NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/comp/os/linux/15781

Text File | 1992-11-06 | 3.7 KB | 73 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: sparky!uunet!unislc!erc
From: [e-mail] (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: uucp/mail/news FAQ
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
References: <1992Nov4.080547.1063@loft>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:25:58 GMT
Lines: 61

Robert Kiesling (rak@loft) wrote:

: In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vincent D. Skahan) writes:

:    once again, I see no reason to write (and have to support) a c.o.l.
:    FAQ for things that are already either documented in FAQ's or in books
:    you can buy.

: Agreed.  I've seen them, but maybe others haven't.  There is a FAQ,
: for example, with an overview of all these packages that was written
: by Chris Lewis.  A c.o.l. FAQ (or possibly Meta-FAQ, which I had in
: mind intially) would have a listing of these documents.  And some of
: the documentation can be very vague and confusing for beginners when
: the docs don't include system-specific information.

I have to agree with Vince on this one, too.  Linux isn't for DOS weenies,
at least not yet.  I remember a lot of whining when Linus released anything
prior to 0.95, because there were a lot of things in the kernel that weren't
supported, etc.  Linus' position (which I agree with, BTW) was, "hey, the
source is out there, it isn't *that* tough to understand -- go for it!"

And a lot of people did.  Sure, I'd like to see the kernel hacker's guide when
Michael et. al. get finished with it, but I'm not whining about it. :)

Remember, Linux is a *hacker's* unix.  If you don't like to tinker, then maybe
you ought to go with 386BSD. :)

Yes, uucp/elm/mail isn't a breeze to set up and use - but the configuration that
I include with mailpak should cover most people's setups.  But I also understand
that there are a *lot* of people that would like the uucp/mail interface to
have sendmail, procmail, pine, mush, etc. - but there's only so much stuff you
can stick into a package.  I'm also becoming concerned that tsx-11 and other
FTP sites are becoming repositories for multi-megabyte source distributions,
with only a few lines changed to make it work under linux.  A *massive* waste
of space and resources, IMHO.  I'd personally like to see tsx-11 contain binary
distributions, Linux-specific stuff, and cdiffs+pointers to where to find other
packages.  Because linux+gcc is becoming more mature, I'm considering making
the next mailpak a binary-only distribution, with cdiffs and FTP sites where
one can get the complete source distribution.  It's just too much stuff for
people to download, especially when they can get the sources elsewhere, feed
the diffs files to patch, and do a 'make'.

: Again, agreed.  However, what are the chances that another reader of
: one of those groups is going to be able to provide specific pointers
: for Linux?  These are groups for net packages in general, not specific

Linux is getting generic enough so that stuff written for generic unix will
compile and run with no problems.

: In his uucp internals FAQ, Ian Taylor wrote, "(This FAQ) does not
: describe how to configure UUCP, nor how to solve connection problems,
: nor how to deal with UUCP mail.  There are currently no FAQ postings
: on any of these topics, and I do not plan to write any."

Like I said, Linux isn't for weenies. :)  uucp *especially* isn't for those
with a weak stomach.
--
Ed Carp, N7EKG          [e-mail], [e-mail]         801/538-0177
"There is nothing to seek and nothing to find.  You're already enlightened, and
all the words in the world won't give you what you already have.  The wise
seeker, therefore, is concerned with one thing only: to becaome aware of what