Linux-Development-Sys Digest #483, Volume #6 Sun, 14 Mar 99 19:14:31 EST
Contents:
Linux,Cgi,Java (Raymond Tong)
Re: pcmcia freezes me to death (Rich Mulvey)
rlogin and $DISPLAY (Arun Sharma)
Re: After Week 1 With Linux -- licking wounds. (mlw)
Re: Dynamic Shared Objects (Daniel R. Grayson)
Re: virtual hosting.....same email id.. (Jens Kristian Søgaard)
Re: After Week 1 With Linux -- licking wounds. ("Enric J.")
RAID 10 ..? (Gianni Mariani)
Re: Let Linux teach you C! (Michael Haardt)
FDISK DOS LINUX (Lara Ziosi)
Re: After Week 1 With Linux -- licking wounds. (Larry Blanchard)
Re: The multi-billion $ Linux market (maestro)
Re: Very, Very interesting IPMasq problem.... or routing, or NAT.... Don't know 4
sure (Michael Schuerig)
Re: After Week 1 With Linux -- licking wounds. (Sid Boyce)
Re: After Week 1 With Linux -- licking wounds. (Darin Johnson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Raymond Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.m68k,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.powerpc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x,computer42.mail2news.linux-alert,cz.comp.linux,cz.comp.linux.czman,cz.comp.linux.debian,dc.org.linux-users,de.alt.comm.isdn4linux
Subject: Linux,Cgi,Java
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 21:38:18 +0800
If you want to learn Linux,Cgi,Java...You have to buy some book about
it,Pls go to the below URL and find what you are finding:
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Field/1357/bookstore.htm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich Mulvey)
Crossposted-To:
apana.lists.os.linux.kernel,apana.lists.os.linux.ppp,apana.lists.os.linux.redhat,at.fido.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.setup,de.comp.os.unix.linux.hardw
Subject: Re: pcmcia freezes me to death
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 15:53:38 GMT
On Sun, 14 Mar 1999 11:14:38 +0100, Mario Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When i relay the output to logfiles it only shows the module going in for a
>restart... and then it stops.
>
>
> How to debug this?
>
>Anyone has a clue how to handle this.?
>
How about reading section 3.2 of the PCMCIA-HOWTO?
- Rich
--
Rich Mulvey
http://mulvey.dyndns.com
Amateur Radio: aa2ys@wb2wxq.#wny.ny.usa
------------------------------
Subject: rlogin and $DISPLAY
From: Arun Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 04:08:35 GMT
Can someone here confirm that one can not modify rlogin to pass the
$DISPLAY variable to the remote host the way telnet does without
changes to rlogind and hence the rlogin protocol ?
In other words, is it possible to get rlogin to do the above, while
maintaining compatibility ?
-Arun
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: After Week 1 With Linux -- licking wounds.
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 15:32:10 +0000
Rupert K. Snoopowitz wrote:
>
> David M. Cook ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) swallowed a lutefisk whole and belched:
> > On Sat, 13 Mar 1999 13:53:23 -0600, Rupert K. Snoopowitz
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >But Unix is not a modern OS.
> >
> > This fetish for modernity is starting to grate on my nerves. It's simply a
> > fact that Linux outperforms NT is many situations. I don't know enough to
> > say whether NT is better designed than Linux, but if so it's quite obvious
> > that Microsoft didn't follow through very well in their implementation.
>
> Unix is not a modern OS, imho, because of its reliance on a command-line
> interface and the fact that the thinking that went into designing the
> whole idea of the Unix human interface is 20 years old -- the age of
> mainframes, before PC's were to come on the scene. A time not too long
> after the punch-cards. I would think that we've learned a considerable
> amount about what makes a good UI (in fact, we have, and there are
> numerous books written entirely on the subject). Yes, I know about X-
> Windows. It is NOT a good GUI. ( ... A relative concept, I know.)
Wait....
A command line is very useful, think about it. Simple concepts can be
conveyed easily using pictures, however this method of information
transfer breaks down with complex ideas. The concept of 'cup' can be
conveyed easily with a picture. The concept of 'find all files that have
the letters ELF in the name and end with .gz" is not something one can
express graphically. There are no 'find' utilities that do not require
you to think and type, in words and letters, what you want to find.
