Linux-Advocacy Digest #788, Volume #27 Wed, 19 Jul 00 18:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (phil hunt)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (phil hunt)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (phil hunt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:31:11 -0500
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > <snip> >
> > > > oh give me a break... sigh... you know that no matter what I would write
> > > > you'd just pick it apart and either call it shit or say it was copied.
> > It's
> > > > a no win scenario. I haven't used Fortran since college (or RPG and
> > Cobol).
> > > > C++ , it takes half a page to write hello world, fuck that. So... piss
> > > > off...
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > #include<iostream>
> > >
> > > main()
> > > {
> > > cout << "Hello World!" << endl;
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > > Um, half a page?!?!
> >
> > I'm sorry, I exagerated a little :)
> >
> > of couse, in BASIC this would be
> >
> > --------------------
> > PRINT "Hello World!"
> > --------------------
>
> OOhhhhh!!!
>
> Language wars!
>
> Can I play?
>
> In Python, it's:
>
> print "Hello, World!"
>
> :-)
>
> Oh, and by the by, the C++ version of hello world is exactly the same as
> the C version . . .
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int
> main(
> void)
> {
> printf("Hello, World!\n");
> }
>
> Try it with your favorite C++ compiler . . . it works.
>
> ;-)
>
> --
>
> If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
> John Stevens
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually both yours and the one I posted will work in C++, yours will
also compile in C. The difference between the two is I use iostream
(giving me cout) and you use stdio (giving you printf). Still the same
results with the same number of lines.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:33:27 -0600
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> Please detail for us all just why you think VB is just so terribly
> underpowered and weak and how,
It's not portable. For the tasks you seem to perform, Python would be a
better choice than VB.
> it would appear from your statments, to be so
> vastly inferiour to every other langague (with or without "shiny-happy
> IDE"s). I guess there must be 7 million developers out there without a clue
> and all too stupid over 10 years to graduate from this childs language to
> something seriously over complicated and lacking the advantage an IDE
> provides. Something that requires more effort to get the syntax right than
> spending that same effort in producing working code. You seem to prefer to
> have your work harder which somehow you think means it must be better (cause
> it took longer and more effort to produce exactly the same result).
Umm . . . no. See, you are making a few assertions that don't hold
water, here.
First, large numbers of users do not guarantee that a choice is good.
All large numbers of users prove, is that the choice is competitive
within the existing market conditions.
Secondly, there is simply no reason to believe that a better language
would be "seriously over complicated", or that it would lack an IDE, or
that it would take more effort to get the syntax right.
Allow me to point out the mistakes in your premise:
> I mean, if I can crank out a handy dandy tool to do what I want from
> VBScript in a few minutes and you have labor away longer in "languagex" -
But . . . I will produce a better result in my choice of language, and
produce it faster, than you will with VB.
> and both produce exactly the same results
Ok.
> - how are you going to justify
> your extra efforts
I won't . . . because the effort will be *less*, not more.
> without extra meaningful reward?
The reward will be: portability. My system will run on multiple
platforms, yours won't.
> I would never claim VB as the ultimate language - but, to laugh it off or
> simply ignore it ONLY because it's easy to use is, in my opinion, a huge
> huge mistake.
I don't laugh it off because it's easy to use, I laugh it off because
there are better language choices.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:35:47 -0500
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 20:55:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>>Like Compaq, which explicitly supports half a dozen OSs on their
>>>>servers? And if I looked, I'm sure I'd find plenty of others, too.
>>>
>>> That's certainly relevant (NOT) to the common consumer.
>>
>>Well sure, but neither is Linux. :)
>
> When they don't have to go to the same sorts of places they
> would need to go to find a reproduction of some 80 year
> old automobile, then it will be relevant in terms of claims
> regarding "free markets".
Cool - they don't. I've got a dozen clone shops within 20 minutes of
my house - and that's only the ones I know about. So, your argument
has been disproved. :)
>>
>>> It's still also a situation where one is forced to resorting
>>> to mail order to get any sort of selection.
>>
>>Hmm...local shops around here put whatever OS you want on it, although
>
> ...larger than 100 square foot?
I haven't seen an OS that's larger than 100 square feet, no. You mean
the store? Some are big, some are small. Is that a factor, too?
Grades of Linux install : A1 Grade: Store that installed it was 1000
sqft+; B1 Grade: Store that installed it was 850 sq ft +; C1
Grade.....
>>I agree with you MS has the "easy stores" (BB, CC, CUSA, etc.) sewed
>>up pretty tight.
>>
>>> Whereas the dealers that each sold us both of our cars also show
>>> more than one brand of car. Then there's that 'worlds largest
>>> Ford dealer' that sold me my last truck and shows 9 brands of product
>>> including at least 2 direct competitors/alternative to the product
>>> I bought from them.
