Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote: but not consistantly: eyryttyp0:hawktar -h tar: You must specify one of the `-Acdtrux' options Try `tar --help' for more information. This is because -h has a historical use already in tar (dereference symlinks). Not GNU's fault, this is a historical unixism. -- see shy jo
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 07:42:59PM +, Manuel Gutierrez Algaba wrote: On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote: But it comes down to GNU/Linux being a political statement, and one that I disagree with. I don't like GNU either. They're unnecessary complex most of the times, and they're too worried about imposing their own standards to others. Scheme-Guile, Lisp -elisp , Linux- Hurd. And their copyright notice is awful! But... I use emacs, and other nice GNUish software everyday :)). Ha! Neither Scheme nor Lisp is in any way standardized. Ha! Common Lisp was standartized by ANSI in 80es. I believe standard was revisited in 1994 and Lisp ot some OO features. Anyway, document number is ANSI X3.226-1994. Feel free to order and read Scheme is also standartized in several reports. They are quite extensive and allows to create independent compilers/interpreters. Scheme is a derivative of Lisp, and Lisp itself is splittered in dozens of dialects, nearly every AI institute developing it's own version. that's true There is no such thing as THE Lisp. yes, there is and that's why it is called Common Lisp -- [rest skipped] OK
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
On Fri, Dec 18, 1998 at 00:23:52 +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: Neither Scheme nor Lisp is in any way standardized. Scheme is a derivative of Lisp, So? That doesn't make it not standardised. R5RS (see http://www.schemers.org/Documents/) defines standard Scheme. Ray -- Obsig: developing a new sig
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
Richard E Hawkins Esq writes: Richard No, it's that their full extent is a pita (hmm, i don't mean to speak Richard for manuel). Really, I don't see why. From a command line, -h is quicker easier than --help, etc. And I'm Richard not even going to start on the info rather than man nonsense . . . Gnu stuff often provides both short and long options. Long options are usually easier to remind when you've not been using the app for a long time. It's hard to return to `standard' tools once you've tried the GNU version. Especially the fileutils, binutils, auto*tools etc. Richard It's also hard to go back to GNU once you've used the FreeBSD Richard versions :) Fair enough. I don't know FreeBSD... -- / / _ _ Didier Vernahttp://www.inf.enst.fr/~verna/ - / / - / / /_/ / E.N.S.T. INF C201.1 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] /_/ / /_/ / /__ /46 rue BarraultTel. (33) 01 45 81 73 46 75634 Paris cedex 13 Fax. (33) 01 45 81 31 19
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
didier declared, Richard E Hawkins Esq writes: Richard No, it's that their full extent is a pita (hmm, i don't mean to speak Richard for manuel). Really, I don't see why. --help is 4 more keystrokes than the standard -h From a command line, -h is quicker easier than --help, etc. And I'm Richard not even going to start on the info rather than man nonsense . . . Gnu stuff often provides both short and long options. Long options are usually easier to remind when you've not been using the app for a long time. but not consistantly: eyryttyp0:hawktar -h tar: You must specify one of the `-Acdtrux' options Try `tar --help' for more information. --
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
I really do like both distributions. They both have different things to offer. Maybe it's because I'm still new at it...having to install the base system, and then come back to install X just doesn't seem right to me. And Netscape is a bit of a nosebleed! I'm using Debian 2.0.2. On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, George Bonser wrote: On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Wed, Dec 16, 1998 at 08:46:01AM -0800, Clyde Wilson wrote: I agree with you Kent. Debian is much too difficult to start out with. Huh? Is this person talking about 2.0??? I installed a system last night ... it was a breeze. George Bonser The Linux We're never going out of business sale at an FTP site near you! -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 06:59:28PM -0600, Oleg Krivosheev wrote: Neither Scheme nor Lisp is in any way standardized. Common Lisp was standartized by ANSI in 80es. I believe standard was revisited in 1994 and Lisp ot some OO features. Anyway, document number is ANSI X3.226-1994. Feel free to order and read Well, this is true. However, a standard is only a standard if people hold to it. I don't see this with Lisp. I see Common Lisp as Yet Another Lisp, and only because people choose to define it in a document and put ANSI in front doesn't mean much. I admit my wording was misleading, as I didn't want to say that there were no efforts to standardize LISP, or no formalized versions of LISP. However, they are just this. You could say, Common LISP is standardized. Scheme is also standartized in several reports. They are quite extensive and allows to create independent compilers/interpreters. Scheme is a derivative of Lisp, and Lisp itself is splittered in dozens of dialects, nearly every AI institute developing it's own version. that's true There is no such thing as THE Lisp. yes, there is and that's why it is called Common Lisp -- Well, right. Common Lisp is standardized. Lisp isn't. Thanks, Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
On Wed, Dec 16, 1998 at 10:15:50AM -0600, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote: Linux shoved in my face, I give FreeBSD another thought. Anyone know how to remove it? I can't find where it's coming from). /etc/issue. Same file on at least three unices that I know of. Fairly standard. -- Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus| employer's. They hired me for my ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions! ---+- pgpNfgiDJaA40.