Linux-Advocacy Digest #765, Volume #25 Thu, 23 Mar 00 04:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Bsd and Linux (Nate Eldredge)
Re: To all Windows 2000/98/95 Fans ("Jim Ross")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Klaus-Georg Adams)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Dave Pearson)
Re: Linux sure is coming around... (Donn Miller)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Richard Morrell)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Richard Morrell)
Re: Bsd and Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Bsd and Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Linux sure is coming around... (Donn Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 01:40:26 -0600
Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > And which version of Linux does that ship with? Certainly not Red Hat.
>
> ehmm, yes it does. linux 2.2 has capabilities and RH6.x ships with 2.2.
Strange, my Redhat 6 installation with "everything" installed shows no
reference to "capabilities". A search of the kernel mailing lists mentions
patches to get this to work in 2.2.x kernels.
> > > however, ACL's are over rated...
> >
> > Why?
> >
>
> because they add very little over traditional unix security.
You don't consider the ability to give files access by multiple groups
important? You don't consider the ability to give only multiple selected
users access to a given file without creating a special group to put them
in?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 01:43:45 -0600
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:54:44 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >rm * .whatever (with an accidental space) is the most common one. And
this
> >can be done anywhere.
>
> It can't easily be done from another users home directory because root
> shouldn't be poking around in users home directories.
Sure they will. Root regularly goes in and deletes user directories or
makes changes (say a user screws up their configuration scripts). It's
pretty easy to conceive of root thinking they're in one users directory,
only to be in, say /home.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 01:47:20 -0600
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If you have removed ownership of all those files from Administrator,
then
> > nothing would happen.
>
> And the next time you tried to install a service pack?
You take ownership prior to doing so, then restore the rights.
> > > The NT "System" account is equivalent to the UNIX "root" account.
> >
> > Since you can't log on as System, that's kind of irrelevant.
>
> Actually, you can trick NT into letting you on as SYSTEM.
Not exactly, you can get code to execute under System, which might include
getting a remote shell. That's not the same as logging in under that
account.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 01:49:26 -0600
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8bbjlp$8hl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I never said the kernel was customized. I said it seems likely that it
is,
> > given that they have stated that they've customized the TCP/IP stack and
> > file store.
>
> If you're saying that microsoft was allowed to customize the solaris
kernel,
> you are a gigantic idiot. Microsoft has *never* been allowed to see ANY
part
> of solaris source. Not ever. For reasons which are, again, quite obvious
to
> anyone with a couple of functioning braincells.
You seem to be forgetting that Hotmail was not originally owned by
Microsoft. Additionally, Sun has sold source liscenses in the past.
------------------------------
From: Nate Eldredge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 22 Mar 2000 23:46:20 -0800
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am hardly likely to forget to configure a new shell, having gone to
> the trouble of adding it!
You'd be surprised. Adding a profile is not an obvious part of
"configuration".
> But yes, it;s robust. The consequences of
> losing the config file are that restrictions are lifted. The
> consequence of losing libpam stuff is that nobody can log in. I.e.
> it does not fail safe. By design, I imagine, since the mentality
> of the desiger seems to be that making it difficult to log in to
> a system is good.
It's a trade-off. Personally I would rather have nobody able to log
in, than have logins unrestricted. The cost of the one is a bit of
lost work and a couple commands typed by the admin; the cost of the
other is a root compromise and an awful lot of admin work to re-secure
it.
But really, this isn't an inherent disadvantage of libpam. How does
the system "fail safe" if you lose /lib/libc.so? /bin/login?
/etc/passwd? It's just another necessary piece. Arguably it's one
too many, but there's nothing special about it.
> : BTW, two config files that duplicate each others functionality is not
> : "centralised control". It's a maze and tangle of loose ends.
>
> It most certainly is not. I have no trouble with two exactly similar files,
> ad I only maintain two out of good nature.
And what if instead of one or two shells, there were fifty?
Also, configuring security limits in a shell profile is not
necessarily safe, since the user may well be able to abort the profile
before it finishes. (And a trap command at the top only makes the
window smaller, it does not eliminate it.)
