Yo tuve experiencia en Red Hat y siempre actualice paquetes via up2date,
usando Red Hat Network..desde que uso Debian estoy maravillado en
cuanto a la manera que tiene de buscar actualizaciones e instalarlas,
para mi es algo nuevo y con eso Debian ya tiene todo mi amor.
Pero por si acaso
Puedes instalar apt-get para red hat o fedora en el caso de que fuera asi..
Pero la herramienta que viene por defecto en Red Hat es Yum y es bastante parecida a apt.-- Luis Vega M.Linux Registered User #356394http://fodsite.webcindario.com
I come from Windows background and am interested in learning unix/linux cause i
am a
nerd. For learning things, I come from the drink from the firehouse school of
thought so I like Debian. its a little more hardcore, but still usable to me. I
am
still trying other flavors, but So far I prefer
Hi,
rant
I think that software vendors need to take responsibility for the
security implications of their products.
I personally don't much care if visual basic script allows for the
propogation of viruses that reformat your hard drive, that can go
under the trad offs you make heading. But if
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 04:59:01PM -0300 or thereabouts, Ariel Manzur wrote:
How about the fact that it's more stable and doesn't need to be
reinstalled every time there's a new version?
I had to reinstall my debian last time a new version came out..
reinstalled?!?? your missing alot. i've
Shoot, I ran from Buzz to Potato on one system until its disk died. Never
even rebooted except when the power failed.
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Rino Mardo wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 04:59:01PM -0300 or thereabouts, Ariel Manzur wrote:
How about the fact that it's more stable and doesn't need
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:49:04PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
Shoot, I ran from Buzz to Potato on one system until its disk died. Never
even rebooted except when the power failed.
btw: Is it possible to switch kernels without rebooting.
I cannot believe that's possible, however I cannot
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 02:01:14PM +0200, Florian Friesdorf wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:49:04PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
Shoot, I ran from Buzz to Potato on one system until its disk died. Never
even rebooted except when the power failed.
btw: Is it possible to switch kernels
btw: Is it possible to switch kernels without rebooting.
I cannot believe that's possible
Actually, I think someone was working on that.
Well, first he wants to make it so you can build an other kernel in
userspace or something (this is already possible with special kernels).
I think Solaris
I've not been at the OLSymposium but I did remember reading this about
Werner Almesberger:
http://www.ottawalinuxsymposium.org/2000/booting.html:
Booting Linux: The History and the Future
The IA-32 Linux boot process has since 1991 evolved from using boot
floppy to Shoelace and now LILO. We will
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 04:31:51AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 02:01:14PM +0200, Florian Friesdorf wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:49:04PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
Shoot, I ran from Buzz to Potato on one system until its disk died. Never
even rebooted
This may be of interest: http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html
Cheers,
Jason.
--On Thursday, September 14, 2000 14:50 +0200 Leen Besselink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
btw: Is it possible to switch kernels without rebooting.
I cannot believe that's possible
Actually, I think someone was
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jason Quigley wrote:
This may be of interest: http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html
Thank you but I already knew of it's existance, personally I think a
little like Linus Torvalds, monolitic kernels are always gonna be faster
then Microkernels. Although a mix of
On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 06:29:01PM -0500, w trillich wrote:
apropos? okay, i'll try that...
man -k is easier to type. :P
CONCLUSION:
there are #NO# pointers from a standard cd-install of slink,
Of course not. Correct me if I'm wrong but apt didn't really come into
its own
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 03:44:55PM +0200, Julio Merino wrote:
:In Hurd you can replace any of the existing servers (disk filesystem
:servers, network servers, etc.) without rebooting. The only thing you
:can't change is the microkernel (gnumach) but that's not needed often
::)
Just to see if I
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 02:53:56PM -0400, Fraser Campbell wrote:
:Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:
:: some glowing things about install time configuration in debian
: some love hate things about the same
:At work we use almost exclusively RedHat because of the kickstart install
:option. I can make a
At 23:42 04/09/2000 -0400, Thomas J. Hamman wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 09:54:15PM -0500, Wayne Sitton wrote:
Here is the situation, I'm a Debian user. The company I work for, so far,
will only allow Red Hat as it's Linux OS on it's servers. I need some good
reasons to justify using
pgpkYfKxQA6Gm.pgp
Description: PGP message
Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:
Debian allows for configuration during package installation, so you
don't have to poke around so much to figure outwhat needs tweeking to
make your nifty ne app working.
This is a great feature and (besides automated upgrades) one of the main
reasons I started using
Regards,
Stephan Hachinger
- Original Message -
From: Ariel Manzur [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Thomas J. Hamman [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: Debian vs. Red Hat
At 23:42 04/09/2000 -0400, Thomas J. Hamman wrote:
On Mon
Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:
Debian allows for configuration during package installation, so you
don't have to poke around so much to figure outwhat needs tweeking to
make your nifty ne app working.
This is a great feature and (besides automated upgrades) one of the main
reasons I started using
Fraser Campbell wrote:
It would be extremely useful if dpkg had a --default-config option or
something like that ... some way to ensure that packages install with
absolutely no prompting. Is there any way to do this now? If there were
it would be very easy to script a Debian install similar
Actually, both of you are right in your own ways. The
rpm is a gzipped cpio file with a few headers ... and
therefore, plain and simple cpio cannot work. Alien
is a perl script and is dependent upon external progs
to do the actual work (where required).
An RPM package file is divided in 4
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 12:39:20AM +0200, I. Tura wrote:
: Actually I don't know your position in your work (I missed the full
: thread)
the reasons I use Debian:
apt-get update apt-get upgrade = bye bye to many common security
worries (many Debian folks get hit with the statd
2000 12:53
Subject: Re: Debian VS. Red Hat
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 12:39:20AM +0200, I. Tura wrote:
: Actually I don't know your position in your work (I missed the full
: thread)
the reasons I use Debian:
apt-get update apt-get upgrade = bye bye to many common security
worries (many Debian
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 01:05:49PM +1100, Peter Muirhead wrote:
:I will be the first person to be completely honest in this thread.
:
:I use Debian so I can take a higher moral ground over my friends.
That is an excellent point :)
Friends don't let friends use Dead Rat
Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 01:05:49PM +1100, Peter Muirhead wrote:
:I will be the first person to be completely honest in this thread.
:
:I use Debian so I can take a higher moral ground over my friends.
That is an excellent point :)
Well I use Red Hat so I can
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 05:48:29PM -0500 or thereabouts, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
greatest packages if I have to sacrifice stability. Debian is the most
stable system I know, so that is what I want to use. My original question, is
how do I convince them of what I already know?
Wayne
i'm
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 05:48:29PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not berating people because of the Distro they Choose.
Well, I wasn't accusing you. It just seems that every time there is
a discussion of distribution, people are forgetting the fact that
the distributions aren't that
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, John L . Fjellstad wrote:
Well, if you want stability and security, having used both, I must say,
both are pretty much the same. I still aren't convinced that Debian
is somehow more stable than Redhat. Doesn't make sense. Enlightenment
0.16.3 doesn't magically become
I'd take any sweeping generalization as to the stability of a distro
with a grain of salt, especially when I don't know if the one doing
the reporting has longtime and wide ranging experience with a number of
distributions on various hardware combinations.
Having had some experiance with
-Original Message-
From: John L . Fjellstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 8:43 AM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian VS. Red Hat
[...] It just seems that every time there is
a discussion of distribution, people are forgetting the fact
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 10:43:30AM +0200, Christian Pernegger wrote:
-Original Message-
From: John L . Fjellstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 8:43 AM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian VS. Red Hat
[...] It just seems that every
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 11:02:45AM -0500, William Jensen wrote:
Maybe the software in the distributions is about the same, but the
distros themselves sure aren't.
Right.
Support. OH yes support. The first time I set up RH (first linux ever) I
naturally had some problems and questions. I
unlike rpm which you need to compile rpm to access a .rpm.
I think not. I managed to open an .rpm using the Gnome file manager in a
debian-based installation. An .rpm appears to be a cpio archive. Correct me,
folks, if this is misinformation.
Besides, you can always alien-ate an .rpm
On Mon, 11
msg.pgp
Description: PGP message
Actually I don't know your position in your work (I missed the full
thread) but a simple suggestion:
If you can be root there, why don't you install both, install a minimal
set of programs for your work in RH, and progressively use more Debian...
until leaving RH rotting in its
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 02:42:50AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unlike rpm which you need to compile rpm to access a .rpm.
I think not. I managed to open an .rpm using the Gnome file manager in a
debian-based installation. An .rpm appears to be a cpio archive. Correct me,
folks, if this
At 11:45 PM 9/8/00 -0700, John L . Fjellstad wrote:
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 12:05:32PM -0500, Wayne Sitton wrote:
OK guys, I think you've gotten off the subject that I needed. Although
what you have given me is great, what I need now is kind of like stories
of thing that have happened to show
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 10:06:59AM -0400, Chris Jenks wrote:
From what I have seen since this thread started, IMHO, is that a lot of RH
users that have
switched to Debian enjoy Debian more. Now this might be geek like, or gump
like I'm not
sure,
Well, the reason I enjoy Debian more is
Which also goes back to Wayne's comment on RH being better because it's
more popular.=20
Well, the reason I got RedHat initially was because that was the
only version of Linux at the local Fry's (or was it CompUSA?) store.
Today's newbies can choose between alot more distributions, and
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 01:58:45PM -0700, John L . Fjellstad wrote:
[snip]
distributions can't start using debs. Heck, every major version of
RPM is incompatible with previous version anyways. Reason I switched is
because the RPM used in 6.x (v3.x) can't read packages for 7 (v4).
Now, I don't
At 01:58 PM 9/10/00 -0700, John L . Fjellstad wrote:
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 10:06:59AM -0400, Chris Jenks wrote:
Which also goes back to Wayne's comment on RH being better because it's
more popular.
Also, preinstall has a lot to say, too. That said, berating people
because of their choice
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 01:26:16PM +0200, Juli-Manel Merino Vidal wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 02:37:03PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Bruce Sass writes:
I want to be able to manually add and edit entries in the DB (i.e., given
I'm not convinced that you can write a special bin editor
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 10:18:41PM -0500, Will Trillich wrote:
and (getting back to the original question of red hat vs. debian)
does red-hat have anything comparable?
I think Redhat has something called rpm-update, but I have never
tried it. That service you have to pay for, I think. There
and (getting back to the original question of red hat vs. debian)
does red-hat have anything comparable?
The big difference, AFAIK, is that Debian store a lot more packages.
With Redhat, you can get the base install (that comes with the CD),
but for the rest, you would have to go for
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 12:05:32PM -0500, Wayne Sitton wrote:
OK guys, I think you've gotten off the subject that I needed. Although
what you have given me is great, what I need now is kind of like stories
of thing that have happened to show why Debian would be better. Or,
even links to
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 02:41:57AM -0400, Paul McHale wrote:
BTW. It's remarkable how similar in functionality windows update is to
debian's apt-get. It is more twinkified (which isn't always bad ...) but
functionally very similar. It is, of course, limited to Microsoft products.
Indeed. I
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 02:41:57AM -0400, Paul McHale wrote:
The largest difference I know of is the dependency resolution. Maybe Redhat
will do this as well.
Well, I don't know how dpkg works yet, but rpm is limited by what
the author wants. Sometimes it give really frustrating depencies
to get around to it.
From: Will Trillich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian VS. Red Hat
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:18:41 -0500
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 11:41:59PM +0100, Jeff Green wrote:
I resent the implication that we sysadmins ever think at all
-Original Message-
From: Will Trillich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org debian-user@lists.debian.org
Date: 09 September 2000 04:17
Subject: Re: Debian VS. Red Hat
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 11:41:59PM +0100, Jeff Green wrote:
I resent the implication that we sysadmins
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 10:18:41PM -0500, Will Trillich ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 11:41:59PM +0100, Jeff Green wrote:
I resent the implication that we sysadmins ever think at all! And that
even if we did we had brains with which to accomplish the task.
Jeff
( A
kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
A cronned apt-get upgrade might be a bit much, and I myself only do
apt-get update apt-get upgrade --download-only. This parks updates
in /var/cache/apt/archives, but doesn't install packages until
requested manually by me on the command line.
Now this is a
Add to that that if you apt-move it afterwards, you can get your own partial
upgrade
repository (even on CD)!
Jeff Green wrote:
kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
A cronned apt-get upgrade might be a bit much, and I myself only do
apt-get update apt-get upgrade --download-only. This parks
On 7 Sep 2000, John Hasler wrote:
Bruce Sass writes:
The result is still human readable and editable with any text editor, if
you know the codes. The special dpkg editor would just make life
easier for those not wanting to look up or learn any codes.
Ok, but I'm not sure that it would
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 02:37:03PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Bruce Sass writes:
I want to be able to manually add and edit entries in the DB (i.e., given
the freedom to royally screw things up if I feel so inclined), and it
doesn't matter if it is via a text editor or a special bin editor.
OK guys, I think you've gotten off the subject that I needed. Although
what you have given me is great, what I need now is kind of like stories
of thing that have happened to show why Debian would be better. Or,
even links to stories about the benefits of Debian over Red Hat.
Wayne
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 12:05:32PM -0500, Wayne Sitton ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
OK guys, I think you've gotten off the subject that I needed. Although
what you have given me is great, what I need now is kind of like stories
of thing that have happened to show why Debian would be better.
On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 19:05:32 Wayne Sitton wrote:
OK guys, I think you've gotten off the subject that I needed. Although
what you have given me is great, what I need now is kind of like stories
of thing that have happened to show why Debian would be better. Or,
even links to stories about
I resent the implication that we sysadmins ever think at all! And that
even if we did we had brains with which to accomplish the task.
Jeff
( A sysadmin)
Incidentally the best reason I can think of for using Debian over RedHat
from a sysadmin's point of view is that security fixes on Debian arrive
Yeah, but it's official recognition for a non-coding sysadmin: show me the
Debian equivalent...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, J.T. Wenting wrote:
That makes RedHat seem like Windows.
redhat is a Windows clone built with GNU/Linux technology.
always suspected as much...
They even have a
]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
cc:
Subject: Re: Debian vs. Red Hat
Chris Gray writes:
I understand that dpkg is a much easier tool to use. It is also a lot
slower. It would be nice to write it with a binary database.
_N_
Ahhm.
Do you want
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 11:41:59PM +0100, Jeff Green wrote:
I resent the implication that we sysadmins ever think at all! And that
even if we did we had brains with which to accomplish the task.
Jeff
( A sysadmin)
:)
Incidentally the best reason I can think of for using Debian over RedHat
pgpjuoZ0G6L9J.pgp
Description: PGP message
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 10:18:41PM -0500, Will Trillich wrote:
Incidentally the best reason I can think of for using Debian over RedHat
from a sysadmin's point of view is that security fixes on Debian arrive
very fast and are implemented into the distributions at once, keeping
your setup
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 08:23:23PM -0700, John L . Fjellstad wrote:
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 11:11:11AM -0700, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
That's why I migrated to it last year after 2.5 years of RH hell.
I beat around the bush for 4 years before changing last month:-)
Ha! My first linux
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 01:28:15PM +1100, loki wrote:
I thought Solaris used binary databases for speed, with a text one
as backup and for readability. What if we had both a text and
binary database, and added the following options to dpkg:
[snip]
no need install dlocate:
$ time dlocate -s
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 10:31:38AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Still you have to admit if there was an inteligent way of moving from text
to binary format (like cron??) it would keep two camps happy for a while...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] eb]$ time dlocate -s dlocate
Package: dlocate
Couldn't agree more!
--On Wednesday, September 6, 2000 19:31 -0500 John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
David.Middleton writes:
...horse [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...crap...
plonk
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 10:06:58PM -0400, Michael Soulier wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Nathan E Norman wrote:
You only need a shell to edit a text file. You also only need to read
and understand pseudo-english.
Not to mention the fact that text editors are a tad more common
and
-Original Message-
From: Nathan E Norman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Nathan E Norman
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 2:56 AM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Debian vs. Red Hat
You only need a shell to edit a text file. You also only need to read
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Ethan Benson wrote:
...
text database is the ONLY way to go, if it were not for that i would
have been totally fscked when my /var got hosed and my backup was
inconsistent with my current package installation which confused
dpkg. (answer: emacs /var/lib/dpkg/status took a
Bruce Sass writes:
I want to be able to manually add and edit entries in the DB (i.e., given
the freedom to royally screw things up if I feel so inclined), and it
doesn't matter if it is via a text editor or a special bin editor.
I'm not convinced that you can write a special bin editor that
On 7 Sep 2000, John Hasler wrote:
Bruce Sass writes:
I want to be able to manually add and edit entries in the DB (i.e., given
the freedom to royally screw things up if I feel so inclined), and it
doesn't matter if it is via a text editor or a special bin editor.
I'm not convinced that
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
If you chose an ASN.1 or equivalent data format you could edit it with the
tools from openssl.. I hate windows registry because the tool they made
to edit/correct it was an afterthought. Just because Doze screwed it up
doesn't mean that the
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Juli-Manel Merino Vidal wrote:
Yes, but the binary database could be automatically compiled when
necessary, so main data is in the text one, but then it could be
compiled into the binary one. Look at sendmail configuration... this
is not done automatically, but it works
Bruce Sass writes:
The result is still human readable and editable with any text editor, if
you know the codes. The special dpkg editor would just make life
easier for those not wanting to look up or learn any codes.
Ok, but I'm not sure that it would be significantly faster then a
Wayne,
It's to anyone, I've mainly used Debian, because of it's
stability, but our
ISP has a contractor who's opinion is Red Hat's the best,
thats why they
are so popular. I want to dipute this, but I need more than just my own
It is my experience most people feel whatever they are
Paul,
It's to anyone, I've mainly used Debian, because of it's
stability, but our
ISP has a contractor who's opinion is Red Hat's the best,
thats why they
are so popular. I want to dipute this, but I need more than just my own
It is my experience most people feel whatever they
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 02:44:23 -0400, Paul McHale wrote:
Debian has a religious issues with /usr/local. Some packages really want
to be there (I.e. apache).
