Kaustubh Gadkari wrote:
As I said before APT is not at a similar level to RPM. It is comparable
to dpkg.
Do you mean that dpkg is comparable to rpm? IMHO, even dpkg is better than
rpm, but that's me.
Yes. I said similar. I wont argue about superiority of package formats
here. I jus
>
> As I said before APT is not at a similar level to RPM. It is comparable
> to dpkg.
Do you mean that dpkg is comparable to rpm? IMHO, even dpkg is better than
rpm, but that's me.
Dependency resolving systems like APT work on top of the basic
> package manager and query the dependency and f
> As I said before APT is not at a similar level to RPM. It is comparable
> to dpkg.
Muhaha ..
Regs,
Manas
--
__
Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List: (plug-mail@plug.org.in)
List Information: http://plug.org.in/ma
Hi
I am not quite sure what you mean..but you can configure either so
that you don't have to use the command prompt at all (whether you
should do that is a different matter). But considering the the
problems you had with rpm, try debian. apt will be like a breath of
fresh air.
As I said b
Thanks for the good news , I will definately try them
out, but please tell which one is more graphical, I
mean which one of both use less commandline ?
I am not quite sure what you mean..but you can configure either so that
you don't have to use the command prompt at all (whether you should
--- Kaustubh Gadkari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P.S. : I freely admit that I currently use Slack
> 10.1 and Debian
> Sarge..which are _not_ rpm-based distros.
Thanks for the good news , I will definately try them
out, but please tell which one is more graphical, I
mean which one of both use
--- Aditya Godbole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry for interrupting, but I have to butt in to
> prevent spread of
> misinformation. The above post implies that .gz
> files are an easier
> method of installing software than RPMs. This is
> like saying wrapping
> paper is better than a food pro
Hi,
I would request the author of the above post to please stop giving
wrong information and if the case is that of utter ignorance and
incompetence, to just shut up. These posts are archived for further
Most of the posts by the OP clearly indicate that he is a TROLL. I
guess the best thing to
On 7/12/05, Gurudatta Raut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> beware of RPMs , I had pretty frustrating experience
> with them , they are the primary problem with Linux.
>
> Recently I tried to install FireFox with RPM, but all
> my atttempts made matters worst,
>
>Then after lot of hair pulling I
Then after lot of hair pulling I came to know about
these .gz files. I downloaded
firefox-1.0.4.installer.tar.gz and followed the
instructions and to my misbelief There was a FireFox
installation Wizard window (no shelling), And today I
am using Firefox1.04 on linux. So try to find if any
.gz
> Gedit, kate, kwrite if you're using a GUI. Nano is good if you want something
The one I find surprisingly missing from this list is scite. Its
lightweight (extremely lightweight), does all of the things expected
of a basic text editor, even does syntax highlighting. All in all, I
consider it to b
beware of RPMs , I had pretty frustrating experience
with them , they are the primary problem with Linux.
Eh? Am I missing something? I have used rpm-based distros for quite some
time now, and nowhere have I had an experience that causes me to say
that rpms are the *primary* problem with L
> beware of RPMs , I had pretty frustrating experience
> with them , they are the primary problem with Linux.
You want to say that rpm is the basic problem withm rpm. Wtf is linux
married to rpm in your dictionary? Fix it.
>Then after lot of hair pulling I came to know about
> these .gz file
Hi,
--- Amol Bharat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are
> the other text editors, apart from vi and emacs?
I would recommend that you learn either vi(m) or GNU
Emacs thoroughly. I understand there is an initial
learning curve involved, but, it will definitely help
you in the long run. On a per
hello
Kate is the solution one for you :) (considering your background )
but Vi is best an prefeed !
> On my Red Hat Linux 8.0, I am looking fo good text editors. What are
> the other text editors, apart from vi and emacs? Where can I find
> their RPMs? Some time back I'd used UltraEdit and
--- Amol Bharat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello friends,
> On my Red Hat Linux 8.0, I am looking fo good text
> editors. What are
> the other text editors, apart from vi and emacs?
Install Openoffice instead. unless U have disk space,
time to buy new harddisk dude
> Where can I find their
On Tuesday 12 Jul 2005 11:48 am, Amol Bharat wrote:
> Hello friends,
> On my Red Hat Linux 8.0, I am looking fo good text editors. What are
> the other text editors, apart from vi and emacs?
Gedit, kate, kwrite if you're using a GUI. Nano is good if you want something
on the command line and don
Hello friends,
On my Red Hat Linux 8.0, I am looking fo good text editors. What are
the other text editors, apart from vi and emacs? Where can I find
their RPMs? Some time back I'd used UltraEdit and Crimson editor on
Windows at work. I found these text editors strong.
-Amol
--
_
18 matches
Mail list logo