--
Nate Eldredge
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all Windows 2000/98/95 Fans
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:31:51 -0500
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 1. The New Zealand Army uses Sun Servers running Solaris for mission
> critical needs. Use Linux for Intranet server. When I asked the system
> administrators why they did not use NT there response was:
>
> "You have got to be joking, we would not touch NT with a
> 40 foot pole"
I guess the New Zealand Army doesn't just evaluate based on MS marketing
(and what most people seem to believe since MS marketing is all they hear)
>
> 2. 90% of ISP's in New Zealand use Linux as their Proxy server running
> squid. Xtra (250,000 users) and Ihug (40,000 users) to name a few. Over
> 60% of Websites in New Zealand (Including Government departments) use
> linux/FreeBSD and Apache for their websites.
Apache is very good.
>
> 3. Unix has been around for over 20 years thus making it a superior
> operating system. If Microsoft believes they can cram 20 years of
> devlopment into 9 years then I must be a millionaire!
Age is only one factor. I believe development can be accelerated.
That's how KDE has come so far in like 3 years what took MS much longer.
But it depends on many things such as the infrastructure necessary being in
place,
developers knowing what "good" looks like, etc.
Open source is "cramming" too but for different reasons, such as a using a
new, faster
way to develop software.
>
> I am currently running Corel Linux, although the GUI is not as smooth as
> you would get on such os's as BeOS it is gradually getting there. The OS
> itself (Kernel and associated files) is at stage where to make the
> 'Great Leap Forward' to the average persons desktop the GUI needs to be
> tightly intergrated with the OS, take the best aspects of each GUI
> (BeOS, KDE, GNOME, Windows, QNX) and create a package that can be
> installed with minimum fuss. Although Hardcore Linux users may say that
> this is terrible one must realise the average person does not want to
> type in commands and learn cyptic codes, they want a simple point and
> click interface in which they can interact with minimal learning
> required. Once this occurs it can then jump onto the Business desktop
> because of the low learning curve required there is only a small cost in
> training, and now that there is Citrix Winframe Client for Linux, Linux
> can now be used as a cheap thinclient.
>
> What do you think of this observation?
>
> MattyG
I think that last paragraph is 100% correct.
It doesn't damage the excellent command line tools if the GUI can fit
together better.
I assume the linux community understands that making this integrate built-in
is a bad idea.
As an option it is the way to go.
Being able to associate an URL in any KDE app for example to be able to be
opened in another app is good.
Having the floppy mounter, floppy formatter, floppy duplication, available
as one program ( still each as a module) it's cool.
As it stands now there are not only seperate tools, with seperate names, in
seperate places.
It is flexible for developers, but challenging for newbies or the vast lazy
people out there like me.
Jim Ross
------------------------------
From: Klaus-Georg Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 23 Mar 2000 08:36:37 +0100
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > They *said* they would, some time ago, did they not?
> > > >
> > > > If so, then I see only two possibilities:
> > > >
> > > > (a) They tried and failed; or
> > > >
> > > > (b) They didn't try, when they said they would (meaning they lied).
> > >
> > > or (c) They are waiting for Windows 2000 Data Center 64 bit.
> > >
> >
> > hahahahahahahahhaaa...
> >
> > they'll be waiting a long time then, won't they?
>
> Yeah, another 6 months or so.
>
> > But surely though, if NT4 is such a great, reliable and scaleable OS as
> > MS have always claimed it to be, they could have migrated to it? Why
> > didn't they migrate to NT4, erik?
>
> They could have, but it would be expensive to do so and would have to be
> done again when Merced hits. Why should they do it twice?
The real question is why should anybody else migrate their stuff to
$WINDOWS_VERSION_OF_THE_DAY if MS itself doesn't think it appropriate
to get real work done. It is just as expensive to migrate for all
those people to whom MS says Win 2000 is the best thing since sliced
bread as for MS themselves.
Conclusion: Win 2000 is not up to the task. Wait for Win 2000 64
Datacenter. If that's not good enough, wait for Win 2010 128bit TNG...