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote: But it comes down to GNU/Linux being a political statement, and one that I disagree with. rick Agreed. I tend to use GNU/Linux only when talking about Debian because that is what Debian calls their product. Much energy is wasted in political debates about the various levels of freeness of things. Reminds me of arguments about angels on pins. Personally I don't understand why people are offended by GNU/linux. Just start counting the number of gnu programs in debian, and see how important they are. There is the gnu compiler that made linux possible in the first place, there is bison and flex, there are the gnu file utils, there is gnu diff and friends, there is gnu libc, most of the programs that form the core of debian _are_ gnu stuff. What is the problem that this is reflected in the name? Why are you so offended if the Free Software Foundation asks for some recognition for these programs, that they still maintain? The GNU in debian's name reflects the factual presence of lots of gnu programs in the core of debian, it is not a political statement in the first place, it is recognition for real work done. I do not use Debian because of their political philosophy, I use it because of its technical merits. If anything, their political stance diminishes the utility of the distribution. It turns pine into pain, for example. Please check out the mail list archives on pine. The pine people will not allow binaries of pine distributed with bugs fixed unless they officially approve. To approve officially means a lengthy process. They are their own license PITA. If forced to choose politics (or as RMS would call it psycho-social issues) over utility, politics will loose. I am not against proprietary software, I am against bad software. I will not use a bad free product when a good non-free product is available. If software is good and free, so much the better. Think for a while which of the free unices is having the biggest attention now. Is it one of the BSD-s? No, it is linux. The reason for this is that it has been released under the GPL, and that it integrates with all the GPL-ed unix utils from the FSF. This ensures developpers maximum freedom to do what they want in the long run. It is no fun to develop software in your free time that has to stay proprietary and is controlled by external forces. It is no fun to have to sign non-disclosure agreements to use certain programming tools, or to have to pay license fees if you would want to make some money out of the programs you wrote yourself. On the long run most good programmers prefer GPL-ed programs, because it puts them in control, and allows them to construct the best system without compromises. The GPL ensures this, gnu/linux is GPL-ed, and therefore came out as the most popular free unix with the most software and the best hardware support. Politics _do matter_. Debian is the distribution which is most aware of this, which is the reason they are the best, IMHO :) HTH, Eric Meijer -- E.L. Meijer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | tel. office +31 40 2472189 Eindhoven Univ. of Technology | tel. lab. +31 40 2475032 Lab. for Catalysis and Inorg. Chem. (TAK) | tel. fax+31 40 2455054
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
On Wed, Dec 16, 1998 at 08:46:01AM -0800, Clyde Wilson wrote: I agree with you Kent. Debian is much too difficult to start out with. Say what? I started on Slackware; Debian's installation is 1% better than that. Redhat removes a lot of options to give you a working system without much configuration on your part. Later, when you are shooting for guru-ship As opposed to Slackware and FreeBSD, which do no configuration for you at all. For example, they dump you with sendmail and expect you to set it up. Debian's MTA setup scripts are wonderful. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Wed, Dec 16, 1998 at 08:46:01AM -0800, Clyde Wilson wrote: I agree with you Kent. Debian is much too difficult to start out with. Say what? I started on Slackware; Debian's installation is 1% better than that. Sorry, I thought his choices were Debian or RedHat...
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
hamish harumphed, Say what? I started on Slackware; Debian's installation is 1% better than that. Redhat removes a lot of options to give you a working system without much configuration on your part. Later, when you are shooting for guru-ship As opposed to Slackware and FreeBSD, which do no configuration for you at all. For example, they dump you with sendmail and expect you to set it up. Debian's MTA setup scripts are wonderful. ?? I don't know about slackware, but FreeBSD did it automatically, much to my dismay--I was *counting* on it not taking mail connections. I really couldn't tell you whether it used smail or sendmail, but once it had an IP address, net connection, and had downloaded the mail program, it began rejecting my mail on the grounds of no such user I then added myself, and mail received sent just fine. But just try to get those guys to answer a questin . . . I think I'm 0 for 5 on their mailing lists, which looks about typical when you read them . . . rick --
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Colin Boyd wrote: learned to work with linux is 1) Develope a strong love for Linux. So strong that nothing will kill it. 2) Make coffee, and stay up drinking it and hacking at linux until you can no longer clearly see your monitor. Usually this is at about 4-5am. 3) If something doesn't work, forget about it for the time being and move on to something else. If you allow yourself to get lost in linux, it's quite enjoyable. Just wander through your system and check out anything that looks interesting. Read...Read...Read...anything related to linux that you can get your hands on. 4) I've always found it helpful to keep in mind that if something isn't working...most of the time it's your fault. Just keep the faith that Linux is Good and that eventually you will get it working. As you work with it, your knowledge of it will grow exponentially. -Colin Yeah! I couldn't agree more !!! Regards/Saludos Manolo - My addresses / mis direcciones: www.ctv.es/USERS/irmina --- lritaunas peki project/proyecto in python www.ctv.es/USERS/irmina/pyttex.htm --- page of spanish users of latex / pagina de usuarios en espanyol de latex www.ctv.es/USERS/irmina/texpython.htm -- page of drawing utility for tex / pagina de utilidad de dibujo para Latex ...abandoneis el campo y vuestras casas y acudais a defender el mar y la ciudad...no lamentarse por las casas o la tierra, sino por las vidas humanas, pues aquellas no nos proporcionan hombres, sino los hombres aquellas -Pericles
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote: john jabbed, ...on the other hand, every time I have GNU/ Linux shoved in my face, I give FreeBSD another thought. Anyone know how to remove it? I can't find where it's coming from /etc/motd, of course. You can put what ever you want there. that was the first place i looked, but it's not where the GNU comes from :) but bob pointed to /etc/issue, where it did. What's so offensive about GNU/Linux? The politics of it :) The general idea behind it is something like The contributions of GNU are almost/as/more important than linux, which is just the kernel, and GNU should get credit; there would be no system without gnu, etc. frankly, I prefer the BSD utilities, and dislike nearly everything all of the gnu changes: excessively long option names, info/hostility to man, etc. And i generally prefer the way the bsd versions operate on those where i've noticed a difference. But it comes down to GNU/Linux being a political statement, and one that I disagree with. I don't like GNU either. They're unnecessary complex most of the times, and they're too worried about imposing their own standards to others. Scheme-Guile, Lisp -elisp , Linux- Hurd. And their copyright notice is awful! But... I use emacs, and other nice GNUish software everyday :)).
