My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...

My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...

Post by oneb.. » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



So again for the 3rd time, prove me wrong and show me specifically how
much easier it is to set up:

1. Internet connection sharing.
2. Printer/scanner sharing with Linux/Windows mixed system.
3. Firewall (software based).

Again under Win98SE:

1. Internet connection sharing:
        Try help "how do I share my internet connection?" duhhhhhh

2. Printer Sharing:
        Click on Printers/Share  Duhhhh again.

3. Firewall:
        Try Zonealarm which has been written up in just about every
magazine and trade rag. No configuration necessary. It blocks your
ports and informs you with a popup everytime something is trying to
gain access to your system. You have the option of giving access or
not. No need to type in all kinds of ip addresses although you can do
that if you wish also.

So how does one go about doing this easily under Linux?

It's very easy to do under Windows. Not one file to edit.

So how about a direct rebuttal to prove me wrong instead of all of the
lame attempts at deflecting a direct question.

Is answering a direct question too difficult for the Linux people?

 
 
 

My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...

Post by JEDIDI » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



>So again for the 3rd time, prove me wrong and show me specifically how
>much easier it is to set up:

>1. Internet connection sharing.

        Compared to the need to download some strange new package,
        even bare ipchains commands fare better.

Quote:>2. Printer/scanner sharing with Linux/Windows mixed system.

        Just how do Windows boxes share scanners?

        As far as Win->Linux samba print sharing, I just installed
        Slackware '94 way.

Quote:>3. Firewall (software based).

        It's built into Linux.

Quote:

>Again under Win98SE:

>1. Internet connection sharing:
>    Try help "how do I share my internet connection?" duhhhhhh

        ...and those steps would be?

Quote:

>2. Printer Sharing:
>    Click on Printers/Share  Duhhhh again.

        Like I said. This comes working out of the box with samba.
        You install Linux & it's there. Mebbe you need to click a
        couple of boxes in swat to tell it to use
        encrypted-to-break-samba passwords.

Quote:

>3. Firewall:
>    Try Zonealarm which has been written up in just about every
>magazine and trade rag. No configuration necessary. It blocks your

        ...assuming that end user is lucky and well read.

Quote:>ports and informs you with a popup everytime something is trying to
>gain access to your system. You have the option of giving access or
>not. No need to type in all kinds of ip addresses although you can do
>that if you wish also.

>So how does one go about doing this easily under Linux?

>It's very easy to do under Windows. Not one file to edit.

        Yet you can't seem to describe these processes in nice easy
        steps. They're so simple, yet so hard for you to express.

        Don't you have enough of those (1000*(steps)) words to describe
        it all. <snicker>

Quote:

>So how about a direct rebuttal to prove me wrong instead of all of the
>lame attempts at deflecting a direct question.

>Is answering a direct question too difficult for the Linux people?

        BTW, the firewall and masqerade are 1 thing, not 2.

--

                                                                        |||
                                                                       / | \

                                      Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.

 
 
 

My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...

Post by Grega Brem » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



had somehow managed to commit the following:

Quote:>So again for the 3rd time, prove me wrong and show me specifically how
>much easier it is to set up:

>1. Internet connection sharing.
>2. Printer/scanner sharing with Linux/Windows mixed system.
>3. Firewall (software based).

Ehm, I should suppose that nobody answered your questions for one
simple, yet almost obscurely absurd reason: most probably because
they are meaningless questions.

To paraphrase the meaninglessness of your questions, let me use a
rhetorical question that will clearly illustrate what points you had
missed in composing a post like the one I managed to force myself to
write a reply to:

    How difficult is it to drive on the left side of the road outside
    the U.K. (and their former collonies) ?

I will unfortunately have to draw a supposal again, to conclude the
paraphrase in a manner oh so common to you:

    Hmm, the entire rest of the world must suck horridly, because one
    would most instantly crash as soon as they attempted to do such a
    nonsense.

Do you now manage to perceive the answer?

<hint>
    The answer is deliberately non-specific, because the whole issue
    you exposed is, well, what one could call, non-portable.
</hint>

--
    Grega Bremec

    http://gbsoftware.webjump.com/

    Why do I suspect nobody will ever read this reply of mine? <hint>

 
 
 

My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...

Post by Leslie Mikese » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



>So again for the 3rd time, prove me wrong and show me specifically how
>much easier it is to set up:

You really do have a point that most people haven't taken seriously
here.  I'd guess that like me, most of the people using Linux
set it as their internet gateway long before Win98SE recently
added the capability, and perhaps no one else has bothered to
install that version since they don't need it.  

Quote:>1. Internet connection sharing.
>2. Printer/scanner sharing with Linux/Windows mixed system.
>3. Firewall (software based).

You can buy the NetMax version with this stuff ready to go
out of the box.  Or the April 2000 Linux Journal has a
couple of 3 page articles showing a couple of different
ways to do it.

Quote:>Again under Win98SE:

>1. Internet connection sharing:
>    Try help "how do I share my internet connection?" duhhhhhh

This doesn't get installed by default, at least not on an
upgrade from win95, so it isn't quite as obvious as you make
it out to be.  But, once you select it on the install CD and
load it, it is simple enough.

Quote:>2. Printer Sharing:
>    Click on Printers/Share  Duhhhh again.

Unless I've forgotten something, the smb.conf file in the
redhat distribution automatically shares all the printers
configured in the linux system if you activate samba.
So Linux wins on this one.

Quote:>3. Firewall:
>    Try Zonealarm which has been written up in just about every
>magazine and trade rag. No configuration necessary. It blocks your
>ports and informs you with a popup everytime something is trying to
>gain access to your system. You have the option of giving access or
>not. No need to type in all kinds of ip addresses although you can do
>that if you wish also.

This is built into the ipchains systems that controls the NAT
operation so you don't need to find another utility.   However
you probably will have to paste the example from the documentation
into your own control file.

Quote:>So how does one go about doing this easily under Linux?

>It's very easy to do under Windows. Not one file to edit.

You seem to be juxtaposing ease against editing files here.
Why?  Do you really not edit files on your computer?  Or
is there some conceptual hurdle to typing words?

Quote:>So how about a direct rebuttal to prove me wrong instead of all of the
>lame attempts at deflecting a direct question.

Actually I think you are right, but only in the case where you
are willing to accept defaults with no way to control them. And
how often do you do this setup anyway?  Even if the Linux setup
requires editting a few files, you do it once following the
steps in a 3 page article and it will run for years.  

Quote:>Is answering a direct question too difficult for the Linux people?

Most Linux people probably haven't bothered to set up a Win98SE
system - I only did it to make things work the same either way
on a dual-boot machine.  I have to admit I was surprised (shocked)
that it actually worked after all the difficulty I have had
with anything earlier from Microsoft dealing with any routing
concepts.   All it would take to duplicate the ease of configuration
though (given the lack of choices) would be a few canned files
and a script to activate demand dialing, dhcpd, ipchains, and
perhaps a caching DNS server (I forget whether win98se has one
or not - it should).  I'd be surprised if someone hasn't already
throw this together so you don't have to cut and paste from
the documentation examples.

  Les Mikesell

 
 
 

My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...

Post by Leslie Mikese » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




>>1. Internet connection sharing.

>    Compared to the need to download some strange new package,
>    even bare ipchains commands fare better.

No, Win98SE does it out of the box.

Quote:>>So how does one go about doing this easily under Linux?

>>It's very easy to do under Windows. Not one file to edit.

>    Yet you can't seem to describe these processes in nice easy
>    steps. They're so simple, yet so hard for you to express.

>    Don't you have enough of those (1000*(steps)) words to describe
>    it all. <snicker>

It really is a yes or no question.  Turning it on activates NAT,
a DHCP server on the NATed range (which it figures out), and
demand dialing, automatically triggered by client access.  And
maybe some other things I haven't found yet.  I was amazed
that on my dual-boot machine it worked just the same as my
hand-built setup under Linux down to the way I had set up
dhcp.  Don't compare this to anything prior to SE - they
got the defaults right this time, although they should warn
you about running the dhcp server since it would destroy a
network that was already using one.

  Les Mikesell

 
 
 

My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...

Post by JEDIDI » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00





[deletia]

>It really is a yes or no question.  Turning it on activates NAT,
>a DHCP server on the NATed range (which it figures out), and
>demand dialing, automatically triggered by client access.  And

        What if you don't use a serial modem? What if you'd
        rather use the serial modem for something else?
        What if you would rather bridge and use the upstream
        dhcp server instead? What happens if you want to use
        2 NICs and isolate routable packets from non-routable
        ones? Does Win98SE get confused if you have no modem?

Quote:>maybe some other things I haven't found yet.  I was amazed
>that on my dual-boot machine it worked just the same as my
>hand-built setup under Linux down to the way I had set up
>dhcp.  Don't compare this to anything prior to SE - they
>got the defaults right this time, although they should warn
>you about running the dhcp server since it would destroy a
>network that was already using one.

        That's a rather big gotcha.

        ...puts a new spin on Cable Modem provider DHCP server problems.

--

                                                                        |||
                                                                       / | \

                                      Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.

 
 
 

My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...

Post by Alberto Trill » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Quote:> 1. Internet connection sharing.

   I can set up internet sharing connection searching for
"Linux masquerading" at Altavista than following the steps
given at Windows help. I guess you are not a fool, so you
would suppose that Linux sharing connection gives you far
more than Windows does. What's more, several distributions
comes with masquerading scripts included, so you just have
to say yes/no at a dialog box to share connection.

Quote:> 2. Printer/scanner sharing with Linux/Windows mixed system.

   Samba is installed within most of the distributions ready to work
and share printers out of the box.

Quote:> 3. Firewall (software based).

   The same that masquerading applies here, not only a lot of
firewalling scripts are around the net, but a lot of distros include
them at installation time. Again, firewalling from Linux gives you
some extra bonus ;-) than doing it from Windows 9x
 
 
 

My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...

Post by oneb.. » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Why do you find it so difficult to answer a direct question?

Read on:




>>So again for the 3rd time, prove me wrong and show me specifically how
>>much easier it is to set up:

>>1. Internet connection sharing.

>    Compared to the need to download some strange new package,
>    even bare ipchains commands fare better.

Done right out of the box with Win98 SE.

For the 4th time.

Help-> "how do I share my internet connection"
Follow the bouncing wizard and it works.

Quote:>>2. Printer/scanner sharing with Linux/Windows mixed system.

>    Just how do Windows boxes share scanners?

>    As far as Win->Linux samba print sharing, I just installed
>    Slackware '94 way.

And how long is grandma going to play with samba.cnf file before she
gives up.

Get real. This months Linux Journal as well as anothor mag I have has
multiple page articles on how to do this task. Clicking a check box.
One check box under Windows 98se makes it happen.

Quote:>>3. Firewall (software based).

>    It's built into Linux.

Sure it is. Now you have to figure out how do configure it. Now how
about a specific answer on how to do that jedi.

Again. Zonalarm needs no configuration.

Quote:

>>Again under Win98SE:

>>1. Internet connection sharing:
>>        Try help "how do I share my internet connection?" duhhhhhh

>    ...and those steps would be

Even you could do it. No ip addresses entering needed.
questions like: Which computer is connected to the internet via
modem/cable.
Real easy stuff compared to hosts allow and deny etc.

Quote:

>>2. Printer Sharing:
>>        Click on Printers/Share  Duhhhh again.

>    Like I said. This comes working out of the box with samba.
>    You install Linux & it's there. Mebbe you need to click a
>    couple of boxes in swat to tell it to use
>    encrypted-to-break-samba passwords.

That's not what the Linux Journal article this month says. It goes on
for pages explaining how to share a printer. And BTW they give
examples with SWAT also.

No way is it as easy as WIndows...
Not even close.

Quote:

>>3. Firewall:
>>        Try Zonealarm which has been written up in just about every
>>magazine and trade rag. No configuration necessary. It blocks your

>    ...assuming that end user is lucky and well read.

If he's planning on trying all the above with Linux reading is about
all he will be doing.

Quote:>>ports and informs you with a popup everytime something is trying to
>>gain access to your system. You have the option of giving access or
>>not. No need to type in all kinds of ip addresses although you can do
>>that if you wish also.

>>So how does one go about doing this easily under Linux?

>>It's very easy to do under Windows. Not one file to edit.

>    Yet you can't seem to describe these processes in nice easy
>    steps. They're so simple, yet so hard for you to express.

Stop attacking me and provide a step by step procedure.

And if you can do that be sure and visit the alt.linux.networking
group because there are folks over there pulling their hair out trying
to do this "simple" procedure.

Quote:>    Don't you have enough of those (1000*(steps)) words to describe
>    it all. <snicker>

Lame...How about a direct answer.
Quote:

>>So how about a direct rebuttal to prove me wrong instead of all of the
>>lame attempts at deflecting a direct question.

>>Is answering a direct question too difficult for the Linux people?

>    BTW, the firewall and masqerade are 1 thing, not 2.

 
 
 

My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...

Post by oneb.. » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


What kind of an idiotic answer is that?

People want to share internet connections.
People want to share resources (printers).
People want some kind of security protection.

And people would like it to be simple to set up.

You are saying that this is not an important set of items?

Windows makes this extremely easy and as of yet nobody has shown me
precisely how Linux is at least as easy.

A half answer like "Samba comes installed" is not an answer.

So again:

How about an answer.



Quote:>Ehm, I should suppose that nobody answered your questions for one
>simple, yet almost obscurely absurd reason: most probably because
>they are meaningless questions.

>To paraphrase the meaninglessness of your questions, let me use a
>rhetorical question that will clearly illustrate what points you had
>missed in composing a post like the one I managed to force myself to
>write a reply to:

>    How difficult is it to drive on the left side of the road outside
>    the U.K. (and their former collonies) ?

>I will unfortunately have to draw a supposal again, to conclude the
>paraphrase in a manner oh so common to you:

>    Hmm, the entire rest of the world must suck horridly, because one
>    would most instantly crash as soon as they attempted to do such a
>    nonsense.

>Do you now manage to perceive the answer?

><hint>
>    The answer is deliberately non-specific, because the whole issue
>    you exposed is, well, what one could call, non-portable.
></hint>

 
 
 

My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...

Post by oneb.. » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Thank you Leslie for a sane honest answer to my questions.

It's simply incredible to see some of the more rabid Linux users
dancing and avoiding a simple direct question and then attacking the
messenger when they have no answer, or the real answer does not show
Linux in a completely positive manner.

Some of these people would be doing Linux a big favor by NOT
advocating it because the end result is that they are making Linux
look bad and proving the argument that it is an operating system for
elitist programmer types.

I will let the thread die at this point.




>>So again for the 3rd time, prove me wrong and show me specifically how
>>much easier it is to set up:

>You really do have a point that most people haven't taken seriously
>here.  I'd guess that like me, most of the people using Linux
>set it as their internet gateway long before Win98SE recently
>added the capability, and perhaps no one else has bothered to
>install that version since they don't need it.  

>>1. Internet connection sharing.
>>2. Printer/scanner sharing with Linux/Windows mixed system.
>>3. Firewall (software based).

>You can buy the NetMax version with this stuff ready to go
>out of the box.  Or the April 2000 Linux Journal has a
>couple of 3 page articles showing a couple of different
>ways to do it.

>>Again under Win98SE:

>>1. Internet connection sharing:
>>        Try help "how do I share my internet connection?" duhhhhhh

>This doesn't get installed by default, at least not on an
>upgrade from win95, so it isn't quite as obvious as you make
>it out to be.  But, once you select it on the install CD and
>load it, it is simple enough.

>>2. Printer Sharing:
>>        Click on Printers/Share  Duhhhh again.

>Unless I've forgotten something, the smb.conf file in the
>redhat distribution automatically shares all the printers
>configured in the linux system if you activate samba.
>So Linux wins on this one.

>>3. Firewall:
>>        Try Zonealarm which has been written up in just about every
>>magazine and trade rag. No configuration necessary. It blocks your
>>ports and informs you with a popup everytime something is trying to
>>gain access to your system. You have the option of giving access or
>>not. No need to type in all kinds of ip addresses although you can do
>>that if you wish also.

>This is built into the ipchains systems that controls the NAT
>operation so you don't need to find another utility.   However
>you probably will have to paste the example from the documentation
>into your own control file.

>>So how does one go about doing this easily under Linux?

>>It's very easy to do under Windows. Not one file to edit.

>You seem to be juxtaposing ease against editing files here.
>Why?  Do you really not edit files on your computer?  Or
>is there some conceptual hurdle to typing words?

>>So how about a direct rebuttal to prove me wrong instead of all of the
>>lame attempts at deflecting a direct question.

>Actually I think you are right, but only in the case where you
>are willing to accept defaults with no way to control them. And
>how often do you do this setup anyway?  Even if the Linux setup
>requires editting a few files, you do it once following the
>steps in a 3 page article and it will run for years.  

>>Is answering a direct question too difficult for the Linux people?

>Most Linux people probably haven't bothered to set up a Win98SE
>system - I only did it to make things work the same either way
>on a dual-boot machine.  I have to admit I was surprised (shocked)
>that it actually worked after all the difficulty I have had
>with anything earlier from Microsoft dealing with any routing
>concepts.   All it would take to duplicate the ease of configuration
>though (given the lack of choices) would be a few canned files
>and a script to activate demand dialing, dhcpd, ipchains, and
>perhaps a caching DNS server (I forget whether win98se has one
>or not - it should).  I'd be surprised if someone hasn't already
>throw this together so you don't have to cut and paste from
>the documentation examples.

>  Les Mikesell


 
 
 

My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...

Post by oneb.. » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Every grandma sitting at home should have one.

Get real jedi...

I said easy to set up and home network....



Quote:

>    What if you don't use a serial modem? What if you'd
>    rather use the serial modem for something else?
>    What if you would rather bridge and use the upstream
>    dhcp server instead? What happens if you want to use
>    2 NICs and isolate routable packets from non-routable
>    ones? Does Win98SE get confused if you have no modem?

 
 
 

My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...

Post by Mr. Ruper » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> So again for the 3rd time, prove me wrong and show me specifically how
> much easier it is to set up:

> 1. Internet connection sharing.
> 2. Printer/scanner sharing with Linux/Windows mixed system.
> 3. Firewall (software based).

> Again under Win98SE:

> 1. Internet connection sharing:
>         Try help "how do I share my internet connection?" duhhhhhh

> 2. Printer Sharing:
>         Click on Printers/Share  Duhhhh again.

> 3. Firewall:
>         Try Zonealarm

  4. Prevent Microsoft from snoopy around on hard drive while connected to net:
          Install Linux

--
Mr Rupert

 
 
 

My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...

Post by jhal.. » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


: So again for the 3rd time, prove me wrong and show me specifically how
: much easier it is to set up:

        It's simple.I've done it for Linux already, why would I want to do it
again, no matter how simple it's supposed to be?  Remember, this "feature" is
a very recent addition to WIN98, people have been doing this in linux for
years.

        Your belligerence is probably the reason no one will give you an
answer.  You seem to be looking for flames with the way you have been
stating the question.  Perhaps toning it down would yield a quicker answer.  

                                -jeremy

--
"In the Serengeti, there is a small outcropping of rock which conceals a rich
oasis. Tucked away, hidden from the burning sun by a stone ceiling, is a
small pool of fresh water, and in this pool grow clues by the moist
thousands. See your travel agent."
                -'dire wolf'

+================================================================+
  Jeremy Hallum, Assistant System Manager & Grad Student,

 
 
 

My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...

Post by Leslie Mikese » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



>Thank you Leslie for a sane honest answer to my questions.

>It's simply incredible to see some of the more rabid Linux users
>dancing and avoiding a simple direct question and then attacking the
>messenger when they have no answer, or the real answer does not show
>Linux in a completely positive manner.

>Some of these people would be doing Linux a big favor by NOT
>advocating it because the end result is that they are making Linux
>look bad and proving the argument that it is an operating system for
>elitist programmer types.

>I will let the thread die at this point.

Just keep in mind that Win98SE is a very recent product, and
not a free upgrade from any other version.  Most of the
others that replied probably gave up on getting windows
to do that sort of thing at all long ago.  To get some
perspective on this view, dig up a copy of Win98 before
SE was released and see how far you get without adding
third party software.  Also, as I mentioned, all Linux
needs to duplicate the setup is some canned config files
so you don't have to type in the examples in the docs
yourself.  While I agree with your viewpoint that a
default configuration that works for a majority of the
people is a nice touch, I also agree with some of the
others who responded that it is much more important that
you have fine-grained control for the situations where
the default does not work.

  Les Mikesell

 
 
 

My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance...

Post by JEDIDI » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



>What kind of an idiotic answer is that?

>People want to share internet connections.
>People want to share resources (printers).
>People want some kind of security protection.

>And people would like it to be simple to set up.

        Simply isolating the subnet the LAN is on already
        provides the bulk of any necessary security.

        Samba comes working out 'of the box', even if you
        compile it from source yourself.

        Net sharing has been a 1-2 line command in linux for
        over 5 years now.

Quote:

>You are saying that this is not an important set of items?

>Windows makes this extremely easy and as of yet nobody has shown me
>precisely how Linux is at least as easy.

>A half answer like "Samba comes installed" is not an answer.

        No, yours is simply a lame ass response.

        "it comes built in and ready" is indeed a useful response and
        one that you can't seem to reasonably counter. Samba has been
        this way since before Win95 was shipping, nevermind 98.2.

>So again:

>How about an answer.



>>Ehm, I should suppose that nobody answered your questions for one
>>simple, yet almost obscurely absurd reason: most probably because
>>they are meaningless questions.

>>To paraphrase the meaninglessness of your questions, let me use a
>>rhetorical question that will clearly illustrate what points you had
>>missed in composing a post like the one I managed to force myself to
>>write a reply to:

>>    How difficult is it to drive on the left side of the road outside
>>    the U.K. (and their former collonies) ?

>>I will unfortunately have to draw a supposal again, to conclude the
>>paraphrase in a manner oh so common to you:

>>    Hmm, the entire rest of the world must suck horridly, because one
>>    would most instantly crash as soon as they attempted to do such a
>>    nonsense.

>>Do you now manage to perceive the answer?

>><hint>
>>    The answer is deliberately non-specific, because the whole issue
>>    you exposed is, well, what one could call, non-portable.
>></hint>

--

                                                                        |||
                                                                       / | \

                                      Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.

 
 
 

1. Dance RatSkink Bojangles, Dance LIAR..........

Watch ratstink Bojangles dance around this thread.
The Linux kook has been caught yet again in one of his bullshit lies
and is now dancing all around it.

Rapskat always seems to have a friend nearby with the most horrific
Windows problems you could ever imagine.
Keyword is imagine.

Then along comes ratstink (rapskat) linux cd's in tow, to save the
day, and linux somehow manages to do what Windows can't do.

So where are those files rapskat?
Where are they?
You know, the ones that play crappily under Windows but perfectly
under Linux?
Not totally unrecognizeable files mind you, they "sort of play" under
Windows.

So where is your proof.

See below to watch bojangles, ratstink, the thread slinker dance.
__________________________________________________________________

Error log for Fri, 06 Jun 2003 14:17:20 +0000: segfault in module Rich
Bell - dump details are as follows...

I tell you what, when any windows user can duplicate my playing 15
ACTIVE
videos, burning a CD successfully, listening to online broadcast, as
well
as having about 10 other applications loaded on any system running
Windows
and post proof via a series of screenshots like I have done with my
LGX
system, then I will gladly post that link.

You think I am going to jump because you say so you've got a lot to
learn
about me, kid.

--
This Public Service Announcement brought to you by: rapskat

_____________________________________________________________

Peggy Wanka
Don't bother to thank her.

2. Installing from external CDROM

3. IBM: Who Says Elephants Can't Dance?

4. 1.2.13 undefined symbol errors (slackware 3.0.0)

5. Doing the SEYON mouse dance

6. Web study for Silicon Valley area folks

7. Can't dance the samba

8. ethernet card setup problem

9. Halloween VIII: Doing the Damage-Control Dance

10. "Dancing icons" problem using netatalk 1.4.2b and OS 8.x

11. Newbie loves Linux, but can't get samba to dance......

12. Linux and Win98 dancing Samba

13. the Upgrade Dance