🚀 go-pugleaf

Glenn wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm a  newbie to Unix and C. I have successfully dabbled with slackware for
> a while but am finding it a little overwhelming when I have to solve
> problems with in a tight time frame, particularly with no real
> documentation.
>
> I get the impression that both caldera and RH5 are easer to setup and
> 'drive' and am thinking of moving to one of these.
>
> What I'm doing is soliciting opinions and experiences to help me decide.
>
> Here are some other things I have to consider:
> * This machine will be in a netware environment and caldera's dist comes
> with proprietery clients tools for this.
> * I may be about to have a SPARC 20 fall in my lap and RH5 exists for SPARC
> I believe? Does calderas?
> * One program I want to run requires a package called LinuxThreads, which I
> know RH5 comes with installed. I have not been able to get this going under
> slackware 3.something. Does caldera come with this?
> * I'll be having PC's and Macs access this machine.
> Thanks for any comments,
> Glenn
> ( If your news reader lets you email straight to me and the forum, I'd
> appreciate it, thanks again)\

  Hi Glenn. I'm a newbie and had Caldera installed in less than 2 hours. I was
on the net in about 3 hours. It took me months trying to get Redhat 4.2 to do
the same. I never got RH connected to the net. That's why I tried Caldera. I
don't know if Caldera comes with the software you require, I'm still trying to
figure all this new UNIX/Linux stuff out. But, it does come with a ton of
software, I find new apps everyday. Bye.

Glenn wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I'm a  newbie to Unix and C. I have successfully dabbled with slackware for
> a while but am finding it a little overwhelming when I have to solve
> problems with in a tight time frame, particularly with no real
> documentation.
> 
> I get the impression that both caldera and RH5 are easer to setup and
> 'drive' and am thinking of moving to one of these.
> 
> What I'm doing is soliciting opinions and experiences to help me decide.

If you're a newbie, RedHat will be *MUCH* easier to install, but I find
the more direct working of Slackware preferable. Just a matter of taste
I guess. Can't say what Caldera's like as I've never tried that
flavor...

> Here are some other things I have to consider:
> * This machine will be in a netware environment and caldera's dist comes
> with proprietery clients tools for this.

Chances are that various other tools from RedHat or whatever can do
whatever those do... on all platforms I might add...

> * I may be about to have a SPARC 20 fall in my lap and RH5 exists for SPARC
> I believe? Does calderas?

Linux (in general) runs on a SPARC.

> * One program I want to run requires a package called LinuxThreads, which I
> know RH5 comes with installed. I have not been able to get this going under
> slackware 3.something. Does caldera come with this?

???

> * I'll be having PC's and Macs access this machine.

They'll access using TCP which is (should be) OS-independant.

Cooper
-- 
Do you believe in God?
- I believe in myself

I wasn't able to get Caldera 1.1 Lite to connect, but RH5 was very easy to
get connected.  Strange thing about RH5, the default windows manager is a
W95 clone........I thought the whole idea was to get away from
Windows.........Lesstif can be selected--but again the first thing you'll
see after 'startx' is a W95 imposter.  RH5 was easy to connect because it
has PAP in the GUI as an option.  I didn't have to write any scripts at
all......thats right NO /etc/ppp/anything..........no chat-script
either........


But i do confess, I went back to Windows98 beta.  It's nice to go against
the grain every now and then, but not practical for 90% of computer
users........I beleive some day the world will be perfect and we'll all be
using some version of MacOS......or no computers at all.


They're my opinions, someone else may think differently.
Glenn wrote in message <3559415c.0@news.pip.com.au>...
>Hi,
>I'm a  newbie to Unix and C. I have successfully dabbled with slackware for
>a while but am finding it a little overwhelming when I have to solve
>problems with in a tight time frame, particularly with no real
>documentation.
>
>I get the impression that both caldera and RH5 are easer to setup and
>'drive' and am thinking of moving to one of these.
>
>What I'm doing is soliciting opinions and experiences to help me decide.
>
>Here are some other things I have to consider:
>* This machine will be in a netware environment and caldera's dist comes
>with proprietery clients tools for this.
>* I may be about to have a SPARC 20 fall in my lap and RH5 exists for SPARC
>I believe? Does calderas?
>* One program I want to run requires a package called LinuxThreads, which I
>know RH5 comes with installed. I have not been able to get this going under
>slackware 3.something. Does caldera come with this?
>* I'll be having PC's and Macs access this machine.
>Thanks for any comments,
>Glenn
>( If your news reader lets you email straight to me and the forum, I'd
>appreciate it, thanks again)\
>
>
>

I agree that for some the Win95-alike interface that greets RH5 users is
somewhat of a surprise, and a questionable move. However, there is a
logic of sorts in there. 99% of people going to RH5 are going to be
coming from a Windows 95 environment... or use one at work. Seeing a
familiar (or semi-familiar) desktop when you start up is the perfect way
to get people to use your OS who are unfamiliar with it. If they feel
more comfortable then they'll stay and learn... and as they learn they
can learn to replace their window-manager with something more efficient.

