Use the 'imap' package for Linux to provide both imap2 and pop3 services. With any mail client that supports the IMAP protocol, you can create folders on the server and copy your mail to those. (On the server, these mailboxes will appear as regular UNIX/UUCP mailboxes, all except the inbox will be in/home//mail/ by default).
In the case of Netscape for UNIX, you do not have to go through that step, as its mailboxes are already in UUCP format.
Then use the package 'hypermail' to convert these mailboxes to HTML pages.
Another alternative would be to use the MH 'inc' command, to separate each mail into a separate MH-style file, and perhaps do a 'scan +folder > indexfile'.
Actually, RPMs are in some ways superior to DEBs, in other ways inferior. A couple of things missing from the.DEB format:
The ability to have multiple versions of the same package installed at the same time. For instance, emacs_19.34 and emacs_20.3. (Currently, the way to get around it is to name the packages differently: emacs19_19.34 and emacs20_20.3).
Source dependencies. Though strictly not in the.DEB format, but rather the.DSC file that is one of the three components in a debian source archive.
SRPM equivalent.
What makes the Debian package management stand out is that it utilizes its features a lot more than, say, RedHat. For instance:
Menu entries for all installed Window managers (should an application want to have one)
Diversions (e.g./bin/su can be replaced by the 'secure-su' package, and this is all kept track of for installation/uninstallation purposes)
The 'dselect' frontend (although the interface could be improved), combined with e.g. the 'apt' backend, makes upgrading and maintentance really, really slick.
The habit of asking basic questions and automatically configure complex packages like sendmail/smail/exim during install. This interactivity can be a curse for automated installs, however - there is some discussion on automating the answers.
Kindof unfair, don't you think, after that inflammatory tone in your post? ('verbal community that is more willing to attack') Especially since you base that on such an innocent remark from one person - a remark that also has some truth to it?
Either way. Some facts.
In the stable/released version of Debian, packages have gone through month-long scrutiny and testing. They are out of date if you e.g. want to parttake in development of subcomponents. So are RedHat's releases. There is not much difference time-wise between these.
In the unstable branch, however, you keep yourself on the bleeding edge of things. For instance, Debian was the first to include glibc2.1 (which will break StarOffice, btw), always have the latest snapshots of things like enlightenment and gnome, yadda-yadda-yadda.
Portions of apt are considered stable, and included in the last stable distribution, slink. That includes the 'apt' backend for the 'dselect' utility as well as the 'apt-get' command line tool.
To make a.deb from original source, you need some debian utilties: dh_make, notably. You could do things manually with 'tar', 'gzip' and 'ar', but you really do not want to. There is a lot of bookkeeping stuff in there also, such as menu entries for your window managers (if your package wants to be included in them), maintainer info, changelogs, build rules, etc etc; all of which follow a very strict format.
Now, the reason why Debian really stands out (aside from being the largest distribution with the most activity in it): Its menu system. Its bug tracking system. Its package managers. Basically the bookkeeping that automates virtually everything, from upgrading your system in-place to keeping all installed window managers with up-to-date default menus to being perhaps the most secure UNIX around (I know OpenBSD also has a reputation of that kind).
After all, there is a reason why Corel chose to base their "ultra-userfriendly" distribution on Debian - all the infrastructure is geared towards complete maintainability.
I said StarOffice did not run under Linux emulation in FreeBSD. That was pretty silly of me.
It does. SO4 Service pack 3 did not straight out of the box, however, because it accessed the/proc filesystem under Linux. A couple of different ways to work around this were quickly found, however.
The problem does not exist with the last version of StarOffice.
Hope this preemted flames from overzealous FreeBSDers.:*)
All the obsession around "legitimizing" Linux seems to cater to a particular environment: Corporations. I.e. corporate users, commercial vendors.
