Linux-Advocacy Digest #692, Volume #28 Sun, 27 Aug 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Which Lunix should I try with a NOTEBOOK and Cardbus cards for (Glitch)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Christopher Browne)
Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
(D. Spider)
Re: Powered by LINUX (Glitch)
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane.. (Douglas D. Anderson)
Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused (Tim Hanson)
Large disks supported on Linux. (David M. Cook)
Re: seeking advice in distribution choice ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Large disks still not supported on Linux? (Tim Hanson)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane.. (OSguy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:14:46 -0400
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which Lunix should I try with a NOTEBOOK and Cardbus cards for
u got the wrong newsgroup here, but to answer your question most should
work just fine as they all have the same drivers but just package things
a bit differently. I hear Mandrake has working USB that other distros
haven't yet implemented for the user out of the box. And since all will
most likely have the same drivers the question comes down to whether
your hardware is supported and if it is it should work in any distro.
THe biggest problem will be your USB devices but I know people have
gotten USB scanners to work so it is possible.
HTH
Brandon
p.s. they all can coexist with any other OS, and with Windows. That's
up to the boot loader anyway, not the OS.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I have a notebook with 2 hard drives (11 gig) and use Cardbus cards for Token
> Ring, Modem, SCSI and Ethernet access. Also have a Yamaha CD-RW, Nikon
> Coolscan III, Scanner using USB, a USB printer, etc. 96 megs of RAM.
>
> Which Linux will install easiest for the above environment AND coexist with
> Win98 or WinME?
>
> HELP
>
> Bob
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 28 Aug 2000 00:12:37 GMT
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 21:30:33 GMT, ZnU wrote:
>That private school gets to pick who it accepts, right? Will it take
>kids with serious learning disabilities? Behavioral/emotional problems?
>Below average intelligence? You can't just leave these people out of the
>system; if you don't do your best to educate them they'll only be even
>more of a burden on society later.
I'd like to develop this line of reasoning further. Kulkis seems to be
trying to sell us on an exclusivist system. He points out that
exclusive schools(1) display better performance. But his arguments
fall short on two counts:
(a) Excluding certain groups will not result in a better-educated
population. All it does is hide the less capable from view of
educational stats ( like SAT scores ). In short, it's a stats-scam.
(b) It's not even obvious that the more gifted students would benefit
from exclusionist practices. You'd need to show that *the same
students* would have done worse under a less exclusionist system.
In short, Kulkis's exclusionist vision has an agenda of hiding the less
able from the statistics, rather than actually improving the quality of
education.
(1) By this, I mean schools with a self-selected population. This includes
Catholic schools, not just snob-value schools.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:16:14 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Tad McClellan would say:
>On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:27:47 +1000, Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>> It seems that too many people are so worked up about the XML format that
>>> they are crediting it with magical properties.
>>
>>Yeh, there seems to be a lot of hype. I guess it's the new toy syndrome.
> ^^^^^^^
>
>
>Structured markup is not new. It is (at least) 20 *years* old.
>
>I am dumbfounded that most everybody thinks that XML is
>"something new"...
>
>So it isn't really "new toy" syndrome, it is more like
>"a very old toy that I just now discovered" syndrome :-)
Some of us used SGML ten years ago; yes, indeed, it's hardly
"something new."
The point is that the _hype_ surrounding it is pretty recent.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Strong language gets results. "The reloader is completely broken in
242" will open a lot more eyes than "The reloader doesn't load files
with intermixed spaces, asterisks, and <'s in their names that are
bigger than 64K". You can always say the latter in a later paragraph.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:19:22 GMT
<snip>
>If you want to support a claim Win95 is poorly engineered, you either
>have
>to provide some examples of a "better engineered" product that
>provides the
>same services whilst operating under the same restrictions or, at the
>very
>least, give a credible explanation of how it could be done.
Well you have to first at least make a guess what the design goals
are. None of the various Windows incarnations touch unix for
stability, security, or power of course, but for many of them it's not
reasonable to count that against them. It is clearly not a design goal
of Windows95 to be exceptionally stable for instance. More of a case
in this regard could be made against NT Server - whether it was an
explicit design goal or not to provide a robust and powerful platform
relative to the hardware investment, given what it's marketed as, it
should have been. Running video drivers in kernel space, and having no
gui-less operating mode, are arguably major design flaws for any
server OS.
