 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'm sure if you knew enough about Linux, you could do this kind of thing
>> pretty easily. I don't have the knowledge required.
>
> That's a far cry from "doesn't appear to be documented".
...and why do you think I don't have the knowledge required?
Maybe because I couldn't find it documented anywhere? ;-)
>> I *have* such a thing. It's a little Linux boot disk that allows you to
>> access an NTFS partition and rewrite the SAM DB. [The thing that stores
>> the local administrator password.] Very damn useful too! ;-)
>
> Yep. I've got a copy of that one around here somewhere as well from my
> days working on Win2K Server. Pity it didn't work on the domain
> controller I was having problems with, though - W2Ks had a problem where
> if the administrator password got corrupted (that's the best guess
> Microsoft had about the issue), you couldn't even boot into safe mode.
> The utility disk at the time didn't understand AD DCs (indeed, since it
> was a DC, it wasn't the SAM but the AD database that needed to be
> accessed, and it wasn't designed for that).
Yeah, AD works completely differently to the SAM - even down to using a
different hash function IIRC. Good luck with that! [Time for an
authoritative restore - oh, wait, it doesn't boot! OK, time for a
parallel install to set up the backup software to restore the original
data over the top of the boot partition. Yes, I have personally done
this. No, it isn't amusing.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> In a real multitasking OS, several programs can "do stuff" at once.
>
> And so they can in a cooperative multitasking OS. I don't really see
> the difference.
Right... So cooperative multitasking is a kind of multitasking. Not
disputing that. I'm disputing whether Windows 3.11 could multitask.
>> Really? That's news to me. I was told that only the program that owns
>> the active window can actually use the CPU.
>
> You were told wrong.
OK, fair enough.
>> 1. You have to reboot the machine to do that.
>
> And the difference with Win9x/DOS is...?
You can switch without rebooting.
>> I don't recall ever complaining about the hardware being closed, or the
>> OS being tied to it. [Though obviously it *is* a bit of a pitty that
>> Macs come in a fixed set of configurations and cannot be changed.]
>
> How many times have you changed the configuration of a PC (other than
> eg. adding an additional hard drive or RAM, both of which you can
> perfectly well do to a Mac)?
Thrice.
I changed the graphics card, later I changed the CPU, and later still I
changed the soundcard.
It's more the fact that Apple will only sell you a Mac in one of a small
number of possible configurations. You can have a Mac with X, Y and Z,
or a Mac with A, B and C. But you cannot purchase a Mac with X, Y and C.
Not a major catastrophy, just a bit of a pitty.
>> 1. A Mac is a very expensive piece of hardware [assuming you can find
>> somebody who sells them].
>
> You still have this misconception and you just don't want to let go
> of it.
>
> Sure, Apple doesn't offer almost anything in the below-crappy and
> laughably cheap range, but their prices seem very competitive to me
> when compared to PCs with *equivalent* specs.
I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation. I go online and look up
specs, and a PC of a similar spec usually comes out several percent
cheaper than a Mac.
>> 2. I would have to throw away all my existing software.
>
> That doesn't make even the least bit of sense. Are you saying that if
> you buy a second computer, you have to throw away the first one? Why?
> How does that make any sense?
My bedroom has finite volume? (Not to mention power supplies. And space
for a keyboard, mouse and monitor...)
>> Apple are quick to claim that it's "easy" to get a Mac to talk to other
>> Windows PCs. But given that I have two Windows PCs and they don't want
>> to talk to each other, what are the chances of them talking to a
>> complete alien? ;-)
>
> The chances are pretty good when you install the software which Apple
> gives you.
Well... I guess it's possible that a Mac might be better at talking to
PCs than other PCs are. After all, OpenOffice is better at reading Word
documents than Word itself is. ;-)
>> If I was going to go down this road, I'd need to know for sure that I'd
>> actually be able to do something *useful* with a Mac.
>
> Like what?
I'm just saying, the quantity of software I can find for a Mac has to be
large enough that it's worth turning the thing on at least occasionally.
I guess I could just use the Mac as a rendering machine - but then, if
you want a Mac with serious CPU power, it gets *frighteningly*
expensive. So that's not really gonna work.
>> I played this game
>> with Linux; I had both Windoze and Linux installed, but since 98% of the
>> software I want to use is on Windoze
>
> Exactly what software is that?
>
> Personally, the *only* software I need which is only available for
> Windows is computer games. I boot to Windows only to play (and I do
> that relatively rarely).
Well, obviously there's all the games I play. But for example, I have a
copy of Cubase that I paid £400 for. For me, that's a lot of money. And
it's completely useless on a Mac. I'm sure there exists Mac software
that does something similar - but I do not own that software. I own Cubase.
Then there's over £1,000 of stuff from Native Instruments - which I
*believe* should actually work on a Mac. [I'm not sure what the product
activation system would make of it though. It might bawk at me trying to
activate the product on another platform.]
Next there's my brand new graphics tablet. It comes with a copy of
PhotoShop Elements. Now I'm fairly sure that can be run on a Mac - but I
don't know if *my* copy can be. I think the CD I have is PC-only.
Let us not forget my shiny outboard soundcard I paid £100 for. I don't
think that has Mac drivers.
