1237cecfba24
tech



Hello Roy - 

CA>>> You are using SLIP. 

RJT>> I am _not_ using SLIP. I am using PPP. 

CA>> I've never seen PPP that uses both the "login:" and
CA>> "password:" prompts. It just goes directly into PAP, CHAP,
CA>> or MSCHAP. 

RJT> Telnet to pa.net some time and check it out... 

No thanks, I've seen a few login screens before. 

CA>> --8<--cut 

RJT>>> other setups use PAP or CHAP, or the m$ variant of that.
RJT>>> I have my setup working, but have no way to test things
RJT>>> out on those others... 

CA>> If you say so. 

RJT> Yep. I spent a good chunk of time studying all aspects of
RJT> this stuff and then setting things up for various
RJT> contingencies before I actually started calling around and
RJT> picked an ISP. As it turns out, I have an /etc/ppp/pap-
RJT> secrets file and an /etc/ppp/chap-secrets file, both of
RJT> which are currently unused. I just hope that if I end up
RJT> with a different provider at some point in the future I
RJT> can remember where to look for ohw to set these things up. 

If you don't you'll ask someone. 

RJT>> While I can't comment on the interactions you had with
RJT>> the guy, I was just trying to point out that it's not
RJT>> always feasible to test everything... 

CA>> Sounds like Microsoft. 

RJT> Microsoft, being in the position their in, can afford to
RJT> pay people to test stuff. Including beta testers out in
RJT> the field.  And they do, from what I understand. This
RJT> isn't the case with an individual who is developing
RJT> something as a hobby, on the side. 

When a person is unable to test software they shouldn't pretend
that they did test it. 

RJT>>> The thing is, though, that his tactics take away the
RJT>>> choices. I'd rather have the choices, myself. 

CA>>> When Linux 'distros' stop documenting where the config
CA>>> files are and what each line is used for then Linux users
CA>>> will have the same 'mystery' that Windows users face when
CA>>> editing the registry and fewer 'choices'. 

RJT>> It's not entirely up to the distro, though, it's also a
RJT>> matter of whoever put all of the packages together, and
RJT>> what _they_ choose to offer the end user. Some people
RJT>> don't wanna know, either. 

CA>> "Linux" is the kernel and the 'distro' is "whoever put all
CA>> of the packages together, and what _they_ choose to offer
CA>> the end user." so how can it _not_ be entirely up to the
CA>> 'distro'? 

RJT> Because users can always put whatever other packages they
RJT> want into the mix. 

Last time I checked Windows users can add 'packages' too. ;-) 

RJT> And because there aren't packages out there (that I know
RJT> of) that go to the great extent you suggest to hide things
RJT> from the users, to take away the ability to configure
RJT> things. 

"Take away"? Maybe not but Linux is becoming more Plug-n-Pray
all the time. 

RJT> If there were, I wouldn't likely want such stuff, and a
RJT> whole lot of other people I know of also wouldn't want
RJT> such stuff. It sort of takes away the whole point of
RJT> linux, from my perspective. 

Depends. Some people just want to use their machines. 

RJT> OTOH, there's Lindows. This is headed toward the sort of
RJT> an arrangement that you're talking about, where they do it
RJT> all for you, and kinda limit your options. I've never
RJT> really had any desire to run that, either. 

There is also KNOPPIX and clones of KNOPPIX plus distributions
using automated installs from a GUI and automated 'updates'.
It's all there as I said you just refuse to acknowledge it. 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>       __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

___ * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/

--- Maximus/2 3.01