Re: How boot FC 5 to plain TTY terminal mode?

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup linux.redhat, in article
<1187951461.491788.22820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Charles Packer wrote:

(Moe Trin) wrote:

You want that to read

id:3:initdefault:

Thanks; it worked. For that, I don't
mind being heckled for not upgrading
from FC 5 (though in the future I won't
paint a target on myself).

I didn't mean to come across as heckling - this month, I've assisted
people who were still running Red Hat 6.2 (released March 2000, EOL
March 2003) 7.2 (Oct 2001 to May 2004) and Conectiva 4.0 (a Brazilian
distribution based on RH 6.0, but EOL in October 2001). There is
nothing wrong with running old distributions PROVIDED you are aware
of the issues and take appropriate precautions. Heck, I even know
where there are several systems running Red Hat 4.2 in a more-or-less
out-of-box (Summer 1997) configuration in this building. There are
also systems that can run (depending on boot loader selection) stuff
as old a Soft Landing Systems v 1.03 from 1993 (0.99p12 kernel) and
Slackware (1.0 I think - similar age).

As for Google-originated postings not
getting out on the 'Net, whatever
complaints I have about Google
Groups -- and I have many -- they don't
include "fails to broadcast postings."

The analogy is found on news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting (which
actually pertains to mail blocklists). The block-list doesn't
prevent you from _sending_ mail. But that doesn't mean it won't
be _received_ by someone using such a list. Likewise, the
continuing failure of groups.google.com to address spam issues
(you need only look at the comp.os.linux.misc newsgroup and note
that the majority of the spam - mainly for shoes, "Islamic" religions,
sex sites, and the like - is coming from groups.google.com. A lot
of people have taken the simple solution, and put a rule in the
newsreader score/kill/filter files that says

Message-ID: googlegroups.com

which blocks/ignores all posts from google. Some have also added
similar rules for sites like 'thisishull.net'. For those whose ISP
doesn't offer Usenet, there are a number of "free" alternatives
that are somewhat better, as well as services with one-time, or
annual fees under US$12, never mind the commercial sites that may
run as high as US$10/month. I don't advocate one over another.
alt.free.newsservers might be a place to look (though I understand
it has recently been sporged pretty heavily), as well as
alt.usenet.news-server-comparison.

Old guy

.