Jeepers,
I came here for info ang get a friggin' soap opera to boot. What a
discusion group!!!
At 10:12 AM 4/20/00 -02-30, you wrote:
>I certainly do not think I am sharper, better, smarter, less destructive
>than anyone else. That's what I was trying to tell you if you care to
>listen.
>
>You just don't think outside that little bubble you call a life do you?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Corbeil [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 5:02 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
> >
> > Pittman, Merle wrote:
> >
> > > YOU ARROGANT P---k!!
> > >
> > > So a few math and physics courses (probably from mail order, or your
> > nearest
> > > community college) make you all that. I have 2 advanced degrees in
> > > engineering (electronics and computers) yet I think myself no better or
> > > smarter than anyone on this list and neither should you.
> >
> > Having advanced degrees does not necessarily make you a sharper human
> > being,
> > except that you know more about the technical business you studied in.
> > Humans
> > are not reduceable to merely technological terms. There's a hell of a lot
> > more
> > to being a totally balanced human being than an ego trip over advanced
> > degrees
> > in technology.
> >
> > Don't know if you're noticed or not, but technology has also been much the
> > cause for the serious degradation of the natural environment on this
> > planet;
> > therefore, before waving your pieces of paper, think first, because these
> > aren't impressive, no where as much as the continuous destruction of the
> > natural environment of this planet is.
> >
> > If only people with might high pieces of paper in technical studies could
> > only
> > figure out that simple reality.
> >
> > My arrogance is only your interpretation. I wonder if someone who waves
> > highly
> > advanced pieces of paper can figure out the simple meaning of this;
> > however, to
> > give you a little assistance, what it means is that I'm not at all
> > arrogant and
> > it's merely in your eyes that I am. What I am, though, is FRANK and a
> > no-bs
> > type.
> >
> > If you prefer bs, pc crap, then by all means, continue to live that way,
> > if
> > that's how you like to perceive the world; however, don't ever pretend
> > your two
> > pieces of paper to be of any true significance to me, for reasons as
> > stated
> > above. That's what I have to think about many so-called highly educated
> > types.
> >
> > I don't reduce humanity to mathematics or science, but instead take the
> > opposite pov, which is to put these sciences to the service of HUMANITY.
> > Hence
> > I BELIEVE in PEOPLE, far more than I believe in the sciences we discover
> > and
> > develop, but use so atrociously.
> >
> > If you don't grasp this truth, then believe me when I tell you, you'll
> > never be
> > convincing, not to me.
> >
> > If you knew how to read, then you'ld have realized very clearly that I
> > wasn't
> > bragging, but only describing my pov and reasoning to illustrate. T'was
> > not at
> > all for bragging, because, as per above.
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Mike Corbeil [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 2:39 PM
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: Re: [newbie] permissions on DOS_hda1
> > > >
> > > > Alan Shoemaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mike....correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the guy who's
> > > > > been telling some folks in this list that their questions aren't
> > > > > appropriate for this forum and to go ask them in the expert
> > > > > list? Well I think that your response in this thread (quoted
> > > > > below) was not appropriate for the newbie list. The remedy here
> > > > > was very simple and your four rambling paragraphs have simply
> > > > > served to confuse the issue.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not really, but then maybe I've been accustomed to less than trivial
> > for
> > > > longer
> > > > than I can recall. When I first started learning about computers and
> > > > programming, my ramble wouldn't have caused any problems, but then I
> > also
> > > > had a
> > > > few years of math and physics behind me. Nonetheless, if I think back
> > to
> > > > before
> > > > that, then I wouldn't have been put off by a more thorough
> > explanation.
> > > > Heck, my
> > > > father wanted me to help him remodel the house when I was a mere 8
> > years
> > > > old;
> > > > therefore, I've been held to above normal expectations for decades.
> > > >
> > > > If you're confused, then don't think that this means that everyone
> > else
> > > > who's a
> > > > newbie would also be confused. As I recall in school, in every
> > course, at
> > > > every
> > > > level, not everyone was equally comfortable with the material.
> > > >
> > > > What I prefer to do when I find an answer or document too complicated,
> > is
> > > > to
> > > > stick with the one I was more comfortable with, as long as it works.
> > > > Otherwise,
> > > > I just ask questions for clarification.
> > > >
> > > > We're not communicating between people in grade 1 of elementary
> > school,
> > > > here;
> > > > therefore, expect some people to provide more thorough answers. When
> > you
> > > > don't
> > > > like it, move on. If newbies seeking help scream in panic, then this
> > will
> > > > definitely help to indicate that what you say is true, but as it is,
> > > > you're
> > > > pretending to be able to speak for them, instead of letting them speak
> > for
> > > > themselves.
> > > >
> > > > As a relative newbie to Linux systems administration, but not to Unix
> > and
> > > > programming, I presented information I learned as a newbie to Linux
> > > > systems
> > > > administration, and based on this, the additional info wasn't out of
> > > > context.
