Re[2]: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Kevin Boylan]

Hi,

>> Probably, but I wouldn't make my choice of OS at home based on
>> that. :-)

> No, but it is about as valid a reason as any other.  IE... not all
> that valid.

No, not as valid a reason as "I don't want to work in two different
word processors, I want to be able to transfer stuff from work to
home", etc.  So it's not as valid a reason as any others.

>> I would tend to disagree. If you live, eat, and breath computers
>> all day, every day like some of us do, it becomes easy at some
>> point to instinctively understand things and know what's going on
>> behind the scenes.

> No, all it takes is a little common sense.

You really believe that?  You really believe all those years of
experience mean nothing when it comes to being able to figure out why
things are happening?   You think common sense alone will make someone
that is not technically oriented, be able to understand all that
technically oriented stuff?  OK.  :-\

>> Now... you guessed it, they complain because they have to wade
>> through so many hits.  They want only the hits that they can use
>> right then and they and want the software to weed out the rest, but
>> how in the &*#^ is the software supposed to know?

> Exactly.  And people wonder why I prefer Yahoo! to Altavista or
> Excite. 35,000 hits looks impressive but it is exactly as useful as
> 0 hits.  Try telling that to a lot of people, however.

We agree there.  The difference here is that we're talking about
people that want computers to do all of THEIR job for them.  They
think computers should make it so they don't have to think or do
anything anymore and that ain't right.

>> So, we try to modify and enhance software, not necessarily to coddle these
>> people, but maybe to make life easier for those of us who have to do the
>> support.

> No, it is coddling, plain and simple.  Call it what it is.

I call it reality.  You're not going to change the users.  They don't
care what you expect of them and they are paying the bills.

>> If we gets calls about something enough times, we figure we'd get less calls
>> if we make a change (if it makes sense). Now I guess M$ has tried to do this
>> but they seem to have made a mess when they did it. That doesn't mean that
>> everyone has to make a mess when they do it though.

> No, it does.  By playing that game, by catering to every little
> newbie whim you end up with a system that is not internally
> consistent and is annoying to the majority of people.

No it doesn't, not if you do it right.  I'm not talking about catering
to every little newbie whim... read the (if it makes sense). If
everyone asks for something different, everything doesn't get put in.
A little intelligence and judgement goes into what actually ends up
going in.

> This isn't just M$, it is M$ and Mac and, as you pointed out,
> yourself.

I don't think I pointed that out at all.

>> Those developers that finally do it the right way... maybe by
>> having good judgement and not trying to put in everything including
>> the kitchen sink, but, instead, putting in the things that make the
>> most sense... are the ones that have the best software.

> Amazingly enough, that best software happens to be the ones that
> started this whole discussion.  The ones that are "hard to learn"
> and "cryptic."

This is YOUR opinion and is typically the case for a lot of power
users, not for occasional users. Most users are the latter.  Again,
they don't care if the support guy expects them to read up on things.
There's nothing that's going to make them.

> I can boil down this down to a statement I heard a while ago. "NT is
> designed so an idiot can administer the server.  Make it so an idiot
> can do that and only idiot's will."

Bashing NT has nothing to do with this mailing list or what this
thread started out about (though about 90% of your messages seem to
end up going in that direction). What it was about is people asking
for a new feature here and there which is certainly normal. Some
should go in, some shouldn't and it ends up being the choice of the
developers and that goes according to who they see their users as. If
they add a new feature, convenience or not, doesn't mean The Bat! will
all of a sudden turn into NT, or Oriffice, or anything else M$ as long
as they do it right.

> Tough, you need to learn a little bit.

That's just it.  They don't HAVE to, so they probably never will.  The
idiots rule.

Kevin



-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re[2]: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Kevin Boylan]

>> machine at home that they do at work for obvious reasons. (Yes I know
>> that is technically a choice, but it wouldn't be a good choice to use
>> totally different OS's and applications at work and home in most cases)

> Actually, it would be better to have a variety.  Makes viruses kind of
> hard to propagate, doesn't it?

Probably, but I wouldn't make my choice of OS at home based on that. :-)

> I make my living off of Unix, not Windows.  My training and experience on
> Windows is self-taught, 100%.  I've not read any of the books nor have I
> read the manuals.  Most of my formal training and experience is on the
> Unix (and variants) platform.

I would *guess*, that most of what you know about Unix too, you learned
through experience, not though formal training.

> I expect people to have the same basic understanding of Windows I do.  In
> fact, maybe more so since supposedly the dummies series of books is so damned
> popular.  While my experience and knowledge may be vast, I do not think that
> people need even a fraction of it to use computers in a sensible manner.  They
> just need some common sense, which, despite its name, isn't very common.

