Linux-Misc Digest #708, Volume #21 Mon, 6 Sep 99 20:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Freetype and StarOffice (bd)
Connection Limit? ("Karl Waskiewicz")
Re: pppd daemon (Bill Unruh)
Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie (Ross Smith)
Re: Peaceful Coexistence (aydincem)
Apache Setup ("Rob")
Re: Should I use Linux or Windows? (Richard Steiner)
Re: amount of modems in linux... (Ray O'Leary)
Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie (Bruce Schultz)
Re: Should I use Linux or Windows? (aydincem)
Re: Laptop X config (Dale Woodside)
Re: HELP EAST TIMOR (Spike!)
Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie ("Byron")
help with octave (Jorge Ravazzola)
Re: Should I use Linux or Windows? (Kertis Henderson)
Re: Freetype and StarOffice (Lev Babiev)
Re: Distributions RH, Suse, Mandrake (Charles M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Freetype and StarOffice
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 22:06:47 GMT
Just got RH6 and installed StarOffice. It desperately needs truetype
fonts. I found freetype and it is installed but the doc says something
about it being a lib and not a font server. So how do I activate
freetype so that all apps can use them, in particurrly StarOffice.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: "Karl Waskiewicz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Connection Limit?
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 23:03:57 GMT
Hello,
I have a pretty serious problem with a dedicated server that I set up. It's
coming to the point now where the server connections seem to be capped.
Apache (1.3.9) tops off at 467 simultaneous connections, at which point
connections on all other ports are refused (smtp, ftp, telnet and ssh are
the other ones open, middle two tcpd-ed). Connecting to Apache is possible
with several seconds delay. My question is: Where is the bottleneck here?
The equipment is fine with a 20 Mbit feed, 450 with 512. OS is vanilla
Redhat 6.0 (The line providers, who are located many thousands of kilometres
from me, refused to install anything else). Kernel 2.2.5-15, maxservers
1024.
Thanks all,
Karl
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: pppd daemon
Date: 6 Sep 1999 19:36:41 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Just installed SuSE 6.1 on a spare hard drive. Got X configed and into
>kde. Ran kppp but dialog box says it can't find pppd daemon. ??? What,
>if it found kppp, why not the daemon??
>Did which pppd, no result. Tried /sbin/pppd, no such program.
>Since kde is running fine, what needs to be done to get the darn pppd
>daemon running?
When it asked about networking you probably said no, so it did not
install any of the networking stuff, including ppp.
you need to find where in the install packages ppp is and install it.
------------------------------
From: Ross Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 07:39:59 +1200
"K. Bjarnason" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >
> > Windows does not handle " something as basic as a point-and-click 'kill
> > process' operation easily....lest you forget about the 'End Task' and 'Wait'
> > for the application dialogues every time you try to kill off the task. You
> > don't mention the bottom line of 'End Tasks' in Windows which is, The
> > application will end if and only if it wants to. Windows will seldom outright
> > kick off an application (BSODs for the system and Application not
> > withstanding).
>
> Odd; I can only recall that happening a couple of times under Win9x;
> Under NT the only time I can't kill a process outright is if it's
> actually running as a service and the system thinks it is active.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is obviously only familiar with Win9x. You're right, NT's
Task Manager is far more powerful than Win9x's, and hardly ever gives
any problems with killing anything. Fortunately, KDE has a graphical
process manager that's basically a clone of the NT TM (in fact, it has
two slightly different ones).
> Then
> again, I've never had a frozen-but-NT-thinks-it's-active service cause
> any problems, either. :)
I have, a couple of times ... but then, the fact that it was a service I
wrote myself may have had something to do with it. :-)
--
Ross Smith ....................................... Auckland, New Zealand
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ........ <http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~r-smith/>
Quoth the raven, "404!"
------------------------------
From: aydincem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Peaceful Coexistence
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 21:15:33 +0200
Larry Ozarow wrote:
>
> Byron A Jeff wrote:
>
> (I'm cutting to the chase here)
>
> >
> > Considering your concern with the Windows disk and the abject slowness of
> > floppies, I think the LoadLin route is probably optimal for you.
