Dave Milne

My Disco has the active air suspension which uses gyros to detect body roll
and stiffen up air shocks on corners. It is unbelievalbly good, to the point
that it doesn't feel like you are driving a truck at all, LR engineers said
they could have made it corner almost totally flat but didn't to stop the
twits going round corners too fast.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gp6dnb5tu_P8xkrYnZ2dnUVZ_tCtnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Bill Kearney proclaimed:

As for off road, a Range Rover with ride height
> control may not be as fast in a straight line or in the twisties as an
> SRT8 Cherokee, but I'd bet it would get more than 20 feet off the
> Interstate and be able to get back...unlike the SRT8.

Dave Milne

Heh, I was waiting for an Earle reply there, Lon :-)
A Linux Jeep would be totally stable and reliable, but you would have to
fire it up first. After firing it up, you would have access to the man pages
which would tell you how to fire it up. You would understand every word in
the owners manual apart from the meaning, so you would have to get your
neighbour to configure it for you. Even then, you would spend days wondering
how you were meant to get the cup holders to work. Once you got it to work,
you wouldn't be allowed to select reverse as you didn't have the right
permissions.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SsOdncXx5NQGxErYnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> However Dave, allow me to point out that a Jeep by Microsoft would allow
> anyone ELSE to drive it, in particular sociopathic 12 year old script
> kiddies. Or in the latest edition, by anyone playing a tape of voice
> controls instructing the Jeep to drive away without you.
>
> To be fair, a Linux Jeep would have a user interface that almost doesn't
> suck but crashes randomly over even stupider things than a Microsoft
> one, and for some reason none of the engineers could be bothered to read
> architectural standards, so the camshafts would be rotating backwards
> with an epicycle just because someone thought it would be TR3WLY K3WL to
> do so.

Dave Milne

Heh, I was waiting for an Earle reply there, Lon :-)
A Linux Jeep would be totally stable and reliable, but you would have to
fire it up first. After firing it up, you would have access to the man pages
which would tell you how to fire it up. You would understand every word in
the owners manual apart from the meaning, so you would have to get your
neighbour to configure it for you. Even then, you would spend days wondering
how you were meant to get the cup holders to work. Once you got it to work,
you wouldn't be allowed to select reverse as you didn't have the right
permissions.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SsOdncXx5NQGxErYnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> However Dave, allow me to point out that a Jeep by Microsoft would allow
> anyone ELSE to drive it, in particular sociopathic 12 year old script
> kiddies. Or in the latest edition, by anyone playing a tape of voice
> controls instructing the Jeep to drive away without you.
>
> To be fair, a Linux Jeep would have a user interface that almost doesn't
> suck but crashes randomly over even stupider things than a Microsoft
> one, and for some reason none of the engineers could be bothered to read
> architectural standards, so the camshafts would be rotating backwards
> with an epicycle just because someone thought it would be TR3WLY K3WL to
> do so.

Dave Milne

Heh, I was waiting for an Earle reply there, Lon :-)
A Linux Jeep would be totally stable and reliable, but you would have to
fire it up first. After firing it up, you would have access to the man pages
which would tell you how to fire it up. You would understand every word in
the owners manual apart from the meaning, so you would have to get your
neighbour to configure it for you. Even then, you would spend days wondering
how you were meant to get the cup holders to work. Once you got it to work,
you wouldn't be allowed to select reverse as you didn't have the right
permissions.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SsOdncXx5NQGxErYnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> However Dave, allow me to point out that a Jeep by Microsoft would allow
> anyone ELSE to drive it, in particular sociopathic 12 year old script
> kiddies. Or in the latest edition, by anyone playing a tape of voice
> controls instructing the Jeep to drive away without you.
>
> To be fair, a Linux Jeep would have a user interface that almost doesn't
> suck but crashes randomly over even stupider things than a Microsoft
> one, and for some reason none of the engineers could be bothered to read
> architectural standards, so the camshafts would be rotating backwards
> with an epicycle just because someone thought it would be TR3WLY K3WL to
> do so.

Tom Greening

Dave Milne wrote:
> Heh, I was waiting for an Earle reply there, Lon :-)
> A Linux Jeep would be totally stable and reliable, but you would have to
> fire it up first. After firing it up, you would have access to the man pages
> which would tell you how to fire it up. You would understand every word in
> the owners manual apart from the meaning, so you would have to get your
> neighbour to configure it for you. Even then, you would spend days wondering
> how you were meant to get the cup holders to work. Once you got it to work,
> you wouldn't be allowed to select reverse as you didn't have the right
> permissions.
>


Actually, once you got it fired up you'd find out 50% of your options
wouldn't work because the hardware wasn't supported yet. Six months and
many frustrating configuration hours later you might be up to 75% supported.

Tom Greening

Dave Milne wrote:
> Heh, I was waiting for an Earle reply there, Lon :-)
> A Linux Jeep would be totally stable and reliable, but you would have to
> fire it up first. After firing it up, you would have access to the man pages
> which would tell you how to fire it up. You would understand every word in
> the owners manual apart from the meaning, so you would have to get your
> neighbour to configure it for you. Even then, you would spend days wondering
> how you were meant to get the cup holders to work. Once you got it to work,
> you wouldn't be allowed to select reverse as you didn't have the right
> permissions.
>


Actually, once you got it fired up you'd find out 50% of your options
wouldn't work because the hardware wasn't supported yet. Six months and
many frustrating configuration hours later you might be up to 75% supported.

Tom Greening

Dave Milne wrote:
> Heh, I was waiting for an Earle reply there, Lon :-)
> A Linux Jeep would be totally stable and reliable, but you would have to
> fire it up first. After firing it up, you would have access to the man pages
> which would tell you how to fire it up. You would understand every word in
> the owners manual apart from the meaning, so you would have to get your
> neighbour to configure it for you. Even then, you would spend days wondering
> how you were meant to get the cup holders to work. Once you got it to work,
> you wouldn't be allowed to select reverse as you didn't have the right
> permissions.
>


Actually, once you got it fired up you'd find out 50% of your options
wouldn't work because the hardware wasn't supported yet. Six months and
many frustrating configuration hours later you might be up to 75% supported.