There's also all things like TV (television or transvestites)
Actually a small island nation in the pacific (can't recall the name at present) actually had.tv as their country code. They then sold it for a lot of money.
I must admit, I would have a few reservations about living in such a place - the height really does start to become a problem:
People would be banned from opening the windows of their apartments, but could breathe fresh air on concourses thanks to openings in the outer glass and aluminium shell.
Um, yeah, nice. Can't open my window... not a huge problem, except all the air is going to have be seriously circulated, which doesn't appeal... and having to go to concourses to get "fresh air" certainly isn't appealing. Okay, mybe living in NZ has spoiled me, but still.
The there's the potential for problems, which I'm sure they have nice cunning plans on:
However, he added a warning: "The main pitfall is the towering inferno scenario - what happens if fire breaks out? It could be the ultimate disaster. Imagine 100,000 people suffocating. And you'd have to organise the place pretty well to stop people feeling like rats in a cage."
Pioz says the risk of fire has been taken into account, with sealed compartments built in to act like fire doors. People escaping from a fire on one level would need to flee only 40 yards away, upwards or downwards, to the closest safe area, he said.
40 yards sounds real nice, but that's escaping to a safe area that still 200 floors up... I'm not sure I'd feel all that safe.
I'm not saying that I'm against living in a place like that... But I am definitely more than happy to let those Shanghai citizens be the ginuea pigs though.
I'm hoping to God that that's a beautiful display of sarcasm:-)
The reality is that there's not that much difficulty in finding decent content. The ever growing media conglomeration simply means we can expect an even less informed "masses" blathering on about the same mindless stuff in the background.
against this sort of thing is that the people you're advocating against own all the means via which you can make the biggest impact.
That means that you generally find anti-massive-media-conglomeration devolve into little discussion groups and message boards that do a lot of self congratulatory back patting about how evil all this is - ending up with remarkably icestuous discussions with little outside influence, to the point where people involved in such discussions start getting sufficiently out of touch with reality that they come of sounding like rabid crazed individuals who want to live in a happy little commune.
It's about that point where the media conglomerates decide its worth publishing...
f they didn't all get together and form industry associations that effectively give them the power of one monolithic company.
Yes, I'm talking about the RIAA and MPAA...
Ah, but at least they are still spread to their little industries - sure the RIAA has massive media control via all the companies that buy into the conglomeration, but what is essentially a closely related industry, film and video, has a seperate all powerful conglomerate.
When the RIAA, MPAA, and equivalent writers association decide to merge into some massive "content provider" association... that's the time to really panic (well, maybe not, it'll be far to late to panic by then, because they'll already own you).
I tend to look at it this way: Hidden Fortress is quite similar to Star Wars - it's just that there is no Luke Skywalker character, and Han Solo and Obi Wan Kenobi are essentially combined together into one utterly cool character (Mifune's - the man is a genius). For me, as a film, that structure works a lot better than Star Wars. Of course Lucas did his version a lot later and managed to get things like colour, and fancy special effects...
Trying to think how the NSA reconciles those two roles makes my head hurt.
As far as I understand they manage to reconcile things by keeping two seperate divisions, each handling one end. One handles the issues of espionage, and hence has quite a few peoblems with strong cryptography, the other is an entirely seperate division that handles computer security, and as such are quite keen for cryptography to be used (at least, by the good guys).
It's safe to presume that SELinux comes from the computer security division, and as such most of the anti-NSA paranoia being espoused here is completely out of place. The people making SELinux are as interested in making it secure as anyone else, and have no reasons to have any other agendas.
You've got to remember, the NSA is big, and SELinux is more than likely just a small part of what they're doing, and on the whole, of little interest to most departments at the NSA. The only reason it shows up on the radar at all is because it is one of the few projects they can talk about publicly.
If someone would eventually get around to making a decent filmn of Ender's Game then we might actually have something. Ender certainly qualifies as a hacker, and the subplot with Val and Peter suggests similar sorts of things.
And you've got figure someone is going to make the film eventually.... and as long as they don't butcher the book as they did with Starship Troopers we'll be fine...
NORMAL USERS DO NOT WANT A HUNDRED DIFFERENT WINDOW MANAGERS! THEY WANT TO GET WORK DONE AND GO HOME.
