Is anyone else annoyed that there is NO good admin tool?
Dave Knell
are lacking key features. And I REALLY hate KDE and GNOME. But I love Linux,
it just takes me so long to actually find out how to use all of the shell
commands. ARRGGHH. For example, I can't find ANY good documentation for sed,
awk, and so many other things. I am not a hacker, but I like the power of
Linux.
Am I the only one that wishes that Linux was NOT ONLY FOR HACKERS?
Dave
ynotssor
news:4Jp18.16747$TI2.3...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
One of the problems with these open source OSs is that the real administrative
power lies in the command line. The available commands are so versatile that it
would essentially be impossible to write a piece of documentation that is going
to specifically address what any given administrator/user wants to do, so
things are written in a generic form (man pages) that are used for utility
reference. It IS good documentation, albeit with occasional shortcomings.
Much more detailed usage instructions can be found in the O'Reilly collection
of books (http://www.oreilly.com/) as well as many, many other instructional
resources.
Everybody is different, every installation is different, and it's up to the
competent administrator to make the applicable choices.
The choices are there, though. They're just not handed to us on a platter.
tony
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dave Uhring
You need to learn how to configure the system using a text editor.
Webmin is useful in that it will create a good skeleton for you to work
with. But your fundamental problem is that you simply do not have
enough knowledge to admin the system.
Take a stroll through your favorite bookstore and purchase some
O'Reilley texts relating to the things which you do not understand.
Then you will be happy using vi (or if you are a masochist, emacs) to
get your system running properly.
Also, take a web stroll through http://www.linuxdoc.org. There is
enough documentation there to make your head spin.
Mark Styles
> For example, I can't find ANY good
> documentation for sed, awk, and so many other things. I am not a hacker,
> but I like the power of Linux.
I've been using unix/linux systems for 12 years, and I can tell you from
experience that you will never learn everything about the countless
utilities available. The closest you can come is to know what utilities
you can use for tasks you need to perform.
I know awk, and I know sed, but I don't know everything about either of
them. I use vi all the time, but I still discover new tricks with it.
The only advice I can offer is to decide what it is you want to achieve,
and then ask what the best way to achieve it is. You will probably get
many answers, all good, and you can pick what suits you.
remove....@nospam.svn.net
> "Dave Knell" <d...@davidk.tv> wrote in message
> news:4Jp18.16747$TI2.3...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
>>
>> I hate webmin cause so many of the modules either don't work well or they
>> are lacking key features. And I REALLY hate KDE and GNOME. But I love Linux,
>> it just takes me so long to actually find out how to use all of the shell
>> commands. ARRGGHH. For example, I can't find ANY good documentation for sed,
>> awk, and so many other things. I am not a hacker, but I like the power of
>> Linux.
>>
>> Am I the only one that wishes that Linux was NOT ONLY FOR HACKERS?
> [...]
> One of the problems with these open source OSs is that the real administrative
> power lies in the command line. The available commands are so versatile that it
> would essentially be impossible to write a piece of documentation that is going
> to specifically address what any given administrator/user wants to do, so
> things are written in a generic form (man pages) that are used for utility
> reference. It IS good documentation, albeit with occasional shortcomings.
A problem some people, but a major advantage for those who know the command
line environment. I agree that it's very difficult for a newbie to get into
the groove of Linux administration because the command line is very
intimidating for someone coming from a WinNT/Win2k environment. There
probably should be some better admin tools, but I think the developers are
worried more about an overall user interface. Gnome and KDE have come a
long way, but they still need quite a bit more work before they're going to
be suitable for everyday use by end users.
-Bill
John Wilson
> Dave Knell wrote:
>
> > I hate webmin cause so many of the modules either don't work well or
> > they are lacking key features. And I REALLY hate KDE and GNOME. But I
> > love Linux, it just takes me so long to actually find out how to use
> > all of the shell commands. ARRGGHH. For example, I can't find ANY good
> > documentation for sed, awk, and so many other things. I am not a
> > hacker, but I like the power of Linux.
> >
> > Am I the only one that wishes that Linux was NOT ONLY FOR HACKERS?
> >
> > Dave
No
> You need to learn how to configure the system using a text editor.
> Webmin is useful in that it will create a good skeleton for you to work
> with. But your fundamental problem is that you simply do not have
> enough knowledge to admin the system.
>
> Take a stroll through your favorite bookstore and purchase some
> O'Reilley texts relating to the things which you do not understand.
> Then you will be happy using vi (or if you are a masochist, emacs) to
> get your system running properly.
>
> Also, take a web stroll through http://www.linuxdoc.org. There is
> enough documentation there to make your head spin.
I got involved with linux mainly to see if it might be an alternative to
the Evil Empire on my home desktop for personal use. (I can't stand Macs
but work in the world's largest Mac shop, where technical people mostly use
Windows because that's where the technical applications are, and linux is
almost unheard-of.) After making several changes that seemed obvious and
straightforward from the documentation and ending up with a seriously
broken system that was a major puzzle to fix, I've become extremely
circumspect about doing anything beyond shutdown from the command line as
root. My general impression of linux is that it's a neat system when it
works, especially if the apps you need are available (which mostly they
aren't, beyond common office-type stuff*), but it's seriously brittle and
takes an inordinate amount of time to set up so it works right in the first
place and to keep working if anything changes. Most end users simply don't
have time, bookshelf space, mental bandwidth, or access to professional
support to cope with a linux desktop. The attitude among many in the linux
community seems to be that if you don't have the skills of a full-time
linux administrator you are a congenital idiot who has no business using a
computer; this is one of the things that will keep this a minority system
for the forseeable future. Yes, I've been publicly flamed on a support
mailing list for asking a perfectly reasonable question that was answerable
somewhere in the man page for a command I never heard of. It doesn't take
much of that make a user say "Who needs this?"
Foolproof, or at least fool-resistant, admin tools, and wide availibility
of end-user applications, are critical to this system's potential to spread
beyond the realm of professionally-administered servers and such.
*Yes, I've played around with wine, but haven't had time to figure out how
to make it really work.
73,
JohnW
Frank Miles
Dave Knell <d...@davidk.tv> wrote:
>I hate webmin cause so many of the modules either don't work well or they
>are lacking key features. And I REALLY hate KDE and GNOME. But I love Linux,
>it just takes me so long to actually find out how to use all of the shell
>commands. ARRGGHH. For example, I can't find ANY good documentation for sed,
>awk, and so many other things. I am not a hacker, but I like the power of
>Linux.
Don't know what distribution you are using, but at least for Debian there is
a lot of useful information (including examples) in /usr/share/doc/... , for
sed, gawk, bash, ...
HTH --
-frank
--
Gareth Jones
>I hate webmin cause so many of the modules either don't work well or they
>are lacking key features.
Never tried it.
>And I REALLY hate KDE and GNOME.
Why? I use KDE. I don't particularly love it, but it isn't bad.
Anyway, a GUI is just a thing to hold your xterms....
>But I love Linux,
>it just takes me so long to actually find out how to use all of the shell
>commands. ARRGGHH. For example, I can't find ANY good documentation for sed,
>awk,
O'Reilly books are pretty good for a lot of things - including sed /
awk. Personally I use perl for most of the things that sed & awk were
traditionally used for.
