Linux-Advocacy Digest #900, Volume #31 Thu, 1 Feb 01 20:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Bill knows what's best for you ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux headache (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The 130MByte text file (.)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it (Giuliano
Colla)
Re: Storm Linux & Applixware (.)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it (Giuliano
Colla)
I edited my inetd.conf with Word. (.)
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (Peter Hayes)
Re: I edited my inetd.conf with Word. ("Adam Warner")
Re: Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it! ("Gary Hallock")
Re: My open-source quote
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it (Giuliano
Colla)
Re: Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it!
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill knows what's best for you
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:58:21 -0500
chrisv wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Changing the air filter would be more appropriate.
>
> 103 lines for that bit of wisdom.
Context is everything.
--
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: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here!
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 19:07:37 -0500
Mike Martinet wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Mike Martinet wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, I don't think Linux is better on the desktop. You know, if MS
> > > had just continued to sell its 'toy' operating system to the home
> > > market, I wouldn't have minded. Linux is a pain in the ass. But the
>
> >
> > You've never administrated THOUSANDS of machines.
> >
>
> You're right. I never thought of that. But if you were administering
> Windows/DOS on thousands of machines for "users", wouldn't that be
> easier than helping non-technically inclined people with Linux?
Nope. I worked the help-desk for approximately 15,000 Unix users thoughout
GM,
spread all over the country.
it took a mere TWENTY of us to keep things rolling.
>
> Remember, I don't think WinDOS is bad for the desktop. I think the
> *company* is annoying and I don't think they have any place in the
> server market - but their desktop efforts are adequate.
LoseDOS is ok for the desktop, as long as everything is working PERFECTLY.
As soon as there's a problem, you need an admin RIGHT THERE to fix it.
That's a shitty way to run a business.
With Unix, I can literally move from one problem in Grand Rapids, Mich,
to another problem in Warren, Mich, and onto another problem at the
Desert Proving Grounds in Arizona....IN A MATTER OF SECONDS.
Try doing that in LoseDOS.
>
> > I can do that with Linux. No can do with LoseDOS.
> >
> > > rewards from mastering a true Unix on i86 are great. It was MS forcing
> > > their way into the server market on the back of their sloppy personal OS
> > > that really gummed my grits. All the sneaky, cheesy, pathetic things
> > > they did in order to leverage their PC dominance into the enterprise are
> > > frighteningly odious. As servers, the MS family of OSs stink! They're
> >
> > So was their sneaky, cheasy, pathetic arm-twisting of OEM vendors to
> > structure contracts so that no matter WHICH vendor a customer chose for
> > a DOS, (and optional GUI), that the customer would ALWAYS get charged
> > for the M$ products.
> >
> > I.e. their emergence at the top of the x86 platform was just as cheesy.
> >
> > Digital Research's DR-DOS product was:
> > a) technologically superior
> > b) more stable
> > c) 100% compatible with MS-DOS software
> > d) 50% lower cost.
> >
> > And yet, achieved abysmal sales...primarily, because customers were
> > PREVENTED from buying DR-DOS without also having the cost of MS-DOS
> > put into the price.
> >
> > I.e. Microshaft is all about sleaze and Al Capone "marketing" methods.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, the stuff they did with OEMs is abhorrent.
But most important is...they DID it.
That is ... they WILLFULLY COMMITTED ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR.
Not just once...but with EVERY OEM they could sink their teeth into.
>
> Aside from that, I have no experience with DR-DOS. Was it re-entrant,
DR-DOS 2.x was re-entrant and multi-tasking...Microsoft SAID they would
have multi-tasking in MS-DOS 3.x...but it didn't actually appear until
MS-DOS 6.x
> multi-tasking and multi-user? I've been wishing recently that I'd
> discovered Linux back in '92. I was heavy into DOS, running a BBS on
it barely existed at that time.
> one machine and tinkering on another at home and writing test software
> at work on others. It was about this time that I was introduced to UNIX
> on a SUN 360. If I had known that I could have gotten a free
> alternative to DOS that was comparable to UNIX (i.e., a 'real' OS) I
> would have lied, cheated or gone without beer for a while to afford a
> 386 motherboard.
i know the feeling. I had been wanting a Unix-work-alike since the
mid-80's.
>
> MjM
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux headache
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:12:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 31 Jan 2001 23:16:52 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:22:33 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>And beating the snot out of Lose2k and LoseME
>
>Show me one survey that shows Linux taking over the desktop.
