Linux-Advocacy Digest #225, Volume #26 Sun, 23 Apr 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: which OS is best? (Stuart Krivis)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("William Palfreman")
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("William Palfreman")
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("William Palfreman")
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("William Palfreman")
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("William Palfreman")
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("William Palfreman")
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Detonators 5.14 UP!!!!!!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (Roger)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Unix is dead? ("Mike")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 22:14:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 21 Apr 2000 02:14:53 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: I like SCO Openserver, NetWare, and SVR4.2 because of their
>: stability and virtually non-existent downtime, those things must
>
>
>Netware isn't even worth commenting on.
Yes, it is.
Netware makes a very good file and print server. It is more stable than the
MS workgroup server OSes, and doesn't need as much horsepower to get the job
done.
Most Netware servers seem to just sit there and quietly work.
NDS is also a superior product. It beats that Active Directory thing that MS
is trying to force into everyone's network.
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
------------------------------
From: "William Palfreman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 00:18:21 +0100
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >
> Fallacy: We only want what is good for business.
> Fallacy: We are not willing to make tradeoffs that are bad for business.
>
> Both of these are reflected in the caselaw of most civilized nations
> that put limits on commerce based on some public interest. The more
> extreme examples would be racketeering, gambling, prosititution, and
> the narcotics trade.
So? You aren't seriously claiming that there in any public interest in
drugs, gambling and prostitution being against the law, are you? What you
do is your own business, so long as you aren't harming anyone else, and when
you are harming someone else (by doing something to them that they didn't
agree to, like bashing them over the head) then and only then does it
becomes an issue for law. There is no public interest involved in my
playing cards or for that matter smoking heroin in my own home.
--
Bill.
------------------------------
From: "William Palfreman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 00:31:04 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8caarp$2sc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > Free software is clearly anti-capitalist.
> >
> > No. Software is clearly not capital.
>
> Is working in a group of equals in spirit of cooperation rather than
> competition and distribitiog products of you labour for free to anyone
> who desires them capitalistic?
>
> > > ...there will be no money, no private property.
> >
> > There will be private property as long as only one person can possess
> > a given object. There will be money as long at any resource remains
> >scarce.
>
> Why have money when you distribute the products of your labour for free
> and in turn you can have products of other peoples labout for free too?
>
> >
> > > no monsters like Microsoft.
> >
> > Monsters like the Soviet Union instead?
>
> You must be really stupid if you think Soviet Union was a communist
> country.
<ot>
Why is that stupid? The Soviet Union was a Communist county, or at least it
said it was and all you people went on about how wonderful it was for 80 odd
years. The fact it, wherever there isn't personal and economic freedom
people stay really poor and there is loads of oppression, plus the computers
are crap. And wherever you have freedom & capitalism people are richer and
much better fed, there is much better technological development, people live
well and develop things like Linux, instead of, say, having to work in a
salt mine or being shot for reading the wrong book. You're the stupid one
for supporting something so bad.
</ot>
------------------------------
From: "William Palfreman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 00:40:26 +0100
Tim Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Communist country" is an oxymoron. I compared the Soviet Union to
> > Microsoft: I said nothing about communism.
>
> Interesting idea! :)
>
> > Jim Richardson writes:
> > > It claimed it was, it also claimed that communism was a good thing.
> >
> > The politicians who ran it made those claims. They lied, of course:
they
> > were politicians, after all.
>
> Sometimes I wonder what's so great about this capitalist thing after
> all. Or about communism. Or any other political Thing.
>
> After all, when Jack Straw is trying to kill e-commerce in the UK stone
> dead in order to put a few 'Net-using criminals behind bars... maybe they
> should allow the sensibly devolved countries to have their own views on
the
> "RIP" bill.
Why bother with counties? Why not let people make their own minds up and
just leave them alone? Devolve all government to the lowest natural level,
the individual? Then we could agree amongst ourselves to, say, ban murder
and robbery and suchlike. Certainly things like what encryption program you
use have to be something that we deal with ourselves, obviously,
but.....might it not be possible to extend the opensource principles to all
matters to do with politics and government? Any objections?
--
Bill.
------------------------------
From: "William Palfreman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 00:54:22 +0100
red-5 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:01bfa663$06293440$401524d5@default...
>
> The free market breeds monopolies, as Marx predicted. If you can't see
all
> of the glaring examples, then take one close to your heart- Microsoft. It
> takes anti-free-market governmental intervention in the form of the
> anti-trust case to stop a monopoly get bigger. Companies work hard at
> making themselves as indispensible as possible, in order to guarantee
their
> own growth and income.
