Re: Fedora Core 4: Redefining Retarded
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> hda - the drive I use for the root filesystem - is *untouched*. It
> hasn't been partitioned, formatted, or anything. Nope... FC4
> apparently decided that the expendable boot drive was not to be
> touched, and instead, yes, you guessed it, it nuked /home. Something
> like 13Gb of data on the drive, merrily nuked.
Whoa ... I feel your pain! Yet this is exactly why I don't trust those
automated installers. Some fairly critical stuff happens during
install, and you just don't want to fall victim to a bug at that point.
Hence I do all my partitioning manually with the simplest and most
tested tools. And of course I verify again and again that I'm doing the
right thing. Doesn't mean I'm not sweating a little when I ask it to
write to disk. Anyone who doesn't do that either doesn't care about
what's on the disk, or doesn't know what he's doing ...
> I'll use Windows ME before another RedHat product. Anyone who can
> design an installer that terminally brain-dead simply *cannot* be
> trusted not to have left the rest of the software in a safe, sane and
> usable state.
Red Hat was what introduced me to Linux, and I thank them for that.
However, it was Gentoo that made me love it and gain expertise. At the
time, RH was one of the best. Fortunately I left before they went
down-hill.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC1YvVd1ZThqotgfgRAnTPAJ9RbybztDSbga58PJ1/f9xaWPuHRACgsYPC
6P8tLXCFiRDKVv13E9RfAUg=
=hbFL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
Linux has a history of standing on the shoulders of giants, while Microsoft has
a history of trying to break giants' legs. The latter is quite less efficient.
Dom
random errors. The installer wouldn't start at all for me until I
applied the fix. The dumbest fix ever. When you get the GRUB installer
prompt, type random junk, like ijnhg, and push enter. Then, proceed with
the install.
rapskat
> hda - the drive I use for the root filesystem - is *untouched*. It hasn't
> been partitioned, formatted, or anything. Nope... FC4 apparently decided
> that the expendable boot drive was not to be touched, and instead, yes, you
> guessed it, it nuked /home. Something like 13Gb of data on the drive,
> merrily nuked.
OMG! I would be beyond devasted if that ever happened to me. I keep a
few extremely important things backed up from my /home dir, but there is a
lot of stuff that simply won't easily fit on CD or DVD.
> Now, granted, that last bit is at least partially my fault, as it does, in
> fact, list the partitions that will be created, etc, but if you've
> installed Linux on the same setup twenty or more times without anything
> remotely as asinine as using hdc instead of hda, frankly, it's not
> something you're looking out for.
You are right. I would never expect a distro to just arbitrarily jump to
a tertiary drive to use to install on, unless of course it wasn't able
to find the primary for whatever reason. I don't think I've ever had a
situation were that happened to me personally, with the exception of
attempting to install Debian on a system where the primary was on a SATA
controller and at the time there were no drivers for it.
> So, long and short, not only *won't* it install, at all, its best offering
> is to select the single, most unabashedly retarded option for *where* to
> try to install, before failing.
>
> RedHat - I think it was 5.0 - was the distro which sent me screaming for
> the hills rather than let anything as pathetic as this "Linux" crap on my
> system. Being something of a fan of Linux these days, I'll amend that:
> I'll use Windows ME before another RedHat product. Anyone who can design
> an installer that terminally brain-dead simply *cannot* be trusted not to
> have left the rest of the software in a safe, sane and usable state.
I tried Fedora, I think it was Core 2, and I just didn't like it. Too
many little parts missing, ran dogged slow, and was a royal pain to
extend. After the nightmares I've had with Redhat in the past, I didn't
really waste too much time with it.
Though I will say that for whatever reason, RH did have the best hardware
recognition and setup at the time of any distro I'd used. It would detect
hardware that other distros refused to even acknowledge.
--
rapskat - 15:41:26 up 4 days, 15:13, 8 users, load average: 0.01, 0.07, 0.11
"I don't have any solution but I certainly admire the problem."
- Ashleigh Brilliant
Kelsey Bjarnason
little background, though.
My usual configuration is two HDs plus a DVD burner. One HD is used as the
root filesystem and swap, the other is home directories. The second HD
usually lives on the second IDE bus, so that's hda for root, hdc for home,
and hdd for the DVD burner.
That same setup has been used for Ubuntu, Mepis, Mandriva, Lunar, Knoppix,
Debian and Gentoo, without a hiccup. Every one of those has installed with
at most minor hiccups.
Not so FC4.
The first thing it does, after walking you through a few basic prompts, is
whether to auto-allocate partitions, or to do manual configuration. Since
hda is expendable, I'm happy to let it do its thing. I select the packages
to install, it gets maybe one percent of the way into the process and it
says it can't read a package.
Hmm. Bad burn? Could be. Boot up a LiveCD, drop in the third HD, reload
the DVD image, verify the sum, do a burn with a full read-and-compare
cycle; yup, good burn. Pull that drive, boot off the DVD, go through it
all again.
This time it tells me it can't verify that the partitions were written, or
some such. Forced reboot. Try again.
This time, it apparently manages to correctly write the partitions, starts
to copy the packages... then complains it cannot unmount the CD. It hasn't
had enough time to copy more than a tiny fraction of the packages, but it's
trying to unmount the CD - and will _not_ continue past this point.
Six separate runs produce similar results; every other distro installs just
fine, FC4 *will not* install. Fine, pull it, install something else.
That's when I notice something else...
hda - the drive I use for the root filesystem - is *untouched*. It hasn't
been partitioned, formatted, or anything. Nope... FC4 apparently decided
that the expendable boot drive was not to be touched, and instead, yes, you
guessed it, it nuked /home. Something like 13Gb of data on the drive,
merrily nuked.
Now, granted, that last bit is at least partially my fault, as it does, in
fact, list the partitions that will be created, etc, but if you've
installed Linux on the same setup twenty or more times without anything
remotely as asinine as using hdc instead of hda, frankly, it's not
something you're looking out for.
So, long and short, not only *won't* it install, at all, its best offering
Alex
Did you run into any random errors with your newsreader?
Linønut
> RedHat - I think it was 5.0 - was the distro which sent me screaming for
> the hills rather than let anything as pathetic as this "Linux" crap on my
> system. Being something of a fan of Linux these days, I'll amend that:
> I'll use Windows ME before another RedHat product. Anyone who can design
> an installer that terminally brain-dead simply *cannot* be trusted not to
> have left the rest of the software in a safe, sane and usable state.
I stopped with RedHat at 8.0, which I later stripped off my laptop to
load Gentoo. (And now the laptop has Debian, though not because I have
any disklike for Gentoo).
--
Tux rox!
Freeride
> Just tried to install FC4 on this machine. Let's set the stage with a
> little background, though.
>
> My usual configuration is two HDs plus a DVD burner. One HD is used as the
> root filesystem and swap, the other is home directories. The second HD
> usually lives on the second IDE bus, so that's hda for root, hdc for home,
> and hdd for the DVD burner.
>
> That same setup has been used for Ubuntu, Mepis, Mandriva, Lunar, Knoppix,
> Debian and Gentoo, without a hiccup. Every one of those has installed with
> at most minor hiccups.
>
> Not so FC4.
>
> The first thing it does, after walking you through a few basic prompts, is
> whether to auto-allocate partitions, or to do manual configuration.
That was a big mistake, trusting anything auto to partitioning on
partitions you want to keep.
> Since
> hda is expendable, I'm happy to let it do its thing.
So you did not bother looking at the results before continuing?? That is
not Fedora/Red Hats fault!
Again how long does it take to review the results of the auto
partitioning?
>
> So, long and short, not only *won't* it install, at all, its best offering
> is to select the single, most unabashedly retarded option for *where* to
> try to install, before failing.
Actual it kinda makes sense it did not touch hda where you had your old
OS.
>
> RedHat - I think it was 5.0 - was the distro which sent me screaming for
> the hills rather than let anything as pathetic as this "Linux" crap on my
> system. Being something of a fan of Linux these days, I'll amend that:
> I'll use Windows ME before another RedHat product. Anyone who can design
> an installer that terminally brain-dead simply *cannot* be trusted not to
> have left the rest of the software in a safe, sane and usable state.
Not the installers fault, you just flat out failed to review the
partitioning and should have done it manually.
Dom
dual-booting, then use a mutual filesystem on the other and mount it to
the documents folder in each OS.
