Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #350884 > unrolled thread
| Started by | 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-19 21:54 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-04-26 19:54 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 443 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-19 21:54 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-19 15:02 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-19 22:13 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye brexit insanity <aslsfijasslkjfhwe22jads@oasdfasfs.org> - 2016-04-19 22:22 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-19 15:44 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-19 17:47 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-20 21:51 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-20 15:06 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-20 15:27 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-21 12:13 -0500
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-21 20:13 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 12:02 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-21 13:15 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 13:52 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-21 15:03 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 00:04 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 10:13 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 01:25 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 14:22 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-22 07:35 -0500
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 09:27 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 23:21 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:38 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 00:03 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 00:23 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:33 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 01:00 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 16:13 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 02:07 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:15 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 02:34 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:37 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 02:56 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 18:06 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 03:29 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 18:32 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 03:46 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 18:49 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 03:55 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:08 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 12:32 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 12:34 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-23 08:08 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:23 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:22 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 09:41 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:53 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:33 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 10:01 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 10:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 11:13 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 11:34 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 12:20 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 10:52 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 16:01 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-24 13:36 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-24 16:36 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 23:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:05 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 12:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:12 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 12:18 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:35 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 12:58 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 13:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 13:17 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 13:20 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 14:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 14:31 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 23:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-24 17:37 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-23 20:00 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 23:38 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-24 15:58 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 10:33 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-24 18:52 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 12:00 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-24 19:31 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 12:37 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-24 21:12 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:48 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-25 22:14 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 15:43 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-25 23:07 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 16:15 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 02:13 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:38 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 02:46 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:50 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:49 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 02:57 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:59 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 03:35 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 20:46 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 03:58 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:03 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 04:13 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:22 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 04:41 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:50 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 05:09 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 22:13 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 05:39 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 22:41 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 05:58 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 22:59 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 06:06 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 08:52 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 09:35 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 09:38 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 09:48 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 09:54 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 09:56 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 10:04 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 16:57 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-26 10:13 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 05:38 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-27 00:37 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 05:29 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-27 00:36 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 14:18 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-27 20:06 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-28 04:15 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-28 15:32 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-26 06:25 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-26 06:37 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 21:49 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-26 06:58 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 22:12 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-24 15:11 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 12:52 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-25 13:35 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 13:43 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-25 18:16 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-25 15:20 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 14:58 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-26 15:48 -0600
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:45 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-23 00:59 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 16:13 -0700
Plonk Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:57 -0400
Re: Plonk "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 20:15 -0400
Re: Plonk Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 21:02 -0400
Keep talking Chris Ahlstrom Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:19 -0400
Re: Plonk "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 17:46 -0400
Re: Plonk Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-24 23:30 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:32 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 09:26 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:30 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 16:32 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 04:55 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-27 00:35 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-27 04:01 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 05:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 06:06 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 07:04 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 08:04 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 08:30 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 09:56 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 10:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 12:44 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 13:44 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 14:19 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 13:07 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 16:38 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:36 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 18:07 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 15:20 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:48 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 20:44 -0400
"Richand King", yet another nym of a long-time troll Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 21:00 -0400
Ask Chris Ahlstrom about.... Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:22 -0400
Re: "Richand King", yet another nym of a long-time troll chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 07:48 -0500
Re: "Richand King", yet another nym of a long-time troll William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-25 14:07 +0100
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 19:04 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-22 22:53 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 23:24 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-23 13:35 +0100
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-23 08:04 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 07:33 -0500
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-25 10:14 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 10:50 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-25 10:53 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 12:01 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-23 08:10 -0700
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-23 13:31 +0100
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 07:29 -0500
Re: Marek Novotny is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-25 09:28 -0400
Marek Novotny appreciates the beauty of certain 1990's tech Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:45 -0400
Chris Ahlstrom Makes an ASS of himself again Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:11 -0400
Re: Marek Novotny appreciates the beauty of certain 1990's tech William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-23 13:30 +0100
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:42 -0400
Chris Ahlstrom... Asshole of the year. Just ask Jayne Ahlstrom, his wife. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:07 -0400
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 18:29 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 03:32 +0200
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 19:40 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 05:15 +0200
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 20:31 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-23 07:28 -0400
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-23 13:43 +0200
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 06:56 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-23 14:27 -0400
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 11:46 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-24 17:49 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-24 18:35 -0700
Re: Marek Novotn is stuck in the U.S. tech culture, circa 1990. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-23 14:26 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 09:42 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 10:26 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 12:45 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:08 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:54 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 15:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:16 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 16:01 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 16:18 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:59 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:04 -0700
A Big Appil beam in his eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:55 -0400
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:03 -0700
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 21:01 -0400
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 18:07 -0700
Chris Ahlstrom's Obsession With People He Claims to Have Filtered. Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:18 -0400
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-04-22 20:52 -0500
