Need to discuss payware disaster recovery in this NG

[John Corliss]

John,

No I'm not here to discuss anything I want and if you'll open your eyes as
well as your mind you may see a few things you overlooked. I marked my
response OT, and I damn well have been discussing freeware and so did the OP
and if you don't like what is being said - that's your privilege and right
but you have NO right to tell me or anyone else what can and cannot be said.

Sorry, but I don't see where John did anything of the sort in his last
reply. In fact, I quote "It seems like you are here to talk about
whatever you like. Your choice."

There's an old saying about "I may not agree with what you say but I'll
fight to the death your right to say it". Close enough even if I didn't get
it exactly correct.

I served in the armed forces for 20 years defending that right and no one is
going to restrict what I have to say. I've kept everything I've said in the
spirit of this newsgroup and any one that see's it differently can certainly
kill-file me or simply not read the post. I do not need your help or help
from anyone else here that has such a narrow-ass mind about what can and
cannot be discussed. Get a life.

You vehement response is uncalled for, Bob. Please try to calm yourself
down.

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls and other such idiots. No adware, cdware,
commercial software, crippleware, demoware, nagware, PROmotionware,
shareware, spyware, time-limited software, trialware, viruses or warez
please.

 

[John Corliss]

That's KING John, right?

In the same way that one could say "Troll Margrave of Brandenburg". In
other words, John has a perfect right to express his views. If you don't
like them, there's no need to be offensive.

Generally, people who try to control those who have been here for a long
time (like John) are kids who object to any form of "authority". Yet at
the same time, they overlook the fact that they're the ones trying to do
the controlling.

Yes, this is an unmoderated group and anarchy could easily reign here.
However, the simple fact is that trolls and trouble makers get killfiled
and after a period of time begin noticing that nobody answers their
questions or gives them any help.

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls and other such idiots. No adware, cdware,
commercial software, crippleware, demoware, nagware, PROmotionware,
shareware, spyware, time-limited software, trialware, viruses or warez
please.

 

[Steve H]

Yes, as that article said "I initially filed a bug report, but the
developers replied that the Ubuntu CD just doesn't have room for
multiple kernels". This seems like a very poor choice on the Ubuntu
developers' part. How hard would it have been to make different versions
of the .isos available, with say, i686 and an i786 version kernels (hope
I got that right). I mean, how many people are running 386 Intels these
days?

I guess their intention was to ensure that a standard distro would run
on any machine..486..486..Intel..Amd etc., so that there weren't too
many first-time user who'd run into problems. That's often the problem
with the 'one size fits all' philosophy.
Then again, there must be quite a few first-timers wondering why it
all seems a bit slow...

Your problem here concerns me. I just purchased a small cheap hard drive
(40 gb Seagate) so that I could dedicate it to trying Linux. In the last
two days, I downloaded and burnt both the Ubuntu DVD .iso and the SuSE
DVD "Trial" (don't know why they call it that) version .iso. Now I guess
I might as well download Mandriva too.

As far as I know, the DVD distro contains the 868 update - it should
only be a matter of running Synaptic ( package manager ) to load it
in.

I'm sure there are advantages to there being so many distros, but the
fact is, "Divide and conquer." As long as Linux comes in so many
varieties, it will never be a serious competitor with Windows. Not only
that, but development will continue to be unfocused and splintered.

It's a valid point, and there even divisions within the various
sub-groups.
But it isn't so much that which tends to disappoint me, it's more
'user issues'.
When it comes to software I used to be somewhat 'robust' about it -
and really didn't think anything of having to faff about tweaking this
and that - and then I recommended an app to a friend, who installed
it and promptly told me it was rubbish! We argued the toss, with me
praising its configurablity and she bemoaning its ease of use.
It occurred to me a while later that she had a very valid point - good
software shouldn't be about having to delve into its guts in order to
make it do what you want, it should be clear and concisive...it should
start working for you from the off, and I could even say that if you
had to read the help files it's a sign that something's not quite up
to par.
OK, the more complex a program ( like Photoshop ) the more need there
is for a decent manual, but should the same be true of an email
client, a newsreader, a graphics viewer..?

