Linux-Advocacy Digest #727, Volume #30 Fri, 8 Dec 00 02:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (B. P. Uecker)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (kiwiunixman)
more stuff for .sig files (Timothy Sutter)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Several items (Re: Nothing to say but, WOW) ("mmnnoo")
Re: Segmentation fault (core dumped) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux is awful ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: B. P. Uecker <[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: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 23:54:45 -0600
Tom Wilson wrote in <msGX5.2276$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>For that matter, with all that funding and development time behind it, NT
>got its' ass kicked by a Unix clone built by a loosely coordinated band of
>hackers and some guy in Finland. Now that is SAD!
Linux is a replacement for Netware in your dreams. The problem with
Linux (aside from the fact that open source development is a black
hole) is that it tries to be everything to everyone and masters
nothing. It is basically acceptable as a server platform but beyond
its circle of devotees (and dolts who who can do no better than parrot
slashdot) it has no mindshare. Linux on the desktop will never happen
and on the server end it is mainly a toy for easily distracted geeks
who will eventually find another bandwagon to hop on. I give it
another couple of years before it joins OS/2 in the trash heap. And
I'm a generous man.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 05:55:20 GMT
"tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom,
>
> Netware sucked hard all the way up to 4.11 sp8 after that I can't tell
> you because we were forced to move to NT because of netwares lack of
> reliability. We had the best CNE's that Novell could assign to the case
> (actually Novells engineers worked directly on the problem) they said wait
> till the next sp. Yes for simple file serving without a complex NDS
schema
> it would probably work fine but use anything dynamic in nature and NDS
falls
> on its face!
We recommended Netware ONLY for simple file and printer sharing. Anything,
back then, that required more...we sent the Unix guy in. We would have used
NT, but back then, it just wasn't good enough. Netware was far more robust
serving files and printers. You have to remember, this was some time ago.
> As far as performance nt4 sp6a with multiple cpu's kicks netwares ass in
our
> environment!
Again, I point out, this was some time ago. If I were still messing with
networks, though, I'm afraid I'd be pushing UNIX instead.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 05:56:06 GMT
<snip>
The big question is whether it (swang) pays for his software, or does it
steal it? I pay for all my software, and as a result, I reap the
rewards with better products down the track. Even though Microsoft's
history of taking money and giving back to the user a bigger, more buggy
OS/application, I have (in the past) bought the legal version of it, now
I use Linux, I am still willing to purchase the "official CD-ROM", and
legal programs, as not only I get support, but I help these business's
to survive by purchasing off them legal copies of software (like
civilisation: call to power, that I bought last week).
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: Timothy Sutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux,alt.timothy.sutter,alt.non.sequitur,alt.discordia,alt.slack,alt.satanism,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk
Subject: more stuff for .sig files
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 01:03:56 -0500
. ,\/~~~\_ _/~~~~\
| ---, `\_ ___,-------~~\__ /~' ,,'' |
| `~`, ',,\`-~~--_____ --- - /, ,--/ '/'
`\_|\ _\` ______,---~~~\ ,_ '\_/' /'
\,_| , '~,/'~ /~\ ,_ `\_\ \_ \_\'
,/ /' ,/' _,-'~~ `\ ~~\_ ,_ `\ `\
/@@ _/ /' ./',- \ `@,
@@ ' | ___/ /' / \ \ '\__ _`~|, `, @@
/@@ / | | ',___ | | ` | ,,---, | | `@@,
@@@ \ | | \ \O_`\ | / / O_/' | \ \ @@@
@@@ | | `| ' ~ / , ~ / | @@@
`@@ | \ `\ ` | | | _/' /' | @@'
@@ | ~\ /--'~ | , | \__ | | |@@
@@, \ | ,,| | ,,| | `\ /',@@
`@@, ~\ \ ' | / / `' ' / ,@@
@@@, \ ~~\ `\/~---'~/' _ /'~~~~~~~~--,_
`@@@_,---::::::= `-,| ,~ _=:::::'''''' `
,/~~_---'_,-___ _-__ ' -~~~\_```---
~` ~~_/'// _,--~\_/ '~--, |\_
/' /'| `@@@@@,,,,,@@@@ | \
` `@@@@@@'
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:02:45 GMT
Swangoremovemee wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 15:25:09 +1300, kiwiunixman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Any what other versions/distro's have you used?
>>
>> kiwiunixman>
>
>
> None.
> Why should I have to?
> Isn't Linux just the kernal?
>
> Swango
> "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
you quoted in the post:
"FWIW it is the latest version RH 7.x and it sucks just as bad as every
other version of Linux I have used"
and I replied:
"Any what other versions/distro's have you used?"
The keyword(s) are "versions/distro's", please address the question.