Personally I think it's a damn fine idea... but I feel that some more
choice is in order. How about it RedHat? What about bundling KDE with
RH5.1 and giving them the option of using that instead? Again, it's not
perfect, but it's a good starting point for those who are unfamiliar
with UNIX... and if they're comfortable they will stay. Besides, KDE
"feels" similar to Win98 IMHO.

FYI I use WindowMaker... easily my favourite WM to date :)
-- 
Gavin Haslett
thumper@brainfart.com
http://home.earthlink.net/~hackrat

"Never use this." - Zathras, Babylon 5

Caldera .vs. Red Hat .vs. other Linux Distributions is best answered for
yourslef and can be done very cheaply.  It's like asking what is the
best car.  You'll get all sorts of different answers depending on
people's needs and preferences

You can get them each for $1.49, or these two and a bunch of others
too.  This very question is why we put to gether the SixPak, try them
all, then buy the officiial version of the one you prefer.

http://www.LinuxMall.com/FreeCD.html

-- 
           Mark Bolzern                     mark@LinuxMall.com    
                  Linux Mall  --> is The Linux Superstore
           http://www.LinuxMall.com  mailto:info@LinuxMall.com
                Phone: 303-693-3321   Fax: 303-699-2793

In article <355B67D3.982C4900@LinuxMall.com>, thus spoke 
Mark@LinuxMall.com ...
> Caldera .vs. Red Hat .vs. other Linux Distributions is best answered for
> yourslef and can be done very cheaply.  It's like asking what is the
> best car.  You'll get all sorts of different answers depending on
> people's needs and preferences
> 
> You can get them each for $1.49, or these two and a bunch of others
> too.  This very question is why we put to gether the SixPak, try them
> all, then buy the officiial version of the one you prefer.
> 
> http://www.LinuxMall.com/FreeCD.html
> 
> -- 
>            Mark Bolzern                     mark@LinuxMall.com    
>                   Linux Mall  --> is The Linux Superstore
>            http://www.LinuxMall.com  mailto:info@LinuxMall.com
>                 Phone: 303-693-3321   Fax: 303-699-2793
> 

-- 
Dan Stephenson
"To conquer death, you only have to die." - JC

If replying by email, note the spam-block in my email address.
Do not send me unsolicited commercial email.

It's 14 May 98  13:28,
We'll return to Cooper@Mindless.com and All's
discussion of Caldera Vs RH5

 Co> If you're a newbie, RedHat will be *MUCH* easier to install, but I
 Co> find the more direct working of Slackware preferable. Just a matter of
 Co> taste I guess. Can't say what Caldera's like as I've never tried that
 Co> flavor...

I prefer Red Hat myself, even if only for the reason I don't have the
time to maintain and document a Slackware style system.  Tools like RPM
and the X based control panel make administration more time efficient.

 > Here are some other things I have to consider:
 > * This machine will be in a netware environment and caldera's dist comes
 > with proprietery clients tools for this.

 Co> Chances are that various other tools from RedHat or whatever can do
 Co> whatever those do... on all platforms I might add...

Red Hat will integrate well with Netware.  It comes with a Netware
server and (I think) the ncpfs tools to mount Netware volumes.  I've had
success with the mars-nwe server supplied with Red Hat.

 > * I'll be having PC's and Macs access this machine.

 Co> They'll access using TCP which is (should be) OS-independant.

And if you need filesystem access, Red Hat comes with Samba (for serving
to Windows clients), Appletalk (in the kernel) and netatalk (for sharing
to Macs), as well as the previously mentioned mars-nwe for providing
Netware services.

... People will act rationally when all other possibilities are exhausted.
--
| Fidonet:  Tony Langdon 3:632/367.2
| Internet: tlang@freeway.DIALix.oz.au
|
| Freeway Internet Gateway, Melbourne, Australia.  For information about
| our services and conditions of use, e-mail:
| info@freeway.DIALix.oz.au, to receive a copy of the FAQ.

>Personally I think it's a damn fine idea... but I feel that some more
>choice is in order. How about it RedHat? 

There is already a choice in 5.0.  You can pick between a Win 95 look
and feel, an AfterStep look and feel, and a Motif look and feel.  All
out of the box, all working with the same configuration.