This is essentially the issue I keep batting up against with Linux -
and as an example, I was browsing through the Ubuntu help files ( in
html format ) off the CD and decided, as one might, to copy the whole
folder onto the desktop for later reference. I also then dragged a
shortcut of the index.htm from the folder to the desktop to save me
having to open the folder every time I wanted to browse the help
files. Bog-standard practice.
When I next came to click on index.htm it opened as per usual in
Firefox, but none of the internal links worked...each one gave me a
'page not found' error. In order to read the document as a whole I had
to open the folder and click on index.htm from there.

Now, it might not seem like a big deal - but it's pretty much
indicative of exactly the sort of user interface issues that result in
having to faff around making the system work for itself rather than
getting on with any actual work.
In fact I was so surprised that I had to duplicate the same setup on
my Windows desktop just to check I hadn't done something silly...but
no, it all worked, just as it ought to.

M/soft's approach ( for better or worse ) seems to have been to sit a
computer illiterate person in front of a machine and told them to try
to do something...and then told a team of writers standing behind
'Watch what they do, see what they want to do, then go make it
happen".

I'm off to see if Ubuntu can do with my Matrox G450 what Windows can
do, across two monitors...

Regards,

 

[Bob S]

John C.,

I'll not go back over any of the points since this is getting ridiculous
now. Let's just leave it with - we agree to disagree - and get on with it.

Oh yeah.... the 1st Amendment even covers your butt as long as you're on US
soil.

Bob S.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

WRONG!
I just used a freeware utility to clone my hard drive. It was
successful. The program is Partition Logic.

GREAT!
I'm glad Partition Logic was able to change your mind about there
being no freeware solution. It was about a year ago I made the
first post here about that app, and I see from the changelog it's
had quite a few improvements since then.

 

[Bob S]

Good on ya mate. Your contributions to this thread have been well reasoned
and well expressed. I doubt that many of the 'silent majority' will
killfile you. As for the 'purists', well, they create as much "off topic"
traffic as anyone else with their bleating about OT subjects.

Thank you,

Bob S.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

news:[email protected]...

No I'm not here to discuss anything I want and if you'll open your eyes as
well as your mind you may see a few things you overlooked. I marked my
response OT, and I damn well have been discussing freeware and so did the OP

< snip >

If this thread is about "freeware" then why is "payware disaster
recovery" included in the header ? If it is about "freeware" then it
wouldn't need to be marked "OT".

I don't want to talk about "payware disaster recovery". I come here to
discuss "freeware". You can discuss payware if that is what you are so
desperate to do.

Regards, John.

--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/

 

[Bob S]

Gee....did you look at the Subject line........^^^^^^^^


Bob S.

 

[jacaranda]

I don't anticipate anyone here giving me the cold shoulder.

Haha. Sorry about being too quick with the keyboard, but I stand by my
statement. The quickest way to get people to ignore your pleas for help
are to start making payware posts and not marking them OT.

But, I think you're learning that. ;-)

 

[Chris Lee]

Yes, as that article said "I initially filed a bug report, but the
developers replied that the Ubuntu CD just doesn't have room for
multiple kernels". This seems like a very poor choice on the Ubuntu
developers' part. How hard would it have been to make different
versions
of the .isos available, with say, i686 and an i786 version kernels
(hope
I got that right). I mean, how many people are running 386 Intels
these days?

The reason a 386-based kernel is used is because quite frankly there
really isn't enough of a difference in compiling iso's with i686
and i786 kernels over a i386 one to really bother with doing so if
you're not really interested in the results of lame benchmark tests.

Quit listening to the PC Gaming crowd and the rigged benchmark tests they
run on their "gaming" systems.

They're only kidding themselves about the results of them.

 

[Chris Lee]

This is essentially the issue I keep batting up against with Linux -

and as an example, I was browsing through the Ubuntu help files ( in
html format ) off the CD and decided, as one might, to copy the
whole
folder onto the desktop for later reference. I also then dragged a
shortcut of the index.htm from the folder to the desktop to save me
having to open the folder every time I wanted to browse the help
files. Bog-standard practice.
When I next came to click on index.htm it opened as per usual in
Firefox, but none of the internal links worked...each one gave me a
'page not found' error. In order to read the document as a whole I
had
to open the folder and click on index.htm from there.

Now, it might not seem like a big deal - but it's pretty much
indicative of exactly the sort of user interface issues that result
in
having to faff around making the system work for itself rather than
getting on with any actual work.
In fact I was so surprised that I had to duplicate the same setup on
my Windows desktop just to check I hadn't done something silly...but
no, it all worked, just as it ought to.

