Re: P.V. comes under fire - Slackware

This is a discussion on Re: P.V. comes under fire - Slackware ; On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:13:38 -0400, Althiom wrote: > You keep saying the same thing, that bash ain't Linux, well then share > your knowledge/experience with us, just what is Linux??? Hey Win-droid. Quit feeding the resident troll. While ...

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

Thread: Re: P.V. comes under fire

  1. Re: P.V. comes under fire

    On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:13:38 -0400, Althiom wrote:

    > You keep saying the same thing, that bash ain't Linux, well then share
    > your knowledge/experience with us, just what is Linux???


    Hey Win-droid. Quit feeding the resident troll.

    While you're at it, bugger off.



    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  2. Re: P.V. comes under fire

    On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:59:48 +0800, ChuMaiFat wrote:



    You're here again, troll? Shouldn't you be downloading new viruses,
    or whatever it is you Win-droids do with your computers?

    > With kind regards


    Smeg off.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  3. What is Linux?

    On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:04:55 GMT, rm@baseballproctologist.com (Realto)
    wrote:


    >
    >A "Linux" distro is made up of the linux kernel, a file system, gnu
    >shell utilities, and various other shells, guis, and applications.
    >An incomplete gnu existed long before linux.


    I think you may be in error on this point, if memory serves the idea
    of the so-called "HERD" may have been floating around before the
    Linux kernel, but as a viable kernel it did not exist until well after
    the appearance of Linux. But that is just picking of nits and is not
    really germane to the question at hand.




    >So what you call linux is actually at the basic level


    No the question was not what I call Linux, but what you call Linux

    > Whenever you interact with the system at the CLI level,
    > you are using gnu, not linux.


    But by the same token, gnu (programs, shells, and whatnot) cannot
    exist without the kernel to keep them running,

    > Linux is in the background, quite safe, because you can't
    >get at it.


    As it should be.

    >Linux would have died quietly without gnu because Linus probably
    >wouldn't have written all the stuff the kernel needs to be a real
    >OS.


    This is rather presumptuous, is it not. Anyone who could write a
    kernel could most certainly write the support files needed for the
    kernel to be an "OS".


    >
    >The linux+gnu unix clone has kicked the hell out of the BSD unix
    >clones, and that is probably because Linus Torvalds has maintained
    >control of the kernel.


    This is most assuredly correct.

    >A so-called "linux" distro, like slackware, would more accurately be
    >called a linux+gnu distro. Or even simply a gnu distro, since far
    >more work went into the gnu part of the OS than went into the linux
    >part.


    But as mentioned above, the gnu utilities would be just a minor blip
    in the history of computing without Linux and the whole Linux+gnu
    was stated by Richard Stallman (if memory serves) when Linux first
    started to be noticed by people that were not, if you will pardon the
    term, computer nerds.
    And just as an aside, it is my belief that the gnu utilities were
    derived from then various Unix distros/applications available at the
    time.

    >
    >Basically, PV's job, as a distro maintainer is to match the linux
    >kernel with a file system, gnu utilities, X.org and a bunch of 3rd
    >party applications. What this means is that the "linux" portion of
    >the distro is actually the smallest part.


    Yep, specially if you take E-Macs into consideration :-)

    >Finally, since everyone uses virtually the same kernel, file
    >systems, gnu utilities, X.org and 3rd party, all linux distros are
    >pretty much functionally identical. The only substantial difference
    >is in the way the parts are put together.
    >
    >What this means is that you are not learning anything more about
    >linux when you use slackware, because they all use the same linux.


    And here is the crux of the matter, and at which there will always be
    disagreement. Slackware, being a CLI based system forces a person
    to become aware of all the bits and pieces needed to get the OS to
    work. While a GUI interface hides the bits and pieces from the person
    using the system. So, in theory, a person would learn more about
    Linux (and if you must gnu utilities) from the command line then from
    a graphical interface.

    >Since the only thing that is different in the various distros is the
    >way that those distros are put together, what you are really
    >learning when you work on a slackware system is how slackware is put
    >together.