But another area is not so debateable. Ease-of-learning and ease of
use are clearly design goals of any general purpose GUI. All Win32
implementations have done fairly poorly in that field. All recent
versions of Mac OS (prior to 10, which I haven't worked with yet, and
seems to have some major issues from what I have read) have been
greatly superior in terms of GUI design. The NeXT boxes were clearly
superior as well. Windows 3.1 was in many ways superior in terms of
GUI design for that matter, although it's technical limitations
(particularly in terms of heap space) crippled it.
Examples of these problems are not hard to find. Start with the
placement of the window control widgets -
minimise-maximise/restore-close clustered together is a poor design.
The Mac OS9 and prior layout, placing close on the opposite corner
from the others is a better design.
The placement of the menus - the Windows design where they are placed
below the top window border is clearly an inferior design to the Mac
placement of the menus along the top edge of the desktop.
The windows task-bar/start-menu" is another bundle of joy for the UI
critic. The MS Interface guidelines even explicitly not that cascading
menus quickly become unwieldy, and should be limited to 2 layers when
used at all - yet a cascading menu with far more layers is the
centerpiece of their desktop! To edit this menu, an inconsistent
version of explorer is used, and good luck finding it.
Ever try to drag and drop to an app running on the taskbar? Again,
they went to the trouble to describe how drag and drop should work in
their own guidelines, then disregard those guidelines entirely
themselves.
The taskbar tray doesn't even pretend to have any guidelines for use -
some objects there are manipulable one way, some another, there is no
way to access them from the keyboard, and no visual clues as to their
use are required - although some choose to display "tooltips" at
least.
Consistency - MS tools are hideously inconsistent in dozens of areas.
In most apps, for instance, alt-e f (menu-edit find) activates the
find function. But in notepad, it's alt-s f (menu-find search.)
You close (alt-f c) a window, you exit (alt-f x) an application. Well,
at least in Win3.1 you did. In 95 and later, that's still usually
true, but not always - another consistency problem detracting from
useability, and very typical.
The Win95 common dialogs are bad enough (an inexplicable step back
from the Win3.1 common dialogs in terms of UI design) but then MS puts
out the Office package, which contains it's own unique and different
implementations instead of using the common dialogues.
More on the common dialogues, a major usability nightmare even in
comparison with the 3.1 version, can be found at
http://www.iarchitect.com/file95.htm - in fact anyone interested in UI
design should probably take some time to take note of the UI mistakes
documented here. Most concern MSWindows, but Apple and *nix get some
time too... *nix mostly gets let off easy for the fact that no one
expects it to have a good UI, but with recent developments,
particularly the hype regarding things like GNOME and KDE that is
changing.
If the actual shipping products don't match the hype there will be a
backlash. I believe that's already starting to happen. An incomplete
and inconsistent clone of a bad GUI is inevitably going to be a worse
GUI, and a GUI that is any worse than Windows simply will not make Joe
User happy - it's just going to convince him that "linux sucks."
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:31:36 -0400
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Powered by LINUX
Alabanza.com runs a dedicated server hosting business. Every server that
is sold runs (currently) RH 6.1(I haven't worked there in a month but
I'd say they are up to 700 servers now). A few months ago it was 5.2
but they are now upgraded. They also use Apache, Sendmail, PHP, and many
other open source programs, as well as their own proprietary software
that is loaded onto each server that is sold.
HTH
Brandon
MerefBast wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> I am putting together a comparison list of which major
> businesses and organizations use which operating systems for
> their web servers (at
> <http://www.OperatingSystems.net/system/internet/internet.htm>.
>
> So, I am asking for fans or users of Linux
> to provide verifiable accounts of businesses or organizations that
> use Linux for their web servers. Verifiable means
> something such as a URL to a web page on their site that says
> "powered by..." or e-mail from the web master or other employee
> of the business or organization. Major means easily and widely
> recognizeable businesses or organizations.
>
> Please send a courtesy copy of your information to
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
> Thanks...
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:30:42 GMT
BULLSHIT!!
I've have Win2k and SuSE 6.4 on my PC, IIS5 on Win2k(ftp,smtp and www
servers),-
on the Linux part i have Apache, WuFTP and (of course) Sendmail up and
running + X Windows with KDE.
At bootup Linux have taken 35 MB, Win2k has taken 75 MB (????)
/IL
> Linux Workstations take up the same amount of memory as Windows does if
you
> configure them similarly (running X with applications like Netscape, KDE,
> etc..).