If you want to get your work done _now_, use Unix, even if you have to
customize your TCP/IP somewhat (whatever this means).
--
MfG, Klaus-Georg Adams
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Pearson)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: 23 Mar 2000 07:54:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 15:51:15 -0000, Tom Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This paper aims to assess whether the threat of Linux to professional
> software is real, and if so, how this might affect the economies of
> developed countries.
I'm not sure that the above reads quite right. It suggests that Linux isn't
"professional software". I think you either need to pick your words with
more care or explain your terms up front.
--
Take a look in Hagbard's World: | boxquote.el - "Boxed" text quoting.
http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | sawmill.el - Sawmill mode.
http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
emacs software, including.......| quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 03:06:27 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux sure is coming around...
Dirk Gently wrote:
> I think that the Linux distributetors need to understand something. They
> aren't selling Linux, they are selling something else. They should name it
> Clinux (Commerial Linux). Linux should be freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. $30.00 is
> much better than Winblowme XX, but it is $30.00 too much.
Yeah. I think Linux was a pretty nice OS before all the hype and
popularity kicked in. OTOH, maybe some of us in other camps, such as
BSD, for example, can learn something from this. FreeBSD doesn't
really have all the fancy config tools built-in that RedHat has.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: Richard Morrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 08:15:34 +0000
You should examine our business model :)
mr_organic wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:42:57 -0300, mr_organic pronounced:
> >Tom Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8baq2v$uq0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> This paper aims to assess whether the threat of Linux to professional
> >> software is real, and if so, how this might affect the economies of
> >> developed countries.
> >
> >What worries me is that the leading developers of, say, Linux, are all
> >working for other people. The best example is Linus who's doing marketing
> >for Transmeta, a company owned by some of the richest people on the planet.
> >
> >I'm a researcher / developer, but I don't see myself working for somebody
> >else in a commercial setting. Still, I'm playing with the idea of setting up
> >my own company, developing and selling software. The thing is, so many
> >people are claiming these days that the only good software is free software.
> >How is my business supposed to survive if I can't charge for my software?
> >
> >Of course, things are different for big companies: they can afford to give
> >away some of their software, or even all of it, if it happens that they have
> >other sources of income...
> >
> >So, what will happen? Will we all go back working for Big Blue, as in
> >the Dark Ages? Too bad most geeks are too young to remember those
> >days...
> >
> >Francis.
> >
> Why do you see software as a "product"? You can sell the *media* it
> comes on, and still make the software Free; you can sell services,
> consulting, tech support, you name it. That's how most Linux companies
> are doing it; trying to sell the actual *software* is a losing
> proposition (in fact, you never *sell* it, but license a given user
> to use it, which is a losing proposition in a different way).
>
> Regards,
>
> mr_organic
--
Richard Morrell, Technical Acct Mgr, Linuxcare UK
+44 (0)118 9880 774 Tel, +44 (0) 118 9880 389 Fax.
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.linuxcare.com
Linuxcare - Support for the Revolution
------------------------------
From: Richard Morrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 08:15:52 +0000
You should examine our business model :)
mr_organic wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:42:57 -0300, mr_organic pronounced:
> >Tom Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8baq2v$uq0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> This paper aims to assess whether the threat of Linux to professional
> >> software is real, and if so, how this might affect the economies of
> >> developed countries.
> >
> >What worries me is that the leading developers of, say, Linux, are all
> >working for other people. The best example is Linus who's doing marketing
> >for Transmeta, a company owned by some of the richest people on the planet.
> >
> >I'm a researcher / developer, but I don't see myself working for somebody
> >else in a commercial setting. Still, I'm playing with the idea of setting up
> >my own company, developing and selling software. The thing is, so many
> >people are claiming these days that the only good software is free software.
> >How is my business supposed to survive if I can't charge for my software?
> >
> >Of course, things are different for big companies: they can afford to give
> >away some of their software, or even all of it, if it happens that they have
> >other sources of income...
> >
> >So, what will happen? Will we all go back working for Big Blue, as in
> >the Dark Ages? Too bad most geeks are too young to remember those
> >days...