    Which you have just said was Linux so therefore you do learn more
    about Linux using the command line then you would be using a graphical
    interface.

    > And knowing how slackware is put together does not teach you
    >anymore about RedHat, than knowing how RedHat is put together
    >teaches you about slackware.


    Which you have said are all the same, so if you learn on one system
    (and manage to get through all the fluff of another then what you have
    learned still applies, because it is all the same kernel (plus
    utilities and programs)


    <>

    Althiom

    e


  4. Re: What is Linux?

    Althiom trolled:
    >On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:04:55 GMT, rm@baseballproctologist.com (Realto)
    >wrote:


    >>A "Linux" distro is made up of the linux kernel, a file system,
    >>gnu shell utilities, and various other shells, guis, and
    >>applications. An incomplete gnu existed long before linux.


    >I think you may be in error on this point, if memory serves the
    >idea of the so-called "HERD" may have been floating around before
    >the Linux kernel, but as a viable kernel it did not exist until
    >well after the appearance of Linux. But that is just picking of
    >nits and is not really germane to the question at hand.


    Gnu began working on HURD in 1991. It's junk. The announcement of
    the first version booting came on 05 Apr 1994, well after linux was
    established. A version has never been compiled for the intel
    architecture, to our knowledge. And nobody would bother making this
    compile, other than as an academic exercise, because HURD is junk.

    >


    >>So what you call linux is actually at the basic level


    >No the question was not what I call Linux, but what you call Linux


    No, the question is what everybody calls "linux."

    >> Whenever you interact with the system at the CLI level, you are
    >> using gnu, not linux.


    >But by the same token, gnu (programs, shells, and whatnot) cannot
    >exist without the kernel to keep them running,


    Obviously.

    >> Linux is in the background, quite safe, because you can't
    >>get at it.


    >As it should be.


    >>Linux would have died quietly without gnu because Linus probably
    >>wouldn't have written all the stuff the kernel needs to be a real
    >>OS.


    >This is rather presumptuous, is it not. Anyone who could write a
    >kernel could most certainly write the support files needed for the
    >kernel to be an "OS".


    And for years and years, nobody did. Why? Because there was a lot
    of work involved, especially since one had to understand and stand
    clear of unix copyrights. The gnu project did not produce a
    reasonable kernel and the gnu "OS" sans kernel, just sat around
    collecting disk space somewhere until Mr. Torvalds wrote his kernel.

    >
    >>
    >>The linux+gnu unix clone has kicked the hell out of the BSD unix
    >>clones, and that is probably because Linus Torvalds has maintained
    >>control of the kernel.


    >This is most assuredly correct.


    >>A so-called "linux" distro, like slackware, would more accurately be
    >>called a linux+gnu distro. Or even simply a gnu distro, since far
    >>more work went into the gnu part of the OS than went into the linux
    >>part.


    >But as mentioned above, the gnu utilities would be just a minor blip
    >in the history of computing without Linux and the whole Linux+gnu


    And vice versa.

    >was stated by Richard Stallman (if memory serves) when Linux first
    >started to be noticed by people that were not, if you will pardon
    >the term, computer nerds.


    So?

    >And just as an aside, it is my belief that the gnu utilities were
    >derived from then various Unix distros/applications available at
    >the time.


    Where else would they have been derived from?

    >>Basically, PV's job, as a distro maintainer is to match the linux
    >>kernel with a file system, gnu utilities, X.org and a bunch of 3rd
    >>party applications. What this means is that the "linux" portion of
    >>the distro is actually the smallest part.


    >Yep, specially if you take E-Macs into consideration :-)


    >>Finally, since everyone uses virtually the same kernel, file
    >>systems, gnu utilities, X.org and 3rd party, all linux distros are
    >>pretty much functionally identical. The only substantial difference
    >>is in the way the parts are put together.


    >>What this means is that you are not learning anything more about
    >>linux when you use slackware, because they all use the same linux.