In 5.1 you'll be able to install gnome and use that as well.

>What about bundling KDE with
>RH5.1 and giving them the option of using that instead? Again, it's not
>perfect, but it's a good starting point for those who are unfamiliar
>with UNIX... and if they're comfortable they will stay. Besides, KDE
>"feels" similar to Win98 IMHO.

KDE will not be shipped with Red Hat.  It requires development stuff
that is not free software.  They don't ship anything built with Motif
on the main distro, either.  All the "free software" that they ship
must be rebuildable in that distribution.  Hence no nedit, ddd, etc.
Those do exist on the PowerTools, but only with LessTif.  KDE is 
built with a commercial widget set, Qt.  Qt is not free software
and should be avoided UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.  If you
want a commercial widget set, fine.  Just know that as soon as you
make one dime on anything built with it you must PAY for the widget
set.  This isn't entirely bad, but you MUST know it going in.  

--
 Jim Stokes
 jim.stokes@wilmington.net

>Caldera .vs. Red Hat .vs. other Linux Distributions is best answered for
>yourslef and can be done very cheaply.  It's like asking what is the
>best car.  You'll get all sorts of different answers depending on
>people's needs and preferences
>
>You can get them each for $1.49, or these two and a bunch of others
>too.  This very question is why we put to gether the SixPak, try them
>all, then buy the officiial version of the one you prefer.

Go away, shmuck.  This was an interesting thread with some actual
content until you jumped in with your continued spamming.  I guess
since you've been beaten to smithereens for doing it via email that
now you're going to do it in Usenet.

Also, I noticed you never spoke up when I challenged you to tell us
what stuff you "added" or "contributed" to Red Hat with your "Linux
Pro" crap.  I guess there was nothing and you just chose to rename it
for the hell of it.  Yep, more clouding of the Linux market.  Just
what we need.  Go away, bozo.  You're stinking up the joint.

--
 Jim Stokes
 jim.stokes@wilmington.net

As a newbie I tried Caldera and found it ok, tried RedHat 5 and could not
get X to start.  However, since then I've got SuSE 5.2 and have had no
problems with it.  It comes on 4 CDs with a great book and installs without
difficulty.

Tom
Mark Bolzern wrote in message <355B67D3.982C4900@LinuxMall.com>...
>Caldera .vs. Red Hat .vs. other Linux Distributions is best answered for
>yourslef and can be done very cheaply.  It's like asking what is the
>best car.  You'll get all sorts of different answers depending on
>people's needs and preferences
>
>You can get them each for $1.49, or these two and a bunch of others
>too.  This very question is why we put to gether the SixPak, try them
>all, then buy the officiial version of the one you prefer.
>
>http://www.LinuxMall.com/FreeCD.html
>
>--
>           Mark Bolzern                     mark@LinuxMall.com
>                  Linux Mall  --> is The Linux Superstore
>           http://www.LinuxMall.com  mailto:info@LinuxMall.com
>                Phone: 303-693-3321   Fax: 303-699-2793

How easy is it to switch between Afterstep, KDE and other windows
managers?

G

Jim Stokes wrote:
> 
> >Personally I think it's a damn fine idea... but I feel that some more
> >choice is in order. How about it RedHat?
> 
> There is already a choice in 5.0.  You can pick between a Win 95 look
> and feel, an AfterStep look and feel, and a Motif look and feel.  All
> out of the box, all working with the same configuration.
> 
> In 5.1 you'll be able to install gnome and use that as well.
> 
> >What about bundling KDE with
> >RH5.1 and giving them the option of using that instead? Again, it's not
> >perfect, but it's a good starting point for those who are unfamiliar
> >with UNIX... and if they're comfortable they will stay. Besides, KDE
> >"feels" similar to Win98 IMHO.
> 
> KDE will not be shipped with Red Hat.  It requires development stuff
> that is not free software.  They don't ship anything built with Motif
> on the main distro, either.  All the "free software" that they ship
> must be rebuildable in that distribution.  Hence no nedit, ddd, etc.
> Those do exist on the PowerTools, but only with LessTif.  KDE is
> built with a commercial widget set, Qt.  Qt is not free software
> and should be avoided UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.  If you
> want a commercial widget set, fine.  Just know that as soon as you
> make one dime on anything built with it you must PAY for the widget
> set.  This isn't entirely bad, but you MUST know it going in.
> 
> --
>  Jim Stokes
>  jim.stokes@wilmington.net

Greg Dewar wrote:

> How easy is it to switch between Afterstep, KDE and other windows
> managers?
>
> G

After installing the window managers as per the instructions, and the package
format..

It should be as easy as keeping a shell script in your home dir.