I agree with you that documentation is one area that linux & a lot of
other free software falls down on*. This probably won't change any
time fast - the software is written by people who enjoy coding. I
don't think anyone enjoys writing documentation.
(* I do occasionally read articles that say linux is better documented
than any other system - esp. proprietory ones. I guess if you include
the source code, then this is true. If you exclude souce code, it is
actually pretty badly documented.)
>and so many other things. I am not a hacker, but I like the power of
>Linux.
>Am I the only one that wishes that Linux was NOT ONLY FOR HACKERS?
I'm not sure about that. Power and complexity go together I'm afraid.
I certainly wish there was better documentation though....of course, I
haven't written any documentation for linux...so in a sense it is my
fault. I guess if everyone who found something in linux they didn't
like did something about it (even if it was just sending 10 bucks to a
project of your choice), things would get better even faster than they
are.
Gareth
Dave Brown
> I hate webmin cause so many of the modules either don't work well or they
> are lacking key features. And I REALLY hate KDE and GNOME. But I love Linux,
> it just takes me so long to actually find out how to use all of the shell
> commands. ARRGGHH. For example, I can't find ANY good documentation for sed,
> awk, and so many other things. I am not a hacker, but I like the power of
> Linux.
Here's where you ought to spend a few coins. It'll increase your
enjoyment tremendously, and use time that would be spend searching for
"free" documentation to read a few good books.
The "sed & awk" book by O'Reilly is outstanding, and got me starting in
doing all kinds things with shell scripting. (A book on shell scripting
is also needed--look for one by Rosenburg, it's korn shell, but it's
98% compatible with bash).
I checked out half.com and found several copies of "sed & awk" for
under $15. (I'd never part with mine!)
--
Dave Brown Austin, TX
Christopher Browne
> In article <4Jp18.16747$TI2.3...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com>, Dave Knell wrote:
> > I hate webmin cause so many of the modules either don't work well
> > or they are lacking key features. And I REALLY hate KDE and
> > GNOME. But I love Linux, it just takes me so long to actually find
> > out how to use all of the shell commands. ARRGGHH. For example, I
> > can't find ANY good documentation for sed, awk, and so many other
> > things. I am not a hacker, but I like the power of Linux.
> Here's where you ought to spend a few coins. It'll increase your
> enjoyment tremendously, and use time that would be spend searching for
> "free" documentation to read a few good books.
I'd suggest pointing a _bit_ differently.
The point of using sed, awk, and such is not just to manage systems;
they're what get used when you want to _program_ this so that either
you can:
a) Apply it to other systems, or
b) Reapply it to the same system some time down the road.
Any time I find I want to do this, I find it preferable to set up some
rules for cfengine, and plug those away in /etc/cfengine.
cfengine has a language that is rather more "declarative;" it doesn't
generally indicate _how_ files are to get updated, rather merely that
they _should_ be updated. (And so the cfengine engine does that,
behind the scenes, making backups, logging the changes, making
temporary copies of files to work with so you don't accidentally trash
the _real_ one, and such, thus avoiding you a lot of irritating little
details about the protocols of renaming files and such...)
You want an extra NFS filesystem mounted?
Throw in, in an appropriate spot:
mountables:
homehost:/mnt/homehost/home # Home directory mounted from homehost
homehost:/mnt/homehost/cfengine # Cfengine files mounted from homehost
You want to rotate some logs?
files:
disable:
/var/log/postgres.log rotate=4 type=plain size>=80k
/var/log/squid/access.log rotate=6 type=plain size>=120k
/var/log/squid/cache.log rotate=6 type=plain size>=120k
/var/log/squid/squid.out rotate=6 type=plain size>=120k
/var/log/squid/store.log rotate=6 type=plain size>=120k
Need to have that NFS mount added into /etc/exports?
editfiles:
homehost:: # only export this on the host "homehost"
{ /etc/exports
AppendIfNoSuchLine "/home *.mydomain.org(rw)"
AppendIfNoSuchLine "/etc/cfengine *.mydomain.org(rw)"
}
copy:
!homehost:: # Push cfengine rules over to other hosts
/mnt/homehost/cfengine dest=/etc/cfengine r=inf owner=root group=0
The list of functions in cfengine goes on quite extensively; this is
only a small list of the things you can do.
All this being said, the merits of WebMin (and Linuxconf, and COAS,
and such) are fairly different from this. They aren't generally
built to be helpful in _automating_ the management of configuration;
they are useful in allowing the "not-100%-clued" figure out how to do
things the first time. How to set up an NFS mount. How to set up
NTP. How to set up, well, whatever the tool knows how to configure.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.adanac@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linuxsysconfig.html
If a mute swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?
finity
<gar...@uberdog.net> wrote:
> (* I do occasionally read articles that say linux is better documented
> than any other system - esp. proprietory ones. I guess if you include
> the source code, then this is true. If you exclude souce code, it is
> actually pretty badly documented.)
The man pages are a wealth of information. Take for example, the bash
man page. It's friggin long. Now look at how microsoft would document
their command line. Another example is Windows Media Player's
documentation compared to MPlayer's and mpg123's (or the info found on
XMMS's webpage, for that matter).
--
"Software piracy harms everyone, including you. Why should you care"
--Microsoft on software piracy
Dave Uhring
A basically one paragraph comment is really difficult to prune to make
a proper response.
My position is that the end users should have installed for them a
usable system, be it Linux, Windows or whatever. And several Linux
distributions are capable of doing this - Red Hat, Mandrake and SuSE to
name the most popular. These distros require no more knowledge to
install and configure than Windows.
If one wishes to "admin" a system, then we are talking about setting up
and maintaining services. And with Windows we normally expect our
Minesweeper Champion Solitaire Experts (MCSE's) to take care of these
things. And if one does not wish to gain the "expertise" to pass
MSFT's set of tests then one should not be expected to maintain servers.
Similarly if one is unwilling or unable to read and understand the vast
amount of documentation available to set up and maintain services on
Linux then that person should resign himself to being a user, not an
administrator.
Webmin is a quite useful tool. The user of webmin must, however,
understand what the tool is doing and ensure that his/her inputs to the
tool are correct.
John Wilson
If everything goes right. These newsgroups are full of yells for help from
people for whom some part of it did not go right. And Red Hat,
specifically, does indeed require detailed knowledge and under-the-hood
tinkering far beyond what is needed to do the equivalent things in Windows.
> If one wishes to "admin" a system, then we are talking about setting up
> and maintaining services. And with Windows we normally expect our
> Minesweeper Champion Solitaire Experts (MCSE's) to take care of these
> things.
But linux is structured such that you need to set up and maintain services
to do things like install a printer or almost any other hardware, share
files over our two-machine-and-cable-modem home network, make certain
software run (swat, webmin), etc. The equivalent things in Windows are
straightforwardly built in, and in my experience have actually worked the
first time in every case. Trying to share a linux printer with a Windows
machine means configuring samba, which means making swat run, which meant,
in my case on a new system with Red Hat 7.2, editing a configuration file I
never heard of to enable a port I never heard of and still don't know what
it does, in a configuration file for xinetd, which I had never heard of, to
get to the point where I could tell the system to share a printer. Users
need to be able to do these things without going to the high priests for
detailed directions, and without putting on their root hat and mucking
about in areas of the system where, if they modify the wrong file, they'll
never boot again. If I weren't within the 30-day support period from Red
Hat, I still wouldn't have this working; people are not born knowing where
to look for this stuff.
