Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #840
From: Digestifier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 94 22:13:12 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #840, Volume #2                Wed, 28 Sep 94 22:13:12 EDT

Contents:
  Re: Don't use Linux or it's to academic! (Irtegov Dmitry Valentinovich)
  Re: CD-ROM with /pub/Linux tree of SUNSITE? (Steven Hovater)
  Re: pkzip for dos? (zachary brown)
  Re: Orchid Kelvin 64 Xfree86 Driver Availability ??? (Martin Oldfield)
  How to pronounce Linux?? (David Ransier)
  Re: Linus' visit to Perth (S. Keeling)
  Re: How to pronounce Linux?? (ACC Corp.)
  Re: New Linux Distribution (Mike Suzio)
  Re: Linux goes commercial (Tom Barringer)
  Re: Special Sale On QNX! ([email-masked])
  Re: Editors/WordProcessors for Linux (Klamer Schutte)
  Re: Linux goes commercial ([email-masked])
  Tuning Linux with bdflush? (Lars Marowsky-Bree)
  Re: Linus' visit to Perth (Magnus Bodin)
  Re: How to pronounce Linux?? (S. Joel Katz)
  i486-????-linux (was Re: Horrific bug in DOOM! (MS-DOS lives!)) (Mr D R Barlow)
  Re: New Linux Distribution (Scott Barker)
  Ada Compiler for Linux (Shujaat Siddiqui)
  Re: New Linux Distribution (Matt Welsh)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: fat@Indy (Irtegov Dmitry Valentinovich)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux or it's to academic!
Date: 28 Sep 1994 15:15:45 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In article <[email-masked]> rfugina@mcdgs01 (Rob Fugina) writes:
>   In article <[email-masked]>,
>   Jeff Kesselman <[email-masked]> wrote:
>   >I'll add 2 cents to make it 4.  I agree with you 100%. Back in college I 
>   >had to support intelligent but non cs researchers using PCs. Even DOS 
>   >was a bit of a challenge for them, a UNIX is much too much OS, at least 
>   >in its raw state.
>   Even DOS and Windoze require administration.  It doesn't get done, and that's
>   why most DOS/Windoze machines are a MESS.  Stray files, improperly configured
>   software, lost temporary files taking up disk space.  What a waste of money
>   and resources...
I'd tell you more. UNIX (and Linux in particular) is easier to administrate
than networked DOS. In DOS you `easy' install packages, TSR and drivers,
and without tuning you easy convert your system into a bloody mess.
After installing PC NFS+Novell you're get 300K of free memory <grin>.
BTW, I cannot say that installing both of them is easy process.
To make system usable you should `tune' it. That tuning involves loading
some of scrap to UMB <grin>.... Just figure out, what are UMB, HMA, EMS & XMS.
Or, better, try to explain to naive UNIX programmer, what they are.
You should be careful: that programmer could die from laugh...

That `easy to use/administrate' Windose is bloody mess from the beginning.
Just an example:
We have network installation of Windose 3.1 on Netware server.
Most users have no write access to server Windose directory - OK.
We need win32s to run Mosaic. I download public domain distibution,
and try to install it. It starts, searches for server directory,
and screams `I cannot write there!'. I say `&$^&^, log as administrator,
install it again. Now all goes `easy'.
OK. Then I'm trying to install it to other computer. Same thing.
That stupid installer doesn't understand that server directory is
already updated. 
Because I need easy way to install win32 to all of the computers on
the network, I try to figure out, what that thing does to my
system.ini and win.ini. I found several added lines, add same lines
on other computer... No success. Windose starts without a warning,
win32 don't work. And so on. I still have no clue, WHAT damned thing
does. May be it patches win.com...

And it's the way of MESSY-Windose `easy' administration.
While you're following the patterns, you can live with small amount
of problems. Once you're trying to to something SLIGHTLY non-standard,
you're lost forever.

Another example:
System V already have install/uninstall command for packages, 
that keeps track of installed files and configuration changes, 
so installaion is easier than in Windose. 
Did anybody tried to get rid from Windose app?
UNINSTALL program for Windose is a kludge, not a solution.