Dom
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:59:02 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>> The first thing it does, after walking you through a few basic prompts, is
>> whether to auto-allocate partitions, or to do manual configuration.
>
> That was a big mistake, trusting anything auto to partitioning on
> partitions you want to keep.
Actually, no. The mistake was trusting *RedHat* to get it right. Every
other distro I've tried - Debian, Gentoo, Mandrake, Ubuntu, Knoppix, Mepis,
Lunar, etc, etc, etc, either force you to select the drive (eg install_hd
/dev/hda) or they *get it right*. Every one. Every time. Hell, even
Windows gets it right.
It's only RedHat who can't figure out that an OS belongs on the only
bootable drive on the system.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:53:12 -0400, rapskat wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:36:42 +0000, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
>> hda - the drive I use for the root filesystem - is *untouched*. It hasn't
>> been partitioned, formatted, or anything. Nope... FC4 apparently decided
>> that the expendable boot drive was not to be touched, and instead, yes, you
>> guessed it, it nuked /home. Something like 13Gb of data on the drive,
>> merrily nuked.
>
> OMG! I would be beyond devasted if that ever happened to me. I keep a
> few extremely important things backed up from my /home dir, but there is a
> lot of stuff that simply won't easily fit on CD or DVD.
Bingo. Zot, gone. Nada. Rien. Might as well have tossed the drive into
the trash.
>> Now, granted, that last bit is at least partially my fault, as it does, in
>> fact, list the partitions that will be created, etc, but if you've
>> installed Linux on the same setup twenty or more times without anything
>> remotely as asinine as using hdc instead of hda, frankly, it's not
>> something you're looking out for.
>
> You are right. I would never expect a distro to just arbitrarily jump to
> a tertiary drive to use to install on, unless of course it wasn't able
> to find the primary for whatever reason.
Despite umpteen installs by other distros not having any such issue. Gah.
> I don't think I've ever had a
> situation were that happened to me personally, with the exception of
> attempting to install Debian on a system where the primary was on a SATA
> controller and at the time there were no drivers for it.
Closest I come is with OS/2 Warp 3; the installer - which *claimed* to be
an "upgrade" version, which is *supposed* to take an existing Windows
partition, install safely and leave your apps, data, etc, intact - instead
took one look at the drive and *without even warning*, promptly
quick-formatted the drive.
> I tried Fedora, I think it was Core 2, and I just didn't like it. Too
> many little parts missing, ran dogged slow, and was a royal pain to
> extend. After the nightmares I've had with Redhat in the past, I didn't
> really waste too much time with it.
This was really only my second foray into RH-land, because the first was so
traumatic. I've been using Linux for what, four years? Longer? Whatever;
obviously, I like it. I've used umpteen different distros, in umpteen
different configurations... but never a RedHat distro. Until now. I guess
my "faith" in them was, indeed, justified. :)
tab
I was lying. But I am glad to see the fucktards actually
try something and not flap lips.
Get off the drugs.
Tim Smith
wrote:
> write to disk. Anyone who doesn't do that either doesn't care about
> what's on the disk, or doesn't know what he's doing ...
...or tests the hell out of it first under VMWare before letting it loose on
their real disk! That's my approach.
--
--Tim Smith
rapskat
> Yeah, I said I had problems with FC4, and COLA said
> I was lying. But I am glad to see the fucktards actually
> try something and not flap lips.
The difference is - Kelsey has credibility, you don't.
> Get off the drugs.
Making a self-empowerment list? That's a good start.
--
rapskat - 13:18:24 up 5 days, 12:50, 1 user, load average: 0.21, 0.13, 0.09
"Cogito ergo sum...cogito."
The Ghost In The Machine
<linøn...@bone.com>
wrote
on Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:12:11 -0500
<GaSdnay3SNp...@comcast.com>:
The main problem I have with Gentoo is that in order
to get started sans a LiveCD one has to have another OS
such as Debian -- and Debian I can start with naught but
an internet connection and a handful of floppies, on a
totally blank machine.
I don't know if it's that big of an issue but frankly
I'd love to have a similar option with Gentoo. :-)
It wouldn't be that difficult to do, though it might
be tricky to get exactly right. Something like:
[1] Start with a brand new machine, and either a phone
line or an Internet connection, and some floppies --
about 6 or so would be ideal, a la Windows 3.1 or
Debian, but there's no real hard limit. Debian,
IIRC, uses 8, four of them for the drivers.tgz file.
[2] Stick first floppy in, boot universal GRUBster.
[3] Stick second floppy in, load kernel.
[4] Stick third floppy in, load initrd and boot.
[5] Initrd takes over, asks some basic questions,
repartitions and readies a / and /boot partition, maybe
some other stuff. It then copies some base stuff to
the partitions, for later on. This is a very basic
initrd, BTW: one might get a busybox on there and a
few other utilities, but it won't take much else on a
1.44 MB drive. One might contemplate several flavors,
depending on how well the ext3/reiserfs/jfs utilities
fit together, and how big the kernel gets.
[6] At this point it should be possible to do a basic disk formatting
and download the stage1.tgz off the Internet. The stage1 would
of course be decompressed in the right place.
[7] Pivot to the new root and maybe do some setup.
[8] Compile, compile, compile, etc.
Of course with a LiveCD it's much easier, as one doesn't
have to do so many machinations. I just haven't gotten
a burner to work recently. :-)
One alternative that would work extremely well is a
kernel/initrd pair that could be put on a FAT volume using
another OS such as DOS or Windows; the GRUBster can use
those instead of relying on floppies. Of course that
requires that DOS format the drive, or that another OS
be installed thereon already.
With a "seeder" machine (I have three Gentoo installations)
it's slightly simpler if I build the system image
beforehand and put some specialized utilities on that
initrd to do the equivalent of 'netcat | dd' or some
such. (I actually wrote two C socket-based programs;
it's moronically simple stuff.)
One might contemplate other possibilities for those
machines which have absolutely essential data buried
somewhere in a single NTFS or FAT volume in an existing
Windows installation. Those require more prepwork,
mostly because Linux needs its own partitions -- and
the easiest method I can think of is to back up the
Windows machine, wipe it (repartitioning it in the process),
reinstall Windows, restore the data one desires, install
Linux (gotta do it in this order as Windows likes to do
stupid things with the bootblock, though there are workarounds
such as the universal GRUBster referred to earlier), and
have fun.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Buford
My Linux (FC4 at the moment) lives on hdc. I have a Suse installation in
another partition on hdc and a Slackware installation on hdd. Both
of these drives are bootable. On my system, hda is a DVD burner and hdb
is a CD writer. Both of those are bootable as well.
I install distros pretty often, and I would never trust an installer to
correctly guess where I want it to put anything. Maybe that's only
because I have a fairly unusual system, partition-wise, but even if I only
had one other OS installed, I think I'd be too nervous to let the system
make any partitioning decisions for me.
I understand your frustration, though. An earlier Fedora Core release
rendered Windows XP unbootable on my system. It took me a while to
discover this as I rarely booted into Windows, but it was extremely
annoying.
As an aside, FC4 installed with no problems on my system, but that hasn't
always been the case. I never used to check the md5sums of the CDs I
burned, but I always do now. Ever since I started doing that (and
sometimes finding problems in ISOs I downloaded), my installs have gone
smoothly. That's 3 in a row (Mandrake 10.1, Slackware 10.1, and last
week, FC4), so I'm thinking most of my problems in the past (where the
install would just die in the middle) were due to corrupted ISOs.
I think my next install will be CentOS. It's a clone of RedHat
Enterprise, built from RedHat's source. I stumbled across it while
clicking around one day last week and now I'm curious.
tab
Na, the difference is that I actually posted the issues,
and you all are just flapping lip dogs.
All talk and no action.
Linønut
> The main problem I have with Gentoo is that in order
> to get started sans a LiveCD one has to have another OS
> such as Debian -- and Debian I can start with naught but
> an internet connection and a handful of floppies, on a
> totally blank machine.
What? You can't stick in the LiveCD and make some partitions
and kick off the install from it?
> I don't know if it's that big of an issue but frankly
> I'd love to have a similar option with Gentoo. :-)
Why? With Debian, you can also boot from a CD (or even a DVD, if your
box supports it. Then you don't have mess with any floppy crap:
> [2] Stick first floppy in, boot universal GRUBster.
> [3] Stick second floppy in, load kernel.