With all due respect, while it is nice to have the backing and support of these, they are not what run things in the world of free software. Never was, really. UNIX has always in its 30-year history been a loosely gathered collection of free software (GNU or not) - thousands of small pieces that work together in a mosaic, much like developers who create them.
RedHat's role? Well, consider this. The user demographics will not change much, come Linux world domination. Then, as now, there will be technology have's and technology have-not's.
Roughly the same groups of people will want to use a commercial product, with commercial polishing on the edges, and thus pay money to be allowed ro remain "dumb" with respect to the software they use. These are the mortals, the mission statement generators, the people with other interests. Also, roughly the same groups of people will remain "power users" and developers: People who desire more sophistication and flexibility, and who appreciate the freedom that the bazaar model gives them to achieve this.
The former group today uses Windows, the latter Linux. Within the Linux camp, you have a preview of tomorrow's landscape: The former group uses RedHat/SuSE/Caldera, the latter uses Debian. (Roughly the same people who now uses Amigas, OS/2, etc will stick with Slackware, for nostalgic reasons).
That said, Linux domination will bring about a better world than the current proprietary domination by Microsoft.
Sure, there is no doubt that commerial software will be released specifically for RedHat. (Hopefully the LSB effort can provide a pseudo/proxy-platform before too long, to preempt such a trend. Ian Jackson of Debian has some good views on this). Regardless, binary compatability of such commercial applications to other distributions is almost certain to remain intact. Look at FreeBSD's excellent Linux emulation for an example of this. The only applications you cannot run under it are the same ones that seem to be very fuzzy with various Linux installations as well: StarOffice, to name one. The GNU license ensures that the basics of the RedHat platform (i.e. the kernel, libc, X toolkits, core utilities) remain open.
Now, AFAIK, there are already more developers working on Debian than any other operating system in the world. Add to this that people who develop UNIX software in general are more useful to Debian than to, say, Windows. This trend will continue. As such, free software development is not really dependent on what a particular corporation does or does not do. We thrive with today's direct hostility from Microsoft, I am sure we can excel even in a RedHat dominated world, and even if today's cool people at RedHat get replaced with corporate zombies who misunderstand the dynamics around free software and instead try to be more short-sighted for their own personal benefit.
To put it bluntly: Should RedHat Inc. ever change, it would be their loss, not so much ours.
Not only a Linux user, but his repeated reference to potatoes can only mean that he is using the latest, bleeding-edge, unstable Debian distribution.
That's doubly impressive; as we know, Debian is not the easiest one to install either.
This is not about Bruce - but Bruce spoke well
on
Response to the APSL
·
· Score: 1
Rob Malda would not accept a similar essay from anyone. The fact that Bruce has some name recognition, and thus gets his essay published here, does not mean that this is something only Bruce is concerned about.
He said what a lot of OS developers think of as the central issue: Free Software needs to stay free, and not be gradually restricted through seemingly innocent steps such as certain requirements in the APSL. While 90% of Linux users are less concerned about these issues than they ought to be, 90% of Linux users are also recent Windows graduates, that in the long run would allow deterioration of the dynamics that has caused OSS to be a success.
Not too bad, he certainly hit on some of the less flattering characteristics of professional {Linux,Mac,Amiga} zealots. Or at least, something that most people tend to associate with {said OSes}.
Case in point being CmdrTaco's take on it. Relax, laugh, go on with your life. Etc.
This article played down the importance of RMS's firm position against IP and proprietary control of standards. Without his uncompromising stand, the battle would have been lost years ago, while UNIX culture and free software development was threatened by extinction. FSF is the single most important reason we today have Free Software.
Thousands of developers are to be thanked also - for hanging in there while it looked like the battle was lost.
I would not call O'Reilly a leech, but his motivation for being in the book publishing business is nevertheless that trite old "make money" paradigm. Nothing wrong with that - just like there is nothing wrong with making money on the somewhat unsexy work of putting together a distribution RedHat/SuSE/Caldera style. He does open himself to competition from the book equivalent of Debian though - a non-profit, volunteer based effort to create something technically excellent - and free.