~/.xsession

#!/bin/sh
# remove the hash infront of your wm of choice.
#exec afterstep
#exec fvwm
#exec twm
exec /opt/kde/bin/startkde




The config files for the different window managers can be a problem, but if
your Linux flavour is RH5 then they have set up plugin look and feel for
fvwm2 which emulate the appearance of a number of window managers, and it is
even easier.

If you read the docs on your window manager, or look at a few config files,
you will see that many support a restart function which is capable of
restarting another windowmanager.

In article <6jm4r2$ev5$3@attila.apana.org.au>,
  Matt@McLeod.dropbear.id.au (Matt McLeod) wrote:
>
> Tom Fahey <tom.fahey@virgin.net> wrote:
> : As a newbie I tried Caldera and found it ok, tried RedHat 5 and could not
> : get X to start.  However, since then I've got SuSE 5.2 and have had no
> : problems with it.  It comes on 4 CDs with a great book and installs
without
> : difficulty.
>
> Is there an English version of SuSE?  I got the impression that they were
> going to stick to German-only.
>

There is an English version!  Go to http://www.suse.com/index_us.html where
you will find the complete 4 CD plus 400+ page book English version for $49.

I picked mine up from Linux Mall for $35 (same registerable package that SuSE
sells for $49), and like Tom Fahey above, I find it to be great.  My prior
Linux experience with Caldera 1.1 Standard was not nearly as enjoyable.

Lawrence Sayre <lsayre@integrityonline13.com>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Jim Stokes (jim@thebeach.wilmington.net) wrote:
: >* One program I want to run requires a package called LinuxThreads, which I
: >know RH5 comes with installed. I have not been able to get this going under
: >slackware 3.something. Does caldera come with this?

: No.  I don't think SUSe does, either, but you might want to check
: their web site.

    Yes, as far as your nearest ftp.redhat.com is :)
    You can to install an use any redhat' *.rpm packages in Caldera linux,
if it absent in CD.
    Separate linuxthreads library is depreciated for glibc-based
distributions (begins with RedHat-5.0).

In article <slrn6lv1hq.cad.jim@thebeach.wilmington.net>, thus spoke 
jim@thebeach.wilmington.net ...
> >So, Qt's license encourages commercial vendors to put there software under a
> >free license.
> 
> No it doesn't.  It encourages folks to try it out with free software
> and then want to buy it to use it for commercial software.  Qt's license
> encourages folks to use Qt because they think it's free and then be 
> coerced into paying for it when they need something for a commercial 
> app.
> 
> --
>  Jim Stokes
>  jim.stokes@wilmington.net

Heaven forbid anyone making money with Linux.

-- 
Dan Stephenson
"To conquer death, you only have to die." - JC

If replying by email, note the spam-block in my email address.
Do not send me unsolicited commercial email.

I've been browsing usenet and seem impressed with the idea of SuSE instead
of Caldera or RH5.

Here are the things I have to consider from my original post. Can anyone
enlilghten me as to how SuSE relates to these issues?

* This machine will be in a netware environment and caldera's dist comes
with proprietery clients tools for this.
* I may be about to have a SPARC 20 fall in my lap and RH5 exists for SPARC
I believe? Does calderas?
* One program I want to run requires a package called LinuxThreads, which I
know RH5 comes with installed. I have not been able to get this going under
slackware 3.something. Does caldera come with this?
* I'll be having PC's and Macs access this machine.

Thanks all for your help so far,
Glenn

Hear,Hear
I wanted info when I posted this, not adds!
Jim Stokes wrote in message ...

>Go away, shmuck.  This was an interesting thread with some actual
>content until you jumped in with your continued spamming.  I guess
>since you've been beaten to smithereens for doing it via email that
>now you're going to do it in Usenet.
>
>Also, I noticed you never spoke up when I challenged you to tell us
>what stuff you "added" or "contributed" to Red Hat with your "Linux
>Pro" crap.  I guess there was nothing and you just chose to rename it
>for the hell of it.  Yep, more clouding of the Linux market.  Just
>what we need.  Go away, bozo.  You're stinking up the joint.
>
>--
> Jim Stokes
> jim.stokes@wilmington.net

>* This machine will be in a netware environment and caldera's dist comes
>with proprietery clients tools for this.

Red Hat has mars-nwe and ncpfs.  SUSe probably does, too.

>* I may be about to have a SPARC 20 fall in my lap and RH5 exists for SPARC
>I believe? Does calderas?

Red Hat 4.2 exists for the SPARC.  5.1 will likely exist for it too,
but it isn't out yet.  No other "official" distribution runs on the SPARC.
You can get UltraPenguin for your SPARC, but it is unsupported at this time
(it is based on RH, though).