> [4] Stick third floppy in, load initrd and boot.
. . .
The Ghost In The Machine
<StadnThGmNt...@comcast.com>:
> The Ghost In The Machine poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> The main problem I have with Gentoo is that in order
>> to get started sans a LiveCD one has to have another OS
>> such as Debian -- and Debian I can start with naught but
>> an internet connection and a handful of floppies, on a
>> totally blank machine.
>
> What? You can't stick in the LiveCD and make some partitions
> and kick off the install from it?
I don't have a LiveCD, or an option of burning one, though
I did locate my 4020i in a box; I'll see if I can get that
one to work. (It did work at one point in my Amiga box,
way way back.)
>
>> I don't know if it's that big of an issue but frankly
>> I'd love to have a similar option with Gentoo. :-)
>
> Why? With Debian, you can also boot from a CD (or
> even a DVD, if your box supports it. Then you don't
> have mess with any floppy crap:
We shall see. I think I have a minor project this weekend... :-)
>
>> [2] Stick first floppy in, boot universal GRUBster.
>> [3] Stick second floppy in, load kernel.
>> [4] Stick third floppy in, load initrd and boot.
>
> . . .
>
Kelsey Bjarnason
>>The difference is - Kelsey has credibility, you don't.
>
> Na, the difference is that I actually posted the issues,
> and you all are just flapping lip dogs.
Has it occurred to you that it may be a matter of both how and by whom the
issues are posted?
Consider; I obviously like Linux; I've posted enough pro-Linux items to
establish that quite firmly. Thus if I have a criticism of it, one can
presume it's coming about as a result of an actual fault in the system,
rather than simply because I'm anti-Linux.
On the other hand, some folks have virtually nothing good to say about
Linux; almost everything they say is negative. Consider what this says
about _them_.
A person who hits his thumb with a hammer will realize it hurts; he is most
unlikely to do so again, other than by accident. If he does, he
demonstrates some serious issue having nothing to do with the quality of
the hammer he wields.
So too with Linux. The anti-Linux crowd, on the whole, likes to tell us an
ongoing series of horror stories - Linux ate their data, or corrupted their
system, or fried their CD-Rom drive, or can't view some website, or can't
play some game, or whatever; there's always a new issue, a new problem.
What they never seem to do is present the _positive_ side. They're not
driving nails and occasionally hitting their thumb, they are *only* hitting
their thumb; this makes it very odd that they don't simply stop, like any
sane person would.
I use Linux because I like it. I do *not* use RedHat, because I *don't*
like it. I haven't used it since something like 5.0, precisely because it
was - IMO - an execretable pile of steaming noxiousness. Here's the
kicker: in all the intervening time, I haven't had a *single* problem as a
result of RedHat, for the simple reason that I didn't use it. It didn't
work for me, so I moved on to something that did.
If you can't get Linux to work for you, fine, so be it. Why keep hitting
your thumb with a hammer, though? If you really can't get Linux working,
fine, move on. Windows. OSX. BSD. Solaris. Whatever turns your crank.
Continuing to perform what is obviously both a painful and a pointless
operation simply demonstrates an issue with you, not with the tool.
Tim Smith
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That was a big mistake, trusting anything auto to partitioning on
> > partitions you want to keep.
>
> Actually, no. The mistake was trusting *RedHat* to get it right. Every
> other distro I've tried - Debian, Gentoo, Mandrake, Ubuntu, Knoppix, Mepis,
> Lunar, etc, etc, etc, either force you to select the drive (eg install_hd
> /dev/hda) or they *get it right*. Every one. Every time. Hell, even
> Windows gets it right.
>
> It's only RedHat who can't figure out that an OS belongs on the only
> bootable drive on the system.
Why would the OS belong on the bootable drive? It's often the case that
the bootable drive is the smallest drive, and one wants the OS on the
shiny new big drive that one has just added.
The only thing that belongs on the bootable drive is the boot code.
--
--Tim Smith
Rich Bell
That is the problem that I have had with some of the Linux installers. They
insist on messing with my bootable drive, which contains my XP installation.
Even though I tell it to use another drive that is wiped clean and waiting
for the Linux install, they still mess with my boot drive. I have found that
the safest way to install Linux on a muliboot system is to unplug the drives
you don't want it to touch. This is especially true when the boot drive is a
SATA RAID setup. The last time I tried to install Mandrake (pre-Mandriva),
it misidentified my RAID drives as being separate drives.
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:01:23 -0700, tab wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I said I had problems with FC4, and COLA said
>> I was lying. But I am glad to see the fucktards actually
>> try something and not flap lips.
>
> The difference is - Kelsey has credibility, you don't.
Hmm.. that seems like a very poor excuse. If what tab wrote was correct,
and people called him a liar (obiously without verifying anything) that's
ok?
Shouldn't you be disputing the facts rather than the source? Doesn't it
seem dishonest to you to call people a liar without even bothering to check
the facts, based soley on your opinion of the person?
Is that ethical? Is that really a good example to set?
Not that I'm saying he was or wasn't correct, since i'm not aware of the
specific circumstances. I'm just astonished at your response that lack of
credibility makes it ok to make any kind of claim you like against that
person without factuality.
Kier
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:21:06 -0400, rapskat wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:01:23 -0700, tab wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I said I had problems with FC4, and COLA said
>>> I was lying. But I am glad to see the fucktards actually
>>> try something and not flap lips.
>>
>> The difference is - Kelsey has credibility, you don't.
>
> Hmm.. that seems like a very poor excuse. If what tab wrote was correct,
> and people called him a liar (obiously without verifying anything) that's
> ok?
Erik, do you seriously mean to suggest tab is corect about anything? That
he is genuine about anything? Tab is a troll. Not only a troll, but from
his regular utterances, a complete lunatic.
Kelsey, on the other hand, is honest. He has shown his good sense in many
many posts. Which one am I or any other sensible person going to believe?
Do you really need to ask?
>
> Shouldn't you be disputing the facts rather than the source? Doesn't it
> seem dishonest to you to call people a liar without even bothering to check
> the facts, based soley on your opinion of the person?
>
> Is that ethical? Is that really a good example to set?
When has tab ever been anything but a wintroll, a liar and a completely
untrustworthy idiot?
>
> Not that I'm saying he was or wasn't correct, since i'm not aware of the
> specific circumstances. I'm just astonished at your response that lack of
> credibility makes it ok to make any kind of claim you like against that
> person without factuality.
Oh come on.
--
Kier
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:09:29 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:21:06 -0400, rapskat wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:01:23 -0700, tab wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, I said I had problems with FC4, and COLA said
>>>> I was lying. But I am glad to see the fucktards actually
>>>> try something and not flap lips.
>>>
>>> The difference is - Kelsey has credibility, you don't.
>>
>> Hmm.. that seems like a very poor excuse. If what tab wrote was correct,
>> and people called him a liar (obiously without verifying anything) that's
>> ok?
>
> Erik, do you seriously mean to suggest tab is corect about anything? That
> he is genuine about anything? Tab is a troll. Not only a troll, but from
> his regular utterances, a complete lunatic.
Be that as it may, my point is not about the credibility of the troll, but
of the character of the advocate. I'm not saying he was or wasn't correct
(though he claims to have said the same things Kelsey said, in which case,
if true would have made them correct and not lies).
> Kelsey, on the other hand, is honest. He has shown his good sense in many
> many posts. Which one am I or any other sensible person going to believe?
Not the issue. Whether you believe someone or not is irrelevant to whether
you call them a liar. Not believing them is one thing, but stating someone
is a liar means you know for a fact that they a) are incorrect and b) know
they are incorrect and are making the statement falesly on purpose.
> Do you really need to ask?
I didn't ask whether you believed him or not.
>> Not that I'm saying he was or wasn't correct, since i'm not aware of the
>> specific circumstances. I'm just astonished at your response that lack of
>> credibility makes it ok to make any kind of claim you like against that
>> person without factuality.
>
> Oh come on.
It's a valid point. Is it ok to call someone a liar, without knowing the
facts of the statements, just because they lack credibility?
Is that really your stance?
Peter Köhlmann
< snip Erik F droppings >
> It's a valid point. Is it ok to call someone a liar, without knowing the
> facts of the statements, just because they lack credibility?
>
> Is that really your stance?
