Linux-Advocacy Digest #42, Volume #34 Sun, 29 Apr 01 18:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Importance, or lack, of Marketshare? ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Another example of Microsoft not living in the real world: ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Does Lin.. NOW-> reply of the week ("MH")
Re: t. max devlin: kook (Peter Hayes)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product (GreyCloud)
Re: What will the pundits say after appellate ruling? ("Robert Morelli")
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product (GreyCloud)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product (GreyCloud)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product (GreyCloud)
Re: The upgrade ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Microsoft hit new security 'level' :-) (GreyCloud)
Re: Endeavour shuttle and windows (Marcello Barboni)
Re: Does Linux support "Burn-Proof" CDRW's (GreyCloud)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Does Linux support "Burn-Proof" CDRW's (GreyCloud)
Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security (Bob Hauck)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Importance, or lack, of Marketshare?
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:14:05 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> That may be true, but it is so only in the kernel and things that
> interact directly with the kernel, like device drivers. In
> applications, Linus Torvalds is agnostic, and I think he is pragmatic
> and correct. I think everyone hopes that money will be made in the
> future by other than the selling of proprietary binary-only programs.
>
Ok,
True, Linus is an agnostic when it comes to userspace code. Matthew just
made a general statement about his opinions which I interpreted (too)
broadly. I only wanted to point out that even Linus' pragmatism runs only
so far.
I don't mind proprietary code myself, it's just that with the wealth of
Free Software out there I'm just not willing to pay for it, with the
exception of games. I am willing to pay for Free software though, if I
can buy it of the shelf I actually do so (unfortunately, there is not
much of a market for it yet down here).
Mart
--
Write in C, write in C,
Write in C, yeah, write in C.
Only wimps use BASIC, Write in C.
http://www.orca.bc.ca/spamalbum/
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another example of Microsoft not living in the real world:
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:26:25 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "B'ichela"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That brings up an interesting question... in reguards to all
> of the distributions of Linux. Is there any version where someone got
> into the MEAT of the compiled object code, the actual binary, optimized
> it for space and speed. If so which distribution has this been done
> with?
> Some people got small cores here. Some find old boxen laying
> around that only has 8mb of ram with 200MB or so Hds.
>
If I understand correctly, you mean you want fully optimized object code
straight from the first install? AFAIK the closest would be Debian, as
they ship with all libraries 'stripped' by default, ie no debugging code.
The Debian base system would fit into 200MB disk space quite comfortably,
however you would have suffer through the installer, which is not the
most beginner-friendly out there. It's good, but it presupposes that you
know *exactly* what hardware you have, and what kernel modules you need
as drivers.
After the base files are installed, you could use the 'apt' tool to
install the bare minimum of applications you need, however it would be
advisable to have a web browser handy on a second machine so that you
could use the Packages page to look up exactly what you need. The
'dselect' installer, besides being intimidating too just about everyone,
has a bad habit of installing too much packages, whereas 'apt' only
installs the packages you request and only the *necessary* dependencies.
Note though, that Debian is not optimized for speed for compatibility
reasons. I do have the feeling though that your old boxes are not exactly
Pentiums to begin with :)
HTH,
Mart
--
Write in C, write in C,
Write in C, yeah, write in C.
Only wimps use BASIC, Write in C.
http://www.orca.bc.ca/spamalbum/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:34:27 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
> Well, from out of this window, the world looks pretty flat (hell it
> fooled manking for thousands upon thousands of years), but does that make
> it flat?
OK, for you, the world is flat.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Lin.. NOW-> reply of the week
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 20:56:56 GMT
The Joe Linux Advocate of the week (or is it weak) award is summarily
awarded to ...
"Matthew Gardiner"
Who so eloquently engaged us with the following ...
>Get a life!
> you are nothing more than a talentless moron with a large pair of
ear-phones on.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:00:26 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 05:49:54 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >If the Apple Lisa, Classic or whatever it was that I saw in Lasky's store
> >in Glasgow in the early 80s had launched its apps with a single mouse click
> >I would have been attracted to it, maybe even bought one. As it was, all I
> >got was precious little, and I left unimpressed.
>
> Live and learn. Who was worse off for this, you or Apple?
Apple. Mind you, I now hate the things for their closed proprietry hardware
and inefficient outdated OS (OSX excepted, since I've not seen or used it I
can't pass judgement). So, thankfully, I missed buying Apple.
>
> >> They are not. They're the worst possible test subjects for such a
> >> thing, in fact. Useful work means production, so it is how productive,
> >> not how intuitive, something is which should be measured. This means it
> >> is far more important how efficient and effective an interface is, then
> >> how easily a novice can dope it out on their own. Designing interfaces
> >> which can be doped out without instruction by a novice results in "dumb
> >> interfaces", not intuitive ones.
