lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: No Distribution is 2.0.0 Current
Others wrote:
>> Thanks for the warning. I guess Debian will never be the choice for
>> a serious Computer Professional.

>I see you capitalize "Computer Professional"... is it a name brand?

I downloaded the 2.0.0 kernel June 11, 1996 and built it.
It has been running since then - no reboots.

My system was built April 29, 1996 from a Slackware CD
with 1.2.13 kernel.

I have since gotten several components via ftp for add/upgrade.

I use the system continually as a test web/ftp server. I telnet
over my LAN from a windoze -95 system and edit everything in
place on the Linux filesystem. Virtual IP and virtual hosting
are working fine.

Being a complete idiot, I confine myself to C, Perl5, CGI, shell
scripting, HTML, SSI, and the like.

After testing things, I ftp them to the "real" server. My Linux
system is actually more versatile than the web hosting service.
I have been trying to find a local ISP who will let me put a Linux
system online, so I can offer anonymous ftp.

I guess I am not a "Computer Professional" because I didn't take
something out of a box, bark commands at it, and amaze my friends
and relatives.

When I get a CD recorder, I will be offering a distribution for
the "Computer Professionals" out there. It will be 100% freely
redistributable.

BTW - what is the typical street price for NT server OS?
How many users at that price? How many of you "Computer
Professionals" are running legal copies of your broken
toys?

Paul Wade - Greenbush Systems

********************************************
* http://www.wtop.com/ - THE OTHER WEBSITE *
********************************************


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.042 / U:3.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site