    >And here is the crux of the matter, and at which there will always be
    >disagreement. Slackware, being a CLI based system forces a person
    >to become aware of all the bits and pieces needed to get the OS to
    >work. While a GUI interface hides the bits and pieces from the person
    >using the system. So, in theory, a person would learn more about
    >Linux (and if you must gnu utilities) from the command line then from
    >a graphical interface.


    There is no difference between typing a command and choosing a
    command from a menu except that the latter is faster. There is no
    difference between typing an option or choosing that option from a
    menu, except that the latter is faster. There is no difference
    between typing "man" and clicking on "help" except that the latter
    is both faster and more informative.

    What you are objecting to is not the gui. You are objecting to
    so-called "wizards" and you are objecting to gui philosophy that
    dictates that you hide choices that are not options, and therefore
    don't "learn" because you are being guided into not making mistakes.

    Every CLI command has a finite number of options and there is no
    reason why that command cannot be put in a menu, with submenus
    listing all of the options. The only difference is that the latter
    is faster. Guis are not susceptible to typos. With guis you don't
    have to look up what the options are because they are listed in a
    submenu. And you don't have to remember any of the mundane stuff
    because that is what computers are for. You are free to be
    creative, as opposed to getting immersed in the nuts and bolts.

    >>Since the only thing that is different in the various distros is the
    >>way that those distros are put together, what you are really
    >>learning when you work on a slackware system is how slackware is put
    >>together.


    >Which you have just said was Linux so therefore you do learn more
    >about Linux using the command line then you would be using a
    >graphical interface.


    ?!? Gee. So if we said that Suse or whatever was Linux, then you
    would learn more about Linux if you used that?

    What kind of silliness is this?

    >> And knowing how slackware is put together does not teach you
    >>anymore about RedHat, than knowing how RedHat is put together
    >>teaches you about slackware.


    >Which you have said are all the same, so if you learn on one system
    >(and manage to get through all the fluff of another then what you have
    >learned still applies, because it is all the same kernel (plus
    >utilities and programs)


    The way the distros are put together is not the same. The linux
    part is the same. The gnu part is the same. And all the other apps
    are the same. But the only difference between the distros is the
    way that they are assembled.

    That being the case, when you learn slackware, you don't learn
    anymore about linux or gnu, because linux and gnu are the same in
    all distros. What you do learn more of, is how slackware is put
    together.

    When you learn RedHat, you don't learn any less about linux or gnu,
    because linux and gnu are 99.9% identical in all distros. What you
    learn more of is how RedHat was put together. And what you learn
    less of, compared to slackware, is how slackware is put together.

    Learning how slackware was put together doesn't teach you anymore
    about how RedHat was put together than learning RedHat will teach
    you how slackware is put together. The only difference is that with
    slackware you get more "practice" with the bash shell, which is,
    from an enlightened admin's point of view, usually nothing more than
    a bottleneck.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  5. Re: What is Linux?

    On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:41:25 GMT, rm@baseballproctologist.com (Realto)
    wrote:

    >Althiom trolled:


    <>

    >>>Linux would have died quietly without gnu because Linus probably
    >>>wouldn't have written all the stuff the kernel needs to be a real
    >>>OS.

    >
    >>This is rather presumptuous, is it not. Anyone who could write a
    >>kernel could most certainly write the support files needed for the
    >>kernel to be an "OS".

    >
    >And for years and years, nobody did. Why? Because there was a lot
    >of work involved, especially since one had to understand and stand
    >clear of unix copyrights. The gnu project did not produce a
    >reasonable kernel and the gnu "OS" sans kernel, just sat around
    >collecting disk space somewhere until Mr. Torvalds wrote his kernel.


    This might be true, in today's mind-set, but you seem to be
    overlooking
    the time that the applications/utilities were written. For the most
    part there was no such thing as Intellectual Property (I realize that
    this is a gross overstatement, but at the time we are talking about
    there was not such thing as software patents/abuse of the copyright
    laws and so on). So you are implying that writing some utilities is
    more difficult/time consuming then writing a kernel?? I must disagree
    with that assertion.