I would tend to disagree.  If you live, eat, and breath computers all day,
every day like some of us do, it becomes easy at some point to
instinctively understand things and know what's going on behind the scenes.
Even across computer types and OS's.  It's also easy to forget how foreign
the behind-the-scenes stuff is to the general user, especially when it
changes so much so fast.

> I'd love it if people would attempt to understand what they are reading
> instead of pull a hamster and just call tech support when the smallest thing
> breaks.

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with you totally about those users
(and software designers for that matter) that seem to think software should
read their minds and be so intuitive that it should give them exactly what
they want all the time even if they've never used it before. For instance,
we recently designed a search engine for a project that, at first, everyone
complained that they seemed to be missing too many hits because they could
find documents on their own that had what they believed should be hits. So,
we re-configured the way they wanted, to find synonyms, misspellings, etc.
Now... you guessed it, they complain because they have to wade through so
many hits.  They want only the hits that they can use right then and they
and want the software to weed out the rest, but how in the &*#^ is the
software supposed to know?

But, there will always be new users, and users that don't use the computer
enough to avoid making mistakes, and there will always be LOTS of them.  So
while it would be nice if they would all have to get a license to drive a
computer first, it ain't gonna happen.  So, we try to modify and enhance
software, not necessarily to coddle these people, but maybe to make life
easier for those of us who have to do the support.  If we gets calls about
something enough times, we figure we'd get less calls if we make a change
(if it makes sense). Now I guess M$ has tried to do this but they seem to
have made a mess when they did it. That doesn't mean that everyone has to
make a mess when they do it though. Those developers that finally do it the
right way... maybe by having good judgement and not trying to put in
everything including the kitchen sink, but, instead, putting in the things
that make the most sense... are the ones that have the best software.

Kevin



Using The Bat! 1.36
Under Windows NT4.0 Build 1381 Service Pack 3 



-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re[2]: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Kevin Boylan]

Hi,

> Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 9:33:41 AM, Kevin wrote:
>> OK, so 99.9% of the people don't have a choice.

> Isn't that a little high given the amount of home PCs and number of
> businesses that do allow users to chose?

No, I don't think so.  In businesses not very many allow you to chose on
your own anymore and most people I know want to have the same type of
machine at home that they do at work for obvious reasons. (Yes I know that
is technically a choice, but it wouldn't be a good choice to use totally
different OS's and applications at work and home in most cases)

>> And yes it does become a problem FOR them. But I think the point was that it
>> isn't the fault of the "end user" that experiences the crash in many to most
>> of the situations.

> I still do not think that is the case.  If it were the case then I would
> be experiencing constant problems on the many Windows machines I have used
> both at work and at home.  Simply put, I do not experience even remotely the
> amount of problems I hear others complaining about.

> Now, given the numerous machines and flavors of Windows I've used on those
> machines I think we can rule out "luck" as a factor.  What is left is that,
> clearly, I am doing something right and they are doing something wrong.

There are many degrees of "knowing what you are doing" and so I would hope
that you, being an expert, would know how to *avoid* the problems that
others might experience. But surely you can't possibly expect everyone to
have the same amount of training and experience as yourself when you earn a
living off of "knowing".

Kevin Boylan



Using The Bat! 1.36
Under Windows NT4.0 Build 1381 Service Pack 3 



-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re[2]: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Kevin Boylan]

Hi,

Oops, answered the wrong message... sorry about that.  Don't mean to sound
like I'm talking to myself!  :-)
 
> Wednesday, November 03, 1999, 9:06:50 AM, Kevin wrote:
>>> They chose to use it, didn't they?

>> I honestly don't know very many people who have a choice of what OS they
>> use in their jobs.

> I honestly don't know of very many IT managers that don't have a choice.
> It is still a (l)user's problem.

OK, so 99.9% of the people don't have a choice.  And yes it does become a
problem FOR them.  But I think the point was that it isn't the fault of the
"end user" that experiences the crash in many to most of the situations.

Thanks,

Kevin Boylan



Using The Bat! 1.36
Under Windows NT4.0 Build 1381 Service Pack 3 

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re[2]: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Kevin Boylan]

Hi,

>> Exactly. It's windows. It's therefore not the users fault when that
>> frustrating crash occurs. :)

> They chose to use it, didn't they?

I honestly don't know very many people who have a choice of what OS they
use in their jobs.