You Sir, are an total idiot. Of course what you tried wasn't going to work.
When you dragged the files off the cdrom, the html code was still looking for
the directory the files were *IN* when they were on the cdrom.


That's why you got the various "Page Not Found Errors.

When you "Opened the Folder" you created the directory path the html files
were looking for.

You utterly clueless *MORON*


Do yourself a favor and learn how a freaking filesystem works.

 

[Craig]

You Sir, are an total idiot.

You utterly clueless *MORON*

Thanks for advancing the conversation Chris.

Craig

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

The reason a 386-based kernel is used is because quite frankly
there really isn't enough of a difference in compiling iso's with
i686 and i786 kernels over a i386 one to really bother with doing
so if you're not really interested in the results of lame
benchmark tests.

Of course the only way to prove that would be with benchmark tests,
if there were any that could be trusted.

I agree with you that including an i686 kernel would be a waste of
bandwidth/cd space, because the performance gain is small. Using
march=pentium4 gives noticeably better performance (but still small) if
all packages are also compiled with it. But most users don't want to
compile everything, preferring to use pre-built packages which are
built for compatibility across architectures.

 

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

The reason a 386-based kernel is used is because quite frankly there
really isn't enough of a difference in compiling iso's with i686
and i786 kernels over a i386 one to really bother with doing so if
you're not really interested in the results of lame benchmark tests.

True - because even a i386 kernel uses (most of) the functionality of
newer processor types. It just needs a bit more overhead for checking
the presence of these features (that's negligible) and for emulation
code used on older machines. A *real* i386 kernel would be noticeable
slower, because it had to emulate a math coprocessor (e.g.) instead
of using it directly.

BeAr

 

[Chris Lee]

Thanks for advancing the conversation Chris.

Craig

No problem. Long-winded asswipes like this guy need to be put into
their place,especially when they don't have the *SLIGHTEST CLUE* of
what they are ranting about.

That's why the majority of Linux/Free Software/Open Source users and
developers don't take what they have to say very seriously.

 

[Steve H]

You Sir, are an total idiot. Of course what you tried wasn't going to work.
When you dragged the files off the cdrom, the html code was still looking for
the directory the files were *IN* when they were on the cdrom.


That's why you got the various "Page Not Found Errors.

When you "Opened the Folder" you created the directory path the html files
were looking for.

You utterly clueless *MORON*

Interesting.

So - you're telling me that if I copy a directory containing a stack
of internally linked html files to another directory and then create a
shortcut to a document in that folder, none of the internal links will
work?
Goodness me, that sounds a bit tedious.
It strikes me that the sensible thing to do would be to ensure that
all the links contained in the folder's documents should be updatable
relative to the root document, and to each other...so that no matter
where the files reside, as long as they were all in the same folder,
or folders relative to the primary html document, the links would
work. It would also be a really neat thing if the OS could do this for
you, on the fly.

Let's just have a little look at an example link taken at random from
the index.htm opened from a shortcut on my Windows desktop, shall we?

file:///C:/WINDOWS/Desktop/en/pr01.html#

Well I'll be jiggered, would you look at that!!! It points to the
folder now residing on my desktop! Wow, that's what I call magic...and
it did it all by itself!

Now I wonder why the exact same process didn't work on the Linux
setup?
Oh yes, I know...because it's shite.
In fact, what it did was treat the 'link' as 'move', and dropped the
vital /en from the path - and that's a very fundamental user interface
error.
Oh look...I pretty much said all that in my original post!


You don't have a clue about how relative and absolute links work, do
you?
Either that or you're so terminally stupid as not to be able to read
with any degree of comprehension.

Do yourself a favor and learn how a freaking filesystem works.

I'm hardly likely to take any advice about hierarchies from a greasy
numpty like you, who doesn't even understand how html links and
shortcuts work - and quite frankly we expect a better class of troll
here than you're capable of being.

 

[Chris Lee]

Interesting.

So - you're telling me that if I copy a directory containing a stack
of internally linked html files to another directory and then create
a
shortcut to a document in that folder, none of the internal links
will
work?

If those links are expecting a certain file path to be followed then
yes.

Goodness me, that sounds a bit tedious.
It strikes me that the sensible thing to do would be to ensure that
all the links contained in the folder's documents should be
updatable
relative to the root document, and to each other...so that no matter
where the files reside, as long as they were all in the same folder,
or folders relative to the primary html document, the links would
work. It would also be a really neat thing if the OS could do this
for
you, on the fly.