    >>>A so-called "linux" distro, like slackware, would more accurately be
    >>>called a linux+gnu distro. Or even simply a gnu distro, since far
    >>>more work went into the gnu part of the OS than went into the linux
    >>>part.

    >
    >>But as mentioned above, the gnu utilities would be just a minor blip
    >>in the history of computing without Linux and the whole Linux+gnu

    >
    >And vice versa.
    >
    >>was stated by Richard Stallman (if memory serves) when Linux first
    >>started to be noticed by people that were not, if you will pardon
    >>the term, computer nerds.

    >
    >So?


    Hay, if you can attempt to misdirect out little conversation with the
    Linux+gnu debate then allow me the chance to interject some of my
    knowledge (however small that may be) into the discussion.

    <>

    >>And here is the crux of the matter, and at which there will always be
    >>disagreement. Slackware, being a CLI based system forces a person
    >>to become aware of all the bits and pieces needed to get the OS to
    >>work. While a GUI interface hides the bits and pieces from the person
    >>using the system. So, in theory, a person would learn more about
    >>Linux (and if you must gnu utilities) from the command line then from
    >>a graphical interface.

    >
    >There is no difference between typing a command


    I beg to differ with you on this point. There are two area, at least,
    where the command line is required:

    The first is setting up sound in Linux. My computer has, at least,
    three sound producing chips/cards installed in it. Two of which are
    build-ins, so to speak. To get sound with Linux to work I have to run
    the command :
    alsactl restore 1
    when using kde/gnome/whatever I have yet to discover a way to
    do this using just the graphical interface alone.

    The second area that I have had problems with is getting a internet
    connection. My computer has at least two, possible three NIC's
    installed (Let's see, one on the mobo, one on a NIC card formerly used
    as a LAN interface, and the third used for the internet connection).
    Again as with sound I have not been able to get my internet connection
    set up without have to go into the command line to set the second NIC
    as the internet connnection.

    >and choosing a command from a menu except that the latter is faster.
    > There is no difference between typing an option or choosing that option from a
    >menu, except that the latter is faster.


    If the option exists that may have some merit, but having to dig
    through two or three levels of menus is not faster, just prettier.

    >There is no difference between typing "man" and clicking on
    >"help" except that the latter is both faster and more informative.


    I would beg to differ with you on this point as the "help" pages, at
    least in KDE are nothing more then the man pages htmlized.

    >What you are objecting to is not the gui. You are objecting to
    >so-called "wizards" and you are objecting to gui philosophy that
    >dictates that you hide choices


    This rises an interesting aside, who decides what is an option and
    what is not an option. Mayhap the option that the author decided was
    unneeded is just the option that I, as the user, am looking for.

    >that are not options, and therefore don't "learn" because you are being
    >guided into not making mistakes.


    Here I strongly have to disagree with you.


    Recently I have taken an interest in MythTV. All the various
    combinations available (except source code) come as a "one button
    install" meaning a OS is install first, then the appropriate software.
    On one of my "trials" the particular distro used the GNOME interface
    so to install MythTV I had to go through the installation of Linux +
    Gnome + MythTV.
    When attempting to install said programs, using the GUI the distro
    provided, for some reason I wiped my disk clean. Still not too sure
    why that happened, but it did in fact happen.


    I think this shows that the likelihood of making a mistake is the same
    whether using the CLI or a Graphical Interface.
    >
    >Every CLI command has a finite number of options and there is no
    >reason why that command cannot be put in a menu, with submenus
    >listing all of the options.


    In theory you are correct, but in practice this just ain't so.

    >The only difference is that the latter is faster.

    If you can find the correct menu to do what you want done.

    > Guis are not susceptible to typos. With guis you don't
    >have to look up what the options are because they are listed in a
    >submenu.


    In a perfect world, which this one isn't.

    >And you don't have to remember any of the mundane stuff
    >because that is what computers are for. You are free to be
    >creative, as opposed to getting immersed in the nuts and bolts.


