Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves. - Linux

This is a discussion on Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves. - Linux ; TomB writes: > On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following: > >> Yet in Linux its OK to have to have it packaged in a repository and then >> installed? > > Dude, it's in the kernel... Support. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 65

Thread: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves.

  1. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    TomB writes:

    > On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >
    >> Yet in Linux its OK to have to have it packaged in a repository and then
    >> installed?

    >
    > Dude, it's in the kernel...


    Support. In the same way you can download ntfs. And tvtime and ..... And
    a million other apps.

    Please don't snip the pertinent information. It s silly way to try to
    win points.

    e.g gparted is "not in the kernel".

    --
    "Give it up because going on the offensive, and you are quite offensive, is
    not going to cover up your trolling and nym shifting blunders no matter now
    many times you re-post the same text."
    -- "Moshe Goldfarb." in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  2. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    Hadron wrote:

    > TomB writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >>
    >>> Yet in Linux its OK to have to have it packaged in a repository and then
    >>> installed?

    >>
    >> Dude, it's in the kernel...

    >
    > Support. In the same way you can download ntfs. And tvtime and ..... And
    > a million other apps.


    What part of "a filesystem driver" in the kernel isn't "support" or "a
    million other apps" was too difficult for you?

    > Please don't snip the pertinent information. It s silly way to try to
    > win points.


    You did not supply any "pertinent info" at all.

    > e.g gparted is "not in the kernel".
    >


    It is also not a fs

    Lame, Hadron Quark, really lame. Even for you
    --
    Ehrman's Commentary:
    (1) Things will get worse before they get better.
    (2) Who said things would get better?


  3. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:16:32 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > TomB wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >>
    >>> Yet in Linux its OK to have to have it packaged in a repository and then
    >>> installed?


    HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Priceless!

    >> Dude, it's in the kernel...
    >>

    >
    > Don't tell him. Hadron Quark is a "kernel hacker" of high fame...


    Uh, oh, yeah!

    --
    Did you know?
    Hadron Quack & his wife divorced over religious differences.
    He thought he was God, but she didn't.


  4. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    Peter Köhlmann writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> TomB writes:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >>>
    >>>> Yet in Linux its OK to have to have it packaged in a repository and then
    >>>> installed?
    >>>
    >>> Dude, it's in the kernel...

    >>
    >> Support. In the same way you can download ntfs. And tvtime and ..... And
    >> a million other apps.

    >
    > What part of "a filesystem driver" in the kernel isn't "support" or "a
    > million other apps" was too difficult for you?
    >
    >> Please don't snip the pertinent information. It s silly way to try to
    >> win points.

    >
    > You did not supply any "pertinent info" at all.
    >
    >> e.g gparted is "not in the kernel".
    >>

    >
    > It is also not a fs
    >
    > Lame, Hadron Quark, really lame. Even for you


    Why are you so dense Peter? I was referring to THIRD PARTY was
    abundantly clear.

    The OP was harping on about MS taking it on. Why should they? Its a 3rd
    party product.

    Including things in the Linux DEFAULT kernel does not give OWNERSHIP of
    fs drivers either you idiot.

    Do you know nothing about how Linux works?!?!?!?!?!

    --
    "Of course, by the time Gnash gets its act together, we'll
    probably all have to start all over again with Silverlight
    (or Moonlight)."
    -- The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  5. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    > TomB writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >>
    >>> Yet in Linux its OK to have to have it packaged in a repository and then
    >>> installed?

    >>
    >> Dude, it's in the kernel...

    >
    > Support. In the same way you can download ntfs. And tvtime and ..... And
    > a million other apps.
    >
    > Please don't snip the pertinent information. It s silly way to try to
    > win points.


    I'm not trying anything. And in fact this discussion is silly. In this
    aspect (and many others too) Linux and Windows are two completely
    different animals. A distro can choose to support whatever filesystem
    it wants; basically it's possible to support all major filesystems
    right out of the box. Of course this will include "3rd party" drivers,
    but then again almost everything in a linux distro is 3rd party.
    That's how GNU/Linux works; it's based on distributions, built on a
    large pool of open source (and in some cases even closed source -
    anything goes) software, and can include whatever it likes.

    > e.g gparted is "not in the kernel".
    >


    And what the hell has gparted to do with filesystem support? It's a
    GUI to several other (cli) tools to *manipulate* filesystems. Support
    comes from whatever's built into the kernel, or from modules inserted
    into the kernel.