Slashdot Mirror
Use the 'imap' package for Linux to provide both imap2 and pop3 services. With any mail client that supports the IMAP protocol, you can create folders on the server and copy your mail to those. (On the server, these mailboxes will appear as regular UNIX/UUCP mailboxes, all except the inbox will be in /home//mail/ by default).
In the case of Netscape for UNIX, you do not have to go through that step, as its mailboxes are already in UUCP format.
Then use the package 'hypermail' to convert these mailboxes to HTML pages.
Another alternative would be to use the MH 'inc' command, to separate each mail into a separate MH-style file, and perhaps do a 'scan +folder > indexfile'.
Thus, there should be a way of setting up the system so that it installs packages only after authenticating them
It is done by default. If you want to install a package without authentication verification, you'll have to state so explicitly.
Actually, RPMs are in some ways superior to DEBs, in other ways inferior. A couple of things missing from the .DEB format:
What makes the Debian package management stand out is that it utilizes its features a lot more than, say, RedHat. For instance:
Just continuing the trend.
No flames, just facts please
.deb from original source, you need some debian utilties: dh_make, notably. You could do things manually with 'tar', 'gzip' and 'ar', but you really do not want to. There is a lot of bookkeeping stuff in there also, such as menu entries for your window managers (if your package wants to be included in them), maintainer info, changelogs, build rules, etc etc; all of which follow a very strict format.
Kindof unfair, don't you think, after that inflammatory tone in your post? ('verbal community that is more willing to attack') Especially since you base that on such an innocent remark from one person - a remark that also has some truth to it?
Either way. Some facts.
In the stable/released version of Debian, packages have gone through month-long scrutiny and testing. They are out of date if you e.g. want to parttake in development of subcomponents. So are RedHat's releases. There is not much difference time-wise between these.
In the unstable branch, however, you keep yourself on the bleeding edge of things. For instance, Debian was the first to include glibc2.1 (which will break StarOffice, btw), always have the latest snapshots of things like enlightenment and gnome, yadda-yadda-yadda.
Portions of apt are considered stable, and included in the last stable distribution, slink. That includes the 'apt' backend for the 'dselect' utility as well as the 'apt-get' command line tool.
To make a
Now, the reason why Debian really stands out (aside from being the largest distribution with the most activity in it): Its menu system. Its bug tracking system. Its package managers. Basically the bookkeeping that automates virtually everything, from upgrading your system in-place to keeping all installed window managers with up-to-date default menus to being perhaps the most secure UNIX around (I know OpenBSD also has a reputation of that kind).
After all, there is a reason why Corel chose to base their "ultra-userfriendly" distribution on Debian - all the infrastructure is geared towards complete maintainability.
I said StarOffice did not run under Linux emulation in FreeBSD. That was pretty silly of me.
/proc filesystem under Linux. A couple of different ways to work around this were quickly found, however.
:*)
It does. SO4 Service pack 3 did not straight out of the box, however, because it accessed the
The problem does not exist with the last version of StarOffice.
Hope this preemted flames from overzealous FreeBSDers.
All the obsession around "legitimizing" Linux seems to cater to a particular environment: Corporations. I.e. corporate users, commercial vendors.
With all due respect, while it is nice to have the backing and support of these, they are not what run things in the world of free software. Never was, really. UNIX has always in its 30-year history been a loosely gathered collection of free software (GNU or not) - thousands of small pieces that work together in a mosaic, much like developers who create them.
RedHat's role? Well, consider this. The user demographics will not change much, come Linux world domination. Then, as now, there will be technology have's and technology have-not's.
Roughly the same groups of people will want to use a commercial product, with commercial polishing on the edges, and thus pay money to be allowed ro remain "dumb" with respect to the software they use. These are the mortals, the mission statement generators, the people with other interests. Also, roughly the same groups of people will remain "power users" and developers: People who desire more sophistication and flexibility, and who appreciate the freedom that the bazaar model gives them to achieve this.
The former group today uses Windows, the latter Linux. Within the Linux camp, you have a preview of tomorrow's landscape: The former group uses RedHat/SuSE/Caldera, the latter uses Debian. (Roughly the same people who now uses Amigas, OS/2, etc will stick with Slackware, for nostalgic reasons).
That said, Linux domination will bring about a better world than the current proprietary domination by Microsoft.
Sure, there is no doubt that commerial software will be released specifically for RedHat. (Hopefully the LSB effort can provide a pseudo/proxy-platform before too long, to preempt such a trend. Ian Jackson of Debian has some good views on this). Regardless, binary compatability of such commercial applications to other distributions is almost certain to remain intact.
Look at FreeBSD's excellent Linux emulation for an example of this. The only applications you cannot run under it are the same ones that seem to be very fuzzy with various Linux installations as well: StarOffice, to name one. The GNU license ensures that the basics of the RedHat platform (i.e. the kernel, libc, X toolkits, core utilities) remain open.
Now, AFAIK, there are already more developers working on Debian than any other operating system in the world. Add to this that people who develop UNIX software in general are more useful to Debian than to, say, Windows. This trend will continue. As such, free software development is not really dependent on what a particular corporation does or does not do. We thrive with today's direct hostility from Microsoft, I am sure we can excel even in a RedHat dominated world, and even if today's cool people at RedHat get replaced with corporate zombies who misunderstand the dynamics around free software and instead try to be more short-sighted for their own personal benefit.
To put it bluntly: Should RedHat Inc. ever change, it would be their loss, not so much ours.
Not only a Linux user, but his repeated reference to potatoes can only mean that he is using the latest, bleeding-edge, unstable Debian distribution.
That's doubly impressive; as we know, Debian is not the easiest one to install either.
Rob Malda would not accept a similar essay from anyone. The fact that Bruce has some name recognition, and thus gets his essay published here, does not mean that this is something only Bruce is concerned about.
He said what a lot of OS developers think of as the central issue: Free Software needs to stay free, and not be gradually restricted through seemingly innocent steps such as certain requirements in the APSL. While 90% of Linux users are less concerned about these issues than they ought to be, 90% of Linux users are also recent Windows graduates, that in the long run would allow deterioration of the dynamics that has caused OSS to be a success.
-tor
Not too bad, he certainly hit on some of the less flattering characteristics of professional {Linux,Mac,Amiga} zealots. Or at least, something that most people tend to associate with {said OSes}.
Case in point being CmdrTaco's take on it. Relax, laugh, go on with your life. Etc.
This article played down the importance of RMS's firm position against IP and proprietary control of standards. Without his uncompromising stand, the battle would have been lost years ago, while UNIX culture and free software development was threatened by extinction. FSF is the single most important reason we today have Free Software.
Thousands of developers are to be thanked also - for hanging in there while it looked like the battle was lost.
I would not call O'Reilly a leech, but his motivation for being in the book publishing business is nevertheless that trite old "make money" paradigm. Nothing wrong with that - just like there is nothing wrong with making money on the somewhat unsexy work of putting together a distribution RedHat/SuSE/Caldera style. He does open himself to competition from the book equivalent of Debian though - a non-profit, volunteer based effort to create something technically excellent - and free.
It seems that IP aliasing is not working in the late 2.1 and pre-2.2 kernels.
/proc/sys/net/ipv4 stuff?
Running the following command under 2.0.36 (and other 2.0 kernels) works fine:
ifconfig eth0:0 192.168.0.139
However, with the 2.2.0-pre5 kernel, this has no effect. I have built both Network aliasing and "IP: Aliasing" into the kernel.
Before I submit this as a bug, does anyone know if there is some new syntax or other requirement for this to work? E.g. some