Linux-Advocacy Digest #321, Volume #31 Sun, 7 Jan 01 14:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("ono")
Re: RPM Hell (JM)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (JM)
Re: Windows fails again (JM)
Re: Windows fails again (JM)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (JM)
Linux is not UNIX(tm) ("Alan Parker")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (*)
Re: Could only... (Jim Richardson)
Re: Could only... (Jim Richardson)
Re: Could only... (Jim Richardson)
Re: rt18139.c (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Jure Sah)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Jure Sah)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 19:05:57 +0100
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
=======_NextPart_000_006A_01C078DC.DDDD73F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What is X and what is a parition? I just put in the CD and walked away.=20
"Richard Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message =
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> When I install Linux its as easy to do as Windows. The only hard parts =
being
> the X configuration (there ought to be a new tool for this by now) and =
the
> partitioning - which has to be done for Windows as well. Everything =
else
> then falls into place for a great desktop operating system.
>=20
>=20
=======_NextPart_000_006A_01C078DC.DDDD73F0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>What is X and what is a parition? I =
just put in the=20
CD and walked away. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"Richard Wright" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> =
wrote in=20
message </FONT><A href=3D"news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> When I install =
Linux its as=20
easy to do as Windows. The only hard parts being<BR>> the X =
configuration=20
(there ought to be a new tool for this by now) and the<BR>> =
partitioning -=20
which has to be done for Windows as well. Everything else<BR>> then =
falls=20
into place for a great desktop operating system.<BR>> <BR>>=20
</FONT></BODY></HTML>
=======_NextPart_000_006A_01C078DC.DDDD73F0==
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:19:57 +0000
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 19:53:19 -0600, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> > "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > rpm -i --nodeps --replace *.rpm
>> > Now *that's* intuitive.
>> Much more so than the arcane pee cee registry details
>> and command lines that one has to deal with windows
>> problems.
>Note that this is simply install syntax. Changing the registry is more akin
>to configuring your app once you've installed it, something you still have
>to do even after the arcane install syntax.
And the registry is SO well organised and SO well documented.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:19:58 +0000
On 7 Jan 2001 04:46:52 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)) wrote:
>Kyle Jacobs was heard ranting about
><mbc56.146555$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 04 Jan
>2001
>>Oh, like all the "documented" functionality under Linux.
>>
>>Nice try.
>Yeah try typing man. works wonders.
You're forgetting, windows users like bloated wizards to guide them
through everything, and typing "man" would probably require a restart.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows fails again
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:19:59 +0000
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 23:40:28 +0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>JM wrote:
>> Plus installing all of my programs, putting back all my backed up
>> files, renaming them after DOS translated them all to upper-case 8.3.
>Well, if you use DOS to restore the files, I'm not suprised it mangled the
>names. I've always restored files with Windows, it doesn't do that sort of
How would I use Windows if it was crashed? I had to boot up in dos to
copy all my important files accross to somewhere else.
>thing. Also depends on the tool you use to do the backup. I just copied the
>files to a CD or another drive.
That's what I did, but I needed dos to do it.
>I mean, you have to really work hard to get
>shortened filenames, so what on earth where you playing at?
Using the only available means of getting at my data at the time.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows fails again
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:19:59 +0000
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 12:20:33 +0800, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> If anyone was wondering why yesterdays posts came later than usual,
>> it's because Windows had to be re-installed AGAIN, thus making me stay
>> up till 6am setting it all up again.
>What are you doing so wrong??? I've had Windows 2000 at *home* constantly
>on all of the time... never reboot except for my frequent hardware changes.
>(hehe - almost running at a full gighz now thanks to my new Asus motherboard
>which makes overclocking soooo very easy)
I'm using Win98 and it requires restarts every time I run a program it
doesn't like.
>Anyway, given that you are a linux advocate, I wouldn't be surprised if you
>didn't know what you were doing when it comes to Windows :)
What do you mean? I've been using Windows all my life, my experience
with Linux is minimal.
>> Thanks a lot, Microsoft.
>If you are using 2000, why didn't you just boot into the single user command
>console?? And did you back up your registry???
98.
>It isn't MS' fault -- it is yours (in this case).
It's my fault it suddenly decided not to boot and wouldn't tell me why
not?
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:20:00 +0000
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 01:44:32 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>>But..you see, this is a free country. Sellers can use whatever
>>>measurement system they like. And if it appeals to purchasers,
>>>great. If it doesn't appeal to consumers, so be it.
>>However, thanks to European dictatorship, it's illegal to sell in
>>metric.
>Huh, what?
In Britain it's illegal to sell in imperial units.