> >
> >I said "the basics", being, in this context, the act of launching the app,
> >not the minutiae of its use. That's a different matter altogether.
>
> That's what menus are for. Hotkeys work pretty good to, if you work out
> a set that is efficient for your needs.
>
> >> >Double-clicking just interferes with that process. Tell someone they can
> >> >launch their app with one mouse click on its icon and they'll catch on
> >> >instantly.
> >>
> >> Sure, as soon as you explain what "launch" and "app" and "icon" mean.
> >
> >"Place the little arrow on the little picture and press this button. Your
> >wordprocessor will start up." Explain they can start their other programs
> >in a similar way.
>
> And from that point on, they're doomed. The will never ever understand
> the desktop metaphor, nor the computer underneath, but simply mindlessly
> click and hope things work the way they expect or imagine.
We're dealing with the desktop and how to launch the app, not how to use it
thereafter. One click or two to launch it has no effect on how it's used,
or the user's approach to it.
> >Of course some icons aren't exactly self-evident, but that's another story.
>
> No, it's not. Why do you keep wanting to treat certain parts of the
> desktop metaphor as separate from the desktop metaphor itself?
I meant the so-called artwork attached to some icons.
> >> >> and would prefer a TUI at
> >> >> every turn (telepathic user interface), at least until the OUI
> >> >> (omniscient user interface) becomes practical.
> >> >
> >> >Or the VCI (Voice control interface).
> >>
> >> You are claiming that a voice interface would be on the order of a
> >> telepathic or omniscient interface?
> >
> >No, but unlike a TUI or an OUI it is achieveable.
>
> To be honest, that remains to be seen, and I have reason to suspect
> that, despite the widely held expectation that it is effective and
> efficient, it is not really very achievable at all. At least not to the
> extent that the desktop metaphor is achievable. But of course, some
> people think XP's "Romper Room" style GUI is effective, and most people
> simple assume that voice command of a computer would be easier or better
> because they are told it would be, and everyone does it in science
> fiction. Voices are for talking, not for executing processes.
I agree. A VCI works in Startrek, but I can't see people entering values
into a spreadsheet with one, especially in a busy office.
Peter
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:11:35 -0700
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > I rarely uses Linux GUI, usually through
> > a remote console, so I can't commend on that, but I just had a very bad
> > experiance trying to find out how to format a file system on linux.
> > First I tried man format, which brought me a string formatting command.
> > Then I tried man -K format, man -K "format filesystem", etc. I spend
> > half an hour with it, finally having to reboot to *DOS* to do so. Yuck.
>
> Linux is not windows and the terms for similar things are different.
>
> Under Windows, the format command initializes the media and then makes a
> filesystem on top of that.
>
> Under linux,
>
> fdformat formats a floppy device
>
> mkfs.* makes a file system.
>
> mkfs.* has nothing to do with formatting.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
>
> u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
Which implicates windows users coming into advocacy groups complaining
about linux.
You are quite correct in the differences between windows and linux.
Windows is not UNIX or Linux. Also shows that they didn't spend the
time to get acquainted with Linux. Even windows beginners have to read
and practice from books to figure out how windows should be used. I
expect then that Linux beginners should read and practice from books to
figure out how Linux works.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What will the pundits say after appellate ruling?
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 15:17:22 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said William Shakespeare in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 28 Apr 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>>
>> >> What counts is not whether they are convicted of being a monopoly,
>> >> however; what counts is what remedy is applied, and whether it
>> >> works.
>> >
>> >Yes Max but my point was that even if the remedy is watered down or
>> >thrown out, MS has virtually zero chance of getting reversal on the
>> >charge of whether or not it is a monopoly, and therefore guilty of
>> >violating the Sherman Act.
>>
>> I understand that, and I'd agree with your point. But in terms of
>> "what counts", I am not comforted by any metaphoric victories, only in
>> a remedy.
>>
>> >The point being that even if the
>> >government slaps MS' wrist, the monopoly conviction which *will*
>> >remain will open the door to a potential vast, incredible wave of
>> >private lawsuits by anyone abused by MS' monopoly, including other
>> >corporations. And they can all sue for *3X* damages. Sun is
>> >reportedly contemplating just such a suit.
>>
>> So far as I know, this idea remains primarily amateur speculation,
>> though I don't doubt it has some validity. Sun already folded for
>> chump change in their last suit, so I have little faith in the value of
>> such an approach.