One can safely assume that *anything* tab (Kerke) writes is a lie
I would not even believe him if he stated that 1+1=2
You see, he brings everything about himself by being simply a liar.
I can't remember a single post where he hasn't lied.
Why should I assume that he would /ever/ tell the truth?
Same is true for you, Erik. You are a liar, and a dishonest winshill
--
Howe's Law: Everyone has a scheme that will not work.
Kier
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:17:33 +0100, Kier wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:09:29 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:21:06 -0400, rapskat wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:01:23 -0700, tab wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I said I had problems with FC4, and COLA said
>>>>> I was lying. But I am glad to see the fucktards actually
>>>>> try something and not flap lips.
>>>>
>>>> The difference is - Kelsey has credibility, you don't.
>>>
>>> Hmm.. that seems like a very poor excuse. If what tab wrote was correct,
>>> and people called him a liar (obiously without verifying anything) that's
>>> ok?
>>
>> Erik, do you seriously mean to suggest tab is corect about anything? That
>> he is genuine about anything? Tab is a troll. Not only a troll, but from
>> his regular utterances, a complete lunatic.
>
> Be that as it may, my point is not about the credibility of the troll, but
> of the character of the advocate. I'm not saying he was or wasn't correct
> (though he claims to have said the same things Kelsey said, in which case,
> if true would have made them correct and not lies).
He may claim it, but I'm extremely doubtful he ever said what Kelsey said.
>
>> Kelsey, on the other hand, is honest. He has shown his good sense in many
>> many posts. Which one am I or any other sensible person going to believe?
>
> Not the issue. Whether you believe someone or not is irrelevant to whether
> you call them a liar. Not believing them is one thing, but stating someone
> is a liar means you know for a fact that they a) are incorrect and b) know
> they are incorrect and are making the statement falesly on purpose.
>
>> Do you really need to ask?
>
> I didn't ask whether you believed him or not.
Which one are you going to beleive, given the same facts, then? Tab, or
Kelsey?
>
>>> Not that I'm saying he was or wasn't correct, since i'm not aware of the
>>> specific circumstances. I'm just astonished at your response that lack of
>>> credibility makes it ok to make any kind of claim you like against that
>>> person without factuality.
>>
>> Oh come on.
>
> It's a valid point. Is it ok to call someone a liar, without knowing the
> facts of the statements, just because they lack credibility?
He could claim he'd had any problm you care to name, and I would not
believe him, whether or not the specific problem existed. He has
lomg-since forfeited all chance of credibility in this group
> Is that really your stance?
My stance is that tab is completeluy untrustworthy. Anything he says is
likely to be a lie.
--
Kier
Sinister Midget
> That is the problem that I have had with some of the Linux installers. They
> insist on messing with my bootable drive, which contains my XP installation.
> Even though I tell it to use another drive that is wiped clean and waiting
> for the Linux install, they still mess with my boot drive. I have found that
> the safest way to install Linux on a muliboot system is to unplug the drives
> you don't want it to touch. This is especially true when the boot drive is a
> SATA RAID setup. The last time I tried to install Mandrake (pre-Mandriva),
> it misidentified my RAID drives as being separate drives.
I've used linux since Redhat 4.2. I've only ever had *ONE* time that an
installer didn't ask me if I wanted it to write a bootsector and it
went ahead and did it. Once, out of all of the installs I've ever done,
in all of the years I've been using it.
You're very unfortunate, very stupid (and/or inept), you've only tried
to install linux once (or the same distro and release multiple times),
or you're lying. I'll take two out of four (stupid/inept and lying) as
the most likely causes.
Brand X never once asked me whether I want to write a bootsector, or if
I wanted to write a bootable floppy (the other thing nearly every linux
installer has asked me about). It just decides it knows better what to
do than I do and destroys whatever is there unasked. Talk about cheesy!
DISCLAIMER: I never tried it on a SATA RAID setup. But since your
general claim is bullshit, I have no reason to buy a syllable of the
specific one either without independent, credible confirmation.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you must be using Windows.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> It's a valid point. Is it ok to call someone a liar, without knowing the
>> facts of the statements, just because they lack credibility?
>
> He could claim he'd had any problm you care to name, and I would not
> believe him, whether or not the specific problem existed. He has
> lomg-since forfeited all chance of credibility in this group
>
>> Is that really your stance?
>
> My stance is that tab is completeluy untrustworthy. Anything he says is
> likely to be a lie.
You're still deliberately avoiding the question. I'll take that as a yes
then, it's ok to call anyone you disagree with a liar based solely on
whether you find them credible or not, rather than the facts.
Sinister Midget
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:21:06 -0400, rapskat wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:01:23 -0700, tab wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I said I had problems with FC4, and COLA said
>>> I was lying. But I am glad to see the fucktards actually
>>> try something and not flap lips.
>>
>> The difference is - Kelsey has credibility, you don't.
>
> Hmm.. that seems like a very poor excuse. If what tab wrote was correct,
> and people called him a liar (obiously without verifying anything) that's
> ok?
If what tab wrote was correct, it would be the first time. Until he has
a few "corrects" under his belt, or even one, he doesn't have enough
capital to expect anyone to believe anything he posts.
--
Whip me. Beat me. Windows ME(tm).
Kier
You can take it how you like, but that's not what I said.
--
Kier
Peter Köhlmann
The fact is that tab *is* a liar. He has proven so time and again
Why should anyone assume that he wiill not lie? He has yet to tell the truth
for the first time
The cold hard fact is: He can post anything he likes. And noone wll believe
anything of it
The same is true of you, Erik. You can post whatever you want. I will still
assume that you a lying
You see, you have done so way too often. As did tab
--
Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?
Erik Funkenbusch
That's the question I asked, and you refused to answer. If you disagree,
then say so, don't avoid the question.
Erik Funkenbusch
It's not a matter of believing him or not. You can believe he's wrong, or
lying all day long. You can even say you believe he's lying. But to flat
out say he's lying, without checking the facts? That's my point.
rapskat
Funkenbusch proposed the following...
Have you ever read or heard the story of "the boy who cried wolf"?
In case you haven't, in this story, a boy who was a sheepherder thought it
would be fun to cause a ruckus by raising a false alarm that a wolf was
trying to get at the sheep. He did so again and again, till it got to the
point that the people no longer gave any credibility to his cries for help.
This proved to be his undoing when one day a wolf did actually attack his
herd and no one believed him. In short, he created his own problems by
repeatedly lying to the point that all his credibility was gone.
Whether or not this tab person was on point this one time is irrelevant, the
fact is that they have been proven false so many other times in the past
that no one gives any merit to what they say anymore.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't mean you will
use it to tell what time it is now, does it?
--
rapskat - 19:38:03 up 1 day, 39 min, 4 users, load average: 5.64, 3.59,
2.30
"Put down those Windows disks, Dave..."
-- HAL
Sinister Midget
The applied assumption is that he has facts worth checking.
You shouldn't assume things.
Snit
dbenci$jro$01$1...@news.t-online.com on 7/17/05 3:50 PM:
>> You're still deliberately avoiding the question. I'll take that as a yes
>> then, it's ok to call anyone you disagree with a liar based solely on
>> whether you find them credible or not, rather than the facts.
>
> The fact is that tab *is* a liar. He has proven so time and again
> Why should anyone assume that he wiill not lie? He has yet to tell the truth
> for the first time
> The cold hard fact is: He can post anything he likes. And noone wll believe
> anything of it
> The same is true of you, Erik. You can post whatever you want. I will still
> assume that you a lying
> You see, you have done so way too often. As did tab
How about some of your recent lies and other dishonest behavior. Here are
just a few examples:
Peter blamed someone of doctoring images - with no support
Peter snipped the entire content of a message and replaced
it - then responded to your replacement as though you were
responding to the original poster (at least you admitted to
this one)
Peter dishonestly claimed I only include price comparisons
that do not show Macs as being expensive - but that is
demonstrably false.
* I commented about something that often happens
* I was asked to provide *an* example
* I provided *two* examples
* Peter jumped in to say I did something wrong
And that is in addition to your idiotic knee jerk name calling that you do.
You have no leg to stand on, Peter....
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
GreyCloud
>
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:21:06 -0400, rapskat wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:01:23 -0700, tab wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, I said I had problems with FC4, and COLA said
> >> I was lying. But I am glad to see the fucktards actually
> >> try something and not flap lips.
> >
> > The difference is - Kelsey has credibility, you don't.
