getmac, netdom,
> > > reg, regdmp, passprop, dumpel, pulist, soon, remote, shutdown, sc,
> > > kill, auditpol, ipsecpol, and whoami.
> > >
> > > This doesn't count the additions in Win 2000, such as runas, secedit,
> > > and dcpromo.
> > >
> > > And don't forget about tracert, nslookup, and netstat, and net.
> > >
> > > Microsoft is learning from UNIX, it seems. Lots of tools.
> > > In any case, I have a hell of a lot of reading to do to catch up.
> > >
> > > You probably want to buy the second edition of "Hacking Exposed."
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, now we have a 10 steps, we need two more in order to make it
> > > > official.
> > >
> > > Here's two more:
> > >
> > > Kill and bury the IT people who set up the machines.
> > > Kill the people who buried these people.
> >
> > <joke>
> >
> > An easier solution would be a small charge activated by the power switch.
> >
> > </joke>
> >
>
> Why use a small one?
To keep the cost affordable, presumably.
------------------------------
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, 3 Dec 2000 00:19:58 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 2 Dec 2000 16:55:06
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000
17:45:55
> >
> >> >The rule is to put machine settings in HKLM, and user setting, in
HKCU.
> >>
> >> In a desktop PC environment, such a distinction is an arbitrary one.
MS
> >> should have a better method of doing things, so that these kinds of
> >> problems don't come up. As Giuliano pointed out, an OS is supposed to
> >> be *designed*, not merely *piled up*.
> >
> >No, it isn't.
> >In a desktop PC using single user OS, this distinction is an arbitrary
one,
> >and indeed, in win9x, it doesn't matter.
> >Which is what I'm complaining about.
> >Because when you move an application writen mainly for win9x, as my
dailer
> >is, you encounter many troubles with it. Because now, in a multi-user OS,
> >this is no longer an arbitry distnction.
>
> The question you have to ask yourself is, would the same problem arise
> if it were ported from single-user WinDOS to multi-user Unix, rather
> than "multi-user" WinNT.
No registry, you would've to either bring the registry with you, in which
case you wouldn't implement security, as it would break your application.
Or you would have to change the application to use conf files rather than
the registry, therefor eliminating the problem to some degree.
Check netscape 6 for this.
> >As a rule, you should put your user spesifics settings in HKCU, and
machine
> >settings in HKLM.
> >I'm sure you can understand why.
> >That the application put user spesific settings in HKLM means that it was
> >badly designed, not that the OS is badly designed.
>
> Perhaps in your opinion. I blame the whole platform, which would
> include both badly designed OS and brain-dead applications. Both are a
> reflection of monopoly crapware, more than anything else. I know you
> think this makes me a fanatic, but I'm not the one who thinks W2K is the
> creme de la creme of operating systems.
You used this as an argument to show how "badly designed" windows was.
> >I tried to give some examples for this, but have failed to give a good
> >example.
> >Now I've found it.
> >Do you consider unix/linux to be a good OS?
>
> Yes.
>
> >Do you consider Netscape 6 to be a good browser?
>
> No.
>
> >Apperantly, it suffers from exactly the same problem.
>
> That would be Netscapes fault, then, since this isn't a problem endemic
> to Unix, as it is in Windows. Since Netscape was originally designed on
> Windows, this isn't very surprising.
Typical, blame windows.
Doesn't work in this case, Netscape 6 is a rebuild from scratch, you know.
It was designed to be multi-platfrom.
> >Netscape 6 require /usr/local/netscape to have read/write to *all* users.
> >Since it stores *user spesifics* settings in there, instead of storing
them
> >in /home/<user>/netsacpe
>
> You'll notice none of this is hidden inside of a binary hierarchical
> database with no public specification. Just files (text files, maybe,
> but this is Netscape, so I can't be sure) in a regular old directory.
> If any of this is even true, as you say.
Point?
> >By your own statements, then:
> >
> >> You keep missing the point, I think. So I'll make it plain. Yes, it
is
> >> the applications fault when this kind of bug happens. It is
Microsoft's
> >> fault for letting it happen; OSes are supposed to support apps, not
trip
> >> them up because they didn't follow "conventions".
> >
> >It's linux/unix fault for letting it happens.
>
> No, it isn't. Neither /usr nor /home nor how applications store their
> configurations has anything to do with "linux/unix". This is a Netscape
> problem. If it isn't an Ayende Rahien problem, and you just don't have
> it set up correctly.
>
> Doesn't that just piss you off? I insist that an application being
> brain-dead is the OSes fault on Windows, but the app's fault on Linux,
> *just* because Microsoft monopolizes. How unfair, huh?
Being aware to your own problems is a good thing.
Now all you've to do is to solve them.
> >9x applications that does this are violating rules of writing software to
> >windows.
>
> Which is why I say its Windows fault; why are there rules if they're so
> readily violated?
Lazy programming?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 00:24:18 +0200
"Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:BieW5.5326$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Then let's discuss the registry, another stinking pile of dung from
> >> MS. The same information repeated multiple times under indecipherable
> >> keys with little or no documentation. I'll take text format files any
> >> day.
>
> > The registry is hard to deciphere.
> > You aren't suppose to work with it directly, not unless you've a good
level
> > of understanding about it.
>
> Oh yeah, little things like software that puts run some crud at
> startup in the registry that you want to get rid of.
msconfig.exe
> > As for it to be undocumented, this is *false*.
> > There are *plenty* of resources to find out what each key or node or
value
> > does.
> > Take a trip to *any* good NT/2K focused site, and you'll find plenty of
> > tips on what the registry does, how it does it, and how to change it.
>
> But I shouldn't have to read anything or know anything to admin my
> computer, recognize the quote? At least the old *.ini files made some
> sense, the registry is just crap.
No, if you want to use the registry directly, you need to read.
If you use the tools that the OS/Application supply, you generaly don't need
to use the registry directly.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
