Samba on YDL 3--how? - Powerpc

This is a discussion on Samba on YDL 3--how? - Powerpc ; I've just installed YDL 3 on an old iMac for research purposes. It connects to the Internet through my router well enough. But I want to do file and print sharing via Samba. I can't seem to find Samba on ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Samba on YDL 3--how?

  1. Samba on YDL 3--how?

    I've just installed YDL 3 on an old iMac for research purposes. It connects
    to the Internet through my router well enough. But I want to do file and
    print sharing via Samba. I can't seem to find Samba on my machine, and am
    not sure it was installed. In addition, I can't find anyplace where I can
    download a version for the Power PC. Can anyone help me get Samba set up on
    my machine? Thanks.




  2. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    In article , Hiawatha Bray wrote:
    > I've just installed YDL 3 on an old iMac for research purposes. It connects
    > to the Internet through my router well enough. But I want to do file and
    > print sharing via Samba. I can't seem to find Samba on my machine, and am
    > not sure it was installed. In addition, I can't find anyplace where I can
    > download a version for the Power PC. Can anyone help me get Samba set up on
    > my machine? Thanks.


    There are Samba RPMs at YDL's FTP site, and instructions for configuring
    Samba are at Samba's web site.

    - --keith

    - --
    kkeller-mmmspam@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

    iEYEARECAAYFAj8/H28ACgkQhVcNCxZ5ID+w/ACfdjvxWRTYh+GpRQlsiRiV7tE7
    9UMAnRqzatr7SpAQEomo+KW9A62nTDmb
    =wRc9
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  3. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    Hmmm...I ran apt-get install samba, and on top of that, I downloaded the
    RPMs and installed them too. I still can't find it on my machine. The
    instructions didn't help much either. For instance, how do I locate the
    actual Samba executable? In what directory is it located? And where's
    SWAT?


    "Keith Keller" wrote in message
    news:h17nhb.nme.ln@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us...
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > In article , Hiawatha Bray

    wrote:
    > > I've just installed YDL 3 on an old iMac for research purposes. It

    connects
    > > to the Internet through my router well enough. But I want to do file and
    > > print sharing via Samba. I can't seem to find Samba on my machine, and

    am
    > > not sure it was installed. In addition, I can't find anyplace where I

    can
    > > download a version for the Power PC. Can anyone help me get Samba set up

    on
    > > my machine? Thanks.

    >
    > There are Samba RPMs at YDL's FTP site, and instructions for configuring
    > Samba are at Samba's web site.
    >
    > - --keith
    >
    > - --
    > kkeller-mmmspam@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    > (try just my userid to email me)
    > AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
    >
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    > Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
    > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
    >
    > iEYEARECAAYFAj8/H28ACgkQhVcNCxZ5ID+w/ACfdjvxWRTYh+GpRQlsiRiV7tE7
    > 9UMAnRqzatr7SpAQEomo+KW9A62nTDmb
    > =wRc9
    > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




  4. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    Thanks.

    But...you call that straightforward? When I install an app in Windows, I
    just click Start, then All Programs, and there's a shortcut to it. Click
    and run. No trying to figure out the most basic of all questions--how do I
    start this program I've just installed? Seems like a commonsensical
    feature to add to Linux, yes?


    "Declan MacLeod"
    wrote in
    message
    news:declan_macleoid-8D75F6.21251517082003@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
    > In article ,
    > Hiawatha Bray wrote:
    >
    > > Thanks.
    > >
    > > By the way, is there a good all-purpose way to tell where an app gets
    > > installed and how to activate it? This always drives me crazy about
    > > Linux. On a Windows or Mac machine you know where to find apps. On
    > > Linux, there seems to be no way of predicting.
    > >

    >
    > My Linux machine is powered down right now, but on my OS X Mac, I can
    > say:
    >
    > man samba
    >
    > and it tells me:
    >
    > DESCRIPTION
    > The Samba software suite is a collection of programs that
    > implements the Server Message Block (commonly abbreviated
    > as SMB) protocol for UNIX systems. This protocol is some-
    > times also referred to as the Common Internet File System
    > (CIFS), LanManager or NetBIOS protocol.
    >
    > smbd The smbd daemon provides the file and print ser-
    > vices to SMB clients, such as Windows 95/98, Win-
    > dows NT, Windows for Workgroups or LanManager. The
    > configuration file for this daemon is described in
    > smb.conf
    > ...
    >
    >
    > So then I say:
    >
    > which smbd
    >
    > and it tells me:
    >
    > /usr/sbin/smbd
    >
    >
    >
    > Seems pretty straightforward....
    >
    > --
    > Hey spambots! Harvest this! .!..
    > Unsolicited commercial email (uce) should be sent to: uce@ftc.gov