I assume you're referring to the Java case here. By what standard did
Sun settle for chump change? The whole Java affair is one case in which
Microsoft in fact got played for a chump.
Sun happened to have the technology for Java lying around. They had
hopes for it, but they knew that establishing a new programming
language is in general almost impossible. The way they succeded was
by getting Java in Netscape. Then MS was forced to license it for IE
and Sun charged them ridiculously high fees for the license. Everyone
knew MS didn't really want Java to succeed, but their best bet was to
support it aggressively. Partly as a result of Microsoft's support, Java
took off.
Once Java took off, Sun wanted MS out of the picture. The way they did
it was with the lawsuit. It wasn't too clear Sun could win. After all,
MS had a fairly liberal contract and they hadn't done anything all that
clear cut. But Sun first used the suit as a pretext to deny MS the
newest releases, and they got an injunction that forced MS to remove
the things from J++ and IE that Sun didn't like. From that point on,
MS was pretty much impotent to stop Java.
In the end, Sun did in fact win the suit. They got MS to agree to get
out of the Java market, and collected another boatload of cash from
them to boot.
In the meantime, Java hasn't been hurt at all by Microsoft's ejection.
It is one of the hottest technologies on the market, EJB is considered
the de fact standard for ebusiness applications, and Java skills are
currently the most highly demanded language skills.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:14:52 -0700
MH wrote:
>
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > MH wrote:
> >
> > > This is SO true! I just setup a windows mini home LAN to a broadband
> modem -
> > > ISP using a linksys router. One windows whistler box, one win98 box, one
> > > winME box, and one RedHat Linux box. Guess which one will not work?
> That's
> > > right. The 3 windows boxes were so simple to setup for shared broadband
> > > access through the router it was amazing. Took all of one hour to
> connect
> > > all the pc's, set up sharing and DHCP. The linux box couldn't get past
> the
> > > NIC setup.
> >
> > Correction: MH couldn't get past the NIC setup. Also, it's probably
> > just because you're so used to setting up Windows boxes, and know
> > absolutely nothing about Linux, except how to bitch about how its "ease
> > of use" sucks compared to Windows. Maybe you should just try another
> > Linux distro instead of just generalizing the entirety of Linux based on
> > your ineptness or failings with one particular distro.
>
> Typical LinZealot response. Your ilk is so predictable. You are also an
> idiot.
> The box is RedHat 6.2. The drivers for the card were 'certified' to run
> under this very distro.
> Do yourself a favor and try something radical. Go to google and search on
> "linux netgear" and "linux linksys" and look at all the problem reports with
> these cards. The drivers, and or makefiles, and or instructions ARE
> incompatible with the cards.Hell, netgear has updated drivers on their site
> that don't work with the directions that come with them!
All it shows is that Netgear doesn't do a good job at writing the Linux
drivers or instructions. I have run across this in some windows
hardware vendors as well... some just don't measure up to the task.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:16:55 -0700
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > MH wrote:
> >
> > > This is SO true! I just setup a windows mini home LAN to a broadband
> modem -
> > > ISP using a linksys router. One windows whistler box, one win98 box, one
> > > winME box, and one RedHat Linux box. Guess which one will not work?
> That's
> > > right. The 3 windows boxes were so simple to setup for shared broadband
> > > access through the router it was amazing. Took all of one hour to
> connect
> > > all the pc's, set up sharing and DHCP. The linux box couldn't get past
> the
> > > NIC setup.
> >
> > Correction: MH couldn't get past the NIC setup. Also, it's probably
> > just because you're so used to setting up Windows boxes, and know
> > absolutely nothing about Linux, except how to bitch about how its "ease
> > of use" sucks compared to Windows. Maybe you should just try another
> > Linux distro instead of just generalizing the entirety of Linux based on
> > your ineptness or failings with one particular distro.
>
> Oh - I see how this double standard works.
>
> If we can't figure out the arcane crap and hoops that Linux makes us jump
> through then it's our fault.
>
> When a linvocate can't get even a default install of W2K working right, it's
> Windows fault?
>
> Face it, and this is undeniable, linux is much much more difficult to setup
> and use.
What part of "Windows is not Linux" do you not understand? This is a
Linux advocacy group. Why come in here trying to un-advocate Linux and
advocate microsoft products?
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:20:08 -0700
JoFi wrote:
>
> "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:btFG6.532$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> <snip>
> > > Remember - linux is free if your time is worth nothing.
