Tom- The problem here, is that you are stating your opinion as fact, and other facts are just plain wrong. I was letting this thread die, but you just keep reiterating the same wrong facts over and over. I don't want people to get the wrong idea because of something you said.
> By default, these directories will exist, for occurences like what > kyndig mentioned. That doesn't mean that X exists, just that the > directories exist. Big deal! Try locate startx. You will find it on a > few servers, and for the most part THEY'RE insecure as anything. X has > absolutely no place in a professional TEXT based environment. Tom, the X windowing system is composed of two parts. X clients, and X servers. kyndig has already mentioned he has the X clients installed for customers who requested them. I think this is a good idea. I also have X clients installed on all of my servers. I do ALL of my development remotely. I use xterms and xjed to do this with. X clients have a place everywhere. > The fact that X is on any server is a rather large concern, not only > security wise, but also because X is a hog for system resources, and the > cause for many major system problems as well. Any professional server > will remove X before setting up for the general public to > use. This is a > given. Again, if it's there, it's not a professional server. I'm not going to even comment on this, because it's one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard in my life. > NOT all distributions come shipped with makedepend. Back up your words, prove it. Just because it's not installed, doesn't mean it's not shipped with the distribution. Choose your words carefully, and back up your statements. If you're going to make one as bold as this, you'd better be prepared to show some real proof. > and there was no such command. Considering the majority of > linux servers out there are redhat (NOT to start a war over your favorite brand of > linux or anything, but it's the truth.. I've seen most of 'em in > action), makedepend PROBABLY won't work for most. So, an > alternative was Another extremely bold and ambigous statement, considering it's relatively doubtful you've seen most linux servers. You've never seen mine. Again, choose your words carefully, and back up your statements with proof. I don't think this thread needs to continue, but the continuous mis-information coming from you needs to stop. Jason