The majority of the software I use is actually freeware. Some of it
exists on the Mac, some of it doen't. Most of it probably has
alternatives. So that's not such a big issue. I'm more worried about the
software I've shelled out my hard-earned cash for.
Provided I can find enough useful things to do on a Mac, it's worth
having one.
[Hypothetically, I guess some kind of laptop would be a good start. But
those are really expensive, so...]
>> Eventually I got tired of Linux being catestrophically
>> broken every time any item of hardware changed, so I just removed it
>> completely.
>
> Right, no other linux user ever changes their hardware and thus
> avoids all problems, which is why linux is never fixed. You are the
> only person in the world to do that.
Linux is an OS "designed by experts, for experts". I am not an expert.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:03:03 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null>
wrote:
>
>BTW... apparently some cell phones these days can actually access the
>Internet. (So I'm told anyway.)
The one I bought 10 years ago couldn't. :p
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Obviously there's also a truckload of ways AmigaOS is *different* from
> Unix. [There are no device files, pathnames have a syntax more like
> MS-DOS, configuration is always stored in binary files not text files...]
Ah. OK. I was looking at AmigaOS as the software and how you interface
to the operating system. I wasn't looking at AmigaOS as the
command-line commands that come with AmigaOS.
I mean, really, CP/M had "more" and "type" and such.
> Now I would suspect that would tend to break horribly as soon as some
> new application is added that expects everything to be in the normal
> locations...
That would be where the symlinks come into it. :-)
> [Basically I have absolutely no clue how the traditional Unix file
> layout is supposed to work. I don't know why, for example, we have /bin,
> /root/bin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/share/bin...]
Legacy, and the fact that way too many programs hard-coded file paths
instead of the OS doing something like providing APIs for finding out
such stuff or having some efficient central storage like a registry. Of
course, the #! syntax *requires* hard-coded paths in every file, so it's
kind of difficult to improve easily in that sense.
You started out with two disk drives: the root, and the users'
directories. But they were small, so you wound up putting things like
the mail spool on the user disk (hence, /usr/spool) and things like
executables you don't need before the system is booted enough to mount a
second disk someplace like /usr/bin. And there were executables that
only the administator could run anyway, so to cut down the number of
directories everyone else had to search, you put those in /sbin and
/usr/sbin, depending on whether they were the kind that needed the
drives mounted or not. (Check a file system: better be on the root.
Delete a user: Didn't need to be on the root.)
Then you had network-shared file systems, so you needed /usr/share as a
place to mount that, and /var as a place that you could refer to with a
common name but was actually different storage on each machine.
Then /usr got so overused for everything that it didn't make sense to
actually put, you know, users there. So you got /home or any of a
half-dozen variations on that.
Nowadays, it looks like this, mostly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_hierarchy_standard
> They had trouble. Somebody walked past and the T-adaptor on their PC
> fell apart, breaking the ring.
They set up the ring wrong, then. :-) Each loop is supposed to go back
to the hub that detects a broken connection and bypasses it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Obviously there's also a truckload of ways AmigaOS is *different* from
> Unix. [There are no device files,
Actually, there are. CON: was, for example, a device file.
> pathnames have a syntax more like MS-DOS,
Actually, not. Each was up to the device driver to interpret. The stuff
before the colon was the name of the device driver that the rest got
passed to. The "Speach:" driver, for example, had no pathnames remotely
resembling MS-DOS.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I always wondered why the hell AmigaDOS provided this lame little "more"
> command. Or why it had "type". I was even more perplexed by "ed" - a
> program that lets you edit a text file one line at a time by typing in
> utterly cryptic instructions. And I often wondered why the "dir" command
> has a "SHOW=" option.
That sounds to me more like DOS than unix.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I *have* such a thing.
I suggest you also check out BartPE, by the way. A good tool for some
things.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> 1. You have to reboot the machine to do that.
> >
> > And the difference with Win9x/DOS is...?
> You can switch without rebooting.
Debatable. Just because you can shut down Windows and boot to DOS (and
the other way around) without going through the BIOS bootup sequence
doesn't necessarily make them tied together. It may just mean that Win9x
supports booting to DOS without having to go through BIOS bootup.
> >> I don't recall ever complaining about the hardware being closed, or the
> >> OS being tied to it. [Though obviously it *is* a bit of a pitty that
> >> Macs come in a fixed set of configurations and cannot be changed.]
> >
> > How many times have you changed the configuration of a PC (other than
> > eg. adding an additional hard drive or RAM, both of which you can
> > perfectly well do to a Mac)?
> Thrice.
Oh, my. ;)
> It's more the fact that Apple will only sell you a Mac in one of a small
> number of possible configurations. You can have a Mac with X, Y and Z,
> or a Mac with A, B and C. But you cannot purchase a Mac with X, Y and C.
> Not a major catastrophy, just a bit of a pitty.
The PowerMac line has always been quite configurable and extendable.
Heck, it's even 10 times easier to open than a PC. With the typical PC
you need a screwdriver, and accessing the things inside is not the easiest
possible task. With a typical PowerMac you press a button, open the
computer and everything is nicely laid out there. (Well, at least this
was so in the past.)
> >> 2. I would have to throw away all my existing software.
> >
> > That doesn't make even the least bit of sense. Are you saying that if
> > you buy a second computer, you have to throw away the first one? Why?
> > How does that make any sense?
