Any good mail clients for Linux
on
CDE vs Gnome
·
· Score: 1
You can use procmail if you are getting the mail over a dialup line. This way, it works in much the same manner that filtering on your other clients works , ie the messages are dropped into folders on your linux machine and not the server. If you have a shell account, sometimes it's nice to use procmail on that because that way, you don't have to download mail you kill, and you can choose to keep certain email on the server, but download other messages.
cheers,
Any good mail clients for Linux
on
CDE vs Gnome
·
· Score: 1
The best mail clients I've seen are TkRat and XFmail. Tkrat doesn't do filtering. The best way to do filtering is to use procmail ( a seperate filtering program ) then you can use any reader to read your mail and its filtered. You might want to check out the mailers that come with KDE and GNOME ( balsa and kmail )
Linux *is* hard to install compared to the most popular operating systems (and even some unpopular ones, such as the BeOS, which is incredibly easy to install). I never could get XFree86 to work. Fortunately, I don't really need that functionality.
Maybe your video hardware wasn't supported ? ( if it was supported, installing would be dead easy )
Unfortunately, installing an OS on unsupported hardware is kinda difficult. Try installing Win95 or MacOS on an ultra-sparc some day.
One of the best ways to make an Open source project fall flat on its face is to begin it with an announcement about a new project which will save the world, cure world hunger and all that. Then you set up mailing lists so that everyone can give opinions instead of code.
I work on an open source project, and I've observed that having a useful product on the table is the best way to attract developers who can then extend the product.
GIMP began as the pet project of a couple of grad students working more or less by themselves. But now, there are contributors too numerous to count. Once a product does X and does it well, developers will jump on to make it do Y and Z.
In conclusion , I am dead sceptical about any project that begins as an announcement.
Performance? My proprietary compiler beats GCC hands down every day in speed of code produce and speed at which code is produced.
Your proprietry compiler is not as portable as GCC (-; So I guess GCC has an advantage in the feature battle.
Your average open source project is nothing more than an attempt to clone and make free something that was innovated by your traditional proprietary company.
Huh ? well it depends on what you mean by "innovated". Many OSS projects are "clones", but there are several that aren't, and some of these offer more functionality than many closed source products. (sendmail, perl, Apache, X11, kerberos ) . And even the "clones" ( such as GIMP ) add features of their own.
You raise some good points. The best open source apps are usually the servers. Rarely do the GUI end-user OSS products come close to commercial products. The only conspicuous exception I have seen is GIMP.
However, this does not mean that Open and closed source cannot co-exist. Software which everyone requires ( such as an operating system ) makes a very good candidate for an open source project. Software that is only used by a small niche market ( eg video editing software ) is a much less viable candidate for an OSS project.
In conclusion, I think that the core parts of the linux OS already prove that open source is very good for some things. In other areas ( eg desktop environments ) , the jury is still out... And in some areas, such as those involving fairly specialised products, it seems less plausible that OSS will knock closed source from its position. Indeed, the only decent word processors today that run on linux are closed source.
If you read Cowpland's ( Corel's CEO's ) comments, he discusses these issues. And his arguments are pretty solid. A system based on open source, suplemented by closed source apps is viable. But I don't believe in this vision of an open source "utopia"
> the Linux kiddies are fond to point out that with open source, you can modify and hack your own software.
This is a straw man. Everyone knows that most linux users can't make a major contribution to kernel developement. The advantage of OSS is that you have peer-reviewed code, ie somebody else can , and will look at the code.
The problem with Mozilla ( AS JWZ STATES ) is that the OS developement model can not save a project that is already dead. Moreover, you had better have a useful codebase before you open up. It's not enough to say "hey, let's start an open source project together and write something new". Then the developers can add bugfixes and patches on top of an already functional codebase. This is how the linux kernel started ( it worked before he pulled in outsiders ) and the fact that you need something working from day 1 escaped Mozilla's founders.
Asking a home user to pay $2000- or more for a VAR station is downright silly. VAResearch's powerful SCSI based pentium II/Xeon machines are not overpriced when you compare them to similarly configured systems from other vendors -- but they are a real overkill for the home user.