>* One program I want to run requires a package called LinuxThreads, which I
>know RH5 comes with installed. I have not been able to get this going under
>slackware 3.something. Does caldera come with this?

No.  I don't think SUSe does, either, but you might want to check
their web site.

>* I'll be having PC's and Macs access this machine.

I believe all popular dists have Samba and Netatalk.  If not, both
are easy to install.

--
 Jim Stokes
 jim.stokes@wilmington.net

Tony Langdon <tlang@freeway.DIALix.oz.au> wrote:
: It's 14 May 98  13:28,
: We'll return to Cooper@Mindless.com and All's
: discussion of Caldera Vs RH5

:  Co> If you're a newbie, RedHat will be *MUCH* easier to install, but I
:  Co> find the more direct working of Slackware preferable. Just a matter of
:  Co> taste I guess. Can't say what Caldera's like as I've never tried that
:  Co> flavor...

: I prefer Red Hat myself, even if only for the reason I don't have the
: time to maintain and document a Slackware style system.  Tools like RPM
: and the X based control panel make administration more time efficient.

While I find that the control-panel gets in my way, and I usually
prefer to build apps from source.  But then I do most of my UNIX-ish
work remotely, and can find my way around vi.  :-)

:  > Here are some other things I have to consider:
:  > * This machine will be in a netware environment and caldera's dist comes
:  > with proprietery clients tools for this.

:  Co> Chances are that various other tools from RedHat or whatever can do
:  Co> whatever those do... on all platforms I might add...

: Red Hat will integrate well with Netware.  It comes with a Netware
: server and (I think) the ncpfs tools to mount Netware volumes.  I've had
: success with the mars-nwe server supplied with Red Hat.

Caldera have had a NetWare requester from day one.  I've no idea how
well it works, as I don't do NetWare.  Beyond that, I can't really
comment on Caldera.  I haven't used it since CND 1.0.

:  > * I'll be having PC's and Macs access this machine.

:  Co> They'll access using TCP which is (should be) OS-independant.

: And if you need filesystem access, Red Hat comes with Samba (for serving
: to Windows clients), Appletalk (in the kernel) and netatalk (for sharing
: to Macs), as well as the previously mentioned mars-nwe for providing
: Netware services.

As do pretty much all Linux distritutions (not to mention my personal
preference, FreeBSD).  There really isn't a lot of ground to pick
between the various distributions these days.  It really just comes down
to "do you want GUI admin tools?", and if so go with RedHat, otherwise
go with Debian or Slackware (or one of the open BSDs)

.

Tom Fahey <tom.fahey@virgin.net> wrote:
: As a newbie I tried Caldera and found it ok, tried RedHat 5 and could not
: get X to start.  However, since then I've got SuSE 5.2 and have had no
: problems with it.  It comes on 4 CDs with a great book and installs without
: difficulty.

Is there an English version of SuSE?  I got the impression that they were
going to stick to German-only.

In article <355D3A27.9341F95A@halcyon.com>,
  gdewar@mail1.halcyon.com wrote:
> > KDE is
> > built with a commercial widget set, Qt.  Qt is not free software
> > and should be avoided UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.  If you
> > want a commercial widget set, fine.  Just know that as soon as you
> > make one dime on anything built with it you must PAY for the widget
> > set.  This isn't entirely bad, but you MUST know it going in.

I suggest you read Qt's license, and you will notice that you need to pay for
Qt only if you don't share your source code freely.

That is: Qt's fee is absolutely independent on if you sell your software or
not, it only depends on under what license your software is released, and
under which windowing system it runs.

For example: If I write QtCAD for X, license it under GPL, and sell it for
$1500 bundled with a support contract, and make QtCAD's source available, I
don't pay a dime to Trol Tech.

If somebody buys a commercial windows Qt license, he can even compile QtCAD in
his box and redistribute the binaries (assuming QtCAD was totally portable
without changes, just a recompile) along with the sources.

So, Qt's license encourages commercial vendors to put there software under a
free license.


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Whats an "open BSD"?
Glenn
>to "do you want GUI admin tools?", and if so go with RedHat, otherwise
>go with Debian or Slackware (or one of the open BSDs)
>
>.

>So, Qt's license encourages commercial vendors to put there software under a
>free license.

No it doesn't.  It encourages folks to try it out with free software
and then want to buy it to use it for commercial software.  Qt's license
encourages folks to use Qt because they think it's free and then be 
coerced into paying for it when they need something for a commercial 
app.

