Linux-Misc Digest #201, Volume #19 Sat, 27 Feb 99 05:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: More bad news for NT (Gregory Propf)
Re: FreeAgent for Linux (Glen Scurr)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (jedi)
Re: xosview with linux-2.2.2 (Shaw Carruthers)
Re: Can't record sound with microphone (Rob Komar)
Re: Scanner help (Gary Momarison)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (John S. Dyson)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (John S. Dyson)
Re: BBS software for linux? (rjclay)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Sam E. Trenholme)
Modems :( Suggestions? (Mike Martin)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (John S. Dyson)
Re: Turtle Beach Montego (Dell OEM) with RedHat 5.2 ("Craig Bailey")
Re: software bloat (was Re: what's the difference between desktop/window-manager)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Bleeding fingers (One of the Sussmans)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gregory Propf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.linux
Subject: Re: More bad news for NT
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 08:01:15 GMT
Jon Wiest wrote:
>
> Jason Clifford wrote in message ...
> >
> Oh get off your high horse. NT is a "real" OS, and as for "wiping the
> floor" that's pure exageration. Sure, Linux does some great things, why
> else would I devote a hard drive to it? But it also does some really stupid
> things. Each has their merit, and no amount of flag-waving and
> slogan-chanting will change that.
>
> Jon
Sorry Jon, but I've used both. Linux does indeed "wipe the floor" with
NT and NT is NOT a "real operating system". If I were bound for Mars on
a ship that I found was controlled by NT I would not go. I would trust
Linux provided they weren't using a development kernel. Granted NT is
better than 95,98 or 3.1 but only in the sense that a bowl of cold gruel
is better than a bowl of dog shit.
--
"I wanted plutonium, not Beanie Babies..."
- Sadaam Hussein, in a letter to Santa Claus.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Glen Scurr)
Subject: Re: FreeAgent for Linux
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 08:02:34 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rudy Taraschi) wrote:
>I want something that doesn't exist, FreeAgent for Linux.
In a way there is a free agent for linux, run it under wine.
I'm an Agent addict myself and I would never be able to switch to Linux without
something similar available on the linux platform. I was very encouraged to
see that Agent and Free Agent got very useable ratings when running under wine
for linux.
www.winehq.com
It looks like Corel is getting behind the Linux/wine platform and we may have a
%100 windows compatible OS in the form of Linux/wine within a year.
Wouldn't that be cool?
glen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:24:04 -0800
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:30:26 GMT, Sniper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:25:55 -0800, "iratheous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm glad to see honesty, even when dealing with something you dont like :)
>>Oh btw, I don;t liek counter arguments of 'it's debatable' without actually
>>presenting a debate! It's a cop-out. "It isn't as good", "Why" , "Because
>>it isn't!"
>>
>
>I agree I think they were very valid reasons ! I like linux, and I
>earn my living with NT !
>
>M$ Support only sucks when your a little guy, just like Compaq and all
>the rest, try ringing up on a Custom support agreement, then the
>support is great, however I agree that the consumer support sucks.
>
>If you are going to challenge someone to what they said, then say more
>than its debatable, If you want to say that Killing Jews is ok, its
>debateable. Or that Injecting rabbits with lipstick is ok, then fine
>that too is debateable, everything is bloody debateable, doesn;t make
>it right !
Try reading the rest of the newsgroup. It's not as if the
more subjective 'benefits' haven't been addressed in gory
detail before.
>
>>jedi wrote in message ...
>>>On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:43:17 -0800, Ryan Cumming
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>iratheous wrote:
>>>>>>If you want my 234 reasons why linux is better
>>>>> >than Winblows 98 just ask.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about 10 honest reasons why you think windows98 is better than
>>linux?
>>>>> That would be interesting to hear from a windows hater >:)
>>>>
>>>>OK. I think there are more and better resons that Linux is better, but
>>here it
>>>>goes: (This hurts)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>1. Better GUI
>>> This is debatable.
>>>
>>>>2. More software
>>>>3. More Hardware support
>>>>4. Better gaming platform
>>>>(shudder)
>>>
>>> This is redundant, part of 3 & 4.
>>>>5. More consistency (see my previous post)
>>> The value of this is debateable.