Show us a survey that shows Win2k taking over the server market. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 4d:13h:35m actually running Linux.
This is not a .sig.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: 2 Feb 2001 00:13:12 GMT
Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> . wrote:
>> Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> >> I'll try EMACS, then to be perverse, I'll try XEMACS. I don't expect
>> >> either will have much problem.
>>
>> > I think Emacs will refuse.. at leat it refused my 1200 MB file.. some
>> > maximum buffer size exceeded same with Xemacs.
>> >
>>
>> You can set that.
> Without recompiling? If so where ?
Ok so you have to recompile. :P
=====.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:14:45 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Giuliano Colla wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Except for the small issue that Windows NT is still in place, while you
> > > > > > linzealots insist that Linux can replace Windows on the desktop. It can't,
> > > > > > sadly, dolts like Kulkis (who would sooner lob off his left testicle then
> > > > > > admit to a UNIX based anything having anything less than total perfection)
> > > > >
> > > > > Unix has several legitimate faults.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, Kyle Jacobs has yet to identify any of them.
> > > >
> > > > He's probably still trying to come up with Schrodinger's equation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > +---------------------------------------+
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | X |
> > > | |
> > > | You are here |
> > > | (more ore less) |
> > > | |
> > > +---------------------------------------+
> > >
> > > Map at the Heisenberg Institute
> > >
> >
> > LOL! That's one of the best graphic representation of Schroedinger's
> > equations I've ever seen!
>
> Actually, it's a commentary about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
>
I had mistaken your drawing for a box with a particle (or a "wavicle")
inside.
To be pedantic, in this particular case (i.e., when you're standing in
front of a map), you don't care about your velocity, but just about your
position, so, according the uncertainty principle, you may determine it
with any degree of accuracy you want, provided you keep your velocity
totally undetermined.
> Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that there is a tradeoff
> of knowing position vs. knowing velocity.
>
> The more accurately you measure the position of an object, the less
> accurate is your measurement of velocity, and vice-versa.
>
> Imagine you take a picture of a speeding race-car.
>
> If your shutter speed is very fast, you know it's position
> exactly...but it's velocity can only be guessed at.
>
> Conversely, you can take a long exposure, and, by measuring the
> length of the image of the car vs. the stationary background,
> you can judge it's velocity rather more accurately, but at
> the price of knowing less about it's position.
>
> A corrolary of this principle (by re-arranging the equations)
> is that (as can be guessed from above) there is a trade-off
> between knowing the total energy of a system vs. time of
> measurement.
>
> This means that, at the sub-atomic level, we will NEVER detect
> certain event if the product delta-time x delta-energy is
> below the minimum threshold of uncertainty...at least not with
> any experimental apparatus based on Quantum Dynamic theory.
>
> Einstein summarized this principle as follow:
>
> The rule is *not* "Don't stick your tongue out at the
> teacher;" the rule is "Don't GET CAUGHT sticking your
> tongue out at the teacher."
>
> In this case, he was referring to the Conservation of Mass-Energy law...
> that is, if the violation of Conservation of Mass-Energy is short enough,
> then, in fact, the substance being studied "can get away with" violating
> the conservation law.
>
> Thus, the theorizing about entities such as "gluons"...massive,
> short-lived particles that keep the nucleus together...as long as
> the atomic nucleus is small, then the gluon can pop into-existance,
> traverse the nucleus, and then disappear again, without violating
> the Conservation of Mass-Energy law, because it's too short-lived.
> With larger, nuclei, however, the gluon might not be able to do
> it's work within the specified time to remain undetected...and
> thus, and explanation for fission decay of the heavier elements.
>
> Ultimately, as the present Quantum Dynamic method is finally
> overthrown for new, more comprehensive physics (in the same way
> that Quantum Dynamics overthrew classical Newtonian physics to
> explain what happens at the atomic level), we may discover a
> way to see below the threshold defined by Heisenberg's uncertainty
> principle.
>
> Schroedinger, was, of course, trying to argue that Heisenberg's
> proposal lead to irrational paradoxes...yet, so far, Heisenberg
> has held out, without a single paradox arising.
Maybe Heisenberg didn't appreciate too much Schroedinger's point of
view!
In his "Die physikalischen Prinzipien der Quantumtheorie" (Leipzig 1930)
he (I mean Heisenberg) explains the physical concepts, and in the
Appendix gives the "Mathematical apparatus". He shows the Schroedinger's
equations and concludes:
"Equations [A.34] and [A.35] represent the most effective mathematical
methods to cope with quantum problems. As far as the physical
interpretation is concerned, however, they don't bring anything new"...