  5. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    Not trying to pick a fight here, but come on...making things obscure is
    hardly a virtue. Creating a standard path for installing new apps, so
    that the user always knows where the executable is, seems like the
    obvious way to go. It certainly is, if Linux is ever to appeal to
    casual users like me. Otherwise, it's destined to remain the preserve
    of fervent hobbyists and hard core techies. And who benefits from that?

    Declan MacLeod wrote:
    > In article ,
    > "Hiawatha Bray" wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Thanks.
    >>
    >>But...you call that straightforward?

    >
    >
    > Yes, I do. But if you're only interested in point and click, then
    > perhaps Linux is not for you...
    >



  6. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 03:26:44 -0500,
    Tehrasha Darkon , in
    wrote:

    +> This is linux we're talking about after all. Ive never heard of it
    +> being accused of being 'user friendly'.

    Oh, linux is user friendly, alright. It's just that linux is very
    choosy about whom it makes friends with.

    Regarding the OP's "where do things get installed and how do I find
    out", perhaps a reading of the RPM documentation might point out a set
    of flags that will tell him this?

    James
    --
    Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
    I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
    isn't looking good, either.
    I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

  7. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    In article ,
    Hiawatha Bray wrote:

    > Not trying to pick a fight here, but come on...making things obscure is
    > hardly a virtue. Creating a standard path for installing new apps, so
    > that the user always knows where the executable is, seems like the
    > obvious way to go. It certainly is, if Linux is ever to appeal to
    > casual users like me. Otherwise, it's destined to remain the preserve
    > of fervent hobbyists and hard core techies. And who benefits from that?
    >


    I never said that it was good, bad or indifferent. The learning curve
    is steeper, yes. But isn't it generally true that the more versatile
    the tool, the steeper the learning curve? If you want to drive a car
    with a manual transmission, for instance, you have to take the time to
    learn how.

    Just as you've learned that when you install a Windows program there is
    a certain pattern of things you do (go here, click there), a Linux user
    soon learns that there is also a pattern to follow, the first step of
    which is usually to RTFMP (man page) or RTFRM (read me).

    --
    Hey spambots! Harvest this! .!..
    Unsolicited commercial email (uce) should be sent to: uce@ftc.gov

  8. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:46:07 GMT,
    Hiawatha Bray , in
    wrote:

    +> Not trying to pick a fight here, but come on...making things obscure is
    +> hardly a virtue. Creating a standard path for installing new apps, so
    +> that the user always knows where the executable is, seems like the
    +> obvious way to go.

    smbd and nmbd are NOT USER-LEVEL APPLICATIONS. They're
    configure-and-forget system services. Do you know where the messenger
    service in Windows (NT|2K|XP) is installed?

    Go look in /etc/init.d/, there should be a startup script that knows
    where these services are. SWAT will be started in xinetd
    (/etc/xinetd.d/).

    And rpm will tell you where things are installed, if you give it the
    right set of parameters. I suspect that if you give it the right set
    of parameters and /path/to/filename, it will even tell you which
    package that file belongs to.

    And no, I don't know what the switches are off-hand. You'll have to
    read the docs...

    James
    --
    Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
    I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
    isn't looking good, either.
    I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

  9. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    Thanks for the info, guys. But all that being said, wouldn't it make
    sense to have a standard path for apps? I mean, is there a reason to
    make it this obscure? Does it serve a purpose? Or would Linux work
    just as well if all Linux apps installed in a standard way, just as
    Windows and Mac apps do?