    --
    I'm not a bad guy! I work hard, and I love my kids. So why should
    I spend half my Sunday hearing about how I'm going to Hell?
    ~ Homer J. Simpson

  6. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    William Poaster writes:

    > On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:16:32 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> TomB wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >>>
    >>>> Yet in Linux its OK to have to have it packaged in a repository and then
    >>>> installed?

    >
    > HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Priceless!
    >
    >>> Dude, it's in the kernel...
    >>>

    >>
    >> Don't tell him. Hadron Quark is a "kernel hacker" of high fame...

    >
    > Uh, oh, yeah!


    Rewriting history again girls? Truly pathetic.

    We were discussing OWNERSHIP and SUPPORT.

    --
    "The Linux community re-invents the wheel every month or so. The only
    problem is, their version is square"
    -- "Moshe Goldfarb." in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  7. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    TomB writes:

    > On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >> TomB writes:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >>>
    >>>> Yet in Linux its OK to have to have it packaged in a repository and then
    >>>> installed?
    >>>
    >>> Dude, it's in the kernel...

    >>
    >> Support. In the same way you can download ntfs. And tvtime and ..... And
    >> a million other apps.
    >>
    >> Please don't snip the pertinent information. It s silly way to try to
    >> win points.

    >
    > I'm not trying anything. And in fact this discussion is silly. In this
    > aspect (and many others too) Linux and Windows are two completely
    > different animals. A distro can choose to support whatever filesystem
    > it wants; basically it's possible to support all major filesystems
    > right out of the box. Of course this will include "3rd party" drivers,
    > but then again almost everything in a linux distro is 3rd party.
    > That's how GNU/Linux works; it's based on distributions, built on a
    > large pool of open source (and in some cases even closed source -
    > anything goes) software, and can include whatever it likes.
    >
    >> e.g gparted is "not in the kernel".
    >>

    >
    > And what the hell has gparted to do with filesystem support? It's a


    You dont know?

    > GUI to several other (cli) tools to *manipulate* filesystems. Support
    > comes from whatever's built into the kernel, or from modules inserted
    > into the kernel.


    Yes I know. And GUIs sit on top. Where do you draw the line of who
    maintains what?

    Stop fixating on the file system. See the bigger picture.

    Why should MS support other peoples third party work?

    Is not ebough for you that it exists and works?

    What has gone over the fan boys' heads in this thread is that iT CAN be
    in the kernel but it might just as well NOT be since you can compile in
    different options. Just because it is in SOME default kernels does not
    mean Debian/ whoever suddenly OWN OR SUPPORT that sw.

    As usual Willy Poaster comes in "LOLing" and makes a right charlie of
    himself once more.

    --
    "Don't like Linux.. don't use it. Simple."
    -- Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.os.windows-xp

  8. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    Hadron wrote:

    > William Poaster writes:
    >
    >> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:16:32 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>
    >>> TomB wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Yet in Linux its OK to have to have it packaged in a repository and
    >>>>> then installed?

    >>
    >> HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Priceless!
    >>
    >>>> Dude, it's in the kernel...
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Don't tell him. Hadron Quark is a "kernel hacker" of high fame...

    >>
    >> Uh, oh, yeah!

    >
    > Rewriting history again girls? Truly pathetic.


    What about mocking your inability to keep to the thread?

    > We were discussing OWNERSHIP and SUPPORT.
    >


    No, *we* were not. *You* were. After you showed *again* your incompetence
    regarding linux
    --
    Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.


  9. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    Peter Köhlmann writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> William Poaster writes:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:16:32 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> TomB wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Yet in Linux its OK to have to have it packaged in a repository and
    >>>>>> then installed?
    >>>
    >>> HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Priceless!
    >>>
    >>>>> Dude, it's in the kernel...
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Don't tell him. Hadron Quark is a "kernel hacker" of high fame...
    >>>
    >>> Uh, oh, yeah!

    >>
    >> Rewriting history again girls? Truly pathetic.

    >
    > What about mocking your inability to keep to the thread?
    >
    >> We were discussing OWNERSHIP and SUPPORT.
    >>

    >
    > No, *we* were not. *You* were. After you showed *again* your incompetence
    > regarding linux


    Don't be an idiot all your life.

    What part of "3rd party" here eludes you?