> >
> >Francis.
> >
> Why do you see software as a "product"? You can sell the *media* it
> comes on, and still make the software Free; you can sell services,
> consulting, tech support, you name it. That's how most Linux companies
> are doing it; trying to sell the actual *software* is a losing
> proposition (in fact, you never *sell* it, but license a given user
> to use it, which is a losing proposition in a different way).
>
> Regards,
>
> mr_organic
--
Richard Morrell, European Technical Manager, Linuxcare Inc
+44 (0)118 9880 774 Tel, +44 (0) 118 9880 389 Fax.
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.linuxcare.com
Linuxcare - Support for the Revolution
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 23 Mar 2000 08:21:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Nate Eldredge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:> In comp.os.linux.development.apps Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> [ptb said]
:> Nothing needs to "authenticate". "Authenticate" means "check the
:> passwd". Anyone logged into the system has a right to do whatever they
:> like within their compass. It's only at the moment of login that
:> they need to be "authenticated" by having login check their passwd.
: Yes. But sometimes they need to do things not "within their compass",
: in which case additional authentication is needed. Also, frequently
If they need rights that they don't have, then sorry, they can't do that.
: this is needed by tools other than /bin/login. Consider:
: - xlock (there are many flavors)
Nothing is needed. If they are running X, they can run xlock. They have the
console.
: - passwd
To change the passwd? This is a tautology.
: - sshd
Needs to check the password and nothing else (ahem, plus rhosts .rhosts, .ssh/*,
/etc/ssh_*).
What kind of authorization are you thinking of? It uses RSA publlic/private key
mechanisms
precisely to be able to work. It of all things doesn't need any extra mechanism. It was
designed and conceived without pam, and has worked without pam for years. What
"additional
authentication" are you thinking of? Kerberos?
: - samba (yes, it checks unix passwords)
So? Password checking is done via the normal call to getpwentry.
: - su
Again, it works perfectly well on every system WITHOUT pam.
: - ftpd
: - chsh
All these don't need any mechanism apart from passwd lookup, which is a libc function.
: And I don't think your theory of "just use crypt" is sufficient.
: Standard crypt permits 8-character passwords encrypted with DES.
And what's wrong with that? Sure, you can use differential analysis against single DES.
So where are the comparison texts?
: 8-character passwords are now considered barely sufficient. And DES,
Barely sufficient! How do you consider that? suppose that there are 64 chars available.
Then we are talking about 64^8 or 2^48. Suppose that you were able to check 1,000,000
= 2^20
keys a second (you can't). Then you would require 2^28 seconds to cover the space. Half
that to find a key (heck, how do you _recognize_ the key! That's another problem :-).
that's about 2^27 = 128 million seconds, or about 128*30 = 4000 hours (= 200 days).
I haven't checked how many keys I can try in a second on my P450, but I would guess
approaching
500-1000. The DES operations are deliberately hard for computers to do .. they involve
permuting bits in registers.
Personally I'm willing to let you try. The effort does not warrant the reward.
: with its 56-bit encryption, gets more and more vulnerable to
: brute-force attacks all the time. Even now, specialized hardware or
Oh, do you know how long it takes to break a DES 56 text? Even given the advantage
of multiple texts! BTW .. I am aware of estimates like "one trillion keys per
second" for a hardware-based DES decryptor (it's a reversible operation). That's
piffle. Cryptography is a defense industry. It's subject to the usual defence
industry scaremongering and hot air. You know that the military doesn't have
any better computers than we have! They invent these numbers to scare congress
into voting them money.
: large networks can brute-force a Unix password in reasonable time
Sure sure sure. Like large networks of 1000+ machines are going to be
passing their time trying to crack your unix passwd. Why don't they
just pay you the money they spent on the equipment and the manhours?
It'd be just as effective, quicker, and everyine would be happier
(except the large network sysadmins who are out of a job). Well, I
guess you could change your passwd every 6 months to keep them occupied!
