Linux-Advocacy Digest #460, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 15:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: How to properly process e-mail (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: What have you done? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Need to make UNIX autoresponder (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Which OS is WORST? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Need to make UNIX autoresponder (Tim Kelley)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Here is the solution (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Chris Wenham)
Re: How to properly process e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How to properly process e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How to properly process e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How to properly process e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped (John Culleton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:49:56 +0200
"Sierra Tigris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul 'Z' Ewande© posted May 11 re: Re: How to properly process e-mail
>|And more over, in OE [I suppose its no different in Outlook] , the *.gif
and
>|the *.jpg are decoded, you can see them at the end of the message.
>Actually, that's only if you either open the eMail, or look at it in
>the preview plane, which means that it can "run" it's something like
>javascript, which is, IMO, extremely bad.
Don't you need enabled ActiveX enabled for that ? Just asking, I don't
really know.
However, I received the ILOVEYOU .vbs, with the preview pane enabled, and
when I clicked on the paper clip, I was asked if wanted to save the
attachment, If I click on the .vbs icon, I'm asked with warning that some
files blah, blah, blah what I wanted to do with them, with the default on
"save".
I've since disabled activeX content, better safe than sorry. :)
--
Da Katt
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 11 May 2000 12:47:51 -0500
In article <Pine.LNX.4.20.0005111331030.333-100000@Simon>,
Sierra Tigris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell posted May 11 re: Re: How to properly process e-mail
>
>|We aren't talking about smart people here. We are talking about
>|people running Microsoft products - people who have to have a
>|picture drawn for them...
>
> Stupid classification of all MS product users aside, your comment
>actually supports my point.
Which point? The content is hidden behind a picture, the program
that is going to launch is even harder to determine. Your only
choices are to open or save, and if you save, any subsequent attempt
to access the resulting file will in fact have the same effect.
Assume you have 100 office workers who routinely get messages with
attachments; put them in a situation of getting a message from
a co-worker with an unknown file type. How many will delete it
without opening? (Assume they have not been instructed one way
or another - remember this is supposed be an easy mailer to use).
Whether it is a smart action or not, my guess is that nearly
all will hit 'open'.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: What have you done?
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:54:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Wed, 10 May 2000 09:38:47 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Full Name wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 9 May 2000 22:52:18 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >finding a Windows NT admin that does not say that NT is crap compared to
>> >Linux... the only thing they miss is functionallity provided by some
>> >specific applications not existing
>>
>> I managed 5 Unix boxes (Sun 330, Sparc 2, Silicon Graphics IRIS and 2
>> IBM RS6000's) for a couple of years back at the beginning of the 90's.
>> For the last six months I've been responsible for 2 Ultra 10's, a
>> Sparc 10, an old HP, a Dell Linux box and one Dell NT server. In the
>> between time I was C++ programmer who, in my spare time, managed two
>> NT networks.
>>
>> I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that the Linux box is a
>> piece of rubbish. I would get rid of it in a heartbeat. We purchased
>> it as a cheap alternative to an Alpha box for number crunching.
>
>
>Impressive. Every now and then one of these anonymous shills
>will, in a fit of red-faced exertion, squeeze out one of these
>little nuggets. If this guy shits out stuff like this, you have
>to wonder what he eats.
>
>Linux is slower than NT
Too vague. One could make a case for X being slower than Windows,
under certain conditions (try resizing a Netscape window in Linux and
comparing it to resizing an IE window in Windows, for example -- the
fact that Netscape attempts to reload the page doesn't help, either).
However, I also understand that someone benchmarked Quake II to
be *faster* on Linux+X than on Windows. (Or was it Quake I or III?)
There are also issues with respect to the differences of design and
implementation; is Linux NFS faster or slower than NT's networked
file system whose name I forget? (Linux does implement it using
SAMBA, for what it's worth -- comparing a SAMBA implementation with
an NT server may be interesting.)
As a side issue, I do like the Windows window manager, in that it
can resize a window and the parts that are exposed redraw, with
a minimal performance hit -- at least, in Internet Explorer, anyway.
I don't like Windows performance when it comes to handling
fast-scrolling text; it tends to bog down the system (the fact that
the Windows WM doesn't run in a separate thread or process
context, but runs in the thread of the app apparently, doesn't
help either; the window simply cannot be moved quickly!).
