🚀 go-pugleaf

Dickless Davie tholen@antispam.ham the irrelevant Ignoranus whined:
> Herbert Rosenau writes:
>
> >>>> William L. Hartzell writes:
>
> >>>>> Install Boot Manager.
>
> >>>> I have Boot Manager installed, though it happens to be irrelevant,
> >>>> because I'm not talking about the boot process.  I'm talking about
> >>>> a system that has already booted, is up and running, but complains
> >>>> about the C: drive not being ready when certain applications are run,
> >>>> like FORMAT and RESTORE.
>
> >>> As anybody else knows OS/2 is a multithreaded multiprocess system.
> >>> That means that the WPS and some other processes may try to access
> >>> physical and logical drives, primary and extended partitons in the
> >>> background while they are not already ready for access by them.
>
> >> And why would WPS try to access a C: drive exactly at the end of a
> >> RESTORE operation that doesn't involve a C: drive and not at other
> >> times?  In fact, I performed two RESTORE operations and the same
> >> error message occurred both times at the end of the restore process.
>
> > How should anybody know what you have done with your system?
>
> Simple:  by reading what I wrote, Rosenau.  I explained in the very
> first posting that OS/2 had not been installed on the C: drive.
> Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Rosenau?

On your part, Dickless.

> > Nobody else has ever fallen over this problem.
>
> On what basis do you claim to know about everybody else's experience,
> Rosenau?  Of course, if you had better reading comprehension skills,
> Rosenau, you would already know about what Michael Lueck wrote in
> Message-ID: <z7LGf.46$mx.24@fe07.lga>, where he indicated that he had
> seen the problem.  And now we have the posting from Bernhard Schornak
> (Message-ID: <dsjinq$e2i$03$1@news.t-online.com>) where he identifies
> the bytes in RESTORE.EXE where the C: drive is hardcoded.

"lassic" k'lame, Dickless.

> >>> So anybody with at least 2 cent brain will not run the WPS and its
> >>> extensions while they are trying to format, backup or restore
> >>> partitons as some processess triggered by WPS may try to access an
> >>> partiton/volume while it is in an intermedia state and not ready to
> >>> get accessed.
>
> >> This may come as a surprise to you, Rosenau, but OS/2 is still
> >> multithreaded and multiprocess even when the WPS isn't running.
>
> > Nothing new, but it is the WPS that has hidden task , monitors and so
> > on and will award you when you tries to maltreat it.
>
> Are you trying to claim that the WPS operates synchronously with
> RESTORE, Rosenau?  If the operation is asynchronous, then why would
> the same error occur twice at exactly the same point in the RESTORE
> process, Rosenau?  Coincidence?

You think not, if you think you can, Dickless.

> >> After all, it is just a shell.  So, those volumes could still be
> >> accessed while they are in an intermediate state and not ready to
> >> get accessed, even without the WPS running.
>
> Note:  no response.

STFU, Dickless.

> >>> Do maintenance while booted to commandline and you'll avoid errors
> >>> whereas no real errors exists.
>
> >> How so?  Another process could try to access the drive.  Stopping the
> >> WPS doesn't automatically stop other processes.
>
> > So it is clearly the fault of the one in front of your screen.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, coupled with illogic.
> I'm not the one who wrote the RESTORE program, Rosenau.

"Clasic" invective, Dickless.

> > Because the WPS and the OS will never start processes without a command
> > from you.
>
> I never claimed that the WPS started the RESTORE process, Rosenau.
> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Rosenau?

STFU, Dickless.

> >>> Or at least be sure that there is no
> >>> process and no thread monitoring some resources like disks or others
> >>> you maintains.
>
> >> Classic illogic.  Suppose for a moment that you're right, namely that
> >> some monitoring process attempted to access a drive that was in an
> >> intermediate state because it was being formatted at the time.  Why
> >> wouldn't it report that drive as not being ready rather than reporting
> >> the C: drive not being ready?  The C: drive wasn't the one that was in
> >> an intermediate state.
>
> Note:  no response.
>
> >>> Tholen has proven in the past often enough that he lnows nothing about
> >>> OS/2

How ironic!

> >> How ironic, considering the completely illogical statements that you
> >> just made about OS/2, Rosenau.
>
> Note:  no response.
>
> >>> by the false statements he has drained out of his brain.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated claim.  What alleged false statements have I
> >> made about OS/2, Rosenau?  The "C: drive not ready" error message is
> >> an observational fact, not a false statement.  I'm trying to find out
> >> why it occurred, and as usual, you have been completely unhelpful.
>
> > Oh, yeah! Whenever tholen gets out of arguments he gets illogical and
> > whines "ironic".
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I've gotten out arguments,
> Rosenau.

You've run out of arguments and you need some new schtick, Dickless.

> In fact, Schornak has confirmed exactly what I suspected in the first
> place, namely that the C: drive was hardcoded.

How ironic!

> > Nobody can observe "C: drive is not ready" except the one sitting in
> > front of Tholens screen.

Who is "Tholens", Dickless?

> Anybody can observe the message if they run RESTORE such that the
> hardcoded reference to C:\OSO001.MSG gets triggered.  Go ahead, look
> at the indicated bytes in your copy of the program.  Doesn't look like
> it has been changed since 2001 October 29:
>
> 01-10-29 23.09         39.280      0 ----  RESTORE.EXE

What does this have to do with classical music, Dickless?