> My bedroom has finite volume? (Not to mention power supplies. And space
> for a keyboard, mouse and monitor...)
Switches exist. They aren't even expensive.
> >> If I was going to go down this road, I'd need to know for sure that I'd
> >> actually be able to do something *useful* with a Mac.
> >
> > Like what?
> I'm just saying, the quantity of software I can find for a Mac has to be
> large enough that it's worth turning the thing on at least occasionally.
What kind of software? I bet you don't spend thousands of pounds in
software, so that must be free software? What kind of free software?
What is it that you do that requires Windows-only software?
If you play games, I agree. I have that situation too. That's why I have
a dual boot. But games are just a very small portion of everything I do.
> I guess I could just use the Mac as a rendering machine - but then, if
> you want a Mac with serious CPU power, it gets *frighteningly*
> expensive. So that's not really gonna work.
There we go again.
> Well, obviously there's all the games I play. But for example, I have a
> copy of Cubase that I paid £400 for. For me, that's a lot of money. And
> it's completely useless on a Mac. I'm sure there exists Mac software
> that does something similar - but I do not own that software. I own Cubase.
You still have this obsession that you have to throw out your Windows
machine (or Windows altogether). Nobody is forcing you.
> Let us not forget my shiny outboard soundcard I paid £100 for. I don't
> think that has Mac drivers.
Probably not, because MacOS X probably supports it out of the box.
> >> Eventually I got tired of Linux being catestrophically
> >> broken every time any item of hardware changed, so I just removed it
> >> completely.
> >
> > Right, no other linux user ever changes their hardware and thus
> > avoids all problems, which is why linux is never fixed. You are the
> > only person in the world to do that.
> Linux is an OS "designed by experts, for experts". I am not an expert.
How does that counter my sarcasm? I think it's still valid.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I always wondered why the hell AmigaDOS provided this lame little "more"
>> command. Or why it had "type". I was even more perplexed by "ed" - a
>> program that lets you edit a text file one line at a time by typing in
>> utterly cryptic instructions. And I often wondered why the "dir" command
>> has a "SHOW=" option.
>
> That sounds to me more like DOS than unix.
Actually, FWIW, AmigaDOS accepts both "dir" and "list". (But NOT "ls".
Although you can create it as a shell alias if you want...)
AmigaDOS uses pathname syntax similar to MS-DOS. (There is no "/". There
is "FD0:", "FD1:", "CD0:", "RAM:", "PAR:", "SER:"...) But in places it
uses paths in a vaguely Unix way. (There is a "CON:", which opens a new
GUI window. There is a "SPK:" or similar which renders using the speach
synthesizer.) It had Unix-style piping, and the famous Unix "ed"
program. (Don't ask me if it was compatible! But it certainly worked in
a similarly cryptic way to the real Unix program does.)
It also had the ability to create "assigns", which are very vaguely like
symlinks. Basically I can create a thing called "FOO:" which actually
points to any folder in the system - or possibly another assign! Rather
than always looking for the fonts on C:\FONTS or some such like Windoze
does, it would look in FONTS: - which could be assigned to any pathname
in the system. [Hence my ability to split my system disk across two
floppies.]
In fact, unlike a symlink, you could assign FOO: to *multiple* paths. So
it's kind of like having a search path - but not just for executable
files, for ANY kind of file! (That includes any arbitrary kind a file an
application might want to track down.) And it just looks like a normal
pathname.
Basically, AmigaDOS was "like" MS-DOS and also "like" Unix and also
completely unlike either of them. Strange little hybrid thing... but
very useful.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Obviously there's also a truckload of ways AmigaOS is *different* from
>> Unix. [There are no device files,
>
> Actually, there are. CON: was, for example, a device file.
Well that's not really a "file". That's a magic filename. Unix has real,
actual *files* that you can "touch". And you create new devices by
creating one of these magical files.
[AmigaDOS had device description files, but these are text files. They
don't work the same way Unix device files do with device codes and such;
the AmigaDOS device description files are textual things telling it what
driver to load and with what settings.]
>> pathnames have a syntax more like MS-DOS,
>
> Actually, not. Each was up to the device driver to interpret. The stuff
> before the colon was the name of the device driver that the rest got
> passed to. The "Speach:" driver, for example, had no pathnames remotely
> resembling MS-DOS.
There is no "/", no unique root filesystem.
Instead, there are lots of roots like "FOO:", "BAR:", etc. This is more
like MS-DOS pathname syntax.
Now, the way it *works* is of course more like Unix...
[OTOH, it uses forward slashes rather than backslashes.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Ah. OK. I was looking at AmigaOS as the software and how you interface
> to the operating system. I wasn't looking at AmigaOS as the
> command-line commands that come with AmigaOS.
I was talking specifically about scripting. ;-) [The whole "batch files
were everything" trip mentioned further up.]
The API for manipulating processes and RAM and GUI resources and such is
NOTHING LIKE any kind of Unix I'm aware of.
> I mean, really, CP/M had "more" and "type" and such.
I have no idea what CP/M is.
>> Now I would suspect that would tend to break horribly as soon as some
>> new application is added that expects everything to be in the normal
>> locations...
>
> That would be where the symlinks come into it. :-)
Doesn't that just mean you have two filesystems instead of one?