Since you originally stated:
"FWIW it is the latest version RH 7.x and it sucks just as bad as every
other version of Linux I have used"
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:09:08 GMT
On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:11:47 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > And only a true idiot would continue to actually use it after seeing
>> > > what a lame piece of junk Linux is.'
>> >
>> > That must be why Toyota is using RedHat 6.2 as the IT base
>> > for their dealership network.
>>
>> No, they're using Linux 6.2 as their base because they let their IS/IT staff
>> lead the company around by the balls and listen to the rhetoric spouted
>> almost robotically by you Linux zealots; "It's more stable, it's free, its
>> this, it's that, it'll never crash, bla bla bla bla bla".
>
>Your saying that Toyota, USA's CIO is an inexperienced idiot....
>
As long as we are looking at this issue, consider that
HOME DEPOT is going full linux with 90,000 installs.
>>
>> Gotta love these brand spanking new college grads who don't know dick about
>> how computing really is outside a computer lab.
>
>Yeah... a man with 4 decades in the computer industry is definitely
>someone lacking in experience outside the computer lab.
>
>Here's a clue, Kyle...
>
>Unix barely edges out Linux in reliability, but the vendor support
>contracts tend to be pretty expensive.
>
>Unix and Linux both run circles around Windows (any type) in
>reliability, usability, replicability, and disaster recoverty.
>And there is NO good Windows support available AT ANY PRICE.
>
This is SOOO true. And with the 2.4 kernel running it's
even faster. Funny thing about Linux VS Windows.
Windows NT was faster than Windows 2000. 95 was faster than 98.
Yet Linux 2.4 is faster than 2.2 was.
Linux is getting faster and Windows is getting SLOWER.
Linux is still downloadable off the internet for absolutely
NO COST. Windows next release the full install will be priced
at $550 a copy. Give them another 4 years and the cost of a full
install of Windows will exceed $1000 easily. Yet Linux will
still be free.
>
>Given all of that...Linux is not merely the obvious answer for
>Toyota...any other "solution" would be unnecessarily expensive
>(and if MS Lose*, utterly FOOLISH).
>
>
It has been my experience that most die hard windows users
are little more than retarted idiots.
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>DNRC Minister of all I survey
By 2005 most companies world wide will be runnning
Linux as their centerpeice OS. And Microsoft will
be beginning to leave the OS business due to lack
of business.
Don't be a total moron like the Wintrolls on COLA.
Get Linux and develop a brain today!
Thanks
Charlie
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:09:20 GMT
<snip>
> Because Linux lovers feel no shame in outright exclaiming from the rooftops
> that the end to Microsoft domination is here, in penguin form. Wake me when
> I can reliably update my Kernel, and OS level components without buying a
> new distro, recompiling something, or editing text files till the cows come
> home.
You can't compile a kernel or update you distro..fuck you must be a real
dumb cunt, I was compiling apps and kernels at the age of 14 for christ
sake!
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:12:40 GMT
Once Varitas has finished developing the highly commended journalling
file system (VeritasFS, used by Solaris), Linux will really give the
commercial Unix world so heat.
kiwiunixman
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>>> And only a true idiot would continue to actually use it after seeing
>>>> what a lame piece of junk Linux is.'
>>>
>>> That must be why Toyota is using RedHat 6.2 as the IT base
>>> for their dealership network.
>>
>> No, they're using Linux 6.2 as their base because they let their IS/IT staff
>> lead the company around by the balls and listen to the rhetoric spouted
>> almost robotically by you Linux zealots; "It's more stable, it's free, its
>> this, it's that, it'll never crash, bla bla bla bla bla".
>
>
> Your saying that Toyota, USA's CIO is an inexperienced idiot....
>
>
>> Gotta love these brand spanking new college grads who don't know dick about
>> how computing really is outside a computer lab.
>
>
> Yeah... a man with 4 decades in the computer industry is definitely
> someone lacking in experience outside the computer lab.
>
> Here's a clue, Kyle...
>
> Unix barely edges out Linux in reliability, but the vendor support
> contracts tend to be pretty expensive.
>
> Unix and Linux both run circles around Windows (any type) in
> reliability, usability, replicability, and disaster recoverty.
> And there is NO good Windows support available AT ANY PRICE.
>
>
> Given all of that...Linux is not merely the obvious answer for
> Toyota...any other "solution" would be unnecessarily expensive
> (and if MS Lose*, utterly FOOLISH).
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Several items (Re: Nothing to say but, WOW)
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:13:10 GMT
"Stephen King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> sfcybear wrote:
> >
> > "...server hosting more than 1500 virtual Linux servers simultaneously."
> >
> > http://eltoday.com/article.php3?ltsn=2000-12-07-001-01-PS
>
> Puny.