So, idea that UNIX require much administration is not a fact, but
a prejustice. However, it makes things worse for UNIX.
One easy can change the fact: he/she just could write GUI front end
to idtune or it's Linux analog. 
But it's very hard to change prejustice in peoples minds...
>   Rob

Cheers,
        Fat Brother.

`Fatal Error: Cannot enter Windows, try Doors instead'

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Steven Hovater)
Subject: Re: CD-ROM with /pub/Linux tree of SUNSITE?
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 08:51:55 GMT

[email-masked] (Bill Zettler) writes:

>In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Carlos Antunes) writes:
>|> 
>|> Do you know of any CD-ROM that has the complete /pub/Linux tree directory
>|> has seen in Sunsite?
>|> 

>That CD is distributed by Walnut Creek CD-ROM, and is updated I believe quarterly.
>They have a new 2-CD set just released weeks ago.

>Walnut Creek CDROM
>1547 Palos Verdes Mall, Suite 260
>Walnut Creek, CA 94596
>1-510-674-0783
>1-510-674-0821 FAX

Yeah, but don't try to buy if directly from Walnut Creek - they have to
charge full list ($40), and you can buy it all day long for $19 at hamfests,
computer shows, and distributors...

Steve
-- 
Steven V. Hovater                      (703)318-5839
Software Engineer                      Rational Software Corporation
EMAIL: [email-masked]                  Amateur Radio: AA5YH

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (zachary brown)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: pkzip for dos?
Date: 28 Sep 1994 19:05:14 -0400

zip -r filename.zip filelist

will create a zip file recursed through subdirectories.

unzip filename.zip

will unzip and automatically create all necessary directories.
These programs can handle pkzip files.
These files can be handled by pkzip.

Nuff said?

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Martin Oldfield)
Crossposted-To: git.unix.linux,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Re: Orchid Kelvin 64 Xfree86 Driver Availability ???
Date: 27 Sep 1994 10:55:50 GMT

>>>>> "Raymond" == Raymond Ho <[email-masked]> writes:
In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Raymond Ho) writes:

    Raymond> I would like to know too, I have a Diamond Speedstar 64
    Raymond> PCI which uses the same Currus Logic 5434 chip.  I've
    Raymond> configured it as a clgd5424 for X and it works fine for
    Raymond> all the display modes, except when I exit, then when
    Raymond> screen will just goes into funny characters.  I have
    Raymond> tried using the clgd543x driver but with no luck.

I've got the same problem with an Orchid Kelvin 64. I think the X
server uses some of the font-area on the card. As a hack I run setfont
after leaving X. Don't do this on a VC whilst X is still running;
things crash.

Cheers,

--

Martin Oldfield, MRAO, Cavendish Labs, CAMBRIDGE, CB3 0HE
Work:  0223 337365 Fax: 0223 354599 Home: 0223 67940
The pursuit of perfection, then, is the pursuit of sweetness and light...
He who works for sweetness and light united, works to make reason
and the will of God prevail - Arnold

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (David Ransier)
Subject: How to pronounce Linux??
Date: 28 Sep 1994 15:33:49 GMT

I've heard two pronunciations of Linux, both are variations of the "i" sound.
My natural tendancy is to pronounce the "i" like "hi".  The other common
pronunciation has the "i" sound like "in".

Is there a correct pronunciation?

Thanks,
David Ransier

+++++++++++++
David Ransier  [email-masked]      These comments are my own. I paid for
               Office: (503) 685-1528      them. I own them. They're not my 
               Fax:    (503) 685-7704      employers, and you can't have them.
+++++++++++++

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (S. Keeling)
Crossposted-To: alt.config
Subject: Re: Linus' visit to Perth
Date: 26 Sep 1994 16:13:51 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>, Bill Hogan <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>I thought I might post a brief summary of Linus' presentation at WAUG.
[stuff deleted]
>on the Sunday for a week in Singapore.  And then will end another leg of
>the Linus Torvalds World Tour.  I would've volunteered to show Linus

        What I want to know is, who's going to be the the one who
produces and distributes the "Linu[sx] World Tour" t-shirts. Who ever
it is, put me down for an X-Large, please.              =[8]-)

 [email-masked]       s. keeling,   aecl - whiteshell labs
-- 

 [email-masked]       s. keeling,   aecl - whiteshell labs

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (ACC Corp.)
Subject: Re: How to pronounce Linux??
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 00:26:04 GMT

In Article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Richard Park)
wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]>,
>S. Joel Katz <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>Is there a correct pronunciation?
>>       There is a correct pronunciation and an incorrect pronunciation. 
>>The 'I' is short. Linux almost rhymes with 'shucks'. Or, if you prefer 
>>'Lih-nuhks'.
>
>This is the topic of a religious war.  If you look at older versions of the
>FAQ, it says the correct pronunciation is the one specified above.  

So the question is really: How should "Linux" be pronounced in english.

The trick I use is based on an emailed conversation I had with Linus while
writing the interview for the first issue of Linux Journal:

Linus credits the name LINUX to a friend of his who posted the first version
of the OS to the net under the name LINUX.  Linus (a name with, at least in
english, a long i), who is a decent and humble human being, went along with
the name on condition that it was not named after him, but after the first
OS that inspired him to write Linux, namely MINIX.

Given that Minix, at least in english, has a short i, that is how I
pronounce Linux. BUT I always qualify any discussion on this subject with:
as long as you talk about Linux no one cares how you pronounce it.

Cheers,  Bob.

ACC Bookstores
"Home of the PC UNIX - Linux Catalog"
1 (800) 546-7274
[email-masked]

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Mike Suzio)
Subject: Re: New Linux Distribution
Date: 28 Sep 1994 11:40:01 -0400

[email-masked] (Juana Moreno) writes:

>My distribution, tentatively called "WIn-dos Transition" (WIT), would have
>the following features:
>       - Defaults to SINGLE USER mode. No need to show the complications
>               of multiuser accounts to newbies who will likely use it
>               personally.

Bad idea.  Even a newbie user could quickly understand that he logs
in under a user name, and gets a setup designed for him.  So many people
use networks at work today that the concept of logging in to a system is
not intimidating.  If they then are introduced to the concept that you
must login as a "superuser" to configure the system, they should be able to
understand it.
It's essential that an intro to Unix include this concept; it's one of the
major features of it, that it's a multi-user system.  One setup for Dad,
one for Junior, one for Mom, etc.

>       - Only one shell: bash, with lots of aliases that match as closely
>               as possible the COMMAND.COM commands and the utilities in
>               the DOS directory. Maybe it won't be very difficult to 
>               include a .BAT->.sh translator.

Sounds OK.  This is very similar to the approach I take with getting Unix
accounts for people I know are DOS literate but Unix dummies.  Alias all
the commands to DOS-like equivalents.
Be sure to note things like the cp "feature" of overwriting files if a bad
wildcard is given to it.  If you don't know what I mean, reconsider this
whole idea...

>       - Only enough utilities to match the functionality of the DOS
>               standard utilities plus the major unix winners like 
>               grep, awk and sed. (But not vi or emacs!!!).

Agreed, no need for vi or emacs.  Go with joe or pico.

>       - NO NETWORKING, except for maybe a terminal program (minicom) and
>               a mostly configured SLIP (client side only). In that case,
>               maybe Mosaic should be also included.

If you want to go so far as to include SLIP, you should include some sort
of Web Browser.  If they have the Web, they have access to most of the
protocols they need to survive for a while on the Net.

>       -NO SCSI. Most home dos-win users don't even know what SCSI is.

Wrong.  Many machines in the Pentium range come with SCSI options now, and
it's surprising how many clueless users are shelling out the $$$ for these
kinds of features, just because of the cool buzzword.  Include SCSI
support.

>       -XFree 3.1 configured to use the VGA16 server (mono or color) with
>               a generic (low resolution) Xconfig.

Yep, include that.

>       - Utilities to match the standard Windows applets:
>               Winfile -> Xfm-1.3
>               Progman -> Xfm-1.3
>               Notepad -> Axe (?)
Just use the standard editor here

>               Write   -> Ez
Well, ez fails to impress me, and it's kinda big.  Might reconsider this
one.

>               Terminal -> Minicom (Seyon?)
Minicom should do.  Seyon requires diddling with Resources, right?  That
might be too complex.

>               Mediaplay -> ?????
>               Dos windows -> Xterm,rxvt (of course !!!)
>               Whatelse??? 
>       - Only one window manager: FVWM
>       - No developing tools.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you need to conserve space, I guess I understand this one.  It's just so
non-Unix, though...

>Well, that's my idea. I'd like to hear comments before I start packaging 
>everything, because if you think this is useless I'd like to know before
>I waste my time. All suggestions will be appreciated.

Well, as an intro package, this sounds OK.  Not sure if it's going to be
Unixy enough to truely sway the DOS/Win user to the dark side, though.

--
|+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Michael J. Suzio                       [email-masked]   |
|  Marketing Director - Friday Knight Games                 | 
|  aka "That F*K*G company!"                                | 
|+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Tom Barringer)
Subject: Re: Linux goes commercial
Date: 28 Sep 1994 15:29:46 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Champ Clark) writes:
 > 
 >     My boss swears up and down that he read somewhere that Linux
 >     is no longer going to be a "free" (when I say that,  I mean, 
 >     you dont have to buy it.. you can FTP it) anymore.  He states
 >     that the author (linus) has decided to make "linux" a commerical
 >     product.  I told him that I though this was odd,  and i figured
 >     I would have heard *something* around usenet about that (that
 >     would be pretty big news!).  I told him there was commerical
 >     *distributions* of linux,  but that was no to be confused with
 >     "linux" itself (ie = kernel source).  He stated,  "nope, 
 >     Linux itelf will go commerical... It will no longer be 
 >     a public freeware/public domain OS,  but a commercial OS", 
 >     which I took as "Similar to SunOS for x86" or "SCO"...
 > 
 >     First off,  if you have any information about this ppllleeasasse
 >     mail it to me... 
 > 
 >     Tell me it aint so!  Mail me,  and I will forward artciles
 >     to him.. Thanks

It ain't so 'cause it can't be so, even if for no other reason than that.
Take a look at the license under which Linux is distributed.
Free forever.

--
Tom Barringer      : Progress Software Corp.   : LINUX:
QA Development     : 14 Oak Park               :   The choice of a
[email-masked]  : Bedford, MA  01730        :   GNU generation.
GEnie: T.Barringer : #include <std/disclaim.i> : 
HREF="ftp://ftp.progress.com/tomb/tomb.html"

------------------------------

From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Special Sale On QNX!
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 16:33:42 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Lewis De Payne ([email-masked]) wrote:
: [email-masked] wrote as best he could:

:    [--a blatant ad shunning all other o/s and pushing his qnx shit--]

: I just forwarded this guy's ad back to him, along with a nasty note.
: An automated procmail script immediately sent me back a two-page reply
: stating that the ad was "Forged - Not posted by him", and that the
: message header would prove it.  So, I extracted this:

 You are wrong. The article was _mailed_ from uwaterloo.ca to
 inca.gate.net, and then posted from there. Check out the
 "X-Mail-Path" line .

: Path: netcom.com!netcomsv!cirrus!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!pacbell.com!att-out!undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
:       !zmailer--not-for-mail
: From: [email-masked] ()
: Subject: Special Sale On QNX!
: X-Mail-Message-Id: <[email-masked]>   <<== his host.
: Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
: Originator: [email-masked]              <<== Wow!!!
: Precedence: normal-delivery
: Sender: [email-masked] (news spool owner)
: Nntp-Posting-Host: inca.gate.net                          <<== HIS nntp!!!
: X-Mail-Path:  undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca!gate.net!scheidel <[email-masked]>
: Organization: University of Waterloo
: Mime-Version: 1.414
: Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 09:34:56 GMT
: Lines: 22

Cheers,
        Laszlo Herczeg
     *** Ask me about the Toronto Linux Users Group (TLUG)  ***

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Klamer Schutte)
Subject: Re: Editors/WordProcessors for Linux
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 15:02:17 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (DAVID L. JOHNSON) writes:

:In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Cornelius Krasel) writes:

:>Editors I know of (I still stick to vi and think of moving to emacs):
:>
:Additions/corrections:  

:>- vi in different flavours (I use vim, there is also elvis and probably others)
:>- emacs in different flavours
:>- joe (emacs variant?)
:>- jove
:>- axe
:>- ed
:>- xedit
:>- doc (editor especially for TeX)

:doc is NOT an editor for TeX.  Its output is NOT TeX, but more like the save
:format that ez uses.  However, doc has no option to print your files.  It is
:also unbelievably slow.

doc (are we talking about the doc application from interviews?) is a word
processor rather then an editor. The output format of TeX looks very much
like LaTeX. It can print in postscript format (perhaps only to file -- have to
check on that.)

:addition (my favorite):  asedit -- motif based.  There are otehrs.

:>Maybe we should add a more complete list to the FAQ (if there isn't already
:>something on word processing in there).

I fully agree.

Klamer

-- 
Klamer Schutte  -- +31-15-786054 / +31-15-692000
[email-masked] / [email-masked]
http://www.ph.tn.tudelft.nl:2000/People/klamer/Klamer.html

------------------------------

From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Linux goes commercial
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 18:56:54 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Champ Clark ([email-masked]) wrote:

:       My boss swears up and down that he read somewhere that Linux
:       is no longer going to be a "free" (when I say that,  I mean, 
:       you dont have to buy it.. you can FTP it) anymore.  He states
:       that the author (linus) has decided to make "linux" a commerical
:       product.  I told him that I though this was odd,  and i figured
:       I would have heard *something* around usenet about that (that
:       would be pretty big news!).  I told him there was commerical
:       *distributions* of linux,  but that was no to be confused with
:       "linux" itself (ie = kernel source).  He stated,  "nope, 
:       Linux itelf will go commerical... It will no longer be 
:       a public freeware/public domain OS,  but a commercial OS", 
:       which I took as "Similar to SunOS for x86" or "SCO"...

 commercial ? 
 
 You mean, like, one day Linus will get a real job?

Cheers,
        Laszlo Herczeg
     *** Ask me about the Toronto Linux Users Group (TLUG)  ***

------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0200
From: [email-masked] (Lars Marowsky-Bree)
Subject: Tuning Linux with bdflush?

Bdflush offers quite alot options  to finetune the linux filesystem.

Has anybody already played around with them and can tell me  how  to
improve speed?

--
Lars Marowsky-Bree   Voice: +49-571-63663  PGP-key via return receipt
VirNet: @9:492/7158 Fido: @2:2449/620.16 InterNet: [email-masked]
PGP fingerprint:     CF FC 3A F0 86 F1 D3 EB  79 8A CF 75 4F 4C 81 DF
## CrossPoint v3.02 ##

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Magnus Bodin)
Subject: Re: Linus' visit to Perth
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 09:31:29 -0500 (EDT)
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:

>         What I want to know is, who's going to be the the one who
> produces and distributes the "Linu[sx] World Tour" t-shirts. Who ever
> it is, put me down for an X-Large, please.              =[8]-)
> 

Me too. 

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (S. Joel Katz)
Subject: Re: How to pronounce Linux??
Date: 28 Sep 1994 11:57:51 -0400

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (David Ransier) writes:

>I've heard two pronunciations of Linux, both are variations of the "i" sound.
>My natural tendancy is to pronounce the "i" like "hi".  The other common
>pronunciation has the "i" sound like "in".

>Is there a correct pronunciation?

>Thanks,
>David Ransier

        There is a correct pronunciation and an incorrect pronunciation. 
The 'I' is short. Linux almost rhymes with 'shucks'. Or, if you prefer 
'Lih-nuhks'.

-- 

S. Joel Katz            Information on Objectivism, Linux, 8031s, and more
[email-masked]      is available at http://www.panix.com/stimpson/
        Time flies like an arrow -- fruit flies like a banana.

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Mr D R Barlow)
Subject: i486-????-linux (was Re: Horrific bug in DOOM! (MS-DOS lives!))
Date: 28 Sep 1994 16:58:05 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>,
        [email-masked] (Fergus Henderson) writes:
>[email-masked] (Mr D R Barlow) writes:
>>My preferred one is 'i486-unknown-linux'.  But I wish there was a
>>quick way to test this from a shell script.
>
>Try the following shell script.
[deleted]

Yes.  Thanks.  I should have thought of that -- I upgraded emacs only
the other day.

On a more general note: can we change it?  'unknown' smacks of 'I'm
guessing here'.  I know that you can spec it manually to be whatever
you want (my emacs binary is 'i486-opus-linux') -- the basic question
is *what*.

First off, we're not all using the same vendor, and I guess many Linux
users built their own system anyway.  Second, the vendor doesn't
matter worth a damn anyway (from an emacs compilation point of view,
that is).  So we need a vendor-neutral term that describes i486 linux
systems.  My suggestion is prompted by listening and reading the way
which other linux users refer to their computers, and hence I propose

  i486-box-linux

I'm off to recompile emacs etc now...

Well, what do you think?  Is it all a stupid waste of time?  I though
it would make a change from 'I get 6fps on doom in ...' and 'Buy QNX
now'.  If enough people respond favourably I'll mail the author of the
script below and request a change.

Daniel

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Scott Barker)
Subject: Re: New Linux Distribution
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 01:14:06 GMT

S. Lee ([email-masked]) wrote:
> Is it possible to make a "Instant DOS-installable Linux"?  What if
> somebody
[description of how to install a umsdos Linux system from a zip file under dos]
> Whoa! Instant Linux!

> Admittedly this would be slower than a Linux running under ext2, but
> the installation would be less scary to the new user because
> everything is done under DOS up until the last step, where they type
> in a command and find themselves get right into Linux.  And it is
> totally uninstallable, too - just delete the whole X:\Linux tree.

If this could be done, I think it's a great idea! I also am running a fully
native Linux using ext2, and quite enjoy it. I had a little difficulty
installing, but that was over a year ago, when a lot of people had difficulty
installing. Over the last year, I've noticed a steady decline in the number of
people with unix experience who have trouble installing linux. On the other
hand, I've noticed an increase in unix newbies who have trouble installing. If
they could install a zip file from dos, and then switch to linux as a last
step, I think we could win over a lot of converts! After the initial install,
they could learn at their own pace (hopefully eventually wiping most of their
DOS and primarily running Linux :)

--
Scott Barker
[email-masked]

"Those who talk don't know.  Those who don't talk, know."
   - ???

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Shujaat Siddiqui)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Ada Compiler for Linux
Date: 28 Sep 94 15:15:51 GMT

I am looking for Ada compiler on linux. I read somewhere, there is such thing
but I missed to save the information. I will really appreciate it, if someone
will post information for how to get the Ada compiler for Linux.

Thanks in Adavance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: New Linux Distribution
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 15:21:55 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Juana Moreno) writes:
>I have been thinking of putting up a new Linux distribution especially
>oriented to DOS-Win dummies. 

Please, I just ate.

In all seriousness, I don't think that this approach is necessary.
It would be trivial to provide a set of Slackware/Debian/whatever
packages which include software and configuration for people who
are new to the system.

But I strongly suggest against doing this. Hiding the system from
the user is not going to teach them anything: In fact, it can
seriously damage the user's chances of learning the system in
the future. 

Your solution appears to be to take away the power of UNIX in order
to make it more accessible. That is not a solution at all; that is
enforced brain damage.

There are things that can be done to wean new users into the world
of UNIX. But giving Linux a lobotomy is not the answer.

>       -NO SCSI. Most home dos-win users don't even know what SCSI is.

Ah. The joke's on me. I thought for a minute that your posting was
serious.

M. Welsh

------------------------------

** 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-masked]

You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:

    Internet: [email-masked]

Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
    nic.funet.fi				pub/OS/Linux
    tsx-11.mit.edu				pub/linux
    sunsite.unc.edu				pub/Linux

End of Linux-Misc Digest
******************************