You are doing new users a real disservice when you point them to VA, especially when there are other linux friendly vendors who can sell a home computer ( as opposed to a SCSI workstation ) for a reasonable price.
should be an executable that extracts its own data files
This in itself would not make anything easier
then offers you where to install the main program
RTFM. rpm can do this. I'd bet that debs can be relocated as well. Of course, if you rebuild from the src.rpm ( or the deb source archive ) you can put every single file wherever you want it.
then leaves a log of wher it installed everything in some kinda log folder
Actually, it leaves a log in a database. This is 1000 times as good as just using log files.
hell it should even have a GUI interface for developers making it absolutely simple to package stuff...
Developers don't really need a GUI interface. The format of the spec file is 1000 times as simple as the process of packaging a program nicely.
I suggest you investigate deb and rpm more carefully. They are far more advanced than you are aware of. They already offer all the features you've requested, and more ( eg they use databases rather than text files. You can query the databases to extract all kinds of useful info )
See maximum rpm at www.rpm.org for information about rpm. I believe the Debian website has information about their package tool.
Maybe it suits you, but a lot of distribution developers like to have something a little more sophisticated than tar.gz to build their distributions with. This is why RPM has been so succesfull.
Debian's features are useful to end users, but not the person packaging the software. In particular, Debian lacks a sophisticated source based format.
Redhat's SRPM format allows the packager to:
Use multiple source tarballs
Apply multiple patches
PGP-sign the packages
Build without using root priveliges
Build the same src.rpm with optimisation on different architectures without changing the src.rpm package
This is just a small sample of the features RPM has. The most conspicuous non-feature in dpkg is the fact that you are only allowed one source and one patch. There are some packages for which one must resort to some fairly ghastly hacks to work around. ( either using not-quite pristine sources, or using big and complicated patches )
Debian's package format is a nice binary format, but the source package format is really more important to the person who actually builds the packages.
By the way, do you actually build debian binaries from the source, or just use them ?
I bet that dpkg was not comparable in 94 to its current state
Bzzzzt. The debian system is NOT clearly better. RPM has a lot of features that make it more appealing to distribution developers. This is why the distributors have all chosen RPM over deb.
Sorry to burst your bubble too..Registering you for staroffice...Hmmm the user has to do that since the initial key last only 30 odd days..Last time I did it, that was the case.
The registration has two parts. You register at their site, and you have to type in the details when you install.
Let me tell you most board comming from Taiwan cost next to nothing.
WTF are you talking about ??? TCU use Intel boards as the default. Your conspiracy theory about them using "cheap" Taiwanese boards to cut costs just has no substance. Especially when you consider that they will ship a system with ANY board you choose. BTW, I've yet to see a linux shop use an LX board in their pentium II systems. FUD again.
( BTW, the "cheap" asus p2b series IS FCC class B compliant. So are the inwin cases. And they get better reviews than the intel boards... see Tom's guide or any other review. )
About the "if you go to servers"... who cares ? I don't want to buy a server. We were discussing "workstations". Dell are offering a fair deal , but it's only a fair deal if you are in the market for a killer machine. Their precision workstation is nice, but it is very high end. The linux shops offer a broader product range.
The VARstation 26d: Seattle motherboard, Celeron 300A CPU, 5G IDE HD (what brand ??? ) , 64MB RAM, 8MB G200 video.
$1395. Add $179 for a modem.
For a comparable price, the other linux vendors could give you a penitum II-350, a hard drive twice as big, twice as much memory, a ZIP drive, and a better motherboard.
My point was not to whine about Dell. I think their move is welcome, but they will have to go further to appeal to most linux users. ( it'd be nice to see linux on their optiplex line ) But it is worth noting that the price of a TCU-inc machine is basically the sum of the parts plus $50-. This doesn't seem unreasonable. Of course, we have no idea what Dell's setup cost "really" is because they don't itemise like TCU. We do know that whatever the windows setup costs, the linux setup costs $100 + the price of an windows license + the cost of the windows setup. Note also that linux shops ( including TCU ) tend to do things like set up auto fs, register you for Star Office on request, partition the way you request. You really do get some *service* for the $50. They are charging for a decent "set up" and testing, not just a dump of all the packages. cheers, --Donovan
Read the warranties. VA offer 1 year. A lot of the "cheeseball linux" shops offer 2 - 3 years. Sure, it would be nice if we could all afford to buy from VA. But not everyone can, and a lot of people make the decision not to buy from linux shops because they are pointed to VAResearch, but can't afford to buy a pentium II VA machine . And the point I wanted to raise is that there *ARE* linux hardware vendors that can beat Dell on price and service.
NONE of the linux shops put "crappy hardware" in the machines, in fact if your budget for a machine+monitor is $2000- , VA will give you a *much* lower quality machine than some of the other guys. Take a look around and see if any of the linux hardware shops put "crappy hardware" in the machines. On the contrary, the place I just purchased from uses quality components from the board to the video card to the case to the modem...
I would understand your "point" about "peace of mind" if VA were substantially more generous in their service and/or used substantially better parts than the other dealers. But they are not.
I just compared quotes on my system from tcu-inc http://www.tcu-inc.com with the idot quotes, and tcu-inc comes out in front , on a system that is better ( since idot don't offer some of the better quality parts ) IOW, some of the linux shops can really cut it when it comes to pricing. Anyway, I'd recommend you play with their configurator.
Such as http://www.tcu-inc.com http://www.swt.com or http://www.aslab.com or whoever. The Dell machines are nice , but an LVD SCSI machine is a real overkill for about 99% of users. To summarise, I would recommend these things to a developer (or a gimper / povray user ) with a large budget, but not a typical home user.
On the other hand, the afore-mentioned linux shops guys sell desktops in the more reasonable $1500 range, which is about what you'd expect to pay for a quality consumer desktop ( tcu-inc sell AMD based machines in the sub 1000 range )
This is a positive step in that Dell is beginning to embrace linux as a desktop OS. The next step will be for them to embrace it as a mainstream desktop OS and start installing it firstly on their Optiplex lines and secondly on their Dimension lines.
If all of Dell's customers start asking for the linux machines, it is good for linux regardless of whether they pay for windows or not. It will also dispell the "there's no demand for linux" FUD.
Once a lot of people start buying machines with linux preloaded, it will be almost impossible for MS to use these defacto per-processor licensing agreements without the DOJ hitting them ( they're still staggering away from their last bout... at'em, Boies !!! )
This news is not earth shattering, it is just another small step that linux is making into the mainstream. However, it is making small steps so rapidly that I dare not blink for fear of missing one (-;
This is an improvement. Does anyone recall that they were charging $250- to set it up on servers before ? As the linux market grows, the pricing will become progressively less discriminatory.
This is not a monumental breakthrough in itself, given that the precision workstations are not consumer grade products ( they are very high-end ). However, we have seen the following encouraging signs:
Firstly , the small vendors who are linux based have gradually taken the following steps...
Supported linux on slightly overpriced , high end servers and PCs ( VaResearch comes to mind... )
Supported linux on reasonably priced high grade consumer desktop models ( eg LHS, Penguin, SWT, ASL )
Made low cost AMD systems available ( tcu-inc )
Meanwhile, we have seen similar trends from the major PC manufacturers, who seem to be taking steps to make sure they don't lose the linux users to linux friendly shops. In the last few months, Dell has taken the following steps:
Offered linux to anyone who will buy in
Offered "linux compatible" workstations
Installed and supported linux on workstations
Does anyone else see a pattern ? I am betting that Dell will have linux on their consumer lines before long, and the pricing will be less discriminatory.
Slashdot Mirror
cheers,
The best mail clients I've seen are TkRat and XFmail. Tkrat doesn't do filtering. The best way to do filtering is to use procmail ( a seperate filtering program ) then you can use any reader to read your mail and its filtered. You might want to check out the mailers that come with KDE and GNOME ( balsa and kmail )
Maybe your video hardware wasn't supported ? ( if it was supported, installing would be dead easy )
Unfortunately, installing an OS on unsupported hardware is kinda difficult. Try installing Win95 or MacOS on an ultra-sparc some day.
I work on an open source project, and I've observed that having a useful product on the table is the best way to attract developers who can then extend the product.
GIMP began as the pet project of a couple of grad students working more or less by themselves. But now, there are contributors too numerous to count. Once a product does X and does it well, developers will jump on to make it do Y and Z.
In conclusion , I am dead sceptical about any project that begins as an announcement.
Your proprietry compiler is not as portable as GCC (-; So I guess GCC has an advantage in the feature battle.
