Linux-Advocacy Digest #193, Volume #31 Tue, 2 Jan 01 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (The Ghost In The Machine)
mail reader (Adam Fineman)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: mail reader (SwifT -)
Re: mail reader (sfcybear)
Re: mail reader (.)
Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting (unicat)
Re: mail reader (SwifT -)
Re: Why Hatred? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: LINUX SYSTEM MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE??? Please Help (Andres Soolo)
Re: Why Hatred? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 20:03:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 31 Dec 2000 00:40:08 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> >
>> > "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:vlb36.71054$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Yes, standards would make this fascinating idea possible. Pity NONE
>> > exist.
>> > >
>> > > This is why the Windows registry shines. It's truly uniform.
>> >
>> > Yes, uniformly obscure and difficult to manage.
>> >
>> > Les Mikesell
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> The Registry's only advantage over INI files is that it
>> can more easily nest items deeper. Says nothing about
>> how easy the items are to understand. And, of course, you
>> have to buy a bunch of third-party Registry books, or scour
>> Livingston's frikkin' columns, to find out the tricks that
>> are need to work with Windows and its vaunted Registry.
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>You misspelled "house of cards"
Indeed. It's a truly bizarre design.
While there might have been some advantage in centralizing everything
into the hive from an API standpoint, Windows could just as easily
have set up mechanisms whereby the .INI files were maintained by
a similar, if not totally identical API. Or perhaps a "split .INI"
design -- one .INI file for generally static settings, another for
dynamic ones (e.g., Netscape and IE seem to like to remember the
last geometric size for their windows; presumably, that's in the
hive somewhere).
One could even envision a "multiple/split .INI design", where
config variables are read from multiple .INI files, somewhat a la
X11's application init files which are read into Xrm (anyone
even understand that anymore? I do :-) ) and which can handle
internationalization in an elegant manner. Local user
preferences could be stored in .applicationrc; system-wide
preferences would be stored somewhere in /usr/X11R6/lib (I
forget the exact pathnames, but O'Reilly will probably have 'em :-) ).
Funny thing, though -- X11 was doing this way back in the R3 days,
if not even earlier! And their design is far more straightforward,
if one understands it. (I was using R3 in the late 1980's, on my Amiga.)
Motif has transparent support -- in fact, anything based on
Intrinsics (sadly, GTK isn't) support the application database.
As usual, Microsoft has not only reinvented the wheel, but have
"improved it" by increasing the number of sides thereon from
12 to 24 for a smoother ride.... :-)
And yes, the X11 application database files understand comments.
The only reason I can think of for even comtemplating Windows'
registry (re-)design is because someone was worried about bit-counting,
specifically the wasted space in the file system for each and every
.INI file, prior to FAT32. A 4 GB partition had a cluster size of
64K! Presumably, the hive saves a few megabytes of disk space -- only
to lose it again because of the relative memory footprints and the
requirement that a backup be saved (which is nice -- when it works).
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random bumpety-bump-klonk here
up 93 days, 16:53, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: Adam Fineman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: mail reader
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 15:19:00 -0500
I'm looking for a mail reader that can handle multiple accounts (mixed
IMAP & POP). Netscape, e.g., can only handle multiple accounts if they
are all IMAP.
Any suggestions?
-- Adam
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 20:13:38 GMT
In article <92t60a$cks$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[snip]
> > > This way, the config file itself is the one who stores all the
> > > options. If a new version, with new options, comes out, the same
> > > tool, with absolutely no
> > > modifications, be able to handle it.
> >
> > And probably screw it to death. Really.
>
> Not likely, not if both file & application are built correctly.
> Why would it screw it?
Because although it knows the options change, it has no idea of
HOW they change. For example, if optionA is now deprecated, and
those who set optionA to valueA should now set optionB to valueB,
it won't know, and it will (in Gus Grissom's words) screw the pooch.
Since you will have to validate the program against every revision of
every program it is supposed to configure (except the first one, I
guess), you just lost a big chunk of the savings.
[snip]
> > Then it's totally orthogonal to XML. Therefore, please abstain to
> > push your format by force of buzzword.
>
> Sorry about it, your pruposal is a bit too long.
> And I'm not pushing *my* file format.
Ok, please then don't push the concept by force of buzzword.
You do have an interesting idea. If you hide it behind unncesessary
technobabble (which is not, of course, the same as necessary
technobabble), you get clued people to ignore you as a buzzboy.
This is not the marketing comittee.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 20:31:25 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 02 Jan 2001 03:24:35 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>>
>> Windows 2000: Professional w/Telnet service.
>>
>
>Year 2000 to implement standard 1970's technology.
>
>Pardon me while I yawn.
And remember, Windows 2000 will completely replace Unix....
any day now. Really. Trust Microsoft on this one.
Real Soon Now. It's so much better. Really. Would
we lie to you? (This time? :-) )
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- and of course the uptime below might suggest something...
up 93 days, 17:30, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: SwifT - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mail reader
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:31:58 +0100
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Adam Fineman wrote:
> I'm looking for a mail reader that can handle multiple accounts (mixed
> IMAP & POP). Netscape, e.g., can only handle multiple accounts if they
> are all IMAP.
>
> Any suggestions?
I recommend a combination of fetchmail, procmail and pine, although one of
the tools you probably want is (for instance) KMail :-)
--
SwifT
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mail reader
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 20:36:49 GMT
Have you looked at Kmail? It's the mail client that comes with the KDE
desktop. I have not done it, but it's set up for multiple user Id's and
multiple accounts.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Adam Fineman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm looking for a mail reader that can handle multiple accounts (mixed
> IMAP & POP). Netscape, e.g., can only handle multiple accounts if they
> are all IMAP.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> -- Adam
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: mail reader
Date: 2 Jan 2001 20:50:36 GMT
Adam Fineman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm looking for a mail reader that can handle multiple accounts (mixed
> IMAP & POP). Netscape, e.g., can only handle multiple accounts if they
> are all IMAP.
> Any suggestions?
Mutt.
=====.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 15:57:44 -0500
From: unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting
There may be a sense of desperation on the part of MS in pushing for
software leasing. Their stock is in free-fall again, geting close to
$40/share,
less than a third of its former value. (anyone want to put bets on how long
before it reaches $10/share?)
This in itself could be disastrous for MS, as their employees start to
lose confidence in their (for lack of a better term) leadership, and demand
to be paid in real money
instead of worthless pyramid-scheme stock certificates. It has been claimed
that
having to pay competitive salaries to its workforce would quickly put MS
into
the loss column, leading to a downward spiral of decreasing stock value and
increasing personnel costs.
But more worrisome could be the reason that the stock is falling.
Apparently, no one is
buying the new versions of MS software, especially Win2K. They just don't
seem to have enough new functionality to justify the purchase price.
MS may not merely be switching to software leasing to increase profits,
they
could be driven to this move as a survival measure. Now that there are no
more
competitors to copy "innovations" from, some might claim that the
incomptetence
of MS management in the area of true creativity is finally showing through.
Unable
to create new value to customers, they could have to resort to forcing
customers
to repeatedly pay for the same software over-and-over again.
And worse for MS, they lack the leverage they once had. Now that the new
versions of MS software are no longer "must-buys", the seeming ability of MS
to extort
perpetual revenue out of users may be coming to a close.
Some who dislike MS software are actively hoping that MS will resort to
software leasing.
The confusion that MS seems to have in discerning the difference between
what is
good for customers from what is good for MS seems to be leading them to saw
off the branch
they are standing on... creating a value equation so bad that even reluctant
users will be
starting to explore Linux as a cost saving measure....
Nick Condon wrote:
> [From The Register - www.theregister.co.uk]
>
> Your PC is about to become obsolete. Microsoft's recent acquisition of
> 'hosted solutions' outfit Great Plains Software for a cool $1 billion
> marks a significant advance towards the 'Final Solution' of reducing
> software users to mere paying guests at the M$ digital banquet, and PCs
> to mere access devices.
>
> We've long known that the Beast was inclining in this direction, but it
> was not until they actually bought a successful firm dedicated to
> software hosting that could one say the dream is being realised.
>
> Great Plains makes point-and-drool software for small to medium-sized
> online businesses. It also successfully hosts such software, and this
> bit, far more than the much-touted (by M$ PR bunnies) leg up in the Mom
> and Pop business market, represents the ultimate dream.
>
> Don't be fooled by the chirpy half-truths in the company press release,
> in which we are told that "the acquisition represents a major step in
> [Microsoft's] entry into the small and medium business applications
> market."
>
> Utter rubbish. It's Great Plains' success as an Application Service
> Provider (ASP) that most tickles the Beast's hideously scaly underbelly.
>
> The lair of the white worm
> So Redmond owns the software you use and controls access to your data.
> It's for your benefit, after all; it's cheaper than owning it, and you
> do love a bargain, don't you? It's more secure too, we are told, because
> you communicate directly via a pre-encrypted client-to-client link in
> which you have no opportunity to stuff things up. Hell, you don't even
> know or have access to the key -- and what could be more secure than
> that?
>
> Don't mind that the Beast has to maintain access to your network so it
> can bill you accurately for use of its, not your, software. Don't mind
> that the accounting is handled by a funky little chip pre-installed on
> your mobo which awards you the distinction of being a 'trusted client'.
> It's all for your protection. And don't mind that the magic chip
> measures how much time you've spent using the software you no longer
> own. This is all about trust; and trust is paramount, isn't it?
>
> All right, it's unfortunate that your data has to be stored on the M$
> trusted network along with the software you use, but this could not be
> helped. Your PC no longer needs, or even has, a hard drive. It has,
> instead, a non-volatile ROM chip which identifies all the software
> you're eligible to be billed for using, the amount of time you've spent
> playing with it, and your credit details. It's brilliant, but God help
> you if there's a stuff-up.
>
> Unable to connect your otherwise worthless and virtually empty PC to the
> remote Microsoft server where your software and personal files are
> stored, you have a problem and a half. Perhaps a Winter ice storm has
> crippled your ISP; perhaps you've neglected to 'fund' the magic mobo
> chip; perhaps you're simply broke.
>
> Generally, a broke company can do limited business so long as the lights
> stay on, and so maintain hopes of extracting itself from imminent ruin
> by the force of determined cleverness. Not yours, sucker. No, your
> billing software is out of reach; your customer database is curtained
> off; and so the means of rescue are off limits. You're flying blind.
>
> We hope you printed out all your crucial files; but as the Beast charges
> you -- through its trusted-client magic chip -- for each hard-copy page
> you dare to make, and because you thought you'd just economise on that,
> there is no paper backup of whom you owe and who owes you. Truly, you
> are fucked.
>
> You search in vain for a temporary remedy. The UCITA (Uniform Computer
> Information Transaction Act) tells you that all the bizarre rights M$
> claims, whether you read or agreed to them or not, are in full force,
> and that all the common-sense rights which you thought you should have
> are null and void.
> Damn. Corporate flacks have been writing legislation again, and you have
> no legal recourse. None at all.
>
> Redmond has spoken; the case is closed.
------------------------------
From: SwifT - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mail reader
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:59:44 +0100
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Adam Fineman wrote:
> I'm looking for a mail reader that can handle multiple accounts (mixed
> IMAP & POP). Netscape, e.g., can only handle multiple accounts if they
> are all IMAP.
And, IIRC correctly, "arrow", "spruce" and "postillion" also support
multiple accounts...
--
SwifT
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 20:51:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Beyond this, especially among those of us who were involved
with UNIX and the Internet in the 1980s, and helped commercialize
the Web in the early 1990s, Microsoft is a bit like the school
bully who wants to take your lunch the day your mom packed your
favorite kind of sandwich and desert.
Microsoft asserts that if users don't pay Microsoft about 20-30 billion
a year, that they will stop making software, all computers will become
nothing more than boxes with blinking lights, and civilization will
revert into the Stone Age.
Meanwhile, when Mark Andreeson contributed Mosaic software to
the NCSA, and struggled to make his Netscape Web Browser as compatible
as possible without violating the NCSA license agreement, he was
rewarded in the following manor:
The NCSA sold "branding rights" (the right to put your logo in the
corner) to Spyglass.
Microsoft purchased these rights, but made last-minute changes to
the contract and put a tight deadline on acceptance, which
gave Microsoft the right to violate the NCSA Public License
Agreement.
To protect the NCSA from a lawsuit by Netscape, the NCSA rewrote
the license and removed all copies of the original public
license agreement.
In retaliation, the developer community refused to allow any further
direct integration with NCSA, offering instead "Patches" which were
protected under a source code agreement similar to GPL. Patches were
made to the patches. Eventually, all of these patches were integrated
into a new server call "A Patchy Server" which was covered by Public
License. After a few weeks, the "Madison Avenue Types" (including
myself) felt that we needed to change the image. It was renamed
"Apache". The developers created the apache.org web site and
formalized the public license and the server management process.
The internet has been as effective as it was because the UNIX vendors
who initially supported it (other vendors like DEC and IBM offered
TCP/IP packages as early as 1982, but preferred their own DecNET
and SNA to Internet Protocols), adhered to a voluntary set of
guidelines established by what is now known as the IETF Requests for
Comments.
When Microsoft decided to get into the Internet, it ignored all
of the standards and guidlines and began introducing it's own
proprietary protocols. Many of these "innovations" introduced
severe security holes, enabled the proliferation of viruses ranging
from benign Milissa type viruses to catastrophic "I Love You" viruses.
Other "Stealth" viruses, including some that may have originated in
Microsoft's labs, remain undetectable exept for the tell-tail dump
of an encrypted file at strange hours in the morning. It could be
your registry, your web browser "history", or maybe just your e-mail
log.
The Linux community watches their market go through quantum leaps
in terms of quality, reliability, ease of configuration, ease of use,
and innovation that Microsoft can only wish they could produce, only
to be "locked out" of the market with "Windows Only, no alteration
of boot sequence" contracts that prevent these innovations from
ever seeing a mass market.
Linux initially targeted the server market because it was "low lying
fruit". BBS operators were offered the chance to migrate from
FIDO and WildCat sites which rarely collected revenue, to PPP and
Internet sites which offered 5 different ways to collect revenue
(PPP access, Mail access, Web Hosting, usenet news access, and
portal services). Some actually found that Linux was so reliable
and so scalable that they never stopped using it. Others switched
to Solaris, AIX, or HP_UX and found that the transition was so
trivial that they didn't have to do anything but replace hardware
and recompile software.
> What I can't understand, is the bitter
> hatred and resentment that some
> of the Windows zealots have.
This is actually a very acurate word. For many, Microsoft isn't
a company, it's a religeon. Bill Gates is a god. They believe
that if they pay enough tribute to Bill Gates, that his money
will somehow magically flow back into their pockets.
The fact that Microsoft is the ONLY company who has made a
long-term success exclusively in the PC market. Competitors
must either support UNIX (including Linux) or they get gobbled
up at a fraction of their original value, either by Microsoft
(who generally doesn't make people instant millionaires), or
by a company that does business in both markets. Even the
PC Manufacturers are getting squeezed out of business.
Microsoft recently announced that they will be raising license
prices next year. This in the face of dropping PC prices,
sluggish sales, and 5 competitors who are willing to offer VERY
generous terms (Linux Vendors). And yet, with the exception of
TiVo and the Internet Appliance Web browser, nearly every PC on
display was only displayed with Windows ME (which is so much like
Windows 9x that it's nearly indistinguishable, except that Win95
and some Win98 programs were broken by ME).
Ironically, WINE has evolved to the point where Linux may be a better
migration path from Win9x than ME.
> They have freedom of choice, they can use
> their environment to their hearts content,
> they can buy almost any software for it.
Here in the U.S. we have fundamentalist christians who, even though
protected by law and guaranteed the right to worship as they wish,
seem compelled to impose their faith on others at any cost. They
even invalidate other Christian religeons. In same cases, they will
even resort to violence and economic oppression. But the Jews in
Israel persecute Islamic residents.
> Why spread FUD and criticize a different environment?
True Microsoftians, followers of the Gospel According to Bill,
must check in daily for the truth as proclaimed by Microsoft.
They often have indirect economic interests, such as being
Microsoft Partners, or having Microsoft as a major stockholder
in their company (part of the price for the Enterprise License
Agreement). They chat with the Apostles at MSDN. and true devotees
will even spend their evenings watching MSNBC to see what they should
be talking about INSTEAD of the Microsoft Antitrust case.
> The only reason I can come up with is fear.
Absolutely. Microsoft has a legitimate fear (that Linux driven
innovation would leave them in the dust). They translate that fear
into threats of the end of civilization as we know it unless
Microsoft is left to practice it's religeon unfettered by
regulation of any kind.
> They must be afraid of Linux.
They fear the unknown. The only way anyone can truly know
Linux would be to spend actual time learning about it and
using a properly preconfigured system, usually for about 3 months.
Since you can't go to the strore and test-drive
a Linux system, you can't make an informed opinion.
Most of the Winvocates attack Linux based on their experiences
with a botched installation of a user-hostile version of Linux
such as Corel's Debian or a version of Red Hat that they (sorta)
downloaded off the internet. Very rarely do I see articles written
by people who actually spend money on Mandrake (advertized as the
best version for New Users) get it installed properly (I've had
amazing luck with 7.2, but you could call if you had to). They
rarely install a full compliment of software.
Or worse, there are many companies who now pirate open source
products, port them to Windows NT or Windows 2000, and market
proprietary versions in direct violation of the provisions of
the Public License agreements of the software from which they
were stolen. One company actually went so far as to attempt to
patent the "double fork" used on nearly any UNIX system, especially
with Apache.
> The only reason they would have to be afraid is
> because Linux is better than Windows.
Actually, I see 4 groups who are directly threatened.
Software vendors are often threatened because they have a version
that is "one of a kind" in the Windows market, but competes with
3-5 similar products in the Linux market. In many cases, their
software is a direct rip-off of Linux distribution software.
Windows Programmers fear that the Linux system render their
programming skills obsolete. They've spend years learning
to use Visual Studio, learning the subtleties of COM, OLE, MFC,
and ActiveX. Again, in the lack of any basis to make an assessment,
they fear that Linux programming will be too hard to learn. Worse,
it might be too EASY to learn, which would reduce the asking price
for programmers of that caliber.
Windows Administrators who fear that Linux will be too easy to
administer and that they will have to start doing development work.
Since many administrators depend primarily on the "three finger
solute" (CTL-ALT-DEL), the exectation that they actually "FIX"
problems, as other UNIX and Linux administrators do, could be
very threatening.
Commission Salesmen, especially software salesmen, like to "take
the money and run". With Windows, the revenue comes "up front".
A shady vendor can promise the moon, cash the check, and play
ring-around-the-rosie with anyone who dares to be so foolish as
to make a service call. With Linux, the revenue comes after the
software is installed, and on a recurring basis. A company may
spend as much as a few thousand dollars per server on consulting
and service contracts, but it will be credited on a monthly basis,
and failure to provide good service can result in customers switching
to competitors.
In each case, we are looking at economic incentives of those who
do not have the customer's best interest in mind. When you think
of it, if you can do the job in less time, with fewer mistakes, and
lower long-term support costs, your costomer will pay you MORE in
terms of profit than if you attempt a similar bid on Windows and
spend more resources on the implementation.
> They have to know this, else they would not be afraid.
There are some, especially those above, who should be very
afraid. When you look at the UNIX market, Solaris, Oracle,
Sybase, DB2, SAP, Peoplesoft, and some of the other big
players in the UNIX market, you see a whole different level
of service. Ironically, most of these UNIX oriented companies
approach Microsoft in terms of profitability, and far surpass
Microsoft in terms of quality of service.
In summary, the hustlers looking for a quick buck should cash in on
each version of Windows as quickly as possible. Get the money, and
start programming on the next beta version of GatesOS so that you can
get the certifications and Logo stamps to be the first on the block
to sell software for the next version.
If you are out to hustle the customer, you should avoid Linux at all
costs. You should avoid UNIX at all costs. You should make your
product exclusively for Windows, sing the praises of Microsoft, and
hope that Bill decides to "Buy You Out" if you actually start making
a profit. Who knows, he might even pay enough to cover your legal fees.
If you aren't in one of those catagories listed above, you should
probably start learning Linux now. Even if you stay with Windows,
you'll be better equipped to support the integration of UNIX and
Windows systems. You might find that writing a perl script intead
of VB Script will give you BOTH worlds.
Some of you are about to lose your MCSE certification because you
haven't been certified in Windows 2000 server yet. You COULD go
out and spend $1500 to LEGALLY purchase Windows 2K server, and
you COULD spend $5000 or more to get an SMP server with RAID
drives so that you will actually have hands on experience with
that environment. Or you could buy some $40 book, CRAM for an
exam, get the right answers to questions you don't really even
understand, and go back to rebooting Windows 2000 boxes all the time
(because you never learned how to edit the registry, restart daemon
processes, and fix problems so that problems don't recurr.
Of course, for $20-$159, you could purchase a copy of Linux, configure
workstations, servers, and even clusters, using boxes priced between
$500 and $1000 each, and have source code to everything so that you
can trace problems right down to subroutines in the kernel if necessary,
and have the problem fixed within a day or two.
It will take a few months to really get comfortable with Linux.
You've been using Windows since Windows 3.0 (1990) and your
Linux desktop looks a bit different, has a whole bunch of new
programs, and has almost too much documentation and support (most
distributions include a search engine to help you find what you
need).
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX SYSTEM MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE??? Please Help
Date: 2 Jan 2001 21:04:09 GMT
J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think xv may have been "shareware" in 1993, but I thought
> the license had been fixed by now.
xv is in Debian non-free. From the copyright file:
} XV Licensing Information
} ------------------------
} XV IS SHAREWARE FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY.
}
} You may use XV for your own amusement, and if you find it nifty,
} useful, generally cool, or of some value to you, your registration fee
} would be greatly appreciated. $25 is the standard registration fee,
} though of course, larger amounts are quite welcome. Folks who donate
} $40 or more can receive a printed, bound copy of the XV manual for no
} extra charge. If you want one, just ask. BE SURE TO SPECIFY THE
} VERSION OF XV THAT YOU ARE USING!
}
} COMMERCIAL, GOVERNMENT, AND INSTITUTIONAL USERS MUST REGISTER THEIR
} COPIES OF XV.
> xevil is shareware?
It used to be, but it's free now.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Be circumspect in your liaisons with women. It is better
to be seen at the opera with a man than at mass with a woman.
-- De Maintenon
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 22:01:33 +0100
Form@C wrote:
>
> On the other hand, all those nice ascii config files, put in a nice,
> standard directory tree, would be great fun to edit with a very simple
> virus wouldn't they?
sure they would. Espacially because mainly windows-losers who play around
with linux to yell to the world "hey it doesn't work" are dumb enough to
run linux under the root account. Otherwise, those "very simple viruses"
would be VERY ineffective
>
> <grin>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