    IF and only IF what you are attempting has already been coded into the
    GUI first.

    >>Which you have just said was Linux so therefore you do learn more
    >>about Linux using the command line then you would be using a
    >>graphical interface.

    >
    >?!? Gee. So if we said that Suse or whatever was Linux, then you
    >would learn more about Linux if you used that?


    That, it appears is your contention.
    >
    >What kind of silliness is this?


    I don't know it is what you are saying, not me.



    >The way the distros are put together is not the same. The linux
    >part is the same. The gnu part is the same. And all the other apps
    >are the same. But the only difference between the distros is the
    >way that they are assembled.
    >
    >That being the case, when you learn slackware, you don't learn
    >anymore about linux or gnu, because linux and gnu are the same in
    >all distros. What you do learn more of, is how slackware is put
    >together.
    >
    >When you learn RedHat, you don't learn any less about linux or gnu,
    >because linux and gnu are 99.9% identical in all distros. What you
    >learn more of is how RedHat was put together. And what you learn
    >less of, compared to slackware, is how slackware is put together.


    If as you contend 99.9% of, Say RedHat and Slackware are the same
    then the .1% difference must be unique to the respective distribution.
    If you use Slackware then that .1% is learning the Slackware
    philosophy, if you will, which is being more self-reliant and not
    requiring the hand-holding of say, a Graphical Interface.
    >
    >Learning how slackware was put together doesn't teach you anymore
    >about how RedHat was put together than learning RedHat will teach
    >you how slackware is put together. The only difference is that with
    >slackware you get more "practice" with the bash shell, which is,
    >from an enlightened admin's point of view, usually nothing more than
    >a bottleneck.
    >
    >cordially, as always,
    >
    >rm


    Yours Truly
    Althiom

  6. Re: P.V. comes under fire

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Realto wrote:
    > Althiom trolled:
    >
    >>Let's keep things straight here. It was not, repeat WAS NOT PV
    >>that did this but some reseller.

    >
    >>Keeping the record straight

    >
    > And it has also been alleged that PV held back the release for
    > several months, for no good reason, knowing that the reseller
    > (Simmons in this case) had done just that.
    >
    > Now it may very well be that PV had a good reason to hold back the
    > release. Has anybody heard a reason?
    >


    Because he CAN?!? because it is his distribution and can do
    what he pleases?!? And even if there were a reason, why should we even
    care? the release is out (you didn't mention which release, so I'll
    assume 12 or older, as they would all be out), so this is a non-issue,
    and you're beating this issue like you beat your member: dead.

    With this, you're making the gossip on /. look good.

    BL.
    - --
    Brad Littlejohn | Email: tyketto@sbcglobal.net
    Unix Systems Administrator, | tyketto@ozemail.com.au
    Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
    PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFGk+DLyBkZmuMZ8L8RAlc7AJ9prcODw8HCXMm528zZjD 9vkHdqWgCgkuyD
    wH7Jmx8+58/GggN2wsT+q1w=
    =2BxQ
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  7. Re: P.V. comes under fire

    On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:54:48 GMT, rm@baseballproctologist.com (Realto)
    wrote:

    <>

    >And it has also been alleged that PV held back the release for
    >several months, for no good reason, knowing that the reseller
    >(Simmons in this case) had done just that.


    IF his assertion is correct, or is it just that his expectations were
    not met and rather than blame himself for making a bad business
    judgment he looks for someone to blame his misfortune on??

    >
    >Now it may very well be that PV had a good reason to hold back the
    >release. Has anybody heard a reason?


    So aols has fallen to the level of Fox News. Innuendo and
    speculation. and possibly outright lies.

    Reminds me of the late, unbemoand, Sen. J. McCarthy, the current
    president G.W. Bush, and the boss of Microsoft.

    >
    >cordially, as always,
    >
    >rm


    ALthiom

  8. Re: P.V. comes under fire

    On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:51:37 -0400, Althiom wrote:

    > So aols has fallen to the level of Fox News. Innuendo and speculation.
    > and possibly outright lies.


