Re: Re Linux and Joe Sixpack

On 8 May, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 05/08/98 >at 03:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > >>There is NO >>WAY I could recommend someone install Red Hat 3.0.3 and then connect the >>machine to the Internet! This does not mean that Red Hat 3.0.3 was buggy >>- it's just

Re Linux and Joe Sixpack

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 05/08/98 at 03:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >There is NO >WAY I could recommend someone install Red Hat 3.0.3 and then connect the >machine to the Internet! This does not mean that Red Hat 3.0.3 was buggy >- it's just that the security holes that no-one knew about

Re: Linux and Joe Sixpack

-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, May 07, 1998 1:55 PM Subject: Re: Linux and Joe Sixpack >interfaces do we need. fvwm isn't very pretty but do we really need to >copy win95&#x

Re: Linux and Joe Sixpack

On 7 May, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The impression I get is that things having been moving too fast. We seem > to be edging towards the situation commercial Unix was in, with 4 or 5 > slightly incompatible distributions and users who support their own brand > of Linux to the exclusion of all ot

RE: Linux and Joe Sixpack

.place. > >My hypothesis is that if you start from a stable foundation and build toward >Joe Sixpack, you're going to end up with a better platform than if you start >with Joe Sixpack and build toward stability. > >The pro

Re: Linux and Joe Sixpack

Shawn McMahon said: >Sure, Windows 95 sucks. But so does Linux. It just sucks in a different >.place. > >My hypothesis is that if you start from a stable foundation and build toward >Joe Sixpack, you're going to end up with a better platform than if you start >with Joe Sixpack and build toward