Kevin



Using The Bat! 1.36
Under Windows NT4.0 Build 1381 Service Pack 3 



-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re[2]: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[tracer]

Wednesday, November 03, 1999

Hello Alexander,

Wednesday, Wednesday, November 03, 1999, you wrote:

Alexander> Hi there!

Alexander> On 2 Nov 99, at 0:59, Christopher J. Trybowski wrote
Alexander> about "Re: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: R":

>> > Before  the  crash  he  had  1  primary  and 1 extended partition, 2
>> > logicals on the latter. After the crash, he had only *one* (primary)
>> > partition.  The rest of the partitions just perished. The data lost.
>> > On  the  primary  partition that seemed to survive all the data *but
>> > windows  and office* was trashed, too.
>> 
>> Did  he  really lost everything? AFAIK Windows sometimes messes up the
>> partition table, but it is reversible (after longer or shorter time of
>> calculating new one manually)...

Alexander> He's a dumb, I told you:-) He couldn't see his data, *then* the 
Alexander> second thing he did was formatting his HDD. If *i* were there, I 
Alexander> would save (at least, almost) all he had their. Windows never 
Alexander> wipes what it deletes. Direct disk editing could help, of course:-)
Tiramisu... does miracles... But second and third partitions need some
calculations to give it a decent starting point.

Alexander> BTW, I'm not sure this message will be ever distributed to the 
Alexander> list: I'm getting some odd problems with my subscription 
Alexander> recently:-((
 it got there. But anyway formatted or not, one can still get the data
 of in most cases as long as you donot write data back to the drive
 and even then data can still be recovered...

Alexander> SY, Alex
Alexander> (St.Petersburg, Russia)



Best regards,
 
tracer

Using theBAT 1.36 

mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
NOTE: 1 MAILRUN PER DAY ONLY



-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re[2]: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Roel]

Hello Christopher,

Tuesday, November 02, 1999, 12:59:04 AM, you wrote:

CJT> On Monday, November 01, 1999 Alexander V. Kiselev wrote:

>> Before  the  crash  he  had  1  primary  and 1 extended partition, 2
>> logicals on the latter. After the crash, he had only *one* (primary)
>> partition.  The rest of the partitions just perished. The data lost.
>> On  the  primary  partition that seemed to survive all the data *but
>> windows  and office* was trashed, too.

CJT> Did  he  really lost everything? AFAIK Windows sometimes messes up the
CJT> partition table, but it is reversible (after longer or shorter time of
CJT> calculating new one manually)...

Well, not always: I've had this strange phenomenon a year back:
Whenever I started my pc for the 15th time, windows would delete every
file in the windows dir which name started with e* till z*...

Still have no idea what might have happened (virus was impossible:
full fdisk between every install) but really happy that it stopped...

Never occured ever since, but I do have a backup nowadays :)

-- 
 Der Immer Jodelende Schweizer In Lederhosen
 Roelmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Was today really Necessary?

Visit the official site of Enigma at
http://www.enigma3.com
(it's really worth it!)

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re[2]: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Kevin Boylan]

Hi,

> Sunday, October 31, 1999, 10:09:38 AM, Paula wrote:
>> a computer with a problem, which wants to waste my time trying to
>> interpret its pouting silence or irritatingly cryptic outbursts. Rather
>> like men.

> Rather like women, actually.  Most of the men I know will state flat out
> what the problem is.  Women, on the other hand, are the ones who go silent,
> pout and pull out that lovely line, "You know what's wrong!"  Sure, uh-huh.

In *my* experience,  A larger percentage of women aren't as savvy with
operating systems and their problems but tend to know the applications
pretty well. They listen to what you say and appreciate your help. A larger
percentage of men have some idea what they are doing with the OS, but they
won't listen as closely and they try to act like they know more than they
do.

The real headache for tech support seems to be those guys that think they
are guru's and know more about network, LAN, and mainframe support than the
experts, when their only real experience is on their own PC's. They get
torqued at things that don't happen the way they think they should (I'm not
talking about real problems) and constantly complain and try to TELL you
how things should be done.

The clueless people actually are *usually* no big problem to help because
they typically have easy problems to fix.  It's just that they do tend to
call you more often.  But they do tend make for some funny stories to tell
among the other techs and keep life interesting.  :-)

Thanks,

Kevin Boylan



Using The Bat! 1.36
Under Windows NT4.0 Build 1381 Service Pack 3 



-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re[2]: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[tracer]

Monday, November 01, 1999

Hello Paula,

Monday, Monday, November 01, 1999, you wrote:

>> On Saturday, October 30, 1999, 3:51:35 PM (GMT+0800), Steve Lamb wrote:

SL>>> Computers are *NOT* complicated.  Women, now that is a complicated piece
SL>>> of equipment!