I have yet to hear of a genuine example of a monopoly occuring in a free
market. They are all government supported with new entries banned or they
are not monopolies. Microsoft is a very good example. No matter how crap
its code may be it is blantently not a monopoly, else we all wouldn't be
here on this newsgroup. In fact, as virtually all the internet runs on
servers running one of the (countless and competing) flavours of UNIX, I
think you can forget about the MS being any kind of monopoly at all. The
only monoply I can think of off the top of my head is the police, and they
are 1) goverment run, 2) almost totally ineffective, & 3) get to use wepeons
that the general public aren't allowed to use. Not much of a free market
there.
------------------------------
From: "William Palfreman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 01:04:47 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8d9rin$4mo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:05:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >You will be able to have everything fopr free under communism. even
your
> >
> > Yeah, just like you can have "everything for free" in CHina. This
> > doesn't help much if "everything" doesn't amount to very much.
> >
> > If I could choose between having "everything" in some communist cesspool
> > and having a workers salary in the US, I'd choose the latter. As a PhD
> > student, I probably have less than a worker's salary, and it's still
pretty
> > comfortable IMO.
> >
> > >precious jewelry. But of course resources will under Communism will be
> > >distributed
> > >much more efficient than the market system does.
> >
> > In the absence of incentive to produce, it doesn't really help if
> > you distribute efficiently, because you won't have anything to
distribute.
>
> So getting money is only reason you work? I believe that working isa n
> natural part of life along with sleeping, eating, etc. If you statement
was
> true then ther wouldnt be things like Linux, but again you are staring the
> facts right in the face yet refuse to see the truth. Thousands of people
> working for free on great software products, millions of volunteers aroud
the
> world donating thgeit time for free proves that communism is possible.
> Working is natural and enjoyble.Of course under capityalsim many are
forced
> into doing demening jobs that noone can pisbly enjoy like being servents
for
> the rich.
>
> > > So first we'll feed
> > >the starving
> > >and house the homeless.
> >
> > In the US, this is done already. No one's forcing homeless into houses,
> > and noone's buying them houses in beverly hills, but there are shelters.
> > Food handouts are so commonplace that it's pretty hard to go hungry.
>
> Yeah right, if all the world just copied the usa political and econimic
> system we;d all just live happily ever after. Unfortunetly its not
possible.
> The only reason that USA and western countries are so rich is that the
other
> 90% of the world is exploited and drained of its resources. Capitalistic
way
> of development is simply not an option for the 3rd world countries.
>
> >
> > >Do you believe tha every country with "Democratic Republic of..." in
> > >their name
> > >is a democracy too?
> >
> > Name one "good" communist country. ( Preferably one where the
inhabitants
> > aren't immigrating to the US in droves )
>
> You Americans are so ignorant of the rest of the world, You think its
enough
> to give someone a tour of the local mall and they run drooling to the
nearest
> security gurard to apply for a green card. I bet you were shovked when
Elians
> dad refused to stay even after being ofered 2 millions plus a car and a
job.
> GIVE THE BOY BACK!! Maybe Cuba or North Kora anre not the richest
countries
> in the world but atleast living there you wont get shot and killed:
>
> a) In school
> b) On the way to school.
> c) Just standing outside your apartment.
OT, I know, but you don't ask why it is that hundreds and thousands of these
people are fleeing Cuba in rubber dingies. Why do you think his mother took
him on this very high risk jouney, which she herself didn't survive? Come
on, there must have been some reason...
------------------------------
From: "William Palfreman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 01:11:37 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8d9ru5$50d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> >
> > How did the USSR differ from what you propose?
> > If people continue to trade for things in the same way as now, what
will
> > you do to make them join your system? If you allow them to simply go on
> > as they wish, then fine, I have no problem, but I know what system I
will
> > bet on surviving free competition, and it won't be what you term >>>
communism.
>
> No one is goint to make you join, I believe that most people when faced
with
> a choice of working for a master (boss) in an opressive hierarchycal
> workplace vs working in a group of equals in a cooperative enviroment will
> chose the later.
The point is with capitalism you can choose how you work, whereas with
communism you work in a government run collective that is organised all the
way up to the top. In other words it is completely the other way round to
how you say it is.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 22 Apr 2000 21:35:44 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>>
>> Likewise: I've never seen anyone right-click on anything without
>> knowing they are supposed to. Perhaps a result of earlier
>> bad experiences...
>
>Experienced Windows users typically right-click in new applications
>without knowing they're 'supposed to', just as most folks on most OSs
>left-click on menu items. It's just part of the standard paradigm, that
>most apps support.
And experienced Linux users copy over the config file they've
used before. But I thought we were discussing beginners here.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 22 Apr 2000 21:32:38 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Corn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Go into Linuxconf on the server and add shares to NFS's config. Don't forget to
>change the root permission (a security flaw if enabled, a newbie headache if not),
>and turn on RW. Most newbies would never understand this stuff.