>>
>>Do they all run on gasoline?
>
> Actually some run on diesel.
>
> However, that's much like asking if a particular bit of electronics
> runs on electicity.
I'd argue it's more like software myself...
>>
>>> Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
>>
>>Like finding a diesel car, an electric car, or a natural gas car,
>>outside of California or other special markets, you mean?
>
> That's somewhat similar. However, there at least exists some
> non-trivial diversity even amongst cars that run on gas and
> diesel. It's not as if you only get to choose between 2 or
> 3 variants of Lada.
Hey, Linux is a good thing; I just don't think your argument is all
you've chalked it up to be WRT how hard it is to get alternative
machines. It's pretty easy - if you know what you want. That's the
problem, not getting the machine after you know what you want....
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:37:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>> It would be far better if your ideas had support in the statutes and
>>> the court decisions interpreting and applying them.
>> They do.
>
>Not.
>
>> I haven't seen you refute them with any citations.
>
>Which merely means that you haven't been reading.
No, it means I've read their statements and don't consider them to be
reasonable support for their contentions. I haven't ignored either
their contentions or their attempts at reasoning, and have happily
discussed these, directly addressing many of their remarks. Why would
that indicate to you that I've not read them?
>> A mere word in a certain ill-considered context is hardly sufficient.
>> The word "use" in the basic statute, for instance, was applied
>> without any idea or consideration of functional works such as
>> software.
>
>This is correct. Until such time as there is law (statute or court
>decision) which *does* recognise functional works as distinct from
>literate works *and makes functionality part of the definition of
>'tangible form'* for copyright purposes ...
There is. Copyright recognizes software as both functional and
intellectual work. Modifications were made, in fact, to the original
statute (Section 106 or 117 or whatever) in order to account for this
distinction. An active and on-going debate concerning software as both
functional and intellectual work rages even now amidst the courts and
lawyers and other interested parties. Feel free to join the debate.
Kindly leave your assumption that the side you disagree with is
"clueless" at the door.
>> It could not possibly have been within "Congress' intentions" to
>> apply to half the software-related issues which it is, commonly.
>
>...this statement is false. The DMCA doesn't even recognise
>functionality, although it does prohibit reverse engineering of
>copyright security mechanisms.
That is recognizing functionality as part of the nature of software.
You can't "reverse engineer" a book, a piece of music, or a visual
representation of artistic value.
>> Likewise, a naked revelation that a derivative work cannot precede
>> the original does not enable anyone to make a mockery of copyright
>> law.
>
>So you're finally admitting that in the case of:
>
> Time
> +0 libA is written and released as public domain. It contains bugs.
> +1 progB is written to use libA. It's proprietary.
> +2 libC is written as libA + libA' (bugfixes) and is released under
> the GPL.
>
>progB is NOT a derivative of libC and cannot be in any way?
[...yet more unreasonable failure to show any integrity or
understanding snipped...]
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:41:10 -0400
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > KLH wrote:
> > >
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > KLH wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mlw wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Iko wrote:
> > > > > > > > A linux server is made in about 3 hours...even my girlfriend can
> > > > > > > > do the job..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh boy, do you have a lot to learn. Either you think poorly of your
> > > > > > > girlfriend or women generally. Either way, someone's sex has no
> > > bearing
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Data processing is oftentimes best represented in the mind as
> > > > > > 3+ dimensional processes. On the average, men's brains are MUCH
> > > > > > more adept at this sort of thinking (in the same way as on the
> > > > > > average, women's brain's are much more adept at acquiring and
> > > > > > using linquistic skills)
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally, I find the differences between the thinking of men and woman
> > > > > similar to the differences between KDE and GNOME; not very interesting
> > > and
> > > > > far too slight to really matter.
> > > >
> > > > Evidently, you are not well-read on the subject.
> > > >
> > > > Catch up, and get back to me.
> > >
> > > I *do* know there are many authors of books, editorials, and magazine
> > > articles who love to dwell on the subject about the differences between men
> > > and women. Often this content is on the subject of dating, marriage, and
> > > divorce. As interesting as this may be for some, it does not make it
> > > significant. Men are *not* from Mars and Women are *not* from Venus, rather
> > > we are both from Earth; but the title of such a book shows how the
> >
> > And John Gray is an idiot.
> >
> > That's NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about peer-reviewed
> > studies about the differences between male and female brains
> >
> > > differences are so exagerated. But a statistic I heard in class once was
> > > that Men and Women are greater than 90% alike (sorry, I do not recall the
> > > exact percentage) .
> > >
> > > So attempting to classify a person's ability at linguistics or math based
> > > upon gender seems to be an act of futillity---or segregation.
> > >
> > > My feeling is that the trend of women not taking up occupations in computers
> > > is because of enviroment rather than any sort of inherent capacity.
