[NTLUG:Discuss] Re: [SLU] .tar [Rookie question]..

[MadHat]

Mark Bickel wrote:
> 
> > From: MadHat <madhat at unspecific.com>
> > To: discuss at ntlug.org
> > Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] Re: [SLU] .tar [Rookie question]..
> 
> > Shel Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > Being VERY new to the Linux community, I really have NO Idea as to what
> > > I'm doing.. That's why I'm counting everyone for help.. since I wanted 128
> > > bit encryption, that's why I chose tar.gz [on someone else's advice] I
> > > 'spammed' across several mailing lists because I still haven't quite
> > > figured out which question goes to which list.. Please be patient with us
> > > newbies :)
> 
> > Trying not to be too rude, but did you try reading the file called
> > README.install that is included with the tar.gz file you downloaded and
> > un tar.gz'ed?
> <snip>
> > The recommended way to install this software is to use 'ns-install',
> > <SNIP>
> 
> for rpm based systems, an .rpm package is just as acceptable, preferable even
> in some ways. rpms can execute installation scripts as well as copy files.
> 
> ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/updates/eDesktop/2.4/current/RPMS/communicator-4.75-1.i386.rpm
> 
> This would be my first choice for my Caldera-based workstation, not the .tar.gz
> from netscape. Having said that, they both install the same stuff and both worked
> fine for me. YMMV.

Do they both install the same stuff?  Is the 128bit available via RPM? 
They might, I haven't checked... I like RPM, but there are times I would
rather get the tar.gz from the source, this is one of those times....
$.02

-- 
MadHat at unspecific.com
                                   "The 3 great virtues of a programmer:
                                      Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris."
                                                 --Larry Wall