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Douglas D. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane..
Date: 28 Aug 2000 00:33:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Use Linux?
Yes.
>
> Yea sure, and I would love to drive that 1975 Chrysler you have sitting in your
> garage.
Windows95 was the first MS OS to finally utilize multi-tasking and
networking functions which had been developed in UNIX in the 1970's,
and from what I've heard, Win2000 might finally be stable, but not
enough data on that yet.
>
> Linux is like a visit back in time... It takes operations that are simple under
> Windows, and turns them into a mess of reading, programming and general wasting
> of time.....It's all about applications and one quick look at freshmeat.net
> shows a collection of fragmented and useless applications only a true idiot
> could love.
I see you're using Agent, what's wrong with Outlook? <heh>.
>
> Try Netscape some time (Windows version will do) and see what you think...Oh
> yea, "several" browsers are in the works for Linux...Think they will ever see
> the light of day?
Browsers started in UNIX, "Mosaic" was the first, then Netscape a year later,
then IE a year later. Praise and thank you to Bill Gates, that IE brought
down the prices on commercial browsers... but perhaps you don't know that
UNIX version of Netscape Communicator 4.72 runs just fine under Linux,
and has all the bells and whistles like Real Audio and Flash and all that.
Of course, in Linux, using KDE, I can go browsing with KFM, and although
it doesn't have a lot of fancy side-effects, it sure does screw-up knock-
knock sites, they can't identify it...
>
>
> My advice?
>
> If you are interested, try Linux and see for yourself...
>
> http://www.cheapbytes.com
>
> You will soon become another dis-satisifed customer...
>
> Linux is even worse than a piece of shit, it is more like a septic tank filled
> with fresh sewerage....
>
> Shit, what do you expect for $1.99?
>
> Billy
MS Windows *is* a pretty platform for gamers and accountants, but it is
totally lame for computing. E.g., Fortran is the only language which can
handle higher math readily, and is still used by scientists in preference
to any other, and it comes free with Linux, as does Pascal, C, C++,
and gui development environments, and if I want to run network tools
like ntp, traceroute, whois, finger, telnet, etc., I can do it right from
the bash prompt, but have to pay for utilities such as NWPS's NetScanTools
to do the same in Windows... and even then, whois under Windows is Lame,
doesn't work like it does under UNIX/Linux, and even starting up a ppp
link, takes a couple of seconds with Linux, compared to a minute or
two with Windows, which has to thrash through Winsock, when Linux talks
directly to the net.
Well, don't let me bore you, get back to your games. BTW, you might
want to try out Outlook, and do a report on that.
Doug Anderson
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:34:03 GMT
Nico Coetzee wrote:
>
> Every now and then some M$ preacher refers to netcraft for this or that
> stat. Well, am I the only one that find it strange that Apache is the
> only platform currently with a obvious positive trendline? Even the M$
> line has a downward curve since just before 2000.
>
> And Linux remain the dominant OS platform, no matter how you look at it.
>
> Don't you people find this funny?
>
> --
Here's an interesting Wired article:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,38240,00.html
--
Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware
has limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing
machines are so poor at I/O.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Large disks supported on Linux.
Date: 28 Aug 2000 00:38:40 GMT
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 15:17:40 +0200, RCS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I was wondering if the upcoming kernel 2.4 supports larger harddisks than
>previously?
Large hard drives (> 33.8G) have been supported since kernel 2.2.14.
Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: seeking advice in distribution choice
Date: 28 Aug 2000 01:00:22 GMT
aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I would go with Mandrake. Mandrake is also the main Linux distro in my
: home network (with the exception of the lone 486 machine running
: SuSE). My advice would be to take a "typical" machine and install one
: of the distros on it, use it for a week or two, keeping good notes all
: along, then try another, on the same hardware. After trying all of
: them, compare the notes and select one. Of course after trying 5
: distros for 2 weeks each (10 weeks total) some or all of the distros
: will have new releases by the end of the time trials :) .
Mandrake typically contains a lot of "bleeding edge" technology. It's
a nice distro, but you'll want to test carefully to make sure it's
solid with your particular combination of hardware and required
software.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Large disks still not supported on Linux?
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 01:10:29 GMT
RCS wrote:
>
> I was wondering if the upcoming kernel 2.4 supports larger harddisks than
> previously?
> ( or maybe its lilo that needs to be updated for this?)