Whether you like it or not, that is a command line interface. Every GUI
has had to resort to such a hack to overcome the limitation of
hieroglyphics.
Also, a command line shell is not the OS. IMHO, Operating Systems are
either Multix or VMS based. No one has come up with anything new in 30
years. Yes there have been improvements along the way, but, on the
whole, they all provide basically the same metaphors: file systems,
processes, memory management, and IPC.
The real question is "when will someone make a new type of operating
system?"
> I would never claim NT could out perform Linux in terms of internal
> efficiency and reliability. I will say this, though: It took me about a
> day to set up NT and get it running from scratch. It took me a week (so
> far) with Linux and I'm still not done. I have had no prior experience
> with either OS prior to the first installation.
Not knowing something is not a reason to not like something.
>
> I found Linux to be excessively esoteric and complicated in set up and
> configuration. Christ, it took me almost a day flipping through manuals
> to simply find the various programs to set my monitor settings the way I
> wanted.. A step which takes mere seconds to figure out in NT.
A non familiarity with concepts are a big reason for this sort of thing.
I bet you were familiar with Windows before you started your NT install.
A person familiar with UNIX has a much easier time. Unpreparedness is
always a way to waste time. Every try cooking without reading the recipe
a few times and having all the ingredients ready?
>
> Okay, I'm not trying to start yet another "NT is better than Linux"
> thread, because I know better. I'm talking about the usability of Linux
> as a whole for the mainstream user population. I am very interested in
> seeing the replacement of MS as the (for all intensive purposes) sole
> provider of technology for the computing world.
In the real world, I would like to see various vendors supply operating
systems, this will keep people honest. In an ideal world, with ideal
people, I would like to see an OSS operating systems with an OSS GUI and
an OSS command line as the defacto standard. I wouldn't care too much if
it were Linux, *BSD, or something else as long as it is OSS based some
what on the UNIX/Multix metaphors.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit the Mohawk Software website: www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel R. Grayson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Dynamic Shared Objects
Date: 14 Mar 1999 09:29:16 -0600
ld has the following option which might be useful for you. It appears that
you can also give it to gcc.
`-E'
`--export-dynamic'
When creating a dynamically linked executable, add all symbols to
the dynamic symbol table. Normally, the dynamic symbol table
contains only symbols which are used by a dynamic object. This
option is needed for some uses of `dlopen'.
=============================================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson) writes:
> [D. Emilio Grimaldo Tunon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > I am doing some experimentation and have troubles in getting DSO
> > working properly :-(
>
> Be glad you aren't on AIX. Due to its wonderful XCOFF format, shared
> libraries are a place you just don't wanna go. (: AIX 4.3 is better
> than 4.1 was, but I'll still take Linux/ELF any day.
>
> > Now Main is linked with FileA to form an executable. FileB as well as
> > FileC becomes a shared library (two separate libs) that should be
> > loaded with dlopen().
>
> By the book, so far.
>
> > When I do dlopen(libFileC) [or dlopen(libFileB)] it fails and
> > dlerror() tells me that it could not resolve CoreFunctionA()! But it
> > is already present in the executable!!! how comes the dlopen'ed file
> > can't resolve what's already there?
>
> > An ldd on the FileB and FileC tells me 'statically linked' but they
> > were compiled and linked using the appropriate switches (-fPIC
> > -D_REENTRANT -shared)
>
> I couldn't reproduce either of these problems (I even tried using
> _REENTRANT, which is only necessary if you plan to use the shlib with
> threaded programs), until I noticed your link line:
>
> > ld -shared -o libFileA.so FilaA.o
>
> Use `gcc -shared' instead of `ld -shared'.
>
> --
> Peter Samuelson
> <sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jens Kristian Søgaard)
Subject: Re: virtual hosting.....same email id..
Date: 14 Mar 1999 16:34:20 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have many virtual host...and the request of same email id...
Read the Virtual-Services-HOWTO.
--
Jens Kristian Søgaard,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Enric J." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: After Week 1 With Linux -- licking wounds.
Date: 14 Mar 1999 21:19:27 GMT
Rupert K. Snoopowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió en artículo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> This marks the end of my first week with Linux.
>
> It has taken me a full week to even get Linux installed and operating
> correctly with my machine's hardware. The network card itself took 3
> days and calling a Unix geek friend of mine over who ultimately found a
> solution so esoteric that I would have never been able to find it. The
> phrase, "God this sucks" was muttered many many times. Even trying to
> get the desired color depth, resolution, and refresh rate from my monitor
> was scary.
That's just my experience with my first copy of Windows NT 3.0 (the very
first NT version abailable) and I can assure you that installing it was not
a funny job, it take me a full week to complete the task, the machine
crashed every 10 seconds and it was a real pain, I used two full days just
to get my NE3200 NIC working, and finally everything started worked, I
needed to change the siemens computers for just another model (both of them
where approved machines for NT).
Why I told you this, because most of the problems arises from "bad"
hardware, my first Linux was a InfoMagic's Slackware back in August 95, I
spent less than 10 hours to get it working at its full (X windows
included), and most of the time was used reading the book that acompanied
the CD's. Today I can do a RH 5.2 installation in less than 2 hours, it's
very true that I've devoted an enormous time reading how-to's and
acompaning documentation, but now It's very easy to get the job done.
> After using only Macs for 10 years, it took me all of a day to install NT
> 4.0 on a new PC, configure it as a server and put it to work in a variety
> of ways. I rarely needed a manual and even the toughest config problems
> I've run into have yet to take more than a day to resolve.
Just the oposite of me, I've some customers with NT, and when I've any
trouble I must to spend a lot of time trying to figure what is happening
inside just to solve the problem, recently a customer asked me to install a
new internal modem in COM3 (irq 5), I used two days to do so, because NT
TPC/IP protocol refused to recognice my modem a a network card. call me
dumb if you want, I'm sure that for you it is really easy to do so, you can
do it in 10 minutes or less, but I used 2 full days, because NT lacks
decent documentation, or at least with the package you get when you buy NT
AS, I know that you can buy a better (and expensive) book set of
documentation (in Linux it is free, you can get it from Internet). I only
can say that NT is not in any way easy to configure or to imagine just how
things are working, maybe if I devote the time you did I will find that NT
is easy, or at least as easy as Linux seems to me, it is just a matter of
stepping the learning curve.
> It took 3 days to get the friggin NIC to work... Ultimately culminating
> in me having to call a Linux geek over to do it, and the final solution
> was so esoteric that I could have never hoped to find it myself.
> Unacceptable.
The same I can say about modems and NT.
Don't judge Linux by it's faults do it by it's merits, it's very true that
it need a lot of job to get it easy for everyone, but the same applies to
NT.
Regards.
Enric.
------------------------------
From: Gianni Mariani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RAID 10 ..?
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 16:44:26 GMT
I've been investigating the Linux RAID stuff, sounds very cool.
I developed a code 6 years ago that would enable 10 disks
to be striped such that any 2 could fail and the system would
continue to function. I dubbed it RAID 10. It has the same
payload to storage ratio as RAID 5 but it is has a much much
higher MTBF because 3 disks need to simultaneously fail
instead of just 2. I have seen systems where a bad batch of
disks has brought down a RAID 5 system so RAID 10 may
be more useful that it did at first.
I posted an article on comp.arch.storage in '93 but no-one
seemed interested.
I would be interested in adding this experimental functionality
into Linux.
Any interest ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Haardt)
Subject: Re: Let Linux teach you C!
Date: 14 Mar 1999 15:32:35 +0100
Takeyasu Wakabayashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The original UNIX Version7's `learn' source code is now available
> from the web page of Brian W. Kernighan:
>
> http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/bwk/learn.tar.gz
>
> though it requires some hacks, especially on directory handling,
> to run properly on Linux.
>
> It includes such topics as files, editor(ed!), macros, eqn and
> of course (traditional K&R) C. Can you merge the original materials
> into your newer one? (I really hope.)
I will check the above URL and if copyright issues can be resolved, I
will gladly merge the two. Especially the lesson files could be useful
(apart from the K&R C lessons, those are very outdated).
Michael
------------------------------
From: Lara Ziosi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FDISK DOS LINUX
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 18:06:46 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What's the safest way to reduce a Linux ext2 filesystem
to make room for a new dos partition? I already have
a dos primary partition that I wouldn't want to format (1Gb)
and a Linux partition (2Gb) that I don't use entirely.
Thanks, Lara
------------------------------
From: Larry Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: After Week 1 With Linux -- licking wounds.
Date: 14 Mar 1999 09:52:22 PST
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> Note, I setup slackware about a year ago and by just using the
> how-to's I got everything working, PPP/NIC/sound/so on. It was a huge
> nightmare, *I* don't like editing config files by hand, it makes me
> mad that I can't just use a fucking simple gui for it. What the hell
> is so hard about making a simple gui ? Even nt 3.51 has a MUCH better
> montior/video setup then linux.
>
F**king simple GUIs are for f**king simple users :-).
Look folks, give up. We'll never convince people that the
configurability of Linux is worth the complexity it requires. They
don't need to run their screens at 1100x900 or some other strange
resolution. They don't do "complex tasks" so they don't appreciate a
CLI that can handle them.
Most users just want to sit in their highchairs and have their pablum
spoonfed to them. They wouldn't know what to do with a gourmet meal.
And there's nothing wrong with that. It's all they need. But if we try
to "dumb down" Linux to meet their expectations, it probably won't work
well for them or us.
I'm too old to start over learning the successor O/S to a dumbed down
Linux :-).
--
Larry Blanchard - Old roses, old motorcycles, and old trains
Homo Sapiens is a goal, not a description.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 23:43:52 +0100
From: maestro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: The multi-billion $ Linux market
James Kelley wrote:
[huge snip]
I see your point, and have had similar thoughts
myself. I see huge potential for Linux where
the OS is supported and written by all, and we
all make our monies from the applications and /
or hardware. (The $ does run the show, folks!)
The trouble (or the good?) of Linux is just the
lack of organizing outside small communities
and groups of volenteers.
I'm pretty sure that if some of the companies
(Like Corel, Oracle and IBM now have!) start
writing their stuff for a professional Linux
platform, the boost _will_ need some OS
management.
Who will do this? We all love our Linux and
the way we made it. But who will "own" it in
the future? If the big companies throttle
in, _they_ will soon take charge I'm sure.
Good or bad? Who knows. The Kernel is safe and
sound, and the GPL protects us well, but to
gain market we need "better" routines for
implementing and porting programs to Linux.
Through this process, people with big $ will
enter. Where does control now stand? And what
happens the instance big companies start making
their own Kernels, and support only that Kernel?
Although that would be a bad idea, it might
still cause a lot of harm through making big
bucks for those who follow that Kernel standard.
I'm curious. I wanna do more Linux programming,
but at the present state, I'm reluctant. The
future of Linux looks .... somewhat chaotic.
Anyone?
Kind regards,
Alexander
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Schuerig)
Subject: Re: Very, Very interesting IPMasq problem.... or routing, or NAT.... Don't
know 4 sure
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 22:52:17 +0100
Stephen M. Shelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If anyone can give me a clue, it would be (as clues always are) greatly
> appreciated.
No directly related clue, but a hint: Have a look at the ipmasq package.
It's on your CD set, I think.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/
------------------------------
From: Sid Boyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: After Week 1 With Linux -- licking wounds.
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 17:33:26 +0000
Rupert K. Snoopowitz wrote:
>
> This marks the end of my first week with Linux.
>
> First, let me state: This is not a troll. I am going to criticize
> Linux, but not bash it. I have a great deal of respect for it and the
> enormous amount of effort so may have put in to developing and advocating
> it.
>
> I am a long time NT user and fan, and before that a big Mac guy -- ever
> since they first came out. I am a programmer, database developer, and
> web application developer. I am not a "newbie", but I'm not a hard-core
> geek either. My experience with Unix thus far has been using it lightly
> to serve Perl scripts through an ISP years ago.
>
I'm neither a programmer nor geek, just an honest toiler. I presume
part of your problem is that you subconsciously try to think NT.
> I also believe MS's days are numbered. Their core philosophies are old-
> hat and the world is changing. I do believe a publicly owned OS as Linux
> is will ultimately be the end of MS's reign -- it's pretty obvious Gates
> lacks the ability to really shift his way of thinking to the degree
> necessary. I do not believe that Linux will be the answer, because for
> it to be would require it appeal to the mainstream of users out there,
> not a small segment of geeks and sysadmins.
>
RedHat vs. OldHat ---- hmmmm.... I like that.
> It has taken me a full week to even get Linux installed and operating
> correctly with my machine's hardware. The network card itself took 3
> days and calling a Unix geek friend of mine over who ultimately found a
> solution so esoteric that I would have never been able to find it. The
> phrase, "God this sucks" was muttered many many times. Even trying to
> get the desired color depth, resolution, and refresh rate from my monitor
> was scary.
>
That's truly amazing, a colleague who is very experienced in MVS and
microcode on S/390 took only 20 minutes to get everything up and
running, including X, other people with no Unix knowledge have done
likewise, including some of our hardware guys. All those mentioned above
have had just an introduction to Unix class, the very basics.
> The roots of Linux are obvious -- This guy Linus thought it would be a
> pretty nifty challenge to see if he could re-create Unix and share it
> with the world as a free alternative.
>
> But Unix is not a modern OS. It is an extension of 20 year old
> philosophies when it comes to computing and UI, and this is one of the
> reasons NT (as bad as it may be) has taken such a huge bite out of the
> Unix market.
>
Hmmmmm.... resistance I detect ? I don't see the modern in Windows,
it's slow, crashes (I've seen Blue Screens), printers disappearing and
many other horrors. I have a friend who tears his hair out fixing
windows crashes, it keeps him busy, also a colleague who fixes free for
friends, but charges 50.00 GB Pounds to others. Have you ever watched
anyone trying to use Windows to copy a file to floppy for you ?, it's
painful.
> This is not to say Unix sucks. At the core, it is a great OS -- very
> reliable, fast, and powerful. But it cannot be reasonably approached by
> anyone but the most savvy and even still, takes considerable time to
> become educated on and gain a reasonable working ability with.
>
Most of the guys I know have moved over from Windows and in a
reasonably short period were able to cope well with it and can offer me
solutions to certain problems. I guess they have approached Linux
without any baggage, have accepted it's going to be different and just
got on with it.
> After using only Macs for 10 years, it took me all of a day to install NT
> 4.0 on a new PC, configure it as a server and put it to work in a variety
> of ways. I rarely needed a manual and even the toughest config problems
> I've run into have yet to take more than a day to resolve.
>
Life's a bitch with Linux, you have to learn to READ all over again.
Likewise, I rarely need a manual for anything under Linux, I installed
Applixware, looked at a few pages of the manual out of curiosity, heck,
I can't see the manual anywhere, perhaps I've leant it to someone.
> With Linux, it took me a full day just to figure out how to set my
> monitor's settings the way I wanted it. This is unacceptable.
>
Boy-Oh-Boy, our hardware guys and other dummies breezed through that.
In the early days I had to get pen and paper and calculate the settings,
but that was short lived, now my ham shack is littered with all sorts of
video cards and at least a couple of 14" monitors as standby should
anything die.
> It took 3 days to get the friggin NIC to work... Ultimately culminating
> in me having to call a Linux geek over to do it, and the final solution
> was so esoteric that I could have never hoped to find it myself.
> Unacceptable.
>
Myself and others have had an array of NIC's that were no trouble,
recently when one failed, I got a different one out and installed the
module for it, I keep modules for that sort of stuff in order to make
short work of it.
> Lets keep what happens in the sausage factory out of sight of the
> customers, OK? I should not have to figure out how to use VI, where some
> strange configuration file is, blah blah just to get my system to work.
> I shouldn't ever need to know what a Kernel even IS, unless I was
> directly interested in how my OS works under the hood. I should be able
> to point, click click click and have my system up and running as quickly
> as possible. I should not have to manually adjust my monitor, being
> constantly warned that "improper use may result in damaging your
> monitor". I should be able to select 1024x768 @ 70 hz, 24 bit color from
> a simple control panel (without fear). I should not have to figure out
> how to use a shell unless I feel the need that I have to. I should not
> have to spend hours pouring through documentation just to figure out how
> my OS wants its hard drive partitioned. I should not have to know
> anything about hard drive cylinders to tell my OS "i want a 2 gig
> partition here and a 1 gig partition there".
>
The distributions come with an array of kernels and modules for those
who feel loathe to touch a kernel, besides, configuring and compiling a
kernel is as easy as falling off a log, relatively inexperienced people
are building kernels and like the flexibility that offers, sometimes
modicum.
"vi", I use it or rather a subset that gets me along, but there is
cooledit, joe, jedit and a whole slew of editors that are as easy to use
as any out there, though nothing I've seen comes even close to IBM's
ISPF for intuitiveness, wish they'd port that to Linux, someone did a
splendid job of it for Windows (ISPF/PC).
Strange, I've changed drives many times, it's so easy, you can give
fdisk so many meg and may be adjust it a tad so you don't lose a chunk
of a cylinder.
XF86Setup and xf86config do a fine job, sure you don't have to worry
about such things in Windows, but it's trivia.
> I know, I know.. Linux is still in its infancy. What I'm trying to
> communicate here is that modern popular expectations from an OS are quite
> different from what many Unix geeks may think.
>
MODERN ?? Windows is grief and I gather it's fixed largely by
re-installation wholesale after the mandatory incantations interspersed
with copious amounts of foul language.
> Linux developers: Study the Mac and Windows GUI's. There's a lot to be
> said in these for what makes a computer truly usable and powerful.
>
I use KDE, I don't see much of a difference to look and useage, you
still find that you have to wave through pulldown menus, where a short
command or an abbreviation using an alias or short script saves you
time.
> **** I hope that someday Linux won't look anything like Unix. It hope it
> will be as easy to use as a Mac, as well supported as Windows, and as
> powerful and healthy as Unix internally. I hope that some day I will be
> able to suggest Linux as an OS to my completely computer ignorant friends
> as well as to my enterprise system admin friends. If Linux can ultimate
> be this, it can be the OS which will destroy MS. If it isn't, I'm
> anxiously awaiting to see where the real one might come from. ****
>
I hope it doesn't look like Windows, the bad parts of Windows anyway,
you can imitate the GUI and throw the rest down the drain. Windows (the
duchess), fur coat and no knickers.
> Sorry for all the ranting... You all talked me into trying Linux and I'm
> a bit peeved over my initial experience, and I felt the need to express
> some of that. I want to encourage a thread that will discuss where Linux
> is going in the terms of what I laid out above.
>
> Thanks for your time,
>
> -RS
The majority of people who try Linux have seen some brilliant stuff and
like it, you just have to leave a certain amount of baggage behind. Most
won't go back to Windows and the grief it causes. I for one am glad that
my setup runs a treat, I use the bleeding edge stuff and never once have
I not been able to do the work I'm paid to do, never because of Linux.
>From here I can handle all the MS Office stuff they send me, adobe
acrobat, Citrix Winframe and all the tools I need to ensure my boss
doesn't shout that I don't do my job.
As for computer ignoramuses and sysadmins, they love Linux and proudly
show it off when you ask what they are running, difficult at times, as
they run an array of desktops, so each can have it's own look
irrespective of the platform it runs on and almost nay hardware out
there runs Linux.
I'm sorry, Bill doesn't live here anymore!
Regards
--
... Sid Boyce...Amdahl(Europe)...44-121 422 0375
Any opinions expressed above are mine and do not necessarily represent
the opinions or policies of Amdahl Corporation.
------------------------------
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: After Week 1 With Linux -- licking wounds.
Date: 14 Mar 1999 14:38:53 -0800
"Karl Bengtsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) I'm tired of paying M$ so they can produce crappier and crappier
> software. Come on, Windows 98 is a JOKE, it's just a slow-motion version of
> Windows 95! The useful things added in Windows 98 can be counted on the
> fingers of one hand, and not one of them is related to Internet
> Exploder.
Once peeve of mine is that you can't get OSR2. I have the original
Win95, and a bunch of patches, but there's no way to get all the
patches, or FAT32, or whatnot, without subjecting yourself to Win98.
OSR2 was an OEM release only, and all OEM's seem to be selling Win98
instead now...
--
Darin Johnson
Luxury! In MY day, we had to make do with 5 bytes of swap...
------------------------------
** 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.development.system) 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-Development-System Digest
******************************