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:08 -0700
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 20:11 -0400
Re: A Big Appil beam in his eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:15 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 12:54 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 20:02 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:03 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 13:10 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:25 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 14:26 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 14:46 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:03 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-22 15:14 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 15:17 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-21 22:16 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-21 20:23 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 12:53 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-21 23:07 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 19:44 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 23:58 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 10:10 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 01:24 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 10:58 +0100
The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 05:40 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 11:02 +0100
Re: The Appil of my eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-22 11:44 +0100
Re: The Appil of my eye frederick <fakeemail@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 00:31 +0100
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 09:25 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 15:09 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 12:31 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-22 22:57 +0200
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 13:58 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:53 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-25 11:11 +0100
Re: The Appil of my eye chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 07:18 -0500
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-25 19:40 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 19:52 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 17:02 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-22 21:03 -0400
Chris Ahlstrom a Pansy... Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-22 21:15 -0400
Re: The Appil of my eye JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-04-22 20:55 -0500
Re: The Appil of my eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:39 -0700
Re: The Appil of my eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-22 19:34 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-22 02:51 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-23 10:04 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 06:46 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-23 09:26 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 09:50 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-19 19:40 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-20 21:10 +0000
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 12:07 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-20 16:42 +0100
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Popkin" <Popkin@telus.net> - 2016-04-21 12:16 -0400
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye frederick <fakeemail@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 21:42 +0100
A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye "Drummer"<drummer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 05:17 +0200
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 06:02 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 07:01 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 07:20 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 07:28 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 07:56 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 08:02 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 08:16 -0700
Re: A Big Linux Cock pokes out half of Appils eye Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 08:46 -0700
His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-26 20:41 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 14:21 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 14:24 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 18:27 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 15:37 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-26 18:55 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 16:48 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 16:55 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:09 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 20:36 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 10:11 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 00:07 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:11 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 00:18 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:29 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 00:38 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:47 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 01:03 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 18:10 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 01:26 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 18:37 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 02:48 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-27 06:25 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 07:49 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 14:54 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 08:11 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 07:59 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 16:33 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 08:52 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 17:35 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-27 15:57 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 13:10 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 10:07 -0500
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 10:19 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 20:59 +0200
Thing Digest chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 14:33 -0500
Re: Thing Digest vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 20:18 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:05 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 00:14 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:23 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 00:42 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:51 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-27 20:32 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:59 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 02:40 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 10:18 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 14:00 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 07:57 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 16:37 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 09:03 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 13:07 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 17:45 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 16:23 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 10:24 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 10:30 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 11:18 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 12:26 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:46 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 20:15 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 13:33 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 21:31 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 14:35 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 14:54 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 14:42 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 23:51 +0200
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 15:00 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 21:53 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 14:59 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 15:35 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 20:34 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 13:48 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 23:29 +0200
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 14:36 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 23:48 +0200
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 15:01 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 15:49 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 23:12 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 17:27 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 23:12 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 23:18 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 17:25 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 00:53 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:06 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 01:33 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:50 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 02:03 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:26 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 05:23 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 23:44 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 07:14 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 00:42 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 08:26 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-28 10:11 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 06:48 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 06:46 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 23:48 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 17:00 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-28 06:34 -0500
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 20:49 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 13:51 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 17:29 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:54 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:04 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 01:13 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:26 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 01:32 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:45 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 02:12 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:26 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:46 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 02:11 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:29 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 02:58 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:03 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 03:19 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:35 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 10:47 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 18:46 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 02:04 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:30 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 03:00 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:08 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 03:29 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:41 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 09:09 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 19:28 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 13:43 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 10:12 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 07:24 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 10:31 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 13:54 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 14:10 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 23:21 +0200
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 14:30 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 09:54 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 11:21 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 11:48 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 09:10 -0700
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-28 09:53 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-27 20:11 -0600
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 02:11 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 02:48 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 10:17 +0100
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 07:21 -0500
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 11:48 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 20:37 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 00:45 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 10:49 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 20:01 -0400
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 02:19 +0000
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 07:26 -0500
Re: His Nibs #3's manifesto, debunked chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 09:48 -0500
A Big anti-Linux K00k Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 19:54 -0400
Page 7 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 23 Next page →
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 00:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfpq60$spo$3@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #352120 |
