Clarence Verge wrote:
>
> > If you want something to apply to everyone, you put it
> > in /etc/profile.
>
> Does this mean that everyone, including root, must have
> /etc in their path ?
Nope. /etc does not go in your path. Bash already knows
to look in /etc. In fact, /etc is the normal pla
Clarence Verge wrote:
>
> There is a significant chance that I don't HAVE pico
> in this version - I will have to check tonite.
If you have pine, then you have pico (unless you deleted it).
Cheers,
Steven
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Clarence Verge wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Each user has his own .bashrc (in his home directory).
> > The changes made to .bashrc are specific to that user.
> > If you want something to apply to everyone, you put it
> > in /etc/profile.
>
> Does this mean that
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:58:46 -0500, Robert Deering wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:21:18 +0100 (CET), Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Clarence wrote:
>>> While messing about tonite I copied the default .bashrc from Pygmy06
>>> to Pygmy07. Why copy ? I couldn't figure out how to create a n
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Each user has his own .bashrc (in his home directory).
> The changes made to .bashrc are specific to that user.
> If you want something to apply to everyone, you put it
> in /etc/profile.
Does this mean that everyone, including root, must have /etc in their path ?
-
Robert Deering wrote:
>
> The very last thing I am is a linux expert, but I think pico [newfile]
> works, too.
That was the very first thing I tried. And mcedit [newfile].
There is a significant chance that I don't HAVE pico in this version -
I will have to check tonite.
This business of tryi
Clarence Verge wrote:
>
> I understand that typing it at the commandline is supposed
> to make the alias temporary,
It remains until you unalias it or logout (whichever comes
first). At any time you can execute alias (without parameter)
to see what aliases are active.
> and putting it in .ba
Bernie wrote:
>
> Normally yes, but I had assumed Clarence had tried that
> already and that his Linux version somehow had a diffrent
> version of pico.
No, I don't think pico was the problem. Rather I suspect
that Clarence tried to edit a file without w permission.
Pico happily displays fil
Bob wrote:
> The very last thing I am is a linux expert, but I think pico [newfile]
> works, too.
Normally yes, but I had assumed Clarence had tried that already and that
his Linux version somehow had a diffrent version of pico. Besides
"echo" to create the file works on almost all systems. Proba
Hi
12 Jan 2001, Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> While messing about tonite I copied the default .bashrc from Pygmy06
>> to Pygmy07. Why copy ? I couldn't figure out how to create a new
>> file with either mcedit or pico. :(
B> You can use "echo" to create a file.
Wouldn't it be easier
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:21:18 +0100 (CET), Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Clarence wrote:
>> While messing about tonite I copied the default .bashrc from Pygmy06
>> to Pygmy07. Why copy ? I couldn't figure out how to create a new file
>> with either mcedit or pico. :(
> You can use "echo" to
Clarence wrote:
> While messing about tonite I copied the default .bashrc from Pygmy06
> to Pygmy07. Why copy ? I couldn't figure out how to create a new file
> with either mcedit or pico. :(
You can use "echo" to create a file.
//Bernie
http://bernie.arachne.cz/
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:22:20 -0500, Clarence Verge wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > I also TRY to alias ls -la to dir and it IGNORES me.
>> In BASH, this should work:
>> --
>> alias dir='ls -al'
>> --
> Most likely it is a problem with recall. I may recal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I also TRY to alias ls -la to dir and it IGNORES me.
>
> In BASH, this should work:
> --
> alias dir='ls -al'
> --
Thanks Steven, for all the detail on deleting and transporting files in
Linux. I have archived your suggestions. ;-)
> I also TRY to alias ls -la to dir and it IGNORES me.
In BASH, this should work:
--
alias dir='ls -al'
--
> I have Pygmy06 also, which has pine. I would like to
> transport pine to Pygmy07, but I have no idea how one
> determines what files belong to what appl
Clarence Verge wrote:
Some stuff about Linux intended as a message to Steven.
A problem with brain access caused the message to be sent to the list. '(
Sorry about that, but maybe the topic will be of interest to a few anyway.
- Clarence Verge
--
- Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 07:49:22 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Clarence Verge wrote:
>> Just like the Linux commands that won't do anything
>> useful unless you can remember what the switches are.
> There's no need to remember the switches -- just use
> an alias. For example, I alias 'ls -al'
Some people never learn.
Last summer the City of Tucson proudly announced that it was upgrading its
computer system from the "antiquated DOS system" that it was using to a
Windows based system. Last week, the newspaper did a story on parking
violation scofflaws, people who have as many as 60
J.J Young wrote:
>>Cristian wrote:
>>It is also obvious that using Windoze to control critical industrial
>>processes means suicide
>
>Ah, so the US Navy ships are for kamikaze crews?