    Declan MacLeod wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Hiawatha Bray wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Not trying to pick a fight here, but come on...making things obscure is
    >>hardly a virtue. Creating a standard path for installing new apps, so
    >>that the user always knows where the executable is, seems like the
    >>obvious way to go. It certainly is, if Linux is ever to appeal to
    >>casual users like me. Otherwise, it's destined to remain the preserve
    >>of fervent hobbyists and hard core techies. And who benefits from that?
    >>

    >
    >
    > I never said that it was good, bad or indifferent. The learning curve
    > is steeper, yes. But isn't it generally true that the more versatile
    > the tool, the steeper the learning curve? If you want to drive a car
    > with a manual transmission, for instance, you have to take the time to
    > learn how.
    >
    > Just as you've learned that when you install a Windows program there is
    > a certain pattern of things you do (go here, click there), a Linux user
    > soon learns that there is also a pattern to follow, the first step of
    > which is usually to RTFMP (man page) or RTFRM (read me).
    >



  10. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:01:11 GMT,
    Hiawatha Bray , in
    wrote:

    +> Thanks for the info, guys. But all that being said, wouldn't it make
    +> sense to have a standard path for apps?

    try this on a command line:

    echo $PATH

    try the same as root.

    James
    --
    Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
    I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
    isn't looking good, either.
    I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

  11. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    In article , Hiawatha Bray wrote:
    > Thanks for the info, guys. But all that being said, wouldn't it make
    > sense to have a standard path for apps? I mean, is there a reason to
    > make it this obscure? Does it serve a purpose?


    man hier

    I don't know if that's a why, but at least it's a what.

    > Or would Linux work
    > just as well if all Linux apps installed in a standard way, just as
    > Windows and Mac apps do?


    This sounds a lot like a troll. What answer are you seeking?

    "Yes, linux would work just as well if it worked exactly like Windows,
    but then it would be too easy and we wouldn't be able to preserve the
    eliticism of linux any more!"

    BTW, linux apps install in (more or less) a standard way (if you're
    talking about install location). It's Windows and MacOS which install
    apps to nonstandard locations.

    PS please stop top-posting (unless you know why you're top-posting),
    and please trim your posts.

    - --keith

    - --
    kkeller-mmmspam@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

    iEYEARECAAYFAj9A2cQACgkQhVcNCxZ5ID93owCfdlWaHNzpn0 zBTi5MZeVHB3bL
    e64An2srGJOS2qEImCsUn+mFfn4mqcIw
    =zmJI
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  12. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    sy_nttvr@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A Darth Aggie) writes:

    > On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:46:07 GMT,
    > Hiawatha Bray , in
    > wrote:
    >
    > +> Not trying to pick a fight here, but come on...making things obscure is
    > +> hardly a virtue. Creating a standard path for installing new apps, so
    > +> that the user always knows where the executable is, seems like the
    > +> obvious way to go.
    > [...]
    > And rpm will tell you where things are installed, if you give it the
    > right set of parameters. I suspect that if you give it the right set
    > of parameters and /path/to/filename, it will even tell you which
    > package that file belongs to.
    >
    > And no, I don't know what the switches are off-hand. You'll have to
    > read the docs...


    If he bothers to read my earlier post fully he will find that the
    switches and commands are given in that post. If he had bothered to
    cut and paste the commands to a shell or to type them in he would have
    the answer by now. Maybe he has never used a command line and wants a
    GUI solution.

    As far as the idea of a standard path is concerned, unix like systems
    do use such. However, for good reasons, there are several standard
    paths. Hence, to simplify a little, system commands are in /bin, user
    commands are in /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin and so on. This system
    actually works and has things accessible unlike Windows in which you
    have to muck around manually to add things to PATH if you want to use
    them from the command line. I have had a lot of unpleasant
    experiences trying to get scientific analysis programs to run under
    Windows due to this problem. The poor PATH setting capabilities
    results in the usual method people seem to use being to have a copy of
    the executable in each data directory. Then there are the GUI programs
    that install lots of junk in various weird directories and seem to run
    unreliably due to conflicts with other programs. That is the reason I
    take my iBook running linux with me while doing measurements. It
    works easily and reliably, which is more than I can say for the
    Windows boxes I meet at many sites.

    --
    Stephen Harker sjh@ph.adfa.edu.au
    School of Physics Baloney Baffles brains: Eric Frank Russell
    University College http://www.ph.adfa.edu.au/s-harker/
    UNSW@ADFA

  13. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    Actually, the answer I'm seeking is, "yes, that's a good idea...rather an
    obvious one, in fact. Which is why the next iteration of Linux will include
    it."

    Now you're not in charge of the Linux universe, but I thought you might be
    aware of a plan to add this feature. Failing that, I thought you'd tell me
    there's a very good reason why Linux doesn't do this already.

    Instead I get, "is this a troll?" What's up with that?



  14. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    That's exactly what I want--a GUI solution. Seems to me that if Linux
    is ever going to develop much of an audience, it's going to have to
    develop just that sort of user-friendliness.

    By the way, it's quite easy to get apps to run from the command line in
    Windows, if you know how. The first time you do it, use the GUI to find
    the complete command path, copy and paste it into the Run window, and
    hit ok. Good to go. And the Run window saves a copy of frequently-used
    commands so you only have to do this once. From then on, click Run,
    scroll the window to the command line of the program you want, click OK
    and up it pops.

    This is kinda what I mean. Say what you will about Windows, somebody
    did think to do that, in an effort to make life a little easier even for
    command line users. I sometimes get the sense that Linux jocks consider
    it beneath their dignity to seek out similarly simple ways to use their
    favorite software.





    Stephen Harker wrote:
    > sy_nttvr@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A Darth Aggie) writes:
    >
    >
    >>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:46:07 GMT,
    >>Hiawatha Bray , in
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>+> Not trying to pick a fight here, but come on...making things obscure is
    >>+> hardly a virtue. Creating a standard path for installing new apps, so
    >>+> that the user always knows where the executable is, seems like the
    >>+> obvious way to go.
    >>[...]
    >>And rpm will tell you where things are installed, if you give it the
    >>right set of parameters. I suspect that if you give it the right set
    >>of parameters and /path/to/filename, it will even tell you which
    >>package that file belongs to.
    >>
    >>And no, I don't know what the switches are off-hand. You'll have to
    >>read the docs...

    >
    >
    > If he bothers to read my earlier post fully he will find that the
    > switches and commands are given in that post. If he had bothered to
    > cut and paste the commands to a shell or to type them in he would have
    > the answer by now. Maybe he has never used a command line and wants a
    > GUI solution.
    >
    > As far as the idea of a standard path is concerned, unix like systems
    > do use such. However, for good reasons, there are several standard
    > paths. Hence, to simplify a little, system commands are in /bin, user
    > commands are in /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin and so on. This system
    > actually works and has things accessible unlike Windows in which you
    > have to muck around manually to add things to PATH if you want to use
    > them from the command line. I have had a lot of unpleasant
    > experiences trying to get scientific analysis programs to run under
    > Windows due to this problem. The poor PATH setting capabilities
    > results in the usual method people seem to use being to have a copy of
    > the executable in each data directory. Then there are the GUI programs
    > that install lots of junk in various weird directories and seem to run
    > unreliably due to conflicts with other programs. That is the reason I
    > take my iBook running linux with me while doing measurements. It
    > works easily and reliably, which is more than I can say for the
    > Windows boxes I meet at many sites.
    >



  15. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    In article <%0f0b.7434$N37.1829@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, Hiawatha Bray wrote:
    > Actually, the answer I'm seeking is, "yes, that's a good idea...rather an
    > obvious one, in fact. Which is why the next iteration of Linux will include
    > it."


    Well, nobody is preventing you from starting yet another distro that
    configures application directories in a completely nonstandard (for
    linux) way. If successful, this YAD would set the standard. I
    personally think it's a horrible idea, but as you point out I'm not
    in charge of linux or linux distros.

    > Now you're not in charge of the Linux universe, but I thought you might be
    > aware of a plan to add this feature. Failing that, I thought you'd tell me
    > there's a very good reason why Linux doesn't do this already.


    There is--nobody's done it yet. In linux, as in Perl, TMTOWTDI.

    > Instead I get, "is this a troll?" What's up with that?


    Well, attributing quality (or standards!) to Windows in a linux newsgroup
    has a tendency to attract "is this a troll?" comments. You'll be
    pleased to know that I no longer believe you're a troll, though I doubt
    you'd be pleased with my current impressions. [unfair comparisons
    to Republican party suppressed by Secret Service in compliance with USA
    Patriot Act]

    - --keith

    - --
    kkeller-mmmspam@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

    iEYEARECAAYFAj9BlQsACgkQhVcNCxZ5ID+j3ACZAfd4cTgI0w mWJRNLkJ8wZTBw
    gEQAoI2E6Pb1hUvAHF57yK1lCWvHOhGQ
    =+Bk7
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  16. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    Look, if it's a horrible idea to include a straightforward GUI way of doing
    things, then why are there several different GUIs vying for the attention of
    Linux users? Either somebody's devoting a lot of useless energy to GUI
    writing, or somebody's figured out the obvious truth that it makes more
    sense to design easy ways to do things than hard ways.