In any case, what has this got to do with pam? All you have to do to use MD5 instead
of DES is to change the library call in libc to try first DES and then MD5. This
is a matter of 5 minutes.
And triple DES would take 2 minutes.
: (days or weeks, or even less if you're the NSA). Yet people keep
: using it, because it's a pain to use anything else. PAM would seem to
: make that much less painful, and trivial to change in the future. I
It's trivial to change right now, without PAM.
: really don't see what's so terrible about PAM.
IMNSHO It's a layer of obscurantist nonsense, in typical sysV style. It plays
on your ignorance. No, it is not better for you. Give me one concrete example
of anything that needs PAM.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 23 Mar 2000 08:24:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: %% "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Many of these depend on passwd, which depends on PAM (for example).
Well, then there's your answer. Recompile passwd so it doesn't need PAM, and
all your worries are over. It's simple: ./config -with-pam=no.
: PS. However, on my system ssh does link libpam directly. These other
: files in /usr/bin also link it:
: chfn
: chsh
: make_printerdef
: make_smbcodepage
: nmblookup
: passwd
: rpcclient
: scp
: screen
: slogin
: smbclient
: smbmnt
: smbmount-2.2.x
: smbpasswd
: smbspool
: smbstatus
: smbtorture
: smbumount-2.2.x
: ssh-add
: ssh-agent
: ssh-keygen
: sudo
: testparm
: testprns
Interesting. I knew about chfn and chsh, now that you remind me. They're part of the
passwd suite. ssh definitely does not need pam. It's worked without it for years!
Ditto smb. That appears to cover your list.
: I didn't even check /usr/sbin. I used:
: for f in *; do if ldd $f 2>/dev/null | grep libpam >/dev/null; then \
: echo $f; fi; done
Peter
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 03:26:43 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux sure is coming around...
Terry Porter wrote:
> So how does your desktop run Don, what happens if you love say Blackbox
> does that run under FreeBsd ?
I think Blackbox should run pretty well under FreeBSD, as well as
Linux. Most of the window managers out there should run FreeBSD as
well as Linux. I'm running WindowMaker right now.
> Whats FreeBsd like as a desktop OS in your view ?
Well, I think it's OK as a desktop OS. With FreeBSD 4.0-current, my
sound card was pretty well supported (ESS 1868). 4.0 has just been
released. I would expect maybe a few hitches, because, remember, the
OS release ends in ".0". The current gcc version is 2.95.1.
I'm running XFree86 4.0 on FreeBSD right now, and man, the graphics
speed is much better than Windows 98. Also FreeBSD has a nice ports
collection. There is also cvsup to keep your system's source tree up
to date. It's pretty nice. Also, with FreeBSD I like how it just
installs only the essential components at install time. With RedHat,
it tries to install a whole bunch of packages for your desktop needs.
I find that I'd rather just do a basic install of the min. required
binaries + gcc development tools, and take care of the extra stuff
later. FreeBSD is good at this.
So, FreeBSD is the only OS I'm running right now. Most of the
commercial stuff you can run under Linux emulation, and the Linux
emulation is first rate. Most of the Linux glibc2 stuff will run on
FreeBSD, provided you install the Linux compatibility libs, version
6.1. In fact, most Linux stuff runs pretty much as fast under FreeBSD
as it does under native Linux. Some of the Linux stuff I'm running
under FBSD includes mpeg-tv, RealPlayer 5, RealPlayer 7, Acrobat
Reader, and Corel WP 8.
It isn't as desktop-ready as something like RedHat, obviously. But
otherwise, I think FreeBSD has the potential to be a great desktop
unix with the apps under /usr/ports. Well, FBSD likes to stay closer
to its unix roots than RedHat.
The thing you might have the most trouble with is the kernel config
file; it's in text format, and BSD doesn't have a GUI kernel config
utility (yet). However, the config file is pretty well documented,
and I actually prefer doing it this way than going through a bunch of
menus. I was thinking about doing a GUI kernel config thing for
FreeBSD, but I did a survey, and most people didn't want such a thing.
:-) I will still try to work one up, however.
- Donn
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