> > > >
> > > > Besides, newbies also need to learn the system and some will catch on
> > very
> > > > quickly, while those who don't, can either ask for clarification, or
> > stick
> > > > with
> > > > the simpler responses they've received.
> > > >
> > > > How complicated do you want to make this?
> > > >
> > > > Some people in the newbie list have already proven that they're not
> > > > newbie; only
> > > > to installing Linux and only in some respects, more in some and less
> > in
> > > > others.
> > > >
> > > > By providing more thorough information in a newbie mailing list, as
> > well
> > > > as more
> > > > elementary answers, this satisfies the entire group. If you're not
> > happy
> > > > with an
> > > > answer which is correct, then skip. If you're not happy with an
> > answer
> > > > which is
> > > > not 100% correct, but along the correct line(s), then correct the
> > errors.
> > > >
> > > > This mailing list is for learning, as far as I'm aware, because
> > getting
> > > > help
> > > > inherently implies learning. Part of accepting to learn is accepting
> > to
> > > > make
> > > > errors or mistakes, and to learn from these.
> > > >
> > > > Why treat people like babies, instead of giving them something to chew
> > on?
> > > >
> > > > People using this list to get help for their employment should
> > subscribe
> > > > to
> > > > professional support mailing lists or resources; therefore, I don't
> > > > perceive
> > > > these mailing lists except for the much more general audience,
> > including
> > > > hobbiests. My case is neither of these, but instead merely learning,
> > to
> > > > merely
> > > > become more marketable, kind of like going to school, but without the
> > > > tuition
> > > > fees and the piece of paper at the end. You'll find people using
> > these
> > > > mailing
> > > > lists for various reasons, but you seem to only want to reduce or
> > restrict
> > > > to
> > > > people who are 100% newbie to computing, which is not the reality.
> > > >
> > > > If you wish to share more about your pedagogical philosophies or
> > > > approaches, then
> > > > feel free. However, I wouldn't bother based on this thread, because
> > what
> > > > I presented is not really above the newbie level. Again, I learned it
> > > > during my
> > > > newbie phase to Linux systems administration, but then I tend to spend
> > a
> > > > fair
> > > > amount of time reading ahead and reading various documentation I come
> > > > across and
> > > > which might be even remotely related. Just because others don't do
> > this,
> > > > doesn't
> > > > mean that this approach isn't relevant to people at the newbie level.
> > > >
> > > > Baby food is nourishing, but it's usually more nourshing when there's
> > an
> > > > adequate
> > > > amount of vitamins and minerals.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not knocking the response to set umask to 0 for the dos
> > partitions, in
> > > > the
> > > > fstab file, but also didn't present anything above newbie level.
> > Hence,
> > > > argumentation or discourse.
> > > >
> > > > mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Alan
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike Corbeil wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alan Shoemaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bob....you also need to include umask=0 on that line in
> > > > > > > /etc/fstab.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Must be a fairly new requirement, or there's a difference in the
> > > > default
> > > > > > umask value between RH 5.1 and Mandrake, because I don't need
> > umask=0
> > > > to be
> > > > > > able to write to my dos partitions. I merely set it to noauto,rw
> > and
> > > > this
> > > > > > is adequate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only reason you'ld need to included umask=0 is because of the
> > > > > > system-wide default value for it, probably defined in /etc/profile
> > or
> > > > > > /etc/bashrc. This may also depend on whether you're allowing only
> > > > root to
> > > > > > write or make changes to the dos partitions, or also allowing
> > users.
> > > > I
> > > > > > don't give users access to my dos partitions, albeit it's a
> > standalone
> > > > > > system and I'm the only user anyway.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I read somewhere, recently, that umask should be set to 0 in the
> > > > system-wide
> > > > > > login scripts, but that's the opinion of one author of
> > documentation.
> > > > If,
> > > > > > however, you're going to set umask to 0 for the dos partition(s),
> > then
> > > > you
> > > > > > might want to simply set the system-wide value to this anyway,
> > which
> > > > means
> > > > > > you wouldn't need to include this in fstab.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You'ld need to do some research through various documents which
> > touch
> > > > upon
> > > > > > this subject, before taking my word as gospel.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cox Family wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > another stumper for me?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I just wanted to make a new directory on the DOS partition
> > that I
> > > > could
> > > > > > > > put some WP8 files in (because the apostrophe comes out on the
> > > > printer
> > > > > > > > as something stupid in Linux right now) and it said I didn't
> > have
> > > > > > > > permission. I checked the "fstab" and hda1 includes "user" in
> > > > > > > > permissions. I checked properties by right-clicking on the
> > icon
> > > > and it
> > > > > > > > includes user, group and others for both read and write.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > OK, so I made the directory as super-user, gave it "a+rwx"
> > > > permissions,
> > > > > > > > and still couldn't save a file in it. Access denied. No
> > permission
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > write or what ever....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, what am I missing here?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