>> [Basically I have absolutely no clue how the traditional Unix file
>> layout is supposed to work. I don't know why, for example, we have
>> /bin, /root/bin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/share/bin...]
>
> Legacy, and the fact that way too many programs hard-coded file paths
> instead of the OS doing something like providing APIs for finding out
> such stuff or having some efficient central storage like a registry. Of
> course, the #! syntax *requires* hard-coded paths in every file, so it's
> kind of difficult to improve easily in that sense.
...so basically, Unix has more backwards compatibility than an Intel
Core 2 Duo?
[That's SAYING something BTW!]
> Nowadays, it looks like this, mostly:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_hierarchy_standard
>
>> They had trouble. Somebody walked past and the T-adaptor on their PC
>> fell apart, breaking the ring.
>
> They set up the ring wrong, then. :-) Each loop is supposed to go back
> to the hub that detects a broken connection and bypasses it.
Hey, it's a county council. You expect them to understand computers?
The fun part was the room full of - I am not kidding! - brown terminals
with green screens. You press a key, and there's a 2-second delay before
the character appears on screen. You type in meaningless gibberish such
as "TN XCOL 3553" and suddenly the huge line printer next to you springs
into life and starts printing people's benefits cheques or something.
Only one wizaned old lady in the place knows how to do this...
Damn, THAT was "interesting"... o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Thrice.
>
> Oh, my. ;)
Yeah, I know.
I started off with a GeForce 6600. Playing CSS with HDRL made it weep in
agony. So I replaced it with something a bit more... meaty. [Back when I
built the PC, I didn't ever play games. I only got a 3D card at all to
see what HalfLife would look like with filtered texturing...]
I also started off with a single-core CPU. A later replaced this with a
dual-core one. (Irritatingly, this required a BIOS update!)
> The PowerMac line has always been quite configurable and extendable.
> Heck, it's even 10 times easier to open than a PC. With the typical PC
> you need a screwdriver, and accessing the things inside is not the easiest
> possible task. With a typical PowerMac you press a button, open the
> computer and everything is nicely laid out there. (Well, at least this
> was so in the past.)
Mmm. Computers certainly very on how easy it is to access internal
components. My mum's first PC? When I opened the case, I couldn't even
*see* the motherboard! There was the PSU, the HD, the CD-ROM, and the
cables for those. After that, there was barely space to fit a hand in!
>>>> 2. I would have to throw away all my existing software.
>>> That doesn't make even the least bit of sense. Are you saying that if
>>> you buy a second computer, you have to throw away the first one? Why?
>>> How does that make any sense?
>
>> My bedroom has finite volume? (Not to mention power supplies. And space
>> for a keyboard, mouse and monitor...)
>
> Switches exist. They aren't even expensive.
Still doesn't solve the volume problem.
>>>> If I was going to go down this road, I'd need to know for sure that I'd
>>>> actually be able to do something *useful* with a Mac.
>>> Like what?
>
>> I'm just saying, the quantity of software I can find for a Mac has to be
>> large enough that it's worth turning the thing on at least occasionally.
>
> What kind of software? I bet you don't spend thousands of pounds in
> software, so that must be free software? What kind of free software?
> What is it that you do that requires Windows-only software?
Like I said, £400 for Cubase, roughly £1,000 for various Native
Instruments stuff, various bits of expensive hardware that may or may
not work without Windoze.
>> I guess I could just use the Mac as a rendering machine - but then, if
>> you want a Mac with serious CPU power, it gets *frighteningly*
>> expensive. So that's not really gonna work.
>
> There we go again.
OK, so I go to the Apple website, click on the Mac Pro, and it
immediately gives me a starting price of £1,749.
The machine I'm using right now, the one that was built using the best
parts I could afford a few years back, was £500. To me, that looks like
a bloody big difference! ;-)
>> Let us not forget my shiny outboard soundcard I paid £100 for. I don't
>> think that has Mac drivers.
>
> Probably not, because MacOS X probably supports it out of the box.
Maybe. If I'm not using the Mac for serious sound work anyway, I guess
it doesn't matter either way.
>>>> Eventually I got tired of Linux being catestrophically
>>>> broken every time any item of hardware changed, so I just removed it
>>>> completely.
>>> Right, no other linux user ever changes their hardware and thus
>>> avoids all problems, which is why linux is never fixed. You are the
>>> only person in the world to do that.
>
>> Linux is an OS "designed by experts, for experts". I am not an expert.
>
> How does that counter my sarcasm? I think it's still valid.
My *point* is that "other Linux users" are Linux experts. I'm not.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> OK, so I go to the Apple website, click on the Mac Pro, and it
> immediately gives me a starting price of £1,749.
> The machine I'm using right now, the one that was built using the best
> parts I could afford a few years back, was £500. To me, that looks like
> a bloody big difference! ;-)
Yeah, and the specs are certainly the same.
> My *point* is that "other Linux users" are Linux experts. I'm not.
Some people are born with the necessary experience to use linux?-)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:40:16 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I have no idea what CP/M is.
The predecessor to MS-DOS/PC-DOS. Commodore used it on the Commodore
128, in fact, around the same time the Amiga was available IIRC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:07:45 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I'm sure if you knew enough about Linux, you could do this kind of
>>> thing pretty easily. I don't have the knowledge required.
>>
>> That's a far cry from "doesn't appear to be documented".
>
> ...and why do you think I don't have the knowledge required?
