Linux-Advocacy Digest #178, Volume #31 Mon, 1 Jan 01 21:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code ("mud")
Re: How do you install KDE in Redhat6.0? (Aleksandar V.)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Linux vs Microsoft (Perry Pip)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Adam Warner")
Re: Linux vs Microsoft (J Sloan)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Adam Warner")
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (John Travis)
Re: Why Hatred? (mlw)
Re: Advocacy: A Definition from Webster ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Uptimes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Uptimes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Uptimes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why Hatred? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!) ("Kyle Jacobs")
Need help with NT ("John G. Sandell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "mud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:21:36 GMT
"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And his mother's minge smells of fish?
...more lintroll maturity....
plonk.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aleksandar V.)
Subject: Re: How do you install KDE in Redhat6.0?
Date: 2 Jan 2001 00:38:29 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Better yet, avoid Redhat at all costs! I have used Redhat on several
>occasions, are the best two distro's I have found are Mandrake and SuSE
>Linux esp. for newbies.
>
>kiwiunixman
>
>
Well, my experience is somewhat different. After several attempts to
get some more up-to-date software I switched from Red Hat 6.0 to Mandrake
7.0, then to CorelOS SE, then Storm Linux... And here I'm back to my
old Red Hat 6.0
None of the replacements was really impressive to me... Only for complete
newsbees - someone who sits in front of a Linux based pc for the first
time, maybe Mandrake is a good start (rpmdrake is really easy to use
while anyone can be scared off by gnorpm package manager that comes with
Red Hat 6.0 and its inability to resolve dependencies...
--
~ Sascha.
My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
(Ashleigh Brilliant)
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: 2 Jan 2001 00:45:41 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Windows and OLE/ActiveX/COM/COM+ (now re-christened ".NET") may
:> improve significantly during that time as well. I kind of hope they
:> will, but I'm skeptical. From a developer's perspective, I don't see
:> that they have improved drastically since their inception. They've
:> become slightly more stable, but still come far short of the
:> reliability and usability that I've come to expect from any UNIX-like
:> system.
: Be careful with your usage of COM. COM itself is merely a standard way of
: representing interfaces, something that is present in Java (but not called
: COM). That, of itself, is not any more stable or unstable as it represents
: a binary contract (or description of a black box).
: If you're talking about implementations of COM servers that do different
: things, that's a different story.
COM in my view is a bad implementation of a good idea.
The good idea is a standard that lets components safely instantiate,
use, and dispose of one another, possibly across thread, process, and
network boundaries.
The reason it is a bad implementation is that it is a binary standard,
tied very closely to the platform and even the compiler in use.
This was an understandable decision back in the early days of COM
(late 80s?) but seems very dated now.
That's why I see .NET as a step in the evolution of COM, even though,
on the surface, it's a very different paradigm. Microsoft, in spite
of its well-known disdain for object-oriented development, has always
understood the advantages of COMPONENT-oriented development. But in a
heterogenous world with multiple languages, architectures and
platforms, the distinction between a component and an object blurs
quite a bit. And in a world that's seen hardware and bandwidth
improve much faster than software development methodologies and tools,
the cost of passing a message in human-readable form (XML, SOAP)
has become much less significant than the cost of the time a developer
might otherwise spend debugging.
.NET may well represent an improvement, *if* it allows
interoperability with non-Microsoft products and platforms. But if
not, then it may instead represent a step backward.
Java's RMI, the CORBA standard, Netscape's XPCOM, Gnome's Bonobo, and
KDE's KParts all have both similarities and differences, but, as far
as I can tell, all are attempting to accomplish much the same thing as
do COM and/or its related technologies (particularly OLE). My guess
is that some will succeed, others will fail, and the lessons learned
will hopefully lead to the emergence of a better standard, preferably
one that can support multiple languages, platforms, architectures, and
roles, without any more complexity than is necessary.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft
Date: 2 Jan 2001 00:44:30 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 1 Jan 2001 19:49:11 +0100,
SwifT - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Jan 2001, Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
>> On the other hand if anyone is desparate to get the new kernel they can get
>> the latest test release to use from www.kernel.org
>
>Good point.
>
And even in a beta state, it's more stable than any MS OS.
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:07:04 +1200
Some AC wrote:
> Allowing administrators to configure Unix through text files is the
> OS's Achilles' heal. IMHO it will eventually lead to the downfall of
> the OS.