I do not know how much more clearly this can possibly be stated, but it doesn't seem to be getting through to Linux developers. You would think that 95%+ of desktop systems using a single interface would give the hint. We're not talking about developers or power users, who DO like to customize for power, we're talking about actual users who write reports, run spreadsheets, and download porn. They do not give a rat's ass about KDE vs GNome, and if you tell them the first thing they have to do to use the system is decide on a freaking window manager, forgetaboutit.
The only problem I have with these arguments is as soon as people say that there should only BE one window manager. There SHOULD be hundreds. The trick is for someone to create a nice little distro that only HAS one of those hundreds - if you want a different one (as so many people will) then get a different distro, or download the WM you want.
I don't have a problem with other people wanting their choices made for them. I do have a problem with those people forcing that choice upon me.
It's a powerful freedom - the option of whether you want to have to make a choice on a given matter, or not. I know about various window managers, so that's a choice I want to be able to make. I don't know much about obscure kernel compile options, so I'm happy that I have the option to not worry about them if I don't want to.
Just to make sure the point gets home: If you want a "one desktop, one window manager, one look and feel" linux, then make a distro with only KDE, KWM, no themes of any kind, and default all the personal KDE settings files to read only or something. DON'T try and get rid of all those other window managers, that more geeky distrobutions will throw in and let you choose from.
The is a distro responsibility, not the responsibility of Linux, or window manager coders, or anythign else.
I've been changing distrobutions semi regularly - just trying different things out.
I just keep 2 partitions aside:/home (where I keep tarballs of old/etc), and an extra partitions I use as a sandbox.
I just install the new desired distro into my sandbox partition, make a few changes to lilo so I can boot to it, and make sure it takes my/home partition as/home on it's tree.
That gives me a chance to mess with things in a serious way until I get things how I want them. I then tar up any bits I want to keep, dump it all on/home, wipe the parition, then move over the guts of the old distro to the sandbox parition (as a backup)... then I just install over the top with the new distro, and all is right with the world.
This does require a decent sized hard drive, but you only really need 2 or 3 gigs of sandbox space.
As other people have pointed out, it was refreshing to see a politician say "I don't really know" instead of just spouting what he thinks we want to hear.
The biggest thing about that, for me, is that it means we can trust the rest of his answers to _not_ be "what we want to hear", but rather his actual beliefs.
There is, of course, the possibility that the whole thing was justa cunning ploy to gain trust, but there's a point where you have to stop being paranoid and just have a little bit of faith in people.
I don't get it - many people seem to want to get both: free software, and get paid for writing it.
The "thousands of developers who contributed code *FOR FREE*" to the distribution did so knowingly. I see no problem with someone trying to sell it. The contributed code is free elsewhere, so if you don't want to pay for it...don't.
What they are selling is convenience, not code. You can go to a restaurant and order some spaghetti bolognaise - it's more expensive to buy it that way than it is to buy the flour, egg, tomatoes etc. and make it yourself, but you're paying for the convenience of having it all prepared and delivered to your table (and not having to worry about cleaning up afterwards). Same principle here really. If you want you can go and download debian for free, or if that isn't quite what you need you can get a conveniently packaged version with your needs nicely built in. Whether that's libranets distro, or somethign else, or maybe just debian, depends on who you are and what you want. Libranet aren't saying you can't just go and download a different distro for free, they're saying that if you want to use the ftp servers and packaging that they've got, they would like something in return.
I'll reiterate: They are NOT selling other peoples code. A restaurant charges a lot more for food, is the extra cost involved "selling other peoples food"?
If you don't like what they offer, don't buy it. Or make your own mirror of it and give it away for free.
For example... Try creating a directory. To a complete newbie, "mkdir" is some cryptic command. But with the slightest knowledge of the command line, it becomes evident that it's better. "mkdir foo" is a *lot* easier than starting Windows Explorer, navigating to the folder you want, and then right clicking, and renaming "New Folder".
I have to say I agree - again, like you, I am no command line freak. The GUI definitely has it's uses, and I do like GUIs. In the end, I also like command lines (didn't used to, but then I got to know it all a bit better).
I use cygwin and BASH (I'm stuck on NT at work) for most of my file management, because it's just, well, easier and faster. mkdir is a perfect example. Let's see... open up explorer, open up the tree to the directory I want then go through lots of "new folder" operations, or open up BASH to where I want to be (which is faster than waiting for explorer to load) and do a "mkdir -p some/long/series/of/directories" to create the heirarchy I need?