--
 Jim Stokes
 jim.stokes@wilmington.net

"Glenn" <glenn@pip.com.au> wrote:

>Whats an "open BSD"?
>Glenn
>>to "do you want GUI admin tools?", and if so go with RedHat, otherwise
>>go with Debian or Slackware (or one of the open BSDs)
>>
>>.

That's what happens when an NT system crashes, and you crack open the
monitor... :)

Open is a concept of "open to examine and/or use". BSD is a version of unix
originating/implemented from Berkley University.
  __   __   _______________________________
 //)) //)) | Richard RUDEK. MicroDek.      | Insert sh, ah,
//\\ //\\  | Chatswood, Sydney. Australia. |  witty comment here. :)
           `-------------------------------'

hmmm.... never paid a dime to troll tech and I use kde all the time.  didn't
pay for it---didn't pirate it---hmm... maybe I'm too stupid to know the
meaning of NO, but I know the difference between 'there' and 'their' and i
also know that free means I didn't pay for something...

ed

PGP key??  I've an old trunk key, a house key, and a car key...No PGP key.
I'll leave that up to the paranoid amoungst the populace.


Jim Stokes wrote in message ...
>>So, Qt's license encourages commercial vendors to put there software under
a
>>free license.
>
>No it doesn't.  It encourages folks to try it out with free software
>and then want to buy it to use it for commercial software.  Qt's license
>encourages folks to use Qt because they think it's free and then be
>coerced into paying for it when they need something for a commercial
>app.
>
>--
> Jim Stokes
> jim.stokes@wilmington.net

lsayre@IntegrityOnline13.com wrote:
> In article <6jm4r2$ev5$3@attila.apana.org.au>,
>   Matt@McLeod.dropbear.id.au (Matt McLeod) wrote:
>>
>> Tom Fahey <tom.fahey@virgin.net> wrote:
>> : As a newbie I tried Caldera and found it ok, tried RedHat 5 and could not
>> : get X to start.  However, since then I've got SuSE 5.2 and have had no
>> : problems with it.  It comes on 4 CDs with a great book and installs
> without
>> : difficulty.
>>
>> Is there an English version of SuSE?  I got the impression that they were
>> going to stick to German-only.
>>

> There is an English version!  Go to http://www.suse.com/index_us.html where
> you will find the complete 4 CD plus 400+ page book English version for $49.

> I picked mine up from Linux Mall for $35 (same registerable package that SuSE
> sells for $49), and like Tom Fahey above, I find it to be great.  My prior
> Linux experience with Caldera 1.1 Standard was not nearly as enjoyable.

Now for the difficult one.  :-)

Do they do a PPC version?  I escaped from the x86 world a while back,
and don't plan on going back any time soon.

-- 
Matt McLeod,                    
<Matt@McLeod.dropbear.id.au>      
http://attila.apana.org.au/~mjm

Glenn <glenn@pip.com.au> wrote:
> Whats an "open BSD"?

One of the open-source BSDs.  FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.  go to
http://www.<foo>BSD.org/ for details on wach one.

I find FreeBSD a better system for a network server, but as always,
YMMV.


-- 
Matt McLeod,                    
<Matt@McLeod.dropbear.id.au>      
http://attila.apana.org.au/~mjm

Matt McLeod <mjm@attila.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Glenn <glenn@pip.com.au> wrote:
>> Whats an "open BSD"?

> One of the open-source BSDs.  FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.  go to
> http://www.<foo>BSD.org/ for details on wach one.

> I find FreeBSD a better system for a network server, but as always,
> YMMV.

Just to clarify (before screaming hordes of [Net|Open]BSD advocates
lynch me):  I mean that I find FreeBSD better than Linux for network
server jobs.  I don't have a lot of experience with the others
(although I did inherit a NetBSD system a few years back, but it's
now running FreeBSD).  If you aren't used to how a Real OS installs,
better go for FreeBSD (the others will make you cry).

-- 
Matt McLeod,                    
<Matt@McLeod.dropbear.id.au>      
http://attila.apana.org.au/~mjm

