Linux-Advocacy Digest #606, Volume #26 Fri, 19 May 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Templetonbot field test 001 (was Re: Tholen digest-[SNIP]) ("Stephen S. Edwards
II")
Re: Bargmen digest, volume 2451353 (Marty)
There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Templetonbot field test 001 (was Re: Tholen digest-[SNIP]) (Marty)
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451685 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Your office and Linux. (abraxas)
Re: Your office and Linux. (John Travis)
Re: New Microsoft Virus, Worse Than Loveletter -- VBS.NewLove.A (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Your office and Linux. (John Travis)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (JEDIDIAH)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (pac4854)
Re: Your office and Linux. (John Travis)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Ray)
Re: Here is the solution (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Templetonbot field test 001 (was Re: Tholen digest-[SNIP])
Date: 20 May 2000 00:11:15 GMT
[Templetonbot activated...]
matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Well, well, well, Stephen you are getting desperate. Folks of OS2, MAC,
No, YOU are the ONE getting DESPERATE, Matt. I've already posted the URL
for you to read! __YOU__ are just not paying attention. If all you can
do is insult, then that's YOUR problem.
: and Linux advocacy, I posted a link about MS software to nt.advocacy,
: Stephen here did not like it so he spammed your news groups with
: personal attacks on me. I guess he thinks that personal attacks will
You posted your URL, without reading _MY_ URL that I posted. READ TEH
ARTICAL!!
: serve in place of supported facts. I do not know. I regret that
: Stephen's personal vendetta against me has caused so much trouble.
[Bot deactivated...]
It's not a personal vendetta, Matt. It's just that you're such a ball to
make fun of.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bargmen digest, volume 2451353
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 00:16:31 GMT
Garban Bargmen wrote:
>
> Myrat Amodeo
Who?
> and Eric Bennett
Who?
> are just the latest in a series of people who post here for entertainment
> purposes.
How ironic, coming from Garban "Infantile game" Bargmen.
> Here's the digest:
Incorrect. You have failed to conform to the correct form of a digest.
> MA] Garban Bargmen wrote:
>
> Still having attribution problems, eh Myrat?
Not at all, Garban.
> MA] Still using made-up attributions, Garban?
>
> Notice how, despite these alleged "made-up attributions",
Nothing "alleged" about them.
> you still managed to identify the message as addressed to you, Myrat.
You responded to my posting and I recognized my words, Garban. That doesn't
make your attributions any less incorrect.
> MA] Perhaps this is all just part of your infantile game.
>
> *You're* the one who admitted to playing an "infantile game", Myrat.
I was just following your lead.
> How ironic.
Not at all.
> MA] Not at all, Garban.
>
> Typical unsubstantiated claim.
I see you have removed my substantiation. How convenient. Clean up your own
mess.
> MA] Whom are you addressing?
>
> Don't you know, Myrat?
Irrelevant.
> MA] That depends upon whom you are addressing.
>
> Reading comprehension problems?
Not at all.
> MA] Why not ask this "Myrat" yourself, Garban.
>
> What do you think I'm doing, Myrat?
Playing an infantile game.
> MA] So what's your excuse for not comprehending the evidence?
>
> What alleged "evidence", Myrat?
The evidence that I presented, which you have conveniently removed in classic
Curtis "I have removed all but the most recent new text" Bass fashion.
> Unsubstantiated claims are not "evidence".
So why do you issue them?
> MA] On the basis that the presupposition was not erroneous.
>
> Illogical, given that it was.
Typical pontification, laced with erroneous presupposition.
> MA] Don't you know?
>
> I see you didn't answer the question. No surprise there.
On the contrary, I see you have failed to comprehend my response.
> MA] Unnecessary,
>
> On the contrary, it is quite necessary.
Yet another example of your pontification.
> MA] as the answer is quite obvious, given your continued denial of the
> MA] presence of the evidence.
>
> What alleged "denial", Myrat?
See what I mean?
> What alleged "evidence", Myrat?
