Linux-Advocacy Digest #157, Volume #31 Sun, 31 Dec 00 15:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("JSPL")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("mud")
How do you install KDE in Redhat6.0? ("Sphinx367")
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Why Hatred? (mlw)
Re: How do you install KDE in Redhat6.0? (Anita Lewis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 19:15:22 +0000
mlw wrote:
> I can understand why Linux users hate Windows, it is something we are
> too frequently forced to use even though it, as an operating
> environment, is terrible at best.
Oh life is so hard using Windows isn't it!
> What I can't understand, is the bitter hatred and resentment that some
> of the Windows zealots have. They have freedom of choice, they can use
> their environment to their hearts content, they can buy almost any
> software for it. Why spread FUD and criticize a different environment?
Because you guys keep reporting misinformation about Windows that's why!
> The only reason I can come up with is fear. They must be afraid of
> Linux. The only reason they would have to be afraid is because Linux is
> better than Windows. They have to know this, else they would not be
> afraid.
Currently I'm certainly not afraid of Linux. I _want_ Linux to compete with
Windows. I just wish it did! What amazes me is the depths of insults you
guys have to stoop to when things don't go your way!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 19:16:31 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 31 Dec 2000
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Chad Myers wrote:
[...]
>> > Please Max, stop the lying. It only serves to embarass you.
>>
>> Please stop saying people are lying. You sound like a second-grader.
>
>What's wrong with calling a liar a liar?
Another second-grader heard from. ;-D
>Oh yes....political correctness forbids saying anything bad about
>anybody....unless the target is on the leftists' shit-list...
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 19:16:33 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 31 Dec 2000 04:21:45
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 30 Dec 2000 00:29:39
>> [...]
>> >> >All of this is moot anyway. Had the Florida Supreme Court stuck to their
>> >> >guns, the Legislature would have sent the electors anyway as is their legal
>> >> >responsibility.
>> >> >
>> >> >All I can say is that I'm glad its over!
>> >>
>> >> That last sentence summed it up; the previous paragraph was an
>> >> aberration of reasoning.
>> >
>> >How are obvious facts an aberration of reasoning?
>>
>> Stating that particular conjectures are 'obvious facts' is an aberration
>> of reasoning, obviously.
>
>Where is the conjecture? I was stating law.
I don't think the phrase "stuck to their guns" appears in any statutory
law, even in Florida.
>The Florida Supreme Court was all but powerless to prevent them from doing
>so.
Yea, whatever.
>>
>> >I think it more accurate to say that they are an aberration to your
>> >perceptions.
>>
>> When in doubt, use the word 'perceptions', eh?
>
>When lacking substantive rebuttals, resort to quips, eh?
>I see a pattern here...
You couldn't see a pattern if it was engraved in your eyelids, Tom.
This conversation is over. You and a couple of other Republican
goofballs have used this discussion for nothing more than a reason to
jabber and caper and spout really outrageously silly partisan bullshit,
so I'm getting bored, because none of you have shown even the slightest
ability to do anything but repeat your mindless hyperbole, and obviously
have no intention in examining your or anybody else's claims with the
tiniest bit of intellectual integrity. I can honestly and reasonably
say that it is obvious that you don't have any intellectual integrity,
to begin with. Its a pity that it makes it seem like your position is
so badly flawed, since there's nothing more inherently flawed in the
Republican/conservative position than there is in the Democrat/liberal
approach. Couldn't tell it from your statements, though.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 19:16:35 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 30 Dec 2000
>billh wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>>
>> > > > If you don't recall, it was PRECISELY because I *dared* to mention
>> > > > that historically, our enemies have considered our medics to be
>> > > > high priority targets in an ambush that got your (yellowc1c4's),
>> > > > Bill Hudson's, Dave Casey's, and V-(wo)man's undies in such a bunch.
>> > >
>> > > Of course, you lie yet again. I never commented on the subject one way
>> or
>> > > the other.
>> >
>> > Oh, come on Bill, you were a very enthusaiastic participant in the
>> > "bash Aaron" fest.