    ,----
    | Maybe they don't see the need since there was never really any need for
    | them to do it. And the existence of the 3rd party tools pretty much
    | scuppers anything else I would say.
    `----

    Crikey you are dense today.

    --
    "BOY is Microsoft doomed! LOL!"
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  10. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    Hadron wrote:

    > TomB writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >>> TomB writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Yet in Linux its OK to have to have it packaged in a repository and
    >>>>> then installed?
    >>>>
    >>>> Dude, it's in the kernel...
    >>>
    >>> Support. In the same way you can download ntfs. And tvtime and ..... And
    >>> a million other apps.
    >>>
    >>> Please don't snip the pertinent information. It s silly way to try to
    >>> win points.

    >>
    >> I'm not trying anything. And in fact this discussion is silly. In this
    >> aspect (and many others too) Linux and Windows are two completely
    >> different animals. A distro can choose to support whatever filesystem
    >> it wants; basically it's possible to support all major filesystems
    >> right out of the box. Of course this will include "3rd party" drivers,
    >> but then again almost everything in a linux distro is 3rd party.
    >> That's how GNU/Linux works; it's based on distributions, built on a
    >> large pool of open source (and in some cases even closed source -
    >> anything goes) software, and can include whatever it likes.
    >>
    >>> e.g gparted is "not in the kernel".
    >>>

    >>
    >> And what the hell has gparted to do with filesystem support? It's a

    >
    > You dont know?


    I don't, either. We were on the topic of filesystem drivers.
    gparted is no such beast. Additionally, it does not run in kernel space. It
    is basically a bog-standard application

    >> GUI to several other (cli) tools to *manipulate* filesystems. Support
    >> comes from whatever's built into the kernel, or from modules inserted
    >> into the kernel.

    >
    > Yes I know. And GUIs sit on top. Where do you draw the line of who
    > maintains what?


    Once again, this time very slowly that you have a fighting chance to get it:
    gparted is not a filesystem (driver). It is an application

    > Stop fixating on the file system. See the bigger picture.


    Stop moving the goalposts. See *this* picture on topic here

    > Why should MS support other peoples third party work?


    Who is asking them to? They could include it "as is" just as well

    > Is not ebough for you that it exists and works?


    What? EXT2? Well, it works. Sort of. For small enough values of "works".
    And pray tell, what linux boxen still use ext2? Practically all are set up
    by default with the much saner choice of ext3

    > What has gone over the fan boys' heads in this thread is that iT CAN be
    > in the kernel but it might just as well NOT be since you can compile in
    > different options.


    You mean as a module? Still a kernel part then

    > Just because it is in SOME default kernels does not
    > mean Debian/ whoever suddenly OWN OR SUPPORT that sw.


    Why do you keep introducing irrelevant stuff?

    > As usual Willy Poaster comes in "LOLing" and makes a right charlie of
    > himself once more.
    >


    Well, he was laughing about your incompetence. And he was right

    And he was not LOLing
    --
    Machine-Independent, adj.:
    Does not run on any existing machine.


  11. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:51:29 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:48fca7a1$0$13387$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
    >> Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Peter Khlmann" wrote in message
    >>> news:48fca1bf$0$13397$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
    >>>> Ezekiel wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Mark Kent" wrote in message
    >>>>> news:as7us5-2c8.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
    >>>>>> Chris Ahlstrom espoused:
    >>>>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Ezekiel belched out
    >>>>>>> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> S:\Software\ImageMagic>dir conv* iden*
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> S drive. LOL. When you Windozers gonna leave DOS behind?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Not DOS, CPM... it was CPM which introduced the drive letters, and
    >>>>>> DOS
    >>>>>> was developed from CPM.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It was *NOT* CPM which introduced drive letters.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> BDOS function 14 (DRV_SET) - Select disc
    >>>> Supported by: All versions
    >>>> Entered with C=0Eh, E=drive number. Returns L=A=0 or 0FFh.
    >>>> The drive number passed to this routine is 0 for A:, 1 for B: up to 15
    >>>> for P:.
    >>>> Sets the currently selected drive to the drive in A; logs in the disc.
    >>>> Returns 0 if successful or 0FFh if error. Under MP/M II and later
    >>>> versions,
    >>>> H can contain a physical error number.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> CP/M certainly used drive letters. Before MS-DOS did
    >>>
    >>> Clearly you are not very good at reading. Read it again and ask your
    >>> bigger sister for help if you need it.
    >>>
    >>> I never said that CPM didn't have drive letters because it certainly did.
    >>> But it was *NOT* CPM which introduced drive letters.