LOL. That is so dumb :-)
Anyone remember how much easier Windows 3.1 applications were to configure
when you could edit the text-based INI files?
It was also really easy to BACK THEM UP.
This is only a question for me to try and understand why INI files died such
a sudden death:
Did Microsoft dictate that for an application to get a Windows 95 compliance
logo that INI files had to be abandoned and the registry used?
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 01:11:05 GMT
John Travis wrote:
> Huh? I thought it was still at test12? Don't tell me I have to wait for
> the reiser patches for a new kernel :-). Or are you talking about a RH
> kernel release...
Nope, test13-pre7 looked pretty solid, and linus decided
to call the succeeding version "2.4.0-prerelease".
Maybe it's not showing up correctly on the finger, but
ftp in and have a look and you'll see it under 2.4
Download it and give it a whirl...
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:27:59 +1200
Hi Michael,
<snip lots of sympathy for Windows users>
> I came from the Dos-->Windows-->Windows NT world and I
> invested the time to learn Linux. It has paid off very well
> since I am working in a Solaris shop. Instead of fear, try
> learning it. Having expertise in both makes you much more
> employable. And every new release of Linux does not mean that
> you have to throw away a big chunk of what you already know.
Did anyone else get lost trying to set up networking in Win2k from scratch
for the first time? The entire configuration interface is radically
different from NT4 and you can't even add in a network adapter (that's
actually done in the Device Manager in the Computer Management interface).
(And how about those
slow-you-down-and-make-you-click-everything-multiple-times Wizards that
seems to be popping up in every inappropriate place).
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 01:16:13 GMT
And mud spoke unto the masses...
:"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> And his mother's minge smells of fish?
:
:...more lintroll maturity....
:plonk.
:
:
I think you win the biggest idiot of all award MUD. Since 90% of your posts
consist only of saying that you are killfiling someone else. Hell, at least
Jacobs actually posts something. What a winner you are...
jt
PS I look forward to the "plonk" this will get me.
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Sid]
2.4.0-test12-ReiserFs|XFree4.0.2|Nvidia .95 drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 20:38:51 -0500
Adam Warner wrote:
>
> Some AC wrote:
>
> > Allowing administrators to configure Unix through text files is the
> > OS's Achilles' heal. IMHO it will eventually lead to the downfall of
> > the OS.
>
> LOL. That is so dumb :-)
>
> Anyone remember how much easier Windows 3.1 applications were to configure
> when you could edit the text-based INI files?
>
> It was also really easy to BACK THEM UP.
>
> This is only a question for me to try and understand why INI files died such
> a sudden death:
>
> Did Microsoft dictate that for an application to get a Windows 95 compliance
> logo that INI files had to be abandoned and the registry used?
I remember being at a WinHEC for Windows 3.1, where they did a
presentation of the registry. (Yes, it was in 3.1) One interesting
aspect of the registry, as presented at the conference, was to make it
harder for users to change application settings by "hiding" them from
casual inspection.
Also, The registry in Windows makes up for its brain dead implementation
of multiple logical users. In UNIX systems, each user gets his or her
own user directory, and it is more or less enforced. In NT no user
directory is required for personal settings. And in 95, there is no
concept of a user directory.
Lastly, Microsoft has been threatening to remove the
"PrivateProfile...()" functions for some time now.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy: A Definition from Webster
Date: 2 Jan 2001 01:44:14 GMT
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "bbjb \(BillyBobJoeBuck\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: : According to Webster - Advocacy: the act or process of advocating or
: : supporting a cause or proposal.
: : Based on my examination so far it would seem that the focus of this group is
: : to promote the advantages of Linux. Unfortunately, much of this comes in
: : the form of bashing the MS entry in the OS market.
: That's not possible to avoid. MS has as one of its goals the total
: control of everything on the desktop. They are willing to do anything
: to get there. Therefore if you want some other choices to survive, you
: *must* view MS as "the enemy". It's a bit hard to be indifferent toward
: someone who's trying to crush you.
Total access to and control of all information everywhere, not just
the desktop.
The desktop is only a means to that end.