See what I mean?
> Care to substantiate your claims for a change?
Unnecessary. You have just provided the substantiation. How embarrassing!
> MA] Who?
>
> Too bad you can't figure it out.
On what basis do you make this claim?
> MA] How ironic.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim?
How ironic.
> EB] Illogical,
>
> On the contrary, it is quite logical.
On the contrary, it is quite an illogical pontification.
> Of course, it takes decent logic skills to realize that.
Of course, it takes decent pontification recognition skills to realize that.
> EB] On what basis do you make this claim, Gerben?
>
> On the basis that it's ironic, Eric.
What is an ironic Eric?
> EB] Illogical, as only two people are participating in this discussion.
>
> Incorrect, given that Myrat Amodeo and Pascal Schaakmat are also
> participating, Eric.
Who? Making up more attributions in an attempt to falsify evidence? Par for
the course for Garban.
> EB] What alleged "third person"?
>
> Don't you know, Eric?
Still having attribution problems?
> EB] Where?
>
> Open your eyes, Eric.
Still having attribution problems?
> EB] See what I mean?
> EB] See what I mean?
> EB] See what I mean?
>
> See what I mean?
Not at all, Garban.
> EB] See above.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that you've presented evidence, Eric.
Still having attribution problems?
> EB] Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>
> See above.
Above does not contain a logical argument on your part, Garban.
> EB] Why, nowhere to be seen!
>
> Yet more evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
How ironic.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 00:31:39 GMT
Try Linux, that is all I ask. Try Suse, Caldera, Redhat,
Mandrake,Slackware, Corel, whatever, for yourself.
Try it and compare it to the Windows that you now use. A current
edition of Windows, not Windows 95 or 98 without updates. This is a
favorite trick of the LinoScrews, to compare a current version of
Linux to an outdated version of Windows. Terry "The porter" Porter is
an expert at this method.
Try Linux, please try it. Decide for yourself. And then please come
back here and post your experiences with Linux.
If you like Linux, great, you have found a new life. If you hate
Linux, let us know why.
Try Linux and see for yourself....
Simon
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Templetonbot field test 001 (was Re: Tholen digest-[SNIP])
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 00:31:02 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> It's not a personal vendetta, Matt. It's just that you're such a ball to
> make fun of.
Yet another person posting for entertainment purposes.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451685
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 00:36:15 GMT
Today's Haakmat digest:
1> How ironic.
Non sequitur.
1> Obviously it has disappeared "again".
Do you deny writing it, Pascal?
1> What a relief, Dave.
Why do you call it a relief, Pascal?
1> Why?
Irrelevant, Pascal.
1> You don't have to get on your knees per se. That was just a manner
1> of speaking.
Still illogical, Pascal.
1> I'll concede that you don't have to.
Then why do you want me to do so, Pascal?
1> If you would like me to.
What I would like is irrelevant, Pascal.
1> I don't think you understood the significance of my answer.
What you think is also irrelevant, Pascal.
1> Only that was not the question.
Perfectly sequitur to someone who wrote "sweet liar", Pascal.
1> This digesting form of yours clearly proves the span of your attention
1> to be diminishing.
Illogical, Pascal.
1> You and me, Dave.
On what basis do you speak for me, Pascal?
1> The key to your heart?
Illogical, Pascal.
1> Not really.
On the contrary, it really was non sequitur, Pascal.
1> It could be great.
What it could be is irrelevant, Pascal.
1> Sorry, Dave.
Do you intend to do something about your illogic, Pascal?
1> I couldn't help myself.
Do you intend to do something about that, Pascal?
1> More evidence of your inconsistency.
Incorrect, Pascal. Rather, it's more evidence of your illogic.
1> I rest my case.
Non sequitur.
1> Buttercup.
Non sequitur.
1> Don't you know, Dave?
No, Pascal; why do you think I asked you?
1> "still", Dave?
Even more evidence for your reading comprehension problem.
1> "Psacal"?
Even more evidence for your reading comprehension problem.