>
> From ZDNet today:
>
> IBM scored a Linux coup Wednesday as Telia, Scandinavia's largest
> telecommunications and Internet service provider, announced it was
> replacing its 70 Sun Microsystems Inc. Web hosting servers with a single
> IBM mainframe S/390 G6 enterprise server...
<snip>
You realize you both are talking about the exact same story?
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 01:18:08 -0500
news wrote:
>
> While working on a project ( which I thought to be quite small ) I have
> received this message:
> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
You have a pointer error.....trying to address an illegal memory location.
> Everything compiled okay. This happened as a result of a.out
> I was wondering if someone could point out to me what I should be looking
> for that might cause such a message.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Joarder
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
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: "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: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:27:03 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:hYGX5.16041$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>> What previous knowledge tells you the function of "d$"?
>
> >>> It would be a special case only if it is the first vi command
> >>> you see.
>
> >> Well, it's been a while, but I suspect that the first vi commands
> >> I saw were i, Esc, and ZZ. That made d$ still a special case.
>
> > It is too bad you didn't have a reference that shows the pattern
> > from the beginning. You should learn u and U first so you don't
> > worry about mistakes, then the pattern, then the commands
> > and things you can use to describe the motions.
>
> Actually, the first thing to learn is how to exit the editor,
> hence the ZZ. The next thing to learn is how to put text into
> the buffer, hence the i command. Without that, there are no
> mistakes to fix with u. And of course, once in insert mode,
> you need to learn how to exit that mode, hence the Esc.
No, you should understand the pattern so you know how to
represent your intentions, assuming you are past kindergarten
and already know the shapes of the letters. You don't want
to think 'special case, special character' for every keystroke.
> > It is not a matter of remembering all possible combinations as
> > special cases.
>
> It was a new case, regardless.
Not for everyone. There was a long history of command driven editors
before vi: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/qed.html
has some interesting trivia.
> >> Assuming that you remember that you're in command mode.
>
> > Hit escape if you aren't sure. Now you are.
>
> So much for efficiency.
How often do you forget?
> >> $ still can mean either end of line or end of file. Only the
> >> "end" portion is consistent.
>
> > It is consistent with being the end of the type of motion command
> > you gave.
>
> Do you consider d to be a "motion command"?
It is a type of command that involves a motion/range.
3dw = delete 3 words.
d/foo<enter> = delete until the pattern "foo"
d$ = delete to end of line
4dj = delete current and 4 lines going down
4dk = delete current and 4 lines going up
Note how you don't have to learn this separately from:
w = moves the cursor a word
/patten = moves the cursor to pattern
j = moves the cursor down a line
k = moves the cursor up a line
Get the idea?
> > Almost the only inconsistent thing is that the original vi did not
> > accept a count prefix for 'r'.
>
> How old is the "original" vi? Presumably it has evolved over the
> years.
It was written by Bill Joy in 1974 and no, 'real' vi has not changed. The
original paper: http://docs.freebsd.org/44doc/usd/12.vi/paper.html
still describes it exactly. There are some newer imitations that have
added new and different features (some very different), and there
are emacs modes that emulate it with varying degrees of faithfulness.
The variations are annoying if they won't remove the carriage returns
from MSDOS style text with the intuitive command
:%s/^V^M// (where ^char is control-char).
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 00:35:35 -0600
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:q6_X5.6219$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The 3 system heaps in 9x are kept in non-pageable memory. Their maximum
> > size is 64K. What you're suggesting is just not possible. If the heaps
> > were huge and pageable, then larger allocations and management would be
an
> > issue, but 64K, no matter how fragmented is virtualy instantaneous.
>
> That's what I've always been told. It doesn't explain away the situation
> described above, though. And, yes, the only memory leaks in my code were
> dropped GDI handles. Win9x does a better job than Win16, for certain, but
it
> isn't perfect. Nowhere close.
In over 10 years of programming Windows, I've never seen this slowdown from
drained resources. If your app is slowing down, there is some other reason.
> > That's simply not true. There are gotcha's to using MFC that, if you're
> > aware of them, don't cause any problems. For instance, if a resource
> (such
> > as a bitmap or pen) is selected into a DC when the MFC wrapper goes out
of
> > scope, it won't delete the resource and you'll have a leak. MFC does
have
> a
> > few leaks, but they are one-time leaks and fairly small, thus they do
not
> > grow and are taken care of by the OS when it exits.
>
> I wish it weren't true. It would have made things so much easier. The
second
> I started encapsulating Win32 myself, memory leaks mysteriously vanished.
> There is something WRONG with those classes. My experience isn't a unique
> one, either.