>
>Jake
>
>References:
(some links follow).
I'll check these links out. :-)
Cristian Burneci
-- Arachne V1.68
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, J. J. Young wrote:
> Cristian wrote:
>
> Ah, so the US Navy ships are for kamikaze crews?
You'd think they would have learned from the NT fiasco
where a Navy ship was left dead in the water.
On the postive side, Linux is making more and more
inroads into government serv
Cristian wrote:
>It is also obvious that using Windoze to control critical industrial
>processes means suicide
Ah, so the US Navy ships are for kamikaze crews?
Jake
References:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/13471.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/13921.html
> What was so wonderful about
> OpenDOS 7.01? Was it better than DR-DOS 7.03?
>Try tham both... then you'll see.
> If DR-DOS is free for noncommercial use and sold for commercial use in lots of
> 50 or more copies, what about commercial use on from 1 to 49 computers?
>Your guess is as good a
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:15:24 -0500 (EST), Sam Ewalt wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Cristian Burneci wrote:
>> I believe DR-DOS is largely used on embedded systems like industrial process
>> controllers.
> Yes, the factory that I work in (the largest single supplier of a
> certain widget to the auto
industrial machines run by DOS. Its a big
market and produces lots of revenue for the copyright holders of
the various DOS's.
Sam Ewalt
> >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:03:29 -0500 (EST)
> >From: Sam Ewalt
> >Subject: Re: DOS footprints?
> >On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Thomas Mue
show you which are
the advantages of DOS in such situations). Since Microsoft stopped
supporting it, please tell me which is the best alternative?
Cristian Burneci
>Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:03:29 -0500 (EST)
>From: Sam Ewalt
>Subject: Re: DOS footprints?
>On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Thomas M
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:55:50 -0500 (EST), Thomas Mueller wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
>>> There exists only one "true DOS" OpenDos v7.01
>> What about DR-DOS 7.03? I understand there wassome kind of
>> problem with 7.02, but didn't that get fixed with 7.03?
>> Or did
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> If DR-DOS is free for noncommercial use and sold for commercial use in lots of
> 50 or more copies, what about commercial use on from 1 to 49 computers?
We can all speculate about that until the cows come home and not have
an answer.
Or if somebody r
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
>> There exists only one "true DOS" OpenDos v7.01
> What about DR-DOS 7.03? I understand there wassome kind of
> problem with 7.02, but didn't that get fixed with 7.03?
> Or did they just leave things undone when they stopped
> developing it?
>IM
Clarence Verge wrote:
>
> Just like the Linux commands that won't do anything
> useful unless you can remember what the switches are.
There's no need to remember the switches -- just use
an alias. For example, I alias 'ls -al' to 'dir'.
Cheers,
Steven
Sam,
I am going to search my PC Magazines for whereis.com (the version that I use).
Simtel has PC Magazine archives by volume and number and that should include
the whereis.com. In the meantime, if you want it, let me know and I will
send it to you.
Roger Turk
Tucson, Arizona USA
P.S. Are
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:06:37 -0500, Roger Turk wrote:
> Another search that I did found a file that seems to be similar to the
> Whereis.com that I have, but is called FF (for file finder) and is a 1991
> program.
I registered my version of FF. Great program for MS-DOS! Unfortunately,
it doesn'
Roger Turk wrote:
> Gregy wrote:
> ...so, quit smirking at us and TELL us.
> whereis WHERE.COM ...so we can all go get it and save you the
> agony of holding your face in that unnatural position..
> So, you want to know where is whereis.com???
> www.zdnet.com/downloads/stories/info/0.0003
On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 03:14:22 -0700, Gregory J. Feig wrote:
> Roger
> ...so, quit smirking at us and TELL us.
> whereis WHERE.COM ...so we can all go get it and save you the
> agony of holding your face in that unnatural position..
> ..
> ..gregy
> PS...I also use the DRDO
On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 03:14:22 -0700, Gregory J. Feig wrote:
> Roger
> ...so, quit smirking at us and TELL us.
> whereis WHERE.COM ...so we can all go get it and save you the
> agony of holding your face in that unnatural position..
> ..
> ..gregy
> PS...I also use the DRDO
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000 07:17:39 -0500 (EST), Sam Ewalt wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
>> There exists only one "true DOS" OpenDos v7.01
> What about DR-DOS 7.03? I understand there wassome kind of
> problem with 7.02, but didn't that get fixed with 7.03?
> Or did they just
Gil Parrish wrote:
>
> Sam Heywood said:
>
> >To search for filenames in subdirectories with DR-DOS you can use XDIR.EXE,
> >as in "xdir arach*.* /s".
