Linux-Advocacy Digest #237, Volume #31 Thu, 4 Jan 01 09:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Why NT? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Would Linux be invented if? ("Flacco")
Re: Why NT? ("Flacco")
Re: Would Linux be invented if? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Would Linux be invented if? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com ("Tom
Wilson")
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why NT? (Nick)
Re: mail reader ("Darren Winsper")
Re: Why NT? (mlw)
Microsoft hurts the reputation of software engineers. (mlw)
Re: Why NT? (mlw)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes (Jure Sah)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Conclusion ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com ("Ayende
Rahien")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: OEditors: Xedit vs. vi or emacs (Gary Hallock)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Andy Newman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 10:40:24 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> With operating systems as great as Linux and FreeBSD available for free,
> why would anyone consider Windows NT Server?
>
> I can't think of a single reason why any responsible IT department would
> deploy NT.
A: The misconception that those *nix platforms are hard to implement and, by
being inexpensive, are somehow inferior.
B: Ignorance of their capabilities and potential.
C: These places more likely than not spent a small fortune on MS training
and certification.
D: Staffed and managed by younger IT grads who's only experience is with a
Windows-based platform.
E: The tendancy most have to equate anything stamped "New and Improved" as
being just that. I blame laundry detergent for this...
Note: I've ducked the "responsible" part as there's really no rebuttle for
it.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would Linux be invented if?
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 05:38:57 -0500
> > Isn't it funny how all those companies who HAD OBJECTIVES to
> > conquer Windows failed and the one who was just playing one
> > year with a kernel with NO AMBITIONS WHAT-SO-EVER will be
> > the one to topple Microsoft.
Open source. The Linux kernel after a year of development stood absolutely
zero chance of toppling MS. The fact that it was open source and was picked
up as a project by countless developers might have had something to do with
it.
> Thus, QUALITY was the primary goal, instead of marketing.
>
> High quality sells itself.
...especially when the price is $0.
> No...its the work of quality.
Agreed. But I must say I wish the Linux community had some of the marketing
sense that MS has. There should be a Windows Clone distribution to allow
Windows users to ease into Linux wiht as little resistance as possible. The
arguments about a given Linux desktop environment's superiority over Windows
does no good converting Windows users. There are many who may be interested
in trying something different, but not if it takes them 45 minutes to figure
out how to create the equivalent of a desktop shortcut.
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 05:40:27 -0500
> Another good reason to use Microshaft servers is if you simply don't
> give a FUCK about your company.
>
> There's little talent required to run LoseDos.
This is contradictory. From the company's perspective, if they could hire
morons to successfully run their IT department, that's a net gain on the
bottom line.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would Linux be invented if?
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 10:58:01 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
<snip>
> I wonder what people would think about this idea.
>
> If there were no Microsoft and Windows was never invented.
>
> If we still had Novel and Apple battling it out with Unix's,
> WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN LINUX?
>
> I think the answer to that is YES.
>
> Linus mastered Linux because he wanted a replacement for Minix.
>
> Linus had no vision of conquering Microsoft at all. This was
> never his objective.
>
> Isn't it funny how all those companies who HAD OBJECTIVES to
> conquer Windows failed and the one who was just playing one
> year with a kernel with NO AMBITIONS WHAT-SO-EVER will be
> the one to topple Microsoft.
>
> This is the work of god.
No, just the product of a guru with a pragmatic streak.
A fellow more interested in a solid, time-tested tool than with bells and
whistles.
If God were truly interested, Bill Gates would have been born in Finland and
we'd have been blessed with Mr. Torvalds.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would Linux be invented if?
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 10:59:20 GMT
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Correct, what would you rather have, a Mercedes Benz or a Ford Falcon? I
> would rather have the Mercedes Benz!
>
Hell, put me down for an Aston Martin Lagonda...
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 11:05:56 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > :> They are responsible for cheapening computer hardware
> > :> in the form of Win products which are inferior to
> > :> regular products as they rely on YOUR CPU power to
> > :> power the peripheral!
> >
> > : They do the same thing, right?