    I know there's no point arguing with you, but I'm amazed at the reaction
    I've gotten, as if it's a bad idea to make software easier to use. It
    reminds me of the oddballs who lamented the fact that ordinary people had
    begun using the Internet, thus spoiling it for the digital elite. This
    strikes me as a an absurd attitude, but maybe it's just me...



  17. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 01:45:18 GMT
    Hiawatha Bray wrote:

    > That's exactly what I want--a GUI solution. Seems to me that if Linux
    >
    > is ever going to develop much of an audience, it's going to have to
    > develop just that sort of user-friendliness.
    >
    > By the way, it's quite easy to get apps to run from the command line
    > in Windows, if you know how. The first time you do it, use the GUI to
    > find the complete command path, copy and paste it into the Run window,
    > and hit ok. Good to go. And the Run window saves a copy of
    > frequently-used commands so you only have to do this once. From then
    > on, click Run, scroll the window to the command line of the program
    > you want, click OK and up it pops.


    check out bash's history it's only an arrow key away...

    > This is kinda what I mean. Say what you will about Windows, somebody
    > did think to do that, in an effort to make life a little easier even
    > for command line users. I sometimes get the sense that Linux jocks
    > consider it beneath their dignity to seek out similarly simple ways to
    > use their favorite software.


    middle click anywhere on root window, select app from menu
    no windows emulating kde or gnome cpu hogging bs - just pwm

    Choice - that is Linux's strong point. You might check out the FHS, if
    you want to know the standard locations of various apps and libs and the
    rationales for their placement. If not, you can accept on blind faith
    your distro's choices and gui frontends - a lot like the windows
    experience. IMHO, too much effort is spent trying to emulate windows
    look and behaviour, but once again I have the *choice* to avoid that
    dreary environment. Others, who rely on a rote way of doing things may
    prefer a windows type environment. The point being that you have the
    ability to put whatever kind of frontend you want over the stable
    underlying system and tailor it to suit your needs. This comes at the
    expense of having to learn a little about your system. Windows would
    have you know as little about the underpinnings as possible - that makes
    you a much more pliable consumer of their product.

    enough OT ranting...

    tom

  18. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 01:26:19 GMT,
    Hiawatha Bray , in
    <%0f0b.7434$N37.1829@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> wrote:
    +> Actually, the answer I'm seeking is, "yes, that's a good idea...rather an
    +> obvious one, in fact. Which is why the next iteration of Linux will include
    +> it."

    Objection, your honor, the obviousness is NOT obvious.

    If you really think the Windows approach is the be-all, end-all of
    computing, why are you playing with Linux? to quote Stevie Ray Jobs,
    "Think Different".

    Next, you'll be telling us that the X server should be built into the
    kernel. "That's the way Windows does it."

    Yes, indeed it do. But I don't see much use in porting one source of
    BSODs to Linux.

    James
    --
    Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
    I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
    isn't looking good, either.
    I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

  19. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Okay, let's get back to the original topic.

    Did you follow any of the suggestions given to you? What
    were the results?

    - --keith

    - --
    kkeller-mmmspam@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

    iEYEARECAAYFAj9COVkACgkQhVcNCxZ5ID88LACfTMzqVjKRAG 87WHf2PT5ZLjS4
    TCcAn0WwNlPkMlBM/MxAWVRHcMxrHjNs
    =8K1z
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  20. Re: Samba on YDL 3--how?

    On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 05:00:17 +0000, Hiawatha Bray wrote:

    > Thanks.
    >
    > But...you call that straightforward?


    I would call reading the documentation/manual a straightforward way to
    learn about an installed app.

    > When I install an app in Windows, I
    > just click Start, then All Programs, and there's a shortcut to it. Click
    > and run.


    In the case of samba, there shouldnt be a need to run the program manually
    via menu. It should run at boot time as a daemon in the background. This
    is linux we're talking about after all. Ive never heard of it being
    accused of being 'user friendly'.

    > No trying to figure out the most basic of all questions--how
    > do I start this program I've just installed? Seems like a
    > commonsensical feature to add to Linux, yes?


    You could always download the source, and compile your own version. Source
    code almost always contains a README file.


    --
    My mailbox is NOT an advertisement medium. Tehrasha Darkon
    My address is NOT for sale, lease or rent. darkon@netins.net
    Send me spam, lose your account. Get it? TINLC-1372
    http://tehrasha.mamehost.com/bastard B.A.S.T.A.R.D


+ Reply to Thread