>
> Hmm.. that seems like a very poor excuse. If what tab wrote was correct,
> and people called him a liar (obiously without verifying anything) that's
> ok?
From all of chr$(10)s posts, the credibility is not there.
>
> Shouldn't you be disputing the facts rather than the source?
Most of the time, the sources credibility factor is at
question along with the so-called facts.
> Doesn't it
> seem dishonest to you to call people a liar without even bothering to check
> the facts, based soley on your opinion of the person?
>
> Is that ethical? Is that really a good example to set?
>
> Not that I'm saying he was or wasn't correct, since i'm not aware of the
> specific circumstances. I'm just astonished at your response that lack of
> credibility makes it ok to make any kind of claim you like against that
> person without factuality.
Posting history, Erik... posting history.
Erik Funkenbusch
> At the comp.os.linux.advocacy meeting on Sunday 17 July 2005 17:09, Erik
> Funkenbusch proposed the following...
>
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:21:06 -0400, rapskat wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 06:01:23 -0700, tab wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, I said I had problems with FC4, and COLA said
>>>> I was lying. But I am glad to see the fucktards actually
>>>> try something and not flap lips.
>>>
>>> The difference is - Kelsey has credibility, you don't.
>>
>> Hmm.. that seems like a very poor excuse. If what tab wrote was correct,
>> and people called him a liar (obiously without verifying anything) that's
>> ok?
>>
>> Shouldn't you be disputing the facts rather than the source? Doesn't it
>> seem dishonest to you to call people a liar without even bothering to
>> check the facts, based soley on your opinion of the person?
>>
>> Is that ethical? Is that really a good example to set?
>>
>> Not that I'm saying he was or wasn't correct, since i'm not aware of the
>> specific circumstances. I'm just astonished at your response that lack of
>> credibility makes it ok to make any kind of claim you like against that
>> person without factuality.
>
> Have you ever read or heard the story of "the boy who cried wolf"?
Of course, but I don't see how that's relevant to the question.
> In case you haven't, in this story, a boy who was a sheepherder thought it
> would be fun to cause a ruckus by raising a false alarm that a wolf was
> trying to get at the sheep. He did so again and again, till it got to the
> point that the people no longer gave any credibility to his cries for help.
All of which is expected behavior.
> This proved to be his undoing when one day a wolf did actually attack his
> herd and no one believed him. In short, he created his own problems by
> repeatedly lying to the point that all his credibility was gone.
As i've said several times in this thread already. Whether you believe him
or not is your perogative. I'm specifically asking you about whether you
believe it's alright to say someone is lying when you haven't even bothered
to check the facts.
You do understand the difference between not believing someone, and calling
them a liar, don't you?
Erik Funkenbusch
Does the irony of your statement not even sink in?
You're assuming the facts aren't worth checking, then lecturing someone on
not assuming things.
I'm not saying the facts ARE worth checking. I'm simply saying that
calling him a Liar without checking them is ethical in your opinion?
Why is everyone dancing around this issue? Why won't anyone answer the
question directly?
Erik Funkenbusch
> Posting history, Erik... posting history.
All of that is irrelevant to whether or not you believe it's ethical to
call someone a liar without even bothering to check if the facts are
correct or not.
This has nothing to do with HIM, it's about how you handle a situation.
I'm not saying it's wrong or incorrect to mistrust or not believe anything
he says. I'm asking if you believe it's ok to call someone a liar without
bothering to even check the facts.
It's a very simple question that nobody seems willing to answer.
Snit
35h72daj1kzq$.d...@funkenbusch.com on 7/17/05 10:37 PM:
I will chime in here: it is unquestionably wrong to claim something is a
known lie when it is not - in fact, when one does so, one is *lying*.
The sad thing is these things take on a life of their own - people will
claim that someone is lying because they always lie, but when you look at
the "lies" that were "proven" in the past the only "evidence" is that they
were a "known liar" at the time.
This makes it two dishonest acts - if you are going to call someone a
habitual or frequent liar you should be willing and able to provide
relatively recent examples... if not, you are simply crying wolf.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Peter Köhlmann
It is perfectly OK to call "tab" a liar, since that is exactly what he is
Same is true for you, Erik, BTW
There is simply no need to check if in some post he (or you, for that
matter) made some claims which actually (or accidentally) are not a lie. It
does not change the fact one tiny little bit that both of you are liars
--
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats
you with experience...
Snit
> begin virus.txt.scr Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:28:43 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>>> Posting history, Erik... posting history.
>>
>> All of that is irrelevant to whether or not you believe it's ethical to
>> call someone a liar without even bothering to check if the facts are
>> correct or not.
>>
>> This has nothing to do with HIM, it's about how you handle a situation.
>> I'm not saying it's wrong or incorrect to mistrust or not believe anything
>> he says. I'm asking if you believe it's ok to call someone a liar without
>> bothering to even check the facts.
>>
>> It's a very simple question that nobody seems willing to answer.
>
> It is perfectly OK to call "tab" a liar, since that is exactly what he is
> Same is true for you, Erik, BTW
There are two issues here:
Is it OK to call these folks liars? I say no, not unless you are willing
and able to provide recent examples - example that you can back up with
quotes from them, if asked.
Can you? If not you are merely making baseless accusations.
The other issue is if you can honestly say some specific comment is a lie
merely because someone you believe is a frequent liar has stated it. The
answer is no, not at all. You can reasonably be less apt to trust certain
people - that makes complete sense, but to conclude something is a lie
merely because a specific person stated it is illogical.
>
> There is simply no need to check if in some post he (or you, for that
> matter) made some claims which actually (or accidentally) are not a lie. It
> does not change the fact one tiny little bit that both of you are liars
I would love to see your support of this accusation... though I suspect you
simply are not able to back up your claims. It is completely fair to say
you frequently fail to, and I would be happy to pull up a few recent
examples to support that accusation. Do you need me to?
Peter Köhlmann
< Snot snip >
Idiot
Kelsey Bjarnason
Tim Smith wrote:
>> It's only RedHat who can't figure out that an OS belongs on the only
>> bootable drive on the system.
>
> Why would the OS belong on the bootable drive? It's often the case that
> the bootable drive is the smallest drive, and one wants the OS on the
> shiny new big drive that one has just added.
>
> The only thing that belongs on the bootable drive is the boot code.
Funny, I've got a 27Gb bootable drive; putting 32Mb of boot code and nothing
else on it would be awfully wasteful. Oh, wait; you don't understand the
difference between "drive" and "partition", do you?
Snit
> begin virus.txt.scr Snot snotted:
>
> < Snot snip >
>
> Idiot
What Peter runs from... proving me correct when I predicted he would simply
not back up his accusations:
-----
There are two issues here:
Is it OK to call these folks liars? I say no, not unless you are willing
and able to provide recent examples - example that you can back up with
quotes from them, if asked.
Can you? If not you are merely making baseless accusations.
The other issue is if you can honestly say some specific comment is a lie
merely because someone you believe is a frequent liar has stated it. The
answer is no, not at all. You can reasonably be less apt to trust certain
people - that makes complete sense, but to conclude something is a lie
merely because a specific person stated it is illogical.
>
> There is simply no need to check if in some post he (or you, for that
> matter) made some claims which actually (or accidentally) are not a lie. It
> does not change the fact one tiny little bit that both of you are liars
I would love to see your support of this accusation... though I suspect you
simply are not able to back up your claims. It is completely fair to say
you frequently fail to, and I would be happy to pull up a few recent
examples to support that accusation. Do you need me to?
-----
Peter is unable, or perhaps just unwilling, to back up his claims.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Peter Köhlmann
< Snot snip >
> Peter is unable, or perhaps just unwilling, to back up his claims.
>
Nope. I am unwilling to discuss anything at all with *you*
Erik knows fully well what I am talking about. After all, *he* is the one
constantly avoiding backing up his bullshit claims
You may scream bloody murder all you want, you are an unworthy POS
So far you have just proven that you are a troll, nothing else
And, naturally, that you are unable to google. Otherwise you would not post
this garbage (except to troll, naturally)
--
Only two things are infinite,
the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
Kier
If tab said the sky was blue, I would go outside to make sure. Does that
answer your question?