On 2016-04-26 10:29 PM, vallor wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 04:13:25 +0000, owl wrote: > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>> >>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part of >>>> the subject under discussion. >>>> >>>> >>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>> >>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>> >>> Yes or no: >>> >>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >> >> I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation >> of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing >> users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." > > This is what happened. > > Basically, Apple took a shortcut. Since Time Machine is a product to > assure data reliability, this might have been a bit cavalier on their > part. > > Have there been any reports of Time Machine directory hard links causing > problems? > See: that's actually a good question. But none of the Linux wonks want to actually address the real issues. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 14:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjdir03.jgid@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #352120 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 04:13:25 +0000, owl wrote: > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>> >>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part of >>>> the subject under discussion. >>>> >>>> >>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>> >>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>> >>> Yes or no: >>> >>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >> >> I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation >> of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing >> users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." > > This is what happened. > > Basically, Apple took a shortcut. Since Time Machine is a product to > assure data reliability, this might have been a bit cavalier on their > part. > > Have there been any reports of Time Machine directory hard links causing > problems? > Don't know. Probably not. I don't have a Mack, so I can't fool around with user-created directory hardlinks and see if they have covered the bases there. Alan *could* do this and report back to us, but alas he is too skeert.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 20:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nfrr2h$893$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352176 |
On 04/27/16 08:18, owl wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy vallor<vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 04:13:25 +0000, owl wrote: >> >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Baker<alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>> >>>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part of >>>>> the subject under discussion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>>> >>>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>>> >>>> Yes or no: >>>> >>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard links >>>> to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX is crap"? >>> >>> I told you I don't care about Time Machine. But if the implementation >>> of Time Machine via directory hardlinks is what led to OS X allowing >>> users to create directory hardlinks, then the answer is "yes." >> >> This is what happened. >> >> Basically, Apple took a shortcut. Since Time Machine is a product to >> assure data reliability, this might have been a bit cavalier on their >> part. >> >> Have there been any reports of Time Machine directory hard links causing >> problems? >> > > Don't know. Probably not. I don't have a Mack, so I can't fool around > with user-created directory hardlinks and see if they have covered the > bases there. Alan *could* do this and report back to us, but alas he > is too skeert. > > Wifes Time Machine backups ported over to her new iMac without any issues. All of her files were restored. Of course it doesn't really mean that OS X itself over all doesn't have problems. The really big one is their email app. You can set it to the classic look and that's when the problems start after a while. 1. Printing out a emailed photo doesn't always print completely out. 2. If you move the bottom edge of the top portion of received emails all the way to the bottom of the window and the UI design to move it back up is very poor. You have to move the mouse pointer at the bottom edge just so to get the bar-up-arrow to show. Using normal mousing moves, it won't move back up. You have to move the mouse a long ways to the top of the window before the damned thing will budge, and this glitch has caused a lot of users to gripe about it. The only perceived problem with Time Machine is as I have heard is that it will back up files that have errors in them without checking. So if you go back to retrieve that file, you get a damaged file back. I haven't experienced that problem yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 04:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20160428041549.2f7dcc70@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #352328 |
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 20:06:55 -0600 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > The only perceived problem with Time Machine is as I have heard is > that it will back up files that have errors in them without > checking. So if you go back to retrieve that file, you get a damaged > file back. I haven't experienced that problem yet. > Hm, is there any way to check if file is damaged? btrfs and zfs use checksums to determine if file is damaged and have scrub utility that will repair damaged files if RAID is in use.... timemachine is just a poor man zfs, you can't expect it to be good as real thing...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 15:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nftvbq$o7j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352332 |
On 04/27/16 20:15, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 20:06:55 -0600 > GreyCloud<mist@cumulus.com> wrote: > >> The only perceived problem with Time Machine is as I have heard is >> that it will back up files that have errors in them without >> checking. So if you go back to retrieve that file, you get a damaged >> file back. I haven't experienced that problem yet. >> > Hm, is there any way to check if file is damaged? btrfs and zfs use > checksums to determine if file is damaged and have scrub utility that > will repair damaged files if RAID is in use.... timemachine is just a > poor man zfs, you can't expect it to be good as real thing... > About the only thing I can think of if the file is damaged is going to the disk utility to do repairs. Unfortunately on zfs, you'd have to have EEC hardware, which in Apples case none of their computers have EEC ram that I know of. The good side of Time Machine is that you can graphically peruse the files there and find an older file that may not be corrupted. Cheap PCs just don't have the necessary hardware to protect your files. Of course, also, there is fsck for doing checks in OS X? I've never really had any problems to use it yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 06:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20160426062515.46d62869@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #351895 |
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:03:04 -0700 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: > > >> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... > >> > > > > I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part > > of the subject under discussion. > > > > You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. > > See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. > > Yes or no: > > Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard > links to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX > is crap"? They better implement zfs like filesystem with snapshots... when they can't use zfs...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 21:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfmqp9$i4f$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351898 |
On 2016-04-25 9:25 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:03:04 -0700 > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >> >>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under discussion... >>>> >>> >>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is part >>> of the subject under discussion. >>> >> >> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >> >> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >> >> Yes or no: >> >> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard >> links to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX >> is crap"? > > They better implement zfs like filesystem with snapshots... when they > can't use zfs... > Failure to answer the question...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 06:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20160426063757.0f9fdcb5@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #351899 |
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:28:25 -0700 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-25 9:25 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:03:04 -0700 > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > > >> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: > >> > >>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under > >>>> discussion... > >>> > >>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is > >>> part of the subject under discussion. > >>> > >> > >> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. > >> > >> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. > >> > >> Yes or no: > >> > >> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard > >> links to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX > >> is crap"? > > > > They better implement zfs like filesystem with snapshots... when > > they can't use zfs... > > > > Failure to answer the question... > OSX is not crap. Workarounds for lack of proper filesystem is what sucks...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 21:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfms1j$k5l$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351901 |
On 2016-04-25 9:37 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:28:25 -0700 > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >> On 2016-04-25 9:25 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:03:04 -0700 >>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>> >>>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under >>>>>> discussion... >>>>> >>>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is >>>>> part of the subject under discussion. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>>> >>>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>>> >>>> Yes or no: >>>> >>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard >>>> links to do what it does is actually support for the idea that "OSX >>>> is crap"? >>> >>> They better implement zfs like filesystem with snapshots... when >>> they can't use zfs... >>> >> >> Failure to answer the question... >> > > OSX is not crap. Workarounds for lack of proper filesystem is what > sucks... > Thank you. I think you might want to take a harder look at how well those "workarounds"... ...work. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 06:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20160426065834.2f15376d@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #351903 |
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:49:54 -0700 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > On 2016-04-25 9:37 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:28:25 -0700 > > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > > > >> On 2016-04-25 9:25 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > >>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:03:04 -0700 > >>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under > >>>>>> discussion... > >>>>> > >>>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is > >>>>> part of the subject under discussion. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. > >>>> > >>>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. > >>>> > >>>> Yes or no: > >>>> > >>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard > >>>> links to do what it does is actually support for the idea that > >>>> "OSX is crap"? > >>> > >>> They better implement zfs like filesystem with snapshots... when > >>> they can't use zfs... > >>> > >> > >> Failure to answer the question... > >> > > > > OSX is not crap. Workarounds for lack of proper filesystem is what > > sucks... > > > > Thank you. > > I think you might want to take a harder look at how well those > "workarounds"... ...work. :-) > It's not question weather workarounds work or not, it's just they are workarounds by nature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 22:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfmtcl$ml9$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351905 |
On 2016-04-25 9:58 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:49:54 -0700 > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: > >> On 2016-04-25 9:37 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:28:25 -0700 >>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2016-04-25 9:25 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:03:04 -0700 >>>>> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2016-04-25 8:58 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> So you'll just not deal with the actual subject under >>>>>>>> discussion... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just addressed your statement. Presumably your statement is >>>>>>> part of the subject under discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You addressed one my statements. You snipped the rest. >>>>>> >>>>>> See if you can show a little moral courage and just answer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes or no: >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you think that the fact that Time Machine uses directory hard >>>>>> links to do what it does is actually support for the idea that >>>>>> "OSX is crap"? >>>>> >>>>> They better implement zfs like filesystem with snapshots... when >>>>> they can't use zfs... >>>>> >>>> >>>> Failure to answer the question... >>>> >>> >>> OSX is not crap. Workarounds for lack of proper filesystem is what >>> sucks... >>> >> >> Thank you. >> >> I think you might want to take a harder look at how well those >> "workarounds"... ...work. :-) >> > > It's not question weather workarounds work or not, it's just they are > workarounds by nature. > Practically everything in computing started as a workaround to something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-24 15:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nfjckk$uu3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #351510 |
On 04/23/16 12:13, Marek Novotny wrote:
> On 2016-04-23, Alan Baker<alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> On 2016-04-23 10:01 AM, Marek Novotny wrote:
>>> On 2016-04-23, Alan Baker<alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> "cd ~" then do an "ls -la" on your home directory right now.
