Linux-Advocacy Digest #260, Volume #30 Thu, 16 Nov 00 00:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers! (Curtis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Myers")
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. (Gary Hallock)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (mlw)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Gary Hallock)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Goldhammer)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
RE A MICROSOFT EXODUS THREAD (Richard A Crane)
Re: The Sixth Sense (.)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (mlw)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Gary Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers!
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 22:43:13 -0500
Chris Ahlstrom wrote...
> Curtis wrote:
> >
> > Exactly. This is why I used OS/2, then WinNT, and now Win2k. I explicitly
> > have avoided Win9x and Linux. :-)
>
> Have you tried Linux? What were your findings.
It was an absolute snap to install once you learnt how to partition with
its partitioning tool and how its partition table differs from the DOS
based one. I do realise that if its the only OS that your installing or
if you throw some free disk space at it, you now don't have to worry
about partitioning. Installation is the least of my problems with it.
The CLI is case sensitive .... very user unfriendly to me.
X-Windows is nice. I've used both KDE and Gnome. They're progressing
nicely but have not really obscured the complexity. I'm not saying that
they should mind you since this is an OS for professionals who desire
their configurability. I found that I had to be doing too much tedious
reading to get simple things done and I eventually gave up. My last
encounter was close to a year ago, not too long before installing Win2k.
Man pages are horrendous for the uninitiated, I tell you. You need to be
familiar with the CLI to navigate and appropriately search the man pages.
It's really has a steep learning curve from the very beginning. There's
nothing gradual. It doesn't merely encourage you to learn a lot .... it
forces you to learn a lot if you wish to make the OS at all useful to
you. This imposition isn't gradual either.
The seasoned penguinistas cannot see this.
If Linux had great application support, I might have stayed and slugged
it out since I like a challenge that's worth my while, but unfortunately
I couldn't see why learning Linux would be worth my while so I ditched
it. I have no problems with it personally. I just see it for what it is
and appreciate which the OS is appropriate for and it doesn't include the
average user ... not by a long shot. It will be a few years before I'll
even remotely reconsider this point.
--
___ACM________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:51:06 GMT
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote...
>
> > I don't understand at all what that has to do with hiding the place the
> > files really are stored from them.
>
> Are files being hidden from the user in Windows? ;;;; Except for that
> warning message in Win98 when opening the system folder?
Show me a windows user that knows where an application puts
their data. Ask them to copy all their important files off to
a floppy, server share, CD or whatever, and see how many
get it right. Letting some particular app have its way with
your data may be fun in the short term but the time will come
when you wish you knew what happened to it.
> > I did some help-desk and training back
>
> Did you say 'training'? Nuff said. :-)
This was in the days when computers cost enough
that people took them seriously.
> I'm not disputing that these concepts are hard to learn. Don't you see
> that? :-)
You keep saying that, yet you know nothing about it. It is not
hard to learn, nor hard to teach someone else. It is only
hard when you pretend the concept doesn't exist.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:36:12 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > My my but we are getting nasty today.
> >
> > You're starting to sound like jedi :(
> >
> > Pretty soon you might start adding the word "hardly" to every
> > sentence.
> >
> > claire
> >
>
> But it really is very simple to install wine. If you can't do it, then you
> have no brain:
>
> rpm -Uvh wine*.rpm
This is brain dead? Why not rpm wine*.rpm?
Why not have one wine file, why are their multiple?
What's -v and -h for? Yes, I'm sure that it's all in the docs (if
there are any), but seriously, simply extract an rpm file I must
really have THREE command line arguments?
How many are required to get a listing of the contents of the rpm?
8? 9?
> man wine.conf
Ah yes, two things here:
- man the always unintuitive, vague, and rarely helpful Jargon-o
Machine that seems to only really assist the people who actually
developed the application you're attempting to get assistance for.
And "man"? I want "help" or "assistance". The term "man" is
completely back-asswards. Like everything, I guess, in Linux and
Unix.
- The ever confusing, never consistent, and rarely in order .conf
files.
> follow the instructions to adjust wine.conf for your local environment.
You call those instructions?!
-Chad
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 22:57:18 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> My HP 4200C isn't supported (last I looked).
>
Have you checked out:
http://hp4200-backend.sourceforge.net/
It seems to still be alpha so I'm not sure how well it works.
Gary
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:01:24 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:19:41 GMT, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >Part of the problem is debugging this complexity. If you have an obscure
> > >problem in your own complex C code, you have a reasonable chance
> > >of debugging it. I
> >
> > But you're considerably more likely to have the problem.
>
> Only if the compiler is perfect. Has that been your experience?
> The first c++ programs I saw come around in the unix
> open source area, like Sam Leffler's Hylafax had to be
> matched precisely with a version of g++. Every time either
> the source or the compiler version changed it took a new
> round of patches to make it work, and then people
> who couldn't match the compiler version on the OS they
> used would have trouble. (And by the way, does anyone
> know if this was the same Sam Leffler whose name appeared
> in the credits of Toy Story 2?).
The issue of class problems across compiler versions is a double edge
sword. As annoying as it is, (and I agree that it is annoying), it is an
artifact of being extra careful about binding. I have mixed feelings
about it all, but I lean towards thinking it is a good idea.
The function:
extern "C" Datum ExportFunction(void * object, ...)
{
return (Datum) ((fubar *)object)->ExportFunction(...);
}
Makes sense and protects a lot. All class environments must assume some
sort of global continuity, C++ is no different than something like Java
in that respect.
>
> > > f the bug is in the complex things the compiler
> > >has done you
> >
> > Not likely in practice. What kind of "complex things" are you referring to
> ?
>
> Who knows? One set of developers here is working on a test wrapper
> for some other things, and depending on which service pack they
> have applied to the compiler, a whole loop may disappear.
>
> > I'd say that the compiler "doing things for you" helps. For example,
> memory
> > management problems tend to be isolated inside destructors instead of
> > scattered throughout your code. For example, every time you copy a string
> > in C, or read a string from an external source, you've just created a
> > potential memory management error. I'd argue that replacing these zillions
> > of managed arrays in client code with a single managed array in
> > the string class is a very good thing.
>
> If it is completely reliable. If it isn't what do you do? You can fix
> the part you did wrong in your own code.
No compiler is 100% sometimes, yes even with C, one has to look at the
assembler output and try to figure out what is
being compiled. As C/C++ compilers go, gcc is quite good.
>
> > > will probably just have to try different things until
> > >the problem goes away.
> >
> > Well if this is your approach, you're probably not a very good C++
> > programmer.
>
> I'm not. But with a decent debugger I can usually track down
> mistakes in C.
>
> > > g++ has not been all that reliable at
> > >least until recently (does it have a complete STL yet?). The
> >
> > Nope. Close, but not completely-complete.
>
> How do you deal with portability issues then? And how do
> you learn the language if you can't follow a standard reference?
> Using STL seems to me to be the whole point of c++ and I
> don't think I'd want to learn how to work around not having it.
While I do like C++, I think STL is bogus. It is not standardized across
all platforms, and the basic constructs are not as fast and efficient as
they could be. I do not use it.
>
> > >windows developers where I work always have to specify
> > >the service pack needed for visual c++ to build any particular
> > >product. How do people deal with this lack of reliability?
> >
> > Well, the GNOME developers also have to specify a version of GTK and
> > the GNOME libs, and glib, right ??? We even had *compile time*
> incompatibilites
> > with libc versions just a few years back. (For example, GNOME required
> glibc)
> > So the problems with "lack of reliability" as you call it plague everyone
> > besides the luddites who are willing to work with crude and primitive
> > development tools.
>
> I think the correct terms are 'standard' and 'reliable'. There is also the
> issue that there is no binary standard for c++ libs so it is unlikely
> that different parts of a project can be built with different compilers.
This is a problem is a standardization of class implementation. Look at
java, is there any push to get different java engines to work together?
No.
It would be nice, but it is possible to export C++ functions that are
not name-mangled which can call into C++ class member functions.
It is a very flexible feature in C++.
>
> > I mean, "Visual C++" is not just a C++ implementation, it also comes with
> > an application development framework, and this is constantly evolving.
>
> But that is not the only part that breaks. We went through the same
> thing 15 years ago with C, so I can understand people waiting until
> everything will compile the same source before switching. One
> long-term project here actually has the compilers checked into
> cvs along with the source because you must use the same compiler
> if you want to reconstruct an old version of a program or it is unlikely
> to work.
>
> > As far as stability goes, C++ *is* better than most other languages -- it
> > is one of the few languages that has a written standard that many vendors
> > come reasonably close to complying to (the only other language in the same
> > class here is C)
>
> Of course, but C is the one that you seem to be questioning.
C is being questioned because it is inadequate for projects like the
GTK. It does not have the features which would make the GTK much easier.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 04:03:01 GMT
mlw wrote:
>
> Russ Lyttle wrote:
> >
> > mlw wrote:
> > >
> > > I use Linux all the time, I think it is a great system. I maintain a
> > > Windows box, but it is never used except as a TV or for Lego Mindstorms
> > > for my son. At work, I am fortunate in that I can use Linux.
> > >
> > > The one problem I have with many of Open Source people is this sort of
> > > emotional dislike for C++.
> > >
> > > I use C++ all the time, I can't even understand why someone would start
> > > a non-trivial project using C. C++ is a superset of C. Most C code will
> > > compile fine with C++, the exceptions being borderline constructs which
> > > are probably bad form anyway.
> > >
> > > This is not a troll! I am being serious and sincere. I am a software
> > > engineer / architect professionally, and I have had to argue this point
> > > many times with some of guys we hire. It is my role to make sure the
> > > right decisions are made.
> > >
> > > Under what circumstances is "C" a better choice than "C++?"
> > > (excluding backward compatibility in an existing product)
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.mohawksoft.com
> >
> > Easy. It isn't an emotional dislike. C++ just isn't suitable for the
> > job. C++ is slower than C by an order of magnitude (almost as slow as
> > Java).
>
> This is completely false, and its inaccuracy can be proven by comparing
> the assembly language generated by both C and C++, you will see when
> similar constructs are used, similar assembly is emitted.
>
Absolutely correct. As long as similar constructs are used, C++ is
almost as fast as C. Just don't use any C++ specific constructs, such as
Classes.
> > It is difficult to manage any sizable project in C++.
>
> I find the opposite to be true.
>
> > Multiple
> > inheritance and friend functions are just two reasons.
>
> In projects that I run, inheritance of multiple equi-leveled parents is
> discouraged without damn good reasons. The only exceptions are code-only
> classes which do not have any data.
>
Right. Don't use the C++ feature.
> > C++ is almost
> > impossible to maintain.
>
> Again, I have seen the opposite.
>
Well, it is easier to maintain than PERL. But not by much.
> > C++ has all the weakness of C and none of its
> > advantages.
>
> What advantages does C have that C++ does not?
>
Tight efficient fast code at the machine level on multiple platforms.
Just try to get a C++ program to process 32 frames/sec on a TMS320C20.
> > I can think of any number of alternatives to both C and C++.
> > But C does have the history behind it.
>
> Alternatives to C++ are for alternative types of development.
>
> It is your sentiment and opinions that I find curious, what makes you
> think C++ is any slower than C doing the same things? It is not based on
> any facts that I have ever seen, and even the casual developer can prove
> that this is not true by dumping out the assembly code.
>
There have been numerous comparasons published. The results are always
(from fastest to slowest) hand generated machine code, Assembly code, C,
Pascal like languages including Ada, C++, Java. Sometimes Java beats
C++, but not as often as some think.
> Why is C++ any harder to manage than C?
>
The same reason goto is bad. C++ projects based on poorly designed class
structures are very brittle. Change one little thing somewhere in the
class structure and the whole thing collapses. You *can* do stable
projects in C++ if your process is mature enough. Most aren't.
> Object oriented development has its own challenges, but makes large
> projects easier to manage if designed correctly, but that isn't strictly
> a C++ issue.
Correct. I can and do do object oriented development in C. I was doing
that before C++ was invented even. It is easy to get a new staffer up to
speed on an object oriented C project.
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:05:23 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
>
>
> Do you use Linux?
Yes
>
>
> If yes, then you've used a "version" of Unix which doesn't have ACLs.
>
No
>
> HP-UX? HP-UX doesn't have ACLs without special add-ons. Even if it
> does have ACLs (new improvement?) it isn't up to snuff because it
> isn't even considered for audit by the TSEC.
>
HP, yes
>
> Solaris? Nope.
Solaris, yes
>
>
> BSD? Nope.
Never used BSD
>
>
> What versions have you used that DO have ACLs?
>
Linux, HP, AIX, Solaris
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 04:11:50 GMT
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:36:12 GMT,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And "man"? I want "help" or "assistance". The term "man" is
>completely back-asswards.
Have someone type this into your .bashrc
alias help=man
alias assistance=man
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 04:13:23 GMT
"Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:RrCQ5.1404$Xd.36177@stones...
> > And now that you have saved the file on the disk and forgotten about
> > it, what happens when you or someone else comes along later
> > and double-clicks it? It is a loaded gun - giving it your blessing
> > to live in the filesystem is very dangerous.
>
> So what do you people want to happen? It's unsafe to run it, it's unsafe
to
> save it and view it in Notepad... What else are we supposed to do with our
> attachments?
The mailer should either provide a safe viewer or warn you that
there is no safe viewer (and it should *not* warn for normal
attachments where a safe action is possible). That way if you
get something unsafe and unexpected you will know not to execute
it.
> Besides, in a properly configured system, if I save a file to the disk,
> /only/ I can run it, since other people can't access my files.
Will you remember forever not to execute it yourself? Is this
a business computer that might eventually be used by someone
else?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard A Crane)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: RE A MICROSOFT EXODUS THREAD
Date: 16 Nov 2000 05:07:42 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ladies, Gentlemen and Cyberspace Dogs,
The above thread has been going for some time with most of
it now an argument between Linux users and Windows users and
points of Windows behaviour, with occassional references to
Macs.
Could I politely ask that if your participating in that that
you check the headers and do not reply to c.o.os2.advocacy
unles it is an issue that is about OS/2.
Apart from saving bandwidth, for those of us users who still
pay by the minute or Mbyte for our connections it saves us
from expense.It also allows our groups to more focussed on
what they are about.
Thank you I'll get out of your groups again now.
--
Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT octa4 dot
net dot au
OR rcrane AT attglobal dot net
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 17:24:20 +1300
> > ... provided you and the scanning software know about it, which is
> > unlikely in the case of almost every new virus.
>
> Most scanners have hueristics which can detect most scripting viruses.
Are there any virus scanners with heuristic code that you would actually
trust your system(s) to?
All the scanners I've ever used have had heuristics turned off by
default, because they don't bloody work or they raise too many false
alarms
(admittedly I'd much rather be bothered by a false alarm than miss a real
one, but I can imagine the false alarms just POURING in for a large
company...)
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:27:15 -0500
Russ Lyttle wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > Russ Lyttle wrote:
> > >
> > > mlw wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I use Linux all the time, I think it is a great system. I maintain a
> > > > Windows box, but it is never used except as a TV or for Lego Mindstorms
> > > > for my son. At work, I am fortunate in that I can use Linux.
> > > >
> > > > The one problem I have with many of Open Source people is this sort of
> > > > emotional dislike for C++.
> > > >
> > > > I use C++ all the time, I can't even understand why someone would start
> > > > a non-trivial project using C. C++ is a superset of C. Most C code will
> > > > compile fine with C++, the exceptions being borderline constructs which
> > > > are probably bad form anyway.
> > > >
> > > > This is not a troll! I am being serious and sincere. I am a software
> > > > engineer / architect professionally, and I have had to argue this point
> > > > many times with some of guys we hire. It is my role to make sure the
> > > > right decisions are made.
> > > >
> > > > Under what circumstances is "C" a better choice than "C++?"
> > > > (excluding backward compatibility in an existing product)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.mohawksoft.com
> > >
> > > Easy. It isn't an emotional dislike. C++ just isn't suitable for the
> > > job. C++ is slower than C by an order of magnitude (almost as slow as
> > > Java).
> >
> > This is completely false, and its inaccuracy can be proven by comparing
> > the assembly language generated by both C and C++, you will see when
> > similar constructs are used, similar assembly is emitted.
> >
> Absolutely correct. As long as similar constructs are used, C++ is
> almost as fast as C. Just don't use any C++ specific constructs, such as
> Classes.
Take a look at the GTK and compare generated assembly with C++. You will
find that C++ code which does similar things is more efficient than the
C code.
>
> > > It is difficult to manage any sizable project in C++.
> >
> > I find the opposite to be true.
> >
>
> > > Multiple
> > > inheritance and friend functions are just two reasons.
> >
> > In projects that I run, inheritance of multiple equi-leveled parents is
> > discouraged without damn good reasons. The only exceptions are code-only
> > classes which do not have any data.
> >
> Right. Don't use the C++ feature.
I won't get pulled into that "one bad apple" discussion. C++ has many
features above and beyond C. A good architecture should define which of
these features is useful, which is not, and what the general practices
are. Having more tools and methodologies can never be called a bad
thing.
>
> > > C++ is almost
> > > impossible to maintain.
