Linux-Advocacy Digest #223, Volume #26 Sat, 22 Apr 00 20:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Christopher Browne)
What ever happened to DFM? (Joe Kiser)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (test@myhome)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (Daniel Tryba)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Christopher Browne)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (Roger)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. (Shell)
Re: which OS is best? (Rodger Etz-Brown)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (John Jensen)
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. ("Robert L.")
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. ("billwg")
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. ("Robert L.")
Re: Sell Me On Linux (Mike Marion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 22:13:39 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Sierra Tigris would say:
>Joe Kiser posted Apr 22 re: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst...
>|You'll love *BSD's ports system. Just cd to /usr/ports/application-name
>|(well, the path may differ on OpenBSD and NetBSD, but this is what it is
>|on FreeBSD), type make all install, and everything else is automated.
>|The system downloads the source code for the program, as well as
>|anything that the program requires to build, and finally, builds and
>|installs the program on your machine. Cool stuff, I haven't seen
>|anything comparable to this on any Linux distribution yet.
>
> Looks good, but only if one can tweak the settings. One thing I
>like about Linux is that I can take the src, tweak the settings and them
>compile and install. Not that I've yet to do so, due to my being a newbie,
>but the possibility of doing so...
>
> For example, lets say I run a program that doesn't behave exactly
>like I want it to. When I'll have enough knowledge of programming I'll be
>able to tweak the source code and recompile. Can you do that with Ports?
Of course not.
BSD Ports is designed to use MD5 checksums to _forbid_ you to change
the source code; if you try, it will scramble your hard drive in spite
for trying to do so.
But seriously...
OF COURSE YOU CAN!!! The ability to tweak the source code and recompile
is pretty much the _point_ to the exercise of downloading the source code.
It would be an _unbelievably stupid_ implementation of Ports that would
not permit this.
[Sigh... There are Linux partisans that choose to be ignorant of what
is possible on *BSD, just as there are *BSD partisans that choose to be
ignorant of Linux ways, just as there are WinVocates that choose to
flame Linux in ignorance of how it works...]
--
"Sigh. I like to think it's just the Linux people who want to be on
the `leading edge' so bad they walk right off the precipice."
-- Craig E. Groeschel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Joe Kiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: What ever happened to DFM?
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:24:14 -0400
What ever happened to the program called DFM (desktop file manager)? I
checked the webpage, which redirected me to http://dfm.linuxbox.com,
which is unavailable. Has this program been canceled? I always thought
this was a great independent file manager.
--
-Joe Kiser
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.mindspring.com/~joekiser/
"Without darkness, there is no light."
-??
------------------------------
From: test@myhome
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: 22 Apr 2000 14:35:47 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe says...
>
>You'll love *BSD's ports system. Just cd to /usr/ports/application-name
>(well, the path may differ on OpenBSD and NetBSD, but this is what it is
>on FreeBSD), type make all install, and everything else is automated.
>The system downloads the source code for the program, as well as
>anything that the program requires to build, and finally, builds and
>installs the program on your machine. Cool stuff
wow, sound really cool. I have been thinking about installing freeBSD
actually. started to think about it when I began to see so many
incompatibilities among dozens of linux systems.
http://eclipt.uni-klu.ac.at/rpm2html/Distribs.html
lists packages by linux distributions. what a nightmere. same rpm can
and can't work on different linux distro's. And there is also deb packages,
yet another way to do it on linux, but some linux systems use rpm and some
use deb.
It seems freeBSD did not suffer from this zillion different linux flavours
diversion problem, there is one and only one FreeBSD distro, right?
that alone for me is a huge advantage. And I really like your
description of this port system, I think I am going to try freeBSD
very soon.
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: 22 Apr 2000 22:46:16 GMT
SeaDragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>(eg. Compaq released CCC for Linux, so why should I
>>by Tru64?).
> Moreover, there is a _serious_ dearth of applications for Alpha/Linux.
> Netscape isn't even available in native form (only as Tru64 binary -
> along with which you must run the Tru64 libraries). Granted, this is
> only applicable for desktop systems, and nobody would be foolish enough
> to say that Alpha/Linux is a contender in that market.
If you need to run apps that exist on Tru64 but not for Linux, you can
run them with the exact same libs you need to run Netscape. And if there
are missing libs needed not included in the Netscape distro, one could
try to convince the software vendor to compile a static version of the
app. Only change a couple of compiler flags and the software vendor
could extent to a brandnew market that can run their software.
>>>>MS is limited to Intel x86 -- MacOS to apple.
>>
>>> Incorrect.
>>
>>No it's not. MS only supports x86 for their current OS.
> Not Intel x86 as the original poster claimed. There are at least five
> vendors of x86 processors which Windows will run on.
The original poster probably mend that MS only supports the x86
architecure which happens to be something "invented" by Intel.
>>> Don't like Intel? Then support a vendor who sells AMD, Cyrix, IDT, Rise,
>>> or one of the multitude of the IA-32 clones available.
>>
>>With the same drwabacks or worse than the original Intel.
> Like what?
> What exactly do you see as the limitation of x86?
FP performance (AMD (pre K7), Cyrix.. are horible at FP)
IO. The IO bus in BX chipsets and before are horrible compared to eg
Alpha, but SGI and maybe 8[12]0 chipset might improve it.
Limit memory (max 4Gb), but I personally don't care much about that
because I can't buy that anyway. Huge servers might benefit from it.
> By far the best price/performance ratio in the industry?
For interger yes. But if you need to do other things than standard
office apps other platforms might be much more interesting.
> By leaps and bounds the most applications available and optimized for
> it?
The number of applications is irrelevant. The important fact is that the
apps _you_ need are supported.
>>What do you mean with this? Desktops like KDE "remember" open
>>applications on you're previous logout and will restart them. An other
>>usefull tool is probably screen. You can detach you're screen-session
>>on logout and reattach it on login. All programs running in it will
>>continue to run between logins.
> With the more serious operating systems, you can log out then reattach
> to your session without interrupting your programs. All serious operating
> systems have this feature built-in. Linux does not because it is a toy.
> "screen" only works for text applications not X apps.
First, standard NT doesn't allow you to do anything like that, maybe
it's in NT2000??? So NT is not a serious OS?
But since I mostly use text appplications screen works perfectly for me.
If I'm using remote X and the network disapears I just have to hope it
will come back before X times out (no idea how long that would take
because the network is usally back up in a couple of minutes and X
survives it). If the localmachine crashes I'm screwed, however that
hasn't happen in a long long time. Last time X crashed was during
experiments (XFree86 4.0beta) and than I wouldn't think about doing
something missioncritical, or when I had a flaky S3Virge in my machine
as soon as I figured out it was the videocard that caused probs and
replaced it the problems where gone.
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:07:00 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when test@myhome would say:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe says...
>>You'll love *BSD's ports system. Just cd to /usr/ports/application-name
>>(well, the path may differ on OpenBSD and NetBSD, but this is what it is
>>on FreeBSD), type make all install, and everything else is automated.
>>The system downloads the source code for the program, as well as
>>anything that the program requires to build, and finally, builds and
>>installs the program on your machine. Cool stuff
>
>wow, sound really cool. I have been thinking about installing freeBSD
>actually. started to think about it when I began to see so many
>incompatibilities among dozens of linux systems.
>
>http://eclipt.uni-klu.ac.at/rpm2html/Distribs.html
>
>lists packages by linux distributions. what a nightmere. same rpm can
>and can't work on different linux distro's. And there is also deb packages,
>yet another way to do it on linux, but some linux systems use rpm and some
>use deb.
Debian's .deb scheme seems to be a bit more "successful" than RPM, from
a technical standpoint; unlike RPMs, where you can have _no_ expectation
of the same RPM working successfully with a distribution other than the one
for which it was originally compiled, the _is_ such an expectation with
.deb's. Mixing and matching .debs between Corel Linux, Storm Linux, and
Debian _does_ work.
>It seems freeBSD did not suffer from this zillion different linux flavours
>diversion problem, there is one and only one FreeBSD distro, right?
"Cathedral versus Bazaar."
Linux has tried out a number of approaches to package management, with
some unfortunate proliferation of distributions.
Whereas, if you're not happy with how FreeBSD does things, it's the
Core Group's way, or the highway...
>that alone for me is a huge advantage. And I really like your
>description of this port system, I think I am going to try freeBSD
>very soon.
I rather think that if Slackware had adopted Ports as its package
management mechanism, it would have _stayed_ a whole lot more popular,
and RPM might have become a stillborn format.
--
"Sigh. I like to think it's just the Linux people who want to be on
the `leading edge' so bad they walk right off the precipice."
-- Craig E. Groeschel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:17:46 GMT
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 15:59:23 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>This is the thing that interests me. What are the issues and disputes that
>could arise from running MS Office on Wine? Wouldn't this be a violation of
>the EULA (I seem to recall one of those outrageously excessive clauses I was
>forced to agree to saying something about "you can only run this on the os
>which we allow you to", that being, of course, Microsoft (c) (tm) (r) (pat.
>pend.).
This was the copy that they held the gun to your head to make you
install on that Gateway notebook which doesn't exist?
There are no such clauses in the EULA for OFfice 2000 nor Office 97
SR2, those being the only versions I have access to currently to
check.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:20:40 GMT
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 17:28:55 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 01:45:45 GMT
>>On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:44:27 -0400, someone claiming to be Rich C
>>wrote:
>>Assuming that the first assertion is correct, and I would be
>>interested in proof that it is so, this just pushes the premise back
>>one step: in what way are they forcing you to use "modern" versions
>>of Windows?
>Roger, you are so outrageously boring, it is truly amazing.
So we'll just add this to the * long * list of "Questions which Max
finds it uncomfortable to answer," shall we?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:23:12 -0500
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 16:58:58 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 16:25:04 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >This is the point of my argument, easier to use is NOT easier to learn.
>>
>> Ah; Jedi's (and the reason I replied to the comments) said it didn't
>> require man pages and was easy. Both are completely false.
>>
>> >A person, sufficiently practiced, can change and configure sharing far
>> >faster with vi, than one can do it with the Windows control panel stuff.
>>
>> So use the CLI in Windows. cacls and net commands are both fully
>> alive and well in Win2000, among many others.
>>
>> >As for instructing someone how to do it over the phone? With Linux, I
>> >can just do it for them faster than I can explain, and then just tell
>> >them to take a look at what I did.
>>
>> Over the phone, with no network?
>>
>> I give up. We're obviously coming from two completely different
>> paradigms here.
>
>I have used Windows, I have been a Windows developer since version 1.x.
>We are not coming from "different" paradigms. My opinion, and like it or
>not, we are speaking of opinions here, is that Windows is "harder" to
>use than Linux. I can do stuff easier with Linux than I could ever do
>with Windows, and I have ALL the windows tools. I have always had ALL
>the Windows tools, right from Microsoft, and Linux is still easier.
That's nice. However, we're not talking about you or me - we're
talking about the stereotypical (grand)mother.
>People, for whom I've set up linux, are amazed at how much better Linux
>is. Yes they miss some things, but for the most part they almost all
>giggle out load about how they no longer have to reboot all the time. It
It kills me to say this, since I try to have uptimes in the months,
but some people reboot a few times a *day*, and that's because they
*want* to. (yes, I know...gasp!) It isn't the fault of the OS in
their case. For most people, a long uptime just isn't (gasp!)
important.
>took one friend about a month or two to stop thinking "windows" and
>start thinking Linux, now when has to do something with his kids
>computer he is amazed at how non-sensical and backward Windows is. He is
>seriously thinking about moving his kids computer to Linux because he
>does not want to re-install Windows anymore.
<boggle> Why would one need to reinstall Windows (NT/2000)?
>So, lacking any reliable and rational documentation that can prove that
>Windows is, in fact, easier to use, I have to say from my own
>experiences, as well as watching friends adopting and getting used to
>the new OS, that Windows is harder to use than Linux.
That's a pretty interesting experience you have there, then.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shell)
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:52:38 GMT
"billwg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>You don't seem to have a good foundation in the facts of that matter and.
Oh come on. You're replying to a Rex Ballard post.
He's funny to read, but if you start taking him seriously he'll give you a
brain hemorage trying to keep up with his leaps of logic.
:-)
--
Steve Sheldon email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BSCS/MCSE url: http://www.sheldon.visi.com
BEEF! - Cause the west wasn't won on salad.
------------------------------
From: Rodger Etz-Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 00:37:12 +0100
David Corn wrote (besides other stuff):
> With NT's default security, if I have physical access to the SAM
> database (which usually means I'd either A)be an administrator on the
> box or B) have physical access to the machine and break into it) the
> passwords can be brute-force cracked pretty easily if users choose
> simple passwords (ie English words). If syskey is turned on,
> forgetaboutit. You won't be able to get 'in'.
David, you are mistaken about the above. Use a tool like LOphtCrack and
use the SMB packet capture fascility. You don't need administrative
rights in the domain to do this.
You are also wrong on the brute-force statement. It is easy to 'crack'
'simple' passwords with a dictionary attack. Brute Force attacks use a
character set and will try every possible combination of characters of
that particular set. I am sure that you can imagine the success rate of
this method.
Security is an issue on every operating system. How secure a system is
depends mainly on the administrator looking after it, as well as the
operating system (and other factors, i.e. physical access, etc ;-) ).
There is one benefit of Linux though. Because the source code is freely
available, everybody with an interest in security and programming
knowledge can fix security holes. This is one of the reasons why Linux
is so much more secure than NT and security issues are fixed much
quicker.
Regards,
REB
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: 22 Apr 2000 23:44:53 GMT
test@myhome writes:
: In article <8dsoom$7k9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John says...
:
: > My rules of thumb:
: >
: > - if you are going to be doing a lot of rpm loading, update your
: > full OS to at least the current major revision (ex: RH 6.X)
: what makes you think I was not using the latest and greates?
: I have the latest SUSE 6.3, did FULL and COMPLETE installation,
: the whole 11 GB I told it to load to the disk, all the packages
: on the those 6 CDROM are INSTALLED on my disk.
: Yet, many applications on the net, requires yes more packages
: that are missing.
: see, I wanted to install etherape:
: >rpm -Uhv etherape-0.5.3-1.i386.rpm
: error: failed dependencies:
: gnome-libs >= 1.0.0 is needed by etherape-0.5.3-1
: libglade >= 0.11 is needed by etherape-0.5.3-1
: Do you want me to go on? The above chain reaction will
: go on for ever it seems. Each package wants few packages, and
: each one of those packages wants more few packages.
OK, I'll add to my rule of thumb:
- start with a distribution similar to what you are trying to
build.
Did SUSE have any Gnome stuff at all?
John
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:50:12 GMT
People pay a lot for thisOS, they know this OS have bug.
Linux is more safe, less virus, less bug.
I mean if Linux get a bad reputation, maybe people gonna try it !
I already make some program, C++ using MFC. I have some difficulty making
Linux prog cause i'm used to MFC and Visual C++. I make a projects of over
5000 lines of code. How many bug? don't know. none was report.
It can be bug free ( don't think so ), some bug people don't report
certainly ) or very buggy ( don't think so ).
If Linux can be more user friendly, people from windows may try Linux. It's
too hard for some people. The partition task is well too hard. ( not for
me ).
Martijn Bruns a �crit dans le message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>"Robert L." schreef:
>
>> There's one way that Linux sell more than Win2k:
>> if Win2k have 60000 bug, they sell 1 millions copy
>> if Linux have ~10 bug ( XFree ) sell ? copy. ( don't know the exact
number )
>
>Where did you get this figure?
>Don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of GNU/Linux, but this is simply
impossible!
>Also, the figure about Win2K with 60.000 bugs is very inaccurate as it is
>very difficult to determine how many bugs a program would have.
>
>It is generally a good estimation that a piece of software, OS or
otherwise,
>would have about 10 bugs per 100 lines of code. Yes! That much!
>Just by being a good/bad programmer doesn't change this by more than
>5 percent.
>It's more of a question of how many bugs of these are truly irritating to
the
>user of that software to determine the quality of that software.
>Have you ever tried writing a large piece of code yourself?
>
>[snipped the rest]
>
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 19:02:14 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8drd59$36d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> BTW, MSFT just reported a new kind of record earnings for this quarter.