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
Manuel Gutierrez Algaba writes: Manuel I don't like GNU either. They're unnecessary complex most of the Manuel times That's because you don't use them to their full extent. It's hard to return to `standard' tools once you've tried the GNU version. Especially the fileutils, binutils, auto*tools etc. Manuel and they're too worried about imposing their own standards to others. That however is true :-(, and I think this partly explains the number of projects splits that occured: GNU Emacs/XEmacs, Gcc/Egcs, others, and Francois Pinard who's so fed up with them that he's probably gonna turn GNU recode into Free recode, not to speak of others. -- / / _ _ Didier Vernahttp://www.inf.enst.fr/~verna/ - / / - / / /_/ / E.N.S.T. INF C201.1 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] /_/ / /_/ / /__ /46 rue BarraultTel. (33) 01 45 81 73 46 75634 Paris cedex 13 Fax. (33) 01 45 81 31 19
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
I started with Red Hat. Next was SuSE and now I have got Debian hamm. In my opinion debian isn't so much more difficult to install that RH or suse. I had some quit big difficulties with it, but it was because of bad multi-cd-installation-package. Dselect isn't as good as 'yast' supplied with suse, but not much worse. In my opinion one can almost as easily start linuxing with debian hamm as with RH. Just keep in mind to install first without X and before starting to install X to find out the information about your hardware, the video card and the monitor... The installation manual could be better, I think. Might be better to write it using very simple instructions for very common hardware combinations and including hardware like scsi hds as appendices? I moved to debian because of the right 'philosophy' behind the distribution, not because of it being better than the others... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pine license and other GPL rants (Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?)
Oh boy, another flame war... George Bonser wrote: On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, E.L. Meijer (Eric) wrote: Please check out the mail list archives on pine. The pine people will not allow binaries of pine distributed with bugs fixed unless they officially approve. To approve officially means a lengthy process. They are their own license PITA. I do not think you can say that since Debian never attempted to get their binary appproved. It is ok enough for Red Hat and Caldera and other distros. Last I checked they had packages. It is an arrogance thing ... it is a screw ease of use, it does not fit our political agenda thing. Are you advocating that we _not_ follow pine's license and distribute modified binaries anyway? Thus breaking the law? If you have a problem with pine's license, you should bring it up with them. Debian is just following it. -- Peter Galbraith, research scientist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546 6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/
Re: Pine license and other GPL rants (Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?)
George Bonser wrote: On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Peter S Galbraith wrote: Are you advocating that we _not_ follow pine's license and distribute modified binaries anyway? Thus breaking the law? No, I am advocating getting the binary approved. That's likely not manageable. What happens the next day when a new bug is submitted to the bug tracking system? What happens when a major security hole is published on the net, and it takes Debian 3 months to get yet anothet binary approved? Peter
Re: Pine license and other GPL rants (Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?)
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, George Bonser wrote: : On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Peter S Galbraith wrote: : : Are you advocating that we _not_ follow pine's license and : distribute modified binaries anyway? Thus breaking the law? : : No, I am advocating getting the binary approved. Go for it. Just remember this: 8.License Must Not Be Specific to Debian The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system. -- Nathan Norman MidcoNet 410 South Phillips Avenue Sioux Falls, SD mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.midco.net finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP Key: (0xA33B86E9)
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 07:42:59PM +, Manuel Gutierrez Algaba wrote: On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote: But it comes down to GNU/Linux being a political statement, and one that I disagree with. I don't like GNU either. They're unnecessary complex most of the times, and they're too worried about imposing their own standards to others. Scheme-Guile, Lisp -elisp , Linux- Hurd. And their copyright notice is awful! But... I use emacs, and other nice GNUish software everyday :)). Ha! Neither Scheme nor Lisp is in any way standardized. Scheme is a derivative of Lisp, and Lisp itself is splittered in dozens of dialects, nearly every AI institute developing it's own version. There is no such thing as THE Lisp. About your third example, the Hurd, let me only tell you that the Hurd was started _before_ Linux appeared on the scene. Actually, the Hurd is _NOT_ a succesor of Linux in any way, but an independent project. It is another kernel, it's a microkernel. Yes, GNU will continue to go beyond Unix, this is a design goal. GNU programs are usually more portable than any Linux application I've seen. Most people don't even worry about autoconf and automake, which are designed to make it able to compile GNU software on about any plattform. Get your facts right. rant I can't stand it anymore. All the hypocrites who criticize RMS or FSF for what they stand for, but use the programs anyway. You are free to use them or not, but leave them alone if you don't like them. There is still Windows 98 for you. Show me the code or go out of my way. /rant Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
didier declared, Manuel Gutierrez Algaba writes: Manuel I don't like GNU either. They're unnecessary complex most of the Manuel times That's because you don't use them to their full extent. No, it's that their full extent is a pita (hmm, i don't mean to speak for manuel). From a command line, -h is quicker easier than --help, etc. And I'm not even going to start on the info rather than man nonsense . . . The gnu stuff is just plain un-unixy. It's hard to return to `standard' tools once you've tried the GNU version. Especially the fileutils, binutils, auto*tools etc. It's also hard to go back to GNU once you've used the FreeBSD versions :) Manuel and they're too worried about imposing their own standards to others. That however is true :-(, and I think this partly explains the number of projects splits that occured: GNU Emacs/XEmacs, Gcc/Egcs, others, and Francois Pinard who's so fed up with them that he's probably gonna turn GNU recode into Free recode, not to speak of others. Huge program that tries to do everything, consumes massive resources, is hostile to existing standards, tries to force changes in other programs if they wish to be allowed to run. Hmm, which source am I talking about :) --
Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
Hi, thanks to all the people who have offered advice with configuring X-windows. I have not been successful and am brain dead at this point. I also tried hooking up to the internet with the same result. I chose the debian release because I wanted to learn more about computers (I have only used a pc off and on for the past year) and I like the philosophy behind Debian. I am wondering if Debian is just too difficult for me at this point. I am wondering if maybe I should try Red Hat, I have heard it is easier to install, and then come back to Debian. Does this sound like a logical progression to anyone? I don't have experience with either one so I just don't know the best course to take. Thanks, Kent
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
like the philosophy behind Debian. I am wondering if Debian is just too difficult for me at this point. I am wondering if maybe I should try Red Hat, I have heard it is easier to install, and then come back to Debian. Does this sound like a logical progression to anyone? I don't have experience with either one so I just don't know the best course to take. in my experience debian is actually easier then redhat. the reason people say that redhat is easier is that it has more gui tools which do make the very beginning a little easier but i find make anything beyond that harder. if debian is where you would like to end up, i'd say stick with it. see if you can find a local linux users group to hook up with, buy a couple books (there is a debian book available from amazon that a friend just bought that looks like a good introduction). there are packages available to make most stuff pretty easy, you're just at that stage where everything is new and everything is confusing. good luck! adam.