>
> As it is today, it is some hassle to install Windows and Linux on the same
> machine due to this.
>
> Also, since you don't get newer computers with harddisks less 6 GB (more or
> less) any more, it is some hassle also to install Linux by itself on one
> harddisk.
>
> Of course, you could get through the partitioning if you have some
> experience, but for beginners this is something that will turn them of
> trying Linux.
>
> Of course, as always, I could have missed something :-)
>
> RCS
Linux 2.2.* kernel will support up to 32gb, but it won't automatically
support more than 8 gb. To get more, put something like this in your
lilo.conf global section:
disk=/dev/hda
bios=0x80
cylinders=<amount>
heads=<amount>
sectors=<amount>
This is from memory. You should really ask your question again in a
place like .setup.
--
Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware
has limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing
machines are so poor at I/O.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:47:29 +1000
"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snip>
> >If you want to support a claim Win95 is poorly engineered, you either
> >have
> >to provide some examples of a "better engineered" product that
> >provides the
> >same services whilst operating under the same restrictions or, at the
> >very
> >least, give a credible explanation of how it could be done.
>
> Well you have to first at least make a guess what the design goals
> are.
They were generally accepted to be:
Runs as many DOS and Win16 applications as possible
Runs Win32 apps
Can use DOS drivers
Runs in 4MB of RAM
Has pre-emptive scheduling
> None of the various Windows incarnations touch unix for
> stability, security, or power of course, but for many of them it's not
> reasonable to count that against them. It is clearly not a design goal
> of Windows95 to be exceptionally stable for instance. More of a case
> in this regard could be made against NT Server - whether it was an
> explicit design goal or not to provide a robust and powerful platform
> relative to the hardware investment, given what it's marketed as, it
> should have been. Running video drivers in kernel space, and having no
> gui-less operating mode, are arguably major design flaws for any
> server OS.
Major design flaws ? I'd call them minor implementation issues.
Video drivers in kernel space - largely irrelevant if you a) use the VGA
drivers (which you should) and b) don't actually use the GUI on the server
(similarly, like you should).
GUI-less operating mode - again, largely irrelevant since it uses very
little memory which will be swapped out anyway. If your server is affected
by the marginal overhead of NT sitting at the login screen, then your server
is way underpowered.
Largely theoretical problems, blown _way_ out of proportion.
> But another area is not so debateable. Ease-of-learning and ease of
> use are clearly design goals of any general purpose GUI. All Win32
> implementations have done fairly poorly in that field.
Compared to what ? And what *relevant* data are you going to use to back
that up ?
> All recent
> versions of Mac OS (prior to 10, which I haven't worked with yet, and
> seems to have some major issues from what I have read) have been
> greatly superior in terms of GUI design. The NeXT boxes were clearly
> superior as well. Windows 3.1 was in many ways superior in terms of
> GUI design for that matter, although it's technical limitations
> (particularly in terms of heap space) crippled it.
I wouldn't call MacOS greatly superior in terms of UI. Both GUIs have good
points and bad points. NeXT I have very little personal experience with,
and won't comment on.
> Examples of these problems are not hard to find. Start with the
> placement of the window control widgets -
> minimise-maximise/restore-close clustered together is a poor design.
> The Mac OS9 and prior layout, placing close on the opposite corner
> from the others is a better design.
For such a "poor design" it seems to have been used almost everywhere else,
not to mention in the upcoming OS X. If it is noticably worse, only a
minority seem to realise that.
> The placement of the menus - the Windows design where they are placed
> below the top window border is clearly an inferior design to the Mac
> placement of the menus along the top edge of the desktop.
That I'll have to disagree on. I find menus in Windows to be better at
higher resolutions and with multiple monitors. This may have something to
do with the low mouse tracking speed of MacOS, however. Pop-up menus under
the mouse are probably the most efficient method, but have discoverability
issues.
> The windows task-bar/start-menu" is another bundle of joy for the UI
> critic. The MS Interface guidelines even explicitly not that cascading
> menus quickly become unwieldy, and should be limited to 2 layers when
> used at all - yet a cascading menu with far more layers is the
> centerpiece of their desktop!
The standard Start menu has, IIRC, exactly 2 layers above "Programs".
> To edit this menu, an inconsistent
> version of explorer is used, and good luck finding it.
To edit the Start Menu, you drag and drop to it. Ever since IE4 was
released, which was quite some time ago. A free upgrade, no less.
