Linux-Setup Digest #902, Volume #20 Sat, 24 Mar 01 19:13:17 EST
Contents:
Re: Can you retrieve headers with fetchmail? (Michael Heiming)
vmware 2.0.3 (Dan)
Mandrake 8.0 Beta 1 won't boot (John Emmerling)
Re: more RAM => increase SWAP also ? (Juergen Heinzl)
Re: Can you retrieve headers with fetchmail? (Bernie)
Re: dialup box (Matt Haley)
Mounting a floppy... ("Allan")
Re: Mounting a floppy... (Michael Heiming)
Re: SuSe Linux 7.2 or Redhat??? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: linux wLAN problem (Thomas Waldmann)
JAVA programming, system clock etc ("Thomas G.")
Re: how to disable the rlogin auto-logout feature? (Seetamraju Uday Bhaskar Sarma)
Re: identd ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Linux <scream>Frustration!</scream> ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: SuSe Linux 7.2 or Redhat??? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Suse vs RH/Mandrake ? (or what's so great about 7.2) (John Hong)
Re: SuSe Linux 7.2 or Redhat??? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
lpr problem (adeon)
Re: SuSe Linux 7.2 or Redhat??? (Michael Perry)
Re: SuSe Linux 7.2 or Redhat??? (Hal Burgiss)
Re: Install printer (Michael Perry)
Re: SuSe Linux 7.2 or Redhat??? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: SuSe Linux 7.2 or Redhat??? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why people are doing that? (CiberWolf)
Re: Best E-mail Client? (Grant Edwards)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 21:11:02 +0100
From: Michael Heiming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can you retrieve headers with fetchmail?
Michael Heiming wrote:
>
> Bernie wrote:
> >
> > Is it possible to retrieve the headers from a POP3 server
> > using fetchmail? Using the following command, I can retrieve
> > the number of messages from the server:
> >
>
> Hello,
>
> there is a small perl script which can do this and more,
> search freshmeat.net.
err...it's called poppy
Michael Heiming
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 15:30:51 -0500
From: Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: vmware 2.0.3
hi all,
I run redhat 7.0 on SMP, and I'm having some sort of trouble with the
vmware-config.pl working with my autoconf.h, I was told that I can
comment out few lines with SMP on it in vmware-config.pl, but I forgot
what those lines are.
Can anyone help?
-dan
------------------------------
From: John Emmerling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mandrake 8.0 Beta 1 won't boot
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 14:50:54 -0500
Hi,
I realize it's just a beta, but after installing the Mandrake 8.0 beta
1 I am unable to boot it. Actually I am certain the boot loader is
set up correctly, but when booting, I see about a screenful of
hardware messages, the last of which give information about the 2
physical drives:
hda: <etc.>
hdb: <etc.>
Following this there are no further messages and no audible disk I/O.
The only clue is an error message (which by its wording would seem
non-fatal, but it's all I have to go on):
"Drive 1 didn't accept speed setting. Oh, well"
Drive 1 is I guess the 2nd drive which is where Mandrake is installed
(but I'm not certain of this). It is actually on an extended
partition. I had previously installed Red Hat 5.1 to the same
partition with no problems. I did however wipe this partition before
installing Mandrake 8.0 beta.
As I have convinced myself that nothing is wrong with the boot setup,
I would like to know if there is anything else I should try (I am
thinking in terms of a BIOS tweak). Am I likely to have the same
problem with Beta 2? The (forthcoming) production release?
Thanks in advance!
--John Emmerling
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juergen Heinzl)
Subject: Re: more RAM => increase SWAP also ?
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 20:38:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, J-Pip wrote:
>Virtual memory is supposed to give an illusion of a very large amount of
>memory.
>Now, on a home PC, is it sensible to create a SWAP partition of size twice
>the amount of RAM when I have like 256MB ?
[-]
It's a rule of thumb and the reasons are technical ones but Linux, as others,
doesn't swap anyway, actually. It pages, which is more space and time efficient
anyway.
>Isn't there a point where we indeed have a _very large amount of memory_ and
>don't need the _illusion_ anymore ?
[-]
Yes, sure.