You can look at the source code yourself for those wrappers. It's very
simple. There isn't anything that can go wrong, other than leaving an
object selected in a DC and allowing it to go out of scope. I would bet
your code was virtually identical (perhaps barring some excessive asserts)
to the MFC code. I think this is simply a matter of you changed the way you
programmed and thus did not fall susceptible to those problems anymore.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:27:28 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 06 Dec 2000
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > Of course, for greater realism, you can write it as a service and install
>> > it as an administrator. You can intercept the the Ctrl-Alt-Del sequence
>> > using the Win32 API.
>>
>> You can't intercetp C-A-D in a user mode program. And again, installing it
>> as a service requires administrator privs.
>
>Well, I believed my answer was within the bounds of your
>original assertion. Those bounds, as I can see by reading
>the thread, are contracting.
LOL. Indeed; this is classic Erik.
--
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: 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: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:27:20 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 6 Dec 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 4 Dec 2000
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >That is what mlw originally specified.
>> >>
>> >> Only because that's the only possible way to do it in Windows.
>> >
>> >Not true.
>>
>> A protestation does not an argument make.
>
>I already stated specifically how you disable TCP/IP in NT4 without
>rebooting, I don't have to say it again.
So I take it you are purposely ignoring the issue? Yes, you can disable
TCP/IP without rebooting, and then enable it again without rebooting.
Unfortunately, you cannot disable it and then reboot, and then enable it
without rebooting. Get it?
[...]
>> You don't have to reboot to enable TCP/IP, even though it wasn't enabled
>> when you booted on any interface? Somehow, I don't believe you, but you
>> might actually be right. Try one more time. _No_ TCP/IP at all
>> installed, and then you add the TCP/IP protocol and assign an address to
>> an existing adapter. It works, without rebooting?
>
>Read what I wrote again. That is not what I said, nor was it what you
>claimed.
>
>Here it is again, in case you forgot:
I didn't forget. Quite squirming, you pedantic goofball. The fact is
that this shows that what you wrote is pointless quibbling.
[...]
>We are talking about disabling TCP/IP on NT4 without removing it and without
>rebooting, both which you claim cannot be done.
Whatever.
>I just explained
>specfically how it is done, and how to prove it to yourself that it does in
>fact work.
I know *that* works. Who cares? All you've "proven" is that you can't
rely on Windows giving you correct information about whether a reboot is
necessary, and that it is possible to put the system into an
indeterminate state.
[...]
>> I think you missed what I wrote. Try to read it twice if you're
>> confused. Reboot *first*, with TCP/IP removed. And *then* add TCP/IP,
>> and assign an address to a card. See if it works.
>
>That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about disabling a
>running TCP/IP stack in NT4 without remove it or rebooting.
Of course its "not what we're talking about here", because then you'd
have to talk about it, and you apparently wish to avoid doing that. YOU
are the only one who brought up disabling/enabling without ever
rebooting at all. And you still don't seem to understand how grievous a
failure this is in Windows, since you can't tell if IP will work when
re-enabled unless you know if its been rebooted since last time it was
disabled, and there is no way to ascertain this information from the
system, since this is an undocumented state.
>> >You don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>> No, I don't know precisely what you're talking about, because you don't.
>> Once you can clearly elucidate what you've done, which isn't simply not
>> having to reboot to turn it back on, then we'll both know what you're
>> talking about when you tell me it works.
>
>I already stated precisely what i'm talking about. You snipped context and
>then conveniently "forgot" it.
<*chuckle*>
>> It just might; the DLLs are
>> already there, supposedly they may be loaded, even though there is no
>> TCP/IP 'installed', so that when you re-install it, it really only
>> enables what's already there, and it might very well work without
>> rebooting. But that would have to make sense, and Windows doesn't
>> always, or very nearly ever, make sense.
>
>One more time. Here is the sequence of events:
Yet again; you're being pedantic, and nobody cares that this peculiar
'requirement' to reboot is spurious, when removing IP. The fact is, you
*do* have to reboot to remove IP; removing it without rebooting simply
disables it without removing it.
>mlw says: You can't remove TCP/IP in NT without rebooting.
>
>I say: You can't do that in Linux either. You have to reboot Windows NT to
>remove TCP/IP.
>
>you say: Because that's the only way to disable TCP/IP in NT.
>
>I say: Yes you can just disable it if you like, and explain how.
Not if you like; if you know about this bug and are stupid enough to try
to 'take advantage' of it. Its one thing to characterize an
indeterminate state; its another to try to rely on that characterization
to pretend that it is a known state.
>you say: you're wrong, you have to reboot or you can't reenable it and will
>get weird errors.
>
>I say: That's not true, you can disable it and reenable it all without
>rebooting and that I tested, inviting you to test it as well.
No, I'm not talking about whether it passes a test; I'm talking about
whether it works in real life.
>you then come back and try to claim that this has something to do with
>installing TCP/IP. You're off your rocker.
<*chuckle*> Keep squirming.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