--
Kier
Tim Smith
"Belongs" can be used in a way that indicates mandatory inclusion, or it
can be used to indicate permission for optional inclusion. In your
statement about the OS belonging there, you seem to be using the
mandatory sense of the word. When used in the mandatory sense, the only
thing that belongs there (e.g., *has* to be there, and *cannot* be
anywhere else) is the boot code. This does not mean that other things,
in addition to the boot code, cannot also be there.
--
--Tim Smith
Sinister Midget
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:28:43 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>> Posting history, Erik... posting history.
>
> All of that is irrelevant to whether or not you believe it's ethical to
> call someone a liar without even bothering to check if the facts are
> correct or not.
I have no problem with the "ethics" of calling a known liar a liar due
to past posting history.
For example, if someone says there are 'hundreds of root exploits' per
month on a particular distro of linux, that might well be a mistake. If
that self-same someone also claims that a person can *only* use Brand X
TT fonts on a Brand X machine, that might be a mistake, too. Or worse,
someting really dumb, like the Morris worm being spread via email or
some similar claim, something that would be a difficult one to see as a
mistake. But we're giving the benefit of the doubt.
But if the same someone also makes dozens of other such nonsensical
claims, it begins to look more and more like they're either fast and
loose with the facts, they're idiots, or they might be intentionally
lying.
Correct?
But *which* of those options still isn't known, for sure. So they might
be owed a presumption of honesty, even if not a presumption of
accuracy.
OK, so what would you think about the same someone if they also were
presented with evidence that they were "incorrect" and they repeatedly
failed to acknowledge it? How about if they went one further, and they
not only refused to look at the evidence, but they continued to spread
the same "misinformation"? What about if they're shown to be
"incorrect" a number of times for the same "misinterpretation of the
facts"?
Let's say this same person also liked playing word games, redefining
words, shifting meanings as time went, so the original "misstatement"
is later being backed by definitions that are not common understandings
of usage and/or nothing at all in line with the clear intent of the
original "mistaken information"? You know, playing around with words
when presented with proof of something instead of simply admitting they
were "mistaken" (or "caught) in some cases)?
Would you think such a person would deserve to be trusted every time
they posted in the future? Would you think ethics would even enter into
whether or not they should be trusted, or whether or not their claims
should even be called into question?
Do you think there is something unethical about believing someone to be
a liar if every time they posted in the past they lied? Or even if it
was *nearly* every time? Do you think it's immoral, unethical or unjust
to call someone something they clearly are?
Since you're an ethicist, I just wanted to get your feelings and ideas
on the hypotheticals that I brought up. You know, so we know how we
should act to be ethical and just to everyone around us.
For sure, you are, beyond a doubt, the person who should be lecturing
us on morals and ethics, more than any other person in COLA. Even
moreso than tab.
As for the specifics of tab, I haven't read a vast majority of his
stuff. Out of the bits I've seen, I only understood less than 1% of it.
That which I understood was usually lies, though. I can't really say if
he's a liar or not under those conditions. But if he is, I have no
problem at all saying so.
--
Windows: When you haven't been abused enough by the IRS.
Linønut
> begin virus.txt.scr Snot snotted:
>
> < Snot snip >
>
> Idiot
Snit is in the same class as billwg. Loves to perpetuate meaningless
dialog.
--
Tux rox!
Snit
> begin virus.txt.scr Snot snotted:
>
> < Snot snip >
>
>> Peter is unable, or perhaps just unwilling, to back up his claims.
>>
>
> Nope. I am unwilling to discuss anything at all with *you*
In correct - I ask you to back up your claims... and you never do.
Then again, here you are discussing with me the idea that you do not
discuss things with me. You are clearly lying - otherwise you could
not be having this discussion with me.
Granted, your level of discourse only barely qualifies as a
"discussion", being that you snip and run and play other silly trolling
games - but, still, this is a discussion... the very thing you claim to
not have with me.
> Erik knows fully well what I am talking about. After all, *he* is the one
> constantly avoiding backing up his bullshit claims
So you say... I have not paid attention. I have, however, seen you do
that - for example, you just made an accusation against Erik that you
have not backed up... and I suspect you never will. You have made
several accusations against him in this very thread - and snip and run
when asked to support your claims.
>
> You may scream bloody murder all you want, you are an unworthy POS
> So far you have just proven that you are a troll, nothing else
Another accusation you simply will not back up (being that you are
lying you cannot back it up)
>
> And, naturally, that you are unable to google. Otherwise you would not post
> this garbage (except to troll, naturally)
You expect me to do research to attempt to back up *your* claims... not
thanks... not worth my time to try to see if *you* are telling the
truth. You have lied to often for me to trust you.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish
thing."
- Anatole France
Snit
ML2dna8x3aJ...@comcast.com on 7/18/05 4:09 AM:
Well, I do try to have conversations with folks like Peter - which by
definition is perpetuating meaningless dialog.
Face it - Peter shows little capacity to do anything other than spew
knee-jerk insults at people. I do wish he would find a more creative
trolling technique.
William Poaster
Linųnutlinųnut wrote:
They should get a room.
--
My wish is to NEVER have to correct another
Microsoft astroturfer because it wastes my
time and that's they're goal.
I shall, however, point & laugh! ;-)
The Ghost In The Machine
<ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>
wrote
on Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:00:02 GMT
<1t6lq2-...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linųnut
> <linųn...@bone.com>
> wrote
> on Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:00:27 -0500
> <StadnThGmNt...@comcast.com>:
>> The Ghost In The Machine poked his little head through the
>> XP firewall and said:
>>
>>> The main problem I have with Gentoo is that in order
>>> to get started sans a LiveCD one has to have another OS
>>> such as Debian -- and Debian I can start with naught but
>>> an internet connection and a handful of floppies, on a
>>> totally blank machine.
>>
>> What? You can't stick in the LiveCD and make some partitions
>> and kick off the install from it?
>
> I don't have a LiveCD, or an option of burning one, though
> I did locate my 4020i in a box; I'll see if I can get that
> one to work. (It did work at one point in my Amiga box,
> way way back.)
Update: It looks like it's given up the ghost (Gentoo recognizes
the unit but the unit refuses to recognize that a disk is in its
face, so there's something wrong with it), so the Ghost is
going to have to give up on it. Sigh.
Fortunately, it appears I might be able to get one for about $100,
and it will burn DVDs too. Of course I bought a bunch of blank
CD-ROMs so I'll have to go through those, first... :-)
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Kelsey Bjarnason
Tim Smith wrote:
>> Funny, I've got a 27Gb bootable drive; putting 32Mb of boot code and
>> nothing
>> else on it would be awfully wasteful. Oh, wait; you don't understand the
>> difference between "drive" and "partition", do you?
>
> "Belongs" can be used in a way that indicates mandatory inclusion, or it
> can be used to indicate permission for optional inclusion. In your
> statement about the OS belonging there, you seem to be using the
> mandatory sense of the word. When used in the mandatory sense, the only
> thing that belongs there (e.g., *has* to be there, and *cannot* be
> anywhere else) is the boot code. This does not mean that other things,
> in addition to the boot code, cannot also be there.
Right. So the OS belongs on the frippin' bootable drive, as I said, but the
only thing that "belongs", in your sense, in the bootable _partition_ is
the boot code. Yes, yes, indeed. DeadRat can't seem to manage to get
either concept right, so what was your point?
Kelsey Bjarnason
Rich Bell wrote:
> That is the problem that I have had with some of the Linux installers.
> They insist on messing with my bootable drive, which contains my XP
> installation. Even though I tell it to use another drive that is wiped
> clean and waiting for the Linux install, they still mess with my boot
> drive. I have found that the safest way to install Linux on a muliboot
> system is to unplug the drives you don't want it to touch. This is
> especially true when the boot drive is a SATA RAID setup. The last time I
> tried to install Mandrake (pre-Mandriva), it misidentified my RAID drives
> as being separate drives.
If you're going to install on, say, hdb, you'll still need a bootable
partition on hda, or some unreasonable equivalent such as using a boot
floppy.
Ku Karlovsky
wrote in message <<BF0052E7.24C3D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>>:
> * I commented about something that often happens
You stated unequivocally that Apple ISVs "often" fix defects in
Apple's software until Apple can release a fix. Now, you're trying to
obfuscate your statement with weasel words like "commented about
something". You fail again.
> * I was asked to provide *an* example
You were asked to *prove* your statement.
> * I provided *two* examples
You fail again to prove your statement. Your weasel words make it
appear that you lied deliberately (again) and are unamused that you
were caught lying (again).
