Linux-Advocacy Digest #876, Volume #30 Thu, 14 Dec 00 13:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Whistler review. (Bryant Brandon)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Craig Kelley)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Craig Kelley)
Re: Whistler review. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Another UNIX sight is doun! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Predicting the Future (Craig Kelley)
Re: Whistler review. (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Predicting the Future (Craig Kelley)
Voting (was: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks) (Craig Kelley)
Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux! (Craig Kelley)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Bruce Ediger)
Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Another UNIX sight is doun! ("BcB")
Re: Voting (was: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks) (Ian Davey)
Re: Whistler review. (Monkeyboy)
WSJ clueless about VA_Linux_Systems. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:11:33 -0800
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Andres Soolo wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> No, Let's just say that Microsoft has no VISION!
> >> They stole Windows from apple.
> > Actually Apple stole it from Xerox.
> One bad doesn't make another one good.
>
> >> They are stealing the operating system very slowly
> >> from UNIX.
> > Now using open standards is stealing the operating system.
> It wouldn't if they'd done it the proper way, calling the OS an Unix.
>
Unix is a trade marked term. OS-X is not Unix. Linux (for hte most part) is not
Unix. NT is not Unix. All three of these can be made into a Unix system by adding in
missing parts. Linux, NT and MacOS X can be made 100% posix certified and all three
can run X. At that point there are only a few other things that need be added for a
system to be "Unix". However the inclusion of a few open standards will not make an
OS "Unix" anymore then adding a PDF layer to Linux would make it MacOS X.
====== 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: Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:33:53 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie
Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@But if you apply the same thing to Microsoft, what
@could we truely say they brought to humanity?
The "eggplant" theme. (which sucks)
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://people.unt.edu/~bdb0015
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Remove your head from your ass to reply.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: 14 Dec 2000 09:37:56 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >Per mile driven, Electric cars take MORE energy to run, due to
> >transmission losses between the power company and the car, and
> >in charging up the batteries.
>
> Who said you need a power company to charge the batteries? Use a solar panel
> and you get open source energy right from the sun :-) Why rely on big
> companies to provide your energy? That's like relying on Microsoft to supply
> your operating systems.
You still have the huge problem of battery acid waste, coupled with
the problems associated with solar panels.
I'd love to have a clean solution, but let's make sure it really is
clean and that it works.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:42:01 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> That's the technical definition of Liberal.
>
> Unfortunately today, it means, "One who seeks to divide", or "One who
> wishes to make government so large that everyone becomes dependent upon it".
>
> A Clintonized liberal follows the following playbook:
> - feed stories of a divide between two groups of people (black/white, young/old,
> etc)
> to your controlled media
> - Get the American people to believe there's a "serious problem" with this
> divide,
> in essence creating a problem that doesn't exist.
> - Step in like a knight in shining armor to present copious amounts of
> government
> programs to solve the dispute.
> - Of course, with all these new programs, we'll HAVE to raise taxes, but that's
> ok,
> because at least we all get along now.
>
> -Chad
You're a paranoiac.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: 14 Dec 2000 09:45:48 -0700
Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > Typical government-run project. A commercial entity would have dredged
> > the lakes on a continual basiis.
>
> A commercial entity would not have built them in the first place. The
> rivers in nature did not carry that much silt. But the lake covers lots
> of land that errodes fast under the constant change in lake level. It is
> not economically possible to dredge the lakes fast enough to keep them
> clean. besides, where do you put all the stuff dredged up?
> Hydroelectric power *kills* land even faster than strip mining coal.
Kills /some/ types of land. None of the reservoirs in our area
(Idaho) have these problems, and many are as old as TVA projects.
To assert that the specific case applies to all general cases is a
classic green tactic. One Chernobyl justifies a full ban on nuclear
power.
Interestingly, the new Chinese dam on the yellow river is going to be
worthless in about 20 years because of all the silt. The project is
behind, and they may only get 10 years of power out of the
monstrosity. Any sane person would agree that these kind of projects
need to be stopped, just as other dams make good sense.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: 14 Dec 2000 09:53:38 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > >>> I still have to run into an application that will crush Win2K.
> >
> > >> Me too - I don't use Win2k. NT 4 is, however, quite vulnerable.
> >
> > > To what?
> >
> > To be crashed by applications, of course.
>
> Not really.
>
> > E.g. if I print web pages, it will bluescreen every once in a while.