Huh ? well it depends on what you mean by "innovated". Many OSS projects are "clones", but there are several that aren't, and some of these offer more functionality than many closed source products. (sendmail, perl, Apache, X11, kerberos ) . And even the "clones" ( such as GIMP ) add features of their own.
However, this does not mean that Open and closed source cannot co-exist. Software which everyone requires ( such as an operating system ) makes a very good candidate for an open source project. Software that is only used by a small niche market ( eg video editing software ) is a much less viable candidate for an OSS project.
In conclusion, I think that the core parts of the linux OS already prove that open source is very good for some things. In other areas ( eg desktop environments ) , the jury is still out ... And in some areas, such as those involving fairly specialised products, it seems less plausible that OSS will knock closed source from its position. Indeed, the only decent word processors today that run on linux are closed source.
If you read Cowpland's ( Corel's CEO's ) comments, he discusses these issues. And his arguments are pretty solid. A system based on open source, suplemented by closed source apps is viable. But I don't believe in this vision of an open source "utopia"
This is a straw man. Everyone knows that most linux users can't make a major contribution to kernel developement. The advantage of OSS is that you have peer-reviewed code, ie somebody else can , and will look at the code.
The problem with Mozilla ( AS JWZ STATES ) is that the OS developement model can not save a project that is already dead. Moreover, you had better have a useful codebase before you open up. It's not enough to say "hey, let's start an open source project together and write something new". Then the developers can add bugfixes and patches on top of an already functional codebase. This is how the linux kernel started ( it worked before he pulled in outsiders ) and the fact that you need something working from day 1 escaped Mozilla's founders.
"Compete only on price, not features" ... ?
... Linux kills NT server for server finctionality.
How about reliability ? performance ? On these points, OSS such as apache, linux, FreeBSD, and postgreSQL soundly whip their MS alternatives.
By the way, now that you mention features
Cheers,
You are doing new users a real disservice when you point them to VA, especially when there are other linux friendly vendors who can sell a home computer ( as opposed to a SCSI workstation ) for a reasonable price.
This in itself would not make anything easier
then offers you where to install the main program
RTFM. rpm can do this. I'd bet that debs can be relocated as well. Of course, if you rebuild from the src.rpm ( or the deb source archive ) you can put every single file wherever you want it.
then leaves a log of wher it installed everything in some kinda log folder
Actually, it leaves a log in a database. This is 1000 times as good as just using log files.
hell it should even have a GUI interface for developers making it absolutely simple to package stuff...
Developers don't really need a GUI interface. The format of the spec file is 1000 times as simple as the process of packaging a program nicely.
I suggest you investigate deb and rpm more carefully. They are far more advanced than you are aware of. They already offer all the features you've requested, and more ( eg they use databases rather than text files. You can query the databases to extract all kinds of useful info )
See maximum rpm at www.rpm.org for information about rpm. I believe the Debian website has information about their package tool.
Maybe it suits you, but a lot of distribution developers like to have something a little more sophisticated than tar.gz to build their distributions with. This is why RPM has been so succesfull.
Redhat's SRPM format allows the packager to:
This is just a small sample of the features RPM has. The most conspicuous non-feature in dpkg is the fact that you are only allowed one source and one patch. There are some packages for which one must resort to some fairly ghastly hacks to work around. ( either using not-quite pristine sources, or using big and complicated patches )
Debian's package format is a nice binary format, but the source package format is really more important to the person who actually builds the packages.
By the way, do you actually build debian binaries from the source, or just use them ?
cheers,
cheers,
--
Because they cannot go out of business. They will always be there as an alternative to redhat, even if their user base is a minority of linux users.
The registration has two parts. You register at their site, and you have to type in the details when you install.
Let me tell you most board comming from Taiwan cost next to nothing.
WTF are you talking about ??? TCU use Intel boards as the default. Your conspiracy theory about them using "cheap" Taiwanese boards to cut costs just has no substance. Especially when you consider that they will ship a system with ANY board you choose. BTW, I've yet to see a linux shop use an LX board in their pentium II systems. FUD again.
( BTW, the "cheap" asus p2b series IS FCC class B compliant. So are the inwin cases. And they get better reviews than the intel boards ... see Tom's guide or any other review. )
About the "if you go to servers" ... who cares ? I don't want to buy a server. We were discussing "workstations". Dell are offering a fair deal , but it's only a fair deal if you are in the market for a killer machine. Their precision workstation is nice, but it is very high end. The linux shops offer a broader product range.