    Look. Ignore the dweebs. If this were a sports NG they'd tear the
    idiot a new asshole and put him on a corner.

    If the idiot is feeble minded enough to post and reply to himself so be
    it.

    Trolls exist because people allow them to succeed. I know. He's weird,
    sorta like "Buffalo Billy" in "Silence of the Lambs". No telling what he
    has in his basement but who really cares.

    --
    Linux Help: http://rsgibson.com/linux.htm
    Email - rsgibson@verizon.borg
    Replace borg with net


  9. Re: P.V. comes under fire

    ANC wrote:
    >
    > When you come down to it, Slackware as an OS is boring. Those who have
    > it, have had it or years and years and know about all they need to know.


    I just installed SW 1.something_or_other on a 486SX. It wasn't much
    different from the current install - that is a good thing.

    - Kurt

  10. Re: P.V. comes under fire

    On 2007-07-11, ~kurt wrote:
    > ANC wrote:
    >>
    >> When you come down to it, Slackware as an OS is boring. Those who have
    >> it, have had it or years and years and know about all they need to know.

    >
    > I just installed SW 1.something_or_other on a 486SX. It wasn't much
    > different from the current install.....


    Nor should it be.

    An operating system is not meant to be entertainment. The
    applications that run on an OS can be and should be, I guess, if
    that's your thing. But, in and of itself, it can only be detrimental
    to an OS working to efficiently run all the programs it must while
    loaded down with tons of eye-candy and frills and other questionable
    garbage. This is the problem with the WinTel alliance.

    Windows has been doing this big time since win98. little clouds in
    the windows, ever more graphically complex icons, etc. Now, Vista is
    the victim of this garbage overload. It's such a gross pig it can't
    get out of its own way.

    Unfortunately, Linux is already heading down the exact same road with
    that beryl silliness. Whirly twirly 3d cubes and other useless crap.
    I guess this is fine if one WANTS to be entertained by the OS/desktop.
    I don't get it, myself, since I rarely see the desktop because I'm
    always using some program that actually DOES SOMETHING!

    In short, I couldn't care less how boring Slackware is. In fact, it
    will reach absolute perfection when I can set it and forget about it
    altogether.

    nb





  11. Re: P.V. comes under fire

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    _.-In alt.os.linux.slackware, notbob wrote the following -._
    > Unfortunately, Linux is already heading down the exact same road with
    > that beryl silliness. Whirly twirly 3d cubes and other useless crap.


    I used to use the twirly 3d cube when I was on a lower end system. I
    had large batch jobs that would run automagically in the background
    and they could slow the system to a crawl. When I saw the cube start
    to spin up and I knew I hadn't done anything to cause it I knew I had
    a limited amount of time before my system would feel the full force of
    the load and I could head off and make tea or take out the trash.

    - --
    =()==()==()==()==()- http://fauxascii.com
    \ \ \ \ \ \ ASCII artist
    :F_P:-O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- Get your ASCII Art T-Shirt:
    http://www.keystroketshirts.com/asci...-fullView.php#
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFGlE7jSJec2PH9pbURAqggAJ9OwckWXbZuh3OrvQeR71 XiXW2yvwCeIGgn
    17VDK8dEgF5HyIJw+lREV4U=
    =9fdC
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  12. Re: P.V. comes under fire

    notbob wrote:
    >
    > Unfortunately, Linux is already heading down the exact same road with


    This is a big reason why I dropped Red Hat and moved to Slackware back when I
    "upgraded to RH 6.0. All the fancy GUI config utilities had changed on
    me, and I found myself just going directly to the config files because it
    was easier than figuring out where the new GUI config tools were. RH
    completely dropped some of the old custom RH config tools too, so I
    couldn't use them. I realized I hadn't learned a thing using those tools.