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, KTB wrote: Hi, thanks to all the people who have offered advice with configuring X-windows. I have not been successful and am brain dead at this point. I also tried hooking up to the internet with the same result. I've looked through the postsdidnt see anything. What is the problem? I've been through the worst that could have happened: PnP (Plug and Play) modem and Linux. If you can not get modem to work, there can be a lot of reasons. So, ask away. Althoughyou have to know how the computer works. At least a little bit. Open your machine up. Look up the boards. See whats up. Gather all the info you can...just don't pull any boards out. About the modem: look if it's a Winmodem. Usually USRobotics modems are ones. If it's Winmodemyou are out of luck and even RedHat will fail to work with it, no matter how easy it shoudl be to install. As for X: You don't get to learn much by sitting and letting an automated script autodetect/install everything for you. X can be a pain to install...yeah. Noone said Linux was easy (lets say, as easy as Windows, to install). Installing X has 4 parts, really: 1.Find out what card you have and select the closest library to support it. 2. Find out the specs on your monitor...Use the net. I had no idea what the specs were on my AcerView 34T. Looked around, found them, and was able to run at 800x640, instead of 640x480, much faster too. 3. Set up the mouse. 4. Set up the windows manager. All those steps are pretty easy. Just take time. So, cheer up. Easier does not mean better. Never include a comment that will help | Andrew Ivanov someone else understand your code. | [EMAIL PROTECTED] If they understand it, they don't | ICQ: 12402354 need you. |
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
Hi Kent, Before 3 month ago I ask me the equal question; I could not isdn get running under debian, and had no idea to figure out that problem. So I tried redhat 5.1 , I can't install it. the redhat crashed during installation 3 times. So I went back to Debian 2.0 (hamm) and began to stress the german list-members which ISDN-Questions. After a while, I've got them running. The easiest linux I ever used was suse after a installation of about 3-4 hours and feeling like a diskjockey (Cd1 cd2 cd 1 cd 3 cd1 cd2, etc,...) the system was configured with isdn, lan, printer, x and all needs I have, but I don't know why. After a period of 6 month I liked to use a new qt packages, however, it was at this time only as source vor suse available. !! It tooks me 4 DAYS to plug it in the system !! under debian the same package was installed after 15 minutes. I will say, if the installation is done, Debian is the finest linux I ever seen, clearly organized and easy to administrate. wish You Good Look and all the very best Peter
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
KTB wrote: Hi, thanks to all the people who have offered advice with configuring X-windows. I have not been successful and am brain dead at this point. I also tried hooking up to the internet with the same result. I chose the debian release because I wanted to learn more about computers (I have only used a pc off and on for the past year) and I like the philosophy behind Debian. I am wondering if Debian is just too difficult for me at this point. I am wondering if maybe I should try Red Hat, I have heard it is easier to install, and then come back to Debian. Does this sound like a logical progression to anyone? I don't have experience with either one so I just don't know the best course to take. Thanks, Kent Debian, to a newcomer with no prior experience with Unix, is hard to setup. However, so is RedHat, SuSe and the others. Unix began life as a multi-user OS running on mainframes at universities where there was an expert person, the System Administrator, who would take care of installing and configuring the system's software. You, and many others in the past, are trying to learn, in effect, how to be a SysAdmin from the very beginning, cold turkey. When I started out, it took me almost 2 weeks of tinkering just to figure out how to get the $#%#!?$ Backspace key to work! 8-) That has been solved I belive since then, but you understand my point. About ppp: PPP setup is easier than it was, now that we have the pppconfig package. When I installed Deb 2.0, pppconfig worked as advertised, but for all sorts of reasons it doesn't work for everybody, as apparently in your case. X11 is a beast, pure and simple. It usually comes down to your video card. If you a 'good' video card, i.e. its one that X11 fully supports, then getting X11 up and running is not too hard, although it will take some Read-The-Fine-Manuals in any case. With a 'bad' card you can easily end up pulling your hair out. My last video card was one of these. It wouldn't even run under the VGA16 server. I had to get a better card, one which I knew was supported by X11. BTW, RedHat's install procedure uses the VGA16 server to quickly get to a GUI installation, but if your card can't be run by VGA16, then your in real trouble with RedHat. RH has a pretty looking install procedure, but I, like the other respondent, don't equate 'pretty' with 'easy'. You end up needing to invest quite a bit of time in the beginning to get used to Linux (or any other Unix for that matter), but for most of us the investment is worth it, and yes, this is an excellent way to learn about computers and the different OSs available, and the different philosophies of OS design. If you get frustrated, dual boot back to Win, play a game, kill a few demons in Quake, and then take a swing at Linux again. :-) When you post questions to this list, be sure to include all the info you have on the problem, especialy exact error messages. The more info you give, the more likely someone will be able to help. Be sure to check out the documentation in /usr/doc/. There are also HOWTOs that are probably on one of the CDs (assuming you ordered Debian on CDs), if not, search for the Linux Documentation Project on the net. The /usr/doc/ppp and /usr/doc/xbase include FAQs and READMEs that might help. I'll shut-up now. :-) -- Ed C.