1> More evidence of your memory problem I'm afraid.
Incorrect, Pascal, but why would you be afraid?
1> But all-inclusive.
Which isn't specific, Pascal.
1> More evidence still, Dave.
You're still presupposing the existence of the evidence, Pascal.
1> Let me take care of you.
Unnecessary, Pascal.
1> Is it important?
The truth can be important, Pascal.
1> Because it gives yet more evidence for the memory problem that you
1> are so vehemently denying.
It does no such thing, Pascal.
1> Determined by who?
Not by who, but by what, Pascal.
1> "quite", Dave?
Even more evidence for your reading comprehension problem.
1> Difficult to say, given our mutual memory problem.
On what basis do you claim that I have a memory problem, Pascal?
1> Difficult to say, given our mutual memory problem.
On what basis do you claim that I have a memory problem, Pascal?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: 20 May 2000 00:38:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : *snip a whole bunch of unwrapped lines*
> : We can wrap lines, winfag.
> Did you notice that he's posting with Pan v0.7.6? That is a newsreader
> which runs under GNOME, you twit.
Well slap my ass and call me bambi. Apologies are in order.
Apologies...
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: 20 May 2000 00:53:42 GMT
On 19 May 2000 20:55:50 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>*snip a whole bunch of unwrapped lines*
>
>We can wrap lines, winfag.
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
I hadn't ever used pan before (obviously).
He said using pan would make me a serious user.
Maybe my use of slrn will be more to your liking.
jt
P.S. You usually come up with something better than winfag
8^)
--
7:50pm up 2 days, 21:36, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Virus, Worse Than Loveletter -- VBS.NewLove.A
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 01:02:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mr Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 19 May 2000 10:54:18 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Tim Kelley wrote:
>>
>> "Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
>> >
>> > A new variant of the Loveletter VBS e-mail virus was mentioned
>> > on all the local news programs in Silicon Valley tonight as
>> > already causing severe problems in some businesses.
>> >
>> > It changes its Subject line each time it infects a new com-
>> > puter, and deletes almost *all* files, not just JPGs and MP3s.
>> > Symantec's web page says 1,000 systems have already been
>> > infected.
>>
>> I was waiting for this, and wondering why the original
>> "loveletter" was so wimpy. It could've done a lot more damage.
>>
>
>
>Perhaps the original intent of the ILOVEYOU virus writer was to
>get a hackable copy of the code into world wide distribution
>where it could mutate into something much more dangerous.
Which it now has, as of yesterday. 'Ware, all you Outlookians;
look out!
(Fortunately, there are filter programs on the Exchange server designed
to get rid of .bat, .vbs, and .exe files. Of course, do they look at
the data, or just the extensions?)
>
>--
>Mr Rupert
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: 20 May 2000 01:10:46 GMT
On 19 May 2000 20:55:50 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>*snip a whole bunch of unwrapped lines*
>
>We can wrap lines, winfag.
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
I hadn't ever used pan before (obviously).
He said I would be a "serious" linux user if I did.
Maybe you will like my use of slrn more?
jt
P.S. I know you can do better than winfag 8^)
--
8:00pm up 2 days, 21:46, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 01:12:28 GMT
On Sat, 20 May 2000 00:31:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Try Linux, that is all I ask. Try Suse, Caldera, Redhat,
>Mandrake,Slackware, Corel, whatever, for yourself.
>
>Try it and compare it to the Windows that you now use. A current
>edition of Windows, not Windows 95 or 98 without updates. This is a
...the only catch with this is the $$$'s. It costs good
money to be up to date with Windows, unless you pirate.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
From: pac4854 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 18:17:11 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
>Try Linux and see for yourself....
OK. What next? Did I miss something obvious?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: 20 May 2000 01:19:44 GMT
On 20 May 2000 00:38:48 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> : In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> : *snip a whole bunch of unwrapped lines*
>
>> : We can wrap lines, winfag.
>
>> Did you notice that he's posting with Pan v0.7.6? That is a newsreader
>> which runs under GNOME, you twit.
