Tom: Thank you for the explainations of some of the Linux file features. And Yes I was using Win98 as my main comparison to Linux. They have, like LINUX, fixed the Bootable aspect of the CD-Rom, and unless you have really cheap components, it will install and setup most of your hardware. Steve (or Ben )I think it was the other day mentioned that a simpler install ie: one that gave newbie's _check box_ options to install ALL card software (sound, more than 1 NIC <-- to name just 2 that I have run across) would probably reduce some of the Newbie _HELP_ emails. (take note Axalon :)) IMO Jaguar Thanks again Tom :) "Thomas J. Hamman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 26 Nov 1999, Jaguar wrote: > > > "Thomas J. Hamman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. wrote: > > > > > > > stable manner. But you have to admitt that they have done a great job with > > the > > > > installer. Any user can install M$'s OS. Now if they'd just stop trying > > to > > > > Gee I hate to knock you off your soap box, but just about ALL new mother > > boards support the self-same boot of CD Rom to install Linux AND Win9X. > > Yes I realize booting from CD's is a motherboard/BIOS feature; I don't > know what that has to do with what I said. It doesn't mean all CD's are > bootable; and, frankly, my Win95 OSR2 CD is not bootable. > > > Risking more Flames here...Win98 is MORE user friendly after first install, > > all most all components ARE installed WITH their driver's. > > I hope you don't take any disagreement as a flame. :) Are you comparing > Win98 to Win95, or to Linux? If you're saying Win98 doesn't have the > stupid "We're trying to load some drivers from your CD-ROM drive which we > can't access because we haven't installed the drivers for it yet" problem, > then good, I'm glad they fixed it in Win98. I just know that problem > exists in my Win95 OSR2 CD. If you're comparing to Linux, I would suggest > that how user-friendly someone perceives a particular OS depends greatly > on what that person is accustomed to. To me Linux seems very > user-friendly, because I'm used to it. And no I'm not an expert or a > programmer or a Computer Science student. > > Anyway, you stated that we had to admit that they did a "great job with > the installer", and the only point of my reply was to point out that the > options and variations in a Windows install are so few that it would be > difficult for the installation program to NOT be very simple. > > > Now untill I learn the method to Linux's madness for installing programs and > > WHERE the heck they are after that, I will continue using Win98 as my primary > > OS. But to be fair Linux has many points in it's favor, the foremost one is > > that it is a free OS, and more important...very stable. > > I'm sure many people on this list would be glad to help you with any > questions you have. > > For starters, it's good to know that Linux's file system works differently > from Windows; instead of every program making its own directory, there are > directories for different parts of a program to go. Most importantly, the > binary/executable file of a program installed from an rpm (especially from > the rpm packages in the distribution) usually goes in /usr/bin (or > /usr/X11R6/bin where some X programs go), and a binary compiled and > installed from sources usually goes in /usr/local/bin. Both of those > directories are in your path so you can run the program simply by typing > the name of the binary in the command line (in an xterm if you're running > X). > > Installing a program from an rpm file is pretty simple; just type: > > rpm -ivh <filename> > > (i=install, v=verbose, h=hash. i is the only option you really need to > install, but the v and h add nice features that let you know how the > install is going.) > > If you want to see what files were installed and where they went, you can > use this command: > > rpm -ql <packagename> > > (q=query, l=list packages) > > For example, here's me listing the files in the vim-X11 package: > > [hawk3 : ~]$ rpm -ql vim-X11 > /etc/X11/wmconfig/gvim > /usr/X11R6/bin/gvim > /usr/X11R6/bin/vimx > /usr/man/man1/gvim.1.bz2 > /usr/man/man1/vim.1.bz2 > > I can see from this that 5 files are installed by the package. By the > directories they're in, I can infer that /etc/X11/wmconfig/gvim is a > configuration file, the gvim and vimx in /usr/X11R6/bin are both binary > files (and thus two commands to run two programs, which in this case > happen to be X versions of the vim text editor), and then the last two > files are the manual pages which can be viewed by typing "man vim" or "man > gvim". > > And that's the "hard" way (though really the commands are easy to remember > once you've used them a few times, and you can always refer to the man > pages to remind yourself of which letter invokes which option); if you > prefer, you can use user-friendly, graphical tools for > installing/uninstall rpm's and looking at the files they install. I > believe gnorpm and kpackage are the most popular of those graphical tools. > > Installing programs from source tarballs is a bit trickier but nowadays > they usually come with all the information you need in text files usually > called README and INSTALL (they could be thought of as the Linux version > of the readme.txt files that usually come with Windows programs). > > I hope I've been of some help, and please feel free to ask questions on > the list anytime something like that is holding you back. > > -Tom > ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com.