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
Hi, thanks to all the people who have offered advice with configuring X-windows. I have not been successful and am brain dead at this point. I also tried hooking up to the internet with the same result. I chose the debian release because I wanted to learn more about computers (I have only used a pc off and on for the past year) and I like the philosophy behind Debian. I am wondering if Debian is just too difficult for me at this point. I am wondering if maybe I should try Red Hat, I have heard it is easier to install, and then come back to Debian. Does this sound like a logical progression to anyone? I don't have experience with either one so I just don't know the best course to take. You could try RedHat first and then move to Debian later on. Perhaps some people would recommend this solution. Personally I suggest that you stick at Debian for a bit longer. It's not really all that hard once you get the hang of it. It just takes a little time to get the feel of things. The big advantage of Debian is that generally people on this list are very helpful. Sometimes the responses are slow, but more often than not you get lots of help. If you're feeling a bit brain dead, take a break and have another go tomorrow. How did you go with gpm? If I were you, I'd concentrate on getting that working first, then worry about X afterwards. Cheers, Mark. _/\___/~~\ /~~\_/~~\__/~~\__Mark_Phillips /~~\_/[EMAIL PROTECTED] /~~\HE___/~~\__/~~\APTAIN_ /~~\__/~~\ __ They told me I was gullible ... and I believed them!
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
KTB writes: I also tried hooking up to the internet with the same result. Did you run pppconfig? If so I would like to know what problems you had. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
I am wondering if Debian is just too difficult for me at this point. I am wondering if maybe I should try Red Hat, I have heard it is easier to install, and then come back to Debian. Two years ago, Red Hat was certainly easier to install. Today, debian is much easier. Debian fixed its problems, and red had made no discernable difference (on the other hand, every time I have GNU/ Linux shoved in my face, I give FreeBSD another thought. Anyone know how to remove it? I can't find where it's coming from). Anyway, I found red hat to be more, rather than less, work to install, not to have packages I use, and to be more of a hassle to update. I also strongly disliked the way it wanted to default X to look like the dark side; I *prefer* a plain X to some colored backround with a lot of icons. ANyway, the easiest way I've found to install X is XF86Setup rather than xf86Setup make sure you have the vga16 server installed; that's where it lives. Make sure your default driver is correct (this offer is made while installing the package), and XF86Setup starts the vga server to give you menus such, so that you can just click on what you want (be sure to make the capslock a control key; it's immoral not to have one next to the A :) As for ppp . . . i can't help much there. I've needed massive help to get it goign myself, and what I have is so odd, that what i know is useulss for anyone else . . . rick --
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
KTB dixit: Hi, thanks to all the people who have offered advice with configuring X-windows. I have not been successful and am brain dead at this point. Most (All?) of us have gone through that feeling at some point... and still keep going ever now and then. I also tried hooking up to the internet with the same result. I chose the debian release because I wanted to learn more about computers then stay tuned... and don't spare your time in asking around. have only used a pc off and on for the past year) and I like the philosophy behind Debian. I am wondering if Debian is just too difficult for me at this point. I am wondering if maybe I should try Red Hat, I have heard it is easier to install, and then come back to Debian. Does this sound like a logical progression to anyone? I don't have experience with either one so I just don't know the best course to take. Give it a try, send in your questions (try to be most specific when you do: eg. send logs with error messages,...), the worst that may happen to you is people telling you to read such or such document, and that will happen just the same in any RH list... so, in practice, same degree of difficulty, more learning with Debian. -- Un saludo, Horacio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
Wed, 16 Dec skrev Richard E. Hawkins Esq.: As for ppp . . . i can't help much there. I've needed massive help to get it goign myself, and what I have is so odd, that what i know is useulss for anyone else . . . I have lost the original message, but anyway, if you have problem with ppp, give the wvdial package a try. ( main/comm/wvdial_1.20.deb ). It's great, at least for me! -- Åsmund Ødegård http://www.ifi.uio.no/~aasmundo/sider/main.html
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
Richard E. Hawkins Esq. writes: ...on the other hand, every time I have GNU/ Linux shoved in my face, I give FreeBSD another thought. Anyone know how to remove it? I can't find where it's coming from /etc/motd, of course. You can put what ever you want there. What's so offensive about GNU/Linux? -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote: I am wondering if Debian is just too difficult for me at this point. I am wondering if maybe I should try Red Hat, I have heard it is easier to install, and then come back to Debian. Two years ago, Red Hat was certainly easier to install. Today, debian is much easier. Debian fixed its problems, and red had made no discernable difference (on the other hand, every time I have GNU/ Linux shoved in my face, I give FreeBSD another thought. Anyone know how to remove it? I can't find where it's coming from). /etc/issue Bob Bob Nielsen Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DM42nh http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