> >
>
> I've been booting from floppies for a long time, because I'm just too
> accident-prone
> to trust myself with LILO. The floppy solution is actuall much FASTER than the
> loadlin
> approach, since using loadlin you first have to boot into Windows (pretty slow,
> esp. Windows
> 98), then boot up into Linux which also takes a bit of time. Floppies are of
> course slow, but
> only a fraction of bootup time is taken up by reading in the kernel. Most of it
> is sniffing
> and setting up the hardware, etc. The floppy-reading part of bootup is much
> shorter than
> a full Windows boot would be.
>
> Larry
hi,
i'm using loadlin too, but on my machine it's much faster than a floppie
boot. you don't have to bootup win95/98 completely u just have to boot
the autoexec.bat and the config.sys and u can modify them to make a boot
menu. my autoexec.bat looks like this:
goto %config%
:Win95
<normal win autoexec>
:Dos
<normal dos autoexec>
and my config.sys:
[menu]
menuitem=Win95
menuitem=Dos
menuitem=Linux
menudefault=Win95,10
[Win95]
<normal win config.sys>
[Dos]
<normal dos config.sys>
[Linux]
shell=c:\loadlin\loadlin.exe @c:\loadlin\linux.par
[Common]
accdate=c+ d+ h+
switches= /f
with this u have a boot menu win, dos, linux
try it
it's fast :)
cu
cem aydin
------------------------------
From: "Rob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Apache Setup
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 18:49:32 -0400
This is what I would ultimately like to setup, it shouldnt be too hard, I
think I am just running into some permissions issues. I am using RH6 with
Apache 1.3.1
1. Setup UserDir so host.domain.com/~username works. I have created a
public_html directory and placed an index.html in the directory, but I
always get "Forbidden You don't have permission to access /~username on
this server." as an error.
2. Setup a Virtual Domain such as host2.domain.com or
host.otherdomain.com. This is simple, I have this working, but I want to
give a user permission to ftp to upload only to the virtual domain
directory, but have no other permissions to run amok looking around the
server. The virtual domains need to be able to run cgi also.
Its always the simplest fixes that are the most mind boggling, any help or
direction would be appreciated.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Subject: Re: Should I use Linux or Windows?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 16:15:26 -0500
Here in comp.os.linux.misc, "Mark Leung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spake unto us, saying:
>I'm just wondering if I should install Linux. I'll need to buy a new hard
>disk to install it. Besides reliability and not being Microsoft, what are
>the real benefits of it?
If you're not aware of the benefits of using Linux at this point, then
it might not be a good idea for you to play with it.
The care and feeding of a multi-user OS like Linux is somewhat more
complex than a single-user OS like Windows, and you will find almost
immediately that Linux will require a lot of learning (and unlearning)
on your part, at least if you want to use it safely and effectively.
You can learn some basic information about Linux from this site:
http://sunsite.auc.dk/linux-newbie/index.htm
In a nutshell, Linux is a free Unix-like operating system. It's very
useful for a number of tasks, and can certainly be used as a desktop OS
in lieu of Windows, but if you're expecting that Linux is some sort of
drop-in Windows replacement, you mgiht end up being disappointed.
I guess it depends on your expectations. :-)
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux + BeOS + FreeBSD + Solaris + WinNT4 + Win95 + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
Tagline!
------------------------------
From: Ray O'Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: amount of modems in linux...
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 14:29:23 -0500
Chris Mahmood wrote:
>
> Leonard Evens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Put the Winmodem in
> > some other computer running only Windows or sell/give it away.
> Better yet, sharpen the edges and throw it ninja-style at the clerk
> who sold it to you.
>
> Hare: An Abelian group?
*LOL* !!!
------------------------------
From: Bruce Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie
Date: 05 Sep 1999 22:02:21 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lizard) writes:
> OK, finally managed to get Linux (Redhat 6.0) installed on my PC *and*
> seeing my SDSL line (the last was the tricksy bit). Ah, at last! I shall be
> free of the eternally crashing Windows OS and the tyranny of Chairman Bill!