    >>
    >> CP/M was the first "OS" on PC-size machines which did

    >
    > Who the hell is talking about "PC-size" machines? If you need extra help
    > moving those goal posts I'm sure Mark Kent will give you a hand.
    >
    > The original statement was:
    > "it was CPM which introduced the drive letters, and..."
    >
    > My response that it wasn't CPM that "introduced" driver letters. Neither
    > statement qualified that this had to be for "PC-size" machines, it's about
    > "drive letters" and not the size of the box.
    >
    >
    >
    >>> Free hint - drive
    >>> letters existed before CPM so therefor it wasn't CPM that "introduced"
    >>> drive letters.

    >>
    >> IBMs VM certainly wasn't for Z80 mychines

    >
    > Who cares. It's about who "introduced driver letters" and not the CPU or how
    > big the box is. Now is about the time to call in some more advocates - those
    > goal posts you're trying to move seem rather heavy.
    >
    >
    >> --
    >> "...Unix, MS-DOS, and Windows NT (also known as the Good, the Bad, and
    >> the Ugly)." (By Matt Welsh)
    >>


    Get ready for the COLA gang bang.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  12. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    Hadron wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> William Poaster writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:16:32 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> TomB wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Yet in Linux its OK to have to have it packaged in a repository and
    >>>>>>> then installed?
    >>>>
    >>>> HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Priceless!
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Dude, it's in the kernel...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Don't tell him. Hadron Quark is a "kernel hacker" of high fame...
    >>>>
    >>>> Uh, oh, yeah!
    >>>
    >>> Rewriting history again girls? Truly pathetic.

    >>
    >> What about mocking your inability to keep to the thread?
    >>
    >>> We were discussing OWNERSHIP and SUPPORT.
    >>>

    >>
    >> No, *we* were not. *You* were. After you showed *again* your incompetence
    >> regarding linux

    >
    > Don't be an idiot all your life.
    >
    > What part of "3rd party" here eludes you?


    I don't care for 2nd, 3rd or 4th party at all
    It is irrelevant for this topic

    > ,----
    > | Maybe they don't see the need since there was never really any need for
    > | them to do it. And the existence of the 3rd party tools pretty much
    > | scuppers anything else I would say.
    > `----
    >
    > Crikey you are dense today.
    >


    Well, I am not the one who keeps introducing applications having nothing at
    all to do with filesystem drivers.
    That would be you
    --
    Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
    Flakey and built to stay that way.


  13. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:10:58 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> William Poaster writes:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:16:32 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> TomB wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2008-10-20, Hadron was urged to write the following:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Yet in Linux its OK to have to have it packaged in a repository and
    >>>>>> then installed?
    >>>
    >>> HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Priceless!
    >>>
    >>>>> Dude, it's in the kernel...
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Don't tell him. Hadron Quark is a "kernel hacker" of high fame...
    >>>
    >>> Uh, oh, yeah!

    >>
    >> Rewriting history again girls? Truly pathetic.

    >
    > What about mocking your inability to keep to the thread?
    >
    >> We were discussing OWNERSHIP and SUPPORT.
    >>

    >
    > No, *we* were not. *You* were. After you showed *again* your incompetence
    > regarding linux


    What a surprise. The Quack troll twisting & turning again, when it was
    caught out..

    --
    Did you know?
    Hadron Quack & his wife divorced over religious differences.
    He thought he was God, but she didn't.


  14. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    On 2008-10-20, Chris Ahlstrom was urged to write the following:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Ezekiel belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:40:45 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom scribbled down:
    >>
    >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Ezekiel belched out
    >>> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>>
    >>>> S:\Software\ImageMagic>dir conv* iden*
    >>>
    >>> S drive. LOL. When you Windozers gonna leave DOS behind?

    >>
    >> It's a network drive that's mounted locally as S: ('S' is for Server)
    >>
    >> Easier than \\Server-name\Public\Software\....

    >
    > Not easier than not having to change to the S: drive and the actual
    > location of the executable, because the installer did not add yet
    > another entry to your %PATH%.
    >


    Yeah, that's a real drag with installing oss cli apps under Windows.
    I always set the path manually, so I can call the commands from anywhere
    in the tree, but surely it must be possible to have the installer set
    the path automatically. Or not?