In article <6jpd0s$g4l$3@attila.apana.org.au>,
  Matt McLeod <mjm@attila.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> lsayre@IntegrityOnline13.com wrote:
> > In article <6jm4r2$ev5$3@attila.apana.org.au>,
> >   Matt@McLeod.dropbear.id.au (Matt McLeod) wrote:
> >>
> >> Tom Fahey <tom.fahey@virgin.net> wrote:
> >> : As a newbie I tried Caldera and found it ok, tried RedHat 5 and could
not
> >> : get X to start.  However, since then I've got SuSE 5.2 and have had no
> >> : problems with it.  It comes on 4 CDs with a great book and installs
> > without
> >> : difficulty.
> >>
> >> Is there an English version of SuSE?  I got the impression that they were
> >> going to stick to German-only.
> >>
>
> > There is an English version!  Go to http://www.suse.com/index_us.html
where
> > you will find the complete 4 CD plus 400+ page book English version for
$49.
>
> > I picked mine up from Linux Mall for $35 (same registerable package that
SuSE
> > sells for $49), and like Tom Fahey above, I find it to be great.  My prior
> > Linux experience with Caldera 1.1 Standard was not nearly as enjoyable.
>
> Now for the difficult one.  :-)
>
> Do they do a PPC version?  I escaped from the x86 world a while back,
> and don't plan on going back any time soon.
>
> --
> Matt McLeod,
> <Matt@McLeod.dropbear.id.au>
> http://attila.apana.org.au/~mjm
>
Sadly, no.  However, they should be releasing their Alpha version any day now,
in the event you have access to one.

Lawrence Sayre <lsayre@integrityonline13.com>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Glenn wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm a  newbie to Unix and C. I have successfully dabbled with slackware for
> a while but am finding it a little overwhelming when I have to solve
> problems with in a tight time frame, particularly with no real
> documentation.
>
> I get the impression that both caldera and RH5 are easer to setup and
> 'drive' and am thinking of moving to one of these.
>
> What I'm doing is soliciting opinions and experiences to help me decide.
>
> Here are some other things I have to consider:
> * This machine will be in a netware environment and caldera's dist comes
> with proprietery clients tools for this.
> * I may be about to have a SPARC 20 fall in my lap and RH5 exists for SPARC
> I believe? Does calderas?
> * One program I want to run requires a package called LinuxThreads, which I
> know RH5 comes with installed. I have not been able to get this going under
> slackware 3.something. Does caldera come with this?
> * I'll be having PC's and Macs access this machine.
> Thanks for any comments,
> Glenn
> ( If your news reader lets you email straight to me and the forum, I'd
> appreciate it, thanks again)\

  Glenn,
I run both RH5 and Caldera Standard side by side.  As far as Novell inter
operability Caldera
wins hands down (after all, look at who "runs" Caldera!).  RH5 can log into
and access files
from Novell (as any linux can) using MARS.  I do think that unless you get the
"Standard"
version of Caldera that RH5 is more feature rich.  I run both NW 312 and 4.10
with PC's using
both linux boxes as NFS servers.  I also use NetATalk.  If I had to make a
choice and give up
one of my linux systems, I'd keep the Caldera.
Hope this helps a bit.
Rick Clow

Edward Cameron wrote:
> 
> hmmm.... never paid a dime to troll tech and I use kde all the time.  didn't
> pay for it---didn't pirate it---hmm... maybe I'm too stupid to know the
> meaning of NO, but I know the difference between 'there' and 'their' and i
> also know that free means I didn't pay for something...
> 

In the free software world, "free" usually means that the source code is
freely available to all.  Some "free" software costs money and some does
not.  The availability of the source code tends to keep prices down. 
Commercial software can be "free software".  This misunderstanding will
hopefully diminish as the term "Open Source" becomes more popular.

Steve Bergman

Steve Bergman <steve@netplus.net> wrote in article
<3565C401.1E387FC@netplus.net>...
> Edward Cameron wrote:
> > 
> > hmmm.... never paid a dime to troll tech and I use kde all the time. 
didn't
> > pay for it---didn't pirate it---hmm... maybe I'm too stupid to know the
> > meaning of NO, but I know the difference between 'there' and 'their'
and i
> > also know that free means I didn't pay for something...
> > 
> 
> In the free software world, "free" usually means that the source code is
> freely available to all.  Some "free" software costs money and some does
> not.  The availability of the source code tends to keep prices down. 
> Commercial software can be "free software".  This misunderstanding will
> hopefully diminish as the term "Open Source" becomes more popular.
> 
> Steve Bergman
>

I was under the impression that QT was freely usable as a component base
for those who released their software free of charge.  Conversely, if
someone wanted to make a profit off of TrollTech's work on QT, then Troll
would like a piece of that profit.  I'd say that was fair.  That way the
best of both worlds could be had; free software and for (dare I say it)
profit software.

I do however realize that if lots of programming is done based on a widget
kit that is proprietary, then it may cause some problems in the future -
that is why I would suggest that any entity creating software should make
sure that it is easily portable to another toolkit via source code
abstraction layer or encapsulation of said toolkit.

Open Source means that the program isn't free but the source code is
available for perusal?  Forgive my ignorance... :(
-- 

=======================================
codifex@airmail.NOSPAM.net
bgravitt@vha.NOSPAM.com
=======================================
My opinions are mine alone - though others may borrow...


