Re: flexfax: FW: Hylafax - faxq unable to exec faxsend

["Darren Nickerson" <darren@hylafax.org>]

>>>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, "WHG" == William H. Gilmore wrote:

  WHG> Darren,

  WHG> First of all, you need to relax.

William, you're probably right ;-) I certainly need to sleep more and drink 
less coffee!

  WHG> If you look back through the archive you will see that I posted
  WHG> a detailed description of the problem that I was having twice.

Holey egg on face Batman . . . you're right!! The past few weeks have been 
pretty crazy for me, and I read your messages, had no idea what your problem 
could be, and filed them as "to-do"s. Not getting many of them done recently.

  WHG> So forgive my impression that there is no one out there who is
  WHG> interested in Hylafax on Linux not to mention RedHat Linux.  This
  WHG> impression was further heightened by notes that I have read on this list
  WHG> maligning Linux.

Gosh, I'm sorry that's your read on things. I think Phil Watkinson put in a 
little "unfortunately on RedHat linux" comment, but can't remember much other 
maligning.

I'd just like to clear this up a bit more . . . of all the downloads from the 
ftp.hylafax.org, the linux RPMs are top of the list. People are using them a 
lot, and I hear from these people occasionally. For the most part, they're 
very happy with the RPM, and with the way HylaFAX performs on linux in 
general. You should bear in mind that linux will always suffer from the 
"newbie syndrome", since it draws people into the UNIX world who until now 
have been dealing with pre-installed software with idiot-proof GUIs. 
Installing and configuring HylaFAX for these people, RPM or not, is fraught 
with misadventure - HylaFAX is a very powerful package, but is also pretty 
complex as a consequence.

As for your impression it's not supported, it's partly because you only see 
problem reports on the list (successful people rarely post) and there's a huge 
number of people trying to run HylaFAX on linux, and it's partly (mostly!?) 
because I and others never replied to your trouble report. For that I 
apologise most sincerely . . . I probably should have mailed you a *shrug* 
instead of nothing at all!

  WHG> In general, I do not approach the authors of packages as step 1.  I try
  WHG> to do my own work first.  When I realized that you were active in the
  WHG> mailing list, I was hopeful that you would reply to my message.  Since
  WHG> you didn't, I respected your silence.

Next time mail me directly please ;-) I needed a little prod on this one.

  WHG> And yes, in my opinion, the documentation for installing Hylafax on
  WHG> Linux needs improvement.

I agree completely.

  WHG> As I stated in my previous note, I am willing to help on this (Don't
  WHG> flame volunteers)

Great! Tell you what, when I build the next RPM let's collaborate on making 
some coherent docs.

  WHG> I can only plead Mea Culpa for not attempting the SRPM.  For one, I
  WHG> simply didn't think about it since I haven't had to resort to it on any
  WHG> other package that I have worked with.  In all likelihood, it would have
  WHG> worked.  However, after spending the equivalent of days digging through
  WHG> output from strace, I thought it best to start with the unpatched source
  WHG> and go through it step by step.

I'm quite interested in getting to the bottom of your original problem. You're 
the only one to report anything like that though . . . very strange. I suppose 
now that you have "fixed" things you'll not be seeing Mr. Bug again though.

  WHG> I apologize for stepping on toes, but IMHO you are way too quick to fly
  WHG> off on this one.

You're right. Sorry!

-Darren