>>>>
>>>> The columns are entry type, then permissions, then number of hard links.
>>>>
>>>> Look at the number of hard links for the "." entry: it will be greater
>>>> than 1, guaranteed.
>>>>
>>>> Do a "mkdir test" command, then another "ls -la" on your home directory.
>>>>
>>>> The number of hard links for the "." entry will now be 1 larger.
>>>>
>>>> You're wrong about hard links to directories being "forbidden".
>>>>
>>>> You... ...lose.
>>>
>>> No, you lose Alan. You obviously have no idea what that number
>>> represents on a directory. Maybe you should Google a little harder and
>>> just an FYI, that number could be much larger in a directory.
>>>
>>> Let me explain this to you because you're obviously so clueless it needs
>>> explaining big time. Go into Linux and create a directory called test.
>>> Then go into test and create another directory called test2.
>>>
>>> Now, back out of that and ls -l
>>>
>>> Look at test and you will see a count of 3. I guess you're dumb or
>>> something. You think there is three hard links to test, don't you?
>>
>> There ARE three hard links to test:
>>
>> 1. The hard link called "test" that exists in its parent.
>>
>> 2. The hard link "." that is inside test.
>>
>> 3. The hard link ".." inside test2.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Go
>>> back into test, make another directory called, test2.
>>
>>>
>>> Now back out and ls -l again. The count is now 4.
>>
>> First you used "test2" twice in the same directory, so that's not going
>> to work, but assuming you'd said "test3", the new ".." entry inside
>> test3 will also be a hard link to test. So that makes 4.
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe, just maybe, you're finally starting to get what that number
>>> actually means. In a straight file it is an inode count. In a directory
>>> it represents something a little different. Surprise moron, your wrong
>>> and perhaps you just realized it.
>>
>> So first you say it isn't the number of hard links...
>>
>>>
>>> In each directory there is a hard link to the directory itself and its
>>> parent. That's what . and .. are and that's why the count is 2 to begin
>>> with. And when you added two more directories, the number grew, didn't
>>> it.
>>
>> ...then you explicitly call them hard links.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> You really need to check it out more carefully.
>>
>> Create a directory called "test".
>>
>> That creates two hard links: the one actually named "test" in whatever
>> directory contains test, and the "." hard link inside test. So when you
>> ls -l its parent, you'll see a 2 in the hard link column for "test".
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
>> Now do a "cd test" followed by another "ls -la". You'll see a 2 in the
>> hard link column for ".", because both it (".") and "test" in the parent
>> are hard links to the inode for the directory.
>>
>> Do you get it: that column is not the inode count. There is ONE inode
>> for a file so you don't really need to count it, but the inode keeps
>> count of the number of hard links that reference it, and that is where
>> the number in that column comes from.
>>
>> You had it precisely backwards.
>
> No, I think we're saying two different things. Yes I agree with the
> above. That's what I showed you just now. But you still can't create a
> hard link to the directory. I don't know why you keep missing this.
>
> What we're talking about here is can you are can't you execute the
> following:
>
> $ ln {directory} {other directory name}
>
> And the answer is no.
>
> And as I already said above, re-read it for yourself, there is a hard
> link to the directory itself and its parent. You're changing the context
> again. I am specifically saying that "you" can't type in the above
> command and create a hard link to the directory. I am also saying that
> the hard link count on a directory can be high, and I explained why that
> is. Hence showing making a directory within a directory and noting the
> hard link count.
>
> But you still cannot hard link to that directory. And by that I'm being
> specific to the ln command. The big difference here is in the details.
> The point is to avoid placing a hard link of a directory inside itself.
> What you see is a child - parent relationship. Where discussing the
> paradox of a parent inside itself. That is vastly different from a child
> making hard link to its parent.
>
> If we practiced good file system habits and simply didn't place a hard
> link into itself we'd be doing the same thing. But because you can move
> a hard link anywhere within the same file system, there is a danger of
> playing a hard linked directory into itself and thus creating a paradox.
> That is why it is not allowed.
>
> When I create test and go into test and make test2. The file system, not
> me, is making a hard link to its parent. I am not. I'm not typing in an
> ln command. I'm just creating a directory. That's the distinction here.