Window managers in Linux usually rubberband their resizing, which is
not quite as elegant-looking, but works; text scrolling quickly in
an Xterm doesn't seem to impact performance as much, either, and
Linux window managers run in a separate process, which means
that nonresponsive windows can be resized or iconified easily, while
the user waits for something to happen (or does something else).
I will also note, just to confuse the issue even more, that, if one
writes a program in X using XDrawPoint, the program will be
extremely slow; however, if one rewrites it in X using XCreateImage,
XPutPixel, and XPutImage, the results are quite fast. (One of
my interests is raytracing and rendering, and I did in fact find
this during prototyping.) There may be similar issues with Windows,
although, since I don't know it as well, I can't be more specific
except for mentioning DIBs (device-independent bitmaps). I also
don't know regarding XDrawPoint on a server-allocated Pixmap,
but I suspect it would be about as slow as drawing it directly
on the window.
One other issue that I'm aware of. SETI distributes a client that
processes signals acquired through dishes, for some sort of
analysis to search for signals from other star systems. Both NT
and Linux versions exist, but the Linux version is faster. However!
The comparison is entirely unfair, for the NT version also draws
interesting pictures, functioning as a screen saver; this saps
performance. (One hopes that there's an option to turn this off
when running the client.)
So, if someone claims this, they'd better be *very* specific.
>NT never crashes
And the counterpart, "Linux never crashes". Both are untrue (my
firewall machine did the nasty panic thingy just this week, in fact).
However, one might want to compare uptimes -- Linux wins in
many cases here, uptimes being measured in months. Or years.
However, NT is no slouch there, either, as I understand it.
(Not that it's great -- just good, and it depends on what it's doing.)
>Reinstalling is the fastest way to fix a problem
And its counterpart, "Rebooting is the fastest way to fix a problem".
>Slavery is freedom
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
-- _1984_, if I've got the order right; note that the book publishes
it in ALL CAPS since it's a sign on a building that
someone notices
>Black is white
Zebra crossings are safe. :-)
>
>yah whatever ...
>--
>
>Tim Kelley
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Spot The Oblique Humorous Reference :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 11 May 2000 17:50:17 GMT
At the risk of being roundly critcized, let me just say that Microsoft is
a good company, with highly usable products. They have helped to build a
huge industry, and have done so during a time of rapid change and
sometimes conflicting standards.
I think Microsoft is a good company. Not a perfect company, but a good
one. Their stubborness is a positive attribute - most of the time.
I personally do not think that the public is well served by 'competition',
in and of itself. Mostly you just get opportunities for businessman, not
improved service for consumers. The phone companies are an example -
contantly fighting each other for customers. I end up with phone service
that is lower in quality. You don't get an operator any more, you get a
machine. You get your long distance switched without you knowing. You
get more outages than before, longer waits for directory assistance, and
so on. This is called competition? I don't think so. Its just greed of
other businessmen who want in.
If we did not have Microsoft, we might have an industry that was much more
fractured and much less standarded = mess less usable.
I think things are pretty good and we should acknowledge that. If
Microsoft has overstepped their bounds, which seems to be the case, then
we need a senstive and well-thought out remedy; not a knee-jerk reaction.
A breakup seems to extreme to me. But trusting Microsoft to amend the
objectionable behaviours, on their own, would seem naive. We need
something in the middle; something moderate and appropriate.
In my view, we ought to have treat Windows as a utility, like electricity
or gas. It should be considered a utility because functionally, that is
what it is. The software should be open source, so that we know how it
works - just as we know how our electric utility works. It should be
brandless - no preferences, just as our electric utility does not tell us
what brand of stove to buy (but does tell us what frequencey the
electricity runs at; a standard). Just be open. To do this we need a
regulatory board, just as our utilities are regulated.
Beyond that, for things like office suites and other softwares, I say: let
Microsoft do what it likes, just as anyone else does. Let the market
drive those things; let them use their size and budget how they want, to
innovate how they want.
So part of Microsoft would be regulated, and part not. Its still one
company, one stock, one image; but functionally controlled in a way that
makes sense.
H.
--
__________________________________________________________________
FREE Email at 1-800-Coffees.com; including CoffeeGirlz.com,
CoffeeBoyz.com, CoffeeEmail.com, RomanticCoffee.com, and so on!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:53:27 GMT
On 05/11/2000 at 12:00 PM,
WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Bob can't refute your facts, so he yells at you for being off topic.
> how typical.
