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

Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
> BenneJezzerette wrote:
>
>
>>Hmm well if ever I became a Programer, and did that, be sure I would
>>find time to test it out. I would not even take the time to just
>>arbitrarily let something out, ...
>
>
> That's almost always easier said than done: you can test things you create
> (or in this case, package together) for your own purposes on your own
> hardware, but inevitably someone somewhere will have a combination of
> hardware, software, and personal requirements that will make - whatever
> it was you took the trouble to test in all ways you could - fail.
>
> I do have a suggestion for using the oversize .iso file, which may be
> how it was intended to be used (or as was suggested already, it may be
> oversized due only to carelessness, but I think my suggestion will work
> anyway):
>
> leave the .iso on a regular file system on a hard disk, boot the system
> from either floppy, or from the CD of a previous Slackware version,
> mount the partition containing the oversized .iso file somewhere out of
> the way, then mount the .iso itself via the loopback interface. You'll
> need to leave the partition mounted with the .iso file untouched while
> you install -current, but if you have extra disk space that may not be a
> problem.
>
> The disclaimer, of course, is that I've not tried this myself, so I
> don't want to accept any credit unless it works. ;-)
>
My Linux bible says that you can mount an iso too. May just try that.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCjBZpTVY8putMdaARAmCjAJ9XSqXC+p4cXssB0t2qRx Xi10A4/QCgl7uj
tUNsv8c5Xp3sn2el6amf6KY=
=IlN3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> BenneJezzerette wrote:
>
>> Hmm well if ever I became a Programer, and did that, be sure I would
>> find time to test it out. I would not even take the time to just
>> arbitrarily let something out, ...

I'll keep that in mind when I become a 'Programer'. In the meantime, what i
put out works for some people.

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

Dominik L. Borkowski wrote:
>>BenneJezzerette wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hmm well if ever I became a Programer, and did that, be sure I would
>>>find time to test it out. I would not even take the time to just
>>>arbitrarily let something out, ...
>
>
> I'll keep that in mind when I become a 'Programer'. In the meantime, what i
> put out works for some people.
Ok, that is one thing I have noticed on the M$ side, they don't actually
test inhouse, they shove it out to crash others systems, and then take
the debug from them. Something tells me that since they do that, its why
Virus are riven in M$ products.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCjNgHTVY8putMdaARAi+DAKDQ9vyX29ch6FDASfCKOD Pdvu60BACgzfwE
EahBTKVAvDt4ewrKUtWjVbY=
=B4H0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 2005-05-19, BenneJezzerette <jennifer755@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Dominik L. Borkowski wrote:
>>>BenneJezzerette wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hmm well if ever I became a Programer, and did that, be sure I would
>>>>find time to test it out. I would not even take the time to just
>>>>arbitrarily let something out, ...
>>
>>
>> I'll keep that in mind when I become a 'Programer'. In the meantime, what i
>> put out works for some people.
> Ok, that is one thing I have noticed on the M$ side, they don't actually
> test inhouse, they shove it out to crash others systems, and then take
> the debug from them. Something tells me that since they do that, its why
> Virus are riven in M$ products.

Not true, they do test in house, a lot, and they use outside beta testers.
The reason for MS problems with any virus has little to do with testing and
more to do with sloppy or antiquated or non-existent programming habits and
discipline.

ken

Dominik L. Borkowski wrote:
> BenneJezzerette wrote:
>
>
>>>why don't you find another source of slackware-current cds? obviously the
>>>person who made those isos didn't bother to check the size.
>>
>>I have the May 2, 2005, these are the May 16, 2005 from the
>>ftp.mirrors.ca.uk/sites/ftp.slackware.com/current.iso
>
>
> the point was to find another source, as the person maintaining that one
> obviously did not check the sizes.
>
> just in case if you didn't know, -current isos are NEVER official. they're
> made by random people. patrick never puts out isos of -current. you're
> pretty much taking a gamble with those.
>
> hell, i even make -current isos available, ones that i don't test myself in
> any shape or form:
>
> ftp://inferno.bioinformatics.vt.edu/...re-current-iso
>
> they have kde/xap on the second cd. they 'may' work for you, or may not.


And I have made quite a few coffee-cup-coasters, too. Now I use
rewritable media (both CD's and DVD's) for working with -current.) In
the case of CD's, I make sure that they stay below the 700 MB limit.
(With the DVD's, *total* -current fits nicely at about 3 Gigs, leaving
about 1.5 Gigs Plus space.)