>It makes sense, for a home PC, to have 128MB of swap for 64MB of RAM ...
>or 256MB for 128MB of RAM. But beyond that, is there any benefit to
>allocating a SWAP space greater than the amount of RAM ?
[-]
Swap space can make your machine run more efficient, actually. E.g. quite
a few processed don't need to hang around all the time like those getty's
or daemons that run once a day or so.
After an upgrade I've 128MB + 2 * 64MB now, which is fine with me and given
the costs of disks nowadays I can't see a reason not to have one or two
swap partitions.
Ta',
Juergen
--
\ Real name : Juergen Heinzl \ no flames /
\ EMail Private : [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ send money instead /
------------------------------
From: Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can you retrieve headers with fetchmail?
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 21:03:08 GMT
mak wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bernie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is it possible to retrieve the headers from a POP3 server using
> > fetchmail?
>
> yes, it is.
Okay, I give up...How do you do this with fetchmail?
-Bernie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Haley)
Subject: Re: dialup box
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 21:10:31 -0000
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:40:09 -0600,
David Punsalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On my RH6.1 dialup box,
> I always get some error about "cannot resolve: localhost" when I startx
> so... I put in the line "127.0.0.1 localhost" in my /etc/hosts file (as I
> read somewhere is the right thing to do)
> But that didn't help. Now sendmail always prolongs my boot time and also
> fails (not that I use it).
Put this:
127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost
--
Matt Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian 2.2r2 ==========>| Superior package management.
RedHat Linux 6.1 ======>| Easily configured.
FreeBSD 4.2 ===========>| Hardcore.
Windows ME ============>| Games.
------------------------------
From: "Allan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Mounting a floppy...
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 21:16:05 GMT
Theoretical Question:
If I already have a /mnt/cdrom/ and a /mnt/floppy/ directory, WHY do
I have to go and manually MOUNT them for them to work? (Wouldn't you think
the installation install it?)
Practical Question:
I read how to mount my CDROM from my RedHat Reference book. But how do I
mount my floppy? I can't find the floppy in the /dev/ directory. I don't
know any great command prompt command to find it. HELP! Where is the floppy
located in the directory tree? Do I need the "iso..." file system command as
in the CD ROM?...
- Allan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 22:46:36 +0100
From: Michael Heiming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mounting a floppy...
Allan wrote:
>
> Theoretical Question:
> If I already have a /mnt/cdrom/ and a /mnt/floppy/ directory, WHY do
> I have to go and manually MOUNT them for them to work? (Wouldn't you think
> the installation install it?)
This is UNIX, honestly there is something like automount available, but I don't
know, as I never had any need for something like this.
>
> Practical Question:
> I read how to mount my CDROM from my RedHat Reference book. But how do I
> mount my floppy? I can't find the floppy in the /dev/ directory. I don't
> know any great command prompt command to find it. HELP! Where is the floppy
> located in the directory tree? Do I need the "iso..." file system command as
> in the CD ROM?...
mount -t auto /dev/fd0 /floppy/
will mount the first floppy disc to /floppy on my SuSE system.
For more info.
man mount
ln -s /dev/fd0 /dev/floppy
will create a symlink, this way you can type:
mount -t auto /dev/floppy /floppy/
Do you expect an iso9660 file system on a floppy?
I don't, I use -t auto, which will determine the correct file system auto
magically,
cause I tend to use different ones on floppy.
typing mount afterwards without any arguments will show you...
Good luck
Michael Heiming
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: SuSe Linux 7.2 or Redhat???
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 21:50:16 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Smith) �crivait/wrote:
>> Red Hat and Mandrake opted to develop their own compiler from the 2.96
>> development compiler. It's not and never will be a standard compiler.
>>
>> This manoeuvre stinks big times! Stay away from Red Hat and Mandrake!
>
>I don't believe this is true of Mandrake.
Don't think, just check!
http://www.mandrakeforum.com/article.php3?sid=20010301105748#Q2
Zhero man
--
La Masse Critique
Rencontrez N�fertiti, Einstein, Tocqueville, etc.
Qu'est-ce que le sionisme?
http://pages.infinit.net/mcrit/sionisme.html
------------------------------
From: Thomas Waldmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: linux wLAN problem
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 22:49:25 +0000
> computer is compaq desktop2000 133mhz.
> os. RedHat 6.2 zoot, ISA-to-PCMCIA adapter with Lucent Wlan IEEE card.
> i have installed latest wlan drivers and pcmcia package.
> problem: card appear to be configured right, when I restart pcmcia card
> gives two high beebs, but if i look up ifconfig, it don�t regonize cards
> MAC address. I have tried to almost evrything, but nothing seems to solve
> this problem. my network configurations is on website:
> http://aus.50megs.com/problem.html , could you check it out if you find
> what is wrong in my configurations. thanks.
Obviously it tries to load the wavelan2_cs driver.
I recently did a setup at a customer's site and successfully used the
wvlan_cs driver (that's a different one!).
I had to fiddle a bit around in /etc/pcmcia (don't remember exactly, but I
think I did remove this wavelan2_cs stuff and then it worked).
I used a PCMCIA-to-PCI adaptor, but I think this makes no difference.
The card was a Lucent Orinoco Silver PCMCIA.
Thomas
------------------------------
From: "Thomas G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: JAVA programming, system clock etc
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 22:51:30 +0200
Hello fellow Linux users,
Assuming that you are all much more professional than I am, I'd like to ask
a few questions....
First of all, at my college, the people there have configured emacs in such
a way that if you are programming a java file or writing an html file in it,
all the tags get a specific color. Also when you press ctrl-x ctrl-e, Emacs
automatically starts to compile the program you wrote and shows the
compiler-error messages in a second lower frame in emacs. I figured out they
did this by using some scripts. No use asking them how to do it. They never
have time to explain. Does anybody know how to do this?
Second, I've updated the aaa_base from the SuSE 7.1 updates, but now my
system clock gets set 3 1/2 hours off everytime I start Linux. Does anybody
know how to fix this?
Thanx a lot if you can help me,
Thom.
------------------------------
From: Seetamraju Uday Bhaskar Sarma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how to disable the rlogin auto-logout feature?
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 22:16:40 GMT
in C-SHell
set autologout=0
"Richard R. Drake" wrote:
> I'm running red hat linux 7 and keep getting auto logged out when i'm
> away from my desk for a certain period of time. anybody know how to
> disable the timeout?
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: identd
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 19:02:12 +0100
Wayne Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the point of identd? It doesn't seem reasonable
It's an authentification mechanism.
> to me that a server would be able to rely on information returned from
It doesn't rely on it. It just knows that if the client disavows
knowledge of the process doing the outcall, then something is very
wrong.
> a remote host's identd, which could be configured to return anything,
> right?
Right.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Linux <scream>Frustration!</scream>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 18:59:38 +0100
In comp.os.linux.setup Laura Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thumper wrote:
>>
>> I was using that as a response that newbies get a lot. I avoid a recompile
>> like the plague when I can..:) But will do it when I have to.
> Speaking of recompiling, isn't there a groovy way to rerun the automatic
> hardware detection that runs at first install, instead of having to muck
Eh? Hardware detection? What? Is this something to do with mandrake???
> through all the hardware config by hand? If not, ding-dong it, there
You don't have to configure any hardware by hand when compiling the
kernel. Choose some large set of modules, compile them, then whenever
you feel like it, load a driver that appeals to you.
I think you are suggesting some sort of tie-up between hardware as
it is on your machine and compile choices in the kernel? What would be
the point? I guess maybe you might save a tiny bit of disk space ocupied
by modules by only "compiling on demand", but you'd lose the 60MB of
space the kernel sources take up (is it that?)!
Seems a non-functioning way to gain a couple of meg of space to me.
I think you're really asking "what is the name of mandrakes hardware
detection and setup utility". Something like drakconf, or harddrake,
as I recall ;-).
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: SuSe Linux 7.2 or Redhat???
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 23:45:47 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Smith) 'ecrivait/wrote:
>>> Red Hat and Mandrake opted to develop their own compiler from the 2.96
>>> development compiler. It's not and never will be a standard compiler.
>>> This manoeuvre stinks big times! Stay away from Red Hat and Mandrake!
> Don't think, just check!
> http://www.mandrakeforum.com/article.php3?sid=20010301105748#Q2
This is very bad. The motive is clear .. they want to continue to be
able to steal stuff of of red hat. So RH's manoever in going for an
incompatible compiler hasn't managed to shake the flea.
The link you quote is sickening in its mendacity. It's been written by
a lying publicity person who could say anything and make it sound
positive.
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hong)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Suse vs RH/Mandrake ? (or what's so great about 7.2)
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 22:34:00 +0000 (UTC)
peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I've heard great things about the new Suse distro., but I was told by
>someone that I should use the same distro that I use at work. At work
>we use Red Hat, at home I just setup Mandrake 7.1, but everyone says
>the new Suse distro is good and also Mandrake 7.2 is good.
In my opinion, if you are comparing between Red Hat/Mandrake to
SuSE, stay with Red Hat/Mandrake. SuSE has recently been becoming more of
a commercial distribution with little willingness to put out any GPL'ed
versions of their version of Linux. The only ISO they have available for
anyone to download is a live evaluation one, meaning, you boot into Linux
from the CDROM, but you can't actually install it into your computer.
That is not to say that it is a bad distribution, it is in fact
quite good. However, Red Hat and Mandrake both still release GPL'ed
versions of their distributions that one can install into their machines.
If you are already familiar with Red Hat/Mandrake, then there is little
reason to go with SuSE.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: SuSe Linux 7.2 or Redhat???
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 23:14:00 GMT
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> �crivait/wrote:
>This is very bad. The motive is clear .. they want to continue to be
>able to steal stuff of of red hat.
I'm not sure. I would rather think that Red Hat and Mandrake are
synched on the same compiler.
>The link you quote is sickening in its mendacity. It's been written by
>a lying publicity person who could say anything and make it sound
>positive.
I definitly stinks. MandrakeExpert pay-as-you learn scheme stinks too.
Mandrake's backed by AXA and... who knows who? Maybe Microsoft.
Keep your hands clean. Go for Debian!
Zhero Man
------------------------------
From: adeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: lpr problem
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 00:12:32 +0000
Hi all
When I try to print anything on my printer I'm getting following mail from
halt@localhost user:
Your printer job (job_name)
was not printed because it was not linked to the original file
Does anyone know where the problem is?
My printer works (for example echo aaa>/dev/lp0 prints 3 a), and /etc/printcap
is correctly set by apsfilter. I have got Slackware 7.1
adeon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Perry)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: SuSe Linux 7.2 or Redhat???
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 23:30:16 -0000
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:53:31 GMT, Scot Mc Pherson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If you are planning on workstations, I would suggest SuSE because they have
>tweaked some nice stuff in the desktop environment. I used to like RedHat
>for this environment but the latest version has got some problems.
>
>For Servers I would suggest Debian or if you have some experience or aren;t
>afraid to dive in, get Slackware...
>
>
>RedHat used to be really great in my opinion, but the latest version has
>given me loads of trouble...If you like redhat, use version 6.2 for server
>environments.
>
>Workstations SuSE & RedHat
>
>Servers and Routers Debian and Slackware.
>
>--
>Scot Mc Pherson
>N27� 19' 56"
>W82� 30' 39"
>
>
>
So, my take is:
Workstations Debian; then SuSE
Servers Debian and Slackware
Debian offers everything now including kde, gnome, current Xfree86, current
kernels. It works on the desktop. It works pretty well on my laptop, and it
definitely works in a server closet or as a firewall/nat box. The unstable
tree is fun to say the least. Watching thousands of debian maintainers
offer new code, running the latest on nice hardware, makes life good. Of
course, there is always apt-get which makes it even better :).
And if you fail to get challenged yet. Just tame the mighty debian
installer beast :)
--
Michael Perry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hal Burgiss)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: SuSe Linux 7.2 or Redhat???
Reply-To: Hal Burgiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Mar 2001 18:34:43 -0500
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 23:14:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Keep your hands clean. Go for Debian!
>
No thanks. Not to start a flame war, but I would never consider changing
to Debian. Why? Certainly not for technical reasons. I am sure it is a
great distro. Certainly has some great people involved, and some great
ideas behind it. But it also has the 'my shit doesn't stink and yours
does' crowd too. And a number of FUD artists as well, who spend oh so
much time knocking someone else down, just to make themselves look
taller.
--
Hal B
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Perry)
Subject: Re: Install printer
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 23:35:15 -0000
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 20:06:31 +0100, Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tom Simms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A newbie question.
>
>> Is there an easy way to install a printer when X windows is not installed so
>
>What's the big deal with adding the entry to the printcap yourself?
>The fomat is simplistic. Look at the Printing-HOWTO if you need it.
>
>> Struggling with RH 7 and a Hp Pavillion N5290 laptop.
>
>I believe that uses lprNG, which is another kettle of whales.
>
>Peter
My belief is that lprng is not terribly difficult to get right. If you
visit the lprng homepage you can see some of the utilities that the lprng
developers have made available to help you check status, ensure that the
installation is okay, etc. I use lprng both locally and to queue jobs from
another debian box to a box with a printer hanging off the parallel port.
No big problems besides understanding how printing works in Linux. You can
web off to the linuxprinting.org site and read all about it!
--
Michael Perry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: SuSe Linux 7.2 or Redhat???
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 23:41:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Perry) �crivait/wrote:
>And if you fail to get challenged yet. Just tame the mighty debian
>installer beast :)
With Potato, it's not such a beast anymore... unless you care much for
graphic interfaces that go wrong all the time. As far as I'm
concerned, even fdisk is very plain to use. �h� for help, you know.
Graphic interfaces don't tell you one more word about which partitions
you should create whereas Debian users will... without any �Expert�
fees.
Zhero Man.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: SuSe Linux 7.2 or Redhat???
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 23:45:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hal Burgiss) �crivait/wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 23:14:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>>Keep your hands clean. Go for Debian!
>>
>
>No thanks. Not to start a flame war, but I would never consider changing
>to Debian. Why? Certainly not for technical reasons. I am sure it is a
>great distro. Certainly has some great people involved, and some great
>ideas behind it. But it also has the 'my shit doesn't stink and yours
>does' crowd too. And a number of FUD artists as well, who spend oh so
>much time knocking someone else down, just to make themselves look
>taller.
What if you ignore all this? I'd rather have it than Mandrake's stupid
�hear my bells ring� gingles while they're branching off.
Zhero
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CiberWolf)
Subject: Re: Why people are doing that?
Date: 24 Mar 2001 23:36:28 GMT
In article <9968pp$2b7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>I can't really understand why people want to
>spend 5 or 10 hours trying to get a device
>working on linux since there is no help whatsoever
>for it, while it only takes half an hour to get it
>working on Windows? Isn't that a great waste of
>personal life as well as social resources? Does it
>really make sense for computer industry to go back
>to squre one and try to recreate a wheel which we
>already have now? Do people really believe that
>an OS which requires all of its users to know how
>to use makefile can go that far? After all, even
>primitive DOS 1.0 doesn't require me to graduate
>with a CS degree first before I start using it?
>If a resource requires so much background knowledge
>before anyone can really use it, then what's the
>difference does it make compares to not having the
>resource at all?
>Can someone give some reasonable and inspirational
>answers for the above questions?
To your first metaphore of recreating the wheel consider the following.
In mathematics, yes you do have to recreat the wheel every time. That is that
whene we learn theories, we must proove those theories as well, even though
someone else has already prooven the thoery long before you have taken up the
task of learning the material. I think it great that we recreat the wheel as
you say for two reasons. One we don't have to accept that it works on someone
elses word, I see for myself that it does work, and most importantly how and
why, which is the second reason. This is so because knowing why something is
so I see better what it means, and it becomes a increadibly far more powerful
tool to me. So you ask why do we reinvent the wheel, its is simple so we can
understand the wheel better and find new ways to use the wheel and ways in
which we can not use the wheel.
Secondly this is not all a wast of time. Especially if you consider how much
time I have sent trying to install software that inherintly contains faults,
and on top of that poor integration of applications further perpetuating the
unstable environment, I and many like me will spend more time reinstalling,
rebooting and staring at frozen screens (which ironically are more often the
screens that are suposed to inform you of iminent crashes), than I do at
actuall work. Further, if I can find an OS with aplications designed to
optimize the speed I get with my CPU, and not a drain on resources that force
me to upgrade my system so that I can get things done in reasonable time, this
too would be worth a little fiddling and research. So I justify the time I
spend getting my hardware to work on Linux, because it still does not come
close to the amount of time I hace spent trying to get a Windows system to
work, and even more importatly, my time will be spent creating better work,
rather than inferior work that is the result of not haveing a working os when I
needed one.
As for background knowledge, you need it no matter what you are using. A
farmer does not start plowing a field without first knowing how a plow works.
To use a tool fully it is necassary to know how that tool works, what it is
designed to do. Granted in computers for a large number of people it not
possible to understand the thoery of why a transistor or a capacitor or a
resistor does what it does, it is to their advantage to know that a coputer
works on electicity (which I hope is obviouse about computers) and that what
they do is take take input data, which it understands in terms of electrical
signals and change that data according to rules described in the programs that
are run on the computer. You don't however need to have a CS degree (I
certainly don't). There is a reason though to know more deeply how something
works. Computers in some ways can be like cars, if you don't know how they
work when you take them to the shop it is much easier for the mechanic to
convince you he did work that was needed, which in fact was neither needed nor
compleated. Hence you become a slave, a slave to your ingnorance, the masters
of which are those who are the once convincing you that they know how
everything works. That they will take care that you will not have to worry
about anything about your computer, just use it the way they tell you to use
it. Soon you will find, or rather will not find, because everyone convinced
you not to think about it, but you no longer actually have your computer, all
information about what is on your computer, what programs you use, how often
you use them, personal information keept in files on you computer can be seen
by any who know how to exploit security holes, or even may be purposfully
transmitted to a monitoring station(a POSSIBLITY!). No one did not need to be
a computer specialist to use DOS 1.0, you still had to learn the language of
DOS, which is largly the time spent in setting up Linux for newbies such as
myself. Further one does not need a degree to just use a computer, but again
to actually exploit a computer and its potential, to take it beyound just being
a pretty nik nak on ones desk, a better understanding is needed of how it
works.
Neither do I find my problems a wast of social resources, for, and certainly
not all may believe this but, I see my problems as just another excuse for the
more important aspect of life: People themselves
So why you ask do I do it? Because as yet I have spent days installing Windows
onto a system that I installed Linux of the web onto in under two hours (most
of which was spent downloading it), and because it is funner to learn than to
be a midless zombie trapped in what someone else believes is the best for me.
If anyone is to decide what is best for me it is God. :)!
CiberWolf
Thought de Jour
smile; the sun may be out, it may be spring, but it sure doesn't mean it has to
be warm enough to were shorts jogging
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Best E-mail Client?
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 23:50:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Beardmore wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dowe Keller
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 13:20:17 GMT, Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>In a world with LaTeX, SGML and Texinfo, why do some people still
>>insist on doing things the *HARD WAY*?
>
>The LaTeX world sounds like rather hard work compared to WISIWIG.
I've written technical reports and academic papers in both Frame and LaTeX.
LaTeX is far less work as far as I'm concerned. From what I've seen of
MS-Word, it's a piece of shit toy next to Frame. At least Frame generates
half-way decent output (not as good as LaTeX).
MS Word output looks awful: equations are painful to look at; no kerning; no
ligatures; broken tables of contents; broken indexes; broken paragraph
numbering and cross references. MS-Word is purely for amateurs who don't
care if thier work looks like crap.
Equations in Frame are little better (but still not good enough that I'd
want my name on the same page), and it gets most of the other stuff right.
>Does SGML offer a tidy way to author for the web and paper from the same
>'source code' ? If so, where do you start ?
Yes. There are several packages that do that. DocBook is one.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! My mind is making
at ashtrays in Dayton....
visi.com
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.setup.
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-Setup Digest
******************************