 

In article <355D3A27.9341F95A@halcyon.com>, Greg Dewar <gdewar@halcyon.com> writes:
> How easy is it to switch between Afterstep, KDE and other windows
> managers?
> 

How long does it take to click Mb1 and navigate one menu?

In article <slrn6lslor.8i7.jim@thebeach.wilmington.net>, jim@thebeach.wilmington.net (Jim Stokes) writes:
> >* This machine will be in a netware environment and caldera's dist comes
> >with proprietery clients tools for this.
> 
> Red Hat has mars-nwe and ncpfs.  SUSe probably does, too.
> 
> >* I may be about to have a SPARC 20 fall in my lap and RH5 exists for SPARC
> >I believe? Does calderas?
> 
> Red Hat 4.2 exists for the SPARC.  5.1 will likely exist for it too,
> but it isn't out yet.  No other "official" distribution runs on the SPARC.
> You can get UltraPenguin for your SPARC, but it is unsupported at this time
> (it is based on RH, though).
> 
> >* One program I want to run requires a package called LinuxThreads, which I
> >know RH5 comes with installed. I have not been able to get this going under
> >slackware 3.something. Does caldera come with this?
> 
> No.  I don't think SUSe does, either, but you might want to check
> their web site.
> 

Linux threads is obsolete with the installation of glibc (which is included in
RH5 and, I expect, other current distributions).

On 22 May 1998 20:06:45 GMT, VHA PC Development <codifex@airmail.net> wrote:
>Steve Bergman <steve@netplus.net> wrote in article
><3565C401.1E387FC@netplus.net>...
>> In the free software world, "free" usually means that the source code is
>> freely available to all.  Some "free" software costs money and some does
>> not.  The availability of the source code tends to keep prices down. 
>I was under the impression that QT was freely usable as a component base
>for those who released their software free of charge.  Conversely, if

No, it is not freely usable as a component base for those who release
their software free of charge. You are not allowed to take routines
out of the QT library and place them into your source code (if, for
example, you're writing a Motif clone or some sort and don't want all
of the QT baggage), and you are not allowed to modify the QT library
in any way to add any features/fix bugs/etc. I personally have no
problem with Troll Tech charging money for QT, and their distribution
license (there isn't one) is reasonable. I do object to the restrictions
on what you can do with their source code  -- in the event that a bug
cannot be fixed in a timely manner by TT, or TT goes out of business,
I don't want to have bet my business on QT only to find out that my
entire application base is basically stuck in 1998 for eternity. The
whole deal with having source code, as an application writer, is that
if the source code vendor goes out of business it doesn't affect my
business -- if all else fails, I can hire someone else to add features
etc. In part this is why Faircom still sells a ton of C-Tree licenses
despite the fact that Raima etc. produce a better product for less
money -- applications writers want the stability and predictability of
freely--modifiable source code for the basic underpinnings
of their application. As someone who has been burned by a database
vendor basically abandoning a product and raising their per-copy
license 1000%, I can relate quite well to that desire for free sourcce
code (free as in liberty, not free as in price -- believe me, Faircom wants
a pretty penny for their C-Tree software!!).  


-- 
Eric Lee Green   exec@prysm.net          Executive Consultants
Systems Specialist               Educational Administration Solutions
             See http://members.tripod.com/~e_l_green

VHA PC Development <codifex@airmail.net> wrote:
> I was under the impression that QT was freely usable as a component base
> for those who released their software free of charge.  Conversely, if
> someone wanted to make a profit off of TrollTech's work on QT, then Troll
> would like a piece of that profit.  I'd say that was fair.  That way the
> best of both worlds could be had; free software and for (dare I say it)
> profit software.

Almost, but not quite.  You can make a profit from your work, but you
have to release your source.

The real problem (as I understand it) is that you can't modify the Qt
source then distribute your modified Qt.  This is partially alleviated
by Qt being a C++ library - if you want to modify a widget, you can
create a new one based on one of the old ones, but it doesn't deal with
bugfixes.

However - Troll have been pretty quick on bugs, and with the 
"Free Qt Foundation" (or whatever it's called) the "what if Troll goes
bust?" problem is not significant any more (except for Troll).

> I do however realize that if lots of programming is done based on a widget
> kit that is proprietary, then it may cause some problems in the future -
> that is why I would suggest that any entity creating software should make
> sure that it is easily portable to another toolkit via source code
> abstraction layer or encapsulation of said toolkit.

> Open Source means that the program isn't free but the source code is
> available for perusal?  Forgive my ignorance... :(

It goes further than that.  Open Source means that the source is open.  That
is, you can take the source and change it as you please.  This is why
Qt, despite having the source available, isn't really "Open Source".