Yes there are operations that are just plain easier in a graphical file manager, and I wish someone would actually combine the two _properly_ (some of the versions of EFM were getting there, graphical file management, but while in EFM you could type a variety of bash style commands and get desired results).
Any new computer I sit down at, the first things I try and establish (if I'm going to be working on it for any length of time) are what the maximum resolution and color depth supported are. I then switch to those.
No, I don't often end up looking at horribly small text - well, nothing I consider horribly small. 1280x1024 is fine on 15" and 1600x1200 is good for a 17".
I simply don't understand how people manage to survive with so little screen real estate.
High resolutions, and multiple virtual desktops are the only way, surely?!
Don't touch ASE (Adaptive Server Enterprise). If you spend your life workign with ASE it can prove to be quite a nice database I'm sure, but unless you're willing to devote your life to it, it can really be a pig.
ASA isn't so bad though.
Jedidiah
As other people have said, the bigger they make the ads the more people will cross over the line into active evasion. If sites and advertisers were smart, they would opt for sponsorship of sites instead.
Ads that work for me: The SUSe O'Reilly sponsorship of userfriendly - it's there, they have banner ads, but it mostly doesn't get in the way, and it is well targetted. It certainly made me contemplate SUSe whne I was bouncing around different distributions a while ago.
I never thought I'd be saying this, but hooray for all those fools who still use 640x480 as their resolution of choice. So long as enough of them exist it imposes a threshold on banner ad sizes - a max size which (thankfully) still looks fairly small in any decent resolution (ie. anything 1600x1200 or higher).
There have been a number of excellent ideas proposed here, and the common theme of them seems to be: just expand the present UNIX CLI paradigm a bit further to encompass the possibility of a GUI:
- Adding a STDINFO handle to the usual STDIN, STDOUT, STDERR
- Adding a/proc style filesystem to keep track of windows and window information
- etc.
Let's face it, what we really want here is for windows, and other gui objects to just fit in as extra objects that can be handled, piped, grepped, etc., but in exactly the same way that processes, devices, can be.
That's true integration of the GUI with UNIX - don't layer it on top in a mishmash manner, embrace it in a UNIX way (as opposed to trying to cram the whole thing down your throat ala windows), so that it doesn't matter if it's not there.
I must admit I was quite impressed with EFM as well. As much as people associate E with bloat (and admittedly graphically it was a little bloated), in terms of file management it was pleasantly stripped down. It didn't try to do everythign for you like Nautilus - rather it just managed your files, and its features were focussed at simple file management tasks. The command line feature was simply a good example of this.
It's about time someone created a nice _stripped down_ GUI file manager - and by stripped down, I mean focussing on FILE MANAGEMENT features rather than cute ways to play MP3s etc.
Is it something to do with the apparent inability some of these people seem to have with pronouncing Ximian? Simian with a 'Z' sound instead of an 'S'. Surely not that hard.
Is it possibly because they somehow completely miss the simian connection? (Which again, I thought was pretty clear).
Sorry, but it seems like a perfectly good name to me. It has the guts of the company theme (monkey mascot/evolution etc.) and it's simple and easy to remember (providing you speak english, and have encountered the word simian at some point in your life).
What's with the necessity to criticise everything?
Why are "office suites" the supposed be-all, end-all application that we all need to lead happy and productive lives? For many users, these office suites are among the most underused applications on their desktops. I imagine many Linux users like me would agree.
Hell yes. At work I have an NT machine with MS Office _and_ StarOffice (Just for the sake of it, I've got Hard Drive space to burn...), and TBH, it has been many many weeks now since I have used either. And even then it was simply to open up a nasty.doc that someone sent me.
I've never actually figured out what office apps are for really. I can vaguely understand Word Processing... even had reason to use it on occasion (though I generally use LaTeX), but Spreadsheets completely baffle me. WTF do people actually use spreadsheets for other than aligning a bunch of text/numbers in cute little rows and columns? I'm sure there's something to it, but I've just never had a need to use it, so I honestly don't have the faintest idea.
What do I use? Mathematica, Emacs (for programming in, well, most everything really), and a nice range of custom software we built at the company. Other than that it's just the standard email and web stuff.
So if someone could please explain to me what an office suite is actually useful for, I'll be all ears.
Maybe I was the wrong sort of user to be reading it but, while I found it immensely useful at the beginning to just sort out some of the finer points, I rapidly found Running Linux less and less useful - it doesn't really cover system administration in anywhere near the depth I would like.