> Zero.
>
Huh? The announcement on Thursday after the day market close was:
"SEATTLE, April 20 (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. <MSFT.O> on Thursday said its
third-quarter profits rose 23 percent, beating Wall Street estimates by 2
cents a share despite what the world's biggest software company said was
light demand for business PCs in the period.
The Redmond, Wash.-based giant said net profits for the three months ended
March 31 rose to $2.39 billion, or 43 cents a share, compared to $1.91
billion, or 35 cents a share a year earlier."
Somehow or other the buyers were expecting even more than that and MSFT was
down about 4 bucks a share in the after hours markets, but $2.39 billion is
a lot more than zero.
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:54:19 GMT
Craig Kelley a �crit dans le message ...
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
>
>Another Version of Windows just because it jumped from "4" to "2000"
>(is that a record?).
>
No, is not a record. Maxis got it.
>From SimCity to SimCity 2000. ( by the way, they are in front of everyone,
SimCity 3000 is already out :))
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:58:33 GMT
SeaDragon wrote:
> Right. I'm sure all of those big Sun "e-Commerce" (or whatever the trendy,
> Unix-dweeb buzzword today is) "we're the blot in dot-com" E10K servers
> are just pumping out floating point calculations a mile a minute. I mean,
> think of the raw floating point power needed to total an entire order
> of books from Amazon.com! Whew! No way a pee-cee can handle that!
As if all a huge box serving tons of web connections and doing orders is
constrained to integer math.
If a PC could handle it, and be as reliable for them.. they'd be using it now,
wouldn't they? Lot's cheaper.
Companies buy the big iron for a reason you know. I know the compute farms we
use (ok, so it's the Engineers I support, not me personally :) ) do most of
their work on the fp side of things.. not integer.
> Actually the technical reason why Sparc _is_ viable in systems like
> this has nothing to do with floating point, but with the bus. The MP
> bus in systems like this is much better than the shared Intel MP bus
> although there are Intel-based systems which give them a pretty good
> run for the money (c.f. Sequent's ccNUMA machines).
Yes, this is one of the biggest reasons. Hell, reading a comparison yesterday
on P3 vs Athlons at ArsTechnica talked about how Athlons are possible of doing
1.6Gb/sec now and P3s 1Gb/s on the higest end setups. The U60s from Sun can do
1.6 and 1.9Gb/s.. and have been for over a year. That's a desktop Sun using the
US2 chips.. which will be improved when the 3's come out I'm sure.
The US3s are supposed to perform in the realm on the Alphas...
> Ah, yes. So the reason Linux crashes constantly is because it runs
> primarily on X86 hardware? Gee, I thought that was Windows excuse.
What crack are you smoking? I use Linux on several machines: An athlon syste, a
P3, a K6-200, a Compaq PPro 200, and had it running on Sparc 5s and 20s in the
recent past. I think in my 5 or so years of using Linux, I've had crashes (that
weren't caused by me doing something stupid myself when testing something) a
total of 2 times.
> Oh yeah, I guess it was just my imagination when I've logged on to Unix
> systems with 30,000 long line /etc/passwd. Looks like a database, talks
> like a.. Oh yeah, they even have builtin database caches because they
> realize that text file based databases are so weak, fragile, and primitive.
Your point? I log into Unix boxes at work with larger passwd files then that
everyday (using NIS no less) and it's much (and I mean _much_) faster then
logging onto NT boxes.
> >That O(1) search ability in the registry isn't going to be worth jack shit if
> >the registry is corrupted to a point where you can't boot the OS to load the
> >apps needed to access the registry... now is it?
>
> Strawman.
How so? You ever have to fix a corrupted registry when you can't even boot into
the OS? Sometimes it's not possible.. you have to restore from a backup (if you
can) or resinstall.
On a Unix box, if the config file is corrupted somehow.. I can still get onto
the box (even if I have to boot it off the network.. which is simple with real
workstations like Suns) and edit the file with a text editor. Lets see you do
that with an NT box.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Bill Gates to his broker: "You idiot, I said $150 million on
**SNAPPLE**!!!"
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
