Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- From: Mark South <mark.south@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:34:14 +0100
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:05:47 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2006-03-23, The Natural Philosopher <a@xxx> wrote:
I just remember that I had to restore an edited /etc/passwd
file..becuase he used emacs, not Vi, and something broke.
One more time: it didn't break "because he used emacs".
I've used emacs to edit /etc/passwd hundreds of times. The
admin broke the file. He could have done just as much damage
using vi.
Yes, but the great thing about emacs is that it's so complicated that the
admin could get away with blaming emacs and be believed.
Compicated technologies make great scapegoats if your cow-orkers don't
understand them.
--
mark south; echo znexfbhgu2000@xxxxxxxxxxx|tr a-z n-za-m
"I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic
globule. Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable."
-- Gilbert & Sullivan, The Mikado
.
- References:
- Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- From: (PeteCresswell)
- Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- From: Captain Dondo
- Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- From: Grant Edwards
- Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- From: The Natural Philosopher
- Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- From: Grant Edwards
- Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- From: The Natural Philosopher
- Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- From: Grant Edwards
- Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- Prev by Date: Re: KDE or Fluxbox, IceWM, XFce (SOHO or not to SOHO)
- Next by Date: Re: up2date help - I deleted /var/lib/rpm :(
- Previous by thread: Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- Next by thread: Re: Kubuntu: Any faster than Windows 2000?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|