    - Kurt

  13. Re: P.V. comes under fire

    ~kurt trolled:
    >notbob wrote:


    >> Unfortunately, Linux is already heading down the exact same road
    >> with


    >This is a big reason why I dropped Red Hat and moved to Slackware
    >back when I "upgraded to RH 6.0. All the fancy GUI config
    >utilities had changed on me, and I found myself just going directly
    >to the config files because it was easier than figuring out where
    >the new GUI config tools were. RH completely dropped some of the
    >old custom RH config tools too, so I couldn't use them. I realized
    >I hadn't learned a thing using those tools.


    You learned to setup RH using those tools. What else would you
    expect to learn from setup tools?

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  14. Re: P.V. comes under fire

    Stanislaw Flatto wrote:
    > Realto wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >> Install 11.0 and then re-install 12.0? Try another distribution?

    >
    > All those suggestions are NOT rocket science.
    > We been in this movie and done it.


    Realto is a known troll.

    --



    cbfalconer at maineline dot net



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  15. Re: What is Linux?

    Althiom wrote:
    > rm@baseballproctologist.com (Realto) wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    >> Learning how slackware was put together doesn't teach you anymore
    >> about how RedHat was put together than learning RedHat will teach
    >> you how slackware is put together. The only difference is that
    >> with slackware you get more "practice" with the bash shell, which
    >> is, from an enlightened admin's point of view, usually nothing
    >> more than a bottleneck.
    >>
    >> cordially, as always,

    >
    > Yours Truly
    > Althiom


    Realto, and rm, and other silly names, are all the same troll.
    Ignore and/or PLONK.

    --



    cbfalconer at maineline dot net



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  16. Re: P.V. comes under fire

    On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:44:02 +0800, ChuMaiFat wrote:



    > With kind regards


    Smeg off, Win-droid.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  17. Re: P.V. comes under fire

    On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:05:14 -0400, CBFalconer wrote:

    > Realto is a known troll.


    Yes, he is.

    And you are a known moron.

    Fix your sig block, doofus.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  18. Re: P.V. comes under fire

    Old Man wrote:

    >
    > It differs this way: As a subscriber I get a discount but I do _not_ pay in
    > advance. My credit card is charged when the item is shipped.


    OK. Although it doesn't seem like much of a difference; you have a
    standing order, payment gets deducted from your credit card and then the
    item is shipped. Hopefully, you live next door to the shipping depot
    and thus won't be charged too long in advance before you get your goodies.

    But wait a minute, are you saying you've given this one man show your
    credit card details to help himself every time he ships you the latest
    upgrade? I suppose that does differ from notbob's "moron" example; they
    only pays once.

    >> Is PV, to use notbob's terminology, an
    >> even greedier ass than Michael's consumer electronics chain, who at
    >> least offer a discount?

    >
    > No.


    My mistake. He's not greedier, he's only on par with the other fellow
    being called a greedy ass.

    >
    >> With kind regards

    >
    > I'll bet.


    How much? (Just send me your credit card details and I'll deduct the
    funds when the next wager is due)

    With kind regards

    Chu

  19. Re: P.V. comes under fire

    Res wrote:

    >
    > wtf do u care, iinet have linux mirrors use them, and fuk off with your
    > crap
    >


    Allow me to congratulate you on your erudite riposte. Witty and
    succinct, yet deeply profound.

    Did you by any chance attend the Dan C School of Reading & Comprehension?

    With kind regards

    Chu

  20. Re: P.V. comes under fire

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1
    NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

    On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, ChuMaiFat wrote:

    >
    > Res wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> wtf do u care, iinet have linux mirrors use them, and fuk off with your
    >> crap
    >>

    >
    > Allow me to congratulate you on your erudite riposte. Witty and
    > succinct, yet deeply profound.
    >
    > Did you by any chance attend the Dan C School of Reading & Comprehension?
    >


    no, he attended mine

    --
    Cheers
    Res
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFGliTosWhAmSIQh7MRAnBAAJ96/0poqNNg29/DGc+hQfTm/tf+5gCfeTeo
    ZkMV3iGIlHIu/nMRFohgHaU=
    =N3h7
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----