> Liberty shall be mine!
>
> Er...maybe.
>
> First off, I must be some sort of God of System Failure, as 'crashproof'
> Linux bombed on me with Gatesian frequency. A few samples:
> a)When I installed my ethernet card (using linuxconf). It nicely installed,
> and I could then 'ping' anywhere I wanted, proving I was on the net, DNS
> was working, etc. Tried to launch Netscape. Nothing happened. Tried some
> other apps. Nothing happened. Tried to logout (this is all under Gnome,
> BTW). Nothing happened. No windows could open, it seemed. Finally had to do
> a power-down to get out of it.
Netscape has some sort of font problem which is fixable. Gnome has
stability problems that aren't fixable. Use a better, simpler window
manager or, if you need drag-n-drop and stuff like that, use KDE.
Gnome will be better in the future.
None of these things have anything to do with the stability of Linux.
> b)Installed 'metacard' (a hypercard clone) off the Redhat applications CD.
> Tried to run the demo. My screen went black and my mouse decided to move to
> the lefthand side of the screen without my hand being on it. Charming.
> Again, power-down was the only solution. (I did get the application to run,
> but I've been afraid to try the demo since then.)
It sounds like you have video problems. Unlike Windows, the
integration between the kernel and the video system is remote. You
can screw up your video and the kernel keeps chugging away. Try
telnetting into your machine from your network and killing X.
> c)Not quite a crash, but several times, when I have tried to go to a page
> that 404s under netscape, netscape just closes down. Charming again. (Go to
> the Linuxberg page, go to Gnome software, go to Newsreaders, click on the
> first one, it's the only 5-penguin product. Try to go to the home page.
> Kaboom!)
Netscape /= linux.
> d)A few other crashes, I forget the circumstances. Rather than the robust
> he-man operating system I was expecting, I find I am terrified to do
> anything, for fear of having to reboot yet again. (At least when Windows
> crashes, it displays a dialog box TELLING you it has crashed. Linux just
> sits there, taunting you.) (I know, I know, "I kept my Linux box running
> for 14 months and it only stopped because the local power plant exploded."
> But let me guess -- it was running as a server, happily chugging through a
> limited set of routines. It didn't actually have a real human being
> pounding on it, running dubious shareware, mucking with config files, etc,
> did it? Aha. Didn't think so.)
No. My Linux system is installed on a laptop. It has travelled with
me throughout North America and coexists with a bunch of Windows
machines on a network. I use it as a workstation, not as a server.
The reason I use Linux is because I don't have to reboot it. Ever. I
get to work, connect the network cable and bring up the network. At
the end of the workday, I bring down the network, disconnect the
cable, suspend the machine and take it with me. Everything, even
Netscape, is reasonably stable and the system never goes down.
> Now, on to software. First off, has anyone thought of putting in the
> INSTALL text file words to the effect of "you better untar this from /,
> otherwise, you'll end up creating a zillion useless directories where you
> don't want them because there's no way to tell tar to go to the root to
> start?" Apparently not. Do not assume your users intuitively know where
> software is 'supposed' to go, especially if they've been trained on OSes
> that don't give a damn.
I suggest using Midnight Commander to peer inside the tarballs. You
can check the directory structure that way.
Windows, on the other hand, scatters executables and libraries all
over the filesystem. Installer programs overwrite .dll files that are
relied on by other applications. This is one of the reasons Windows
is less stable.
> First task, of course, is to find a decent newsreader. It appears there
> aren't any, at least if I want to use something a little more
> sophisiticated than trn, tin, slrn, or other 'cat walking on the keyboard'
> inspired names. Those were lovely in 1980. This is almost 2000. I couldn't
> find anything under X to compare with Newswatcher on the Mac or Free Agent
> under Windows. Ditto, nothing to match Eudora for mail.
I've used all of those programs and found them frustrating. No
windows program (except the windows versions of slrn and emacs/gnus)
has the power and flexibility of slrn or gnus for handling news. Gnus
has the advantage of being able to integrate mail with news, giving
you a single set of keystrokes, the same powerful scoring (even
adaptive scoring). They're well-behaved, they're good net citizens
(no html gobbledegook), and much, much more efficient in dealing with
large quantities of mail and large newsgroups. Do you really prefer
to point and click?
> Of course, of the software I did find, I couldn't get any of it to run. I
> attempted to install Doom (shareware version) and Gnomehack (A gnome-
> enabled version of nethack).
>
> Doom:Untarred it into my home directory. Discovered that it really wanted
> to be untarred from the root directory. Tried to copy it there, found out I
> had to BE root to copy it to \, su'ed to root, tried it again, untarred it,
> tried to run it...got some random 'file not found' error.
Did you read the instructions that came with it? It works fine here,
but it does have to be run as root.
> Gnomehack:More-or-less the same phenomenon. Addendum:The INSTALL file for
> nethack tells you that, when you're done, to just type 'nethack' and play!
> Unfortunately, it doesn't tell you the nethack executable is buried in the
> src directory. It also didn't work.
Was this a gnome problem? Try installing the non-gnome version.
> Thus far, this has been inauspicious. I'm not giving up -- I know most of
> my problems are due more to newbie cluelessness than OS problems, and I
> intend to dive in to man pages, documentation, etc, in order to figure out
> what I'm doing wrong. But there's plenty of people who won't make the
> effort, and, if you REALLY want to unseat Chairman Bill, you've got to
> think about them.
Nothing you wrote really involved an OS problem. Some were
distribution problems. Redhat 6.0 has been criticised by many users
for not being ready when it was shipped. Netscape isn't as stable as
it should be. But none of these things go to the quality of the
kernel.
Try to start simply. Install a version of Linux but switch from gnome
to windowmaker or something like that. Install WordPerfect and/or
Applix if you want word processing. Learn to use slrn. Set up some
mail folders using procmail and learn how well pine can work.
All of these things are easily done.
> A few suggestions, mostly random:
> Why the SMEG does X write output to STDOUT when you can't SEE it until you
> leave X? At the very least, the user should have the option of all error
> messages being written to an X Terminal visible on their desktop. There's
> nothing like shutting down X and seeing a screenful of error messages which
> would have been a lot more helpful to know about WHEN I GENERATED THEM!
xconsole.
> If you are going to have a taskbar at the bottom of the screen, make sure
> the applications know it is there. Maximizing Netscape hides the taskbar,
> for example. For that matter, clicking on the various task buttons (like,
> to bring up one of my terminals) just plays a pretty 'boing' sound. I have
> to manually minimize windows to find the one I want. So what's the point?
> (Maybe some error message was displayed...on the text screen I can't see
> 'cause I'm running X!)
Some things under X are clunky. But haven't you had some of the same
problems under Windows?
> Is it just me, or is X rather, uhm, sluggish? I have a PII 400 and the
> whole GUI felt like it was running in molasses. Is there some 'trick' to
> speeding it up?
If you're using gnome, X will be slow. Try something lighter such as
windowmaker.
> 'Samegnome' is disturbingly addictive.
KDE has something similar. The addiction will pass.
> Directories do not need version names, especially for enduser apps.
> 'FooBar1.01-45A-intel-linux-2.0' is a *stupid* name for a directory. (Or a
> file, for that matter). Since the Macintosh, which also permits very long
> file names, is NOT afflicted with this sort of nonsense, I don't see why
> Linux has to be.
This is a feature, not a bug. With the filename completion you can
have under bash, it's really not much of a problem, and you can always
set up a script to run what you want to run.
> More rants as the situation warrents. BTW, how good is CodeWarrior as an
> IDE? I used it on the mac and loved it, and it's for sale cheap for Linux
> at my local CompUSA...recommendations/condemnations welcome.
I have no idea.
--
Bruce Schultz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: aydincem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Should I use Linux or Windows?
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 21:00:43 +0200
Mark Leung wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm just wondering if I should install Linux. I'll need to buy a new hard
> disk to install it. Besides reliability and not being Microsoft, what are
> the real benefits of it? There seems to be a shortage of software for it,
> for example apps like Quicken, Bryce 3D, games and drivers for scanners and
> LS-120 drives. All the windows programs that have an equivelant for Linux
> are not as good (for example, Office 2000 vs StarOffice). I would like to
> switch completely to Linux if the software support was better. So, should I
> install linux?
hi,
i switched to linux half a year ago, and now i'm really happy with it.
but at the beginning i had some difficulties and i spent a lot of time
into trying out things that would be easy in win, for example: in linux,
i had to guess the i/o port of my network card so i spent an evening,
typing in numbers from 200 to 400 (maybe there would be an better way),
in win it was easy to install it.
now my suggestion is try it, but if u want to work with it seriously,
buy a good book and read it :). and make a dual boot.
cu
cem aydin
------------------------------
From: Dale Woodside <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,aus.computers.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,linux.dev.laptop,linux.dev.x11,linux.redhat,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: Laptop X config
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 08:45:11 +1100
Marko wrote:
>
> I've got a Dell latitude CPi 400 with NeoMagic 2160 (128 bit)
> 2Mb video memory card.
>
> I've just installed RedHat 6.0 on to it with XFree86 v 3.3.3.1
> and I can not get it to work.
>
> I've tried so many things that I'm not going to list them all.
> PS I can get it to work in 640 X 480.
>
I assume you must have already looked at the "Linux on Laptops"
home page at:
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kharker/linux-laptop/
A number of Dell Latitude CPi laptops are listed. One of those
setups may work.
Sorry if one of the many newsgroups you have cross posted to
has already suggested this.
Dale
------------------------------
From: Spike! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HELP EAST TIMOR
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 23:49:52 +0100
And verily, didst Armando Duarte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> eloquently scribe:
Not a lot...
Don't tell me they're having linux problems on top of everything else?
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
==============================================================================
|GCv3.12 GCS>$ d-(dpu) s+/- a C++ US++ P L/L+ E-- W+ N++ o+ K PS+ w-- M+/++ |
|PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ X+/X++ R+ tv+ b+ DI+ D+ G e++ h/h+ !r!| Space for hire |
------------------------------
From: "Byron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 23:30:59 GMT
Paul 'Z' Ewande� <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7quvg8$blc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> kozmos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
> 7qtsnj$s7q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
> > y) Linux in not yet ready for stupid win9x users (my opinion), it has
far
>
> Hmmm, yeah, right. There are people who have other center of interest than
> computers. Some people really don't give a damn about how the computer
> works. They just want the thing to work.
>
> I'm not sure that you know everything about neurosurgey or molecular
> biochemistry.
>
Just a point I'd like to bring up:
I don't consider your examples of neurosurgery and biochemistry to be MY
primary centers of interest. But, I don't insist that I be able to cut open
people's brains or engineer the latest drug without knowing a damned thing
about what I'm doing either. For whatever reason, people think computers
are different in this way; that they should be able to do whatever they want
to with them without taking the time to learn a damned thing. "But
computers enhance everyday tasks" people say. Yes, they do. But so what?
Most any other specialized field does too. Why should we dumb down this
field just so Joe User can feel important too? I really don't think most
people are so stupid they could not learn the basics of computing, I think
they're just too fucking lazy and would rather expect miracles to happen
than take some time to learn what the hell they are doing. Why should life
be made any easier on people like this? I just don't understand the
rationale. As long as it makes big corporations rich, it (i.e., marketing
these things to the masses) must be right, nevermind how much everything
else gets dumbed down. This is why I love Linux so much, it represents a
step in the right direction; that of personal responsibility. Look at the
people who have the most problems with Linux. Do you personally know anyone
in this situation? I do. None of them are the type of person that finds
out what they are getting into before they jump into it, and prepares
themselves accordingly. None of them are willing to use a damned 'man' (or
a Web or a Usenet search) command before screaming to me for help, just to
have me show them how easily the info could have been found. No, computers
should not be arbitrarily difficult, but after a certain point there should
be some balance between inherent ease-of-use and user competence, instead of
ease-of-use tipping the scales in its direction to make up for so much
incompetence.
I will give a further example. I am not a 'car person', if you will, or
interested whatsoever in becoming a mechanic. I am not the sort of person
who could take apart a car engine and put it back together, etc. But, if I
am going to spend thousands of dollars for a machine that I will need to use
everyday, you're damned right I am going to take the time to learn the
basics of how it works and how it is maintained. Again, I cannot take apart
an engine without completely fucking it up, but I know how the engine works,
what it (what my own) can and cannot handle, how to maintain it and the
other subsystems (such as brakes, oil, transmission, battery acid levels,
antifreeze, etc etc.). Why? Because I understand that if you are going to
invest money in a rather complex machine, you must also invest time into
understanding how to maintain it and some of the basics of how it works.
Again, I am not at all interested in cars, not the way a mechanic is, nor do
I like to work under the hood (too much grease etc for me) but I know how to
do the basics because I'll be damned if I am going to invest in something
and not at least learn that much about it. I ask you, why is it that when a
newbie buys a computer, he does not do the same? Why can he not be bothered
to do this? There are classes, books, other users, online references,
manuals, help files, readme files, there is SOME resource he could use to
better his knowledge. I can come up with no other reason than laziness.
Byron
------------------------------
From: Jorge Ravazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,redhat.general
Subject: help with octave
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 23:31:09 GMT
hi ! does anyone there knows about some function similar to �stem.m � (for
matlab) to use with octave and gnuplot? I already tried copying the source
of stem into the octave path but it didn�t work.I�m trying not to use w95
and I really need this program for signal processing at de University
Thank you very much.
================== Posted via CNET Linux Help ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: Kertis Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Should I use Linux or Windows?
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 17:04:17 -0400
Mark Leung wrote:
>
> I'm just wondering if I should install Linux. I'll need to buy a new hard
> disk to install it. Besides reliability and not being Microsoft, what are
> the real benefits of it? There seems to be a shortage of software for it,
> for example apps like Quicken, Bryce 3D, games and drivers for scanners and
> LS-120 drives. All the windows programs that have an equivelant for Linux
> are not as good (for example, Office 2000 vs StarOffice). I would like to
> switch completely to Linux if the software support was better. So, should I
> install linux?
For a long time, I ran both Windows 95 and Slackware on the same
machine. (I also ran NT for a while.) I used Linux about 90% of the
time. When there WAS a need to use Windows (usually for a video game),
I just rebooted into Windows. I now have two computers. I run RedHat
on one, and Windows 98 on the other. So, I'm still using both. It
works out pretty well.
StarOffice is rather buggy. When it does work without crashing, it does
everything that I need to do. As far as other Windows apps go, you can
run quite a few of them through WINE.
--
Kertis Henderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Lev Babiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Freetype and StarOffice
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 18:46:35 -0400
bd wrote:
>
> Just got RH6 and installed StarOffice. It desperately needs truetype
> fonts. I found freetype and it is installed but the doc says something
> about it being a lib and not a font server. So how do I activate
> freetype so that all apps can use them, in particurrly StarOffice.
You can't use freetype for that afaik. Check out xftt (I think) which is
a font server for true type fonts.
- Lev
--
==============================================================================
"I don't think Microsoft is | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
evil in itself; I just think they |
make really crappy | irc: CrazyLion, #linuxlounge @ EFnet
operating systems." |
- Linus Torvalds | Linux forever!
==============================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles M)
Subject: Re: Distributions RH, Suse, Mandrake
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:03:46 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> > than with Suse.
>
> SuSE uses RPM as well. Red Hat just tends to put things in awkward,
> non-standard places, but Red Hat rpms will work with SuSE....
I've noticed mention of this before and I'm curious. While I've been a
Unix user for a long time, it wasn't until Linux that I've had to delve
into administration. Just what does Redhat do that is so non-standard and
what or who determines where the standard places are?
CMM
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