    --
    There are only 10 types op people in this world: those who understand
    binary, and those who don't...

  15. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:38:34 +0200
    Hadron wrote:

    > > I was more referring to Microsoft _supporting_ a large number of
    > > filesystems. Say, for example, having out-of-the-box support for
    > > ext{2,3,4}, ReiserFS, NTFS, and FATxx would be a great start. Also,
    > > the ability to install on any of those systems would be a nice
    > > addition, but not necessary.

    >
    > Yet in Linux its OK to have to have it packaged in a repository and
    > then installed?
    >


    I don't follow you here.

    At the very least, Ubuntu contains support for ext2, ext3, ext4dev,
    reiserfs v3, vfat, minix, iso9660, udf, hfs, hfs+, afs, 9p, ufs, xfs,
    jfs, befs, bfs, qnx4, and ntfs filesystems by default. There are many,
    *many* more filesystems (sshfs, as an example), but it'd be impossible
    to have them all in the base distribution and enabled by default, some
    of them are *very* special-purpose.

    This is, I think, a reasonable list of filesystems to have support
    available for. Of those you can install on (at least) ext2, ext3,
    reiserfs v3, jfs, and xfs. You can actually install on _any_
    filesystem that supports Unix file semantics and is built-in to the
    kernel (and the bootloader knows how to read). This means that the
    system is far more versatile than, say, your out-of-the-box Windows
    system.

    > >
    > > I am pretty sure they just don't want to do it, and that's the
    > > reason why they don't.

    >
    > Maybe they don't see the need since there was never really any need
    > for them to do it. And the existence of the 3rd party tools pretty
    > much scuppers anything else I would say.


    I don't see the analogy there.

    It is nice to read/write other filesystems using third-party IFS
    drivers. It'd be even nicer to be able to use one of those to install
    Windows onto. I think Reiser4 and Windows would be a pretty good match
    for each other (I say that on technical merit, not on the poor
    political situation surrounding Reiser); ext4 maybe, too.

    --- Mike

    --
    My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.


  16. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:41:24 +0200
    Hadron wrote:

    > The OP was harping on about MS taking it on. Why should they? Its a
    > 3rd party product.


    Freedom, choice, and interoperability? :-)

    --- Mike

    --
    My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.


  17. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    "Michael B. Trausch" writes:

    > On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:41:24 +0200
    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> The OP was harping on about MS taking it on. Why should they? Its a
    >> 3rd party product.

    >
    > Freedom, choice, and interoperability? :-)
    >
    > --- Mike


    Err, freedom? Choice? And you want to put it into the hands of MS?

    --
    "I do believe I have stated that he should be given the benefit of the
    doubt, as is his right. If he did this crime, as it would seem, then he
    should be punished as the law requires."
    -- alt in alt.true-crime, comp.os.linux.advocacy

  18. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    After takin' a swig o' grog, TomB belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On 2008-10-20, Chris Ahlstrom was urged to write the following:
    >>>
    >>> Easier than \\Server-name\Public\Software\....

    >>
    >> Not easier than not having to change to the S: drive and the actual
    >> location of the executable, because the installer did not add yet
    >> another entry to your %PATH%.

    >
    > Yeah, that's a real drag with installing oss cli apps under Windows.
    > I always set the path manually, so I can call the commands from anywhere
    > in the tree, but surely it must be possible to have the installer set
    > the path automatically. Or not?


    Yes, and many do. For those that don't, I make a C:\bin and copy the
    executables there.

    --
    Consultant, n.:
    (1) Someone you pay to take the watch off your wrist and tell
    you what time it is. (2) (For resume use) The working title
    of anyone who doesn't currently hold a job.

  19. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:40:16 -0400
    Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    > wikipediafs


    This (and the other FUSE modules) are all covered by "fuse"...

    But wow. wikipediafs?

    --- Mike

    --
    My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.


  20. Re: Getting a job done: GNU/Linux saves (nothing)

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Michael B. Trausch belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:40:16 -0400
    > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    >> wikipediafs

    >
    > This (and the other FUSE modules) are all covered by "fuse"...
    >
    > But wow. wikipediafs?


    Looks like it is currently moribund.

    http://wikipediafs.sourceforge.net/

    --
    You measure your vibrators in "characters per second"? I have
    bad news for you, c90, you've been masturbating with a
    dot-matrix printer.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast