Jon Drews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 5/7/05, Chris Hodgins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you are interested in Unix and FreeBSD this is a good choice:
[McKusick/Neville-Neil,The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD
Operating System, ISBN 0201702452]
Thank you Chris:
The problem
On 5/7/05, Jon Drews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi:
I was thinking of getting one of these two books. I want to learn
more about how UNIX and in particular, FreeBSD work. Has anyone read
either of these books?
UNIX Internals: The New Frontiers
by Uresh Vahalia
I have read this book. I
On Saturday 07 May 2005 17:30, Jon Drews wrote:
On 5/7/05, Chris Hodgins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you are interested in Unix and FreeBSD this is a good choice:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0201702452/r
eviews/026-9762435-1924466
Thank you Chris
Hi. I am creating a python application that uses PIL to generate
thumbnails and sized images. It is beginning to look the volume of
images will be large. This has got me to thinking. Is there a number
that Unix can handle in a single directory. I am using FreeBSD4.x at
the moment. I am
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:25:28 -0400, David Pratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi. I am creating a python application that uses PIL to generate
thumbnails and sized images. It is beginning to look the volume of
images will be large. This has got me to thinking. Is there a number
that Unix can
Hi Corey. Thank you for your reply. 800K is pretty significant. Yes,
the reason I want to use the filesystem is to avoid the speed problems
that come from storing images in the database. I can see there really
being no limit when it comes to spreading the numbers thinner but most
concerned
On Tuesday 29 March 2005 03:25, David Pratt wrote:
Hi. I am creating a python application that uses PIL to generate
thumbnails and sized images. It is beginning to look the volume of
images will be large. This has got me to thinking. Is there a number
that Unix can handle in a single
On 18 Feb Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Dick Hoogendijk writes:
No. The 'new' /etc/rc script does that. Kde problems after cleaning
out /tmp are solved now too. You can freely enable
clear_tmp_enable=YES in /etc/rc.conf again.
It does indeed reappear at startup, although
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Who creates the /tmp/.X11-unix directory, and why? I'm not running
x-anything on my system, but there's a directory out there that was
touched a few days ago.
And probably coincides with your last reboot.
$sockstat -u | grep X11
might tell you what's up. Screensaver
On 17 Feb Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Who creates the /tmp/.X11-unix directory, and why? I'm not running
x-anything on my system, but there's a directory out there that was
touched a few days ago.
might tell you what's up. Screensaver, perhaps?
No. The 'new' /etc/rc
Kevin Kinsey writes:
And probably coincides with your last reboot.
Hmm ... yes, it looks like it does.
$sockstat -u | grep X11
might tell you what's up.
Shows nothing at the moment.
Screensaver, perhaps?
I don't have the screensaver enabled in rc.conf. I do run vidfont and
vidcontrol
Dick Hoogendijk writes:
No. The 'new' /etc/rc script does that. Kde problems after cleaning out
/tmp are solved now too. You can freely enable clear_tmp_enable=YES
in /etc/rc.conf again.
It does indeed reappear at startup, although clear_tmp_enable=YES does
not appear to eliminate it. But at
Tod Vanlandingham wrote:
Please let me know if you are open to posting the job description below. I
am currently looking for a Sr. Linux/Unix Release Engineer and would be very
grateful is you could pass this information along to your UG members.
While you certainly hit a broader audience here, I
Please let me know if you are open to posting the job description below. I
am currently looking for a Sr. Linux/Unix Release Engineer and would be very
grateful is you could pass this information along to your UG members.
Thank you,
Tod Vanlandingham
Google
Sourcer
(650) 623-4291
[EMAIL
Is anyone running authpf with Windows clients in the network? If so,
how are the Windows clients logging in? What's the easiest mechanism
for this.
I want my grandson to have free access to the (Windows) computers; but I
want an adult to manually authorize internet access to prevent
ALG Is anyone running authpf with Windows clients in the network? If so,
ALG how are the Windows clients logging in? What's the easiest mechanism
ALG for this.
ALG I want my grandson to have free access to the (Windows) computers; but I
ALG want an adult to manually authorize internet access
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Hexren wrote:
ALG Is anyone running authpf with Windows clients in the network? If so,
ALG how are the Windows clients logging in? What's the easiest mechanism
ALG for this.
ALG I want my grandson to have free access to the (Windows) computers; but I
ALG want an adult to
Hi Andrew,
Is anyone running authpf with Windows clients in the network? If so,
how are the Windows clients logging in? What's the easiest mechanism
for this.
as Hexren posted, putty is good for doing this. You can configure it so
that the user just has to doubleclick the icon and provide
On Wednesday 09 February 2005 02:49 pm, Volker Kindermann wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Is anyone running authpf with Windows clients in the network? If
so, how are the Windows clients logging in? What's the easiest
mechanism for this.
as Hexren posted, putty is good for doing this. You can
On Tuesday 01 February 2005 10:43 am, Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
Hey everyone,
I'm finally doing something very exciting here at work: porting software to
Unix!
I need the equivalent of a variant, however. A hold-everything variable
that can be any type in C/C++. Is there something already
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 05:21:41AM -0600, Jay Moore wrote:
On Tuesday 01 February 2005 10:43 am, Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
Hey everyone,
I'm finally doing something very exciting here at work: porting software to
Unix!
I need the equivalent of a variant, however. A hold-everything
Hey everyone,
I'm finally doing something very exciting here at work: porting software to
Unix!
I need the equivalent of a variant, however. A hold-everything variable
that can be any type in C/C++. Is there something already out there I can
use or should I just roll my own?
Are you
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 09:04:20AM -0500, Jason Stewart wrote:
: Hey everyone,
:
: I'm finally doing something very exciting here at work: porting software to
: Unix!
:
: I need the equivalent of a variant, however. A hold-everything variable
: that can be any type in C/C
Hey everyone,
I'm finally doing something very exciting here at work: porting software to
Unix!
I need the equivalent of a variant, however. A hold-everything variable
that can be any type in C/C++. Is there something already out there I can
use or should I just roll my own?
jm
On Feb 1, 2005, at 11:43 AM, Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
I need the equivalent of a variant, however. A hold-everything
variable
that can be any type in C/C++. Is there something already out there I
can
use or should I just roll my own?
Your question probably belongs on comp.lang.c, but the
Charles Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Feb 1, 2005, at 11:43 AM, Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
I need the equivalent of a variant, however. A hold-everything
variable
that can be any type in C/C++. Is there something already out there
I can
use or should I just roll my own?
Your
I have been asked as to whether there are any VPN applications
that can run on UNIX clients using Linux, FreeBSD, and MacOS. I think
the general idea is that they could tunnel in from outside of our
campus and receive an IP number on our network.
There would probably be a UNIX server
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 11:19 am, Martin McCormick wrote:
I have been asked as to whether there are any VPN applications
that can run on UNIX clients using Linux, FreeBSD, and MacOS. I
think the general idea is that they could tunnel in from outside of
our campus and receive an IP
Martin McCormick wrote:
I have been asked as to whether there are any VPN applications
that
can run on UNIX clients using Linux, FreeBSD, and MacOS. I think the
general idea is that they could tunnel in from outside of our campus
and receive an IP number on our network
On Jan 12, 2005, at 11:19 AM, Martin McCormick wrote:
I have been asked as to whether there are any VPN applications
that can run on UNIX clients using Linux, FreeBSD, and MacOS. I think
the general idea is that they could tunnel in from outside of our
campus and receive an IP number
Dear sir/madam,
my name is syed zaidi and I am writing to you
concerning FreeBSD UNIX. I am currently using and learning RedHat Linux 9
and I am trying to have a taste of most types of famous and useful
UNIX/LINUX operating systems. I wanted to know the differences between
: Saturday, December 11, 2004 8:23
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: From a mild user of UNIX
Dear sir/madam,
my name is syed zaidi and I am writing to you
concerning FreeBSD UNIX. I am currently using and learning RedHat Linux 9
and I am trying to have a taste of most
concerning FreeBSD UNIX. I am currently using and learning RedHat Linux 9
and I am trying to have a taste of most types of famous and useful
UNIX/LINUX operating systems. I wanted to know the differences between
FreeBSD UNIX and redhat Linux 9, I know many exist. But I would like to dig
deeper
?
Many thanks in advance for any help or suggestions.
Yours,
Michael Janis
-Forwarded Message-
From: Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Cheebah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Stop in /usr/ports/x11-toolkits/tk84/work/tk8.4.6/unix.
Date: Wed, 24 Nov
Hi how are you going? I am just emailing you regarding the following
post.
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2004-May/045744.htm
l
I am receiving the same errors and am wondering if you ever had any joy
in solving this problem?
Any suggestions would be greatly
Cheebah wrote:
Hi how are you going? I am just emailing you regarding the following
post.
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2004-May/045744.html
I am receiving the same errors and am wondering if you ever had any joy
in solving this problem?
Any suggestions would be
the both commands in the background
(say, if there are more commands to be run after the two
commands)...
blackbox bbkeys
See also...
- Get a good introductory Unix book
- Man page for the shell which will execute your .xinit
- Search Google Groups at http://groups.google.com
in the background
(say, if there are more commands to be run after the two
commands)...
blackbox bbkeys
See also...
- Get a good introductory Unix book
- Man page for the shell which will execute your .xinit
- Search Google Groups at http://groups.google.com/
...
+ comp.unix.* newsgroups
in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
wrote Mike Hauber thusly...
On Wednesday 03 November 2004 09:25 pm, Parv proclaimed:
In your situation, blackbox runs in the background bbkeys in
foreground. If you wanted to run bbkeys only if blackbox runs,
then do AND operation ...
blackbox
On Thursday 04 November 2004 03:43 pm, you proclaimed:
Mike Hauber wrote:
On Wednesday 03 November 2004 09:25 pm, Parv proclaimed:
in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
wrote Mike Hauber thusly...
I discovered that with the line blackbox bbkeys in
the script, the bbscript remains when I exit
I log back in, and I don't see any core
dumps. Therefore I have to assume that this is also a
clean kill (which is okay with me, but I still don't
understand why).
Obviously the ampersand is not FreeBSD specific, but *NIX in
general so I've googled around and searched some generic
UNIX sites
, if there
are more commands to be run after the two commands)...
blackbox bbkeys
See also...
- Get a good introductory Unix book
- Man page for the shell which will execute your .xinit
- Search Google Groups at http://groups.google.com/ ...
+ comp.unix.* newsgroups for foreground background
-Original Message-
From: Micheal Patterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:26 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
Bottom Line.
We're lazy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ed Budd
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [OT] Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
It doesn't seem to matter whether the topic is international
.
- Original Message -
From: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ed Budd [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 1:03 AM
Subject: RE: [OT] Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
-Original Message-
From: Micheal Patterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:23 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
I've seen the stuff with my
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I said it takes a higher
talent level to generally administer a un*x box than a windows
box. I
.
- Original Message -
From: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Micheal Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:24 AM
Subject: RE: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
I'll make this short
little snip
I'll make this short, sweet, and to the point. The Human Race, is by nature
a lazy race. We, as in, ALL humans, strive to make our life easier. I'm well
aware of monopolies and their effect on us. I'm also aware of how technology
has changed our lives. If you think that you, or I don't
-Original Message-
From: Micheal Patterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 9:44 AM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
Honestly, what makes you think
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:20:08 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
PMFJI, (especially since I'm a newbie) but I think I understand at
least some of what Ted is saying here. I set up a home firewall and
later had a hardware failure. I replaced the box and decided to use
Mandrake
worth, there's my .02.
Thad Butterworth
Windows WAS simpler than UNIX. No longer. You need to get out into
the field again, you have been sitting behind a desk managing things
for too long. I'd love to see you setup a Active Directory network of
any size that contains mixed
On 2004-10-26 07:42, Butterworth, Thaddaeus (UI Exploratory) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I work in a testing environment where I have set up both Windows and
*nix type servers. The first time I set up a server it was Exchange 2003
on Windows Server 2003. I was able to figure out how to securely
- Original Message -
From: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Micheal Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:20 AM
Subject: RE: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
-Original Message
In a message dated 10/26/04 12:24:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you think that administering a Windows server is so simple then
answer the following test:
How do you lock down an Exchange 5.5 server to prevent a spammer from
using it as a relay.
So who was the
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
In a message dated 10/26/04 12:24:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you
In a message dated 10/26/04 10:07:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[much snippage]
Nonsense, if you ask me. For many reasons:
a. Windows doesn't work nicely even for small networks most of the time.
It's not the size of the network that matters. It's the nature of the
is what separates the men from the boys, so don't complain.
If it were easy most of us would be doing something else.
I don't see you supporting UNIX because it's harder to use, so it must be
what 'real men' use. Probably because this sort of argument is pointless
On Oct 26, 2004, at 2:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Integration is what separates the men from the boys, so don't complain.
If it were easy most of us would be doing something else.
Not necessarily.
Changing your oil isn't that hard. Most people pay someone else to do
it though.
Fixing a hole
In a message dated 10/26/04 3:38:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact that Cisco does something wrong doesn't somehow make it right for
Windows. It's not a good excuse either.
Its the way it is, and the way its always been.
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:22:17 +0200, Stefan [Swebase AB]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I have tried searching for this but i only get reports made by students
and private programmers, i trust a programmer more than a large
corporation any day but to show a person i know and convince him i need
In a message dated 10/24/04 5:54:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I know more than a
few people,
small businessmen mostly, who have been completely screwed because their
almost
totally incompetent unix tech guy left the company.
Ted wrote...
For every small
There's also less documentation, fewer resources, etc. So its more difficult
to be proficient in unix than in windows.
what are you talking about less documentation for Unix?!? What
Unix are you referring to...Solaris...HPUX..AIX...BSD? I'm sorry to
bite on this flame bait but i've been
On Oct 25, 2004, at 9:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ask a unix tech to install a windows application, or ask a windows
tech to
install
a unix application. Which do you think has a better chance of success?
The unix tech will have much more easier time installing the Windows
app than the other
In a message dated 10/25/04 11:48:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's also less documentation, fewer resources, etc. So its more difficult
to be proficient in unix than in windows.
what are you talking about less documentation for Unix?!? What
Unix are you
that something breaks *badly* his best
suggestion is throw away the entire thing, and start over with a bootable
CD-ROM of Windows XYZ.
This sort of tech-ness is considered dangerous in the UNIX world.
Yes you have to understand the applications to some degree. But to me, its a
different level
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:25:21 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 10/25/04 11:48:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's also less documentation, fewer resources, etc. So its more
difficult
to be proficient in unix than
In a message dated 10/25/04 11:48:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's also less documentation, fewer resources, etc. So its more difficult
to be proficient in unix than in windows.
what are you talking about less documentation for Unix?!? What
Unix are you
- Original Message -
From: Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 4:54 AM
Subject: RE: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
snip
There
are more people around that can administer MS
On Oct 25, 2004, at 12:36 PM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2004-10-25 11:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're also missing my point on this. You don't have to get into the
guts
of windows to make it work. You dont have to be a programmer to tweak
all of
the applications, in fact I know more than
On 2004-10-25 12:49, Bart Silverstrim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 25, 2004, at 12:36 PM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2004-10-25 11:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're also missing my point on this. You don't have to get into
the guts of windows to make it work. You dont have to be a
On Oct 25, 2004, at 1:07 PM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
And this differs from your experience in the Windows world...how? :-)
I'm not sure I understand your question. Rephrase or make it more
specific, because answering to such a vague question is pointless.
Just a side comment from the peanut
.
The inability of people to stay on point is as befuddling as it is
entertaining.
I think we all agree that you wouldn't let a windows tech touch your
unix-like box, but you'd have no problem having a unix tech install a
windows application. 'nuf said
around here to fix problems. Reinstall it all and hope that the problem (sort
of magically) goes away. The time and resources wasted to reinstall a
perfectly working system is absolutely unbearable as a thought to someone who
has worked a while with UNIX systems and has spent the time to learn how
answering to such a vague question is pointless.
The inability of people to stay on point is as befuddling as it is
entertaining.
I think we all agree that you wouldn't let a windows tech touch your
unix-like box, but you'd have no problem having a unix tech install a
windows application. 'nuf said
On Oct 25, 2004, at 1:33 PM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
I was referring to problems that require a bit of esoteric knowledge
about how
things work but not really a reinstallation of the entire system, i.e.:
I realize that...at the same time, I don't blame the techs working on
Windows that end up
At 02:59 PM 10/25/2004, you wrote:
Just a side comment from the peanut gallery...
I was referring to the fact that in most cases, the solution in the end
most often IS to just reformat and reinstall because there's so much
cruft/crap/crud in the registry and Windows directories that that is
the
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
I think we all agree that you wouldn't let a windows tech touch your
unix-like box, but you'd have no problem having a unix tech install a
windows application. 'nuf said.
Does this make you think at all
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
I think we all agree that you wouldn't let a windows tech touch your
unix-like box, but you'd have no problem having a unix tech install a
windows application. 'nuf said.
Does this make you think at all
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Jerry McAllister wrote:
[ Do Not Feed The Trolls ]
\||/ | | | jgs (__Y__)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Nice artwork. I think I will appropriate it just for fun.
I hope it is under the
.
The inability of people to stay on point is as befuddling as it is
entertaining.