As I say, I may simply be the wrong type of reader - I prefer to learn _more_ than I need to know so that I have a better understanding of the parts that I do _need_ to know. Running Linux just didn't provide that.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually a small island nation in the pacific (can't recall the name at present) actually had
Jedidiah
--
People would be banned from opening the windows of their apartments, but could breathe fresh air on concourses thanks to openings in the outer glass and aluminium shell.
Um, yeah, nice. Can't open my window... not a huge problem, except all the air is going to have be seriously circulated, which doesn't appeal
The there's the potential for problems, which I'm sure they have nice cunning plans on:
However, he added a warning: "The main pitfall is the towering inferno scenario - what happens if fire breaks out? It could be the ultimate disaster. Imagine 100,000 people suffocating. And you'd have to organise the place pretty well to stop people feeling like rats in a cage."
Pioz says the risk of fire has been taken into account, with sealed compartments built in to act like fire doors. People escaping from a fire on one level would need to flee only 40 yards away, upwards or downwards, to the closest safe area, he said.
40 yards sounds real nice, but that's escaping to a safe area that still 200 floors up
I'm not saying that I'm against living in a place like that
Jedidiah
--
The Spanish architects envisage 368 lifts, with the journey from bottom to top taking less than two minutes.
Jedidiah
--
Bwahaha - Try managing large scale organisation without going through large scale media :-)
Jedidiah
--
I'm hoping to God that that's a beautiful display of sarcasm :-)
:-)
The reality is that there's not that much difficulty in finding decent content. The ever growing media conglomeration simply means we can expect an even less informed "masses" blathering on about the same mindless stuff in the background.
Que Sera Sera.
You people worry too much
Jedidiah
--
against this sort of thing is that the people you're advocating against own all the means via which you can make the biggest impact.
That means that you generally find anti-massive-media-conglomeration devolve into little discussion groups and message boards that do a lot of self congratulatory back patting about how evil all this is - ending up with remarkably icestuous discussions with little outside influence, to the point where people involved in such discussions start getting sufficiently out of touch with reality that they come of sounding like rabid crazed individuals who want to live in a happy little commune.
It's about that point where the media conglomerates decide its worth publishing...
Jedidiah
--
Yes, I'm talking about the RIAA and MPAA...
Ah, but at least they are still spread to their little industries - sure the RIAA has massive media control via all the companies that buy into the conglomeration, but what is essentially a closely related industry, film and video, has a seperate all powerful conglomerate.
When the RIAA, MPAA, and equivalent writers association decide to merge into some massive "content provider" association ... that's the time to really panic (well, maybe not, it'll be far to late to panic by then, because they'll already own you).
Jedidiah
--
I tend to look at it this way: Hidden Fortress is quite similar to Star Wars - it's just that there is no Luke Skywalker character, and Han Solo and Obi Wan Kenobi are essentially combined together into one utterly cool character (Mifune's - the man is a genius). For me, as a film, that structure works a lot better than Star Wars. Of course Lucas did his version a lot later and managed to get things like colour, and fancy special effects...
Jedidiah
--
As far as I understand they manage to reconcile things by keeping two seperate divisions, each handling one end. One handles the issues of espionage, and hence has quite a few peoblems with strong cryptography, the other is an entirely seperate division that handles computer security, and as such are quite keen for cryptography to be used (at least, by the good guys).
It's safe to presume that SELinux comes from the computer security division, and as such most of the anti-NSA paranoia being espoused here is completely out of place. The people making SELinux are as interested in making it secure as anyone else, and have no reasons to have any other agendas.
You've got to remember, the NSA is big, and SELinux is more than likely just a small part of what they're doing, and on the whole, of little interest to most departments at the NSA. The only reason it shows up on the radar at all is because it is one of the few projects they can talk about publicly.
Jedidiah --
If someone would eventually get around to making a decent filmn of Ender's Game then we might actually have something. Ender certainly qualifies as a hacker, and the subplot with Val and Peter suggests similar sorts of things.
And you've got figure someone is going to make the film eventually.... and as long as they don't butcher the book as they did with Starship Troopers we'll be fine...
Jedidiah
My personal favourite moment from that film: when he does a global search for "job" on usenet and get 0 hits.
Now there's a pretty damn impossible mission.