What an utterly idiotic idea. The OS would have to quite literally rewrite
each and every HTML file it came into contact with

Let's just have a little look at an example link taken at random
from
the index.htm opened from a shortcut on my Windows desktop, shall
we?

file:///C:/WINDOWS/Desktop/en/pr01.html#

Well I'll be jiggered, would you look at that!!! It points to the
folder now residing on my desktop! Wow, that's what I call
magic...and
it did it all by itself!

Now I wonder why the exact same process didn't work on the Linux
setup?
Oh yes, I know...because it's shite.

No, It didn't work because you didn't know what the hell you were
doing.

In fact, what it did was treat the 'link' as 'move', and dropped the
vital /en from the path - and that's a very fundamental user
interface
error.

*YOU MOVED* the files from the cdrom drive to another drive via your
so-called "shortcut".

You *DISRUPTED THE PATH THE LINKS ASSUMED WAS THERE*,you moronic ass.

 

[Renan]

B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson nos contou:

True - because even a i386 kernel uses (most of) the functionality of
newer processor types. It just needs a bit more overhead for checking
the presence of these features (that's negligible) and for emulation
code used on older machines. A *real* i386 kernel would be noticeable
slower, because it had to emulate a math coprocessor (e.g.) instead
of using it directly.

Just my experience:

I've used an optimized Linux kernel (compiled by myself on Pentium 4)
vs. the stock Linux kernel of my distro (Ubuntu 5.04 at the time) and
there was no real speed improvement.

Some applications (like games, graphics and emulators) DO benefit from
optimizations, however.

Just my $0.02...

 

[Margrave of Brandenburg]

So - you're telling me that if I copy a directory containing a stack
of internally linked html files to another directory and then create a
shortcut to a document in that folder, none of the internal links will
work?
Goodness me, that sounds a bit tedious.
It strikes me that the sensible thing to do would be to ensure that
all the links contained in the folder's documents should be updatable
relative to the root document, and to each other...so that no matter
where the files reside, as long as they were all in the same folder,
or folders relative to the primary html document, the links would
work. It would also be a really neat thing if the OS could do this for
you, on the fly.

I'm not a Linux expert. But I'll assume that shortcuts in Linux are the same
as in Unix.

Open a shell, find the shortcut file, and see what kind of file it is.

Is it a symbolic link?
$ pwd
/some/directory
$ ls -l
srw-r--r-- 1 owner group Dec 7 12:00 myfile ->
/original/dir/myfile
If so, then a program that references the link file in "/some/directory" is
in fact referencing the original file in "/original/dir".

Is it a "hard" link?
$ pwd
/some/directory
$ ls -l
-rw-r--r-- 2 owner group Dec 7 12:00 myfile
If so, then this is a second reference to the same file, but this refers to
file in the directory "/some/directory" (not the one in the
"/original/dir").

Notice the difference in the listing. The symbolic link has an "s" in the
first column, a "1" reference count, and an -> arrow after the file name.

The hard link has no leading "s", shows "2" reference count, and has no
"->".

 

[Steve H]

I'm not a Linux expert. But I'll assume that shortcuts in Linux are the same
as in Unix.

Open a shell, find the shortcut file, and see what kind of file it is.

Is it a symbolic link?
$ pwd
/some/directory
$ ls -l
srw-r--r-- 1 owner group Dec 7 12:00 myfile ->
/original/dir/myfile
If so, then a program that references the link file in "/some/directory" is
in fact referencing the original file in "/original/dir".

Is it a "hard" link?
$ pwd
/some/directory
$ ls -l
-rw-r--r-- 2 owner group Dec 7 12:00 myfile
If so, then this is a second reference to the same file, but this refers to
file in the directory "/some/directory" (not the one in the
"/original/dir").

Notice the difference in the listing. The symbolic link has an "s" in the
first column, a "1" reference count, and an -> arrow after the file name.

The hard link has no leading "s", shows "2" reference count, and has no
"->".

It's a soft link ( symbolic )...but that's not really the issue.

The default Windows action is logical - you can store the bulk of the
data away from the desktop and yet work with the entire folder of
documents with one click of a shortcut.
I shouldn't have to go 'under the bonnet' for this.

It's an obvious ergonomics issue. Without it the analogy might be
having to return to a book's index page every time you wanted to move
on a chapter rather than just simply turning the page.

Regards,