I think we all agree that you wouldn't let a windows tech touch your
unix-like box, but you'd have no problem having a unix tech install a
windows application. 'nuf said.
Does this make you think at all?
Does
We use the term:
Nuke and repave
I'll have to remember that.
Ted
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matt Staroscik
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 3:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 3:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
In a message dated 10/23/04 11:27:27
Hello !
Is there any compatibility between FreBSD and SCO UNIX ?
Thanks
Luc
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2004-10-23 23:41, Secr?tariat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello !
Is there any compatibility between FreBSD and SCO UNIX ?
Hi,
A good answer to this questios depends on what you refer to when you use
the word `compatibility'.
What is it exactly that you want to do with FreeBSD *and* SCO UNIX
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 11:41:49PM +0200, Secr?tariat wrote:
Hello !
Is there any compatibility between FreBSD and SCO UNIX ?
Only for ibcs executables; and barely at that. You'd be better off
compiling from source.
--
Jonathan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi
I have tried searching for this but i only get reports made by students
and private programmers, i trust a programmer more than a large
corporation any day but to show a person i know and convince him i need
some serious investigations made by large corporations into comparing
BSD and
Stefan [Swebase AB] wrote:
I have tried searching for this but i only get reports made by students
and private programmers, i trust a programmer more than a large
corporation any day but to show a person i know and convince him i need
some serious investigations made by large corporations into
- Original Message -
From: Stefan [Swebase AB] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: Serious investigations into UNIX and Windows
[...]
Some friends of mine have told me that yahoo, msn and microsoft all
use FreeBSD but until i can
On 10/23/2004 at 5:22 PM Stefan [Swebase AB] wrote:
|The person i'm trying to convince is a hardcore MS fan so i
| need real evidence of why BSD is better than MS products in
| server environments.
=
Hardcore MS fan? Do you really think that any hardcore fan will be open
to a
people to administer their systems.
There
are more people around that can administer MS systems than unix, and it can
be done with a lower level of talent. . A car enthusiast might prefer older,
pre-computer cars because they're easier to tinker with. The same might be
said for programmers
On 2004-10-04 21:54, Daniela [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I developed a few rules and techniques for keeping the interest:
1. Avoid doing the same thing over and over again.
2. Do bigger projects as well as some playful experimenting.
3. Don't use closed-source (or commercial) software. I don't
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
I can almost agree with what's written above, except for one minor but
important detail. If you can use an editor that suits your needs both in
console and GUI environment, both for assembly, Perl, Python, Java, C, C++
and whatever else you find yourself writing, an editor
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 11:57:44AM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
All this that I described above, and even more, I can do in Emacs or vim.
Using the system vi(1) on Solaris isn't a problem either, but I don't push
myself to use *THAT* editor if I don't have to. I stopped using vi(1) on
On Tuesday 05 October 2004 08:57, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2004-10-04 21:54, Daniela [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I developed a few rules and techniques for keeping the interest:
1. Avoid doing the same thing over and over again.
2. Do bigger projects as well as some playful experimenting.
On 2004-10-05 20:27, Daniela [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But when I feel that I like watching TV more than playing with ASM, I
quickly switch to the monochrome terminal emulator, deactivate the
mouse, emulate the destructive hardware cursor, pull out a primitive
hexeditor (or TECO) and enter raw
Having looked at the list, honesty - it's not nearly as much as it
looks like. Seriously. It's well within your ken to learn ALL of
that. Easily. Just do this - get a few machines. Throw FreeBSD on
them. Hell, throw Open or Net on one or two, RedHat or Gentoo or
Debian on another.
Now plug
Robert Dormer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having looked at the list, honesty - it's not nearly as much as it
looks like. Seriously. It's well within your ken to learn ALL of
that. Easily. Just do this - get a few machines. Throw FreeBSD on
them. Hell, throw Open or Net on one or two, RedHat
.
The important thing is to keep pushing the limits of your knowledge in
whatever you do. You will rarely regret it. Will it take many years to
master Unix-like operating systems? Abosolutely. There can be no
shortcut to experience. But as another poster pointed out, becoming
highly procient in any
On Sunday 03 October 2004 03:50, Dave Vollenweider wrote:
This has nothing to do with technical problems, but rather it's more of a
request for moral support. This may seem disjointed, so bear with me.
I've been using FreeBSD for over six months now, but I've been using
Unix-like operating
401 - 500 of 668 matches
Mail list logo