>
> This means you have a poorly written printer driver. Contact the
> manufacturer.
>
> I have printed thousands of pages from the web and everywhere else
> and have never had a bluescreen from it. However, I had a client that
> had a cheap-o printer and had this problem. The solution was getting
> the latest drivers.
A printer driver can crash a Windows box?
Under UNIX, print jobs aren't even run by root -- each user owns their
own job and an lpd user/group handles all user-agnostic actions.
A major bug in lpd (lprng, cups, etc.) would, at most, crash the
printing system.
> > Of course, at the moment, I can't get it to connect to any of our
> > printers
>
> So you admit that you're incompetent then? What room, then, do you
> have to criticize anything?
You have to admit that this is broken.
A root-access video driver? Yes, that is a necessary evil.
A root-access printer "driver"? No thanks.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Another UNIX sight is doun!
Date: 14 Dec 2000 16:57:15 GMT
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:07:27 -0500, mlw wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>Just goes to show the quality of people that promote Windows.
If "quality of people who promote" was a measure of the quality of
the OS, you wouldn't catch me using Linux either. (See Charlie, 'bear,
Templeton, ... )
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: al.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Predicting the Future
Date: 14 Dec 2000 09:57:43 -0700
Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:22:23 GMT, "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Considering we already have at least four distributions who have reached
> >the "Version 7.0" range (Mandrake 7.2, Red Hat 7.0, Suse 7.0, Slackware
> >7.1), I predict that in about four to five years, we'll see the following
> >headlines:
> >
> >"Linux Mandrake Version 34.2 Released!"
> >"Red Hat 29.0 Now Shipping"
> >"LinuxWorld Takes a First Looks at SuSE 31.4"
>
> Seeing as Redhat is closing down some of it's offices I suspect you
> may have to remove one of those from your list.
They closed down an office of a company that they bought (Cygnus).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:57:57 -0800
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Craig Kelley wrote:
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > "Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > >>> I still have to run into an application that will crush Win2K.
> > >
> > > >> Me too - I don't use Win2k. NT 4 is, however, quite vulnerable.
> > >
> > > > To what?
> > >
> > > To be crashed by applications, of course.
> >
> > Not really.
> >
> > > E.g. if I print web pages, it will bluescreen every once in a while.
> >
> > This means you have a poorly written printer driver. Contact the
> > manufacturer.
> >
> > I have printed thousands of pages from the web and everywhere else
> > and have never had a bluescreen from it. However, I had a client that
> > had a cheap-o printer and had this problem. The solution was getting
> > the latest drivers.
>
> A printer driver can crash a Windows box?
>
> Under UNIX, print jobs aren't even run by root -- each user owns their
> own job and an lpd user/group handles all user-agnostic actions.
>
> A major bug in lpd (lprng, cups, etc.) would, at most, crash the
> printing system.
>
> > > Of course, at the moment, I can't get it to connect to any of our
> > > printers
> >
> > So you admit that you're incompetent then? What room, then, do you
> > have to criticize anything?
>
> You have to admit that this is broken.
>
> A root-access video driver? Yes, that is a necessary evil.
>
> A root-access printer "driver"? No thanks.
>
Most printer drivers I use under NT are not root. They infact are just
TCP/IP stacks that send jobs to a print server. This is very much like the
way Unix works. However the old PCL printer drivers act a lot like display
drivers under Windows. Which is IMHO a bad thing.
====== 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: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Predicting the Future
Date: 14 Dec 2000 09:59:32 -0700
"Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charlie Ebert"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There is something to be said for Debian {My Distribution} VS the
> > others. Debian is not version # happy.
> >
> > It can be read that distributions which have no version # focus are
> > probably concentrating on other issues.
> >
> > We could draw a similar parallel between FreeBSD and OpenBSD.
>
> Heh! Yeah, I'm not knocking Debian, I just thought it was kinda funny
> how the other distributions are rapidly getting up there in the high
> version numbers while Debian slowly is no such hurry.
And, to be fair, Debian was still using 2.0 kernels in it's "stable"
distribution up until a few months ago.
> Actually, I'm kinda surprised to see Slackware up there in the 7.x range.
That was a mistake, IMHO.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Voting (was: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks)
Date: 14 Dec 2000 10:07:00 -0700
kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Swangoremovemee wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:58:00 +1300, kiwiunixman
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I try to be optimistic, however, the dickhead swango who can't even
> >> config, his computer puts real doubts about humanities ability to RTFM!