------------------------------
From: "Alan Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux is not UNIX(tm)
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 13:21:29 -0500
yeah, it's only a fucki'n clone based on Minix, another UNIX(tm) clone.
I run SOLARIS8, FreeBSD, Linux, SVR4; anmd you know what?
all are the same thing.
So, why Linux will be the best?
it is just a comercial form the companies RedHat , Suse, they only want to
sell
the fuckin package, and they doesn't matter what you will do with the OS.
------------------------------
From: * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:30:12 GMT
"." wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why do you Linux zealots insist making analogies toward motor vehicles.
>
> > I can honestly say in your car related comparison I HAVE NO F***ING IDEA
> > WHAT YOU SAID.
>
> Alright then.
>
> Hi fidelity audio systems then:
>
> Windows is like a kenwood system; it looks great, its full of useless bells
> and whistles, and its sound is just a hair above mediocre.
what a pointless analogy. if all you're interested in is sound, then
appearances shouldn't matter. but computers are not that simple.
> Linux is like a McIntosh sound system; unless you actually understand what
> you're listening to, you wont see what all the hooplah is about. There
> are no useless bells and whistles unless you add someone elses peripherals;
> which are almost exclusively inferior to what is built into the system
> itself.
so what you are saying is that the linux kernal is brilliant. it's just the
interfaces and applications for linux that suck. except of course your analogy
fails on the fact that last time i check McIntosh speakers were not free. not
even close.
anyway, a computer platform is not merely the theoretical core it is based on.
it is a sum of all it's parts.
y'r pal -kK
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 14:15:53 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 18:51:29 +0000,
JM, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:28:07 -0800, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)) wrote:
>
>>>>> If the government doesn't trust it's citizens to carry their own
>>>>> arms then what kind of government do you have?
>
>>>>Do you know that in New South Wales (Australia), it is technically
>>>>illegal to carry a Swiss knife? "Technically" because really the
>>>>police is not so stupid as to enforce such a cretinous law. I look
>>>>forward to the day when some politician thinks it a good idea to
>>>>have fingernails pulled out at birth. And teeth too. They can do
>>>>a lot of damage, you know.
>
>>>Only an idiot would compare a gun to a knife.
>
>>Only an idiot worries about the weapon rather than the wielder.
>>Remember, there are no dangerous weapons, there are only dangerous people.
>
>Such as the dangerous people who have easy access to guns.
And drugs, and other illegal substances. Are you somehow under the impression
that the violent criminal element suddenly becomes law abiding where a gun law
is concerned?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 14:17:29 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 18:51:32 +0000,
JM, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 22:46:39 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>JM wrote:
>
>>> >> Well, you're right, nothing will happen until a leader with a bit of
>>> >> backbone, grabs the US by the balls and drags it out of the gun crazed
>>> >> culture that has bred itself into the US citizens sub conscience.
>
>>> >Guns are freedom and safety.
>
>>> Yes, being shot at whenever you go outside is really "safe".
>
>>Since when have murders started obeying gun laws?
>
>So some people will get them anyway, therefore they should be
>legalised?
Since violating the rights of the many, without affecting the few lawbreakers
who are the problem in the first place, has no positive affect on crime, why do
it?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 15:18:50 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 18:51:27 +0000,
JM, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:27:09 -0800, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)) wrote:
>
>>>>We could shorten this to it's illegal to murder.
>>>>But it is definitely not illegal to hose down a burglar, or intruder on
>>>>your own premises in over 1/2 the states of this nation.
>
>>>So if someone has invited you to their house, someone else in the
>>>house could just kill you?
>
>>of course not
>
>Not according to the previous poster.
That is not what the previous poster said.
>
>>>>>All of those activities WERE ALREADY ILLEGAL....so, exactly *what*
>>>>>would another law do, exactly?
>
>>>>Nothing. I often MARVEL at our seatbelt laws. Or how about the
>>>>ones which force you to buckle up on an aircraft.
>
>>>And this is relavent how?
>
>>um, criminals break laws?
>
>I thought we were talking about guns? Obviously not...
Do you somehow think that criminals who are willing to commit murder, are
somehow unwilling to break other lesser laws?
>>>>We even have a new felony law which states if you travel more than
>>>>1/4 mile from the red lights of a police vehicle OR you turn off
>>>>on another street or exit a highway while being followed by a
>>>>police vehicle with it's red's on, you are automatically guilty
>>>>of a felony. Not seeing the lights is no excuse.
>
>>>And this is relavent how?
>
>>criminals break laws?
>
>I thought we were talking about guns? Obviously not...