> > >
> >
> > Keep believing the politically correct line, and you'll never learn the
> > truth.
>
> I can't believe people still feel this way. Just because *most* women
> choose to use/display their intelligence in different ways than *most*
> men does not mean they are incapable of using/displaying intelligence in
> the same areas. I have to agree that for the most part the way we use
> our brains depends on our environment. Women are *trained* from the
> time they are little to be nuturers, care-providers, in other words,
> qualities befitting a mother. If you know very many women raised in a
> house with all guys (mother left of died and they were raised by father
> and/or older brothers) you would see that these girls tend to head
> towards fields that are usually considered "boys only" areas. And the
> same happens with men raised in primarily female company. They tend to
> be more nuturing and more caring and more "motherly" than men that are
> raised with other men around them.
>
> To say this is just from political correctness seems an attempt to blur
> the real issue. Men and women are *different* mentally because they are
> *trained* to be different. Sure, studies will tell you they are
Wrong. Countless studies have shown that little girls consistantly
acquire verbal skills earlier, regardless of culture, and that their
linguistic skills are consistently better than those of men.
> different. Society on the whole sees women in one role, men in
> another. This doesn't mean it is inherent in the people as they are
> born. It is just as likely environment as they grow that causes these
> differences. Brining political correctness into the discussion seems
> very *hip* when you don't want people to realize there might be a valid
> argument to be had on either side of the issue. People's eyes glaze
> over at the word politics and that's probably the last they pay
> attention to it.
There are numerous physiological differences between men and women,
INCLUDING electrical activity in the brain when performing different
tasks.
This indicates that there are sex-linked differences in brain function.
Your egalitarion philosophy is equivalent to arguing that midgets can,
with sufficient training, effectively compete in basketball with normal
men around 6 feet tall, and even against NBA pros in the range of
7 to 7 1/2 feet tall.
Yes, there might occasional midgets who, with proper training, could
perform athletically to the standards required by professional sports...
but that's not the way to bet.
Similarly, there are SOME women who are as good with spatial
manipulations
as the *average* man, just as there are SOME men who are as good with
language as the *average* woman.
Neither case, however, justifies the claim that men and women have
equal intellectual capabilities. All research before the formation of
the propagandistic National Organization for Women clearly showed
sex-linked brain differences before they started witch hunts against
any researcher who continued to investigate down this avenue.
If anything, it makes COMPLETE evolutionary sense for women to have
an INNATE predisposition to be better nurturers than men.
Why? Because in "cave man days", infants were, by necessity, stuck
with their mothers. Consequently, the survival of an infant was not
nearly as dependant upon a father's "nurturing" capacity as it was
upon the mother's.
If the father "failed" at this task, it meant more work for the mother.
If the mother failed at this task...the baby dies...flat out.
thus, by and large, ONLY those babies who are progeny of females with
the right genes to build a "nurturing" brain tended to live.
Conversely,
for many of ancient man's tasks, having an overly "nurturing" brain
could result in...starvation, as he would be refuse to use his freedom
to get away from the kid, and hunt or explore for new food to forage.
One possibility is that there is an anti-nurturing gene on Y, which
precluded most females from ever having this gene.
Other possibilities is that the pro-nurturing genes are distributed
throughout the chromosomes (which is more likely), but that during
braind development, they respond to estrogen in one way, and
testosterone
another.
Research with rats and many other mammals indicates that this is
the reality. Pregnant females of various frequencies are injected
with large doses of testosterone or estrogen. In the case of
female offspring which developed in a high-testosterone environment,
they tend to behave more like males than females THROUGHOUT THEIR
ENTIRE LIVES.
Similarly, male offspring which developed in high estrogen environment
tend to behave more like females than males THROUGHOUT THEIR ENTIRE
LIVES.
These experiments have been repeated numberous times, and the results
are always the same.
[Incidentally, the females gestated in the high-estrogen, and the
males gestated in the high-testosterone environment tended to be
really wacky. The males were just ... goofy... committing random
attacks for no apparent reason, etc. I forget the exact descriptions
of females born of estrogen-injected mothers.]
>
> That's my opinion. As I'm sure the response will be something to the
> effect that I'm a complete left-wing idiot asshole, let me save you the
> trouble.
>
> I already know that 9/10 of the people that see me feel I'm an idiot.
> If you want to repeat it, feel free. Hopefully we can have a real
> discussion on the issue at hand instead.
I merely invite you to review the research in this area. There was
GREAT headway in this line of research up until the 1960's when it
became politically unfashionable to even ask the question, let alone
conduct experiments.
The taboo was broken in 1980 when Discover magazine raised the question
on the front cover, and reviewed some of the old research.
Buy a copy of "The Bell Curve", and you will find the names of many,
many, many intelligence researchers in the bibliography. From there,
you can start tracking down the actual research.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:38:26 -0600
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > From the experience I've had with VB, it sucked. Perl is much more
> > powerful IMO (and I can use perl on almost every platform out there).