>
> Maybe because I couldn't find it documented anywhere? ;-)
There's a significant difference between "I couldn't find the
documentation" and "it doesn't appear to be documented". ;-)
> Yeah, AD works completely differently to the SAM - even down to using a
> different hash function IIRC. Good luck with that!
I think it still uses MD4 for NTLM authentication (seems to me that's
what it was), but you can disable that and it uses something a bit more
advanced.
> [Time for an
> authoritative restore - oh, wait, it doesn't boot! OK, time for a
> parallel install to set up the backup software to restore the original
> data over the top of the boot partition. Yes, I have personally done
> this. No, it isn't amusing.]
Heh, yep, BTDTGTTS. And no, it isn't amusing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:58:24 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> When you wanted to start
>>> windows you wrote "win".
>>
>> Except for one person I know who renamed it to "lose.com". You can
>> guess his opinion.
>
> OMG, lose.com is so full of win!
>
>
>
>
>
> [Did you see what I did there?]
LOL, good one. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:02:05 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> OTOH, 24 Mbit/s ADSL is completely normal
>>
>> In Europe, yes. In the US, no. I got an upgrade recently (for free)
>> to 3 Mbps from 1.5. It's amazing that that still qualifies as
>> "broadband" here in the US.
>
> Really? I'd heard it was the other way round...
>
> My company grudingly signed a 3-year lease with BT for our Internet. My
> boss really wants to shop around for better deals.
>
> (Er, HELLO? Are you not getting this? BT OWN ALL THE WIRES IN THE
> GROUND. THERE ARE NO OTHER TELECOMS PROVIDERS IN THE UK [except in
> London]. No matter who you pay the bills to, the wires under the ground
> are still being provided by the same people... WTF?)
Quantity discount. My DSL line is provided by Covad, even though the
telco to the house is Qwest. My DSL service is actually cheaper than
Qwest's DSL service.
Makes perfect sense to shop around.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:03:03 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> CompuServe also charged a flat rate ($19.95/month IIRC) plus a
>> surcharge for per-minute access to some services. Then there were
>> add-on services that you could purchase as well.
>>
>> It was almost as convoluted as picking a cell phone plan these days.
>
> Yeah - make it complex so the user can't tell how badly they're being
> screwed! ;-)
Exactly.
> BTW... apparently some cell phones these days can actually access the
> Internet. (So I'm told anyway.)
Like this one: http://na.blackberry.com/eng/devices/device-detail.jsp?
navId=H0,C63,P65
(That's what I've got)
I believe we pay about $120/month for service (including unlimited data
service, international calling, and roaming. I don't know how much we
paid for the e-mail gateway software.
Once upon a time (before upgrading the OS), I actually was able to ssh
from my phone to my home desktop. With the OS upgrade, something broke
and it doesn't work now. You think the web on a small screen is fun, you
should try ssh sometime. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> BTW... apparently some cell phones these days can actually access the
> Internet. (So I'm told anyway.)
>
The one I've bought 11/2003 (=almost five years ago) can.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well that's not really a "file". That's a magic filename.
Wellll... You can argue about it. I assume you know how it worked
inside. But yeah, I get what you're saying. There wasn't a directory
entry for the device drivers as such. Which, when you think about it,
makes sense.
You could iterate over device drivers. They just weren't on the disk, so
it used different APIs.
> Instead, there are lots of roots like "FOO:", "BAR:", etc. This is more
> like MS-DOS pathname syntax.
I'll grant you that one.
> Now, the way it *works* is of course more like Unix...
No, the way it works isn't like either. :-) It's closer to a microkernel
than anything.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> There's a significant difference between "I couldn't find the
> documentation" and "it doesn't appear to be documented". ;-)
Not as much as you might think you're implying. "The documentation
hasn't appeared before me" and "I couldn't find the documentation" are
pretty darn close. ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
Graphics and sound cards and CPUs,
> Oh, my. ;)
Graphics and sound cards and CPUs,
> Oh, my. ;)
Graphics and sound cards and CPUs,
> Oh, my. ;)
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I was talking specifically about scripting. ;-) [The whole "batch files
> were everything" trip mentioned further up.]
Fair enough.
> The API for manipulating processes and RAM and GUI resources and such is
> NOTHING LIKE any kind of Unix I'm aware of.
Yes, that's what I meant.
>> I mean, really, CP/M had "more" and "type" and such.
> I have no idea what CP/M is.
Think of it as PC-DOS 1.0 for 8-bit computers. ;-)
Basically, if you know PC-DOS 1.0 system calls, you know CP/M.
(I forget, did PC-DOS ever have PIP?)
>> That would be where the symlinks come into it. :-)
> Doesn't that just mean you have two filesystems instead of one?
No. You just have two separate trees of files with the same files
"duplicated" in both.
> Damn, THAT was "interesting"... o_O
Ooops. Got the 50-1000 error again.
Type E-E-Bell!
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yeah, AD works completely differently to the SAM - even down to using a
>> different hash function IIRC. Good luck with that!
>
> I think it still uses MD4 for NTLM authentication (seems to me that's
> what it was), but you can disable that and it uses something a bit more
> advanced.