>
Interesting thread, although at times can be a bit confusing.
I found this and also mentions Time Machine on how it works.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HardLink
"In Apple's OS X 10.5, a restricted form of hard links to directories is
allowed, and is used to implement Time Machine, Apple's backup software.
When Time Machine backs up a hard disk to a destination volume, if a
subtree has not changes since a previous backup, it hard links to that
subtree. This allows only the changes to be stored, making efficient use
of the hard disk. When it does this, it sets the directories that are
involved as read-only, so the Directed Acyclic Graph it has made can
never be converted into a graph with cycles."
So, I believe you are both correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 12:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nflsha$r7j$2@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351666 |
On 2016-04-24 2:11 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
> On 04/23/16 12:13, Marek Novotny wrote:
>> On 2016-04-23, Alan Baker<alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>> On 2016-04-23 10:01 AM, Marek Novotny wrote:
>>>> On 2016-04-23, Alan Baker<alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>> "cd ~" then do an "ls -la" on your home directory right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> The columns are entry type, then permissions, then number of hard
>>>>> links.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at the number of hard links for the "." entry: it will be greater
>>>>> than 1, guaranteed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do a "mkdir test" command, then another "ls -la" on your home
>>>>> directory.
>>>>>
>>>>> The number of hard links for the "." entry will now be 1 larger.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're wrong about hard links to directories being "forbidden".
>>>>>
>>>>> You... ...lose.
>>>>
>>>> No, you lose Alan. You obviously have no idea what that number
>>>> represents on a directory. Maybe you should Google a little harder and
>>>> just an FYI, that number could be much larger in a directory.
>>>>
>>>> Let me explain this to you because you're obviously so clueless it
>>>> needs
>>>> explaining big time. Go into Linux and create a directory called test.
>>>> Then go into test and create another directory called test2.
>>>>
>>>> Now, back out of that and ls -l
>>>>
>>>> Look at test and you will see a count of 3. I guess you're dumb or
>>>> something. You think there is three hard links to test, don't you?
>>>
>>> There ARE three hard links to test:
>>>
>>> 1. The hard link called "test" that exists in its parent.
>>>
>>> 2. The hard link "." that is inside test.
>>>
>>> 3. The hard link ".." inside test2.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Go
>>>> back into test, make another directory called, test2.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now back out and ls -l again. The count is now 4.
>>>
>>> First you used "test2" twice in the same directory, so that's not going
>>> to work, but assuming you'd said "test3", the new ".." entry inside
>>> test3 will also be a hard link to test. So that makes 4.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe, just maybe, you're finally starting to get what that number
>>>> actually means. In a straight file it is an inode count. In a directory
>>>> it represents something a little different. Surprise moron, your wrong
>>>> and perhaps you just realized it.
>>>
>>> So first you say it isn't the number of hard links...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In each directory there is a hard link to the directory itself and its
>>>> parent. That's what . and .. are and that's why the count is 2 to begin
>>>> with. And when you added two more directories, the number grew, didn't
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> ...then you explicitly call them hard links.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> You really need to check it out more carefully.
>>>
>>> Create a directory called "test".
>>>
>>> That creates two hard links: the one actually named "test" in whatever
>>> directory contains test, and the "." hard link inside test. So when you
>>> ls -l its parent, you'll see a 2 in the hard link column for "test".
>>
>> Yes, I agree.
>>
>>> Now do a "cd test" followed by another "ls -la". You'll see a 2 in the
>>> hard link column for ".", because both it (".") and "test" in the parent
>>> are hard links to the inode for the directory.
>>>
>>> Do you get it: that column is not the inode count. There is ONE inode
>>> for a file so you don't really need to count it, but the inode keeps
>>> count of the number of hard links that reference it, and that is where
>>> the number in that column comes from.
>>>
>>> You had it precisely backwards.
>>
>> No, I think we're saying two different things. Yes I agree with the
>> above. That's what I showed you just now. But you still can't create a
>> hard link to the directory. I don't know why you keep missing this.
>>
>> What we're talking about here is can you are can't you execute the
>> following:
>>
>> $ ln {directory} {other directory name}
>>
>> And the answer is no.
>>
>> And as I already said above, re-read it for yourself, there is a hard
>> link to the directory itself and its parent. You're changing the context
>> again. I am specifically saying that "you" can't type in the above
>> command and create a hard link to the directory. I am also saying that
>> the hard link count on a directory can be high, and I explained why that
>> is. Hence showing making a directory within a directory and noting the
>> hard link count.
>>
>> But you still cannot hard link to that directory. And by that I'm being
>> specific to the ln command. The big difference here is in the details.
>> The point is to avoid placing a hard link of a directory inside itself.
>> What you see is a child - parent relationship. Where discussing the
>> paradox of a parent inside itself. That is vastly different from a child
>> making hard link to its parent.
>>
>> If we practiced good file system habits and simply didn't place a hard
>> link into itself we'd be doing the same thing. But because you can move
>> a hard link anywhere within the same file system, there is a danger of
>> playing a hard linked directory into itself and thus creating a paradox.
>> That is why it is not allowed.
>>
>> When I create test and go into test and make test2. The file system, not
>> me, is making a hard link to its parent. I am not. I'm not typing in an
>> ln command. I'm just creating a directory. That's the distinction here.
>>
>
> Interesting thread, although at times can be a bit confusing.
>
> I found this and also mentions Time Machine on how it works.
>
> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HardLink
>
> "In Apple's OS X 10.5, a restricted form of hard links to directories is
> allowed, and is used to implement Time Machine, Apple's backup software.