The only way you could possibly recognize a fact would if someone from
Buffalo State came and showed it to you.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:07:15 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 17:33:27 GMT, Sierra Tigris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell posted May 11 re: Re: How to properly process e-mail
>
>|> How about common intelligence? To _not_ open a file you have no
>|>clue about until you get its contents verified, by someone you trust? HOw
>|>about some personal responsability people?
>|
>|Why give people an email system that they can't use? The only way
>|to verify an attachment would be to compare it to a copy you had
>
> Are you truly that stupid? Who said not to use it? Go away.
You did, effectively.
If you are going to force end users to fend for themselves, the
least you could do is provide them with more useful and detailed
information than general paranoia.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: tw.bbs.comp.unix,alt.2600,comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: Need to make UNIX autoresponder
Date: 11 May 2000 13:02:19 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> I would like to make an autoresponder in Perl on a UNIX server. Any
>> ideas tips about doing that? I look forward to hearing from you. Thank
>> you.
>
>Check out procmail.
I think he means something like this one:
http://nutria.life.uiuc.edu/igorl/ISL/Programming_projects/Current_projects.html#vacation
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Which OS is WORST?
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:11:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ketil Nordstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 11 May 2000 06:41:33 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Actually, that is why the screens were green. They could have been made
>>black and white but it was discovered that green on black leads to less eye
>>fatigue.
>>
>>Gary
>
>Sure about this? Why are they grey on black these days then?
>
Could you give us some context here?
There are currently so many options out there it's hard to determine
what exactly you're talking about. For instance -- I'm using Tera
Term to ssh into my home box, and it has black characters on
white, but it can do any color on any other; the Command Prompt
on NT has white on black; Word and IE have black on white; Netscape
is black on grey by default (the HTML page, however, can change it with
a <BODY BGCOLOR> declaration); Xterm is also arbitrarily configurable;
the standard Linux/ix86 console is white on black, but the
Linux/Amiga console was white on black with a red cursor at one
point (that was kinda cool, I think); DOS was by default white on
black unless one did an escape sequence and could change to any
one of 8 colors (including black), on 8 colors.
I also have a (regrettably, dead) Wyse terminal that was in fact
green on black. Windows labels and read-only Windows text widgets
are black on grey. My bank's ATMs are amber on black (and can
draw ads...wooooooo).
In short, we have lots of color options out there now. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: tw.bbs.comp.unix,alt.2600,comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: Need to make UNIX autoresponder
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:11:18 -0500
QVAFF wrote:
>
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > I would like to make an autoresponder in Perl on a UNIX server. Any
> > > ideas tips about doing that? I look forward to hearing from you.
> >
> > Check out procmail.
>
> Alternatively, sendmail lets you put a file called
> '.forward' in your home directory. In that file,
> you can put the following:
>
> |/path/to/foo
>
> 'foo' would be your autoresponder, and will
> receive your email messages as STDIN.
> In either case, procmail or sendmail,
> your Perl program can use Mail::Sendmail
> or whatever mail module to easily send mail.
the only problem with that is most mail admins use /bin/false as
the shell for the users account (unless they need a shell);
nothing like the above will work unless you have a valid shell.
how do you get around that?
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:11:41 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 17:46:02 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Wenham
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > The defendent is part of the process of a conviction. Defendant
>> > behavior
>> > during the act of conviction, a trial and sentencing, has a great
>> > impact -
>> > for example doctored videos, memory lapses, denying e-mails.....
>>
>> Yes, it does have influence. Can we be clear that the act of
>> conviction is still not a behavior of the defendant, but a behavior
>> of the court?
>>
>
>Sure.
>
>But the act of breaking the law is a behavior of the defendant.
That may or may not have any relation to being convicted.
[deletia]
Are we going to be naieve enough here to believe that any
poor sap that gets tagged as a suspect is infact guilty?
Occams Razor is great as an interative solution but works
really quite poorly in isolation.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:16:31 GMT
Followups trimmed back a bit.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 11 May 2000 09:57:43 -0600 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > Can you write a backup domain controller capable of syncing
>> > contents with an NT domain controller? Or a replacement
>> > primary controller that can sync to a Microsoft backup
>> > controller?
>>
>> That's a protocol, not an API.
>
>Just because they want to keep it a secret.
>
>They have the symbols all there, I'm sure of it -- they just don't
>want to "create" the API for it.
>
>As for other undocumented APIs, follow this link:
>
> http://www.winehq.com
>
>They have several.