>>
>> If you lie or say something out right stupid I'll point it out. For a quite
>> some time you ensured there was much to point out. That doesn't change the
>> fact that what you have posted above is simply another of your many lies.
>
>Hey, Bill, why don't you stop spinning before you get dizzy...
You're the one spinning, Aaron. And its making us all dizzy. Why don't
you just sit down. And rotate.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 19:16:36 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 31 Dec 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> So in other words; Aaron invented the whole "theory" by misrepresenting
>> others' statements, as typical of the stupid and pathetically trollish
>> bullshit he posts as a hobby. 'Nuff said.
>
>SSSShhhhhhhh! They might hear you!
Fuck you, troll.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 19:16:40 GMT
Said Adam Ruth in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 30 Dec 2000 16:51:06
-0700;
>> I will check the spec in just a few minutes, when I go back on line. I
>> suppose I could have delayed responding until I read it, but for some
>> reason I was feeling selfish.
>
>I apologize, it was late and the section was long. I was too lazy to read
>through it and condense the important points.
There's no need to condense anything, or worry about what is an
"important point". It is not understanding of IP mechanisms I was
asking for, but the name of the field you were referring to. I'm sorry;
I didn't mean to make a big deal of this, but this kind of thing does
come up often, and I try to make a habit of recognizing what gets in the
way of a discussion, versus what moves it along. Sometimes posting a
link to an RFC document is very useful and a much appreciated
convenience. But all I wanted was the name of the field, and since you
were obviously on-line, and had a link to the RFC handy...
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 19:16:41 GMT
Said Adam Ruth in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 30 Dec 2000 16:53:54
>> >And apparently they are able to write in whatever uptime they wish into the
>> >http header :-(
>>
>> Ooh, quick, lets spread that "fact" so we can pretend to have refuted
>> the numbers (again). It is really pretty amazing how far you
>> Micro-softheads are willing to go to spread dis-information.
>
>I think what he's referring to (and wording it poorly, it has nothing to do
>with http) has to do with the Windows Uptime.net client. To get over the
>49.7 day limitation, when you install the client you get to put in how long
>your machine has been up until that point.
There is no way that a custom client for uptime.net would have any
problems with the counter rollover, whether its 49.7 days or 497. If
they have a way to set how long the computer has been running so far,
its because that value is meaningless; its the continuity of the
counter, not its starting value, which provides the information. But it
does seem pretty outrageous if they use the entered value, rather than
the start of the client, in the numbers they post about how long a
particular computer has been up. I would not believe this is the case
without some reasoned support or evidence, simply because it so
obviously makes any metric from uptime.net entirely valueless for
showing how long someone else's system has been up, and one would figure
there are easier ways to lie to yourself about your own uptimes.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 19:16:43 GMT
Said Adam Ruth in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 30 Dec 2000 16:47:50
>> And is the uptime listed for the Netware, or the IIS? Without this
>> crucial bit of information, you're still just assuming the numbers are
>> no good because you don't like the results. As long as the uptime
>> reported is for the Netware box, we don't really care whether its a web
>> site or a fire wall, because it doesn't matter.
>
>The uptime is listed for.... drum roll please.... nothing. They can't get
>uptime because the firewall is appropriately not providing it. So therefore
>it doesn't matter what they report OS wise, there's no uptime reported and
>therefore it doesn't affect the accuracy of the numbers at all. We'll put
>it in the "one more non-example" category.
Yea, that's what I figured. Kind of amusing, but this is starting to
get a bit repetitive, don't you think? ;-D
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 19:21:56 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:18:17
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 30 Dec 2000 23:02:48
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:27:47
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:00:24
>> >> >> [...]
>> >> >> >What assinine behavior did the Republicans demonstrate?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Posting drivel to Usenet.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ah yes. And here ends the argument. When faced with FACTS, Democrats
>> >> >always back down and result to personal attacks and such.
