l i n u x - u s e r s - g r o u p - o f - d a v i s
Next Meeting:
July 7: Social gathering
Next Installfest:
Latest News:
Jun. 14: June LUGOD meeting cancelled
Page last updated:
2004 Feb 18 01:40

The following is an archive of a post made to our 'vox-tech mailing list' by one of its subscribers.

Report this post as spam:

(Enter your email address)
Re: [vox-tech] FSTAB Questions
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [vox-tech] FSTAB Questions

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, ME wrote:

> > Hmmm. Your use of the word limit in quotes comes dangerously close to
> > being condescending, but I'll assume that's not how it was meant.
> It was not at all an attack. It is meant to highlight a theme in the
> response-- that of choice vs. limits. It was not a comment on you or your
> question. It was an emphasis to my content.

This was only to point out that sarcasm (or any form of levity) can often
be misread.  I'm more guilty of this here, so I'll apologize too.  This
was not meant to insight, but just to defend my right to ask a question.
Reading your comments below, it looks like no 'defense' was necessary.
So thanks, and sorry.

> I thought an example was obvious and omitted at least one example for
> this, but here is at least one: The person who owns the laptop may want to
> also use windows too, another? it is not their own personal laptop, but
> provided by their work, and they are required to use Windows-only apps in
> the field.

I struggle with this at work (which is very much a Windows world).  I
solve this problems with rdesktop (love that program) and a powerbook that
runs the Mac remote desktop client, but again, not everybody's solution.

> I did not make the assumption the machine was a single-user machine. Since
> such archives are available for peer review, I'd rather have an answer
> that may provide someone (and others) with advice that could be used in
> the general case rather than a specific implied case based on the content
> of the thread. The solution I provided is a very good one for servers and
> for single user systems. The directions for making it work for both are
> the same.It is a very useful system. Nobody else pointed it out in the
> thread so I added it. It is archived for people to find with google. It
> has many advantages-- including teaching single user system admins a
> method they can apply if they should ever decide to grow into a server
> with multiple users.

good point.  the archive does become a working searchable helpdesk (or
whatever), so answering the question from more than one angle can't hurt.

i maintain that yours was the best (in my opinion) way to do the fstab

> DOS is sufficient. Windows 9X is sufficient. You only asked for examples.
> Whether the users's preference is Windows or DOS does not matter,  A
> reason is still provided-- Several reasons actually. Some people may
> prefer to have the windows interface instead of DOS. All it takes is at
> least one person who does this to choose windows instead of dos for their
> solution to be an example of a case where someone would want to dual boot
> windows and linux on the same multi-user system.

i suppose i'm too eagerly defending 'the way i would do it'.  linux gives
us the freedom of no single or correct way to day anything.  i'll qualify
the whole thing.  FOR ME, dual booting a multi-user system still doesn't
make much sense...  but, that statement doesn't help anybody solve their
problem, though, so it's almost useless to say.

> You can only grow out of it to the point where your vendors of hardware
> permit it. If the hardware vendor you use does not provide a Linux path
> for resolving the examples listed above, then there is little opportunity
> to outgrow it- unless you have the time and resources to reverse engineer
> the missing tools and build them.
> For future hardware purchases, the consumer can take the time to buy
> hardware which is better supported, but the existing older hardware still
> exists and may be used.

we're all hoping this is increasingly less of a problem, but yes, it is a

> does not encourage me to answer questions you have. I do not want to have
> my text viewed as an attack or harmful. It is possible that you will view
> this reply as harmful, and this is also not an intention. :-/

not at all.  i read the above 'think about it' as 'i don't need to
bother answering that'.  i took that as a blow off (which i obviously
shouldn't have - you've given plenty of answers to my original question).

on the other hand, i was trying to say 'if there are so many good reasons,
let's see them', but re-reading that, it doesn't convey that.  so again, sorry.
this is one of those situations where if we were having this conversation
in person, things might have gotten enthusiastic, or maybe even
'heated', but never 'nasty'.

> Where is the reward for taking the time to provide an answer to a question
> when you feel your words are being read in such a way to sound offensive?
> Look at the archive of messages written here by me. Have I been abusive?
> Do my replies look negative or suggestive?
> People wonder why my responses are often long; it is because people tend
> to read things into the text. There comes a point, where choosing not to
> answer a question is more rearding than the pleasure gained in helping
> fellow Linux users. If you don't like what I write, or I offend you, let
> me know-- preferrably in private so that I can appologise in public and in
> a personal letter.
> Consider how you treat people who take the time to reply to you. I do not
> think I deserved  your response. Others may be critical of how you treat
> people who take the time to answer you based on how you are treating me.
> My original reply was not negative or sarcastic. I did not make fun of you
> or your question. Why take offense? Relax. Know that I am not attacking
> you or making fun of you.

agreed.  like i said above, i assumed you were blowing off my question.
even if you really were, i could have just deleted the e-mail, instead of
shooting off more potentially offensive messages.

> If you were offended by my response, please accept my appology-- I have no
> intention to cause you harm or suggest anything negative about you.
> Sorry,
> -ME
> P.S.: You needed more examples: Citrix, vmware, netboot windows served
> from Linux,  Small projects (3-5 people) who use their own machines as
> servers (cvs and the line) who mke apps for windows and also use their own
> machines for testing in Windows...

These are all fantasic examples, but for each of these I'd want a windows
machine, not a dual boot.  I can't wait for a reboot to test code, just to
reboot and recode.  But those are the semantics you discussed above.
Everybody has whatever resources they have.  My hypothetical extra windows
box may not be everybody's luxury.

> And there are even more! Just take some some and consider them.

No YOU consider them!  Just kidding...

> _______________________________________________
> vox-tech mailing list
> vox-tech@lists.lugod.org
> http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech

vox-tech mailing list

LUGOD Group on LinkedIn
Sign up for LUGOD event announcements
Your email address:
LUGOD Group on Facebook
'Like' LUGOD on Facebook:

Hosting provided by:
Sunset Systems
Sunset Systems offers preconfigured Linux systems, remote system administration and custom software development.

LUGOD: Linux Users' Group of Davis
PO Box 2082, Davis, CA 95617
Contact Us

LUGOD is a 501(c)7 non-profit organization
based in Davis, California
and serving the Sacramento area.
"Linux" is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.

Sponsored in part by:
Appahost Applications
For a significant contribution towards our projector, and a generous donation to allow us to continue meeting at the Davis Library.