Re: Knoppix is Not Debian
And i was probably building computers when your mama was changing your diapers... since i learned basic on a trash-80 model-1 when i was barely a teenager (ok so some would say i am just as bad calling the trs-80 by the popular term of trash-80 --- i knew some guys who ran a good bbs on a trs-80 model-II). As for installing an OS not being brain surgery... i can tell you i wouldn't let my brain-surgeon (neurosurgeon) work on my computer... but i probably am going to let him cut a second chunk out of my brain this summer. For him and many other people having an easy install OS is imperative. Come to think of it it really helps me since i'm not quite what i used to be (i used to called people stupids just because they weren't as familiar with something as i am). Admittedly i need to drop back to stable at this time because i can't figure out why removing a library requires that i also remove a number of documents that describe things but do not use the library in any way. And why a number of libraries won't install because something requires that you use the previous version of that library or greater but it doesn't recognize the new version as being a newer version. My mind doesn't work the way it used to so unfortunately i need to drop back to stable and work on backporting the applications i need... if my brain will work long enough for me to do it. :-) Oh, and when i was a teen... the average person didn't install much more than DOS. We've come a long way... i hope we don't go back. Come to think of it even a simple OS many people paid for someone to install. after all i was born a few months after Kennedy was shot... Now some of you know i'm younger than you... and many others haven't any idea my age. ;-) --dale --getting to be an older fart who happens to like gui os and installs. ;-) --options are Great!! so long as they are options and not requirements On Saturday 07 February 2004 03:12 pm, Kent West wrote: Marc Wilson wrote: There's no reason why he should be installing operating systems, either, any more than he should be building cars. Or performing brain surgery. Contrary to popular belief, there ARE some things that Joe Stupid has no business doing. Installing an OS or building a car aren't quite the same as doing brain surgery. If Joe Stupid wants to build a car, let him. (We might not want to let him drive it in places where faulty design/implementation might get someone hurt, but that's a different issue than building.) Just because you wouldn't use Knoppix as a starting point, or jump from stable to unstable, is no reason someone else might not. I tend to agree snip Also, the use of the phrase a stupid seems harsh (and most likely, inaccurate). -- Kent ---it is ok to have no rules... so long as everyone follows the rules -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Knoppix is Not Debian
I apologize to my elder... it was not to you though i realize i quoted you. :-) It was to Marc i spoke and perhaps others... that particular attitude while strong in my generation... is even stronger in a younger crowd. ;-) But perhaps marc has fooled me and is older than either of us. But hey... I still have that attitude more than i'll admit when my wife isn't there to tell the truth about me. :-) The most valid complaint about knoppix and Morphix (which i use) is that it is based on unstable. I would like at some point to build a version based on stable. Perhaps late this year after my 2nd brain surgery :-) ---dale ---it is ok to have no rules... so long as everyone follows the rules On Sunday 08 February 2004 07:05 pm, Kent West wrote: Dale Welch wrote: And i was probably building computers when your mama was changing your diapers . . . To whom does your refer? If to Kent, then Nope. after all i was born a few months after Kennedy was shot... Kent was born a few months before Kennedy was shot. -- Kent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Has anyone ever thought of getting the reply-to changed?
On Thursday 05 February 2004 10:12 am, Rico -mc- Gloeckner wrote: On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 05:58:59PM +, Joseph Jones wrote: It really bugs me. I know this may seem unnecessary to some people, but it wouldn't require much. All the other mailing lists I'm on set the reply-to to the address of the mailing list, apart from this list. try google: 'reply-to harmful' I find the reply-to being set to the list most preferable. Most of the stuff written by the first thing i found on google under 'reply-to harmful' was really not well written and very obnoxious about claiming others are obnoxious. You have to consider who the majority of the people are and consider that most things should be answered back to the list. Therefore a small extra action by the replyer if he wants to send it back to the original sender is preferred so that the new user will correctly reply back to the list. I email lists for the purpose of having the response on the list. The only time i find it appropriate to send back directly to sender is if you run the list like the sun solaris admin guys do everyone sends back to the poster and then the poster is required within three days to post a summary of what he was sent and what worked for him. I loved that list. :-) and if you want to claim you can use rules to re-write the headers to do what you want... then fine lets have it default to the standard of reply to the list and you set your favorite program to rewrite the headers to let you reply directly by default. ;-) Sorry for replying to what these days is almost a troll type question, ---dale ---it is ok to have no rules... so long as everyone follows the rules -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debain on the rise ! - However ....
If you want it easy... like i do. Then try morphix. http://www.morphix.org/ has fairly good hardware detection (in fact not bad to use as a live-cd and then just see what it set in the configuration files). works as a live-cd without installing... get the game one and the gnome or kde one and you are set fairly well when going to someone else's computer. From the live-cd desktop you can also choose to install it to hard-disk. It is based on knoppix. One thing to be careful of is it defaults to testing or unstable and so right now an upgrade of the gnome components will wipe out gnome. a few things are broken right now. ;-( ---dale ---it is ok to have no rules... so long as everyone follows the rules -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
simple networking problem - bringing up eth0 correctly
I need to automate setting up my network and i seem to be missing something... using debian Linux Version 2.4.18-bf2.4-xfs if i manually do the following commands i can get out on my network ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.50 netmask 255.255.255.0 up route add default gw 192.168.1.254 i also seem to be not setting up for dns... how do i set that up? (can't resolv names) Your help greatly appreciated, I used to run freebsd years ago, but now am trying to use linux and obviously need help. ---dale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: simple networking problem - bringing up eth0 correctly
To explain better: if i manually do the following commands i can get out on my network ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.50 netmask 255.255.255.0 up route add default gw 192.168.1.254 i need to have that configured automatically during start-up and i need my dns to work. just found my dns problem... in resolv.conf i had name server instead of nameserver --- dns now works. but what is wrong with my interfaces... all help appreciated. :-) my resolv.conf: domain babbler.org search babbler.org nameserver 4.2.2.1 interfaces: auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.1.51 network 192.168.1.0 gateway 192.168.1.254 ---dale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Borland Kylix on Linux
You do realize that kylix is a pascal and not a c compiler...?
stdio.h is a c header file... not going to work.
in kylix you would have something closer to
program hello(input,output);
begin
writeln('hello');
end.
however because it is actually much more than just a pascal compiler, it
gets much more complicated.
:-)
---dale
- Original Message -
From: S Yuval
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 8:38 PM
Subject: Borland Kylix on Linux
I'm trying to use Borland Kylix for Linux to write a simple Hello World!
program. I have installed it in single user mode, in my home directory,
skipping the RPM installation and using the binary tarball archive directly.
The development environment runs, but when I include stdio.h, I get an
indefinite list of complaints about syntax errors concerning preprocessor
directives in the file. Does this mean that Kylix is incompatible with the
GNU libraries? can anyone suggest a remedy?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