I am almost 100% certain that no product before Windows 2000 actually
uses a hash function devised by cryptographers. AFAIK, right up until
Windows NT4, M$ were using their own custom-designed [and horribly weak]
hash functions for passwords. The only reason Windows 2000 and later
don't is that [finally!] they use an industry standard - Kerberos.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> OK, so I go to the Apple website, click on the Mac Pro, and it
>> immediately gives me a starting price of £1,749.
>
>> The machine I'm using right now, the one that was built using the best
>> parts I could afford a few years back, was £500. To me, that looks like
>> a bloody big difference! ;-)
>
> Yeah, and the specs are certainly the same.
Well no - the Apple is brand new and my PC is now quite old. You'd
hardly expect them to have the same specs.
My point is that when I built it, it was a pretty powerful computer. If
you go to Apple and ask for "a pretty powerful computer", you get
something astronomically expensive.
[As an aside, £1,749 is more than I paid for my first *car*...]
>> My *point* is that "other Linux users" are Linux experts. I'm not.
>
> Some people are born with the necessary experience to use linux?-)
LOL! Weirder things have happened... ;-)
Nah, I guess they just know other people who know how to work Linux. As
you might have noticed, I don't know many other humans...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> [Did you see what I did there?]
>
> LOL, good one. :-)
Heh, I know! I said how cool it is, *and* made a pun. Yay for me!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Quantity discount. My DSL line is provided by Covad, even though the
> telco to the house is Qwest. My DSL service is actually cheaper than
> Qwest's DSL service.
>
> Makes perfect sense to shop around.
Now, see, that makes absolutely no sense at all.
That's like those telephone providers where you dail a special prefix
and then the number you actually want to call. They direct your call
from the UK, across the Atlantic to the USA, route the call, and direct
it back to the UK, and *this* works out cheaper than BT? WTF?!? o_O
Similarly, when I looked into this, several places online could sell me
an Apple Mac. It turns out the most expensive place to buy one is...
from Apple. WHAT?? It's more expensive to buy it from the manufacturer
than from some middle-man who has a whole bunch of extra costs and
overheads to cover?
Reality doesn't make sense to me...
Anyway, you get your DSL cheaper, but what if it breaks? If it's
actually a Qwest DSL line, presumably only Qwest can actually fix it if
it breaks. And that means that if it breaks, you have to spend 3 hours
on the phone to Covad to convince them that it's broken, and then they
have to spend 3 hours on the phone to Qwest, and then *maybe* somebody
will fix it?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I am almost 100% certain that no product before Windows 2000 actually
> uses a hash function devised by cryptographers. AFAIK, right up until
> Windows NT4, M$ were using their own custom-designed [and horribly weak]
> hash functions for passwords. The only reason Windows 2000 and later
> don't is that [finally!] they use an industry standard - Kerberos.
Microsoft has been notoriously late for basically everything, and
security is not an exception.
During the entirety of the 80's and 90's Microsoft's policy about security
was basically "it's not our fault, it's the fault of all those criminal
hackers, they are the ones who should be dealt with". And I'm seriously
not making this up. It's almost exactly their official statement on the
subject.
It was not until the 2000's that Microsoft finally understood the
importance of security. Of course since they are new in the security
business they are still making babysteps (for example when they finally
added a firewall to their OS, it wasn't very lauded for its quality),
but I suppose they are getting there slowly.
With Vista they tried to make things even better, even at the cost of
hampering backwards compatibility with software. It's to be seen if this
will work out or if it will backfire on them. (Not to talk that all the
other problems with Vista only aggravate the situation.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Well that's not really a "file". That's a magic filename.
>
> Wellll... You can argue about it. I assume you know how it worked
> inside. But yeah, I get what you're saying. There wasn't a directory
> entry for the device drivers as such. Which, when you think about it,
> makes sense.
>
> You could iterate over device drivers. They just weren't on the disk, so
> it used different APIs.
>
>> Instead, there are lots of roots like "FOO:", "BAR:", etc. This is
>> more like MS-DOS pathname syntax.
>
> I'll grant you that one.
>
>> Now, the way it *works* is of course more like Unix...
>
> No, the way it works isn't like either. :-) It's closer to a microkernel
> than anything.
>
The way it worked is that any program could send messages to any other
program. If a program answered to a specific set of messages it would be
recognized by the OS as a device. That meant that any user could write
his own device and indeed I have seen quite a lot useful and slightly
silly ones. It was a very powerful concept, e,g, if it was still alive
today we could easily implement a POV: device such that copying a file
into that device would render that file. Filepath syntax could be
exploited to set various options. "copy benchmark.pov
POV:/640/480/AA0.3/png" That is of course not more readable than current
syntax, but you could also do that with drag and drop. Hmm, okay, not so
much of an earth shattering improvement either.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> It was a very powerful concept, e,g, if it was still alive
> today we could easily implement a POV: device such that copying a file
> into that device would render that file.
AFAIK in the current MacOS X you can create folder-specific scripts
which are automatically run on files which are copied to that folder
(and maybe on some other events as well). For example some people use
the feature to automatically create thumbnail versions of images when
those images are copied to a certain folder. I assume you could easily
achieve that povray-rendering feature as well, if you wanted.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> own custom-designed [and horribly weak] hash functions
The only reason it was horribly weak is they fed the password in 7 or 8
bytes at a time. So if you go the hash, you could brute-force a
14-character password by brute-forcing two 7-character passwords.