> >
> > No. Not even close.
> >
> > They're slower, of much lower quality overall, and relegate almost all
> > the actual work to the machine's CPU, costing you time and therefore
> > money.
>
> Worst of all, they *lock* you into Microsoft.
> I wonder where the idea for WinModems came? Which company
> made the first WinModem?
US Robotics, I think...
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 05:24:20 -0600
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > If you don't believe it. Name a script in Unix that can't be done on
> > Windows.
>
> Let's start with a nice easy one, this script tests whether it is a
background
> or foreground process and mails it's opinion to 'nick' on the current
machine:
>
> #!/bin/sh
> if [ -t STDIN ]
> then
> TYPE=foreground
> else
> TYPE=background
> fi
> echo "I'm a $TYPE process" | mail -s "Script Results" nick
You are aware that this is a function of the shell, not the OS. Right?
Bash exists for NT, and you can do virtually the same code with that.
Or you can use Perl through WSH. I'm sure you're not going to suggest that
you can't do this through perl.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 05:29:45 -0600
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
>
> > > Bullshit. It's because they fucking broke the law.
> >
> > Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the law.
>
> The Findings of Fact and the Findings of Law will stand, whatever the
outcome
> of the appeal, whatever happens in sentencing, whatever else happens the
legal
> record says, for now and forever: "Microsoft broke the fucking law" (or
words
> to that effect)
The Findings of Law is what is most vulnerable on appeal. Findings of fact
can be vulnerable as well, if there is sufficient reason to believe that the
FoF were grossly incorrect. It's rare, but not completely unheard of, to
overturn FoF on appeal as well.
In other words, your absolute statements above are not absolutes. You may
not believe it to be likely, but it could happen.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:32:11 +0000
Nick Condon wrote:
> So which is it?
It's being extended, sorry, my usage of 'changing' was a bad one.
> An API is an Applications Programming Interface, if you stop to think for
> one second before posting you will realise that an interface that is
> always changing defeats the entire purpose of defining an interface.
But one that's being extended to incorporate new ideas etc. is a good thing.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Nick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 06:48:41 -0500
We keep a NT box around to run Win32 Based daemons / programs on. Also,
our primary domain controller and (gasp!) our web server are NT servers
(don't ask).Other than that, Samba & Linux across the board. All of our
desktop systems with the exception of mine are Winboxes, however.
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > With operating systems as great as Linux and FreeBSD available for free,
> > why would anyone consider Windows NT Server?
> >
> > I can't think of a single reason why any responsible IT department would
> > deploy NT.
>
> Application server for proprietary systems.
>
> That's the only reason to use it, unless you enjoy paying more for
> less.
>
> --
> 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: "Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mail reader
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 12:13:58 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Craig Kelley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I've been using Evolution preview 8 for a while now and I'd say it's
>> pretty good. You'll have to track it down at http://www.helixcode.com
>> or use the Helix Gnome installer to install it.
>
> I had it crash on me whenever I tried to use it against our imap server;
> pop seems to work fine, though.
That's very odd, I use IMAP to get my mail from my Uni account while I'm
on holiday and Evolution's always worked fine. The only times it crashes
is when gtkhtml freaks out over something.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 07:55:59 -0500
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > With operating systems as great as Linux and FreeBSD available for free,
> > why would anyone consider Windows NT Server?
>
> You forgot Plan 9.
No I didn't. I think it is flawed. Large interdependent networks of
computers have a rate of failure that is a multiple of the number of
computers on the network. Their concept of multiple computers making up
a "unix" vs multiple unix boxes is destined to be a failure given the
dubious quality and reliability of hardware components. Their central
fileserver concept is a single point of failure.
Hey, don't get me wrong, it is a cool idea and I am glad someone is
working on something like it, but in this decade, forget it.
[snip]
> Besides, they say, unix isn't a good OS to use unless you are
> doing intensive computational projects, or running a server.
I did not address workstation in my original post, I asked about server
specifically.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Microsoft hurts the reputation of software engineers.