>
> Until then: oh well.
>
> Actually, the map in the cartoon was more detailed.
>
> Let's see if I can find a scan of it on the web.
> no luck :-(
>
> Anyway, in the original drawing, there was a man, standing in front
> of a campus map, title Heisenberg Institute, with a large X and a
> legend bearing the words, "you are here (more or less)"
>
That way I wouldn't have mislead. Just one case where GUI is better than
CLI! :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Storm Linux & Applixware
Date: 2 Feb 2001 00:14:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2001 20:14:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>Which comes as no surprise. That cousin in the hamptons seems to think
>>that you and he have mutual friends or something, and if thats the case
>>and you are who he thinks you are, he has confirmed your absolute
>>idiocy in real life as well.
> So now it's a cousin?
> Last time it was a girlfriend.
No, it wasnt. Please demonstrate that I said "girlfriend".
You're lying once again.
> So which one is it?
Cousin. I live with my girlfriend.
> I doubt it is either one because as usual you are FOS.
I'm often full of shit, but not this time.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:19:56 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Giuliano Colla
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Mon, 29 Jan 2001 01:27:15 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >>
> >> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:952c93$hk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> > >>> Key word here is "good"
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>When that's the keyword, MS crap falls out of the picture.
> >> >
> >> > > Tell that to the 95 percent of the world that is using MS.
> >> >
> >> > Oh. Its the best because everyone uses it.
> >> >
> >> > Thats some argument youve got there.
> >>
> >> The road less traveled is less traveled for a reason genius.
> >
> >The reason is called "monopolization". And its illegal.
>
> Not sure about monopolization being illegal per se. It's abuse
> of monopoly power that is illegal, as I understand it; Microsoft
> is damned good at abuse. :-)
>
As far as I can understand, if you just happen to be in a monopoly
position that's not "per se" illegal. But if you "monopolize", i.e.
actively operate to get or maintain a monopoly, that's illegal. That's
why I labeled "monopolization" as illegal.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: I edited my inetd.conf with Word.
Date: 2 Feb 2001 00:20:24 GMT
#echo stream tcp nowait root internal^M
#echo dgram udp wait root internal^M
#discard stream tcp nowait root internal^M
#discard dgram udp wait root internal^M
#daytime stream tcp nowait root internal^M
#daytime dgram udp wait root internal^M
#chargen stream tcp nowait root internal^M
#chargen dgram udp wait root internal^M
#time stream tcp nowait root internal^M
#time dgram udp wait root internal^M
ftp stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd in.ftpd -l -a^M
#telnet stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd in.telnetd^M
#shell stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd in.rshd^M
#login stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd in.rlogind^M
#exec stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd in.rexecd^M
#comsat dgram udp wait root /usr/sbin/tcpd in.comsat^M
#talk dgram tcp wait root /usr/sbin/tcpd in.talkd^M
#ntalk dgram udp wait root /usr/sbin/tcpd in.ntalkd^M
#dtalk stream tcp wait nobody /usr/sbin/tcpd in.dtalkd^M
#pop-2 stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd ipop2d^M
#pop-3 stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd ipop3d^M
#imap stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd imapd^M
#uucp stream tcp nowait uucp /usr/sbin/tcpd /usr/lib/uucp/uucico -l^M
#tftp dgram udp wait root /usr/sbin/tcpd in.tftpd^M
#bootps dgram udp wait root /usr/sbin/tcpd bootpd^M
#finger stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd in.fingerd^M
#cfinger stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/tcpd in.cfingerd^M
#systat stream tcp nowait guest /usr/sbin/tcpd /bin/ps -auwwx^M
#netstat stream tcp nowait guest /usr/sbin/tcpd /bin/netstat -f
inet^M
rsync stream tcp nowait root /usr/bin/rsync rsyncd --daemon^M
# swat stream tcp nowait.400 root /usr/sbin/swat swat'^M
# auth stream tcp nowait nobody /usr/sbin/in.identd in.identd -l -e -o^M
# cvspserver stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/cvspserver cvspserver^M
#nntp stream tcp nowait news /usr/sbin/tcpd /usr/sbin/leafnode^M
=====.