>> >> >
>> >> >Just admit your wrong, Max, and move on. Beware, though, admitting
>> >> >your wrong and accepting the truth automatically makes you a
>> >> >conservative.
>> >>
>> >> Guffaw. I'm not even a Democrat to begin with, you putz.
>> >
>> >Your actions make you an honorary one, though. You certainly are a
>> >liberal, though.
>>
>> Strike two. I'm a moderate.
>
>You can call yourself Mickey Mouse for all I care. You are a liberal
>by actions and words.
You haven't the vaguest idea of my actions, and an obvious inability to
understand my words.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 19:21:57 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:19:01
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 30 Dec 2000 23:01:49
>> [...]
>> >While your at it, please show where Republicans have bent the rules.
>> >After all, this is what T. Max was claiming, which is an obvious
>> >lie. I called him a liar, and I proved it. Now, prove why I am a liar.
>>
>> You just did.
>
>You have a warped sense of lying.
Guffaw.
>You claimed that Republicans bent the rules. They did not, I proved it,
>thus proving you a liar.
No, you claimed that the Democrats were trying to "subvert the rule of
law." I merely pointed out, which caused you to thrash wildly in
partisan posturing, that unless you can recognize that the Republicans
were doing the same thing, and to the same degree, then your
consideration of the reality of the situation is obviously, and deeply,
flawed.
>Please show me where I lied in this.
Well, it started with the word "You", and ended just now with "this".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 19:22:42 -0000
>
>What part of "humor" do you not understand?
>
Just shows how smart the average wintroll is doesn't it
They cannot even spot that their OS is just a big joke.
------------------------------
From: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:25:45 -0500
Reply-To: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JSPL wrote:
> >
> > Better go back and read some more. It's compiling stats from about
566,000
> > different websites (as of Jan. 2000) which use the counter.
> >
> > > 2. One presumes that this site can properly enumerate UNIXen systems.
> >
> > When calling the counter image from the server, the OS is accurately
logged.
> > Any file request on a server divulges the OS of the requestor.
> > eg. <IMG SRC="http://c2.thecounter.com/id=23566" will put the requesting
OS
> > into the respective log for account #23566.
> >
> > > 3. One is not sure if this site can handle firewalled systems or
systems
> > > using network address translation.
> >
> > Firewalls are irrelevant in this method. It's all sent through the GET
> > request header from the client.
> >
> > What sources are at odds? www.linux_forever.com, or how about
> > www.linux_will_takover_the_earth.com? I think I'll stick with a method
> > which draws upon 500,000,000 samplings in a one month period from
500,000
> > different sources and does so by automatically getting the information
from
> > the 500,000,000 computers using industry wide and accepted header field
> > standards, with no human polling or involvement to skew the
information.
>
> I'm still skeptical.
Big surprise.
>Why then are Linux books such a large segment of
> computer books in the bookstores nowadays?
>
> Too many factors here. It still seems to me that the site merely counts
> systems that are using the counter.
WTF are you talking about? Do you even know??? Systems that are using the
counter?
>So it could simply be that this
> site merely has a counter popular with "Windows system administrators".
Irrelevant again. It's counting "VIS-IT-ORS" not servers. Try again.
> In spite of your long and irrelevant claim of trust in big numbers,
> you haven't confirmed what the numbers mean.
What they mean is there isn't anyone out there surfing the internet using
Linux.
Therefore there is either:
A.) A dispropotionate number of Linux users not connected to the internet
compared to say....Windows users. I'd guess if anything though it's
proportioned the other way though. A higher percentage of Linux users ARE
connected as opposed to percentage of Windows users.
OR
B.) The actual Linux market share is about 3 per 1000 users (as per the
unwavering monthly percentages which surf the net).
> Chris
------------------------------
From: "mud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 19:28:48 GMT
And if the number would have been the other way around windows users would
have never heard the end of this.
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm still skeptical. Why then are Linux books such a large segment of
> computer books in the bookstores nowadays?
>
> Too many factors here. It still seems to me that the site merely counts
> systems that are using the counter. So it could simply be that this
> site merely has a counter popular with "Windows system administrators".