--
HJohnson
aka HuMJohn AT aerosurf DOT net

BenneJezzerette <jennifer755@cox.net> trolled:

pgp trash troll delete

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dominik L. Borkowski wrote:
>>>BenneJezzerette wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hmm well if ever I became a Programer, and did that, be sure I would
>>>>find time to test it out. I would not even take the time to just
>>>>arbitrarily let something out, ...
>>
>>
>> I'll keep that in mind when I become a 'Programer'. In the meantime, what i
>> put out works for some people.
> Ok, that is one thing I have noticed on the M$ side, they don't actually
> test inhouse, they shove it out to crash others systems, and then take
> the debug from them. Something tells me that since they do that, its why
> Virus are riven in M$ products.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFCjNgHTVY8putMdaARAi+DAKDQ9vyX29ch6FDASfCKOD Pdvu60BACgzfwE
> EahBTKVAvDt4ewrKUtWjVbY=
> =B4H0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On Thu, 19 May 2005 18:45:11 -0000, No_One <no_one@no_where.com>
wrote:

>On 2005-05-19, BenneJezzerette <jennifer755@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> Dominik L. Borkowski wrote:
>>>>BenneJezzerette wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hmm well if ever I became a Programer, and did that, be sure I would
>>>>>find time to test it out. I would not even take the time to just
>>>>>arbitrarily let something out, ...
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll keep that in mind when I become a 'Programer'. In the meantime, what i
>>> put out works for some people.
>> Ok, that is one thing I have noticed on the M$ side, they don't actually
>> test inhouse, they shove it out to crash others systems, and then take
>> the debug from them. Something tells me that since they do that, its why
>> Virus are riven in M$ products.
>
>Not true, they do test in house, a lot, and they use outside beta testers.
>The reason for MS problems with any virus has little to do with testing and
>more to do with sloppy or antiquated or non-existent programming habits and
>discipline.
>
>ken

I am not normally a Microsoft defender, but I do feel the need to
respond to this post. I made a living programming for 30 years, so I
do know something about this subject. There are a couple of points I
wish to make.

1) As stated above by Ken, Microsoft does test, and they do test "a
lot". More bugs are found in Microsoft products because more people
use Microsoft products. One thing I found consistent over years of
programming on many platforms in many languages, the more people who
use your software, the more bugs that will be found.

2) Microsoft products are hit by viruses more often than others (IE
versus Firefox, or Windows versus Linux) because they are a much
bigger target. The sick, demented people who write viruses are
looking for attention. Microsoft is the target of virus writers, not
Linux, for the same reason that the terrorists flew airplanes into the
World Trade Center, not into a grain silo in Podunk, Iowa.

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

Henry Nettles wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 18:45:11 -0000, No_One <no_one@no_where.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On 2005-05-19, BenneJezzerette <jennifer755@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Dominik L. Borkowski wrote:
>>>
>>>>>BenneJezzerette wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hmm well if ever I became a Programer, and did that, be sure I would
>>>>>>find time to test it out. I would not even take the time to just
>>>>>>arbitrarily let something out, ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'll keep that in mind when I become a 'Programer'. In the meantime, what i
>>>>put out works for some people.
>>>
>>>Ok, that is one thing I have noticed on the M$ side, they don't actually
>>>test inhouse, they shove it out to crash others systems, and then take
>>>the debug from them. Something tells me that since they do that, its why
>>>Virus are riven in M$ products.
>>
>>Not true, they do test in house, a lot, and they use outside beta testers.
>>The reason for MS problems with any virus has little to do with testing and
>>more to do with sloppy or antiquated or non-existent programming habits and
>>discipline.
>>
>>ken
>
>
> I am not normally a Microsoft defender, but I do feel the need to
> respond to this post. I made a living programming for 30 years, so I
> do know something about this subject. There are a couple of points I
> wish to make.
>
> 1) As stated above by Ken, Microsoft does test, and they do test "a
> lot". More bugs are found in Microsoft products because more people
> use Microsoft products. One thing I found consistent over years of
> programming on many platforms in many languages, the more people who
> use your software, the more bugs that will be found.
>
> 2) Microsoft products are hit by viruses more often than others (IE
> versus Firefox, or Windows versus Linux) because they are a much
> bigger target. The sick, demented people who write viruses are
> looking for attention. Microsoft is the target of virus writers, not
> Linux, for the same reason that the terrorists flew airplanes into the
> World Trade Center, not into a grain silo in Podunk, Iowa.
>
Well that is a very intellegent answer, thank you. I can only agree with
you now. Thank you.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCjUReTVY8putMdaARAgZ5AJ4qGPEMtIhtPoQjQgO2yT Uj7UOucACgu+tZ
6STyFzrg3RA+PLXBVemWRV4=
=RWeA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 19 May 2005 18:58:54 -0700, BenneJezzerette wrote:

> Well that is a very intellegent answer, thank you. I can only agree with
> you now. Thank you.

Trying to understand why you INSIST on not trimming your posts...

Is it because you just don't understand the need for doing it?

Or is there some other reason?

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

On 05/20/05 02:41, Henry Nettles wrote:

> 2) Microsoft products are hit by viruses more often than others (IE
> versus Firefox, or Windows versus Linux) because they are a much
> bigger target. The sick, demented people who write viruses are
> looking for attention. Microsoft is the target of virus writers, not
> Linux, for the same reason that the terrorists flew airplanes into the
> World Trade Center, not into a grain silo in Podunk, Iowa.

While I agree on most of what you write, I'm arguing on the last
sentence. It is true that "MS products are hit by viruses more often
than others because they are a much bigger target", but also of the lack
of security that MS products had in past years.

Back in the MSDOS era the concept of multi-user system was not in their
mind and the idea of a 'system administrator' was something left to
mainframes. Unfortunately they kept this concept in the era of internet
and started to change when it was too late.

Ciao
Giovanni
--
A computer is like an air conditioner,
it stops working when you open Windows.
Registered Linux user #337974 <http://counter.li.org/>