The VARstation 26d:
Seattle motherboard, Celeron 300A CPU, 5G IDE HD (what brand ??? ) , 64MB RAM, 8MB G200 video.
$1395.
Add $179 for a modem.
For a comparable price, the other linux vendors could give you a penitum II-350, a hard drive twice as big, twice as much memory, a ZIP drive, and a better motherboard.
My point was not to whine about Dell. I think their move is welcome, but they will have to go further to appeal to most linux users. ( it'd be nice to see linux on their optiplex line ) But it is worth noting that the price of a TCU-inc machine is basically the sum of the parts plus $50-. This doesn't seem unreasonable. Of course, we have no idea what Dell's setup cost "really" is because they don't itemise like TCU. We do know that whatever the windows setup costs, the linux setup costs $100 + the price of an windows license + the cost of the windows setup. Note also that linux shops ( including TCU ) tend to do things like set up auto fs, register you for Star Office on request, partition the way you request. You really do get some *service* for the $50. They are charging for a decent "set up" and testing, not just a dump of all the packages. cheers, --Donovan
And I picked an ASUS. See Toms Hardware guide or any other hardware review site for rave reviews of the ASUS boards.
cheers,
-- Donovan
Read the warranties. VA offer 1 year. A lot of the "cheeseball linux" shops offer 2 - 3 years. Sure, it would be nice if we could all afford to buy from VA. But not everyone can, and a lot of people make the decision not to buy from linux shops because they are pointed to VAResearch, but can't afford to buy a pentium II VA machine . And the point I wanted to raise is that there *ARE* linux hardware vendors that can beat Dell on price and service.
...
NONE of the linux shops put "crappy hardware" in the machines, in fact if your budget for a machine+monitor is $2000- , VA will give you a *much* lower quality machine than some of the other guys. Take a look around and see if any of the linux hardware shops put "crappy hardware" in the machines. On the contrary, the place I just purchased from uses quality components from the board to the video card to the case to the modem
I would understand your "point" about "peace of mind" if VA were substantially more generous in their service and/or used substantially better parts than the other dealers. But they are not.
Have a nice day.
-- DOnovan
CHeers,
--Donovan
http://www.tcu-inc.com
http://www.swt.com or
http://www.aslab.com
or whoever. The Dell machines are nice , but an LVD SCSI machine is a real overkill for about 99% of users. To summarise, I would recommend these things to a developer (or a gimper / povray user ) with a large budget, but not a typical home user.
On the other hand, the afore-mentioned linux shops guys sell desktops in the more reasonable $1500 range, which is about what you'd expect to pay for a quality consumer desktop ( tcu-inc sell AMD based machines in the sub 1000 range )
This is a positive step in that Dell is beginning to embrace linux as a desktop OS. The next step will be for them to embrace it as a mainstream desktop OS and start installing it firstly on their Optiplex lines and secondly on their Dimension lines.
Cheers,
--Donovan
Once a lot of people start buying machines with linux preloaded, it will be almost impossible for MS to use these defacto per-processor licensing agreements without the DOJ hitting them ( they're still staggering away from their last bout ... at'em, Boies !!! )
This news is not earth shattering, it is just another small step that linux is making into the mainstream. However, it is making small steps so rapidly that I dare not blink for fear of missing one (-;
Cheers,
--Donovan
-- Donovan
Firstly , the small vendors who are linux based have gradually taken the following steps ...
- Supported linux on slightly overpriced , high end servers and PCs ( VaResearch comes to mind
... ) - Supported linux on reasonably priced high grade consumer desktop models ( eg LHS, Penguin, SWT, ASL )
- Made low cost AMD systems available ( tcu-inc )
Meanwhile, we have seen similar trends from the major PC manufacturers, who seem to be taking steps to make sure they don't lose the linux users to linux friendly shops. In the last few months, Dell has taken the following steps:- Offered linux to anyone who will buy in
- Offered "linux compatible" workstations
- Installed and supported linux on workstations
Does anyone else see a pattern ? I am betting that Dell will have linux on their consumer lines before long, and the pricing will be less discriminatory.cheers,
--Donovan
http://www.aslab.com http://www.tcu-inc.com http://www.oemcomputers.com http://www.swt.com