What you are doing here is approximately as complicated as arranging
trust relationships between two domain controllers in the NT world.
Does it bother you that newbies don't understand that? And it
boils down to a line in a text file that you can copy over to your
next machine.
>Run exportfs -r because linuxconf doesn't automatically do it for you. Again, no
>newbie would know this without extensive man page reading.
If the exports file is correct before starting nfs, you don't need
to do this.
>/etc/rc.d/init.d/nfs start, because linuxconf doesn't do this automatically.
>You've now lost just about everyone. So much for not needing man pages....
I've always set nfs to run myself, but I'd consider it a bug if
linuxconf doesn't do it for you after exporting somthing.
>Now, for the client:
>
>Assuming NFS is working OK (a bit of an assumption, but an acceptable one), a
>mount ip:/servershare/serverdir/serverdir/serverdir /mydir will map the directory
>correctly....assuming the user's already created that directory (/mydir) on his
>machine. If not, time to break out the man pages again.
Isn't the error message: '/mydir does not exist' enough of a hint
that you need to create it?
>This doesn't even deal with the real problems of different GIDs and UIDs on the
>different systems. I finally got sick of managing the entire thing and went to
>NIS. NIS works well, but it, too, is a PITA to set up - I can't get the
>domainname variable to 'stick' between reboots (yes, yp.conf appears to be set
>correctly), so I've got to log in as root on the NIS client, do a domainname
>mynisdomain, and then I can log in as NIS'd users. I had to do some
>experimentation with groups before I realized GIDs under 500, by default, aren't
>permitted or "learned" from the NIS server for security reasons; this meant the
>creation of a group on the server over GID 500 so I could effectively use group
>permissions.
The simpleminded way to make UID/GID's the same is to copy one password
and group file over to the other machines. NIS becomes better at
some number of machines.
>All of this took a tremendous amount of reading of the manual. The belief that
>this isn't necessary to get filesharing going is laughable.
Equivalent passwd files, a line in /etc/exports, and the startup
for nfs in the right runlevel. OK, that's worth a few pages. Now
how do I get a disparate group of users in a Win2k domain access
to things in a different NT domain?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Detonators 5.14 UP!!!!!!!!
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 03:06:11 GMT
Can anyoIn article <8df4sr$2q07$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Considering that MS had dick to do with these unreleased and
possibly even
> > completely untested non-whql certified drivers,
>
> Idiot, the NT 5.0 drivers exist on STB's site. They only worked
*margianally*
> better than the natural TNT chipset drivers that come with W2K
professional.
>
> Neither one of them allow directX to function in its full capacity.
>
> > where the fuck do you get a
> > comment like that? You might want to try pulling your head out of
your ass
> > before you try to read usenet messages next time.
>
> I get it from experience.
>
> -----yttrx
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 22 Apr 2000 22:28:43 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Corn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I used text editors many years before mice were around and
>> editting text is one of the main reasons for keeping a
>> computer around, so I have a hard time understanding that
>> changing the text in a file is a complicated process.
>> However, for those who agree or haven't found an
>> editor program yet, there is linuxconf, webmin, and
>> other interfaces. I sometimes used these for the sake
>> of having a syntax check done before a service is affected.
>
>That explains a lot. I think a lot of people now expect computers to be
>much easier to use than you apparently do. There's certainly nothing
>wrong with how you feel, but be aware you're certainly in the minority.
But there is nothing easier or more consistant that a text
editor and no reason to learn a different interface for
every little task.
>> >>No, it doesn't really require more *work*. It may be harder
>> >
>> >Yes, it does.
>>
>> Beg your pardon??? I do this stuff too.
>
>It does require more work. In another post I spelled out what was
>required of an NFS setup, for example, and it's quite complicated. And
>that's before GIDs and UIDs come into play.
That is not equivalent to win98 sharing - you are dealing with
multiple multi-user systems with NFS.
>> >Translation: Microsoft encrypted passwords in SP3 by default, so they
>> >were no longer sent, by default, in cleartext. The fact that MS
>> >allowed clear text passwords in SP0 -> SP2 is a security violation and
>> >A Bad Thing. The fact that you'd bless such a thing is also A Bad
>> >Thing.
>>
>> According to the people who understand the smb protocol the
>> encrypted token is equivalent to the plain-text in the sense
>> that a custom client program could use it to gain access. This
>> is non-trivial compared to sniffing plaintext but if the
>> data is worth something it could be arranged. So all you
>> really get here is a false sense of security. Worse, the
>> encrypted password that has to be stored is the same token
>> and can be stolen from the disk files. As I recall this
>> also applies to the Microsoft files. With unix encryption
>> you can't use the file version directly.