> And that is in addition to your idiotic knee jerk name calling that you do.
And that is in addition to your continued, silly, idiotic, knee jerk,
hypocritical lying that you always do.
Ku Karlovsky
wrote in message <<BF0090D8.24C8C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>>:
> I will chime in here: it is unquestionably wrong to claim something is a
> known lie when it is not - in fact, when one does so, one is *lying*.
You can chime out here: it is unquestionably wrong for you to lie
repeatedly -- in fact, when you do so, you're lying.
Snit
> Well, Snot naturally will never back up his claim. He just asks all other to
> do so.
Let's see: backing up my claim... easy:
* I commented about something that often happens:
Message-ID: <BEF6D2B1.23816%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
You do realize, of course, that third parties often
provide temporary fixes until Apple fixes a hole...
right?
* I was asked to provide an example:
Message-Id: <pan.2005.07.10....@rapskat.com>
Care to provide an example of this?
* I provided *two* examples
Message-ID: <BEF6E451.2383C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
Sure. In regards to the recent problems Apple had with the
dashboard vulnerabilities, there were 3rd party folks who
created fixes - programs that helped minimize the risk.
Same thing when Safari was found to be vulnerable to
phishing attempts - now Safari warns you of "odd" URL's,
but before Apple came out with a fix others did.
In both cases Apple was pretty quick to get a fix out -
but others were faster.
* Peter jumped in showing he did not know two examples
more than met the requested "an example"
Message-ID: <das4vu$86q$02$1...@news.t-online.com>
So your defintion of "often" is "two"
I told Peter of his mistake:
Message-ID: <BEF6ECE1.2385A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
You definition of "an example" is more than two
examples?
I gave twice the requested amount. I'll let you work out
the math.
Peter continued his trolling:
Message-ID: <dat5tc$lg7$03$1...@news.t-online.com>
So your definition of "often" is "at least one"
Yup. Figures
I corrected Peter *again*
Message-ID: <BEF76AA7.239A7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
Wow... you sure can place words in others mouths... or at least
try.
Remember, the request to me was:
Care to provide an example of this?
And I provided two examples.
Do you see where I doubled the requested amount? Are you able
to figure out that 2 actually is twice as many as 1? It is
not a hard thing, Peter, but it is something you are clearly
struggling with.
Enjoy your learning experience.
And Peter has not been able to figure out his error yet. His games
just go on and on.
Of course, even though I have now proven my point beyond any reasonable
doubt, Peter will *still* continue his games. Such is the way of
Peter.
> In this post he dishonestly tries to give the impression that I asked for at
> least *one* example, and he even provided two
You are not the one who asked for "an example"... that was rapskat. Do
try to keep up, won't you, Peter?
> Since Snot can't read, and fails to understand even if it is read slowly to
> him, he failed to notice that I asked for several examples. two just won't
> cut it
When do you think you asked *me* for more examples? In any message I
even responded to? No, Peter, I do not think so... but I welcome your
evidence. I do see, looking back, where you suggested that more
example should be given - but you were not even responding to my post!
> He never supplied. Naturally. Instead he resorted to snipping and opening
> lots of new threads
I look forward to your lovely support for your claim... oh, wait, you
have none.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Peter Köhlmann
< Snot snip >
>> Since Snot can't read, and fails to understand even if it is read slowly
>> to him, he failed to notice that I asked for several examples. two just
>> won't cut it
>
> When do you think you asked *me* for more examples? In any message I
> even responded to? No, Peter, I do not think so... but I welcome your
> evidence. I do see, looking back, where you suggested that more
> example should be given - but you were not even responding to my post!
>
Message-Id: <das4bt$6vb$02$1...@news.t-online.com>
And I am certain that you will now claim it wasn't "you" who was being asked
Naturally, since you can't read
Thereby trying to continue your idiotic Snot circus.
You will fail with that here, Snot
< more Snot snip >
--
If you had any brains, you'd be dangerous.
GreyCloud
>
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:28:43 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:
>
> > Posting history, Erik... posting history.
>
> All of that is irrelevant to whether or not you believe it's ethical to
> call someone a liar without even bothering to check if the facts are
> correct or not.
>
> This has nothing to do with HIM, it's about how you handle a situation.
> I'm not saying it's wrong or incorrect to mistrust or not believe anything
> he says. I'm asking if you believe it's ok to call someone a liar without
> bothering to even check the facts.
No it isn't and I agree with you there.
>
> It's a very simple question that nobody seems willing to answer.
Hopefully, I've answered the question.
Chr$(10) is another matter.
rapskat
proposed the following...
>> Nope. I am unwilling to discuss anything at all with you
>
> In correct - I ask you to back up your claims... and you never do.
So is that to mean that you agree with Peter then since you state he is in
the right?
It would seem logical to do so. That he feels no need to prove anything to
you would indeed explain the lack of "backing up" that you refer to.
--
rapskat - 22:14:39 up 2 days, 3:15, 1 user, load average: 0.11, 0.12,
0.17
"At Group L, Stoffel oversees six first-rate programmers, a
managerial challenge roughly comparable to herding cats."
-- The Washington Post Magazine, 9 June, 1985
rapskat
Funkenbusch proposed the following...
>> This proved to be his undoing when one day a wolf did actually attack his
>> herd and no one believed him. In short, he created his own problems by
>> repeatedly lying to the point that all his credibility was gone.
>
> As i've said several times in this thread already. Whether you believe
> him
> or not is your perogative. I'm specifically asking you about whether you
> believe it's alright to say someone is lying when you haven't even
> bothered to check the facts.
Erik, I refuse to believe you are this dense. First you agree with me, now
you contradict both myself and yourself with this statement.
> You do understand the difference between not believing someone, and
> calling them a liar, don't you?
I do, but I suspect that you don't. First, whether or not tab lied is by
now irrelevant.
I described how, in the story of the boy who cried wolf, the one time he did
tell the truth it was by then irrelevant because the townspeople didn't
attribute any credibility to his stories. In other words, they didn't even
bother anymore to check whether he was telling the truth after being burned
by his lies so many times.
Tab is in the same boat. Once a person's credibility is shot, then it
doesn't matter what they say from then on, it will more than likely be
disregarded like tab's claims are, even if by some small chance happens to
be accurate.
This is why reliable, verifiable, trusted and consistent posters are awarded
credibility. Tab is not any of these, so has no credibilty. Kelsey is,
and so therefore what s/he says is taken to heart.
To any person that expects to have their comments and criticisms taken
seriously, get some credibility first. You would do well to heed that
yourself, Erik.
--
rapskat - 19:47:08 up 3 days, 48 min, 2 users, load average: 0.22, 0.14,
0.05
"Linux is my OS of Free Choice."
-- Wes Yates
Snit
11doom8...@corp.supernews.com on 7/18/05 7:17 PM:
> At the comp.os.linux.advocacy meeting on Monday 18 July 2005 08:01, Snit
> proposed the following...
>
>>> Nope. I am unwilling to discuss anything at all with you
>>
>> In correct - I ask you to back up your claims... and you never do.
>
> So is that to mean that you agree with Peter then since you state he is in
> the right?
>
> It would seem logical to do so. That he feels no need to prove anything to
> you would indeed explain the lack of "backing up" that you refer to.
Er?
What is Peter right about? He may be right about something, but if so it is
likely an accident on his part. :)
Erik Funkenbusch
>> As i've said several times in this thread already. Whether you believe
>> him
>> or not is your perogative. I'm specifically asking you about whether you
>> believe it's alright to say someone is lying when you haven't even
>> bothered to check the facts.
>
> Erik, I refuse to believe you are this dense. First you agree with me, now
> you contradict both myself and yourself with this statement.
I'm not contradicting myself at all.
>> You do understand the difference between not believing someone, and
>> calling them a liar, don't you?
>
> I do, but I suspect that you don't. First, whether or not tab lied is by
> now irrelevant.
No, it's not. And here's why.
Kelsey describes his issues with Fedora, and tab says "Hey wait, i talked
about the same issues and you said I was lying" to which the response was
"That's because you don't have any credibility".
I'm simply stunned at this admission. It's saying "I said you were lying
because I don't believe you". Not "I said you were lying because you were
intentionally spouting false facts".
Do you get it yet? Don't you understand my point? If you, as Linux
advocates, want to take the moral high ground (as you so often do), should
start by looking in the mirror at your own actions. You're simply no
better than anyone you accuse by doing things like this.