> >
> > This is SO true! I just setup a windows mini home LAN to a broadband
> modem -
> > ISP using a linksys router. One windows whistler box, one win98 box, one
> > winME box, and one RedHat Linux box. Guess which one will not work? That's
> > right. The 3 windows boxes were so simple to setup for shared broadband
> > access through the router it was amazing. Took all of one hour to connect
> > all the pc's, set up sharing and DHCP. The linux box couldn't get past the
> > NIC setup. Tried two cards: a Netgear fa311, and a linksys LNE1000TX. Both
> > cards provided linux drivers. Neither driver would compile correctly. The
> > makefile with the netgear was a complete mess. The linksys card uses the
> > tulip.o module. Would it load? Hell no. I don't really care who is at
> fault,
> > it just doesn't work, period. After spending the better part of an entire
> > day looking through the countless failures on the net to get these cards
> to
> > work I have to shake my head. I'll just purchase a card that has full
> linux
> > support to get the job done. Time IS the issue here. A $50 NIC card is
> > really no issue. A day or two getting something to work which was so
> simple
> > under windows is.
> > World domination. Yeah yeah yeah...
> >
> >
>
> This is typical of many others experiences. Im sure it wont put off the
> Linux zealots' continual effort to persuade everyone how good it is though.
> *sigh*
Then why come into a Linux advocacy group trying to un-advocate Linux
and advocate microsoft products?
Even beginning windows users have to read a book and to practice to
become proficient in windows use. The same applies to Linux for new
beginners. Let's see you handle MVS or VMS. Where would you start?
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The upgrade
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:27:39 +0100
> I upgraded my 400MHz Pentium PII to a VIA system with an AMD Duron
> 850MHz.
>
> Windows 98 SE reinstalled everything and had to reboot a few times to
> complete the change over. It also sometimes crashes on shutdown.
>
> Linux SuSE 7.1 just... worked. Hey!
Well good to hear you've had some success. IIRC, Suse used lpr instead of
CUPS, so you might find your printers working better as well :-)
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft hit new security 'level' :-)
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:28:22 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:9cbcsl$adm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >> Now it says 'security fix files' have been infected with a virus.
> How
> > > > >> does this not substantiate my subject? What's an admin supposed to
> do?
> > > As
> > > > >> soon as they hear about a patch for a security bug they should
> download
> > > > >> and install. Next thing they know their systems are infected. It is
> > > hard
> > > > >> enough keeping up with Microsoft security patches (over 2 security
> bugs
> > > > >> per week in 2000 for Microsoft software - a record) without having
> to
> > > > >> check if they are infected as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > How is 2 bugs a week a record? I see dozens of patches a week to
> Linux.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you find keeping up with MS patches difficult, you must be
> literally
> > > > > livid about keeping up with Linux patches.
> > > >
> > > > Have you ever used UNIX before, because most people will know is that
> as
> > > > soon as a fix becomes available, the company/distro posts it, compared
> to
> > > > Microsoft where you have to wait 3 months for a service pack that is
> not
> > > > guaranteed to fix the problems you are facing. I would rather more
> > > > patches, than waiting in limbo for two months hoping that my server
> > > doesn't
> > > > crash because I was waiting for the next service pack to be released.
> > >
> > > What does that have to do with "keeping up" with the number of fixes?
> > >
> > > In any event, MS releases "hot fixes". There are quite a few of them,
> and
> > > they come out between service packs.
> >
> > If one goes to MS site... do you get routed to these hot fixes???
>
> Why should everyone be routed to hot fixes just for going to the microsoft
> site?
>
> If you mean, can you easily find them in a single place? Yes.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/
>
> Just click Downloads.
In actuality, my IBM for the windows side has an embedded link for
hardware driver downloads and another one to MS for O/S download issues.
On the Solaris side of my IBM, Sun has embedded into Netscape a link to
their site for O/S download issues. All I have to do is click on these
as well. These also include minor issues as well, which makes me happy
to at least look and see if I really need it.
--
V
------------------------------
From: Marcello Barboni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Endeavour shuttle and windows
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 21:35:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Don't be so silly. If you want to know about NASA and how they use
> computers then go to their website. They have some good academic papers
> regarding computing and reliability and systems used on space flights.
I searched the nasa site and didn't find anything. Do you have some
pointers?
On sci.space.shuttle I found a post (http://groups.google.com/groups?
hl=en&lr=&safe=off&ic=1&th=982d6b07a0bf50f9&seekm=38A7057C.3E83B7FF%
40ibm-pc.org#p) that stated that some of the onboard systems ran
windows, don't know if it's true or not.
Marcello
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux support "Burn-Proof" CDRW's
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:38:04 -0700
pip wrote:
>
> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> I wish there was Cubase under Linux. I love it - it's great.
