On Tuesday 24 April 2001 10:43, you wrote: > Ted Gervais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Was that a good change Mike? The other way was so accepted.. > > It's much easier to maintain and administer, and also way more > flexible in most respects - take a look at, and you'll like it. I just did some reading. Boy this inet change sure appears to be a good one. I just need to understand how to use it now.. -- Ted Gervais Coldbrook, Nova Scotia Canada _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
- What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Michael McPhail
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Mike Burger
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Manish Kathuria
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Tym Rehm
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Mike Chambers
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7... Werner Puschitz
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7... Michael McPhail
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Ted Gervais
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Trond Eivind Glomsrød
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7... Eric Wood
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7... Ted Gervais
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Michael Burger
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Michael McPhail
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7.0? Mike Chambers
- Re: What happened to /etc/inet.conf in RH 7... Michael McPhail