That would be weak even if you were using DES to do the hashing.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Heh, I know! I said how cool it is, *and* made a pun. Yay for me!
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=puns
Amusing, but not specifically directed towards you. Just relevant.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 08:44:22 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Heh, I know! I said how cool it is, *and* made a pun. Yay for me!
>
>http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=puns
>
>Amusing, but not specifically directed towards you. Just relevant.
I do wish you hadn't posted that Darren, he's not funny (negative pun
intended :)
Do you think American4Life would read better?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:24:53 -0400, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> It was a very powerful concept, e,g, if it was still alive today we
>> could easily implement a POV: device such that copying a file into that
>> device would render that file.
>
> AFAIK in the current MacOS X you can create folder-specific scripts
> which are automatically run on files which are copied to that folder
> (and maybe on some other events as well). For example some people use
> the feature to automatically create thumbnail versions of images when
> those images are copied to a certain folder. I assume you could easily
> achieve that povray-rendering feature as well, if you wanted.
Hmmm, I wonder how hard it would be to implement this in *nix using FUSE?
I've seen some interesting things implemented as FUSE filesystems, like
MP3 file ID3 tag editors...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:20:59 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, AD works completely differently to the SAM - even down to using
>>> a different hash function IIRC. Good luck with that!
>>
>> I think it still uses MD4 for NTLM authentication (seems to me that's
>> what it was), but you can disable that and it uses something a bit more
>> advanced.
>
> I am almost 100% certain that no product before Windows 2000 actually
> uses a hash function devised by cryptographers. AFAIK, right up until
> Windows NT4, M$ were using their own custom-designed [and horribly weak]
> hash functions for passwords. The only reason Windows 2000 and later
> don't is that [finally!] they use an industry standard - Kerberos.
NetWare uses an RSA algorithm, and has for many, many years. By
extension, eDirectory does, which is used in many non-NetWare application
environments as well.
The algorithm was outlined in a Dr. Dobbs article back in the 80's, and
even then it didn't need to be changed.
eDirectory now provides a function called "Universal Password" which can
optionally be used, but the 'traditional' password can also be used in
most cases.
Oh, and it supports Kerberos and GSSAPI now as well. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:27:47 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> There's a significant difference between "I couldn't find the
>> documentation" and "it doesn't appear to be documented". ;-)
>
> Not as much as you might think you're implying. "The documentation
> hasn't appeared before me" and "I couldn't find the documentation" are
> pretty darn close. ;-)
Perhaps, but they're still not the same statement; the way Andy came
across was as if he was saying "it's not documented", which softened to
"I couldn't find it".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:30:40 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Quantity discount. My DSL line is provided by Covad, even though the
>> telco to the house is Qwest. My DSL service is actually cheaper than
>> Qwest's DSL service.
>>
>> Makes perfect sense to shop around.
>
> Now, see, that makes absolutely no sense at all.
>
> That's like those telephone providers where you dail a special prefix
> and then the number you actually want to call. They direct your call
> from the UK, across the Atlantic to the USA, route the call, and direct
> it back to the UK, and *this* works out cheaper than BT? WTF?!? o_O
>
> Similarly, when I looked into this, several places online could sell me
> an Apple Mac. It turns out the most expensive place to buy one is...
> from Apple. WHAT?? It's more expensive to buy it from the manufacturer
> than from some middle-man who has a whole bunch of extra costs and
> overheads to cover?
>
> Reality doesn't make sense to me...
It's called "bulk pricing". Covad can buy telco service in bulk. I
can't. :-)
> Anyway, you get your DSL cheaper, but what if it breaks? If it's
> actually a Qwest DSL line, presumably only Qwest can actually fix it if
> it breaks. And that means that if it breaks, you have to spend 3 hours
> on the phone to Covad to convince them that it's broken, and then they
> have to spend 3 hours on the phone to Qwest, and then *maybe* somebody
> will fix it?
That is a fair point. Had a lightning strike here a few years ago (at
the Covad CO), and they couldn't track it down. They blamed Qwest, and
Qwest blamed them.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> own custom-designed [and horribly weak] hash functions
>
> The only reason it was horribly weak is they fed the password in 7 or 8
> bytes at a time. So if you go the hash, you could brute-force a
> 14-character password by brute-forcing two 7-character passwords.
>
> That would be weak even if you were using DES to do the hashing.
The point being, they made a very simple and basic security mistake. If
they had used an established standard rather than trying to invent a
wheel from scratch themselves, this wouldn't have happened. (As I say,
they now use Kerberos, so there's some hope it works properly.)
Not the first time either. The world uses DNS, M$ invents WINS. What was
THAT about??
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Reality doesn't make sense to me...
>
> It's called "bulk pricing". Covad can buy telco service in bulk. I
> can't. :-)
Riiight... so why don't Qwest just match Covad's price [which obviously
they can trivially do] and put Covad out of business?
>> Anyway, you get your DSL cheaper, but what if it breaks? If it's
>> actually a Qwest DSL line, presumably only Qwest can actually fix it if
>> it breaks. And that means that if it breaks, you have to spend 3 hours
>> on the phone to Covad to convince them that it's broken, and then they
>> have to spend 3 hours on the phone to Qwest, and then *maybe* somebody
>> will fix it?