At 09:59 PM 12/15/1998 -0600, KTB wrote: Hi, thanks to all the people who have offered advice with configuring X-windows. I have not been successful and am brain dead at this point. I also tried hooking up to the internet with the same result. I chose the debian release because I wanted to learn more about computers (I have only used a pc off and on for the past year) and I like the philosophy behind Debian. I am wondering if Debian is just too difficult for me at this point. I am wondering if maybe I should try Red Hat, I have heard it is easier to install, and then come back to Debian. Does this sound like a logical progression to anyone? I don't have experience with either one so I just don't know the best course to take. Thanks, Kent What part of the world are you in? Perhaps you're near someone or near a LUG (Linux User's Group) that could give you some one-on-one help. I think Redhat might be easier to get your feet wet with, but Debian will probably be easier to work with in the long run. I personally think you'd benefit from being exposed to several distributions, but be aware of the psychological trap that if you start with Redhat and have an easy time of it but then switch before you run into the harder issues of Redhat, your brain will always subconsciously consider Redhat easier, even if that's not true. I don't remember all the problems you've been having, but I vaguely seem to think they're mostly X-Windows related. If that's the case, I'd suggest sticking with Debian and fighting X until you've beaten it into submission; for one thing, you'll learn a lot more than if you just let Redhat's installation program do it all for you. I understand your being brain dead. Might I suggest that you try to run a game or two; you'll most likely find them in /usr/games. Don't try to run the ones starting with X; they need X-Windows. Most of the default text-based games are rather mild, but it'll give you a little boost to be able to do something with your system. (If you cd /usr/games, instead of starting the game foogame by simply typing it's name, you may need to type ./foogame. Unlike DOS/Windows, the system doesn't always see executables in the current directory, for security reasons.) If you've got a second machine, install Redhat on it, but leave Debian on this one. Have you posted any questions about your dial-up? Have you verified your connection to your ISP from another computer/Operating System? Have you run (as root) pppconfig, and then typed pon to start your connection? I don't mean to push you into killing your brain any farther, but my gut instinct is that you're closer to some major successes than you think. The Other Kent
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
I agree with you Kent. Debian is much too difficult to start out with. Redhat removes a lot of options to give you a working system without much configuration on your part. Later, when you are shooting for guru-ship you can go to Debian and really get into it. Both systems are a tremendous amount of fun!!! On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, KTB wrote: Hi, thanks to all the people who have offered advice with configuring X-windows. I have not been successful and am brain dead at this point. I also tried hooking up to the internet with the same result. I chose the debian release because I wanted to learn more about computers (I have only used a pc off and on for the past year) and I like the philosophy behind Debian. I am wondering if Debian is just too difficult for me at this point. I am wondering if maybe I should try Red Hat, I have heard it is easier to install, and then come back to Debian. Does this sound like a logical progression to anyone? I don't have experience with either one so I just don't know the best course to take. Thanks, Kent -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
At 10:15 AM 12/16/1998 -0600, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote: snip discernable difference (on the other hand, every time I have GNU/ Linux shoved in my face, I give FreeBSD another thought. Anyone know how to remove it? I can't find where it's coming from). I vaguely remember a thread about this about three months ago. You might check the mail list archives. snip ANyway, the easiest way I've found to install X is XF86Setup rather than xf86Setup ^^^ -- xf86config snip
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
Clyde Wilson writes: Clyde I agree with you Kent. Debian is much too difficult to start out with. Clyde Redhat removes a lot of options to give you a working system without Clyde much configuration on your part. Later, when you are shooting for Clyde guru-ship you can go to Debian and really get into it. Both systems Clyde are a tremendous amount of fun!!! This is the eternal problem of ergonomy vs. configurability, and I'm not sure we'll ever find a really good compromise: I switched just yesterday from redhat 5.1 to debian 2.0. I'm a computer scientist with a rather long experience in Unixes so that didn't frightened me too much, but what I can say from now is that: 1/ RedHat is much easier to install, but a PITA when you want to do (or learn) special precise things. Providing a good looking tk interface for everything is not enough to make things easier and moreover it hides the knowledge you could acquire about the stuff behind (of course, you might perfectly not want to learn anything). 2/ Debian on the contrary doesn't try much to do anything for you (or the other way around, you have a maximum control), but remains much more difficult to install. Personally, that's what I want: I want to learn the inners of everything I use (I don't like to eat while not seing what's in my plate ;-)). IMHO the day where we'll have a really good compromise between ergonomy and configurability is when a configuration interface is as clever for setting the parameters as for providing all the information needed to understand what's going on. But even this, is not necessarily what everybody wants. -- / / _ _ Didier Vernahttp://www.inf.enst.fr/~verna/ - / / - / / /_/ / E.N.S.T. INF C201.1 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] /_/ / /_/ / /__ /46 rue BarraultTel. (33) 01 45 81 73 46 75634 Paris cedex 13 Fax. (33) 01 45 81 31 19
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
OK well I guess I am qualified to put in my two hapeth here as I have just moved to Debian after using RedHat since 4.0. RedHat is VERY easy to install in some ways. Its hardware detection is very very good and it takes about 15 minutes to do the whole thing. It does however have some major disadvantages 1. There menu system for X doesnt change depending on what packages you have installed so say if you have no Xemacs the menu option will still be there (this may have changed in 5.2 though as I have'nt tried this yet. 2. Upgrading to latest packages is not automatic you have to download them from the errata ftp site one by one after readig which ones you need. 3. A lot is left unconfigured, RPMs are quite good but they doen't go into config mode after they install the way debs do, so say you install sendmail it won't then ask you some questions to config it for your PC you will just have to hack away by hand. 4. LinuxConf which they now use for almost all system config is a complete pile of *. Sorry to those who like it and the author as its a great idea but it just annoys the hell out of me. Try using it to setup IPX connectivity sometime and see what I mean. If it every gets sorted out though it will be nice. 5. The printing subsystem is a complete mystery to anyone who isn't a wizard at reading very long bash scripts. I thing it uses nenescript but god knows exatly how its bolted together. It works fine if you have a local printer thats in the supported list but for anything else its a nightmare. 