>
>You can run attacks against that file, sure. That's certainly not to
>say you'll be successful.
No, I meant that since the password on the wire is not a
challenge/response it can be sniffed and re-used by an
attacker almost the same as clear text. The only difference
is that you need a custom client to apply it in the right
place. And worse, the smbpasswd file must also contain
reusable encrypted token adding a new vulnerability to
the system.
>> No, if you make the registry change to allow plain-text passwords
>> a one-size-fits-all smb.conf that shares the home directories
>> just works out of the box.
>
>Isn't there something inherently wrong with changing all of the clients
>when a change to the server is both A) far more secure and B) easier in
>the long run?
Keep in mind that the old method was just fine with Microsoft
until easily configured Samba servers became popular.
>> >You do end up paying, that's for sure, but isn't time worth something
>> >too?
>>
>> Once you know where the files are, it doesn't save any time to
>> hide them behind a GUI, and the second setup of a GUI system
>> takes just as long as the first, where the file based
>> system can just copy or cut and paste the file contents.
>
>Then I suggest, if you are so inclined, that you learn NT's CLI
>commands. Most people I know, though, strongly prefer a well thought
>out GUI control interface, and NT's is, while not perfect, certainly
>acceptable.
Is it possible to export the CLI commands from a working system in
a form usable to configure a subset of a similar system? That is
the real problem I have with GUI's and a CLI instead of files
doesn't solve it. You can't easily re-use what you have done and
tested before. You have to repeat all the same steps with all the
same places to make mistakes on each machine. Unless the CLI works
like Cisco's where a 'show running' command emits exactly the
commands needed to reproduce the configuration, having a CLI doesn't
help although it might give you a way to script the setup. For some
reason Cisco seems to be the only company that understands that
you often want to cut and paste between windows connected to two
different boxes.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 03:38:31 GMT
On 23 Apr 2000 01:32:10 GMT, someone claiming to be Damien wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:17:46 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>| On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 15:59:23 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>| Devlin wrote:
>| >This is the thing that interests me. What are the issues and disputes that
>| >could arise from running MS Office on Wine? Wouldn't this be a violation of
>| >the EULA (I seem to recall one of those outrageously excessive clauses I was
>| >forced to agree to saying something about "you can only run this on the os
>| >which we allow you to", that being, of course, Microsoft (c) (tm) (r) (pat.
>| >pend.).
>| There are no such clauses in the EULA for OFfice 2000 nor Office 97
>| SR2, those being the only versions I have access to currently to
>| check.
>There is no reason to believe that the EULA is the same for all
>shipped copies of MS Office, nor that the EULA will change in the
>future.
Without evidence to the contrary, there is more reason to believe this
than to believe that such a significant clause would be a part of only
some licenses. Have you such evidence?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 22 Apr 2000 22:33:02 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>So, I'll need to retract my statement - syskey no longer gives the
>protection it once did before PWDUMP2 was developed.
The fact that you know or don't know about the existence of
PWDUMP2 really has nothing to do with the security your
system. Your potential attackers may have had equivalent
or better tools all along.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 22 Apr 2000 22:47:26 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 16:25:04 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>A person, sufficiently practiced, can change and configure sharing far
>>faster with vi, than one can do it with the Windows control panel stuff.
>
>So use the CLI in Windows. cacls and net commands are both fully
>alive and well in Win2000, among many others.
But for anything that takes more than a few lines of typing or
has to be right the first time, you really want to paste in
'known correct' commands. With file based configuration
the way to do this is obvious, given a working example.
>>As for instructing someone how to do it over the phone? With Linux, I
>>can just do it for them faster than I can explain, and then just tell
>>them to take a look at what I did.
>
>Over the phone, with no network?
>
>I give up. We're obviously coming from two completely different
>paradigms here.
I've talked people who knew nothing but how to type through
some fairly complex setups under unix and even dos. All you
have to do is say the words and spell a few things and the
person on the other end knows what key to hit. I never have
mastered the art of describing mouse-motions such that a
beginner could do something at the other end with a GIU, or
even of interpreting their description of the screens and pointer
positions. It's about like taking all the words out of your
books and replacing them with pictures, then trying to read
it over the phone.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unix is dead?
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 03:56:58 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If a user wants the GUI, he should be able to get a usable GUI.
> If he wants CLI (side note: CLIs are not what they used to be,
> although the mods aren't quite as visible -- but '<TAB>' command
> and file completion didn't exist in the 80's).
Well, maybe not in Unix, but I used a system in 1984 that had it...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