Paula> Oh, puhleeze. Women are not equipment and I'd much rather deal with a
Paula> woman with a problem, who only wants me to listen and sympathsize, than
Paula> a computer with a problem, which wants to waste my time trying to
Paula> interpret its pouting silence or irritatingly cryptic outbursts. Rather
Paula> like men.

I prefer woman computer users as they tend to produce me less
problems...
Or if I tell them call me if something like that or that happens, they
DO, not some silly attempts trying to fix things making it ten times
as bad.
Its almost always the men here who mess up their systems...

Best regards,
 
tracer

Using theBAT 1.36 

mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
NOTE: 1 MAILRUN PER DAY ONLY



-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--

Re[2]: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hallo Steve,

On Saturday, October 30, 1999, 3:51:35 PM (GMT+0800), Steve Lamb wrote:

>> They have to breath, wehtehr they want to or not. They don't have to

SL> That's just it, we don't have to go to the market, either.  There is
SL> enough of a "market" out there to go for a niche, not the general market.  In
SL> the goo-goo eyed craze to get the large numbers one misses the very real point
SL> that the competition is too high for those numbers and that they can take a
SL> different angle make better money.

A niche market is still a market, but I agree with you in principle.

SL> Besides, the bone does walk the dog.  Look at Linux.  It was built the way
SL> "we" wanted it built and now the market is breaking down Linux' door.
SL> Furthermore, it was built with *NO* regard to "the market" because it is free.
SL> "The market" is not the end-all, be-all barometer of success.

Price is one of the market mechanisms. Linux is a good product (so
I've heard - I'm not using it yet), and the price is reasonable. Here
I am not talking about computer freaks who download the thing and get
going, thus not needing to pay anything. I'm thinking about those who would
buy the support to go with it, e.g. from Red Hat.

>> Well, the OS is software in my vocabulary, so you are actually saying
>> you agree with me? :-

SL>No, OS does not equal software.  The same software on 6 different OSs could
SL> yield 6 different levels of performance based on the OS.  Software runs on an
SL> OS.

I know this. I made a point of telling hardware and software apart.
Therefore, OS (in my vocabulary) is one piece of software. Or do you
define software only as "applications"? What then is the OS? Nowadays
not hardwired any more. (Is that a news flash for you? ;-))

>> Because they detect the smallest mistake I make. I missing semicolon in
>> a Pascal freaks up your programme and you look somewhere completely
>> different, for example. Unforgiving beast. ;-)

SL> Ah, well, get the authors to make a better parser, then.  I miss
SL> semicolons all the time in Perl and it tells me right where to look.  OTOH,

I confess, my Pascal experience is about 15 years old, so someone
might have a solution in the meantime. What you write further down
about Perl, that's neat.

>> I agree with you here. But that does not prevent me from being
>> frustrated at times. Even in Windows, a wrong click and I lost my card
>> game.

SL> It worked as expected.  For me I would be frustrated at *me*.  Here's a

You have a point, but being human, I try to blame the machine.

SL> Now, the
SL> command-line was as follows:
SL> cat crossed.logs.orig | perl foo.pl > realcount

SL> I just placed a -d after perl to get it to go into debug mode.  While
SL> debugging I was telling it to print different variables so I could see what
SL> was going on.  Each time I told it to print, however, it would print nothing.

ag... yup, the problem with mistakes like this is "someone else"
(me in this case) catches it on first sight, while you (the
programmer) wastes an hour of his life. That's what I call
frustrating.

SL> Once I took off that redirection it worked fine. My frustration
SL> went from me being tweaked at the computer to me being *REALLY*
SL> tweaked at me.

I see your point. I am coming from another angle: while the computer
behaved the way it "should have" according to logic, it did not behave
he way it "should have" according to what I wanted it to do. Whilst I
(wrongly) assume I did everything correctly, I cannot find the
mistake. That's what I find frustrating. I think it's a definition of
the word "frustrating".

SL> Computers don't make mistakes, people do.  The general public needs to
SL> learn that.

This is a potentially dangerous statement. Whenever "members of the
general public" tell me: "the computer said so, that's why it's
correct", I hold a lecture about why I don't like the divinity often
associated with the machine. People make mistakes yeah: and who do you
think programmes the computer? Builds the computer? My friend got a
phone bill for 13,000.-DM - "Computers don't make mistakes"? So should
he just have paid up?

