Linux-Advocacy Digest #238, Volume #26 Tue, 25 Apr 00 11:14:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Terry
Porter)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Mircea Luca)
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Leslie
Mikesell)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: templates and g++ (Arthur)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(S4eaDra4gon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 24 Apr 2000 12:48:47 +0800
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:40:24 GMT, Sea1Dragon2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 23 Apr 2000 19:38:31 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>There is a certain "elite snobbery" that goes hand in hand with a
>>command-line environment, be it UNIX, or VMS, or even DOS.
>
<snip>
>
>I do not believe that Windows NT is any more shitty than Linux. It does
>have a lot of the same problems Linux does (e.g. bad UI design), and
>lacks a lot of the same features Linux does. My point above was that
>something like Windows 98 is an easy target, but it is Linux's primary
>target.
Nonsense, Linux has no "target".
> I would like to challenge Linux users to argue on a _technical_
>basis
Anytime :)
Lets hear something of technical merrit *first* ?
Your whole post lacks any technical substance inho.
How about remote admin ?
Under Linux I can remotely admin a remote Linux box, using a GUI app
running on the remote box. Please explain how NT can do this. Your not allowed
to spend over $10 to obtain this facility either so the comparison remains
fair.
> that their OS is better than the one's which Unix replaced. Any 12
>year old can understand a few technical advantages Linux has over
>Windows 98, and I question why Linux users harp on these so much.
What are you trying to say ?
Please be clear on at least simple insults, if you hope to move into the
complex world of technical debates.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 3 days 11 hours 35 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 23 Apr 2000 23:55:41 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>A typical Linux user would find out for himself...
>
>Exactly. And that mentality is part of the reason Linux as still seen
>as a "for geeks only" OS.
There is nothing wrong with knowing how to reach under the
hood and check your own oil. Linux distributions just include
the whole toolbox. Users of other systems may get the idea
that there are no user-servicable parts inside.
>>You can either remove the mention of /lib/security/pam_securetty.so
>>from /etc/pam.d/login or add a bunch of /dev/ttypn (n= 0 to 20 or so...)
>>entries to /etc/securetty.
>
>No linuxconf entries then? :)
No, if you use linuxconf, you let it make your choices for you and
it choose not to change that.
>Say, is there a reason that the anonymous FTP login is absolutely
>powerless in wuftp? Even using webmin to change things around, it's
>just useless - making a symlink to, say, /mnt/cdrom/RedHat works if I
>log in as a normal Linux user to the FTP server, but if I log in as
>anonymous, I can't CD to the symlink.
It does a chroot() to the ftp user's home directory for security
reasons and thus can't follow symlinks pointing above there.
You can mount the cd below /home/ftp if you want it to be
accessed.
> Other examples: I can make
>virtual dirs (which are supposed to be open to all users - including
>anon) and CD to them with a user's login, but as anon, doesn't work.
>Even making the anon root dir to /mnt/cdrom/RedHat causes anon to then
>log into a completely empty directory.
You need /bin/ls to appear under the chroot point to be able to
view files (you could transfer without it). You might be
better off with proftpd as a replacement if you don't like the
stock setup. It doesn't need the chroot tree to restrict
users.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mircea Luca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:04:05 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> I've been attempting to install Linux on my older P166 system and having a
> few problems.
>
> I have a SB16 card, and a AHA1520B card. Both are ISA, both are PnP. I
> finally figured out one of my SB16 cards was faulty as Windows would not
> boot with it.
>
> I can get Windows to boot with both cards but not Linux. I kept a note of
> the settings Windows uses and tried the same on Linux. Linux then proceeded
> to hang and emit messages about the SCSI controller.
>
> When I reboot Linux, it's lost the SCSI controller.
>
> Now, from a Windows user perspective, Linux hasn't changed in one respect
> since I last looked at it. It is still a tricky package to install.
>
> I have three distributions:
>
> Slakware 7.0
> Red Hat 6.0
> Mandrake 7.0 Deluxe
>
> Slakware is the most difficult to install but results in a lean, clean
> machine. Unfortunately, things are harder to setup as none of the easy to
> use tools are there, but it does boot faster and startup X faster.
>
> Mandrake is very easy to install but boots slower and X is definately a lot
> slower. Also, setup asks a few bizarre questions - installing packages
> results in a dialog box showing me the size of everything its about to
> install. The dialog seems to suggest I can change this size!
>
> The Mandrake installer tries to install the AHA152X card automatically but
> fails. So it asks me for parameters and the most confusing dialog appears:
>
> aha152x (1-8i)
> aha152x1 (1-8i)
>
> Now, nothing explains on screen what these mean. I took a wild guess and
> entered aha152x=0x340,11,7 and it worked.
>
> I can boot both systems with the SB16 card in, but if I try to setup the
> card, SCSI dies. I can't reboot after that as I can't get past the kernel
> trying to load the sound card.
>
> A friend at work said to me "What did you expect with Linux, it's free
> software after all". I guess I expected more from something that is
> supposed to be a Windows killer. I guess it's not there yet, and is still
> playing catchup.
>
> Pete
Don;t know if this was suggested or not yet,but having 2 ISA cards you
should leave the
BIOS to preconfigure them.Set the PNPOS in BIOS to NO and you should be
fine,regardless of distro.
--
The best way to escape from a problem is to solve it.
Alan Saporta
My waste of cyberspace=
http://deepblue.dyndns.org :-)
------------------------------
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: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:06:51 -0500
On 23 Apr 2000 23:27:28 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>>>Conceptually it is the same as trust relations between PDCs. Giving
>>
>>Except that how many PDCs do you have? 5 in an organization? 10?
>>50? It doesn't matter - represented as a percentage of machines, it
>>MIGHT be .3% or so (one PDC for every 3000 machines, say). For Linux,
>>*EVERY* Linux box (100%) that is set up with NFS is granted just as
>>much trust as you are granting that administrator that runs the NT
>>PDC. That's a problem.
>
>Only if the users have root. Doing that is exactly like letting
>them run a trusted PDC - that's just the way the model works.
The problem is that then you have security flaws on any of thousands
of machines, whereas in the NT model, it isn't the machine that's the
potential problem - it's the user. And removing users from the NT
Admin list is trivial. NFS's "trust the machine, not the user" is
weird.
>>>the root password to someone on a client system that you don't
>>>trust is the same as giving the administrator password to a
>>>trusted domain to that person. One model isn't any more
>>>outrageous than the other.
>>
>>Rootsquash is on by default in Mandrake and RH6.2; I'd think it would
>>be on in other flavors too. But the problem isn't just with root -
>>users can have different GIDs and UIDs on different systems; that's
>>bad.
>
>Rootsquash only prevents access to root-owned files. Root on
>a client machine can pretend to be any other user. You really
>need to restrict by IP address to hosts you trust or separately
>share different areas with address restrictions. Samba style
>permission concepts may map better to single-user machines.
>
>>>For example you might
>>>want to set all your time servers the same some lines like:
>>>ntp time server nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn
>>>you can just paste them in from the working copy.
>>
>>1. Get a time client/server for NT (I think 2k has one, but I haven't
>>messed with it)
>>2. Make a script to automate it.
>>
>>What's the problem? Better, what's the difference?
>
>In this case I was trying to describe a configuration process, not
>any particular service. What I want, and what files and Cisco's
>CLI provide, is a way to do exact cut-and-paste transfers from
>a working machine into the one being configured. That's the
>piece I find missing from GUI style configurations. If you
>have a working machine you might be able to go screen-by-screen
>through every step on both machines side-by-side or even
>use VNC to see both at once on the same screen, but there is
>no way to just grab the working setup and re-use it, and unless
>you explore every menu you aren't sure you have the whole thing.
>
>>>I manage an assortment of boxes and find it much more difficult
>>>to clone an existing system with services under NT/2K. To build
>>>a copy of a Linux web server with a bunch of vhosts, for example, I
>>>can copy an entire machine and then edit a few files if the
>>>ip addresses are going to be different. On the NT/2K boxes
>>>I have to repeat the install and then manually repeat the entire
>>>server setup. I always want VNC installed and running as a
>>
>>Use GHOST to copy the server/install the server, then edit to suit.
>
>But I often don't want the whole machine - I just want to move
>a service or I want to take the working service from NT workstation
>to server, or to W2k. If I'm moving apache, sendmail, named,
>a dhcp server, or any similar service under Linux, I just copy the
>appropriate config files and either copy or rebuild the programs
>if they aren't already there. How do I do the equivalent move under
>NT/W2k without having to repeat the entire install/setup operation?
>A web server with a bunch of vhosts or a dhcp server with a lot
>of hardware-address entries would be good examples.
>
>>Also, NT comes with a fairly powerful scriptable setup that you can
>>use to completely automate the installation (UAFs - unattended answer
>>files - look 'em up in the MSKB), and from there you can put things in
>>/administrator/startup and install, say, user-level applications for
>>NT deployments.
>
>What's an MSKB and how many machines do you have to deploy to
>make this worthwhile? Does it solve the problem of being able
>to reproduce a setup that has been tweaked and tuned over some
>period of time, or do I have to go back and find every setting
>and manually enter it into this scriptable setup? I want to
>propagate the incremental improvements not clone beta-version-1.
MSKB is Microsoft's Knowledge Base, a wonderful resource, online, in
which you can find all kinds of things. I desperately wish Linux had
something similar, as it would save me hours upon hours of trying
things out and fiddling - not to mention it would save a dozen (today
alone) posts to the newsgroups (not just this one) asking what are,
for the most part, questions that could and should be on an online
database. support.microsoft.com will get you most of the way there.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: 24 Apr 2000 00:43:50 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sea1Dragon2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>No, that's not really the point of the difference. With a CLI, especially
>>general purpose ones like unix shells, anything you do repeatedly
>>can be automated by putting exactly the same commands you would
>>use manually into a script, perhaps with variable substitution for
>>the variations of each run. with a GUI, if automation is possible
>>at all it has to be done in some macro language embedded into
>>each program with its own peculiar syntax. There is almost
>>never a way to do something by hand, then paste those commands
>>into a script for re-use.
>
>Wow. Cluelessness at the highest level. You have never used AppleScript?
>Oh yeah this is comp.os.linux.advocacy. The only two OS'es which have
>ever been written are Linux and Windows 98. My bad.
Actually I haven't. Was it usable in the 80's when unix
shell scripting was well developed?
>>>>IMHO, Linux was born out of a sheer dislike of Microsoft, unlike its BSD
>>>>cousins, who seemed to originate from a need for a BSD-like OS.
>>
>>Both Linux and the *bsd's are updated clones of unix systems that
>>pre-date windows by at least a decade. Microsoft is pretty
>>much irrelevant.
>
>Incorrect. The Linux project was started in 1991. Windows 3.0 was
>released in 1990, and earlier versions were released in the mid-1980's.
>I'm sure you didn't know that, but...
I think you mis-parsed what I wrote - or maybe I was ambiguous.
The unix prototype that served as the model for current bsd/linux
is what predated Windows. For example, I have a 'Unix System User's
Manual, Release 5.0', dated June 1982 (certainly not the earliest
of its kind), and at least 90% of it (sections 1, 2, and 3 of the
man pages) would work unchanged on a current linux box. And in
fact programs I wrote only slightly after that are currently running
on Linux boxes... Anyway the point was that Microsoft is irrelevant
to *bsd/Linux from a software perspective unless you want to make
the point that companies are contributing to the development effort
just to compete with MS. (Sun's release of StarOffice, Corel's
work on WINE, SGI's xfs release and IBM's jfs might all be construed
that way).
>>You mean there are still people that aren't anti-Microsoft?
>
>Do you have any conception of the difference obsessively seeking
>out reasons to hate Microsoft (at the expense of getting actual
>work done) and making an occasional joke at the expense of Microsoft?
No, mine comes from long experience. I don't know why other
people do it - but I'm not surprised.
>Apparently you are so riddled with hate for Microsoft, so fearful
>of the company, and so brainwashed by your trendy and fashionable
>Linux colleagues, that you cannot fathom anything else.
No, I just remember things all the way back to the years and years
that everyone struggled with the limitations of Dos 3.x and below.
It didn't matter what a problem things like the 32 Meg disk partition
limit and the 640 K memory limit were for the users until there
was a bit of competition in the market. Remember DR-DOS? Then we
had Dos 4.0 - too painful to describe - but then immediately they
cranked out 5.x which actually got most of the stuff right that
they wouldn't do without being forced by competition.
>You, like
>the rest of the Linux tribe, are too busy hating Microsoft instead
>of working on the product, and that is why you have such a shitty
>OS. The BSD people are not nearly as obsessive in their Microsoft
>hatred, and at least they have a passable product.
You can build a bad Linux easier than a bad bsd because you
have more choices. That doesn't mean you have to do it wrong.
I'm pretty happy with the way Mandrake and VALinux do it but
haven't had time to try some of the newer distributions.
>>It is possible to keep NT working under very controlled conditions,
>>but as an experiment, try installing and testing 3 random new
>>programs a day on both an NT and Linux box in active production.
>>My experience say the NT box will have to be rebooted in less
>>than a week and is fairly likely to end up needing production
>>programs reinstalled due to dll conflicts. The Linux box is
>>unlikely to have any problems.
>
>I'm working on an instructional series about how to be the most cliched,
>most fashionable, dweebiest, trendiest Linux user on the planet. I'd
>recommend you audition for a place as a case study, I think you have a
>good chance. You'd have to convice me that you are an actual person and
>not just a random perl script who soaks up the fashionable and trendy
>cliches on comp.os.linux.advocacy and spits back as news posts. Tell
>us, what is your motivation?
I'm mostly annoyed at the amount of trouble I've had over the
years when unix products were priced out of the desktop range
and everyone had to live with DOS and Windows because they
were cheap. Those days are over, but the trouble hasn't
quite gone away.
>Microsoft's superior products made your
>LNUX options worth less than the paper they printed on? Or this a
>deeper-seated, more elusive inadequacy that you are trying to make up for?
OK, if you want it in those terms, the inadequacy is being unable
to keep up with Microsoft's API of the month. I can't even compile
things I wrote on the early MS C compilers on the current one, let
alone run any old code - and if it did it would only work on a few
CPU types. Why should that be superior to the things written for
unix in standard C using sockets and pipes that have run on wildly
different CPU types over the last 15+ years and continue to work
now?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 05:55:11 GMT
Sea1Dragon2 wrote:
> The very early development of Linux was decidedly for hobbyist purposes,
> but it is clear that the Linux _movement_ is primarily anti-Microsoft
> and has minimal technical basis. I am still trying to figure out why
Yep, companies replacing NT fileservers with Linux samba servers, or using Linux
as web servers and stuff is purely because they want to be anti-MS. It has
nothing at all to do with the fact that Linux is often more stable on the exact
same hardware then NT... costs less for licenses, can run on older hardware and
still do the job. Nah.. none of that matters at all.
> redhat.com feels the need to post news about Microsoft on their site, and
> why slashdot.org regularly posts articles about Microsoft. If Linux were
Well in the case of slashdot... while it is frequented by many pro-linux people,
they try to post stories about anything "nerds" might like. It's not a pure
Linux site.
> truly independent and not fueled out of irrational hatred of Microsoft,
> these things would not exist. What if Microsoft put a ticker of LNUX's
> falling stock on their site with the caption "How much do you want to lose
> today?"
Wouldn't mean a thing to most people. You could post the same for qcom stock...
our stock is way down right now, but it doesn't mean the company is doing bad.
Right now the stock market just isn't following much common sense. Hell, we
posted great Q1 earnings again and while the stock went up for a day, it's down
again... sucks! :/
> any 12 year old kid can do). The whole Linux community is premised on an
> "I am smarter than you" almost as much as it is based on anti-Microsoft.
It's not the whole community, it's just a vocal group of rabid pro-Linux
people. There are people like that for all the OSes it seems. The most
annoying people tend to be heard the most.
While I'm a pro unix person (not just Linux, though I do use it but I use
Solaris more) I also think that windows and just about every other OS has it's
place. I use win98 everyday... I'm a big gamer. :)
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Adolescence is a surreal world: kids who don helmets and practice banging into
one another for hours each week are deemed healthy and wholesome, even heroic.
Geeks are branded strange and anti-social for building and participating in one
of the world's truly revolutionary new cultures - the Internet and the World
Wide Web. -- Jon Katz / Slashdot.org
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 06:02:10 GMT
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> It is possible to keep NT working under very controlled conditions,
> but as an experiment, try installing and testing 3 random new
> programs a day on both an NT and Linux box in active production.
> My experience say the NT box will have to be rebooted in less
> than a week and is fairly likely to end up needing production
> programs reinstalled due to dll conflicts. The Linux box is
> unlikely to have any problems.
Hell, I installed Easy CD-Creator v3 on a W2k box two weeks ago. I figured it
wouldn't work, but thought it was worth a try. It installed without
complaining, but gave the "this program won't work properly under windows
2000..." message when I tried to run it. I canceled, then rebooted the box into
Linux to use my burner. When I went back into w2k (which had been up for over a
week.. it's definately a much more stable OS then win9x) it BSOD'd. It was so
hosed that I couldn't boot it _at all_. Not even into safe mode. I tried every
single boot option on the menu for the hell of it... they all either BS'd or
hung hard.
I've _never_ seen a Unix box that bad. Even when they get hosed to where you
can't even boot into single user, you can either boot off the net, or a CD and
edit/delete the file(s) that have screwed the system. I couldn't find a way to
do that with w2k. I tried booting of the CD, and a floppy, but they didn't let
me in. Though I admit I didn't look super hard outside of that.. it was easier
to just reinstall it the next day.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Your mouse has moved. Please wait while Windows reboots so the change can
take effect.
------------------------------
From: Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: templates and g++
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:26:23 -0700
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> Does anyone here know how to get templates working with g++ ?