It has ZERO to do with whatever tab said, right or wrong, and everything to
do with what you think is correct behavior.
Sinister Midget
It won't work, Erik. You're not going to get your own credibility back
by standing up for someone else, pretending to be seeker of all that is
noble.
Good shot at it, though!
--
Kelvir: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
Erik Funkenbusch
> It won't work, Erik. You're not going to get your own credibility back
> by standing up for someone else, pretending to be seeker of all that is
> noble.
>
> Good shot at it, though!
I'm not standing up for anyone. I couldn't care less what you think or
believe about tab. He's an idiot.
What does amuse me is the way most people in here seem to squirm with this
question, dodge around it, try to answer a different question, and
generally make asses of themselves.
It merely shows that there's no abundance of credibility around here on any
side.
Linønut
> I'm not standing up for anyone. I couldn't care less what you think or
> believe about tab. He's an idiot.
>
> What does amuse me is the way most people in here seem to squirm with this
> question, dodge around it, try to answer a different question, and
> generally make asses of themselves.
>
> It merely shows that there's no abundance of credibility around here on any
> side.
Sure sounds like you're projecting, Erik.
As for tab, not have I plonked him, but I have no interesting in reading
either his material as quoted by other, nor people's responses to his
inanities.
If he said something that was on target, it was accidental.
--
Tux rox!
Sinister Midget
If he said something you could understand it was accidental.
In my case, tab plonked is here. He's understandable easy not, and
lifetime to spend deciphering I don't have.
--
Ever noticed how fast Windows runs? Me neither.
William Poaster
Midget wrote:
Same here, I just can't be bothered with him.
--
Jumping into Windows is like giving yourself
a self-inflicted gunshot wound."
-- Dustin Sauter, enterprise
systems engineer at Wells Fargo.
Linønut
>> As for tab, not have I plonked him, but I have no interesting in reading
^only
>> either his material as quoted by other, nor people's responses to his
>> inanities.
>
> If he said something you could understand it was accidental.
>
> In my case, tab plonked is here. He's understandable easy not, and
> lifetime to spend deciphering I don't have.
My oops corrected.
Talk about retarded: We're now under the gun to get our access cards
all working for NMCI (you know, the project that puts a Cisco/Microsoft
infrastructure in place for the Navy, where all Microsoft basically has
to do is sell Windoze/Orifice licenses, all Cisco has to do is sell
their hardware, and all EDS has to do is take it in the shorts to the
tune of 0.75 billion [1.0e09] dollars).
We go through periodic lurching spasms towards the NMCI vortex. So now
we all have to start using our mailboxes, which means making sure our
cards are up-to-date, our card-readers are installed, and our
public/private keys are generated and written to our cards.
Out of the 8 or so people who are currently doing it, two of them cannot
get their readers to work. NMCI personnel have beat on these two
machines (XP) for quite some time. I heard one of them noting
querulously that the machines had XP Pro (instead of Home) installed.
Anyway, the upshot is that they have no solution in hand to get the
readers working, except to slick both machines. A real boon to
productivity. In fact, wasting so much time that the whole process now
has its own charge number.
What kind of idiots stick with such crapware?
--
Tux rox!
pcbutts1
fagdyke; too sensitive; has difficulties in controlling alcohol-taking
behaviour; likes bondage, S&M with other men", pestered:
> Sinister Midget poked his little head through the XP firewall and ^only
> My oops corrected.
And your research is based on what?
> Talk about retarded: We're now under the gun to get our access cards all
> working for NMCI (you know, the project that puts a Cisco/Microsoft
> infrastructure in place for the Navy, where all Microsoft basically has to
> do is sell Windoze/Orifice licenses, all Cisco has to do is sell their
> hardware, and all EDS has to do is take it in the shorts to the tune of
> 0.75 billion [1.0e09] dollars)
Get rid of SP2.
> We go through periodic lurching spasms towards the NMCI vortex.
Go away.
> So now we all have to start using our mailboxes, which means making sure
> our cards are up-to-date, our card-readers are installed, and our
> public/private keys are generated and written to our cards.
So what's the weather going to be like this weekend?
> Out of the 8 or so people who are currently doing it, two of them cannot
> get their readers to work.
So, what do you want to be when you grow up? [To a little boy]
> NMCI personnel have beat on these two machines (XP) for quite some time.
Some things that should not be forgotten were lost.
> I heard one of them noting querulously that the machines had XP Pro
> (instead of Home) installed.
You're too good for me.
> Anyway, the upshot is that they have no solution in hand to get the
> readers working, except to slick both machines.
How do you feel about the rest of your body?
> A real boon to productivity.
To annoy you a little.
> In fact, wasting so much time that the whole process now has its own
> charge number.
So are they paying you for that wonderful recommendation?
> What kind of idiots stick with such crapware?
There is only one kind.
Ku Karlovsky
<er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message
<<2zap4sa3...@funkenbusch.com>>:
> What does amuse me is the way most people in here seem to squirm with this
> question, dodge around it, try to answer a different question, and
> generally make asses of themselves.
On the topic of amusement, where is the NTFS journal stored? Stop
squirming, dodging, answering different questions, and generally
continuing to make an ass of yourself.
> It merely shows that there's no abundance of credibility around here on any
> side.
There's an overabundance of discreditability in your squirming,
dodging, and making an ass of yourself.
Linønut
[a bunch of nonsensical one-liners]
Who asked you to butt in?
Sinister Midget
>
>>> As for tab, not have I plonked him, but I have no interesting in reading
> ^only
>>> either his material as quoted by other, nor people's responses to his
>>> inanities.
>>
>> If he said something you could understand it was accidental.
>>
>> In my case, tab plonked is here. He's understandable easy not, and
>> lifetime to spend deciphering I don't have.
>
> My oops corrected.
I wasn't taking a jab at what you wrote since I assumed it was directed
to tab so he could understand. I was just trying to keep things on the
same level so tab would maybe understand we're trying to communicate.
> Talk about retarded: We're now under the gun to get our access cards
> all working for NMCI (you know, the project that puts a Cisco/Microsoft
> infrastructure in place for the Navy, where all Microsoft basically has
> to do is sell Windoze/Orifice licenses, all Cisco has to do is sell
> their hardware, and all EDS has to do is take it in the shorts to the
> tune of 0.75 billion [1.0e09] dollars).
>
> We go through periodic lurching spasms towards the NMCI vortex. So now
> we all have to start using our mailboxes, which means making sure our
> cards are up-to-date, our card-readers are installed, and our
> public/private keys are generated and written to our cards.
>
> Out of the 8 or so people who are currently doing it, two of them cannot
> get their readers to work. NMCI personnel have beat on these two
> machines (XP) for quite some time. I heard one of them noting
> querulously that the machines had XP Pro (instead of Home) installed.
>
> Anyway, the upshot is that they have no solution in hand to get the
> readers working, except to slick both machines. A real boon to
> productivity. In fact, wasting so much time that the whole process now
> has its own charge number.
>
> What kind of idiots stick with such crapware?
People accustomed to following the 'Pied Piper of Redmond'(tm).
--
Windows hasn't increased computer literacy. It just lowered
the standard.
Snit
>> You're still deliberately avoiding the question. I'll take that as a yes
>> then, it's ok to call anyone you disagree with a liar based solely on
>> whether you find them credible or not, rather than the facts.
>
> The fact is that tab *is* a liar. He has proven so time and again
> Why should anyone assume that he wiill not lie? He has yet to tell the truth
> for the first time
> The cold hard fact is: He can post anything he likes. And noone wll believe
> anything of it
> The same is true of you, Erik. You can post whatever you want. I will still
> assume that you a lying
> You see, you have done so way too often. As did tab
How about some of your recent lies and other dishonest behavior. Here are
just a few examples:
Peter blamed someone of doctoring images - with no support
Peter snipped the entire content of a message and replaced
it - then responded to your replacement as though you were
responding to the original poster (at least you admitted to
this one)
Peter dishonestly claimed I only include price comparisons
that do not show Macs as being expensive - but that is
demonstrably false.
* I commented about something that often happens
* I was asked to provide *an* example
* I provided *two* examples
* Peter jumped in to say I did something wrong
And that is in addition to your idiotic knee jerk name calling that you do.
You have no leg to stand on, Peter....
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs