Linux-Advocacy Digest #471, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 23:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Jim Richardson)
Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies. (Jim Richardson)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Jan Johanson")
Re: More Linux woes (David Steinberg)
Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long) (Victor Wagner)
Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long) (Victor Wagner)
Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (J Sloan)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz")
Re: The Server Saga (Jim Broughton)
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 17:12:25 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:11:05 GMT,
Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>> And by what FACTS did you come to the conclusion that it's not stable?
>
>Well, because it's not the most popular or near the most popular FS for
>Linux, so it's probably riddled with bugs. We don't know because it's
>never been thoroughly tested except by a scant few brave (stupid?)
>souls who trust their data to a beta, untested file system.
>
so because it is not as common as another FS, it must be buggy? Gee, does that
mean that MS Money is much more buggier than Quicken simply because it is not
as common? Or that Windows CE/Pocket PC must be far buggier than PalmOS simply
because the MS product has such a small market share? Perhaps you would like to
claim that W2K is far more buggier than Win98 based on the fact that there are
far fewer systems running W2k?
wheee! this is fun Chad...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:22:56 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:45:16 +0100,
Mig, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>This sounds like complete nonsense...
>
>1) Does Luxembourg use dollars as currency?
No, they use the Luxembourg franc, which is currently at about 44 to the US
dollar. The poster probably used dollars for comparison because most posters
know how their currency fares against it, whereas few would know how their's
fares against the Lf
>2) I suppose the tax system of Luxembourg is similar to other countries.
>Explain the gain of paying more then necessary for any system.
It's called a writeoff. You get to write business expenses off against taxes in
many places, and depreciation rates on computer systems makes them a very nice
writeoff indeed.
>3) Why didnt you buy a 1 mio $ system
Probably didn't have a million $ maybe?
>
>Bartek Kostrzewa wrote:
>
>> I'm a fellow Linux user, so this is not something against Linux, rather
>> against our tax system here in Luxembourg.
>>
>> Why does an economically nice solution like a stock-hardware, Linux based
>> Server (in this case for Fileserver use) lose against a Win2k Server +
>> Compaq hardware?
>>
>> My friend's father has a small company, he asked me to give him a proposal
>> for a file server (serving 8 computers with 500MB/day/PC), so I built a
>> server for 1500$ with SCSI, AMD Duron 750, 256 MB of RAM and a 100 Mbit
>> NIC, of course, I told him I'd install Linux and set up SAMBA for file
>> serving (the company is 100% M$ based). When he heard the price he said:
>> "What? That's far too cheap! I need to spend at least 7500$ on it, so I
>> can reduce my tax charges at the end of the year!" Now he bought a Win2k
>> Server based Compaq Proline server powered by an 933Mhz PIII, 256MB of
>> RDRAM and 60GB
>> RAID-10 (4 30GB 10K rpm SCSI harddrives in RAID mode, stripped and imaged
>> together).... and that for 8 computer low-profile file-sharing.
>>
>> Even with the maximum service option possible (RedHat) the Linux-based
>> soultion wouldn't have cost enough...
>>
>> As you see, Luxembourg's taxing logic is pretty hard to understand, you
>> have to invest tons of money into your businness, so the state can't take
>> "extra" taxes at the end of the year...
>>
>>
>
>--
>Cheers
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:30:12 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:41:13 GMT,
Charlie Ebert, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <CSf86.32$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> In article <19L76.1172$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >> In article <uGd76.288$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> >> >"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> >> >news:93in2m$adklg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >> >> >The Windows setup files are all 8.3 conformant. We were talking
>>about
>>> >> >> using
>>> >> >> >a network card, not a modem.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I thought we were talking about installing from the internet so both
>>> >> >> netcards and modems are relevent here.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >As if installing Linux via modem is feasible.
>>> >>
>>> >> Funny you should ask this.
>>> >>
>>> >> Debian will install over a modem and I just did this 2 weeks
>>> >> ago. I put potato on a rural PC on a farm for a farmer.
>>> >>
>>> >> The Debian install dials the phone, and the download takes
>>> >> over night. If the phone line disconnects it redials
>>> >> and apt-get restarts where it left off.
>>> >>
>>> >> It's totally hands free and it doesn't miss a single bit.
>>> >
>>> >Right. First, remote rural areas can't get 56K, thus you were connecting
>>at
My brother lives in Wasila Alaska, pop about 4000, he lives about 15 miles out
of town, he has a cable modem. Now it doesn't get much more rural than Wasila,
at least not without the occasional bear wandering through (opps, he gets that
too.) So your claim of rural areas can't get 56K is hyperbole.
>>> >speeds of under 33.6, probably under 28.8. Let's just say 28.8. Since
>>> >there are 10 bits in each byte over modem (8 bits, 1 start, 1 stop bit)
>>> >that's 2880 bytes a second. To download 100 meg would take 9.6 hours.
>>Even
>>> >a basic Linux machine will be at least 300 Meg, so that's over 27 hours,
A basic linux machine will fit onto a floppy.
>>> >more than a day. Not "overnight".
>>>
>>> Total Bullcrap EF. They do!
>>>
>>> 56 K hot and read and the fiber line is just 2 miles away.
>>
>>Ok charlie, you've just completely shot your credibility on this story (your
>>credibility is shot anyways, but on this story you're lying).
>>
>>56K doesn't work with fiber lines. 56K works only on copper connected
>>directly to a CO because it takes advantage of the lack of analog to digital
>>conversion. If you've got fiber between you and the CO, you get multiple
>>A/D conversions and it totally screws your ability to get more than 33.6.
bzzzt!
56k (downloads note) are limited to one A-D link, which can be at the fiber
head, or at the CO, since the fiber is digital into the backbone, it works fine
with 56k.
>>> And YES overnight. Believe it bad boy.
>>
>>Liar.
>>
Given that we don't know how much he pulled overnight (despite your claims of
300MB) nor do we know what the speed was (as shown, your claims of no 56K in
rural areas is bullshit.)
>
>Wow your desperate.
>
>Okay, 56 K modem tied to twisted pair which leads just 2 miles to a SWB
>fiber trunkhouse they put in. All of the Central States have fiber just
>a couple of miles away now.
>
>What new length will you go to to achieve WEENIEDOM this time EF?
>
>Charlie
>
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 14 Jan 2001 21:07:10 -0600
I cannot say with 100% certainty if SWC is or is not running in kernel mode.
I just don't know that certain. But what I do know is that, yes, IIS was
generating the content. SWC may have served up cached copies later but the
original content came from IIS.
Now, if you are certain this is not true, I suggest you contact Spec and
declare the cheater and have them remove that result. Let them look into
this and see what they say. Amazing that everyone else just missed this but
you spotted it Sherlock Holmes.
And, besides, why would you think that SWC wouldn't generate a Date field?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93sbcr$cac$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So you are not denying anymore that SWC is a subsystem or driver executing
in
> the Windows 2000 kernel in kernel-mode, and that almost no (if any) IIS
5.0
> code was executing during the benchmark. This was my point from the
beginning
> :-) Your claim is that SWC is caching full static HTTP replies. Then it's
in
> blatant violation of HTTP RFC's, IIRC the 'Date:' field for example has to
be
> generated for every request. I just digged RFC-2616 up, it says: "Origin
> servers MUST include a Date header field in all responses, except in these
> cases: [... hardware has no clock ...].") So SWC 3.0 either violates the
HTTP
> RFC's (and thus Spec rules) in a spectacular way, or it generates HTTP
fields
> autonomously (and thus qualifies as a webserver). Pick your favorite.
>
> Thomas
>
> > content. It serves up cached copies of static pages. That's what it
does.
> > Period. It is impossible for SWC to produce a dynamically generated
page.
> > Period. The sooner you get over these facts the sooner you can rejoin
> > reality.... sheesh...
> >
> > Then again - thinking about it... ok, so what? Say SWC is some
mysterious
> > here-to-unknown product MS has that no one has noticed until it went
> > head-to-head with the linux kernel mode webserver and THEN, desperate
for
> > answers why linux only was a scant 2.7% faster the zealots had to go
digging
> > for some exuse. Amazing that no one else has noticed this interesting
> > product that can do such miraculous performance and is tucked into the
> > kernel yet multi-million dollar players have simply "missed" it -
whoops,
> > just like that. But mcnash spots it by his own mind-reading
interpretation
> > of the source code to a benchmark.
> >
> > I do see that by examining the files dell submitted for the tux results
that
> > there is a line that reads: "interact with the TUX kernel subsystem" -
there
> > we have it, proof that tux is running in the kernel space. There is
> > documentation for how to access it from user space too. So, there you
have
> > it... tux in the kernel... whatever...
> >
> > silly
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:93q1j7$nhu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Contrary to your assertion, SWC is in the kernel, it's visible from
> > > user-space as a Windows 2000 device. Proof is Microsoft's own
submitted
> > > source code:
> > > http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/api-src/Dell-20001212-TWC.zip -
> > unpack
> > > it and open the twc.c C-sourcecode file. Search for 'SWC', it gives
this
> > > comment: "// Open Kernel SWC device": Q.E.D. Moreover, try searching
for
> > > 'IIS' or 'ISAPI' in the whole source-code package - you will find only
> > one!
> > > You will find many references to 'SWC' (Microsoft's in-kernel
webserver)
> > and
> > > 'TWC', the API to this in-kernel webserver. You will even find some
> > interface
> > > definitions in twc.h. If you ever programmed dynamic applications
(ISAPIs)
> > > under IIS, you'll immediately recognize that in this benchmark no IIS
was
> > > used for the dynamic requests. (maybe IIS was used for the 0.005%
CGI's
> > > SPECweb99 generates.) Calling the test-results 'IIS 5.0 + SWC 3.0' is
most
> > > likely a boldfaced lie, or at best an extreme exaggeration. In reality
it
> > was
> > > a "99.99% SWC 3.0 + 0.005% IIS 5.0" test. Thomas
> > >
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:93mbpa$p17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Jan, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's
very
> > likely
> > > > a
> > > > > duck. Microsoft's own in-kernel SWC 2.0 web page (the outdated SWC
> > > > version)
> > > > > at http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/iis/swc2.asp says that this
> > 'front-end
> > > > > cache' accepts and answers web requests, logs those requests into
its
> > own
> > > > > separate binary logfile, and supports only the HTTP 1.0 protocol.
The
> > > > > Microsoft SWC 3.0 SpecWeb99 submission webpage (I couldnt find
> > information
> > > > > about SWC 3.0 anywhere else) at
> > > > >
> >
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html
> > > > > says that SWC 3.0 has its own dynamic API as well: "TWC 3.0". If
this
> > > > > in-kernel web-thing accepts web requests, serves web requests,
logs
> > web
> > > > > requests and provides ways to write dynamic webpages, then it's
what?
> > A
> > > > > webserver. Surprisingly, the SpecWeb99 benchmark (check out the
> > functional
> > > > > specification at http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/) needs these
webserver
> > > > > features, little more. I repeat, from the submission page it's
pretty
> > > > clear
> > > > > that little if any IIS 5.0 code was running in this test - nothing
> > makes
> > > > this
> > > > > more apparent than the fact that no IIS 5.0 tuning was done at all
on
> > this
> > > > > system! For example compare it with the IIS 5.0 tunings done in
the
> > > > > following, much much slower 4-CPU SPECweb99 Windows 2000 / IIS 5.0
> > result:
> > > > >
> >
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/web99-20000612-00049.html
> > > > .
> > > > > This submission page is full of IIS 5.0-specific tunings, while
the
> > SWC
> > > > 3.0
> > > > > submission has none at all! IIS 5.0 was probably just taking away
some
> > > > space
> > > > > on disk and RAM, and was idling around - this was probably the
best it
> > > > could
> > > > > have done to help get a better result ;-) Obviously this is not
what
> > > > > Microsoft PR wants us to believe though :-)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You are really dense aren't you? SWC is a web CACHE - do you know
what
> > the
> > > > word cache means? Do you understand how a web cache works? Obviously
> > not.
> > > > Where do you think the pages the cache is supplying were
generated?????
> > Do
> > > > you think the cache created the pages??? HELLO???!!! Doh!!! IIS5
created
> > the
> > > > pages and if a static (keyword) page was requested again and it
hadn't
> > > > expired it was served by the cache and not by IIS, all the dynamic
pages
> > > > were served by IIS5 time and again.
> > > >
> > > > I mean, really - you enter a technical conversation without any
> > > > understanding of how a web server and/or cache works and expect us
to
> > read
> > > > that crap? Gee - did you think that no one at specweb would notice
> > something
> > > > clever like, gee, they didn't use a web server, they just served up
> > > > pregenerated and cache pages (amazingly they have time travel worked
out
> > so
> > > > they could pregenerate even the dynamic content to serve up from the
> > cache).
> > > >
> > > > And, SWC does not run in the kernel, neither does IIS5.
> > > >
> > > > (not that I care really, I only make fun of Tux being in the kernel
to
> > > > remind linux loosers about how much they tried to give NT advocates
> > grief
> > > > because NT runs speed critical components in the kernel - nice to
note
> > that
> > > > tux/linux is merely acknowledging the NT method of doing things as
the
> > best
> > > > and copying it, like they have copied everything else).
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com
> > > http://www.deja.com/
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: 15 Jan 2001 03:11:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I give up. You are just to dense to understand this..
: Consider it closed.
I must admit that I'm confused, too.
I'm currently playing a CD, and I just disconnected the audio connector,
and...silence.
Hmmm...maybe I'm not running Linux?...
[dave@taro dave]$ uname -a
Linux taro 2.2.18 #1 Sun Dec 31 13:06:08 PST 2000 i686 unknown
Nope, I'm definately running Linux. And yet I've never experienced this
"Linux woe" before.
Could it be that, as Mark has said, again and again (and you refuse to
hear), that this is an APPLICATION issue? That the APPLICATION you have
chosen to use to play CDs (and there are MANY different choices available
for this task) rips by default, so that it can also do cute little
visualization tricks?
By continuing to repeat the same claim, again and again, without reading
or comprehending Mark's answer, you are not doing anything to make
yourself look intelligent (not that your intelligence is really an issue
around here anymore).
Personally, I don't use xmms, since there are many slim, command-line
players available that suit my tastes better. This means that I cannot
find the setting to turn this off for you. So, stop whining and find it
yourself. If, for some reason, xmms does not contain such a setting
(which I think is doubtful), this does not indicate a failing in Linux as
a whole, only a failure on your part to select the correct tool for the
job. I invite you to try gcd, gtcd, workbone, cdcd, cdtool, or any of the
many other cd players available for Linux.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long)
Date: 15 Jan 2001 00:16:27 +0300
Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: irrelevant *right now*.
: Further thought indicates that you probably ought to have a
: look at coding your idea up in Java. It has many benefits
: (built-in support for security[*], code mobility, databases,
: networking, objects, etc.) and some of the things you are
: describing are really already there (in particular,
: you should look at ClassLoaders, RMI/CORBA, and JavaSpaces.) There is no
: sense in reinventing the wheel...
There is VERY MUCH SENSE reinventing the wheel if the wheel is
written using currently available JVM implementations and Java
libraries.
I don't understand why programs on compiled, strictly typed language
are SO bloated and slow. Perl, Tcl and Python have typically order of
magnitude smaller RSS, are order of magnitude faster, and have all the
advantages of the interpreted languages such as typelessness, eval
function etc.
Java was proposed as language for coffee manchines, which should mean
that it should be able to run multithreaded on Z80 with 32K memory.
But actually simple java app which does function of typucall makefile,
or 200-line Tcl script (I mean Oracle Installer, of course) can put
128Mb server to its knees.
(Of coursce, C++ is no better, it has all the drawbacks of Java and
lacks its two only benefints - garbage collection and Unicode support).
BTW, may be original poster should drop his idea about networked
anthill, and just write proper java machine, which would be as smaller
than Microsoft JVM (which is way smaller than Sun's and IBM's) as
vim 3.0 smaller than MS Word 2000. I suspect it is possible.
--
- long f_ffree; /* free file nodes in fs */
+ long f_ffree; /* freie Dateiknoten im Dateisystem */
-- Seen in a translation
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long)
Date: 15 Jan 2001 00:25:53 +0300
Robert J. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: No problem. You've screwed up in just under a dozen places,
: far as I can
: tell, and you're coming perilously close to reinventing a
: wheel that most AI
: researchers abandoned in the '60s; but beyond that, I'll
: keep my comments to
: myself.
They've abandoned it becouse they have few kilobytes of memory
and few thousands instructions per second in their disposal.
Now when I can have on my desk a system with gygabyte of memory,
hundred gygabytes of disk space, which is able to execute TRILLIONS
of instruction per hour (thing of mere 333Mhz * 3600 seconds)
situation can be different. Some of ideas which was buried in '60s
as unrealistic, deserve excavation.
It seems that living objects which do something useful is better way
of wasting our present computing power than animated banners, bulk
mailers and 1st person shooters.
--
No, that'd be silly.
-- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 04:49:38 +0200
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93t6k7$10j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
>
> ---Begin Excerpt---
>
> " We are presented with two choices at this point, we can downgrade the
> operating system to Windows NT 4.0 and use the same high-end, extremely,
> fast network cards or we can stay with Windows 2000 and replace the
network
> cards with the lower-end, but still server-class, network cards. We have
> opted for the first plan as this is a configuration which we have used and
> know works. At this point, we do not want to experiment with our clients
> only to find out that the lower-end network cards are not sufficient to
the
> task.
>
> ---End Excerpt ---
>
> Is it true that "Microsoft has not released any figures on corporation W2K
> server migration figures, almost a year after its release."? I'd
appreciate
> links to any articles if they are available.
>
> Anybody know of any high-end network cards that are flaky under the 2.4
> Linux kernel but are stable under the 2.2 kernel?
Give it time, 2.4 was just released, I'm not sure how many high end server
switched to it yet.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 03:16:14 GMT
Interconnect wrote:
> Unless you're running a beta kernel Linux is stable. Linux the OS that is :)
Actually the 2.3/2.4 kernels have been very stable in my testing.
> Yes Netscape is buggy, but it has improved. Since going open source mind you
It crashes from time to time, but I just start it right back up.
Mozilla is starting to shape up though - M17 is not bad.
jjs
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:55:37 -0500
In <93nglg$8dk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/12/2001
at 12:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock) said:
>I keep on quoting you, and you keep on deleting the quotes.
Because the quote was not relevant. I'll include it this one time just
to make you happy.
>What
>you said was:
> The fact that you don't use an XEDIT feature doesn't mean
> that it's not part of XEDIT. If it doesn't run XEDIT macros
> then it's not an XEDIT clone, regardless of whatever else
> it does.
As I pointed out, "XEDIT macros" is not the same as "any XEDIT
macros".
>But still, taken literally, it is
>much more reasonable to read this as "doesn't run any XEDIT macros"
No, adding words that change the meaning is not "taken literally".
>I think we may simply disagree on what a clone is.
Obviously, we disagree as to whether a proper subset is a clone.
>because it attempts to duplicate XEDIT
>command by command.
We also seem to disagree as to the meaning of "command by command".
When the original supports operands that are missing in the imitator,
then no reasonable person would beleive that they had copied it
"command by command."
BTW, the entire maintenance methodology in VM is built on one of the
pieces of XEDIT that Mansfiled did not copy.
--
===========================================================
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 03:19:57 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
After having read you above post I can only say that you
should get the network (tcp/ip) running. THEN install
webmin 0.83. This is a browser based system setup utility
(yes it has mandrake 7.2 support) Initial setup is a bit
hairy (its text based but interactive so its not too painful)
This will allow you to setup the system from the comfert of your
personal system. You can load new packages, setup servers, add
users, setup nfs ftp etc etc. This package should be on your
distribution (it may not be ver 0.83 if not visit
http:www.webmin.com ). Webmin is a browser based tool for
damn near complete remote system administration.
I would also install the package
swat (though this should be installed along with samba)
Samba Web Administration Tool. Runs through a browser
but because of your aversion to editing text files (grin)
I warn you you have to add one whole line of text to
inetd.conf.
Both of these can be installed on a machine
that does NOT have X installed. It allows editing the
configurations of various parts of a system REMOTELY.
Just install them both (not really that hard) and sit back
and fire up netscape (needs a broweser that can handle a login for a
remote server) log into the remote systems webmin server and edit
the system to your requierments. I use it and it works very well for me.
BTW why did you do just a small network type install on a 30gb drive
I would have installed the whole ball of wax then gotten
rid of what I didn't want. OF course I use slackware So the install
(full) is fairly small < 2gb) I have NO idea how much a full install
of mandrake 7.2 takes up. If its anything like an SuSE full install
I could see where you would be coming from on doing a network only
type install.
--
Jim Broughton
(The AmigaOS now there was an OS!)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 05:18:09 +0200
"Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93tp7q$ljm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Unless you're running a beta kernel Linux is stable. Linux the OS that is
:)
>
> Yes Netscape is buggy, but it has improved. Since going open source mind
you
You mean *minimun* requirement of P133 + 64MB RAM?
IE 5.5 need 486 + 32 (MAX Minimum)
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 03:24:43 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
[ a lot of crap]
>
> -Chad
Chad Myers is inane. Why do you bother
conversing with this moron?
Do yourself a favor... relax... skip his posts.
Chris (much happier nowadays)
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