Only several? I would have guessed several dozen. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- is IfRunningOnDRDOS() one of them? :-) :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:17:46 GMT
On 11 May 2000 17:50:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At the risk of being roundly critcized, let me just say that Microsoft is
>a good company, with highly usable products. They have helped to build a
>huge industry, and have done so during a time of rapid change and
>sometimes conflicting standards.
>
>I think Microsoft is a good company. Not a perfect company, but a good
>one. Their stubborness is a positive attribute - most of the time.
>
>I personally do not think that the public is well served by 'competition',
>in and of itself. Mostly you just get opportunities for businessman, not
>improved service for consumers. The phone companies are an example -
>contantly fighting each other for customers. I end up with phone service
>that is lower in quality. You don't get an operator any more, you get a
>machine. You get your long distance switched without you knowing. You
>get more outages than before, longer waits for directory assistance, and
>so on. This is called competition? I don't think so. Its just greed of
>other businessmen who want in.
>
>If we did not have Microsoft, we might have an industry that was much more
>fractured and much less standarded = mess less usable.
Bullshit. 'monopoly' has NOTHING to do with usability.
Common interfaces CAN be agreed upon. The web (when not abused)
is a great example of such a thing as were the BBS's and fidonet
that preceeded it.
My personal computing experience was HINDERED by Microsoft not
helped by it. I needed to use someone ELSE's product in order
to get a decent desktop enviroment in a timely fashion because
Microsoft simply wasn't interested in investing in the work.
Linux EXISTS soley because Microsoft didn't want to invest similarly
in robust multitasking systems for consumers in a timely fashion.
I'm certainly glad there were viable competitors to Microsoft when
I started computing.
>
>I think things are pretty good and we should acknowledge that. If
>Microsoft has overstepped their bounds, which seems to be the case, then
>we need a senstive and well-thought out remedy; not a knee-jerk reaction.
That has little to do with Microsoft excellence. They finally
managed to somewhat-exploit the IA32 10 years after it's
release and 'kinda' replicated the end user experience of the
Macintosh 11 years after it's release.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:27:51 GMT
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But the act of breaking the law is a behavior of the defendant.
No shit?
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:32:47 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
> On Thu, 11 May 2000 17:30:26 GMT, Sierra Tigris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >JEDIDIAH posted May 11 re: Re: How to properly process e-mail
> >
> >| A person should not "need" to be "smart" merely to "open" something.
> >| That rather defeats the point of an ease-of-use system.
> >
> > This response is totally idiotic. Next
>
> No it isn't.
>
> You MS Shills will make plenty of noise about computers needing to
> be like toasters when it suits you.
There, you just proved it. I am NOT a MS shill you moron. I use Linux
and only Linux. I agree that there is no excuse for the shoddy programming
that MS gives out, but still, there is such a thing as personal responsability
and that is what I was saying, your response to my post was moronic in that
it didn't address what I said, only what you imagined I said. You do that
quite often.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:34:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
Which point? The content is hidden behind a picture, the program
> that is going to launch is even harder to determine. Your only
> choices are to open or save, and if you save, any subsequent attempt
> to access the resulting file will in fact have the same effect.
Excuse me, but what the FUCK happened to the possiblity of NOT
opening the damn mail and checking with whoever sent it FIRST? Sheesh. People
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:36:20 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
> > Are you truly that stupid? Who said not to use it? Go away.
>
> You did, effectively.
Oh, I see, telling people to PROPERLY use their eMail programs is
the same as telling them not to use it? Fuck off moron.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:41:00 GMT
Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've since disabled activeX content, better safe than sorry. :)
Which is why I don't bother with such. I am quite proud to use Pine
for my eMail and Gnus for my news. Saves me a lot of pain when spammers put
their stupid javascript containing posts.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
From: John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 12:03:59 -0700
In article <vuzF4.4558$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jim Ross"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>JOE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> What are the 10 things about Linux you wish you knew before
you got a
>> copy and started installing?
>>
>
>These are in random order.
>
>1. That you can't pick and chose a few RPMs from redhat.com and
expect it
>to install on your computer.
>
>Jim Ross
Of course not. Red Hat is not well-equipped for a modular
install. But you can download the a and n series from the
Slackware site and have a functioning system.
And about books. I never bought a book for installing Linux. I
did buy the "Linux Networking Administration" and the "TCP/IP
Network Administration" book. My original Slackware download had
a brief document with it that explained how to make boot disks
etc. Of course I already knew Unix so perhaps I had a head start.
John Culleton
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