> And if one does not wish to gain the "expertise" to pass
> MSFT's set of tests then one should not be expected to maintain servers.
>
> Similarly if one is unwilling or unable to read and understand the vast
> amount of documentation available to set up and maintain services on
> Linux then that person should resign himself to being a user, not an
> administrator.
As I and others have said, you can't get a linux system underway at all
without being what you call an administrator, and that is a serious
shortcoming if linux is ever to be a serious competitor in the desktop
operating system world. And I wish it would; we need a viable competitor to
Windows.
> Webmin is a quite useful tool. The user of webmin must, however,
> understand what the tool is doing and ensure that his/her inputs to the
> tool are correct.
And that sums up the problem a lot of us have; it's awfully easy to
seriously break the system doing something that looks right to somebody who
doesn't have time to read dozens or hundreds of man pages or a bookshelf
full of O'Reilly's output to find out how to avoid traps that they don't
expect to be there in the first place.
73,
JohnW
Kano Ako
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:24:16 -0500, Dave Knell wrote:
> > For example, I can't find ANY good
> > documentation for sed, awk, and so many other things. I am not a hacker,
> > but I like the power of Linux.
>
> I've been using unix/linux systems for 12 years, and I can tell you from
> experience that you will never learn everything about the countless
> utilities available. The closest you can come is to know what utilities
> you can use for tasks you need to perform.
I agree with this. There are so many aspects to Linux (and yes
winbloat as well) that it would darned near be impossible to master it
all. What one needs to do is to master the general and figure out the
specific as one needs. A guy I knew who worked in a small Unix var
(as well as other unix pros) basically summed it up in the following
way. You need to view Unix as one big joke, once you get the joke or
develop the proper sense of humor unix will become easy.
My brief experience with linux indicates that people with little or no
patience and little or no determination/doggedness will most likely be
SOL when it comes to linux (unless they already know unix, then the
patience/determination price has already been paid).
I have had slack 7.1 running for maybe three weeks now and am having
IMO fairly good results with it. However they are not 100% as I have
had problems with X (space squeeze, but it wasn't completely obvious
and a follow up post to a NG query helped me diagnose that one), X
(startup files only) ended up getting boogered up so I could only
start KDM, GDM and some other (disliked) windows manager (which had
their own problems, KDE usre logins would result in mouse problems).
I did a little poking around in my books and experimenting and am
happy to report that startx behaves as I expect it to. I also was
working on a perl script to zap my netscape caches, again it was more
trial and error but after enough of that I stumbled upon the solution.
The next problem was compilinig KRN 0.6.12, I thought it might have
been space related (it wasn't) but I noticed it was choking on a
command and that command was configure.... when it should have been
"./configure" and when I did it manually and then remade at the end of
it it all worked and now my system is running a functional KRN.
Most people will not put up with that.
>
> I know awk, and I know sed, but I don't know everything about either of
> them. I use vi all the time, but I still discover new tricks with it.
I know of awk and sed and have a vague notion of what they do. I am
getting very comfortable with vi, but as one who came from the
MScentric world (even OS/2 can be considered MScentric) vi was tricky
to begin with but am beginning to become very comfortable with it. I
still would like a quicky reference card but at least I can use it at
a basic level.
Anyway
KA
Wayne Stidolph
> ... vi was tricky
> to begin with but am beginning to become very comfortable with it. I
> still would like a quicky reference card ...
http://www.newriders.com/appendix/0735710015.pdf
http://www.dc.turkuamk.fi/docs/soft/vim/vim_help.html
Phil Edwards
Kano Ako <kan...@netnet.net> wrote:
> Mark Styles <ne...@lambic.co.uk> wrote in message news:<8Fq18.53132$h61.1...@weber.videotron.net>...
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:24:16 -0500, Dave Knell wrote:
> > > For example, I can't find ANY good
> > > documentation for sed, awk, and so many other things. I am not a hacker,
> > > but I like the power of Linux.
There are times where nothing beats slapping down a few bucks at a good
bookstore. I learned sed and awk The Hard Way[tm] over several years,
but after seeing an awk script written by somebody who knew what he was
doing, I said to myself, "Daaaaaaaaaamn, why do people even bother with
other languages?" and went and bought
"sed & awk, 2nd Edition"
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/sed2/
and have learned quite a bit from it that I never would have otherwise.
There's a pocket reference published separately, but I don't have it.
> I know of awk and sed and have a vague notion of what they do. I am
> getting very comfortable with vi, but as one who came from the
> MScentric world (even OS/2 can be considered MScentric) vi was tricky
> to begin with but am beginning to become very comfortable with it. I
> still would like a quicky reference card but at least I can use it at
> a basic level.
The built-in online help for Vim is incredible. It is hands-down the best
"online help" of any program I have ever used. If you're not using Vim
as your choice of vi clone, then I recommend you make the switch.
Luck++;
Phil
--
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams
Gareth Jones
>In article <jgbe4ukq6qm7p2io5...@4ax.com>, "Gareth Jones"
><gar...@uberdog.net> wrote:
>
>> (* I do occasionally read articles that say linux is better documented
>> than any other system - esp. proprietory ones. I guess if you include
>> the source code, then this is true. If you exclude souce code, it is
>> actually pretty badly documented.)
>
>The man pages are a wealth of information. Take for example, the bash
>man page. It's friggin long. Now look at how microsoft would document
>their command line. Another example is Windows Media Player's
>documentation compared to MPlayer's and mpg123's (or the info found on
>XMMS's webpage, for that matter).
There are certainly exceptions any generalization...but I wouldn't
knock MS too hard about their documentation - a monthly MSDN DVD
contains vast quantities of very high quality documentation*. Of
course, linux wins out in the sense that if a particular feature is
undocumented, you can look at the source, but where would you go, for
example, for a pretty indepth look at the TCP/IP stack?
* of course, it is patchy and inaccurate in places, but generally it
is very good.
And on the subject of man pages, the worst thing that one can read on
a man page? A note saying the page is no longer maintained, and you
should use info for more up to date stuff. I *hate* info.
Gareth
Dave Uhring
> If everything goes right. These newsgroups are full of yells for help
> from people for whom some part of it did not go right. And Red Hat,
> specifically, does indeed require detailed knowledge and
> under-the-hood tinkering far beyond what is needed to do the
> equivalent things in Windows.
>
Primarily because the user does not bother to read the install screens.
Even Dead Rat Linux will get a basic system set up during the install.
Mandrake will get your printer set up along with a properly configured
dual/triple/quadruple boot lilo. One must be able to read, however.
The printtool command in Red Hat will use a GUI tool to set up a
printer. One must however know what kind of printer one has and,
unfortunately, it must be one which has Linux drivers available.
>> If one wishes to "admin" a system, then we are talking about setting
>> up
>> and maintaining services. And with Windows we normally expect our
>> Minesweeper Champion Solitaire Experts (MCSE's) to take care of these
>> things.
>
> But linux is structured such that you need to set up and maintain
> services to do things like install a printer or almost any other
> hardware, share files over our two-machine-and-cable-modem home
> network, make certain software run (swat, webmin), etc. The equivalent
> things in Windows are straightforwardly built in, and in my experience
> have actually worked the first time in every case. Trying to share a
Windows will NOT under any circumstance set up file sharing or printer
sharing with any other system but Windows. Please get real here.
Windows will not even recognize that another type of system exists.
And now you expect a trivial configuration from Linux to do the same
thing which Windows does on a homogeneous network.
If you have a printer installed on a Linux or BSD or Solaris machine on
your network, the Red Hat printtool will configure your Linux system to
use that printer. And if you have installed Samba and the printer is
attached to a Windows box, the printtool will configure that also.
Although I'll be damned if I understand why anyone would want to do
that. When I tried it, every time I tried to print to the Windows box
the sucker would blue screen on me. Hell, it blue screened just
sitting there and doing nothing at all!
> linux printer with a Windows machine means configuring samba, which
> means making swat run, which meant, in my case on a new system with
> Red Hat 7.2, editing a configuration file I never heard of to enable a
> port I never heard of and still don't know what it does, in a
> configuration file for xinetd, which I had never heard of, to get to
> the point where I could tell the system to share a printer. Users need
I used RH-7.2 for only a few days before over-installing it with
Slackware-8.0. If access to a printer from the network is configured
in xinetd then indeed you do have to edit one single file and not some
damn Registry as in Windows. And you do NOT have to reboot the system
to get it working. The port may be closed for the simple reason of
security, something which Microsoft has ignored for the entire 27 years
of its existence.
> to be able to do these things without going to the high priests for
> detailed directions, and without putting on their root hat and mucking
> about in areas of the system where, if they modify the wrong file,
> they'll never boot again. If I weren't within the 30-day support
> period from Red Hat, I still wouldn't have this working; people are
> not born knowing where to look for this stuff.
>
You are talking about running heterogeneous networks with some of the
members being Windows. As I have already stated, Windows is not
compatible with any other system. Samba is a very effective kluge to
make a Unix system appear to Windows boxes as another Windows box. It
does require configuration, but then again, we are not considering a
simple installation, but rather a network of dissimilar machines.
>> And if one does not wish to gain the "expertise" to pass
>> MSFT's set of tests then one should not be expected to maintain
>> servers.
>>
>> Similarly if one is unwilling or unable to read and understand the
>> vast amount of documentation available to set up and maintain
>> services on Linux then that person should resign himself to being a
>> user, not an administrator.
>
> As I and others have said, you can't get a linux system underway at
> all without being what you call an administrator, and that is a
> serious shortcoming if linux is ever to be a serious competitor in the
> desktop operating system world. And I wish it would; we need a viable
> competitor to Windows.
>
I was able to do so on my first try a few years ago. It did take me
some time to be able to get the Windows boxes to use my printer.
At no point in my screed did I mention configuring heterogeneous
networks. That is an entirely different matter from configuring one
Linux box to be productive.
>> Webmin is a quite useful tool. The user of webmin must, however,
>> understand what the tool is doing and ensure that his/her inputs to
>> the tool are correct.
>
> And that sums up the problem a lot of us have; it's awfully easy to
> seriously break the system doing something that looks right to
> somebody who doesn't have time to read dozens or hundreds of man pages
> or a bookshelf full of O'Reilly's output to find out how to avoid
> traps that they don't expect to be there in the first place.
>
Webmin is a tool for configuring services to be offered over a network.
Learn how to use a single system first.
John Wilson
> John Wilson wrote:
>
> > If everything goes right. These newsgroups are full of yells for help
> > from people for whom some part of it did not go right. And Red Hat,
> > specifically, does indeed require detailed knowledge and
> > under-the-hood tinkering far beyond what is needed to do the
> > equivalent things in Windows.
> >
>
> Primarily because the user does not bother to read the install screens.
> Even Dead Rat Linux will get a basic system set up during the install.
> Mandrake will get your printer set up along with a properly configured
> dual/triple/quadruple boot lilo. One must be able to read, however.
The answer to that from a typical user is, "I ask for help and get abuse.
Who needs this?" And another one loses interest in linux and resigns
him/herself to having Bill Gates control their PC, because they can at
least make that work without both wasting a lot of time and being insulted.
You know, it occurs to me that there is no disagreement between us on any
fact or on the cause of any problem. Where we differ is in values. We agree
that you need to know a lot to successfully configure linux to do much of
anything useful. You seem to see that as ok; users who need to use
computers to run applications to practice their professions and don't want
to, as they see it, waste their time learning your profession, have no
business using linux.
Mapping this to my profession (electrical engineering), the linux attitude
kind of parallels the following scenario. You, Joe Homeowner, buy a new
lamp and plug it in where you plan to use it in your new house. Nothing
happens. You go to the hardware store and buy a voltage tester. The outlet
is dead. You go get a copy of a how-to-setup-your-home-electrical-system
book, and following the ideas in it, you open up the receptacle and find
the wires are connected there. You go to the panelboard, and find the
circuit you're using is not connected at the breaker. You start to make up
the connections and find yourself on the other side of the garage on your
can, shaking. You look up the electrical safety section of the book and
find the procedures for doing this without getting shocked or burning the
house down. You finally get the connections made, and the lamp works. When
you mutter to an electrician at work about this, you're told you have no
business mucking about with this stuff (true), that you should have called
an electrician to enable the circuit to the room, and that all circuits in
new houses are left disconnected by default for safety because a dead
circuit can't start an electrical fire. Linux, at present, is like that.
Some of us, including the person who asked the original question, see the
need for a lot of detailed linux knowledge as a problem, because it
prevents more-widespread adoption of linux as an alternative OS. The latter
of us are pretty disappointed that, when a friend asks about linux, we
honestly have to tell them that they're better of with Windows unless they
want to become fairly serious linux hobbyists.
> The printtool command in Red Hat will use a GUI tool to set up a
> printer. One must however know what kind of printer one has and,
> unfortunately, it must be one which has Linux drivers available.
And you have to somehow dope out which driver might run your printer. RH
makes this easy; I've also set up another linux system where that was a
pure trial-and-error game that wasted an awful lot of ink and paper
printing postscript listings and just plain gibberish before it worked.
...
> Windows will NOT under any circumstance set up file sharing or printer
> sharing with any other system but Windows. Please get real here.
> Windows will not even recognize that another type of system exists.
Actually such a thing as Windows services for Unix exists. I haven't tried
it yet, though.
> And now you expect a trivial configuration from Linux to do the same
> thing which Windows does on a homogeneous network.
Of course. Linux is the new kid on the block, here, and as I said before,
many of the applications people need to run are only in Windows.
> If you have a printer installed on a Linux or BSD or Solaris machine on
> your network, the Red Hat printtool will configure your Linux system to
> use that printer. And if you have installed Samba and the printer is
> attached to a Windows box, the printtool will configure that also.
> Although I'll be damned if I understand why anyone would want to do
> that.
My wife is developing cataracts and can only use the machine with the big
monitor. That's the one that stays on most of the time, so that's where the
printers are attached. She isn't interested in linux, so that box runs
Windows, and serves printers for the ham radio / hackery machine that
sometimes runs linux, as well as the laptop that runs Windows.
> When I tried it, every time I tried to print to the Windows box
> the sucker would blue screen on me. Hell, it blue screened just
> sitting there and doing nothing at all!
It works like a champ here.
> > linux printer with a Windows machine means configuring samba, which
> > means making swat run, which meant, in my case on a new system with
> > Red Hat 7.2, editing a configuration file I never heard of to enable a
> > port I never heard of and still don't know what it does, in a
> > configuration file for xinetd, which I had never heard of, to get to
> > the point where I could tell the system to share a printer. Users need
>
> I used RH-7.2 for only a few days before over-installing it with
> Slackware-8.0. If access to a printer from the network is configured
> in xinetd then indeed you do have to edit one single file and not some
> damn Registry as in Windows.
I've never had to edit the Registry, and I've used Windows a heck of a lot
more and run a heck of a lot more applications on it than linux.
> And you do NOT have to reboot the system
> to get it working.
I've had linux freeze up to the point where I had to hit the reset button
and wait for fsck to repair things several times, usually caused by
malfunctioning applications.
> The port may be closed for the simple reason of
> security, something which Microsoft has ignored for the entire 27 years
> of its existence.
...
I don't care why the port is closed by default. When I use something like
serviceconf to enable Samba, I expect Samba to start working. If the issue
had come up outside the RH installation support period, I would never have
found out about the port business because I would have given up before I
could find the information.
I say again, linux will continue to have a market penetration problem
unless tools become available that let a person do what they need to do
with the computer without requiring detailed knowledge of the innards of
the OS.
73,
JohnW
Peter T. Breuer
> Dave Uhring wrote:
>> John Wilson wrote:
> The answer to that from a typical user is, "I ask for help and get abuse.
> Who needs this?" And another one loses interest in linux and resigns
If a person thinks that being told to read the manual is abuse, then
they have an attitude problem. Or a learning problem. Or a reading
problem. I'm not going to deal with it. They deal with it.
> kind of parallels the following scenario. You, Joe Homeowner, buy a new
> lamp and plug it in where you plan to use it in your new house. Nothing
> happens. You go to the hardware store and buy a voltage tester. The outlet
Anyone can fix wires. Anyone can fix computers. A bozo who cannot is
not human in quite a lot of senses of the word. You know that. Now, if
they can, but don't want to, then let them hire someone who can, but
does want to, for pay.
> Some of us, including the person who asked the original question, see the
> need for a lot of detailed linux knowledge as a problem, because it
There is no such need. Linux, as a unix, relies only on logic. No
knowledge is required beyond the basic facts - thus it is open to
everyone without need for training. All you have to do is to be able
to think, which is the basic trait of human beings that sets them
apart.
> And you have to somehow dope out which driver might run your printer. RH
What's the difficulty? Either use a printer that doesn't need a driver,
or try every single one in turn, or look it up, or write one. Those are
the alternatives. There's no sweat involved. I don't see why you get
to complain that you don't know which petrol to put in the tank of your
automobile. Or complain that it's a pain having to find out which
lightbulb your lampholder needs.
Peter
Dave Uhring
> The answer to that from a typical user is, "I ask for help and get
> abuse. Who needs this?" And another one loses interest in linux and
> resigns him/herself to having Bill Gates control their PC, because
> they can at least make that work without both wasting a lot of time
> and being insulted.
>
Coming from a CP/M and PC-DOS background, I had to do quite a bit of
reading to get Windows 98 configured. Unless you run a DHCP server on
your network, the default network installation of Windows will NOT
work. Granted that ICS does provide a DHCP server, a rather primitive
one.
If a user refuses to learn how to use Linux or Windows for that matter,
he is going to have no control of his computing system regardless of
what OS he chooses.
>> The printtool command in Red Hat will use a GUI tool to set up a
>> printer. One must however know what kind of printer one has and,
>> unfortunately, it must be one which has Linux drivers available.
>
> And you have to somehow dope out which driver might run your printer.
> RH makes this easy; I've also set up another linux system where that
> was a pure trial-and-error game that wasted an awful lot of ink and
> paper printing postscript listings and just plain gibberish before it
> worked.
>
If you don't even know what kind of printer you have or refuse to read
the label on the front of the printer (mine says DeskJet 812C) then
indeed Windows is the OS which you _should_ use.
> Actually such a thing as Windows services for Unix exists. I haven't
> tried it yet, though.
>
Microsoft purchased the company which developed that so that they could
get Hotmail working on their own bugware. MSFT does not have a mail
server which can handle the load at Hotmail. Qmail which was installed
on FreeBSD there does the job. The backroom servers which really
handle the mail are still running FreeBSD and Solaris.
At least 3 of MSFT's nameservers run on Linux, also.
> Of course. Linux is the new kid on the block, here, and as I said
> before, many of the applications people need to run are only in
> Windows.
>
Nonsense. Those are the applications which they use rather than the
only ones which are available.
> It works like a champ here.
>
You stated that Linux provided no simple way of configuring that
printer. Red Hat's printtool will do the job as will apsfilter. You
do NOT have to configure Samba in order to be able to print to a
Windows print server.
> I've had linux freeze up to the point where I had to hit the reset
> button and wait for fsck to repair things several times, usually
> caused by malfunctioning applications.
>
Did Linux freeze up or did an application running under X freeze up.
The GUI in Linux is NOT a part of Linux. And if the screen froze up
all you probably had to do was to kill X (CTL-ALT-BACKSPACE), and if
that fails then use a VT (CTL-ALT-F2) to kill X.
If Linux actually does freeze up, and this is extremely rare, there is
another 3-fingered sequence which will sync the filesystem, mount the
filesystems read-only and instantly re-boot Linux.
With Windows usually the only escape from the lockup is using the reset
button. This is not the case with Linux.
>> The port may be closed for the simple reason of
>> security, something which Microsoft has ignored for the entire 27
>> years of its existence.
>
> ...
>
> I don't care why the port is closed by default. When I use something
> like serviceconf to enable Samba, I expect Samba to start working. If
> the issue had come up outside the RH installation support period, I
> would never have found out about the port business because I would
> have given up before I could find the information.
>
If you don't care why any port is closed by default, then you care less
about the security of your system and the internet.
Since 15 Dec 2001 I have had 35 attempted connections to the printer
port on my firewall box. Any single one of them actually connecting
would have resulted in the compromise of an unprotected system
connected to the internet.
During the same period there have been 6909 attempts at port 137 and
1550 attempts at port 139 any one of which would have resulted in an
unprotected Windows box being compromised.
Since you care nothing about security it would appear that any system
which you have on the internet is probably already compromised, with
your personal information on that box being read by any s'kiddie who is
interested.
> I say again, linux will continue to have a market penetration problem
> unless tools become available that let a person do what they need to
> do with the computer without requiring detailed knowledge of the
> innards of the OS.
>
Linux is NOT going to penetrate the desktop market to any significant
extent until people finally get fed up with billg's crap and start
doing a little bit of learning about Linux and the BSD's. And no one
person on the newsgroups is going to be able to simply pour that
information into a new user's brain.
It takes some effort to be able to use Windows and it takes even more
effort to INSTALL Windows; it may take a little bit more effort to use
Linux. If you or any other user does not care to exercise that effort
then you are welcome to stay with Windows.
SoSickOfSpam
"Dave Knell" <d...@davidk.tv> wrote:
> For example, I can't find ANY good documentation for sed,
> awk, and so many other things.
Peter T. Breuer
> (sigh.)
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565922255/
Yep. Big sigh. These are utilities that have BOOKS written about them.
Peter
Peter Jones
> John Wilson wrote:
>
>> The answer to that from a typical user is, "I ask for help and get
>> abuse. Who needs this?" And another one loses interest in linux and
>> resigns him/herself to having Bill Gates control their PC, because
>> they can at least make that work without both wasting a lot of time
>> and being insulted.
>>
>
> Coming from a CP/M and PC-DOS background, I had to do quite a bit of
> reading to get Windows 98 configured. Unless you run a DHCP server on
> your network, the default network installation of Windows will NOT
> work. Granted that ICS does provide a DHCP server, a rather primitive
> one.
Just my tuppence worth regarding the installation of network cards on
Windows vs on Linux.
The first time I tried to get my home network running -- two PCs, two NICs,
no clue as to what was or wasn't working -- it was a nightmare. It isn't
helped by the fact that Windows (well, Win'95 anyway) is quite happy to
detect your NIC, install the drivers for it, set its IRQ to "3" (every
time!) and then happily report that it is working! It isn't!
When I finally decided to brave the unknown waters of networking under
Linux, I put the NIC in my Linux machine, turned it on, and watched in
complete and utter disbelief as Linux detected the NIC as part of the boot
process, correctly set the IRQ and I/O values, and worked.
Admittedly there have been a couple of obscure cards I've installed that
have required a little more work -- generally 10 minutes on my favourite
search engine to tell me which driver to select...
Then there was the fun I had the other day on my dual-boot system. For
some reason (general hardware misbehaviour, it's a touchy box!) I moved the
NIC to a different slot. I had to reboot Windows several times, each time
reinstalling the same set of files from the CD (y'know, FTP.EXE and
TELNET.EXE among them!) each time having to tell the system which directory
my drivers were on, then having to retype the drive letter of the CD when
Windows complained "I cannot find the Windows CD in
C:\Hardware\Net\Win65\", each time losing a little more of my patience.
And I am pretty cluey with Windows, I've got to say! Finally got it
running again under Windows, booted into Linux, and it said "Hey the
network card is -- don't worry, I see it." and was running happily again.
No contest! :-)
Pete.
--
=================================================================
:: Peter Jones :: http://members.optushome.com.au/jonespr/ ::
=================================================================
Peter Jones
> Why? I use KDE. I don't particularly love it, but it isn't bad.
> Anyway, a GUI is just a thing to hold your xterms....
Ain't that the truth! Initially spent a couple of weeks trying to get
Xwindows up and running, poking around to see what wonderful toys were
there. These days I install Mandrake, boot straight into KDE -- and the
first thing I do when I get there is open a terminal window... :-)
> (* I do occasionally read articles that say linux is better documented
> than any other system - esp. proprietory ones. I guess if you include
> the source code, then this is true. If you exclude souce code, it is
> actually pretty badly documented.)
Hmm, dunno if I'd agree with that statement. I actually quite like
documentation of the man style: terse commentary on what a program does and
what its options are. Sure, occasionally it would be nice to have your
hand held when you're starting something new (there's always the HOWTOs, I
guess!) but mostly I find the MAN pages to be more helpful than most of the
help files I've seen for Windows programs. [But then, by the time I feel
the need of running Windows Troubleshooter, I've already tried everything
it recommends... :-)]
Tony Lawrence
> Gareth Jones wrote:
>
>>(* I do occasionally read articles that say linux is better documented
>>than any other system - esp. proprietory ones. I guess if you include
>>the source code, then this is true. If you exclude souce code, it is
>>actually pretty badly documented.)
>>
>
> Hmm, dunno if I'd agree with that statement. I actually quite like
> documentation of the man style: terse commentary on what a program does and
> what its options are. Sure, occasionally it would be nice to have your
> hand held when you're starting something new (there's always the HOWTOs, I
> guess!) but mostly I find the MAN pages to be more helpful than most of the
> help files I've seen for Windows programs. [But then, by the time I feel
> the need of running Windows Troubleshooter, I've already tried everything
> it recommends... :-)]
I've never had Windows Troubleshooter come up with anything useful. As
you say, I've either already tried whatever it says or what it says is
completely useless in the context of the problem.
I'd say documentation on BOTH (and ALL) systems sucks.
Linux/Unix man pages are only helpful reminders for things we already
understand but have temporarily forgotten some detail of.
How-To's- arrgh, generally useless for me. Perhaps some of the more
basic are useful for someone coming in with zero knowledge, but I have
yet to have been even partially enlightened by any How-to on more
advanced issues. Almost always, the tough stuff gets written up by
people who assume that your level of knowledge matches theirs except in
this one little area they are talking about. Of course that's rarely
true, so now I have to go off looking for some other thing that I need
to grok before I can understand this guy's explanation of the thing I
really want to know about, and that in turn forces me into something
else again, and pretty soon I'm confused,ticked off, and still
un-enlightened :-)
I find I get most of my good answers from the newgroups, because unlike
a How-to, people talk back here- they say "Huh?" and "Watcha talking
'bout?" and SOMEBODY fills in the missing blanks (not always of course).
There are exceptions. Now and then I've stumbled across a beutifully
lucid explanation of something I didn't understand well prior to finding
it. However, I suspect that these things are only clear and to the
point FOR ME- that is, the writer and I happened to share similar
background knowledge and perhaps have similar ways of explaining things-
that person might find some of *my* tech-help articles equally
illuminating, but someone else will feel that both of us are either too
confusing or too basic. And that's the problem: any single piece of
writing ALWAYS covers too much or too little from somebody's POV. For
someone else, it hits the mark, but that's rare. Really good writing
tells "too much" without boring people who already know parts of the
puzzle, but that's hard to do too consistently- and I'm never really
sure whether someone has done it or have they just come close for me!
So, to sum up, http://www.google.com and http://groups.google.com are my
best pals and the LDP pages are usually not, or at least are usually
only part of what I need.
--
Tony Lawrence
SCO/Linux Support Tips, How-To's, Tests and more: http://pcunix.com
Gareth Jones
>> (* I do occasionally read articles that say linux is better documented
>> than any other system - esp. proprietory ones. I guess if you include
>> the source code, then this is true. If you exclude souce code, it is
>> actually pretty badly documented.)
>
>Hmm, dunno if I'd agree with that statement. I actually quite like
>documentation of the man style: terse commentary on what a program does and
>what its options are.
I'm not really complaining about the style. The man page style is
excellent.
> Sure, occasionally it would be nice to have your
>hand held when you're starting something new (there's always the HOWTOs, I
>guess!) but mostly I find the MAN pages to be more helpful than most of the
>help files I've seen for Windows programs.
When I talk about something being "well documented", I generally mean
reference documentation. Tutorials and user guides should generally be
written when a solid foundation of technical documentation is in
place.
I generally don't find the HOWTOs very useful although I except that
some people do. Some of them are great - others are poor. Most live up
to their name of explaining how to do something, but not actually
illustrating the underlying mechanisms that make things work the way
in which they do. Documentation like this certainly has an important
role to play, but it isn't the core documentation that would lead you
to say "this system is well documented".
The pieces of free software which are best documented, seem to me to
be the ones which have caught the attention of Mr. O'Reilly*. This
leads me to think that perhaps money is required for really good
documentation. This stems, IMO from the simple fact that there are
fewer people who love to write documentation in their spare time than
there are who love to code in their spare time. Perhaps the whole
point of DocBook is to make writing documentation look like
programming :-).
*I could probably build quite a substantial outhouse with my
collection of O'Reilly books.
I must emphasise that I'm not bitching about this - I understand very
well why the documentation I would like to see does not in fact exist.
I just want to pour a little cold water on the view I've heard a lot
(and see in print in linux magazines) that linux is the best
documented OS out there. One of my pet peeves about linux advocacy is
that it hypes various aspects of the system well beyond reality. While
this might encourage someone to try linux, it is not, IMHO, the way to
win long term converts.
>[But then, by the time I feel
>the need of running Windows Troubleshooter, I've already tried everything
>it recommends... :-)]
Now the troubleshooter really *is* a useless tool. Its main function
seems to be to pop up at the wrong moment....it is, for example, the
reason any experienced windows user hits the "Yes" button when asked
if their test page printed correctly...whether it did or not.
If you want to see good MS documentation, take a look at some of the
resource guides - the NT workstation & server resource guides, and the
Win2k ones are excellent.
Gareth
Gareth Jones
>So, to sum up, http://www.google.com and http://groups.google.com are my
>best pals and the LDP pages are usually not, or at least are usually
>only part of what I need.
Agreed. I certainly hope the people who started google have become
very rich. They've certainly saved corporations all over the world
hours of expensive techie time - even if those corporations don't know
it.
Gareth
Dave Uhring
No idea of Windows95 or earlier, but with the cheap (I thought :( )
NICs I was using, with Windows98 the drivers had to be loaded off a
floppy. Linux ( and FreeBSD and OpenBSD and NetBSD ) detected them and
set up the correct parameters on boot. After installing Solaris 7, I
finally had to give up on NE2kPCI boards and standarize on Intel NICs.
Damn near every OS I have tried since has the drivers built in.
But you are certainly correct about moving a NIC from one slot to
another. To Windows (and Solaris for that matter) that is an entirely
different NIC.
And when you configure a NIC to have a static IP address with a static
DNS server, W2k and WXp will initially refuse to accept that you are
not running a DHCP client. It takes a couple of more reboots just to
get the NIC configured correctly. And then the brain-dead Windows will
still start up the DHCP client even though the NIC has been statically
configured ;-)
I wonder how the OP feels about turning off services in his beloved
Windows. I doubt that he even understands that such crap is running.
If he were running W2k instead of W98, he would have almost certainly
been a victim and perpetrator of CodeRed, CodeRed2 and Nimda.
Peter Jones
> Now the troubleshooter really *is* a useless tool. Its main function
> seems to be to pop up at the wrong moment....it is, for example, the
> reason any experienced windows user hits the "Yes" button when asked
> if their test page printed correctly...whether it did or not.
I very rarely say this, because it very rarely actually happens, but: LOL!
I think you've hit the nail well and truly on the head with that statement!
I don't think I've replied "No" to a failed test print since, well, since
the first time! :-)
Jeffrey L. Susanj
"Gareth Jones" <gar...@uberdog.net> wrote in message
news:avso4u81jdprh6cpe...@4ax.com...
> Peter Jones <jon...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> I generally don't find the HOWTOs very useful although I except that
> some people do. Some of them are great - others are poor. Most live up
> to their name of explaining how to do something, but not actually
> illustrating the underlying mechanisms that make things work the way
> in which they do. Documentation like this certainly has an important
> role to play, but it isn't the core documentation that would lead you
> to say "this system is well documented".
>
I have relied heavily on the HOWTOs to configure my Linux boxes and I have
found them very helpful. I admit it takes some cross referencing but at
least the information is there. I have often struggled trying to fix some
Windows problem and found no useful information anywhere. Then the problem
fixes itself and I don't have a clue why. That is even worse.
> The pieces of free software which are best documented, seem to me to
> be the ones which have caught the attention of Mr. O'Reilly*. This
> leads me to think that perhaps money is required for really good
> documentation. This stems, IMO from the simple fact that there are
> fewer people who love to write documentation in their spare time than
> there are who love to code in their spare time. Perhaps the whole
> point of DocBook is to make writing documentation look like
> programming :-).
>
> *I could probably build quite a substantial outhouse with my
> collection of O'Reilly books.
>
I like the O'Reilly books. I have the complete Perl bookshelf. However,
many have only reformatted information that was already available in the man
pages or in the HOWTOs.
Jeff S.
XyZ
Oh, so Linux is "free" but I have to pay $50-100 per book where I live
to learn how to administer the useless piece of tramp trash if I hope
to avoid finding my docs all over the stinking web.
Just what I need.
Gareth Jones
>>Advice to a newbie: Take a stroll through a bookstore and buy some O'reilly books:
>
>Oh, so Linux is "free"
Yes, it is free, in the sense that you can do pretty much what you
like with it, Not free in the sense that there is no cost associated
with it.
>but I have to pay $50-100 per book where I live
>to learn how to administer the useless piece of tramp trash if I hope
>to avoid finding my docs all over the stinking web.
No, funnily enough, if you download linux for free, you are
automatically assigned a complementary tutor / consultant who will
work with you 24 hours a day to get your system just right.
>Just what I need.
I wouldn't like to say what it is you need...
Gareth
And...@nospam.com
wrote:
I will admit, those O'relly books are sort of expensive, but what I
find sort of cool about searching for "docs all over the stinking web"
is the fact that I always come across some good info, that can never
be found in those very same books.
I don't know, I like Linux for many reasons...and to honestly think
ANYTHING in life is free, is wrong.
Linux is the OS for those people who care about the beauty of simple
yet powerful OSs.
It's what you make of it.
*I steip off my soap box
Andrew
Dick Sidbury
> XyZ <x@Y.z> wrote:
>
>
>
>>but I have to pay $50-100 per book where I live
>>to learn how to administer the useless piece of tramp trash if I hope
>>to avoid finding my docs all over the stinking web.
>
>
> No, funnily enough, if you download linux for free, you are
> automatically assigned a complementary tutor / consultant who will
> work with you 24 hours a day to get your system just right.
>
tutor never showed up at all. And I have two or three distros that
I;'ve downloaded. Don't any of them install the tutor automatically?
How do I install him/her/it/whatever? I WANT MY TUTOR!!!!!!!!!
dick
David Bolton
Dick Sidbury wrote:
Yep, first law of thermodynamics says there ain't no free lunch, and the
second law says you don't even break even. It's a big, cold,
indifferent universe out there so button up your overcoat and remember,
life ain't fair.
All the same...and in all sincerity (the kidding aside)...
Best regards,
David
--
00110010 10010110 01110110 10101110 00011110
www.ideaplace.org/dlb.html
Herb Stein
news:3CA5C8F3...@hotmail.com...
Strangely, those that don't "cop an attitude" have a free tutor. This group
and others like it. None of use here pay to ask questions. We also don't
get paid to answer them, but are glad to do so. I've even been known to
call people (on my nickel) anywhere in the country to help when the
question doesn't lend itself to a simple answer.
Of course, posting antagonistic crap from an anonymous address reduces
the likelihood of assistance.
--
Herb Stein
The Herb Stein Group
www.herbstein.com
he...@herbstein.com
314 952-4601
jeff
XyZ (interesting name, do your friends call you X?),
I'm assuming that you are comfortable with Windows.
Sounds to me like you should stick with some variant
of that system.
-jeff
Garry Knight
> I WANT MY TUTOR!!!!!!!!!
OK. Do you want the paperclip, the flying saucer, or the dog? :o)
--
Garry Knight
garry...@gmx.net ICQ 126351135
Linux registered user 182025
Dick Sidbury
> In article <<3CA5C565...@adelphia.net>>, Dick Sidbury wrote:
>
>
>>I WANT MY TUTOR!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> OK. Do you want the paperclip, the flying saucer, or the dog? :o)
>
lol
No I usually use the cat. :p~
dick
philip...@cmp.yale.edu
>>Advice to a newbie: Take a stroll through a bookstore and buy some O'reilly books:
Very good advice by the way...
> Oh, so Linux is "free" but I have to pay $50-100 per book where I live
> to learn how to administer the useless piece of tramp trash if I hope
> to avoid finding my docs all over the stinking web.
Well, if you want to learn how it works you'll have to read some kind of
documentation. Maybe one day you can just get a brain transplant - but
not yet.
> Just what I need.
So don't use it. (It's about choice - right?)
cu
Philipp
--
Dr. Philipp Pagel
Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology phone: (203) 785-6835
Yale University fax: (203) 785-4951
New Haven, CT 06520, USA
Sly Mee
Don't let the cyber door hit you in the ass.
--
Strange as it may seem, my life is based on a true story.
--- 100 Proof News - http://www.100ProofNews.com
--- 1,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups
--- Access to over 100 Gigs/Day - $8.95/Month
--- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD
bowman
"jeff" <je...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrnaabs6...@localhost.localdomain...
>
> I'm assuming that you are comfortable with Windows.
> Sounds to me like you should stick with some variant
> of that system.
Probably Win95. Anybody that can administer a full blown Win2000 LAN without
a shelf of really expensive books should find Linux a stroll in the park.
Terry Porter
Linux is free, but books aren't, get a clue pal.
Grant Edwards
Actually, a surprising number of them are available for free
download. I still buy them since I like to support both the
publishers and authors who produce Linux-related products. I
also like having hard copy and printing a whole book yourself
isn't really fun or cheap (and the results aren't always that
great).
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'LL get it!! It's
at probably a FEW of my
visi.com ITALIAN GIRL-FRIENDS!!
Alex
> In article <slrnaacpa5....@gronk.porter.net>, Terry Porter
> wrote:
>> XyZ threw some tea leaves on the floor
>> and this is what they wrote:
>>
>>>>Advice to a newbie: Take a stroll through a bookstore and buy some
>>>>O'reilly books:
>>>
>>> Oh, so Linux is "free" but I have to pay $50-100 per book where I live
>>> to learn how to administer the useless piece of tramp trash if I hope
>>> to avoid finding my docs all over the stinking web.
>>>
>>> Just what I need.
>>
>> Linux is free, but books aren't, get a clue pal.
>
> Actually, a surprising number of them are available for free download. I
> still buy them since I like to support both the publishers and authors
> who produce Linux-related products. I also like having hard copy and
> printing a whole book yourself isn't really fun or cheap (and the
> results aren't always that great).
-A
David Bolton
> Strangely, those that don't "cop an attitude" have a free tutor. This group
> and others like it. None of use here pay to ask questions. We also don't
> get paid to answer them, but are glad to do so. I've even been known to
> call people (on my nickel) anywhere in the country to help when the
> question doesn't lend itself to a simple answer.
Indeed. Besides, I can easily think of much nicer things to cop in this
life than an attitude!
Anton Graph
You mean books that you used to learn about Windoze are much cheaper of
better value and burdened your wallet less?
Btw O'Reilly would sometimes send complimentary copies of their books
free of charge to people who would send an unanonymous letter to them
saying that they are in genuine need for them and yet are not able
to pay for them.
I was one of the reciepient of their book recycling project
back in 1994 when I was living in one of the third countries.
I've received eight boxes full of books that they have donated as
part of their book recycling project.
Now, could *you*, who seem to live in the United States, demonstrate the
need for these and be honest enough send a letter to O'Reilly asking for
them instead of needlessly annoying people in this newsgroup
who spend their time trying to help characters like you?
Clark
Try your local public library.
--
Clark Zahn
Registered linux user 267087
Chris Keelan
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 14:53:36 -0800, after dozing at the SETI
monitoring panel, I awoke with a start when Clark
<clz...@mindspring.com> transmitted:
> Try your local public library.
Or your local LUG.
~ C
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 and Gnu Privacy Guard
<http://www.gnupg.org/>
iEYEARECAAYFAjysadMACgkQBiw56jISYlBnswCeLd9Na5VwpIgFonFCbce/rUEO
KRMAoJXQmuVL2xXcCzIfvzTJi9a86WCt
=Y2iI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Charles
I know exactly how you feel XyZ, but there's a way out of your dilemma.
It's not well publicised for obvious reasons, but if you contact the
publisher of your Linux distribution and insist, they will send a tech
over to your house to configure your system for free. This is a
requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act now that the courts
have ruled that being a complete nincompoop is a covered disability, and
it would appear you fit into that category.
Larry Ebbitt
ROFL! Fully in agreement. I never thought of twitness being a disability
but of course it is.
--
Larry Ebbitt - Linux(Cntr #80621) + OS/2 - Atlanta
Jeroen Geilman
engraving on a handy slab of granite:
Thank you so much.
You saved me the trouble of replying in the same spirit, which would have
seriously compromised my karma quota for this week...;-)
"Piece of tramp trash" indeed !
He seems to be implying that the chances of finding his stinkin' docs
all over the web (or something to that effect) are actually SMALLER when
using a Windoze - yeah, right.
--
Confusion is my middle finger.
Steve
XyZ wrote:
I haven't noticed bookstores giving away Windows books.
At least with Linux you can buy one copy of the software and install it
on as many systems as you like....legally.
....and, yes...there IS a wide selection of Linux books available.
Garry Knight
> XyZ wrote:
>
>> Linux is "free" but I have to pay $50-100 per book where I live
>
> yes...there IS a wide selection of Linux books available.
The System Administrator's Guide and the Network Administrator's Guide are
both available online. The Linux Cookbook is also available for free
online. And there are a couple of pretty good tutorials here:
<URL: http://rute.sourceforge.net>
<URL: http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/atl/p/s/psadler/KnowledgeWorks.htm>