6. RedHat change a lot about the way a package installs eg where it puts its files and also config scripts, well so does Debian to some extent but Debain tend to have Readmes to tell you what they have changed RedHat doent you have to guess or examin the patches in the SRPMS. Eventually I started to feel constrained and annoyed by RedHat, its a nice shinny slick system in some ways but Debian seems to have more depth. Also changing over at a later date will give you another learning curve (which I am going through right now :) ) as things are different enough between the two to throw you. Don't get me wrong RedHat is not a bad distribution and they have done a lot to raise the profile of Linux,I liked it a lot better than SuSe or Slackware but I think Debian is better and gives more control. Also whilst RedHat may initially seem to be easier in the medium term and long term it really isn't. Pat - in opinionated mode. On Wed Dec 16, 1998 at 08:46:01AM -0800, Clyde Wilson wrote: I agree with you Kent. Debian is much too difficult to start out with. Redhat removes a lot of options to give you a working system without much configuration on your part. Later, when you are shooting for guru-ship you can go to Debian and really get into it. Both systems are a tremendous amount of fun!!! On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, KTB wrote: Hi, thanks to all the people who have offered advice with configuring X-windows. I have not been successful and am brain dead at this point. I also tried hooking up to the internet with the same result. I chose the debian release because I wanted to learn more about computers (I have only used a pc off and on for the past year) and I like the philosophy behind Debian. I am wondering if Debian is just too difficult for me at this point. I am wondering if maybe I should try Red Hat, I have heard it is easier to install, and then come back to Debian. Does this sound like a logical progression to anyone? I don't have experience with either one so I just don't know the best course to take.
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
bob bled, Two years ago, Red Hat was certainly easier to install. Today, debian is much easier. Debian fixed its problems, and red had made no discernable difference (on the other hand, every time I have GNU/ Linux shoved in my face, I give FreeBSD another thought. Anyone know how to remove it? I can't find where it's coming from). /etc/issue ahh. works like a charm. thank you (and from my blood pressure, too :) rick --
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
kent kalled, ANyway, the easiest way I've found to install X is XF86Setup rather than xf86Setup ^^^ -- xf86config that's the configuration file; XF86Setup makes it rick --
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
john jabbed, ...on the other hand, every time I have GNU/ Linux shoved in my face, I give FreeBSD another thought. Anyone know how to remove it? I can't find where it's coming from /etc/motd, of course. You can put what ever you want there. that was the first place i looked, but it's not where the GNU comes from :) but bob pointed to /etc/issue, where it did. What's so offensive about GNU/Linux? The politics of it :) The general idea behind it is something like The contributions of GNU are almost/as/more important than linux, which is just the kernel, and GNU should get credit; there would be no system without gnu, etc. frankly, I prefer the BSD utilities, and dislike nearly everything all of the gnu changes: excessively long option names, info/hostility to man, etc. And i generally prefer the way the bsd versions operate on those where i've noticed a difference. But it comes down to GNU/Linux being a political statement, and one that I disagree with. rick --
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
At 11:28 AM 12/16/1998 -0600, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote: kent kalled, ANyway, the easiest way I've found to install X is XF86Setup rather than xf86Setup ^^^ -- xf86config that's the configuration file; XF86Setup makes it rick Unless I'm mistaken, and I could very well be, XF86Setup is the graphical setup utility, and xf86config is the text-based setup utility, and XF86Config is the file created by those two utilities.
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
kent komplained, At 11:28 AM 12/16/1998 -0600, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote: kent kalled, ANyway, the easiest way I've found to install X is XF86Setup rather than xf86Setup ^^^ -- xf86config that's the configuration file; XF86Setup makes it rick Unless I'm mistaken, and I could very well be, XF86Setup is the graphical setup utility, and xf86config is the text-based setup utility, and XF86Config is the file created by those two utilities. ack, yes. Hmm, didn't XF86Setup used to be XF86Config as well? I seem to recall the two config programs having the same name, save for captialization . . . anyway, for a newuser, use XF86Setup to make what you need :) --
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
On 15 Dec 98, at 21:59, KTB wrote: Hi, thanks to all the people who have offered advice with configuring X-windows. I have not been successful and am brain dead at this point. I also tried hooking up to the internet with the same result. I chose the debian release because I wanted to learn more about computers (I have only used a pc off and on for the past year) and I like the philosophy behind Debian. I am wondering if Debian is just too difficult for me at this point. I am wondering if maybe I should try Red Hat, I have heard it is easier to install, and then come back to Debian. Does this sound like a logical progression to anyone? I don't have experience with either one so I just don't know the best course to take. Thanks, Kent I ran into more problems than anyone should with my early experiences of Debian but have learned a huge amount from persevering and using the debian-user list humbly. I found some books from O'Reilly about linux very useful but also sometimes very confusing as different linuces put files in different places. Using locate and find / -name 'wilcard pattern' helps when you've got enough system up and running. I've now installed Debian some ten times to produce three first running systems that seem pretty damn solid and I know far more about computers, operating systems and the internet than I did before and have had incomparable support from the debian-user, linux-scsi, aic7xxx lists. I'd stronly recommend staying with Debian but the one thing I've really had to learn is never to do things to deadlines: accept that some things may take a day or so just come clear in my head let alone get fixed. I'm copying this to the list as a sort of thank you to so many people who've helped me directly or have asked questions or answered questions other than mine which have helped me! Seasonal greetings all! Chris
RE: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