> >
> >
> > They can't even read an election ballot and you are expecting them to
> > run Linux?
> >
> True, in my local paper (Evening Post), they had a picture of the ballot
> paper (that caused the problems), the fucking arrows say it all, if ya
> can't follow that, then you must real problems. As a serious question,
> down in that county, are they just a bunch of six toed inbreeds, because
> that is the only reason I can find for such as pack of dicks making such
> a stupid mistake.
The problem was made by "bussers". These people gather up as many as
are willing (genuine voters and/or bribing with cigarettes/free
dinner) and drive them to the polls. Their instruction were to "vote
for the second candidate" on the ballot.
It just happened to be the reform party, and not the democratic party.
They discovered their error and then tried to foist their claim that
the ballot was "confusing", when in reality, the voters were given bad
instructions by party leaders. Similar problems happened elsewhere in
the state when voters were told to "vote on every page", which caused
double-voting for president.
Should those votes "be counted"? I dunno, I can see both sides of the
argument. On the one hand, you must interpret votes that don't really
exist -- and on the other, you have many disenfanchised voters.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux!
Date: 14 Dec 2000 10:10:59 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:919g33$t46$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Even cooler, they've already spent that much already. IBM has 1500
> > Linux developers on the payroll now. That's committment.
>
> Wow... 1500 developers... doing what? They don't seem to have contributed
> much of anything back into the source pool.
DB2?
jfs?
vajava?
md/raid work?
kernel patches?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Ediger)
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: 14 Dec 2000 10:24:46 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I have *not* made any statement like "hjkl is not intuitive".
Gee, what about in article <1xYV5.5482$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dated 12/02/2000? See http://x66.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=700191329
for the article itself. In that article, you were responding to one
Donovan Rebbechi, who wrote: "The movement keys are placed sensibly in vi
(hjkl)".
You responded:
"Which is not intuitive."
You have made a statement like (similar) to "hjkl is not intuitive".
This is beyond denying. If you're using the work "like" in some other
sense than "similar", you'll need to say so.
--
Once, galactic empires might have seemed a Post-Human domain.
Now, sadly, even interplanetary ones are.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux!
Date: 14 Dec 2000 10:27:10 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
> >It is sort of Ironic really, sometimes I think about the poor NetBSD
> >guys. The NetBSD guys are the ones who stand out as geeks at a Star Trek
> >convention. Their only focus is to be able to run on more computers than
> >any other OS.
>
> Saving grace may be it's use in major NASA/DoE labs and as a research
> platform from where it picks up a lot of doodads (e.g, RAIDframe).
>
> >Linux has blown all portability expectations of any group out of the
> >water. It really is amazing.
>
> It isn't that amazing when you see how much code doesn't get reused
> on each system. Those arch-specific directories have got a lot of stuff
> in them. Stuff that could be portable too. Linux has enough people
> willing to do the work. There's no real magic. Lots of grunt work.
(this is a clean kernel; no objects exist)
#cd /usr/src/linux/arch
# du -s * | cut -f1 | average
1444
# cd ..
# du -s drivers fs include init ipc kernel lib mm net | cut -f1 | add
74520
# perl -e 'print 1444.0 / 74520.0'
0.0193773483628556
Hmm, 1.9% doesn't seem that bad to me...
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "BcB" <youdon'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another UNIX sight is doun!
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:31:59 +0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donal K. Fellows"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BcB wrote:
>> System Uptime:
>> 18 Days, 1 Hours, 7 Minutes, and 12 Seconds
>
> Uptime "up 122 day(s), 3:03" - and yet this system is rather too
> unstable for my taste...
>
> Donal.
It still impresses me when I see up times like that. Probably since I
grew up in a DOS/Windows environment. Most I have done is just over a
month and if I do bring it down it isn't because it crashed.
As to the second part of your comment, I think you have hit the nail on
the head. I read this group daily and for the most part I see Win** vs
*nix issues. When really we should be worried with what we use. What do
I care if Windows crashes if I don't use it. I should be concerned with
if my box did crash, why and how can I fix it so that it doesn't happen
again - no matter what OS I use. But then what do you expect from people
use half a brain cell to type this:
"You fuckibg UNIX nurdz SUX"
Cheers,
Chris
--
In the Land of Penguins
"A speech is like a love affair. Any fool can start it, but
to end it requires considerable skill."