The Apple menu is no better (worse, in some cases), and _still_ doesn't have
drag & drop to it.
> Ever try to drag and drop to an app running on the taskbar? Again,
> they went to the trouble to describe how drag and drop should work in
> their own guidelines, then disregard those guidelines entirely
> themselves.
Which guidelines are disregarded ? You can't drag and drop directly to the
button for perfectly good reasons, and the dialog you get when you try to
explains exactly how to do it properly.
> The taskbar tray doesn't even pretend to have any guidelines for use -
> some objects there are manipulable one way, some another, there is no
> way to access them from the keyboard, and no visual clues as to their
> use are required - although some choose to display "tooltips" at
> least.
The only probably I have with the tray per se is that you can't access it
from the keyboard. When a thousand and one developers choose a thousand and
one different ways to utilise it, there's not much Microsoft can do.
> Consistency - MS tools are hideously inconsistent in dozens of areas.
> In most apps, for instance, alt-e f (menu-edit find) activates the
> find function. But in notepad, it's alt-s f (menu-find search.)
More examples would be nice. Ctrl+F is the standard shortcut for "Find".
Notepad is definitely an odd one out - but it's not hard finding them for
other OSes as well. Notepad is really just a text control with a menu,
nothing more (which is hwy it's limited to 64k files in Win9x).
> You close (alt-f c) a window, you exit (alt-f x) an application. Well,
> at least in Win3.1 you did. In 95 and later, that's still usually
> true, but not always - another consistency problem detracting from
> useability, and very typical.
"Not always" ? Again, it's not hard to find a few counter-examples in other
OSes, as well.
> The Win95 common dialogs are bad enough (an inexplicable step back
> from the Win3.1 common dialogs in terms of UI design) but then MS puts
> out the Office package, which contains it's own unique and different
> implementations instead of using the common dialogues.
1. What's wrong with the Win9x common dialogs ?
2. The Office ones are pretty much the same, with a few additions.
> More on the common dialogues, a major usability nightmare even in
> comparison with the 3.1 version, can be found at
> http://www.iarchitect.com/file95.htm - in fact anyone interested in UI
> design should probably take some time to take note of the UI mistakes
> documented here. Most concern MSWindows, but Apple and *nix get some
> time too... *nix mostly gets let off easy for the fact that no one
> expects it to have a good UI, but with recent developments,
> particularly the hype regarding things like GNOME and KDE that is
> changing.
I've never been particularly impressed with that site. They seem to have a
distinct anti-windows bent. Many of the problems they note in Windows
common dialogs also rear their head in MacOS dialogs, yet there is no such
comment.
Indeed, many of the complaints they have about the windows command dialogs I
personally consider good things.
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane..
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:38:32 -0500
Glitch wrote:
> >
> > Shit, what do you expect for $1.99?
> >
> > Billy
>
> RH charges upwards of $180 I believe for a version of their distro.
Glitch, you just lost all credibility in quoting prices. Anything to
make your $170 Win2K upgrade look cheap huh?
The following prices are complete versions that can be used for
upgrading or new installs:
Prices that I have found tonight.
Redhat Standard Edition $30 - suitable for majority of new users.
Redhat Professional Edition $80 - suitable for newbies that need that
90-day E-mail support from RedHat (Word to Wise, not worth it!).
Redhat Secure Server - $180 - suitable for newbies who need the
E-commerce transaction software & secure server (Like a whole lot of
newbies will go for this one).
> Suse charges around $30 i believe.
> Debian I'm not sure.
> Slackware I'm not sure.
>
> All of them are downloadable, execept for the higher end RH versions.
All of them are downloadable, including all RH versions (secure server
disk not available for download). Right Now you can download Redhat's
6.9.5 Beta (which I'm using now with the linux-2.4.0smp-test6 kernel)
and Redhat's 6.9.5 Powertools.
Suse wants $50 for the version 6.4 (Version 7.0 available in September).
Debian 2.2 will be available for $6 (3 CDs) from www.cheapbytes.com
[Note: Debian doesn't distribute their own CDs].
All these distros will be available from www.cheapbytes.com at a price
of around $1.99/disk. The newer distros will be available in September.
BTW, Debian 2.2 and Redhat 6.9.5 Beta (Pinstripe) CD iso images are
available now, so if you have fast ADSL or T1 connection, it might be
worth downloading and burning your own CDs.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