Jedidiah
--
I do not know how much more clearly this can possibly be stated, but it doesn't seem to be getting through to Linux developers. You would think that 95%+ of desktop systems using a single interface would give the hint. We're not talking about developers or power users, who DO like to customize for power, we're talking about actual users who write reports, run spreadsheets, and download porn. They do not give a rat's ass about KDE vs GNome, and if you tell them the first thing they have to do to use the system is decide on a freaking window manager, forgetaboutit.
The only problem I have with these arguments is as soon as people say that there should only BE one window manager. There SHOULD be hundreds. The trick is for someone to create a nice little distro that only HAS one of those hundreds - if you want a different one (as so many people will) then get a different distro, or download the WM you want.
I don't have a problem with other people wanting their choices made for them. I do have a problem with those people forcing that choice upon me.
It's a powerful freedom - the option of whether you want to have to make a choice on a given matter, or not. I know about various window managers, so that's a choice I want to be able to make. I don't know much about obscure kernel compile options, so I'm happy that I have the option to not worry about them if I don't want to.
Just to make sure the point gets home: If you want a "one desktop, one window manager, one look and feel" linux, then make a distro with only KDE, KWM, no themes of any kind, and default all the personal KDE settings files to read only or something. DON'T try and get rid of all those other window managers, that more geeky distrobutions will throw in and let you choose from.
The is a distro responsibility, not the responsibility of Linux, or window manager coders, or anythign else.
Jedidiah
--
I've been changing distrobutions semi regularly - just trying different things out.
/home (where I keep tarballs of old /etc), and an extra partitions I use as a sandbox.
/home partition as /home on it's tree.
/home, wipe the parition, then move over the guts of the old distro to the sandbox parition (as a backup) ... then I just install over the top with the new distro, and all is right with the world.
I just keep 2 partitions aside:
I just install the new desired distro into my sandbox partition, make a few changes to lilo so I can boot to it, and make sure it takes my
That gives me a chance to mess with things in a serious way until I get things how I want them. I then tar up any bits I want to keep, dump it all on
This does require a decent sized hard drive, but you only really need 2 or 3 gigs of sandbox space.
Jedidiah
--
As other people have pointed out, it was refreshing to see a politician say "I don't really know" instead of just spouting what he thinks we want to hear.
The biggest thing about that, for me, is that it means we can trust the rest of his answers to _not_ be "what we want to hear", but rather his actual beliefs.
There is, of course, the possibility that the whole thing was justa cunning ploy to gain trust, but there's a point where you have to stop being paranoid and just have a little bit of faith in people.
Jedidiah
--
I don't get it - many people seem to want to get both: free software, and get paid for writing it.
The "thousands of developers who contributed code *FOR FREE*" to the distribution did so knowingly. I see no problem with someone trying to sell it. The contributed code is free elsewhere, so if you don't want to pay for it...don't.
What they are selling is convenience, not code. You can go to a restaurant and order some spaghetti bolognaise - it's more expensive to buy it that way than it is to buy the flour, egg, tomatoes etc. and make it yourself, but you're paying for the convenience of having it all prepared and delivered to your table (and not having to worry about cleaning up afterwards). Same principle here really. If you want you can go and download debian for free, or if that isn't quite what you need you can get a conveniently packaged version with your needs nicely built in. Whether that's libranets distro, or somethign else, or maybe just debian, depends on who you are and what you want. Libranet aren't saying you can't just go and download a different distro for free, they're saying that if you want to use the ftp servers and packaging that they've got, they would like something in return.
I'll reiterate: They are NOT selling other peoples code. A restaurant charges a lot more for food, is the extra cost involved "selling other peoples food"?
If you don't like what they offer, don't buy it. Or make your own mirror of it and give it away for free.
Jedidiah
--
I have to say I agree - again, like you, I am no command line freak. The GUI definitely has it's uses, and I do like GUIs. In the end, I also like command lines (didn't used to, but then I got to know it all a bit better).
I use cygwin and BASH (I'm stuck on NT at work) for most of my file management, because it's just, well, easier and faster. mkdir is a perfect example. Let's see... open up explorer, open up the tree to the directory I want then go through lots of "new folder" operations, or open up BASH to where I want to be (which is faster than waiting for explorer to load) and do a "mkdir -p some/long/series/of/directories" to create the heirarchy I need?