>
>Well slap my ass and call me bambi. Apologies are in order.
>
>Apologies...
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
>
Accepted. See previous post.
jt
--
8:10pm up 2 days, 21:56, 1 user, load average: 0.02, 0.01, 0.00
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 01:47:26 GMT
On 19 May 2000 16:22:04 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>As for your list specifically: KDE is not in Debian as it is not
>>compatible with the GPL.
>
>So clearly it would not suffice to be limited to Debian pacakges.
There are KDE debs. available, they just arn't included. Just add "deb
http://kde.tdyc.com slink kde" to your /etc/apt/sources.list file and you
can install kde debs just like you would the official debian packages.
> I want a tool that, after you put together your concept of the perfect
>machine, would upload a packaging description that would allow anyone else
>to duplicate that exact software selection so they only have to deal with
>the specific local configuration (IP address, users, etc.).
On Debian that would be:
"dpkg --get-selections > packages.dpkg" on master machine
"dpkg --set-selections < packages.dpkg" on new machine
--
Ray
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: 19 May 2000 21:18:44 -0500
In article <2MjV4.73766$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You've a right to your own preferences, but MS is
>not obliged to make you an OS. Use Linux or something.
We seem to have very different concepts of networking. Mine
is that you don't have to use any particular brand everywhere
just because you used a certain thing somewhere else. So
yes, I will use Linux some places, other things in other places.
>Hmm? Windows 2000s file synchronization feature
>works fine without AD. Active Directories 'shares
>that don't live in just one place' feature requires
>Active Directory and is implemented by it.
>
>I suspect I'm not understand what feature you mean.
I could easily have missed something, but I found where you
would manually syncronize files and then tried to set
up the scheduled runs and couldn't. According to the
on-line help I needed an active directory server to allow
scheduled file syncronization. The source was a remote
share, not on win2k, the destination would have been 2
remote win2k machines. I ended up using a cygwin-compiled
rsync in daemon mode on the target machines with a unix
cron job pushing the updates.
>> Even Radio Shack managed to come up with several versions
>> of DOS as fast as they built machines. And that was
>> a company whose main business was little leather craft kits.
>
>Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was under the impression
>that the TRS-80 series and the Color Computers had
>no more of a 'DOS' than the Apple ][ series did.
The model 1, 3, and 4 were Z80 machines with a DOS about
as functional as CP/M (which they could also run except
the the models 1 and 3 had ROM in low memory so it took
a modified version). It had 'friendlier' command syntax
than CP/M. There where some humorous copyright
questions surrounding TRSDOS, though. The early releases
up to 2.1 were horribly buggy and there were rumors of
failing negotiations with the author to get the problems
fixed. Then 2.2 came with the author's name removed from
the visible copyright notice - now it said (hmmm...) Microsoft
and Tandy Corp instead. The odd thing was that if you
hit a certain 3-key combination, the original author's copyright
notice would still pop up on the screen. It was a big hit at the
user group meetings, but it was replaced quickly by 2.3.
[unix]
>> It was well ahead of any other contenders in the 80's through
>> early 90's, just overpriced to a point that it did not have
>> the numbers of users to drive application development.
>
>It was ahead of *DOS*, but that's no challenge. It was not
>ahead of the MacOS.
I've forgotten the relative timing of Mac development
vs. Sun workstations which also had none of the problems
of DOS, and AT&T's flirtation with Sun. Without the
trade restraints on AT&T, this pairing might have happened
earlier and come out ahead.
>There's a reason why MS slavishly copied Apple, not AT&T:
>MacOS solved many of the problems plaguing DOS,
>and Unix just plain didn't.
So when MacOS X puts unix under the covers we will
have come full circle and we just have to wait for MS
to follow along...
>> Speaking of Win95, how the heck did MS get away with claiming
>> that it was exempt from IBM's license to use future windows
>> source code in OS/2 and making them pay over again? It
>> is pretty clear now that it still sits on top of DOS and
>> is basically win3.x with win32s stuck in and a slightly
>> different user interface. How can that be interpreted
>> as anything but another version of what they had licensed?