Do you somehow think that criminals who are willing to commit murder, are
somehow unwilling to break other lesser laws?
>
>>>Yes, anyone who feels like causing trouble can wander into their
>>>corner shop.
>
>>><irrelevent drug talk snipped>
>
>>It's irrelevent that the govt can do nothing to stop the inflow of illegal
>>drugs, but would somehow be able to magically prevent illegal weapons from
>>being smuggled in? interesting theory at least. We can call it the "Three
>>wishes" theory...
>
>Guns are illegal at the moment, and no-one has guns. Drugs are
>illegal, and lots of people have drugs, so your theory holds no water.
Well, I don't know where you are from, so I can't comment on whether guns are
illegal there, or available. (hint, they are available every where there is a
basic machine shop.) But here in the US, guns are for the most part _not_
illegal. Funnily enough, in those areas with stringent victim disarmament laws,
there are more problems with armed criminals.
>
>>>>>> example, a person who owns a gun, must have it locked in a safe place to
>>>>>> ensure that it is out of the reach of kiddies and undesirable
>>>>>> characters.
>
>>>>>How many undesirable characters obey such laws?
>
>>>>None.
>
>>>And what about everyone else? What about people who just decide to
>>>leave it on the table, then some 10 year old comes and steals it
>>>before gunning down some people outside.
>
>>Prosecute both the 10 y.o. and the person responsible for the firearm being
>>easily accessible to the little psycho. Note that if said 10 y.o. psychopath
>>broke into the house in the first place, then you can hardly hold the homeowner
>>responisble.
>
>You can if he didn't make is secure.
If someone has to break into the home in the first place, it was secure.
>>>>>> If you fail to hear to this requirement, you are liable for
>>>>>> any damage that occurs if the gun is stolen and was not safely stored.
>
>>>>>How many undesirable characters obey such laws?
>
>>>>None.
>
>>>How can they decide not to be held liable for what happens with their
>>>own guns?
>
>>this is a little confusing to me, what do you mean?
>
>The first poster said that people are liable for damage occuring with
>their guns if they are stolen. The next poster commented that
>undesirables didnt' follow such laws. How can they choose not to
>follow the law to be held liable?
By being criminals with illegal guns in the first place? If you are a convicted
felon, and have illegally obtained a gun, do you give a rats ass if someone
steals it and uses it in a crime?
>>>>>> We maybe a shitty little country in the south pacific and that 99% of
>>>>>> American youth don't know wheren the hell it is, but at least we have
>>>>>> out shit together.
>
>>>>>Well, you are turning away from Socialism...but, any man who is
>>>>>prohibited from carrying a weapon to defend himself is only a serf.
>
>>>>Anybody who lives in a nation which doesn't trust it's own citizens
>>>>to carry a firearm is living in a dictatorship or a communist country.
>
>>>Anyone who lives in a nation which allows its citizens easy access to
>>>tools designed to murder people is living in a anarchist country.
>
>>so since you live in a country where glass bottles, gasoline and rags are
>>easily accessible, you live in an anarchist country? interesting.
>
>Glass bottles etc have other uses. Guns were designed to injure/kill.
>Nothing more, nothing less.
incorrect. Guns are designed to throw small pellets of metal at great spead,
accurately. In fact, I have several firearms which would make pretty piss poor
weapons agains people.
>>>>You have no freedoms. Don't think you have freedoms if you can't
>>>>even carry a lousy pistol.
>
>>>Don't think you have freedoms if people are free to carry about
>>>weapons and could just shoot you if you happened to disagree with
>>>them.
>
>>There are criminal scumbags, and nice people. The nice people are not the
>>problem, armed or not, the scumbags are, armed or not.
>
>If they are so nice then what are they planning to do with the guns?
Target shooting is a lot of fun, so are the rest of the shooting sports. In the
US, a lot more folks enjoy recreational shooting than golf or tennis, and
ironically enough, they do so with fewer accidents and injuries than other
sports. Of course, hunting is still widely enjoyed in the US, as both a
recreation, food source, and game management tool.
Do you somehow have this image of a firearm being some magical implement that
turns polite, quite citizens into raging psychopaths?
>>>>>Gun control laws are merely a re-establishment of the medieval class
>>>>>system: The elite get to arm themselves, while the un-washed masses
>>>>>are targets for crime.
>
>>>>I think it's merely a setup for a total police state where
>>>>"criminals" and "citizens" don't exist seperately.
>
>>>Or a society where those with guns get to bully and threaten those who
>>>don't.
>
>>Since at least 50% of US households have firearms, (and more than that in
>>Switzerland for example) and this doesn't happen, then your theory is bullshit,
>>yes?