> In spite of your long and irrelevant claim of trust in big numbers,
> you haven't confirmed what the numbers mean.
>
> Chris
------------------------------
From: "Sphinx367" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: redhat.x.general,alt.linux,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: How do you install KDE in Redhat6.0?
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:09:15 GMT
I'm a Linux newbie, and I am running RedHat 6.0, and when I run
"switchdesk", only the Gnome and Other GUIs are available. Is there some way
to install/enable the KDE gui (if it's installed) without re-installing
RedHat 6.0?
I'd like to run KDE because it's most similar to the Microsoft GUIs that I
am accustomed to, and I'd like to familiarize myself w/Linux (and eventually
Unix in general). In my spare time, I am reading the book "RedHat Linux
Secrets" by Naba Barkakati. What do you all think of this book w/regard to
getting a "newbie" up and running on Red Hat quickly? What do you think of
learning the GUI, as opposed to sticking w/the "command line" prompt?
Any help (and suggestions/comments) would be greatly appreciated!
--
............................
Bryant Charleston
MIS
5/6 MCSE
Black '88 Mustang 5.0
Linux "newbie"
.........................
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 19:27:35 -0000
>
>Is it? Sorry, I hadn't realised that you didn't need to pay for a full RH7
>distro. Do RH know this?
>
You may need to pay for a boxed distro but everything in the distro is free
software including the software - anyone trying to stop you obtaining source
code for this software is breaking the law (the GPL licence to be exact).
The cost of the distro is only to cover the cost of compiling and packaging
all
the software into one box - everything in the box can be obtained freely if
you
don't want to buy it.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:40:02 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> > I can understand why Linux users hate Windows, it is something we are
> > too frequently forced to use even though it, as an operating
> > environment, is terrible at best.
>
> Oh life is so hard using Windows isn't it!
It is. Once you are used to an OS that does not crash, is reliable, and
has all the features that Linux has, working with Windows feels like
shaving a balloon.
>
> > What I can't understand, is the bitter hatred and resentment that some
> > of the Windows zealots have. They have freedom of choice, they can use
> > their environment to their hearts content, they can buy almost any
> > software for it. Why spread FUD and criticize a different environment?
>
> Because you guys keep reporting misinformation about Windows that's why!
Not I. Maybe others, but I do not post what I do not believe to be true.
If I'm wrong, I admit it, but I do not post something I know to be
false.
>
> > The only reason I can come up with is fear. They must be afraid of
> > Linux. The only reason they would have to be afraid is because Linux is
> > better than Windows. They have to know this, else they would not be
> > afraid.
>
> Currently I'm certainly not afraid of Linux. I _want_ Linux to compete with
> Windows. I just wish it did! What amazes me is the depths of insults you
> guys have to stoop to when things don't go your way!
I know you can't be talking about me.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anita Lewis)
Crossposted-To: redhat.x.general,alt.linux,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: How do you install KDE in Redhat6.0?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 20:05:20 GMT
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:09:15 GMT, Sphinx367 wrote:
>I'm a Linux newbie, and I am running RedHat 6.0, and when I run
>"switchdesk", only the Gnome and Other GUIs are available. Is there some way
>to install/enable the KDE gui (if it's installed) without re-installing
>RedHat 6.0?
>
>I'd like to run KDE because it's most similar to the Microsoft GUIs that I
>am accustomed to, and I'd like to familiarize myself w/Linux (and eventually
>Unix in general). In my spare time, I am reading the book "RedHat Linux
>Secrets" by Naba Barkakati. What do you all think of this book w/regard to
>getting a "newbie" up and running on Red Hat quickly? What do you think of
>learning the GUI, as opposed to sticking w/the "command line" prompt?
To see if you have it installed, try
rpm -qa |grep kde
If you don't get much on that, then you don't have it installed. In that
case put the cdrom in and begin the installer. Choose Upgrade and choose
KDE install. It will then just add KDE. You don't need to do the whole
install again.
Anita
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