Yes there are operations that are just plain easier in a graphical file manager, and I wish someone would actually combine the two _properly_ (some of the versions of EFM were getting there, graphical file management, but while in EFM you could type a variety of bash style commands and get desired results).
Jedidiah
Come on, defaults SUCK.
Any new computer I sit down at, the first things I try and establish (if I'm going to be working on it for any length of time) are what the maximum resolution and color depth supported are. I then switch to those.
No, I don't often end up looking at horribly small text - well, nothing I consider horribly small. 1280x1024 is fine on 15" and 1600x1200 is good for a 17".
I simply don't understand how people manage to survive with so little screen real estate.
High resolutions, and multiple virtual desktops are the only way, surely?!
Jedidiah
Don't touch ASE (Adaptive Server Enterprise). If you spend your life workign with ASE it can prove to be quite a nice database I'm sure, but unless you're willing to devote your life to it, it can really be a pig. ASA isn't so bad though. Jedidiah
Ads that work for me: The SUSe O'Reilly sponsorship of userfriendly - it's there, they have banner ads, but it mostly doesn't get in the way, and it is well targetted. It certainly made me contemplate SUSe whne I was bouncing around different distributions a while ago.
jedidiah
Long live idiots who use 640x480
Jedidiah
There have been a number of excellent ideas proposed here, and the common theme of them seems to be: just expand the present UNIX CLI paradigm a bit further to encompass the possibility of a GUI:
/proc style filesystem to keep track of windows and window information
- Adding a STDINFO handle to the usual STDIN, STDOUT, STDERR
- Adding a
- etc.
Let's face it, what we really want here is for windows, and other gui objects to just fit in as extra objects that can be handled, piped, grepped, etc., but in exactly the same way that processes, devices, can be.
That's true integration of the GUI with UNIX - don't layer it on top in a mishmash manner, embrace it in a UNIX way (as opposed to trying to cram the whole thing down your throat ala windows), so that it doesn't matter if it's not there.
Jedidiah
--
I must admit I was quite impressed with EFM as well. As much as people associate E with bloat (and admittedly graphically it was a little bloated), in terms of file management it was pleasantly stripped down. It didn't try to do everythign for you like Nautilus - rather it just managed your files, and its features were focussed at simple file management tasks. The command line feature was simply a good example of this.
It's about time someone created a nice _stripped down_ GUI file manager - and by stripped down, I mean focussing on FILE MANAGEMENT features rather than cute ways to play MP3s etc.
Jedidiah
Is it something to do with the apparent inability some of these people seem to have with pronouncing Ximian? Simian with a 'Z' sound instead of an 'S'. Surely not that hard.
Is it possibly because they somehow completely miss the simian connection? (Which again, I thought was pretty clear).
Sorry, but it seems like a perfectly good name to me. It has the guts of the company theme (monkey mascot/evolution etc.) and it's simple and easy to remember (providing you speak english, and have encountered the word simian at some point in your life).
What's with the necessity to criticise everything?
Jedidiah
Why are "office suites" the supposed be-all, end-all application that we all need to lead happy and productive lives? For many users, these office suites are among the most underused applications on their desktops. I imagine many Linux users like me would agree.
.doc that someone sent me.
Hell yes. At work I have an NT machine with MS Office _and_ StarOffice (Just for the sake of it, I've got Hard Drive space to burn...), and TBH, it has been many many weeks now since I have used either. And even then it was simply to open up a nasty
I've never actually figured out what office apps are for really. I can vaguely understand Word Processing... even had reason to use it on occasion (though I generally use LaTeX), but Spreadsheets completely baffle me. WTF do people actually use spreadsheets for other than aligning a bunch of text/numbers in cute little rows and columns? I'm sure there's something to it, but I've just never had a need to use it, so I honestly don't have the faintest idea.
What do I use? Mathematica, Emacs (for programming in, well, most everything really), and a nice range of custom software we built at the company. Other than that it's just the standard email and web stuff.
So if someone could please explain to me what an office suite is actually useful for, I'll be all ears.
Jedidiah
Maybe I was the wrong sort of user to be reading it but, while I found it immensely useful at the beginning to just sort out some of the finer points, I rapidly found Running Linux less and less useful - it doesn't really cover system administration in anywhere near the depth I would like.
As I say, I may simply be the wrong type of reader - I prefer to learn _more_ than I need to know so that I have a better understanding of the parts that I do _need_ to know. Running Linux just didn't provide that.
Jedidiah