Actually, I thought this way until I loaded Debian 2.0 - it automates X and ppp setup quite well... Nothing like Debian 1.3 (which was almost fully manual for both). It also has several sample configurations available, which loads preconfigured sets of packages depending on your intended purpose (development, games, mailserver, etc.)... I agree with you Kent. Debian is much too difficult to start out with. Redhat removes a lot of options to give you a working system without much configuration on your part. Later, when you are shooting for guru-ship you can go to Debian and really get into it. Both systems are a tremendous amount of fun!!! On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, KTB wrote: Hi, thanks to all the people who have offered advice with configuring X-windows. I have not been successful and am brain dead at this point. I also tried hooking up to the internet with the same result. I chose the debian release because I wanted to learn more about computers (I have only used a pc off and on for the past year) and I like the philosophy behind Debian. I am wondering if Debian is just too difficult for me at this point. I am wondering if maybe I should try Red Hat, I have heard it is easier to install, and then come back to Debian. Does this sound like a logical progression to anyone? I don't have experience with either one so I just don't know the best course to take. Thanks, Kent -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
Kent, just as a little background...I started off with slackware...It actually proved to be a little to difficult for my tastes..then on the advice of a friend (What's up karl?) I switched to debian. It was like a godsend. Things worked well, and I have a great time with it. Yet, just for kicks a few weeks ago I installed RedHat 5.0 just to see what all the talk was about...and I still can't figure it out. RedHat is very easy to get installed. But you don't learn anything about what it's doing. It's also considerably slower, at least on my system. (P200 98M ram) The best way I've learned to work with linux is 1) Develope a strong love for Linux. So strong that nothing will kill it. 2) Make coffee, and stay up drinking it and hacking at linux until you can no longer clearly see your monitor. Usually this is at about 4-5am. 3) If something doesn't work, forget about it for the time being and move on to something else. If you allow yourself to get lost in linux, it's quite enjoyable. Just wander through your system and check out anything that looks interesting. Read...Read...Read...anything related to linux that you can get your hands on. 4) I've always found it helpful to keep in mind that if something isn't working...most of the time it's your fault. Just keep the faith that Linux is Good and that eventually you will get it working. As you work with it, your knowledge of it will grow exponentially. -Colin
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
At 12:26 PM 12/16/1998 -0600, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote: kent komplained, At 11:28 AM 12/16/1998 -0600, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote: kent kalled, ANyway, the easiest way I've found to install X is XF86Setup rather than xf86Setup ^^^ -- xf86config that's the configuration file; XF86Setup makes it rick Unless I'm mistaken, and I could very well be, XF86Setup is the graphical setup utility, and xf86config is the text-based setup utility, and XF86Config is the file created by those two utilities. ack, yes. Hmm, didn't XF86Setup used to be XF86Config as well? I seem to recall the two config programs having the same name, save for captialization . . . Dunno. If so, that was before my time, which was a LONG, LONG 3 months or so ago. :-)
RE: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
I have to totally agree with Colin. I have spent many nights up with linux until 5 or 6am, so tired that I see double images. Then something clicks and everything I could figure out starts working!! As for my experiences with other Linux dists. I have used Red Hat 5.1 and Open Linux 1.2 and the truth as I see it Red Hat and Open Linux are very easy to install. But, in my experience, they are slower and not as nice to configure and manipulate as Debian. Everything is graphical and that nice but hard to find out what exactly is going on. I think Red Hat is for people who want to run Linux but not configure and thing (sort of a Windows 95 thing). I think Red Hat will probably be distro to succeed in the mainstream since anyone can pop it in and go. If on the other hand you want to learn Linux and what makes it tick and have an OS that you dictate DEBIAN is the way. Just more of my 2 cents. Rod.. -Original Message- From: Colin Boyd [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1) Develope a strong love for Linux. So strong that nothing will kill it. 2) Make coffee, and stay up drinking it and hacking at linux until you can no longer clearly see your monitor. Usually this is at about 4-5am. 3) If something doesn't work, forget about it for the time being and move on to something else. If you allow yourself to get lost in linux, it's quite enjoyable. Just wander through your system and check out anything that looks interesting. Read...Read...Read...anything related to linux that you can get your hands on. 4) I've always found it helpful to keep in mind that if something isn't working...most of the time it's your fault. Just keep the faith that Linux is Good and that eventually you will get it working. As you work with it, your knowledge of it will grow exponentially. -Colin -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: Debian too difficult, Red Hat?
On 16 Dec 1998q, Chris Evans wrote: On 15 Dec 98, at 21:59, KTB wrote: [snip] I'm copying this to the list as a sort of thank you to so many people who've helped me directly or have asked questions or answered questions other than mine which have helped me! Seasonal greetings all! Chris I'd like to echo this, and also thank the several maintainers of packages who have always replied promptly and helpfully when I've encountered difficulties/bugs in their contributions. This accessibility of the maintainers is a very big plus for Debian. I started some years ago with Slackware, and nearly gave up; then I tried Red Hat and things went much better. I became converted to Linux. A few months ago I decided to try Debian and have now changed to it completely. From most points of view I prefer it to Red Hat, although the difference is not enormous; I only miss /etc/rc.local. The only thing that's a bit difficult in installing Debian is dselect, but once you're past that hurdle things go pretty smoothly. BTW, I've just removed the pre-installed Windows 95 from my new Toshiba Satellite! I spent a few days experimenting with W95 just to get the feel of it (I'd only used Windows 3.0 in the distant past), and was struck by how cumbersome it was after Linux. Anthony -- Anthony Campbell - running Linux Debian 2.0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.achc.demon.co.uk The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on... - Edward Fitzgerald