>
>50%? What about the other 50%? And if everyone has guns, then what is
>the point in having them?
In Switzerland, it's a citizen defence force, much better set up and
provisioned than in the US. Something we could learn well from them really.
As for the "point", I choose to own firearms, there is no _need_ involved
since I am not a serf subject to the whims of a despot. I am a free citizen of
a "mostly" free republic. I don't require permission to own firearms, or
crypto & etc. If you are different, then you have my sympathy.
>>>>I am 100% in favor of banning all financial aid and military support
>>>>for countries which don't even support the right for their own
>>>>citizens to bear arms.
>
>>>I'm all in favour of banning all financial aid and military support
>>>for countries which don't even support the right for their own
>>>citizens to feel safe in their own country.
>
>>Since we give you money, and you don't give us money, guess which
>>resolution would have more effect?
>
>When have you given us any money?
Has NZ paid back the WWII lend-lease debts yet? if so, thanks...
As far as a cursory search has availed me, NZ neither receives nor sends
financial aid to the US. Although costs of military defence that the US bears
might slew that image if we looked into it.
I mispoke in assuming that the US currently gives foreign aid to NZ.
>>>>If the government doesn't trust it's citizens to carry their own
>>>>arms then what kind of government do you have?
>
>>>An government that realises people can't be trusted to have casual
>>>access to guns.
>
>>Or to free information, or computers, of course, tapping phone comm is needed
>>also, after all, you can't trust the peasants...
>
>That's why free information isn't given.
Not to you perhaps, but then, you aren't a free citizen are you?
The US is far from perfect, with a less than stellar record on some issues,
and certainly has room for improvement, but at least most of us understand that
govt is at best, a neccessary evil. Rather than the font of all wisdom.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: rt18139.c
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 15:22:43 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 17:51:29 +0200,
Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>> >mkdir /temp
>> >mcopy a:/linux/rtl8139.c /temp
>> >mcopy a:/linux/trans /temp
>> >cd /temp
>> >chmod 777 trans
>
>a: ???
>
>
The mtools suite allows you to manipulate dos formated floppies and such
without having to mount them into the dir structure.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 15:33:45 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 19:12:29 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On 6 Jan 2001 17:06:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
>
>>Word perfect for linux is actually not a wine port, since it predates wine
>>by at least two years. Another lie.
>
>It is therefore a native Linux program?
>So it doesn't need wine to run?
>Again do your research before you reveal your ignorance.
WP 8 did not require wine to run, I believe that Corel's office suite does
require wine, (and that is one reason I won't buy it) but WP8 doesn't.
>>>>> How about PM firewall? Well this one is a real gem if ever there was
>>>>> one. Simple to set up and it works very well. It should have prompts
>>>>> for possible selections though as it took me a while to figure out
>>>>> that my external interface was ppp0 and I doubt Joe Sixpack will ever
>>>>> figure it out.
>>>>
>>>>Joe sixpack doesnt need a firewall for linux. There are other, much
>>>>easier ways to secure a box.
>>
>>
>>> Name one......
joe sixpack could use any of at least a half dozen firewall creator GUI front
ends for linux. With iptables or ipchains. Kfirewall is one, as is guarddog.
Frankly, I found pmfirewall simple and easy to use, but maybe reading the docs
helped.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.fan.bill-gates
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 19:33:38 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have an IBM PS/2 Model 85, with 128M of memory, a couple of SCSI disks,
> an ethernet card, and an SVGA card. Disk and graphics card are original
> IBM, ethernet is a 3COM, IIRC.
!SNIP!
> -- the machine is upstairs, and doesn't
> usually have a monitor attached.
H-Hey! You have a computer with 128 Mb of RAM and you don't use it?!
Thinking of my old 486 that has about 32 TIMES less RAM that I keep
downstairs, but I still use...
I know now: You people have too much comfort and all you have to do left
if complain about things!
"640 KB is all you'd ever need!" Hehe... No wonder I'm one of the rare
Bill Gates's freinds
--
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)
4E6F746369656420746865204845582D41534349493F
GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/
------------------------------
From: Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 19:35:47 +0100
Richard Wright wrote:
> Linux doesn't hate you, you hate Linux and will never accept that it could
> be any good. I know Linux and have found using it very rewarding over the
> years.
> the command "ifup eth0" activates a network interface.
Hey, you missed the thing with the rubbish marker!
About the commands: Well it isn't much better than I said, is it?
About me hating linux: It took you that long?
--
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)
4E6F746369656420746865204845582D41534349493F
GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