>
> > >> > Nor do you have any of the plugins availible for those applications,
> > >> > which can be shared amongst the various applications via Direct-X.
> > >> Sorry mate, Linux doesnt use DirectX.
> > >
> > > Which is one of the reasons that porting games is a pain.
> >
> > OpenGL, OpenAL, and SDL are mighty fine gaming API's.
>
> Quite so, I don't disagree. But they are only useful if people use them.
> The point is that obviously the best games are released using DirectX
> more and more. With this XBox thing the situation will, worsen.
>
> > >> Now I know our resident Wintroll prefers 'install shield' as it shields
> > >> him from his own ignorance, and prevents said ignorance, from keeping
> > >> him up at night, in a world that mystifies and terryfies him :)
> > >
> > > You mean like RPM does. Hmmmmmm.
> > Please elaborate on that comment please.
>
> When you do a rpm -i xxx.rpm I don't know where things go unless I do
> more digging. Therefore you could say that the two are quite similar
> except that most install-shield installs let you choose the base
> directory and do some install customisations. I don't know if .deb is
> better (I must plead ignorance - but I hear good things about it), but
> IMHO RPM leaves a lot to be desired in some aspects. I like some
> features such as the idea of querying a file to find our what package it
> belongs to and Uninstall DOES actually uninstall it, but it needs
> improving. In either case I find install-shield a far easier and better
> way to install things than say the GnoRPM installer. We _need_ a better
> install system. I don't really care that much from my point of view
> because a prefer doing the old nerd-type src.tar.gz config/make route,
> but for most other people this area REALLY needs improvement. That is
> not to say that RPM is not configurable and powerful - just that it
> should be geared towards people who need to know nothing about RPM other
> than to click on an icon. Actually, scrub that. I'd like a point and
> click customisable install method as well. If fact I would like a method
> that would do a src configure/compile/install automatically in one go -
> just as easily as rpm -i. That would actually be what I'd quite like.
When I had Caldera 2.4 installed, I just used their graphical RPM
program. In it I could select any installed package from a graphical
tree ... click on that one.. then click on info and it shown the
directories where every piece of software is installed at. This was a
KDE app.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 21:38:37 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3aec3379$0$41615$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> I have to disagree. How is it possible that a hardware failure unrelated
to
> any software should affect the reported reliability of the OS?
Are you saying that you don't think that using hardware like raid
with hot-spare, auto-rebuild, and hot swap drives and dual power
supplies should have any effect on the uptime you can claim?
> Besides,
> exactly how long is it that we have to run something before we are finally
> allowed to calculate and report it's uptime? I mean, a machine running 30
> days without reboot has a uptime of 100% for those 30 days. Do we pick an
> arbitrary length of time - say, 1 year.
Yes, the value begins to meaningful at about a year, but the statistics
should
continue to accumulate for the life of the system, and include all
recommended
updates that force downtime.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux support "Burn-Proof" CDRW's
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:40:47 -0700
pip wrote:
>
> "Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > : But yet you have no application like:
> >
> > : CD Architect
> > : SoundForge.
> > : Vegas audio/video
> > : Cubase
> > : Samplitude
> > : Acid
> > : Cakewalk
> > : Sonar.
> > : Logic Audio
> >
> > : And I could go on for hours........
> >
> > The list of poor-quality, non-portable software, that can run on only
> > one OS, and the shittiest one available at that, certainly seems
> > endless.
>
> If you think that the above are poor quality software then you obviously
> have no interest in the field!
>
> Show me some equivalents please and I'll be happy!
>
> Doh!!!!!
I've got calkwalk (windows) and a Korg i5S keyboard. I'm having a hard
time reading Korgs' manuals. I printed out all of Calkwalks
documentation and put it in a binder. There are some things there as
well that needs further explanation and have tried to search the net for
more info... no luck. :-(
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 21:43:45 GMT
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:37 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not concerned with your lack of understanding of NFS,
And I'm getting real tired of talking to your asshole. It keeps telling
me that I have "no understanding" of whatever it is we're discussing at
the time.
I'm done with this now. Feel free to spout whatever nonsense you want
about NFS while I'm gone.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 21:44:24 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> I don't play troll games, Les, because I'm not a prick.
> >
> >Then what do you call your months of content-free postings touting
> >a bizarre opinion with no facts to support it?
>
> Participating in discussion, despite the fact that my opponents are
> hardly worthy of the effort, given their spewing of meaningless rhetoric
> in leu of analytic argument.
You have provided nothing to analyze and ignored any mention of
facts by anyone else. All you have done is promote someone else's
flawed and self-serving opinions.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