SL> You're trying to bullshit someone who did technical support over the phone

I am not trying to do such a thing ;-) Maybe only the "dummies" called
you, I have no idea. Maybe it's a cultural thing, and people here in
Asia are more eager to learn. In my personal experience, dealing with
people every day that have to use computers but don't care to make
them the center of their lives, I can say that people tend to try and
understand how to work a programme, rather than sitting back and
weeping ;-)

>> computer as a tool to simplify things in the "real" world. Logging in,
>> type type, until I finally get my account balance, twenty minutes have
>> passed. Unnecessary. Waste of time.

SL> I'd love to know what you're doing.  Here's my banking experience

You seem to have a faster connection than I, lo

Re[2]: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Marck D. Pearlstone]

On 30 October 1999 at 08:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] told the list:

>> Well,  the  OS  is  software  in my vocabulary, so you are actually
>> saying you agree with me? :-

SL> No, OS does not equal software. The same software on 6 different
SL> OSs could yield 6 different levels of performance based on the OS.
SL> Software runs on an OS.

Hmm.  By  strict  definition,  of  course  the OS is software - it has
source  code, is compiled and written by programmers, but it is a very
different  kind of software from the application software of which you
were actually writing.

In  early microcomputers, basic interpreters, all written by Microsoft
(as  opposed  to Micro$oft - it was before the were far more rich than
they  ever  deserved  to  be,  but  I  digress)  running  on different
computers  with  different  OSs  would  each  have it's own unique and
individual  answer  to the great question "?1/1" (Print one over one).

I'm just engaging in some terminological pedantry. Ignore me. You know
it makes sense. ;-)

>> I  agree  with  you  here.  But that does not prevent me from being
>> frustrated  at  times. Even in Windows, a wrong click and I lost my
>> card game.

SL> It worked as expected. For me I would be frustrated at *me*.

Very  true!  Computers  are  not  the  source of frustration. It is an
individual's own ineptitude that provides it.

SL> Now, would I want the computer to somehow have programming to try
SL> to second guess me in this regard? No. Never, ever, ever, EVER,
SL> would I want that. Sure, I lost an hour of headbanging but that
SL> was because of my stupidity. Meanwhile, if there was some
SL> second-guessing programmed in, I would have to defeat it each time
SL> I meant to (which would be often, IMHO) and that would get me to
SL> be frustrated at the computer.

I couldn't agree more. Actually, I could. Okay. I agree more.

>> That  *would* be unreasonable, but people don't expect that. People
>> don't  expect  that  any  new  member  of  mankind can go to toilet
>> without training.

SL> Incorrect, they do expect to use a computer with no training at
SL> all. Just look at the number of computer stores that boast that
SL> you can take their computer home, plug it in and turn it on.
SL> Viola', it works!

Completely  and  utterly  true. It *is* a just small percentage of the
millions  of  computer  owners  and  users  that have actually put any
effort or time into training, let alone bothered to RTFM!

SL> OK, so now we have VCR+, enter one damned *CODE* and it sets
SL> everything else for you. *THAT* is still too hard.

>> computers are this comlicated and you are one of the select few to

SL> Computers are *NOT* complicated. Women, now that is a complicated
SL> piece of equipment!

ROFLOL 

Cheers,
Marck
-- 
Marck D. Pearlstone, Consultant Software Engineer
Co-moderator TBUDL / TBBETA discussion lists
www: http://www.silverstones.com
PGP key: 
-
Using The Bat! 1.36
under Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998  

Re[2]: OT: Computer Philosophy (was: Re[2]: THE BAT! Will it be a newsreader option ?)

[Christophe Gerbier]

Hello,

On jeudi 4 novembre 1999, someone (you) said :


>> Bashing NT has nothing to do with this mailing list or what this
>> thread started out about (though about 90% of your messages seem to
>> end up going in that direction).

SL> It wasn't bashing NT.  It was pointing out a very *VALID* argument that is
SL> circulating around.  It would be bashing NT if it weren't true.  The point is
SL> that IT managers love NT because they think it is simple yet the IT
SL> professionals roll their eyes and hate it every step of the way because it is
SL> *NOT*.  Why?  Because it was designed for idiots and newbies.  We were all
SL> newbies at one time.  Everything is "hard" at first.  The real difference is
SL> what makes our jobs and lives easier when we're not newbies.


That's the reason why I started using NT as a "do everything" server and now I
use Linux/Samba for the "same" thing. NT is mandatory for a program we
use, so I keep it; but everything else is now done by the Linux box.

I prefer command line tools that let me in control of what is
happening rather than graphical interfaces that hide what _I_ consider
important.


Regards,
 Christophe

 Using The Bat! 1.36
under Windows NT 4.0 Build 1381 Service Pack 5

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
   
--