> When Time Machine backs up a hard disk to a destination volume, if a
> subtree has not changes since a previous backup, it hard links to that
> subtree. This allows only the changes to be stored, making efficient use
> of the hard disk. When it does this, it sets the directories that are
> involved as read-only, so the Directed Acyclic Graph it has made can
> never be converted into a graph with cycles."
>
> So, I believe you are both correct.
>
Sadly, the Linux fanatics aren't interested in ways that directory hard
links can be useful. They've been told they are "FORBIDDEN!" and that's
the last word.
:-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 13:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <952c2380-8d31-4355-9684-7b5c2056a26a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #351809 |
On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 3:52:13 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote: > On 2016-04-24 2:11 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > > [...] > > > > So, I believe you are both correct. > > Sadly, the Linux fanatics aren't interested in ways that > directory hard links can be useful. They've been told they > are "FORBIDDEN!" and that's the last word. :-) While on the one hand that this would be a classical example of the type of 'proof' that's sometimes claimed as proof that one OS is more powerful than another (here, that OS X is more powerful than Linux, since this is a concrete example of something it can do which Linux supposedly cannot), perhaps a better bag of satire to employ is the 'condescending advocate' who would say that this is proof that Linux is being a "Nanny" in how it is trying to protect stupid users from themselves. Of course, there have been similar examples of excuse making in the past, such as where Gimp was claimed to be just as good as Adobe Photoshop and when some PS feature was pointed out that Gimp lacks, the retort was to attempt to rationalize it away because supposedly 'no one' uses that particular feature, so the cited difference doesn't supposedly count. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 13:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0bCdnZouDqzAHIPKnZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #351817 |
On 2016-04-25, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 3:52:13 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote: >> On 2016-04-24 2:11 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >> > [...] >> > >> > So, I believe you are both correct. >> >> Sadly, the Linux fanatics aren't interested in ways that >> directory hard links can be useful. They've been told they >> are "FORBIDDEN!" and that's the last word. :-) > > While on the one hand that this would be a classical example ... Oh please... I don't see Crapple in the top 500 super computers. Linux, 476 of them. That's powerful. Apple running to Google, Amazon and Azure for help on data services again shows Apple won't even use their own shit. HAHAHHA. They're the experts... It's their platform... And they don't even use it. That is so funny. I can just imagine that goes down... They get on stage, talk up being the most advanced OS in the world, running HFS... Blah... and then pay Amazon, Google and Azure a billion dollars a year to host their iCloud for them cause they're so so lame. -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 18:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a1813671-f7f5-4804-8430-8f853dd32037@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #351819 |
On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 4:43:12 PM UTC-4, Marek Novotny wrote: > -hh wrote: > > On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 3:52:13 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote: > >> On 2016-04-24 2:11 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > >> > [...] > >> > > >> > So, I believe you are both correct. > >> > >> Sadly, the Linux fanatics aren't interested in ways that > >> directory hard links can be useful. They've been told they > >> are "FORBIDDEN!" and that's the last word. :-) > > > > While on the one hand that this would be a classical example > > ... Oh please... I don't see Crapple ... Bell's Law: name calling means that you've forfeited the debate. And the facts of the matter are that you don't find any supercomputers in the top 500 sold by Porsche, BWM, GM, Ford ... etc ... because it simply is not their market. > Apple running to Google, Amazon and Azure for help on data services > again shows Apple won't even use their own shit. Ditto for Porsche, BWM, GM, Ford ... etc ... because it simply is not their market. > HAHAHHA. And look at all of the goods in your own home that you did not personally make with your own hands -- your TV set, telephone, computer, refrigerator, bed, desk, automobile (if you own one), furniture, blankets, clothing...even Linux too: different goods are made by different companies, and there's no law that says that one company must try to be-all and make everything. >They're the experts... Incorrect: they're not the experts at everything. But that was a nice straw man attempt that you tried to build there: I'm sure that it did fool a few of the usual COLA fanboys for a moment or two. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 15:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nfm1i3$kid$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #351809 |
On 04/25/16 13:52, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2016-04-24 2:11 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>> On 04/23/16 12:13, Marek Novotny wrote:
>>> On 2016-04-23, Alan Baker<alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2016-04-23 10:01 AM, Marek Novotny wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-04-23, Alan Baker<alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "cd ~" then do an "ls -la" on your home directory right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The columns are entry type, then permissions, then number of hard
>>>>>> links.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look at the number of hard links for the "." entry: it will be
>>>>>> greater
>>>>>> than 1, guaranteed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do a "mkdir test" command, then another "ls -la" on your home
>>>>>> directory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The number of hard links for the "." entry will now be 1 larger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're wrong about hard links to directories being "forbidden".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You... ...lose.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you lose Alan. You obviously have no idea what that number
>>>>> represents on a directory. Maybe you should Google a little harder and
>>>>> just an FYI, that number could be much larger in a directory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me explain this to you because you're obviously so clueless it
>>>>> needs
>>>>> explaining big time. Go into Linux and create a directory called test.
>>>>> Then go into test and create another directory called test2.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, back out of that and ls -l
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at test and you will see a count of 3. I guess you're dumb or
>>>>> something. You think there is three hard links to test, don't you?
>>>>
>>>> There ARE three hard links to test:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The hard link called "test" that exists in its parent.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The hard link "." that is inside test.
>>>>
>>>> 3. The hard link ".." inside test2.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Go
>>>>> back into test, make another directory called, test2.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now back out and ls -l again. The count is now 4.