--
"It's natural to expect there might be people doing stupid things
with computers"
---Michael Vatis, director of the FBI's national infrastructure
protection center commenting on Y2K concerns about hacker attacks
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:20:31 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:28:59 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan
> > 2001 19:53:40 -0000;
> > >On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 02:39:05 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>Said Donn Miller in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 22 Jan 2001 00:15:17
> > >>>mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I don't know anyone that really plays games on their computers. is that out of
> > >>>> the ordinary? When people mention games as an issue, I often wonder why.
> > >>>
> > >>>> I have a Nintendo for games, why would I waste a computer on games?
> > >>
> > >>One word: keyboard.
> > >
> > > Keyboards for the Dreamcast have been available for quite
> > > some time now. Plus, the DC comes with a built in modem
> > > and a web browser. There's even a 100BaseT NIC that's
> > > supposed to be coming out for it as well.
> > >
> > >[deletia]
> > >
> > > You really don't follow this stuff, do you?
> >
> > No, why would I? I already have a keyboard, and its attached to a real
> > computer. If I'd wanted a toy computer, I'd have a Macintosh, or WebTV.
>
>
> I object to the term `toy computer' re: macs. The OS may be a bit of a
> toy OS (not OS X, though) but the hardware is very good.
To mis-quote Marshall McLuhan, the OS *IS* the computer.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I edited my inetd.conf with Word.
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:34:18 GMT
> "It's natural to expect there might be people doing stupid things
> with computers"
Yep :-) I don't think Microsoft intends Microsoft Word to be used to edit
Unix-style text files. It's obviously adding a CR & LF.
But a valid point that the editor should leave the specific format
unmodified.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it!
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 19:40:47 +0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "meow"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bit of a contradiction there. First i cant damage it by setting the dot
> clock setting too high and then next paragragh i can?!?
>
> So y'all telling me i cant destroy a monitor with software yet as this
> guy clearly states you can by setting the dot clock too high. This IS
> software driven so software CAN destroy the monitor This is exactly what
> i was talking about when i mentioned the software should choose these
> settings itself and not even let you choose something too high
>
Your reading comprehension seems to be quite poor. There was no
contradiction. You can not destroy an LCD with software. Older CRT
monitors can be destoyed by both Windows and Linux. Newer CRT monitors
can not.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: My open-source quote
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:44:08 -0000
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 16:13:05 -0700, Dan Hinojosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Open source is like a bicycle without a seat. Sure it works like other
>bicycles, but the comfort using it is not there."
...sounds like a description of MS-DOS more than anything else.
>
>--Dan Hinojosa, Java Developer
>
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:48:14 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
[...]
>
> Actually, the map in the cartoon was more detailed.
>
> Let's see if I can find a scan of it on the web.
> no luck :-(
>
I didn't find it either, but i stumbled into that:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes/2_10.html#subindex
Some aren't so bad.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it!
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:52:09 -0000
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 19:40:47 +0500, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "meow"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Bit of a contradiction there. First i cant damage it by setting the dot
>> clock setting too high and then next paragragh i can?!?
>>
>> So y'all telling me i cant destroy a monitor with software yet as this
>> guy clearly states you can by setting the dot clock too high. This IS
>> software driven so software CAN destroy the monitor This is exactly what
>> i was talking about when i mentioned the software should choose these
>> settings itself and not even let you choose something too high
>>
>
>Your reading comprehension seems to be quite poor. There was no
>contradiction. You can not destroy an LCD with software. Older CRT
>monitors can be destoyed by both Windows and Linux. Newer CRT monitors
>can not.
In this case, older might mean "made 10 years ago".
I had cheap, house brand monitor from '93 that had no
problems being overdriven. It was easier to overdrive
it with Windows actually. The original Win95 generic
monitor types did not include "cheap 1024x768 monitor".
Whereas Xfree did.
No voodoo was required, just selecting the right option
in a configuration wizard (xf86config).
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:59:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 01 Feb 2001 08:47:30 GMT
<95b7r1$56o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You GODDAMNED LIAR....you don't need to install a "telnet server"
>> you ignorant buffoon...it's part of the base networking package
>> (you know, ping and stuff).
>
>Oh pillock, I am not lying, it is not there.
>
>Besides, isn't telnet deprecated?
Dunno if it's officially deprecated, but anyone using it will
run the risk of sniffers, unless perhaps they use a variant that
understands SSL, such as the Debian one. (I haven't bothered
to test it, so can't say for sure.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 4d:15h:21m actually running Linux.
No electrons were harmed during this message.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