The goal of .NET is to transfer that monopoly into the server and
network realm, at which point, if successful, M$ would be able to
control not just desktops, but pretty much everything else.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 20:42:53 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I have dissimilar experiences. I've had Linux boxes crash dialy,
> >
> > Sorry, that's just not beleivable -
>
> Therein lies the problem with Linux zealots. They refuse to believe that
> Linux can be unstable.
Erik, in 1986, we had a PN-9080 machine from Gould Electronics which
we were Beta-testing for them. It typically went 90+ days between
crashing. 90+ day uptimes at BETA-TEST....and we considered this
machine to be relatively unstable.
Now..if a LoseDOS box ever manages to stay up for 90 days, Bill
Gates would call a press conference.
>
> Likewise, I know that Windows NT *CAN* be unstable, but I also know that it
^^^^^^^^
You misspelled "ALMOST ALWAYS IS (99+%)"
> *CAN* be very stable if you know what you're doing.
Can you specify the magic incantations and precise chicken-waving
maneuvers which will keep a LoseDOS box up past 60 days?
Conversely, Unix is stable right out of the box.
> Windows 2000 is just stable period.
And 1950's cars were "low maintenance" because they didn't need
an engine rebuild every 20,000 miles like the 1920's Model T's.
However, compared to Unix, Windows 2000 is still missing the mark.
Even Microsoft-owned and -operated facilities (eg. Hotmail) can't
keep the Lose2K boxes up as long as a 1986 BETA-TEST version of Unix.
Why is that?
>
> > For instance:
> >
> > zdnet did a year long test of windows nt and linux, running
> > their office server tasks. In one year the Linux servers did
> > not crash once. the windows nt servers crashed 13 times.
>
> Do you have a link to this?
>
> > In our own shop: we have Linux servers that handle mail, dns,
> > network monitoring, web serving. They have been up for about
> > 200 days (last booted to install new kernel) and had been up
> > for about 6 months before that. They simply do not crash.
> >
> > OTOH there are windows nt boxes doing pretty similar
> > stuff and need to be rebooted nightly.
>
> Gee, if your server needs to be rebooted nightly, yet zdnet only had
> problems (according to you) once a month, why is that?
>
> > > All this proves is that your own experience is not the reality of
> everyone.
> >
> > No, it proves that windows trolls are willing to say anything
> > to try to discredit those OSes that they see as a threat.
>
> Look. I use NT and 2000 daily for software development. I put my machines
> through hell, and routinely go months without rebooting. Occasionally I do
> have a crash, but this is because i'm doing driver development.
>
> My Linux machines are pretty stable as well in most cases, but I've had
> Netscape lock them up tighter than a drum (Even the keyboard interrupts were
> not responding). It wasn't just X locked up, because I couldn't telnet in
> and the web server was not responding.
>
> It is a fact that all OS's can be unstable in the right circumstances.
> Period.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 20:44:20 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92onac$cjp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Likewise, I know that Windows NT *CAN* be unstable, but I also know that
> > it
> > > *CAN* be very stable if you know what you're doing. Windows 2000 is
> just
> > > stable period.
> >
> > Are you saying that W2K is stable even if you don't know what you're
> doing?
>
> For the most part. Of course nothing is idiot proof. Win2k just has a good
> resiliancy.
Being the Tallest Midget at the circus is nothing to get excited about.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 20:45:27 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92peee$pbb$02$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It is a fact that all OS's can be unstable in the right circumstances.
> > > Period.
> > >
> > it is a fact (for me at least) that 2 different machines (each with 2
> > processors, ECC-memory, all SCSI) just locked up on win NT4 while simply
> > doing nothing at all (during the night), no screensaver, no nothing, just
> > waiting there. One machine was trashed so badly, that it could NOT be
> > rebooted again.
> > That was the end of WinNT for me, I simply stopped using it. And i do not
> > believe a single word of "win2k is better". Since years we are told "just
> > wait for the next win-version, it will solve all these problems". Not only
> > were all these problems not solved, we got ne ones in addition.
>
> If you think that's "normal", you're crazy.
Strange...I hear such stories from NT admins on a regular basis.
I guess *ALL* NT admins are crazy, eh...
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 20:50:45 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2001 03:53:48 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:5LX36.47378$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >> > Fact is, as long as Linux must be maintained by through text files, it's
> >> > not
> >> > going to be able to replace Windows.