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 08:12:05 -0500
Microsoft's lack of quality, and view that software is, at best,
ephemeral, make all software engineers look bad.
When my mom works on her computer (No commercial TAX applications for
Linux yet.) It crashes. She hates windows, but has to use it. She says
things to me like, "why can't they make this work right?" meaning
software engineers in general.
People say things at work like "I hate computers" right after Windows
locks up or crashes. People view software as crap, and under Windows are
generally correct.
This "reboot your computer to fix a problem" mentality is stupid. We
have an IT department, smart guys, but been using Microsoft too long.
Their first response to a problem on Linux was to reboot. Slowly, they
are coming around because they see that if something doesn't work on
Linux, it is because of a problem, and rebooting does not make the
problem go away.
Is Linux right for the home computer? Maybe not yet. But it is very
acceptable for the workstation and server market. One could easily
deploy a full Linux network infrastructure, right to the desktop, in a
company and improve reliability and reduce costs.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 08:12:17 -0500
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> > Well. If you IT department is staffed with fully licensed morons then
> > Windows would be an excellent choice.
> >
> > Another good reason to use Microshaft servers is if you simply don't
> > give a FUCK about your company.
> >
> > There's little talent required to run LoseDos.
>
> Like I said, there are certain people that fall prey to Microsoft
> marketing. Then, there are people who think NT is so great just because
> its clipboard supports OLE. Well, I contend that OLE is unecessary if
> the program in question were able to export its data to a proper text
> data file (or bitmap file or ...) to begin with.
OLE is a cool idea, but a very bad implementation. In early windows, all
one had was a clipboard. One cool thing it has, is the ability register
a number of formats to which an object in the clipboard can be rendered.
The applicaion could then choose the "best" format available for its
use, then ask the clipboard object owner to create that object.
It is a trivial protocol, but it is more usable than OLE.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:23:31 +0100
Peter Hayes wrote:
> I have a machine with 'ME on it that won't complete the boot process until
> I hit the eject button on the CD drive. No CD needed, just eject the tray
> and push it back. Maybe not exactly a "crash" but the next best thing....
WTF of a kind of a computer do you have?!
--
Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
reply.
For those interested in a theory of how to make AI:
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/mind2.html (updated: 01.02.01)
457863656C656E742120596F75206465636F646564206D79207365637265
74206D6573736167652E20576F756C6420796F75206C696B6520746F2067
6574206120636F7079206F662074686520736F6674776172652049207573
656420746F20656E636F6465207468697320746578743F20446F6E277420
776F7272792C2049206D61646520697420616E6420492063616E20676976
6520697420746F20796F7520666F7220465245452E
GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:23:40 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > Hell, the last time I've seen BSOD was when I was running the funny
> > screensaver.
>
> You take good care of your system!
The screen saver I was talking about was a BSOD screen saver, which amuses
me to no end.
I've not seen a real BSOD in a *long* time.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:32:43 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 23:45:35
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 3 Jan 2001
15:42:16
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 2 Jan 2001
> >20:15:50
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> >> >Found another one.
> >> >> >> >www.walmart.com
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Another one WHAT, Ayende?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Check this one in netcraft.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why?
> >> >
> >> >Adam Ruth asked about sites which displayed unbelivable resutls.
> >> >I gave two so far.
> >> >
> >> >Netware + IIS
> >> >Linux + IIS
> >>
> >> Adam Ruth asked for sites which displayed inaccurate uptimes, and has
> >> pointedly, specifically, and repeatedly mentioned that 'unbelievable
> >> results' are not at all interesting in this regard.
> >>
> >> Perhaps some web designers somewhere have discovered that there are
> >> certain Microsoft software products which do not behave correctly
unless
> >> the server identifies itself as "IIS" in the HTTP header strings. I
> >> think this is an ominous possibility, for what I hope would be obvious
> >> reasons.
> >
> >You do realize that <non windows>+IIS is the *only* thing we can identify
as
> >wrong, do you?
>
> I suspect this was a typo, correct? What else have you "identified as
> wrong", and what bearing does it have on the discussion about whether
> their uptime numbers are accurate?