Huh? Check out what the policy manual says about it
(http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch3.html#s3.1); essentially, the
religious
Paul == Paul McHale [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Paul,
just adding my two cents,
[...]
Paul There are curious parts of debian. Debian has a religious
Paul issues with /usr/local.
Not so. Please go read up on the FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard,
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:19:14AM -0400, Chris Gray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Paul,
It's to anyone, I've mainly used Debian, because of it's
stability, but our
ISP has a contractor who's opinion is Red Hat's the best,
thats why they
are so popular. I want to dipute this,
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 02:01:18PM -0700, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:19:14AM -0400, Chris Gray ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
It is my experience most people feel whatever they are familiar with is
the
best for situation. I don't think I know *that* much about
Chris Gray writes:
I understand that dpkg is a much easier tool to use. It is also a lot
slower. It would be nice to write it with a binary database.
_N_
Ahhm.
Do you want to try to edit a binary database to fix screwups?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Chris Gray wrote:
Right. I understand that dpkg is a much easier tool to use. It is also
a lot slower. It would be nice to write it with a binary database.
Maybe when I have extra time.
Are you sure you want to use a binary database? One of my biggest
complaints
.
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED]@dhh.gt.org on 07-09-2000 10:02:21 AM
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
cc:
Subject: Re: Debian vs. Red Hat
Chris Gray writes:
I understand that dpkg is a much easier tool to use. It is also a lot
slower. It would be nice
Soulier [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 07-09-2000 10:06:18 AM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
cc:
Subject: Re: Debian vs. Red Hat
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Chris Gray wrote:
Right. I understand that dpkg is a much easier tool to use. It is also
a lot slower. It would be nice to write it with a binary
At which point I would like to say I only use debian. I had to go back to
windows because a particular TI development environment was doze only and
within 15min I was bangin my head against a wall.
I have been on linux since it came on 16 floppys, so anyone who wants to
You heretic me can kiss
David.Middleton writes:
...horse [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...crap...
plonk
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 10:17:03AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That argument is total horse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Would you like to edit a text file without an editor???
Either way you need tools to do the work, this idea that you can't assemble
a binary file to be easy to human correct
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Nathan E Norman wrote:
You only need a shell to edit a text file. You also only need to read
and understand pseudo-english.
Not to mention the fact that text editors are a tad more common
and standard than say, a registry editor.
Mike
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 07:02:21PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Chris Gray writes:
I understand that dpkg is a much easier tool to use. It is also a
lot slower. It would be nice to write it with a binary database.
_N_
Ahhm.
Do you want to try to edit a
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You only need a shell to edit a text file. You also only need to read
and understand pseudo-english.
Not to mention the fact that text editors are a tad more common
and standard than say, a registry editor.
Mike
You are
Nathan writes:
You only need a shell to edit a text file.
Or _any_ text editor, including one running under a different OS on the
same or a different machine (or a hex debugger or a disk editor, for that
matter).
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Once apon a time we were talking about things that were not 10 times more
painful than using reg-edit
I thought that was the line in the sand and we had agreed to not go below
that...
OK then, the least OS in the world, MSDOS 3.1 you could edit binary
using debug so there
And I bet there
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:44:40AM +, Pollywog wrote:
That makes RedHat seem like Windows.
redhat is a Windows clone built with GNU/Linux technology.
flames /dev/null ;-)
--
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
pgpzX2vIftCX7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 07:59:14PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
im not sure what to tell you, at my workplace i convinced them to
allow me to change to debian when their fscked up redhat boxes
literally melted down (on my 3rd day!) now they hired a new `manager'
who wants to move everything back
are playing with linux, but I don't know if they will win that fight. On
really cheap setups we even sell NT VRUs, it is embarassing.
From: Wayne Sitton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Debian vs. Red Hat
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 21:54:15 -0500
Here
That makes RedHat seem like Windows.
redhat is a Windows clone built with GNU/Linux technology.
always suspected as much...
They even have a RedHat Certified Engineer program... MCSE for Linux,
anyone?
Jeroen T. Wenting
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Murphy was wrong, things that can't go wrong will
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 10:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian vs. Red Hat
Debian versions correctly follow a release cycle and tend to have very few
exploits as well as being less buggy.. We have the same problem here.. If
you get any really good
1 - 100 of 205 matches
Mail list logo
