' Group
Subject: Re: Linux Standardization (was: inted question)
Benjamin Scott wrote:
Maybe it's my background. I started off in the Unix world as a junior
admin
at UNH's Space Science Lab. They had just about every OS known to man
there:
DOS, Win 3.x, Win9X, WinNT, MacOS, Novell, Ultrix
Benjamin Scott wrote:
Maybe it's my background. I started off in the Unix world as a junior admin
at UNH's Space Science Lab. They had just about every OS known to man there:
DOS, Win 3.x, Win9X, WinNT, MacOS, Novell, Ultrix, OSF/1, IRIX, SunOS,
Solaris, VMS... you name it. Anything
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Tom Rauschenbach wrote:
Wow, I can't remember being called on the carpet better then this. (BTW:
What the hell does called on the carpet mean ?)
I believe it is a reference to being called into an office with (expensive)
carpeting on the floor, where the manager then
All this does is enforce the already-existing idea that Red Hat is not Debian
is not Slackware and one Linux is not like the others. From an administraiton,
packaging, or installation standpoint, this would be correct. But to spend
my time searching for the documentation for packages between
Benjamin Scott wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Mark Komarinski wrote:
But to spend my time searching for the documentation for packages between
/usr/doc or /usr/share/doc (as an example) is not a worthwhile use of my
time.
Indeed, that is a reason to stick with a particular
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Benjamin Scott wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Tom Rauschenbach wrote:
I do know that trying to work with two different distros at the same time
is enlightening. Linux needs some standardization badly.
No, *you* need some standardization badly. If you want Linux to be
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Mark Komarinski wrote:
But to spend my time searching for the documentation for packages between
/usr/doc or /usr/share/doc (as an example) is not a worthwhile use of my
time.
Indeed, that is a reason to stick with a particular distribution.
Remember, folks: Linux is