>>>>
>>>> First you used "test2" twice in the same directory, so that's not going
>>>> to work, but assuming you'd said "test3", the new ".." entry inside
>>>> test3 will also be a hard link to test. So that makes 4.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe, just maybe, you're finally starting to get what that number
>>>>> actually means. In a straight file it is an inode count. In a
>>>>> directory
>>>>> it represents something a little different. Surprise moron, your wrong
>>>>> and perhaps you just realized it.
>>>>
>>>> So first you say it isn't the number of hard links...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In each directory there is a hard link to the directory itself and its
>>>>> parent. That's what . and .. are and that's why the count is 2 to
>>>>> begin
>>>>> with. And when you added two more directories, the number grew, didn't
>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> ...then you explicitly call them hard links.
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> You really need to check it out more carefully.
>>>>
>>>> Create a directory called "test".
>>>>
>>>> That creates two hard links: the one actually named "test" in whatever
>>>> directory contains test, and the "." hard link inside test. So when you
>>>> ls -l its parent, you'll see a 2 in the hard link column for "test".
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree.
>>>
>>>> Now do a "cd test" followed by another "ls -la". You'll see a 2 in the
>>>> hard link column for ".", because both it (".") and "test" in the
>>>> parent
>>>> are hard links to the inode for the directory.
>>>>
>>>> Do you get it: that column is not the inode count. There is ONE inode
>>>> for a file so you don't really need to count it, but the inode keeps
>>>> count of the number of hard links that reference it, and that is where
>>>> the number in that column comes from.
>>>>
>>>> You had it precisely backwards.
>>>
>>> No, I think we're saying two different things. Yes I agree with the
>>> above. That's what I showed you just now. But you still can't create a
>>> hard link to the directory. I don't know why you keep missing this.
>>>
>>> What we're talking about here is can you are can't you execute the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> $ ln {directory} {other directory name}
>>>
>>> And the answer is no.
>>>
>>> And as I already said above, re-read it for yourself, there is a hard
>>> link to the directory itself and its parent. You're changing the context
>>> again. I am specifically saying that "you" can't type in the above
>>> command and create a hard link to the directory. I am also saying that
>>> the hard link count on a directory can be high, and I explained why that
>>> is. Hence showing making a directory within a directory and noting the
>>> hard link count.
>>>
>>> But you still cannot hard link to that directory. And by that I'm being
>>> specific to the ln command. The big difference here is in the details.
>>> The point is to avoid placing a hard link of a directory inside itself.
>>> What you see is a child - parent relationship. Where discussing the
>>> paradox of a parent inside itself. That is vastly different from a child
>>> making hard link to its parent.
>>>
>>> If we practiced good file system habits and simply didn't place a hard
>>> link into itself we'd be doing the same thing. But because you can move
>>> a hard link anywhere within the same file system, there is a danger of
>>> playing a hard linked directory into itself and thus creating a paradox.
>>> That is why it is not allowed.
>>>
>>> When I create test and go into test and make test2. The file system, not
>>> me, is making a hard link to its parent. I am not. I'm not typing in an
>>> ln command. I'm just creating a directory. That's the distinction here.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting thread, although at times can be a bit confusing.
>>
>> I found this and also mentions Time Machine on how it works.
>>
>> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HardLink
>>
>> "In Apple's OS X 10.5, a restricted form of hard links to directories is
>> allowed, and is used to implement Time Machine, Apple's backup software.
>> When Time Machine backs up a hard disk to a destination volume, if a
>> subtree has not changes since a previous backup, it hard links to that
>> subtree. This allows only the changes to be stored, making efficient use
>> of the hard disk. When it does this, it sets the directories that are
>> involved as read-only, so the Directed Acyclic Graph it has made can
>> never be converted into a graph with cycles."
>>
>> So, I believe you are both correct.
>>
>
> Sadly, the Linux fanatics aren't interested in ways that directory hard
> links can be useful. They've been told they are "FORBIDDEN!" and that's
> the last word.
>
> :-)
I believe that Apples Time Machine is a special case in this instance.
About all one can do with the Time Machine besides backup is going into
Time Machine and restoring a particular file that they were screwing
around with. The end user can't tinker with it and cause problems.
I suspect that Apple may have used kernel extensions to modify how hard
links work with Time Machine, but won't allow a user to mess around with
hard links on directories. It is rather explicit by the authors of the
book "Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment" by W. Richard
Stevens and Stephan A. Rago.
I know that Solaris won't allow a user to use hard links on a directory,
unless you are at the priviledge of root, and then it can be dangerous
if you don't know what you are doing.