> For example, I have a file graph.cpp and graph.h, and main.cpp.
> It refuses to link unless I use #include "graph.cpp" in the file
> main.cpp
<snip example>
Try looking at the gcc *info* pages a few levels under
"C++ Extensions" - there's some stuff there on linking
when using templates. Don't use 'em myself, so I'm not
sure it's what you need.
BTW - thanks for the Font HOW-TO, It's been extremely
useful.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 06:09:34 GMT
Sea1Dragon2 wrote:
> OS. The BSD people are not nearly as obsessive in their Microsoft
> hatred, and at least they have a passable product.
Jesus... your bias shows like a glaring neon sign here. ftp.cdrom.com held (or
holds) the most data downloaded in a single day from one box... running
FreeBSD. To you that's "passable?" What the hell do you want?!?
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"...In my phone conversation with Microsoft's lawyer I copped to the fact that
just maybe his client might see me as having been in the past just a bit
critical of their products and business practices. This was too bad, he said
with a sigh, because they were having a very hard time finding a reporter who
both knew the industry well enough to be called an expert and who hadn't written
a negative article about Microsoft." -- Robert X. Cringely
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 24 Apr 2000 01:01:22 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Only if the users have root. Doing that is exactly like letting
>>them run a trusted PDC - that's just the way the model works.
>
>The problem is that then you have security flaws on any of thousands
>of machines, whereas in the NT model, it isn't the machine that's the
>potential problem - it's the user.
In practice, security flaws are unpredictable. You don't know
which element will be impersonated.
>And removing users from the NT
>Admin list is trivial. NFS's "trust the machine, not the user" is
>weird.
It is in the context of a single-user PC. The NFS design
relates better to large multi-user hosts where a trusted
administrator controls the machine - but that was the normal
case when NFS was designed.
>>What's an MSKB and how many machines do you have to deploy to
>>make this worthwhile? Does it solve the problem of being able
>>to reproduce a setup that has been tweaked and tuned over some
>>period of time, or do I have to go back and find every setting
>>and manually enter it into this scriptable setup? I want to
>>propagate the incremental improvements not clone beta-version-1.
>
>MSKB is Microsoft's Knowledge Base, a wonderful resource, online, in
>which you can find all kinds of things. I desperately wish Linux had
>something similar, as it would save me hours upon hours of trying
>things out and fiddling - not to mention it would save a dozen (today
>alone) posts to the newsgroups (not just this one) asking what are,
>for the most part, questions that could and should be on an online
>database. support.microsoft.com will get you most of the way there.
Oh - the only useful thing I ever found there was a question
about making WLBS (load balancing) work and the answer was
something like 'if it doesn't work, try a different NIC'
which turned out to be the right answer but not quite the
technical detail I was trying to find. Linux programs have
much more information available, but you need a broader scope
for the search. First try the HOWTO's for overviews/examples
and the man/info pages for more depth, then a search on dejanews,
then look for a mailing list for the specific program(s). Most
of the mailing lists have searchable archives so you don't have
to subscribe to find answers to common questions.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (S4eaDra4gon)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 06:32:17 GMT
On 24 Apr 2000 00:43:50 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [ Re: Applescript ]
>Actually I haven't. Was it usable in the 80's when unix
>shell scripting was well developed?
No it didn't exist, but why does it invalidate? Any older technology
refutes newer technology regardless of which is actually better?
>>>Both Linux and the *bsd's are updated clones of unix systems that
>>>pre-date windows by at least a decade. Microsoft is pretty
>>>much irrelevant.
>>
>>Incorrect. The Linux project was started in 1991. Windows 3.0 was
>>released in 1990, and earlier versions were released in the mid-1980's.
>>I'm sure you didn't know that, but...
>
>I think you mis-parsed what I wrote - or maybe I was ambiguous.
>The unix prototype that served as the model for current bsd/linux
>is what predated Windows.
Obviously. Unix was started in 1979, when Bill Gates was an
adolescent. This does not mean that _Linux_ was not in response
Microsoft, as it was started after Windows 3.0 was released.
As I said, obviously the early work which Torvalds did was not
in response to Microsoft, but most of the cheerleaders have been
inspired by that.
>For example, I have a 'Unix System User's Manual, Release 5.0', dated
>June 1982 (certainly not the earliest of its kind), and at least 90%
>of it (sections 1, 2, and 3 of the man pages) would work unchanged on
>a current linux box.
Sure, but not vice versa. You couldn't use KDE (which was obviously
in reponse to Windows) on the system in 1982. Or perhaps more to the
point, you couldn't play "xbill" in 1982.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