>
> Yet another DR-DOS command I won't remember when I need it. ;-]
>
> Thanks.
Hehe. Just like the Linux commands that won't do anything use
The WHEREIS.COM program that I referenced (ver. 1.5) is not as versatile as
the version that I have. (It does not appear to search across multiple
drives as the syntax is: whereis [drive:] filename.) The program that I have
is a 1989 program; the one I referenced is 1996 and is version 1.5.
Roger Turk wrote:
>So, you want to know where is whereis.com???
>www.zdnet.com/downloads/stories/info/0.0003BD.html
Oops. When I try this link, all I get is:
"We're sorry, but we were unable to find the page you requested."
Well, ZDNET probably still has it somewhere.
Sam Heywood said:
>To search for filenames in subdirectories with DR-DOS you can use XDIR.EXE,
>as in "xdir arach*.* /s".
Yet another DR-DOS command I won't remember when I need it. ;-]
Thanks.
Gregy wrote:
>>Roger
..so, quit smirking at us and TELL us.
whereis WHERE.COM ...so we can all go get it and save you the
agony of holding your face in that unnatural position..
.
.gregy
PS...I also use the DRDOS 6.0 xdir command and have always been
very satisfied...but.
Roger
..so, quit smirking at us and TELL us.
whereis WHERE.COM ...so we can all go get it and save you the
agony of holding your face in that unnatural position..
.
.gregy
PS...I also use the DRDOS 6.0 xdir command and have always been
very satisfied...but...whereis.com so
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000 22:20:44 -0500, Roger Turk wrote:
> Sam Heywood wrote:
> .. > To search for filenames in subdirectories with DR-DOS you can use
> .. > XDIR.EXE, as in "xdir arach*.* /s".
> Yes Sam, that is exactly what Gil Parrish said. You can only search in one
> directory and its subdire
Sam Heywood wrote:
. > To search for filenames in subdirectories with DR-DOS you can use
. > XDIR.EXE, as in "xdir arach*.* /s".
Yes Sam, that is exactly what Gil Parrish said. You can only search in one
directory and its subdirectories at a time with dir (or Xdir)
/s. If you wanted to sea
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000 14:00:31 -0500, Roger Turk wrote:
> Gil Parrish wrote:
>>> ... if you want to search your whole harddrive for a filename
> starting with "arach", you can go to the C: directory and give the command--
> dir arach*.* /s -- which would search not only the C: directory but the
>
Gil Parrish wrote:
>>... if you want to search your whole harddrive for a filename
starting with "arach", you can go to the C: directory and give the command--
dir arach*.* /s -- which would search not only the C: directory but the
/subdirectories as well. That doesn't work under DR-DOS; the fi
Sam,
You wrote:
>>This is for the the 486dx66 that somebody gave me a year ago. I just
had it sorted out and its now almost ready to go. (still has some
memory problem) Should have 32 megs, but is only showing 8.<<
My 586/133 (nee, 486/33) has a dip switch on the MB that has to be changed to
r
Sam Ewalt wrote:
>I've always used MS-DOS 6.22, which I'm accustomed to and have a
>reluctance to give up. But if there were a real advantage to using
>a different DOS for this new machine, I might give it a go.
I also use DOS 6.22 on my systems, except the Compaq portable running
Arachne, and th
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
> There exists only one "true DOS" OpenDos v7.01
What about DR-DOS 7.03? I understand there wassome kind of
problem with 7.02, but didn't that get fixed with 7.03?
Or did they just leave things undone when they stopped
developing it?
Sam Ewalt
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Clarence Verge wrote:
> Currently, I personally recommend DOS 5.0 because it does have distinct
> advantages over both 3.3 and 6.2x.
MS-DOS 5.0? Don't know where I'd find that these days. I was thinking of
either an earlier version of DR-DOS or maybe FreeDos, that way I'd hav
On 3 Dec 00 at 1:11, Sam Ewalt wrote:
>>While poking around various DR-DOS sites today I was struck by the many
>>varieties of DOS available and I'm wondering if there might be advantages
>>for running Arachne with some of these other variants--like perhaps earlier
>>versions with a smaller foot
There exists only one "true DOS" OpenDos v7.01
There exists only one "true memory manager" Qemm v7.5
There exists only one "true web browser" Arachne
Let the flame-war begin !!
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000 17:56:27 -0500 (EST), Sam Ewalt wrote:
> While poking around various DR-DOS sites tod
Sam Ewalt wrote:
>
> While poking around various DR-DOS sites today I was struck by the many
> varieties of DOS available and I'm wondering if there might be advantages
> for running Arachne with some of these other variants--like perhaps
> earlier versions with a smaller footprint. Or would you
52 matches
Mail list logo