>
> That is a fair point. Had a lightning strike here a few years ago (at
> the Covad CO), and they couldn't track it down. They blamed Qwest, and
> Qwest blamed them.
Ah yes, the "it's nobody's fault" syndrome. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 20:45:34 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Reality doesn't make sense to me...
>>
>> It's called "bulk pricing". Covad can buy telco service in bulk. I
>> can't. :-)
>
> Riiight... so why don't Qwest just match Covad's price [which obviously
> they can trivially do] and put Covad out of business?
That's called "anticompetitive behaviour" and ostensibly illegal in the
US (doesn't stop people from trying, though). Also because from an
economic standpoint, they'd have to lower the rates for the individual
buyers who use their service as well, so it makes sense to sell at a
higher price to those willing to pay for it, and for those (like me) who
are smarter than the average bear to go with the cheaper option than the
default (which is to get my DSL service from my telco provider).
>>> Anyway, you get your DSL cheaper, but what if it breaks? If it's
>>> actually a Qwest DSL line, presumably only Qwest can actually fix it
>>> if it breaks. And that means that if it breaks, you have to spend 3
>>> hours on the phone to Covad to convince them that it's broken, and
>>> then they have to spend 3 hours on the phone to Qwest, and then
>>> *maybe* somebody will fix it?
>>
>> That is a fair point. Had a lightning strike here a few years ago (at
>> the Covad CO), and they couldn't track it down. They blamed Qwest, and
>> Qwest blamed them.
>
> Ah yes, the "it's nobody's fault" syndrome. ;-)
Yep. They got it fixed on Monday. Turned out the CO that was struck was
Qwest's, and about 40,000 people were without telephone service over the
weekend. I'm guessing that they assumed there was no problem because the
support phone lines weren't all lit up. I wonder why *that* would be?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> The point being, they made a very simple and basic security mistake.
They used the same hash UNIX was using at the time. It only became a
security mistake later, when they needed to keep backward compatibility
with it.
> they had used an established standard rather than trying to invent a
> wheel from scratch themselves, this wouldn't have happened.
Even had they used DES, it wouldn't have helped, the way they hashed
longer passwords. The problem is they started with short passwords, just
like everyone else in the world at the time.
> Not the first time either. The world uses DNS, M$ invents WINS. What was
> THAT about??
Because DNS didn't have real-time dynamic updates when WINS was
invented. Hence, you basically couldn't combine DHCP with DNS, so MS
made WINS. Plus, since people could assign their own names, they needed
a way to make them unique. Plus, DNS is tied to TCP/IP, and WINS isn't.
In other words, no, at the time, the world did *not* use DNS. Not until
about 10 years later was enough of the world off of LAN-specific
protocols (like NetBIOS, IPX, DecNET, Novell's things, etc) that you
could afford to ignore every form of networking except IP.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I do wish you hadn't posted that Darren, he's not funny
He's often pretty amusing. Of course, if you take him seriously, he's
just obnoxious. He's funny in a crosses-the-line-twice sort of way.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrossesTheLineTwice
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Riiight... so why don't Qwest just match Covad's price [which obviously
> they can trivially do] and put Covad out of business?
It's a risk thing. Covad agrees to pay Qwest $X for Y minutes of phone
time a month, whether it's used or not. Covad may very well lose money,
or make money, but Qwest knows what they're making.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Because DNS didn't have real-time dynamic updates when WINS was
> invented.
Actually, looking closer, WINS and DNS were both invented at
approximately the same time (within months of each other). Neither was
invented by Microsoft. And for about 4 years after NetBIOS was in fairly
wide use, NetBIOS didn't have any standard encapsulation on top of IP,
so worrying about people cracking passwords was limited to the people
sitting next to you at the office. And five years after *that*, people
standardized Kerberos.
So, a bit of history goes a long way towards explaining things. At
least, much further than incredulity. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:19:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Novell's things
aka IPX and SPX. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:22:53 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> I do wish you hadn't posted that Darren, he's not funny
>
>He's often pretty amusing. Of course, if you take him seriously, he's
>just obnoxious. He's funny in a crosses-the-line-twice sort of way.
>
>http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrossesTheLineTwice
I suppose a lot is derived from audience feedback where he makes a
fool of himself and thinks that they are laughing with him not at him.
And he sounds like the sort of person who thinks he is smarter than he
actually is.
Besides that how can you cross-the-line-twice, over puns? :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Novell's things
>
> aka IPX and SPX. ;-)
Oh, that was *them*, was it?
[I don't have fond memories of IPX...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Riiight... so why don't Qwest just match Covad's price [which
>> obviously they can trivially do] and put Covad out of business?
>
> It's a risk thing. Covad agrees to pay Qwest $X for Y minutes of phone
> time a month, whether it's used or not. Covad may very well lose money,
> or make money, but Qwest knows what they're making.
Now that at least makes some kind of sense...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> And he sounds like the sort of person who thinks he is smarter than he
> actually is.
I think you're taking him more seriously than a web site named "the best
page in the universe" warrants. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 08:26:25 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> And he sounds like the sort of person who thinks he is smarter than he
>> actually is.
>
>I think you're taking him more seriously than a web site named "the best
>page in the universe" warrants. :-)
Well any published writing that is raciest should be taken seriously,
one way or another. Also he slagged off one of my favourite humors, it
makes my bile rise. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