No, this is meant to say that we can verify over the Internet very few of
Netcraft results without being aware of the exact configuration of a site.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:37:25 +0200
"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 3 Jan 2001
> > 14:44:18
> > > > > >The customer can easily find out why the price differ so much.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, they can't, despite your contentions. The vast majority of
> > > > > consumers don't even know they have winmodems or winprinters, or
> > > > > understand what that means, until they get burned trying to change
> > OSes.
> > > >
> > > > Igonrance is not an excuse, they can ask.
> > > > Period.
> > >
> > > well, you can ask all you want, but do you expect an answer? have you
> > > been to a best-buy/compusa/&c and asked "do you have a modem which
> > > would work under linux" and gotten a compentant answer?
> >
> > Don't have those here, but I can ask for a hardware modem, or a
> > non-winmodem, or just *gasp* check the bloody box.
>
> i ended up getting an external. gotta love blinkenlights. but all
> the internals i saw had "requires windows 95" and such on the box.
> who can tell? it's in the manufacturer's of the winmodems best
> interest to obscure the facts.m
There are several internal hardware modems, search google for them.
> > And at the worst, I can ask for the guy that knows, there is always
> > at least one guy there that can answer me.
>
> where do you shop? i'd like to go there.
www.plonter.co.il
Great site
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:36:46 +0200
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9312a4$kop$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : *Luckily* for me, the company never even *heard* about telnet. Took me
> : several hours to get to some guy who was willing to admit that telnet
> : actually existed, but I got a flat out refusal to grant me access via
> : telnet.
> : The reason I was given? It's not safe to do so.
> : Turned out that they don't support PHP or any other web languague on
their
> : Solaris box.
>
>
> Telnet is very unsafe, but ssh can do the same job in a reasonably
> secure fashion.
>
> A PHP installation, or any other environment capable of generating
> dynamic content, can create huge gaping security holes if not done
> properly. People who aren't knowledgeable enough to do so really
> shoudln't try. But part of what you're paying for when you select a
> professional Web hosting service is the expertise it will have in
> providing tools for dynamic content generation while simultaneously
> making sure that your site, and everything it depends on, is as secure
> as it possibly can be. If you're not getting that kind of service,
> then you have every right and reason to take your business elsewhere.
The point I was trying to make is to show my anger at some of the most
reputable ISP around here.
Especially for bussiness.
It anger me that they have such an incompotent admins there, and that I'd to
work with such unnececary limitation.
Hell, I could've moved the site for *free* to some free hoster, get telnet &
PHP on a Unix, why can't I get them when I'm paying for them?
That is what ticked me off.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 08:40:57 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: OEditors: Xedit vs. vi or emacs
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Gary Hallock wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > NOTHING is intuitive....especially computers and software.
> > >
> >
> > So, that means you should try to make it as convoluted as possible?
>
> Apparently that's what you and the authors of Xedit think.
>
You haven't listened to a word I said. It's the 3270 hardware, not
xedit. If you want to blame the 3270 architecture, that's fine. But it
was not xedit that caused the problem.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 08:45:31 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> What...you can't even remember what the fuck you wrote?
Ues, I remember. Obviously you can not read.
>
> > I
> > suggested that you read the manual first before blaming xedit developers for
> > something that they could not control.
>
> so, now you are repeated the assertion that I should read the 3270
> manual while denying that you ever said it.
>
> Hint fucking hint: it's best to not contradict yourself within
> the space of a paragraph.
I said you should read the 3270 manual. I said that I said that. I did not
chastise you for not reading it. I did not suggest that you needed to read it
to use xedit or to use a 3270. I said that you should read it before blaming
xedit developers for a problem with the 3270 hardware. I'm not the only one who
has told you that the xedit developers were limited by the available hardware.
You really should learn to read.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:08:19 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>to append to the end of a line, the first step needed was to delete
>invisible characters which I never typed in.
Your idea of the file and the system's may have been a little at odds.
Fixed length records aren't totally natural when it comes to editing
free form text.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
