OT CHENEY PRAISES WIFE'S 'SLAPDOWN' OF CNN'S WOLF BLITZER

=====

Hehehe, you Nominal Heteros are funny. You react so differently than True Heteros [chuckle] :-)

Dick Morris and George Stepahnopoulis were both Clinton advisors. I wonder why they turned against him? I do remember Dick Morris having toe-sucking problems, but why did George have bad things to say about Clinton for quite a long time after employment?

Have you noticed what Powell's said since leaving Bush?

What did he say about Dick Morris and George Stephanopoulis since that is what I'm asking about? You are such an obfuscator. Answering a question with another question is a lame tactic in diverting attention from the point.

He ran out of gas a long time ago....

Not surprising for a liberal.

The point is that ALL members of the inner circle have differences of opinion. The truly excellent people often find ways of expressing these differences while still within the circle. Some can't do this until they leave. Never mind.

=====

Umm, I'm not sure I understand. You're saying you run linux servers on UFS partions, instead of the ext3 and Reiser partions usually used for linux? Thanks.

I realize UFS is often used with BSD, but didn't know that linux users use UFS too?

I don't watch George very much, but I thought he was still a died in the wool Democrat. Dick was caught in a hotel room with a hooker and some White House documents, that didn't go over very well.

I don't recall why George left the Administration, but I do not recall there was a problem. I thought his time just ran out.

Having said that, if George AND Dick both say that Hillary is stark raving mad, there must be some sort of character flaw with her.

You're too kind, Michael.

Here_in_Ohio wrote: >

Here_in_Ohio, thanks for the information. Umm, you are Stuart Krivis, right? Stuart knows his stuff.

Back when I used FreeBSD 2.7 long ago on a home desktop, I could have sworn it used UFS, not FFS. If so, FreeBSD switched from UFS to FFS shortly after that, but I could be mistaken.

I'll tell you one thing for sure: the Microsoft world is horrible. After I put a new motherboard in my home box a few years ago, the Windoze 2000 partition would no longer boot! It was claiming "Inaccessible Boot Device," which probably just meant Ballmer and Bill could have started up the OS, but didn't want to. Instead they wanted me to reinstall Win2000 from the CD.

Personally, I don't think Windows 2000 should have given me an ounce of trouble since the hard disk or partitions had not changed--only the mobo was new.

Redhat 9 didn't give me an ounce of stubborness. It welcomed the new motherboard immediately and booted up fine. It even brought up an automated hardware configuration screen.

Microsoft should not be so paranoid when the only thing someone does is switch out motherboards. [laughter] :-)

I should have put a smiley there.

Solaris's default fs is UFS.

We're currently only using Linux for peripheral tasks and most of the business runs on Suns. That was true at my previous job too. (Sun still offers things that you can't get or can't as easily get from Linux or Windows.)

I imagine we will use Linux more when we move to Oracle RAC, but we're still testing that and I've heard some people aren't happy with that approach.

For my own personal Linux boxes, I have used ReiserFS for a long time. In fact, I moved away from plain vanilla Debian to Libranet mainly because Libranet provided an easy way to move to ReiserFS. My workstation here is running SuSE 10 and it's all ResierFS.

I've also played with XFS and JFS. They both work quite well too. (If I were streaming video or other large files I might well choose XFS over Reiser.)

UFS is not normally used with BSD. BSD has FFS.

Solaris uses UFS. Also, Apple added UFS to Mac OS X.

I just read a lot. :-)

I forgot to add a smiley there.

They're actually the same thing. UFS is another name for the Berkeley FFS.

As far as I know, the *BSDs have always called it FFS. It's the ATT-ish Unix camp that calls it UFS.

There are ways to fix that, but it evidently is not easy.

I agree, although it may have something to do with NT/2K/XP using more of a microkernel than Linux uses.

MS concentrated their hardware detection and configuration or reconfiguration in two places - installation and also right after booting (that "New Hardware Detected" routine that will pop up after the desktop itself comes up).

The "New Hardware" stuff is all GUI, so it has to wait until the system has booted, and that's not very useful if you swap a motherboard or something. :-)

The Windows NT installer figures out what you have and then crafts a HAL to go between the kernel and the hardware itself. But this is only when you're actually installing the OS.

During a normal boot of NT, there isn't any detection process while the kernel is loading. In Linux, there _is_ hardware detection going on. In fact, most of Linux's hardware detection is handled during each boot as the kernel is coming up.

MS made some choices during the original design of NT and I'm sure they were valid choices given what they wanted to do. They may not have intended that people replace motherboards without re-installing the OS, or maybe it was an oversight. It might not even be possible with the way the rest of the OS was done. Furthermore, they might not be able to change things at this point without breaking a lot of stuff. Also don't forget that the original design was done a long time ago and things were different then, as were MS's priorities.

So, NT/2K/XP is what it is and we just have to deal with that. It's not the best of all worlds, but it's not the worst either. After all, we could still be stuck with Windows 3.1 or 95. :-)