> >
> > Again, I have seen the opposite.
> >
> Well, it is easier to maintain than PERL. But not by much.
hardly.
>
> > > C++ has all the weakness of C and none of its
> > > advantages.
> >
> > What advantages does C have that C++ does not?
> >
> Tight efficient fast code at the machine level on multiple platforms.
> Just try to get a C++ program to process 32 frames/sec on a TMS320C20.
A C++ compiler can produce code exactly as a C compiler, why wouldn't
it?
>
> > > I can think of any number of alternatives to both C and C++.
> > > But C does have the history behind it.
> >
> > Alternatives to C++ are for alternative types of development.
> >
> > It is your sentiment and opinions that I find curious, what makes you
> > think C++ is any slower than C doing the same things? It is not based on
> > any facts that I have ever seen, and even the casual developer can prove
> > that this is not true by dumping out the assembly code.
> >
> There have been numerous comparasons published. The results are always
> (from fastest to slowest) hand generated machine code, Assembly code, C,
> Pascal like languages including Ada, C++, Java. Sometimes Java beats
> C++, but not as often as some think.
I have never seen one published report that C++ beat Java. Show me one.
>
> > Why is C++ any harder to manage than C?
> >
> The same reason goto is bad. C++ projects based on poorly designed class
> structures are very brittle. Change one little thing somewhere in the
> class structure and the whole thing collapses. You *can* do stable
> projects in C++ if your process is mature enough. Most aren't.
Incompetent programmers are hard to manage. C++ is better than C in that
respect.
>
> > Object oriented development has its own challenges, but makes large
> > projects easier to manage if designed correctly, but that isn't strictly
> > a C++ issue.
> Correct. I can and do do object oriented development in C. I was doing
> that before C++ was invented even. It is easy to get a new staffer up to
> speed on an object oriented C project.
I wrote many an OO for C, there is no longer any point. Clinging to "C,"
especially with an OO design, is just an exercise in making like more
difficult. All I can think is "John Henry."
> >
> > --
> > http://www.mohawksoft.com
> --
> Russ Lyttle, PE
> <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> Not Powered by ActiveX
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:25:45 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>
> This is brain dead? Why not rpm wine*.rpm?
Because rpm has options for installing, updating, and deleting, among others.
You really only need -U (for update) or -i (for install). The v provides verbose
messages and the h provides hash marks to show thre progress of the install. Of
course if you prefer a GUI then both kpackage and gnorpm will let you do it with
just a couple of mouse clicks. And if you left click on an rpm file in kfm or
konqeror then kpackage pops up. And if you have to have the rpm file on a CD,
insert the CD and up pops kpackage.
>
> Why not have one wine file, why are their multiple?
Sorry to confuse you. There is only one wine rpm. I was using the '*' simply
as a shorthand for the current verison number. For example:
rpm -Uvh wine-20000109-1.i386.rpm
>
>
> What's -v and -h for? Yes, I'm sure that it's all in the docs (if
> there are any), but seriously, simply extract an rpm file I must
> really have THREE command line arguments?
>
No, only one is needed as I explained.
>
> How many are required to get a listing of the contents of the rpm?
> 8? 9?
rpm -qlp wine-20000109-1.i386.rpm
q is for query
l is for list file
p means the package file follows
and if you want full time/date and owner info per file use the verbose option:
rpm -qlpv wine-20000109-1.i386.rpm
If the package is already installed then
rpm -ql wine
Or if you just want to know if the package is installed and what the version is:
rpm -q wine
Again, if you prefer a GUI both kpackage and gnorpm display the rpm contents as
well as a description of what the package is.
>
>
> > man wine.conf
>
> Ah yes, two things here:
>
> - man the always unintuitive, vague, and rarely helpful Jargon-o
> Machine that seems to only really assist the people who actually
> developed the application you're attempting to get assistance for.
Not at all. There are people who prefer a command line interface and those that
prefer a GUI. Linux provides both. And, frankly, it is much easier to describe
in a post here the command line interface than the point and click of a GUI.
>
>
> And "man"? I want "help" or "assistance". The term "man" is
> completely back-asswards. Like everything, I guess, in Linux and
> Unix.
How about info? Linux has that
>
>
> - The ever confusing, never consistent, and rarely in order .conf
> files.
>
> > follow the instructions to adjust wine.conf for your local environment.
>
> You call those instructions?!
>
As usuall, you are complaining when there is nothing to complain about
Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