>
> More powerful? Perhaps. But is it as easy to use as VB? I use VB cause I can
> crank out code in a hurry and with very little debugging and the tools and
> 3rd party support is fantastic.
In that case, your language of choice should be Python. Easier to use
than VB, lower learning cost, lower defect rate, and portable, to boot.
> show a programmer some VB code and I'll bet he can figure out what it's
> doing quickly and usually pretty close to accurately.
The same is true of Python.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:54:52 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:38:26 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The only way to extend democracy to all fields of our life (though I
>have to admit that I'm not quite sure what you mean by this) is to
>empower every individual to be independent if desired, and decedent on
>others only by voluntary choice. If every employee has the power to say
>"screw you, this job isn't worth it"
One measure that would help achieve this would be to invalidate clauses
in contracts of employment which attempt to limit an employee's future
employment once he has left his present employer.
>because they know they have
>reliable access to outside capital with which they might be
>independently productive, only then will the employee be an equal at the
>bargaining table.
--
***** Phil Hunt *****
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:56:45 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 Jul 2000 12:29:58 +0100, Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Max" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Max> It isn't a question of "shifting" capital, as capital as a
> Max> concept, not a substance. Democratic access to capital means
> Max> that "power blocks" are far more vulnerable; even ants can kill
> Max> an elephant in sufficient number, without even trying.
>
> Max> The only way to extend democracy to all fields of our life
> Max> (though I have to admit that I'm not quite sure what you mean
> Max> by this) is to empower every individual to be independent if
> Max> desired, and decedent on others only by voluntary choice. If
> Max> every employee has the power to say "screw you, this job isn't
> Max> worth it" because they know they have reliable access to
> Max> outside capital with which they might be independently
> Max> productive, only then will the employee be an equal at the
> Max> bargaining table.
>
> It is certainly true that having "a sellers" employment
>market is empowering for people. The problem is that the large capital
>power blocks will try and turn this around. In the UK for instance
>Thatcher introduced "wage controls" by deliberately and premeditatedly
>forcing 2 million extra people into unemployment.
I doubt if it was that deliberate. Govmts typically want to get re-elected,
and fucking up the economy doesn't help.
> My own feeling is that the employee, employer relationship
>is fundamentally flawed, and is something that we should be rid
>off. In a democratic society I can see no justification for
>maintaining a feudal hierarchy in the work place. "Companies" should
>all be publicly accountable and controlled not by directors but by
>those parts of society which are most directly affected by their
>activities, namely the workforce, and the users of the industries
>produce. This is what I mean by extending democracy to all parts of
>life.
If shareholders don't control their companies, why would anyone invest
in a capital-intensive speculative venture?
--
***** Phil Hunt *****
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:08:11 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:39:03 GMT, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, phil hunt wrote:
>> 1. Use + for arguments instead of -. So:
>> $ something +verbose
>> would turn on verbose mode, and
>> $ something -verbose
>> would turn it off
>
>Argh! And turn you back on 30 years of tradition?!
One alternative would be options like -verbose and -verbose- which IMO
look more confusing.
>> 2. have more regularity in arguments, probably by having a standard parser
>> in the OS. At the moment, some use:
>> $ something -a=value
>> others use:
>> $ something -avalue
>> I'd standardise on the former.
>
>Well, there is a standard parser; it's galled getopt().
>
>I prefer the latter, as the "=" is redundant.
The problem with the latter is that it is difficult to read, and for a
human to parse: does it mean '-a value' or '- avalue'?
>> 3. for each command-line program, have a GUI version, with the same name
>> but prefixed with a 'g'. So grep and ggrep, ps and gps, ftp and gftp, etc.
>
>I'm sure the GNU crowd will hang you for suggesting this! :-)
The arguments for these commands can often be complex. It'd help if the
man pages gave more and better examples. Perhaps the man pages could be
web-based using forms so that the user chooses options dynamically and
then the web form creates the command line based on the user's choices.
>> 4. (a big change), for each optional package that can be added to the
>> system, the package would go in directory /opt/package-version where
>> <version> is of the form 1.2.3. There would be a symbolic link, /opt/package,
>> pointing to the one in use.
>
>Err, that's pretty much the "standard" SVR4 way of doing things; /usr/local
>is a hold over from the Old Days...
It's not the standard way for SuSE Linux. /opt contains 12 packages, there
must be many more stored at other places on my system.
>I like some of your other ideas - but some of them would require a lot
>of CPU power!
Would they? Which ones?
I've got an AMD K6-2 running at 300MHz, and i think that would be fast enough.
> Not to mention kernel size bloat...
I don't think any of them would change the kernel.
--
***** Phil Hunt *****
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