--Lord Mancroft
System Uptime:
18 Days, 3 Hours, 7 Minutes, and 9 Seconds
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Voting (was: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:47:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>They discovered their error and then tried to foist their claim that
>the ballot was "confusing", when in reality, the voters were given bad
>instructions by party leaders. Similar problems happened elsewhere in
>the state when voters were told to "vote on every page", which caused
>double-voting for president.
Well they did a psychological study in Canada a few weeks ago, where a group
of people were given two sets of forms, one identical to the ones used in
Florida (except for the things they were voting on) and one with the
candidates in one long list. They then asked which selection the people wanted
to choose and which they actually did. With the Florida-style ballot there
were lots of mistakes, with the straightforward list ballot there were none.
This is surprisingly easy to understand really. Voting booths are pretty high
pressure environments, your pretty much pushed in, vote quick in unusual
surroundings, and then get shown the door. If people were sitting down and
voting using those ballots in their own front rooms, I expect the result
would be very different (i.e. fewer if any mistakes).
This argument has become so bogged down in bipartisan arguments that the
simple facts are easy to miss. Voting forms should be as simple as possible,
not because people are to dense to use them properly, but because in places
where you vote there's often a lot of distraction so simple mistakes are easy
to make. People often don't actually fully read what they see, just mark due
to assumptions, in this case they read the name of the candidate and just mark
next to it. They aren't looking for arrows to follow so they don't see them,
if a voting form needs instructions other than ("mark x next to chosen
candidate") then it is quite clearly flawed. Some people will see the
instructions, some won't. When it's something like a voting form, simplicity
is best.
It makes perfect sense if you can just forget the political wranglings for a
few seconds.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: Monkeyboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:50:36 GMT
In article <KyZZ5.43385$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Les
Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9178r6$j04$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > > > You said "...regardless of the user...". That includes
> > > > > > privileges
> of
> > > ALL
> > > > > > kinds.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No, with real computers the user is not the same as the
> administrator.
> > > >
> > > > Who do you think set up win2k systems? Administrator-privileged
> > > > users,
> > > > therefor, the point stand.
> > >
> > > Like I said, on real computers the administrator is not a user even
> > > if
> > > it is the same person wearing a different hat.
> >
> > Administrator is a user with very few limitations.
> > The assumestion of Administrator (or root) is that they know what they
> > are
> > doing, because having unlimited rights to the computer can cause a lot
> > of
> > trouble very quickly, if you don't know what you are doing.
> >
> > When talking about setting up a Win2K box correctly, we are talking
> > about
> > somebody with Administrator rights, logged on as such, that set it up.
> > If the user don't know what he is doing, then he can take the system
> > down.
>
> An administrator is the one responsible for making the machine work,
The President of the US is responisble for representing the country, in
the world.
> not
> someone who happens to know the password. A user who knows the
> admin password or has been given admin rights but doesn't know what
> he is doing is not the same thing at all.
A president who gets blow jobs, get caught, lies, gets impeached but
survives is not a president?
Get real, dude. What the responsabilities of an admin are and how he/she
lives up to them are two different things. It does not change the fact
that an admin is nothing but a "super" (unrestricted access) user.
He/she is EXPECTED to know what they are doing but it does not follow
that he/she does or will.
M
--
- Sig. Space For Rent -
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: WSJ clueless about VA_Linux_Systems.
Date: 14 Dec 2000 17:50:37 GMT
Wall Street Journal, Tues Dec 12, 2000 featured article regarding
Federal investigation into kickbacks for allocations of IPO
(initial public offering) of VA Linux Systems stock at first
names the company correctly in bold face. Then it becomes 'VA
Linux, a vendor of personal-computer software' followed once more
by 'VA Linux'. Thereafter for five times it is referred to as
'Linux'. Moreover, the second page heading is: 'Authorities
Probing Commissions and IPOs Focus on the Red-Hot VA Linux Deal
of 1999' LOL !! Subconscious reference to 'Red Hat' ??
Perhaps a few of ng regulars could email the authors: Susan
Pulliam and Randall Smith, along with Suzanne McGee, and offer
them a general clue about VAL being only one of several Linux
vendors, etc. This box of mine has no email, but I'll try the
website: WSJ.com.
Vacuo
__
'The Earth may be flat, but History is circular.'
Vacuo 2000
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