> >>
> >> In some instances, it is very useful to be able to use an editor to edit
> >> these text files and configure the system. Sometimes a GUI can just "get
> >in
> >> the way".
> >>
> >> I don't think Linux is going to be held back by being configured by text
> >> files - I think your other excellent points are closer to the truth.
> >
> >You misinterpret what I said. I said as long as Linux *MUST* be maintained
> >through text files. In other words, even with tools like linuxconf, you
> >still need to maintain quite a bit through text files exclusively.
> >
> >There's nothing wrong with text configuration files, as long as there are
> >easier ways to maintain it as well.
> >
>
> Allowing administrators to configure Unix through text files is the
> OS's Achilles' heal. IMHO it will eventually lead to the downfall of
> the OS.
He's not really an idiot; he just plays one on USENET.
>
> In theory MS could release an OS with an entirely different structure
> for the registry and not break a single application. This is possible
> since the interface to the registry is controlled through regedit or
> the appropriate library functions. OTOH with Unix the system is
> configured through any text editor and the configuration parameters
> are exposed at the lowest level - through the file system. Any small
> change to these files would break numerous programs.
And this is an issue because ..... ????
[Clue for the fucking clueless: there is NO reason to change the
unix config files....they have worked RELIABLY for DECADES]
>
> An open system like Unix is somewhat analogous to having hardware
> without drivers - all software would be exposed to the internal
> operation of the hardware. This is what it was like in the early '90s
> - take a look at the early source code for NCSA telnet and you will
> see that there was different code for different Ethernet cards. The
> first thing you did before buying a new Ethernet card was ensure it
> was "NE2000 compatible" - otherwise you may be buying a host of
> compatibility problems. Packet drivers providing a standard software
> interface solved these problems.
>
> Unix is more or less stuck. Its open design prevents it from ever
> undergoing any sort of radical redevelopment. I know a lot of the
> people in this group think that Gnome or KDE or linuxconf is a radical
> redevelopment. But this is just window dressing (pun intended). In
> the meantime MS has made the transition from DOS, Windows 3.1, 95/98
> and on to NT/2000 while breaking relatively few applications. All of
> these OS's have very different natures - especially NT versus the
> others.
>
> The one thing that Windows haters love to attack the most is the
> registry. Why did MS ever give up those nice .ini files? The irony
> is that the introduction of the registry is probably one of the most
> important changes MS has made. Even if NT/2000 doesn't survive it is
^^^^^^^^^
You misspelled "stupid"
> difficult to see an open and inflexible OS like Unix surviving much
> longer.
Strange that you're already contemplating the death of a newly
released product...while NOBODY is contemplating the demise of unix.
--
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: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!)
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 01:55:08 GMT
Oh yes, because we don't wish to speak binary with our computers, we're all
dumb.
And because you all wish to do exactly that, your all losers.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> mud wrote:
> >
> > "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >
> > In fact you're so dense Jacobs, I bet yo mommas a black hole ?
> >
> > And here we see the maturity of the lintroll.
> > plonk you.
>
> He was just communicating at a level that you LoseDOS lusers understand.
>
> --
> 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: "John G. Sandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Need help with NT
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:05:49 GMT
Problem with friend's NT system at work -
I read this newsgroup in my spare time -
Seems as though there are a lot of Windows experts participating -
I hope one or more of tem can help -
NT Workstation 4.0 runnning on print server /proxy server -
Several other PCs with W98 and ME -
Friday the NT workstation computer went down - apparently a power supply
turning bad fried some components -
Moved hard drive to a new AMD Duron 700 Mhz box, tried to use the R
option from the NT CD, it ran but didn't fix anything.
Did an install - that worked, but shortly after boot, there's a message
that a service failed, see EventViewer.
Event Viewer says Service Message Control hung, the next message says
Service Message Control failed.
Loaded NT SP4 OK.
Loaded Norton Utilities OK
Re-loaded WinProxy but it can't find the ISP connection (DSL).
I suspect the network card that connects to the DLS modem is bad - I had
to replace the NIC that connects to the office network, and the NIC that
connects to DSL might have got fried, too.
Got it mostly working, had to re-enter the user accounts, but can't get
at shared drives or the shared network printer; on the other PCs a x
pops up asking for a password, but no matter what I do with User
Accounts or passwords, keep getting told it's an invalud password....
Any suggestions?
TIA
John Sandell
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
