Re: Newbie question: If you don't host a website, and....




Moe Trin wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
> <1138586305.237193.136510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> q_q_anonymous@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >I will learn linux, because a major goal in my life is understanding
> >computers. But, I'm going to wait until I can afford to set up a bunch
> >of computers. I have studied a bit about networks - routers, switches,
> >firewalls ,tcp/ip, and am interested only in the command line.
>
> Google for a thing called a "Live CD" version of Linux. Some of the
> many names are 'BEERnix', 'Damnsmall', 'Dyne:bolic', 'Gibraltar', 'Jollix',
> 'Knoppix', 'Lamppix', 'LinEspa', 'Mepis', and 'Slax'. This gives you a
> full Linux operating system, but because the CD is not 'read-write', you
> can't easily save your files unless you use a floppy, or are willing to
> save to your hard drive. It won't touch your hardware unless you
> specifically make it do so. There are also floppy only systems, though
> given the small size of a floppy, you can only put so much "stuff" on one.
> Toms 'Root n Boot' (tomsrtbt) is an example of that, and there are others.
> See http://www.distrowatch.com/

oh, i'm an eccentric. Computer boxes are far away from me with a KVM
Extender. I try to avoid booting from CDs. Also, when I do play with
*nix, i'll use some fully featured thing. Not a CD.



> >I recommend having all data within one directory so that it can be
> >backed up easily,
>
> [compton ~]$ find . -type f | wc -l
> 4758
> [compton ~]$
>
> That says I've got 4758 files in my home directories. That would be
> rather useless on one screen. Doesn't your backup scheme understand
> the word 'recursive'?
>
> [compton ~]$ find . -type d | wc -l
> 205
> [compton ~]$
>
> Here, there are 205 directories in my home directory, with everything
> from projects I am working on, to mail and personal configuration files
> for my browser, editor, news and mail tools. No need to dump all of that
> into one pile.
>

I'm not that into linux yet, so may have misinterpreted you, but it
sounds like a similar system to me then. When I said I have all my data
in one directory, I didn't mean without subdirectories.

D:\DATA>dir /ad
....
44 Dir(s)
D:\DATA>

err, 42 actually. DOS includes "." and ".." in its count, when not in
the root directory. I think.

.