>
>Musta had good lawyers. But where are the good lawyers
>now, when MS needs them?
IBM had deep pockets and no shortage of lawyers. There has
to be more to the story. Perhaps a movie plot someday.
[Foxpro]
>> I think that was the plan from the beginning. They
>> were beating access in every test. Can't have that.
>
>Well, I don't take taht sort of blanket claim seriously-
It's true - and the reason I was using it. Dig out some trade
magazines from the time.
>There are always rumors; some of us don't believe them
>all.
When there's smoke, sometimes there really is a fire.
>MS sometimes buys companies out so they can incorporate
>their technologies in existing or new MS products. I don't think
>this distasteful FoxPro business is as common as you do.
Can you think of a single case where they have allowed a
competitor to survive on equal terms? At least one where
they had any other choice?
>> Do you happen to know when Dell signed that agreement?
>
>To judge by your post, you don't know that.
No, at the time I thought it was simply Dell's choice. The
base SysVr4 code was a mess, but everybody else knew that
a long time before and Dell had done a good job of handling
it up to that point. It is the things I've seen recently
about the various threats that MS used to force the issue
that makes me think in retrospect that Dell didn't have
a choice.
>> Have there been any internal documents uncovered in the
>> investigations that pinpoint when MS knew it was not
>> going to complete OS/2?
>
>Aren't we presuming that MS has a monolithic opinion
>on this?
How many stockholders did it take for a majority vote
at the time?
>I bet the feelings of the Windows development team
>turned anti-OS/2 way earlier than those of, say, the
>Word team...
Same stockholder(s) in control of decisions.
>But you seem to arguing that MS should not implement
>features their competitors don't have. IE, if standard
>Kerberos can't support NT domain security, MS should
>not try to produce a Kerberos than can, even if they
>sacrifice no compatibility in the attempt!
No, standards can be modified/updated/replaced. But
a new standard doesn't happen because a single company
makes secret modifications.
>Aren't you glad MS isn't *doing* that? You *can* drive
>MS clients on non-MS servers.
Just not any standard ones unless you replace parts of
the client.
>So, you are saying MS should implement only features
>that do not require new or changed protocols?
No, I am saying that they should work to define and modify
the standard that provides the new functionality so that
all products can interoperate.
>Blaming Microsoft because others didn't do better than
>MS did, or do it sooner than MS did it, is dubious. It is
>*not* obvious that just because MS succeeds, they should
>be blamed for those who did not.
Sure - that's why I brought up AT&T's monopoly status and
IBM's anti-trust problems. We can't blame MS for those
even though I'm convince they worke to their advantage.
How about Netscape? Do you think MS had some effect on
their fate? Stac?
>But they are pretty good compared to their competitors.
>They are agressive about backwards compatibility
>and interoperability, and they are very responsive to
>their customers needs and demands.
Historically they have been responsive only to competition.
Now they don't have any.
>They do have a penchant for putting other companies out of
>business, but that's hardly such an awful thing from
>a *Microsoft* user's point of view.
What? Do you think you would be better off if every gas
pump in the country said 'Standard Oil' on it? I don't, and
I don't think we need a single company in control of
software either.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 19 May 2000 21:27:13 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I want a tool that, after you put together your concept of the perfect
>>machine, would upload a packaging description that would allow anyone else
>>to duplicate that exact software selection so they only have to deal with
>>the specific local configuration (IP address, users, etc.).
>
>On Debian that would be:
>
>"dpkg --get-selections > packages.dpkg" on master machine
>"dpkg --set-selections < packages.dpkg" on new machine
How graceful is it about hardware differences? And is there
a way to do a subsequent update (including adding/removing as
well as updating packages) on the master so the copies can
track along? What if source changes are done and things
recompiled? Can the package be rebuilt and loaded from
an alternate location on the copies?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