Other than that, when I bought my wife a 4K iMac using El Capitan, the
app known as Photos does an excellent job on printing out 4 different
photos to a sheet of Photo paper. And the colors match up perfectly as
well. Win 7 doesn't seem to have that color accuracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 14:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfm3ur$91v$3@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351828 |
On 2016-04-25 2:20 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>> Interesting thread, although at times can be a bit confusing. >>> >>> I found this and also mentions Time Machine on how it works. >>> >>> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HardLink >>> >>> "In Apple's OS X 10.5, a restricted form of hard links to directories is >>> allowed, and is used to implement Time Machine, Apple's backup software. >>> When Time Machine backs up a hard disk to a destination volume, if a >>> subtree has not changes since a previous backup, it hard links to that >>> subtree. This allows only the changes to be stored, making efficient use >>> of the hard disk. When it does this, it sets the directories that are >>> involved as read-only, so the Directed Acyclic Graph it has made can >>> never be converted into a graph with cycles." >>> >>> So, I believe you are both correct. >>> >> >> Sadly, the Linux fanatics aren't interested in ways that directory hard >> links can be useful. They've been told they are "FORBIDDEN!" and that's >> the last word. >> >> :-) > > I believe that Apples Time Machine is a special case in this instance. > About all one can do with the Time Machine besides backup is going into > Time Machine and restoring a particular file that they were screwing > around with. The end user can't tinker with it and cause problems. > I suspect that Apple may have used kernel extensions to modify how hard > links work with Time Machine, but won't allow a user to mess around with > hard links on directories. It is rather explicit by the authors of the > book "Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment" by W. Richard > Stevens and Stephan A. Rago. Which is precisely my point: it's not something that proves "OSX is crap" because it is being done for specific reasons and under control of the OS, not the user. > > I know that Solaris won't allow a user to use hard links on a directory, > unless you are at the priviledge of root, and then it can be dangerous > if you don't know what you are doing. Which you can say about a lot of Unix commands and facilities. > > Other than that, when I bought my wife a 4K iMac using El Capitan, the > app known as Photos does an excellent job on printing out 4 different > photos to a sheet of Photo paper. And the colors match up perfectly as > well. Win 7 doesn't seem to have that color accuracy. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 15:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nfonhf$k89$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #351831 |
On 04/25/16 15:58, Alan Baker wrote: > On 2016-04-25 2:20 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > >>>> Interesting thread, although at times can be a bit confusing. >>>> >>>> I found this and also mentions Time Machine on how it works. >>>> >>>> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HardLink >>>> >>>> "In Apple's OS X 10.5, a restricted form of hard links to >>>> directories is >>>> allowed, and is used to implement Time Machine, Apple's backup >>>> software. >>>> When Time Machine backs up a hard disk to a destination volume, if a >>>> subtree has not changes since a previous backup, it hard links to that >>>> subtree. This allows only the changes to be stored, making efficient >>>> use >>>> of the hard disk. When it does this, it sets the directories that are >>>> involved as read-only, so the Directed Acyclic Graph it has made can >>>> never be converted into a graph with cycles." >>>> >>>> So, I believe you are both correct. >>>> >>> >>> Sadly, the Linux fanatics aren't interested in ways that directory hard >>> links can be useful. They've been told they are "FORBIDDEN!" and that's >>> the last word. >>> >>> :-) >> >> I believe that Apples Time Machine is a special case in this instance. >> About all one can do with the Time Machine besides backup is going into >> Time Machine and restoring a particular file that they were screwing >> around with. The end user can't tinker with it and cause problems. >> I suspect that Apple may have used kernel extensions to modify how hard >> links work with Time Machine, but won't allow a user to mess around with >> hard links on directories. It is rather explicit by the authors of the >> book "Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment" by W. Richard >> Stevens and Stephan A. Rago. > > Which is precisely my point: it's not something that proves "OSX is > crap" because it is being done for specific reasons and under control of > the OS, not the user. > >> >> I know that Solaris won't allow a user to use hard links on a directory, >> unless you are at the priviledge of root, and then it can be dangerous >> if you don't know what you are doing. > > Which you can say about a lot of Unix commands and facilities. > Which is why the old saying comes from... "UNIX doesn't protect users from making mistakes, but lets users do creative things." >> >> Other than that, when I bought my wife a 4K iMac using El Capitan, the >> app known as Photos does an excellent job on printing out 4 different >> photos to a sheet of Photo paper. And the colors match up perfectly as >> well. Win 7 doesn't seem to have that color accuracy. >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 15:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nfe9ij$qb9$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #351327 |
On 2016-04-22 3:23 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > >> On 2016-04-22 3:03 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> Alan Baker wrote: >>> >>>> On 2016-04-22 2:21 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>> Alan Baker wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2016-04-22 5:35 AM, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alan Baker wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Which isn't nearly as powerful as rsync. In fact, it is a desktop >>>>>>>>>> user tool, and dangerous as well. It uses hardlinked directories, >>>>>>>>>> which is forbidden for well known reasons in all of unix land. >>>>>>>>>> Naturally apple knows better... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Indeed they do: better than you, that's certain. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hahaha! What's "certain" is that you're typical Mac fanboi. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What is this terrible, terrible danger that hard-linked directories >>>>>>>>> allegedly create. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You would not understand the reason. You are a Mac user >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He reminds me of Comrad ZnU. He had complete faith in the Apple Corp >>>>>>> to always do the right thing. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So you explain it: >>>>>> >>>>>> What makes hard-linked directories so very dangerous? >>>>> >>>>> The most dangerous things with hardlinked directories: >>>>> >>>>> You can build a loop. A circular reference, ending in an endless loop >>>>> when traversing directories. >>>> >>>> Yes. You can. You can do all sorts of things on a computer than can have >>>> bad outcomes if used incorrectly. >>> >>> Idiot. You can't build a circular loop with any other filesystem tools >>> excpet the OSX ones. They work incorrectly >> >> You utterly miss the point. >> >> There are tools you can use that when used incorrectly can have >> disastarous consequences. > > Yes. On OSX. And on OSX only. No other OS provides the means to build > circular loops in filesystems. That correctly working unix does *not* allow > hardlinks on directories has reasons. Several ones, and I explained some of > those And more: 'ln(1) - Linux man page <snip> In the 1st form...<snip> Mandatory arguments to long options are mandatory for short options too. <snip> -d, -F, --directory allow the superuser to attempt to hard link directories (note: will probably fail due to system restrictions, even for the superuser).' <http://linux.die.net/man/1/ln> You were saying, linuxboi? :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web