>>>
>>>>6. One word: Microkernel
>>> The value of this is VERY debateable.
>>>
>>>>7. No mounting
>>>
>>> This is also the case in Linux depending
>>> on the shell in question.
>>>
>>>>8. Better file locking
>>>>9. More multithreaded apps
>>>
>>> The value of this is debateable.
>>> This more a fix for NT's problems
>>> with multiple processes.
>>>
>>>>10. Better user support
>>>
>>> From whom? Consumer software support is
>>> in general laughable, M$ included.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>(Bodnar42 collapses because he just went against everytihing he stands
>>for)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>> Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats
>>>
>>>Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or |||
>>>is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out / | \
>>>as soon as your grip slips.
>>>
>>> In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
>>
>
>..
>"What's the difference between a nail, a screw and a bolt ?" the woodwork
>teacher asked the only girl in the class during the first day of school.
>She pondered the question for a moment, then replied, "Well, I can't rightly
>say as I know, 'cause I ain't never been 'bolted'."
--
Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats
Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or |||
is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out / | \
as soon as your grip slips.
In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shaw Carruthers)
Subject: Re: xosview with linux-2.2.2
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:28:49 GMT
Torsten Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>xosview (version 1.7.0 and version 1.6.1) doesn't work with the kernel
>2.2.2. It hangs, even before a window appears. Does someone know the
>reason?
>
This patch posted to linux-kernel fixes it.
--- xosview-1.6.1.a/linux/cpumeter.cc.old Fri Apr 3 09:17:19
1998
+++ xosview-1.6.1.a/linux/cpumeter.cc Fri Feb 19 20:55:01 1999
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
void CPUMeter::getcputime( void ){
total_ = 0;
- char tmp[256];
+ char tmp[4096];
ifstream stats( STATFILENAME );
if ( !stats ){
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@
// read until we are at the right line.
for (int i = 0 ; i < _lineNum ; i++)
- stats.getline(tmp, 256);
+ stats.getline(tmp, sizeof(tmp));
stats >>tmp >>cputime_[cpuindex_][0]
>>cputime_[cpuindex_][1]
@@ -86,9 +86,9 @@
}
int line = -1;
- char buf[256];
+ char buf[4096];
while (!stats.eof()){
- stats.getline(buf, 256);
+ stats.getline(buf, sizeof(buf));
if (!stats.eof()){
line++;
if (!strncmp(cpuID, buf, strlen(cpuID)) && buf[strlen(cpuID)]
== ' ')
@@ -111,9 +111,9 @@
}
int cpuCount = 0;
- char buf[256];
+ char buf[4096];
while (!stats.eof()){
- stats.getline(buf, 256);
+ stats.getline(buf, sizeof(buf));
if (!stats.eof()){
if (!strncmp(buf, "cpu", 3) && buf[3] != ' ')
cpuCount++;
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Komar)
Crossposted-To: linux.dev.sound
Subject: Re: Can't record sound with microphone
Date: 27 Feb 1999 08:15:29 GMT
David Guertin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Hi folks,
:
: I'm trying to set up my system to record sound, and having a difficult
: time getting things working. Here's my setup: Audio Technica ATM-31
: microphone through an XLR -> 1/4" adapter to a Tascam Portastudio 424
: 4 track recorder/mixer to a Sound Blaster 16 sound card. (I had no
: success at all when I tried bypassing the Tascam, even with a preamp.)
:
: I'm running a 2.0.36 kernel with modular sound support (I have the sb,
: sound, soundcore, and uart401 modules all working). I can play CD's
: and sound files (au, wav, aifc, MIDI, etc.) with no problems at all.
:
: When I speak into the microphone, sound comes out the speakers fine.
:
: But, when I try to record sound as described in the Sound-HOWTO:
:
: dd bs=8k count=4 </dev/audio >sample.au
: cat sample.au >/dev/audio
:
: I get nothing. Actually, if I have the gain turned way up, and crank
: the volume on playback, and I shout into the microphone, I can hear my
: voice very faintly, buried under waves of static.
:
: I have the microphone level set to 70-100% in xmixer, and at about 70%
: on the Tascam.
Are you sure that you had the mike plugged into the microphone jack and
not into the line-in jack? I found with my SB16 card, I couldn't hear
the music when recording through the mike jack, and couldn't record
when listening through the line-in jack.
I also found that the SB16 doesn't do a good job recording music. My
on-board CS4236B Crystal chip produced much better results than the
SB16. If you're serious about good recordings, you might want to
consider getting another sound card.
Cheers,
Rob Komar
------------------------------
From: Gary Momarison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Scanner help
Date: 27 Feb 1999 00:18:26 -0800
John Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a scanner from back in my windows days and never configured it
> for linux. Can I use a SCSI Module to access my scanner? I really
> don't want to have to re-compile the kernel, but need access to my
> scanner again. I tried insmod and modprobe-ing the 'sg.o' 'scsi_debug'
> modules but 'scanimage --list-devices' doesn't show up my scanner. I
> added a modprobe of those modules to my init script and it found a
> nonexistent device everywhere possible and I still couldn't access my
> scanner. I read that if it finds devices in every slot then you have to
> reconfigure the jumpers on your scsi card. Is this true? I don't know
> if I even still have the manual to my scanner/scsi card. The scanner
> used TWAIN if that makes any difference.
There are some links to scanning resources at
http://www.aa.net/~swear/pedia/scanning.html
Start with the SANE home page. It supports most SCSI scanners.
--
Look for Linux info at http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml and in
Gary's Encyclopedia at http://www.aa.net/~swear/pedia/index.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 25 Feb 1999 23:33:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens) writes:
> jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> You aren't seeing it from the point of view of the original author of the
>>> GPL work. "If I had wanted you to use my code for something you would
>>> sell for profit, I wouldn't have licensed it under GPL, would I?"
>>
>>That statement seems to be directly incompatable with FSF's definition
>>of 'free' software.
>>
> A better wording which (as I interpret it) preserves the original author's
> meaning would be "If i had wanted you to use my code in something...".
> That is entirely consistent with the FSF's definition of free software.
>
Selective freedom. The code ain't free.
Not only that, if you don't want people to use your code, then don't
let people use it.
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | it makes one look stupid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | and it irritates the pig.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 25 Feb 1999 23:31:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens) writes:
> Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Because of this, GPL is only usable for home toy projects. Outside
>> that realm it breaks down quickly
>
> So IBM is now installing a "home toy product" on their Netfinity servers.
> What kind of "home" do you think they're destined for?
>
Exploiting and using. IBM is a BIG company, and there are other thing
going on there.
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | it makes one look stupid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | and it irritates the pig.
------------------------------
From: rjclay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BBS software for linux?
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 07:49:28 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I run a text based (old fashioned) BBS in DOS, and I was wanting to use linux
> instead so that I have multiple incomming telnet sessions. does anybody know
> of some good BBS software that is native to *nix that will run on linux RH5.1?
I used to run maximus/squish/binklyterm on OS/2; currently running
the linux
version of BBBS. (1:120/544)
>
> In addition, I am looking for FIDONET style mailers and tossers to round out
> the entire system.
If you don't use an all-in-one type thing like BBBS, you could use
ifmail or
ifcico (from ifmail pkg)/fidogate, for mailers/tossers. Those gate
between fidonet
& email/news. There are other things being worked on, from what I
understand.
> So far, I've found BBBS, Waffle, and possibly LoraBBS (I have the c++ code and
> makefile to compile it), but still, I have no mailer or tosser.
BBBS can do telnet, ftp, smtp, & is now testing http. I've never
looked at Waffle:
was finally able to get LoraBBS to compile without errors, but couldn't
get it to create
a msg area, so I put aside for 'later'...
If you're not already connected, link up to the fidonet echos
LINUX_BBS & LINUX.
Jame
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam E. Trenholme)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 25 Feb 1999 16:36:20 -0800
>> And, yes John, I know who you are, and I remember seeing you at that
>> O'Reilly OpenSource conference last year arguing with RMS on stage.
>>
>I wasn't there.
Whoops. I mixed you up with Jordan Hubbard, for some reason.
Still, you contributions to FreeBSD are significant, and I have always
considered you "one of the important FreeBSD guys".
- Sam
--
Email address here: http://www.samiam.org/ssi/mailme.shtml
Music I write here: http://www.mp3.com/sam http://www.samiam.org/mp3
Mp3 reviews here: http://www.samiam.org/music
------------------------------
From: Mike Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Modems :( Suggestions?
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:39:56 -0600
I'm sure this has been covered before but I've looked around and found
out what is NOT compatible with linux. But what i'm asking is.... Are
there any suggestions as to what kind of INTERNAL modem to purchase? IE.
Manufacturer, Model, etc. That would work well under linux? Any
suggestions would help.
thanks,
--
Mike Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A Member of the HTML Writers Guild
A days not complete without getting into a little trouble.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 25 Feb 1999 23:21:35 GMT
In article <7b3e7q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy Murphy) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson) writes:
>
>>So was BSD, but it wasn't a knock-off, but the real thing. There is
>>little to be gained from reinvention.
>
> BSD was a re-invention of AT&T Unix.
>
You miss the point that the reasons why BSD might have forked were
to add abilities, or to free the code.
Linux was rewritten for no reason, other than to take concepts and
to restrictively license them with GPL.
Note the FLOW of technology with BSD, and the reinvention with Linux.
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | it makes one look stupid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | and it irritates the pig.
------------------------------
From: "Craig Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Turtle Beach Montego (Dell OEM) with RedHat 5.2
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:51:08 -0600
Ditto here!
The demand is growing. No sound yet for me either with the Dell turtle
beach montego pci soundcard. RedHat 5.2 too.
Thanks for the company.. I thought it was just my inept configuration
skills!
Craig Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: software bloat (was Re: what's the difference between
desktop/window-manager)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:20:00 GMT
On 25 Feb 1999 12:57:28 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Swiss) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>steve mcadams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> (Did I hear a deep collective groan from the
>>>old Linux High Priests?)
>>
>>Don't look at me man, I'm a newbie. Even so I'm saddened by the fact
>>that Linux won't run in a system with only 4meg ram. Think back 15
>>years Jerry, to the kind of applications we had running in 16 k of
>>ram, or 32 k if you were lucky enough to be able to afford that much.
>>Now think how much we could have done if instead of a Z80 with 32k, we
>>had a PII-333 with 128meg of ram! Now look at what we are -actually-
>>doing with it, and tell me what's wrong with this picture. No
>>bullshit man, there is some serious wastage going on.
try linux 1.2 it ran in 2 meg... :-)
> It's not so much a question of wastage as of resource allocation. Yeah,
>you could write that tight hand-made code that saved every nanosecond and
>every byte - but at a tremendous cost in programmer-hours. Programmer-hours
>have remained valuable (aren't you glad?), while memory and cycles have
>fallen in price. <snip>
>
true but the bloat? Most of the cause of the linux kernel increasing
is due to hardware change. To take advantage of the features of the
newer CPU's and memory arch requires more complex programs.
Individual hardware (scsi cards, sound cards, floppy drives, etc) can
be left out of the kernel and compiled as modules. Generally, if you
compile a kernel with just enough to get the computer running, and
everything else as modules, the kernel becomes very small. And I have
gotten 2.0 to run on a 4MB 386. 2.2 can only dream of doing that.
rule #1 in computers. Upgrading your software is a sure way to make
your hardware obsolete.
so if what you had works for you, why fix it?
to take advantage of you new hardware, upgrade your software, which
will result in makeing your old hardware obsolete. to get your old
hardware to work, you need old software.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:23:26 -0500
From: One of the Sussmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Bleeding fingers
I edited /etc/inittab (I don't know what telinit is) by changing the "3" to
a "5" & rebooted. While booting I can see that it's using run level 5 (I've
looked at file to verify this) & when I tried to run xdm from the command
line, it tells me that xdm is already running. But startx still doesn't run
at boot - I just get a command line.
Jim Buchanan wrote:
> One of the Sussmans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > helped with problems), so feeling kind of cocky, I figured I'd go into
> > /etc/inittab & change the "3" in the line "id:3:initdefault:" to a "5"
> > so that I would go right into X without having to type "startx," thus
> [...]
> > type "startx," & I have a boring, non-GUI login. What am I doing
> > wrong? Thanks.
>
> Did you switch runlevels using init or telinit? Or did you reboot to
> let the machine use the new default runlevel?
>
> --
> Jim Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ================= http://members.iquest.net/~jbuchana ==================
> "Where...the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30
> tons, computers in the future may have 1,000 vacuum tubes and perhaps
> weigh just 1-1/2 tons." -Popular Mechanics, March 1949
> ========================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: 27 Feb 1999 09:40:56 GMT
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999 23:45:35 -0800, The Infernal One
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Windows is fairly cryptic and certainly not much less so than
>Linux. It's just that some people believe Linux is hard because
>they couldn't use it after learning how to use computer, when
>all they learned is how to use Windows.
Maybe I say this because I've used Windows for as long as it's been
out, but I don't find Windows cryptic at all. Actually, I find it
pretty obvious-- and I have found that I can sit a new user (*completely
new user*) in front of a Windows box and say, "Look at this.
Don't ask me a single question, and poke around for yourself," and they'll
typically start to figure things out without documentation. That means
(to me, anyway) that it's not cryptic.
Can you do that with UNIX? Not really. A newbie wouldn't think in terms
of "cp" = "copy", "mv" = "rename and move" and so on.
>
>For those who simply try to use a computer that others' are
>maintaining (corporate/school environment) neither Linux nor
>Windows poses much trouble. When it comes to maintainance,
>Windows is often harder because of its instability, registry,
>among other things.
>
That's why I don't fuck around with Windows on my home machine anymore.
>>DOS, UNIX, etc., are for those who want to learn (except DOS only takes
>>maybe a day to learn...).
>
>Windows takes months to learn for a complete newbie. DOS
>takes a day to learn? Have you ever had to play with memory
>managers because your favorite game wouldn't run due to its
>outrageous conventional memory requirement? Do you expect
>newbies to handle config.sys/autoexec.bat?
>
Nope-- the DOS 6.22 memory manager worked just fine for all the games
I ever played/setup. MemMaker actually did a quite nice job doing all
of that for me... and MemMaker can be found in the DOS 6.2 HELP program,
which people who use DOS try first... (pretty obvious to try HELP first,
right?).
As far as CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT-- that's always been like the
Windows registry is today-- typical users didn't edit those types of
things because PC World and other computer magazines always carried
hefty warnings about editing CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT.
>>And those who want performance and reliability
>>will eventually learn that it isn't easy to put forth the effort to get
>>that performance and reliability. Sure, you have to read a couple of
>>thousand of pages-- be it man pages, HTML pages, book pages, whatever.
>
>Linux and Windows both require about the same amount of
>knowledge or efforts, to reach the same level of expertise.
>Most people are more knowledgeable about Windows, and that
>makes a huge difference.
>
Not really. It took me six months to learn Windows, in and out, keyboard
shortcuts, everything. Version 3.1, that is. Windows 95 took me about
a month to master, because many of the key shortcuts weren't changed. The
menus and windows make more sense in their layout.
I've been working with Linux now for about 2 years, and guess what? I'm
FAR from getting it all down.
Sure, I've got my video card working in X, and I've learned about
/etc/fstab and /etc/lilo.conf, and /etc/rc.d/*. But there are tons of
things that I've not learned, some I know of and some I don't. For
example, I know enough about cp, mv, gzip, tar, bzip2, ps, ls, and grep
to use them for what I'd like. But I don't know anything about sed and
awk, other than the fact that they exist. Never learned emacs (although
I use cvim and am pretty happy with it). Still learning *TONS* on Linux.
Windows does not require the same amount of effort/knowledge/expertise
because an idiot can sit down, and if they think a teeny bit, can figure
it out.
>
>
--
=====================================================================
Michael B. Trausch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
V: (419) 838-8104 F: (815) 846-9374
ICQ UIN: 32369835
"Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that
curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly."
- Arnold Edinborough
If you do not have my public PGP key, you are encouraged to obtain it
from my website at http://www.wcnet.org/~mtrausch/mykey.zip. You need
to have PGP 5.0i or newer to use the key.
=====================================================================
------------------------------
** 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.misc) 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-Misc Digest
******************************
