Linux-Advocacy Digest #589, Volume #25 Sat, 11 Mar 00 01:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (Robert Morelli)
Re: Giving up on NT (Dave)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why post? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Craig Kelley)
Mandrake=Poison? (Robert Morelli)
Re: Giving up on NT (Mark Ritchie)
Re: Mandrake=Poison? (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 20:52:35 -0500
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Davorin Mestric wrote:
>
> this will never happen, because the linux community already perceives
> that linux is the best development platform. this is off course far
> from the truth, but truth is not important. what is important is what
> people think, not what actually is. so, there would be no push to
> improve something which is already 'best'.
>
Sadly, I must agree with this assessment, at least as regards old
timers.
I see two big contributing factors.
1. Emacs. Emacs is an immensely powerful and well supported
editor and its design is quintessentially intelligent ... for the time
it was
developed. Unfortunately, it was first developed in the 1970's, using
1970's
UI concepts. Stallman can't be blamed for that, because computer
science hadn't
yet discovered the more advanced GUI concepts that appeared in the
1980's, and
1970's hardware couldn't have handled them anyway. Stallman also can't
be blamed
for doing such a good job that nobody ever came close to displacing
Emacs with a
more modern editor. The unfortunate effect however has been to lock
many UNIX
users into an outmoded UI model. (By the way, the editor I use is ...
Emacs.)
2. A distorted sense of what powerful software is. At the time UNIX
came into
being, in the 1970's, people had just understood compiler principles
and finite
state machines, etc., and that seemed hot. In retrospect, to most
people on
non-UNIX platforms, that stuff now seems simple minded compared to
things like
GUI design, which requires art, creativity, and also more advanced
software
concepts. But as ridiculous as it may seem, I think that to the
average UNIX
afficionado parsing still seems hot, and piping together programs with
many
command line switches seems fancy and powerful, and the expertise of
the kernel
hacker is exalted far above the level of the goofball who invents
something like
a toolbar, a hypertext help system, or an IDE. Unfortunately, a
contributing
factor was the fact that the modern GUI was first popularized on the
Mac, a
platform with brain dead multitasking and networking support. This
invited
people without insight to also dismiss the GUI as brain dead by
association.
The situation is certainly not hopeless though. There is a younger
generation
of people involved with Linux who have broader experience and
perspective.
Clearly, the developers of GNOME want to be part of the 21st century,
as do
a lot of other younger developers. Also, as more companies targeting
the
broader market enter the Linux field, things will change. Companies
like
Corel and Borland, that have struggled for years under cut throat
competition,
will bring a fresh mentality. You won't find these companies publishing
documentation as man pages summarizing command line switches; they
respect
customers too much to do things like that.
> "Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm partner in a contract software development company. We do
> virtually all
> > of our work for Win32, but we've done a bit of Linux and Solaris work
> as
> > well. The most recent *nix work was a port of the server half of a
> client
> > server package from NT to Linux and Solaris. But on the client side
> (except
> > for one Java-based app) we've done no Linux at all. This is not by
> our
> > choice (we're kind of agnostic) but because that's what our customers
> pay us
> > to develop. For them, Linux client apps aren't even on the radar
> screen
> > yet.
> >
> > That may change, of course, as the popularity of Linux grows, but I
> think
> > that's going to be a slow process. One thing that could accelerate it
> > greatly, I think, is this. What if the best-of-breed tools available
> for
> > building client GUI apps were:
> >
> > 1. Free.
> > 2. Open-source.
> > 3. Generated both Linux and Windows apps from the same source code.
> >
> > Yes, there's Qt, but it ain't free or open source for generating Win32
> apps
> > (or commercial Linux apps either). And there's WxWindows which I
> guess is
> > supposed to be pretty decent, but AFAIK not exactly the best-in-breed
> of GUI
> > libraries/development tools.
> >
> > Wouldn't it make sense for the open source community to focus on
> producing a
> > better VisualBasic-than-VisualBasic and a better VisualC-than-VisualC
> that
> > produced both Win and Linux apps, so that as developers chose to use
> these
> > tools, the Linux versions would fall out for free?
> >
> > Mark
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 10 Mar 2000 22:04:07 -0600
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 07:20:56 +0000, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I spot a new approach by microsoft - this is to 'accept' that linux
>really is an up to date, modern operating system, and _so_is_ w2k,
>so in fact, they look about the same.
>
>This new approach is a major change of stance for the Gates empire,
>effectively giving up considerable 'debate-space' ground to accepting
>the efficacy of Linux (not surprising considering the Halloween docs
>I suppose), but now using Linux as a benchmark to prove the quality
>of w2k.
>
>How times change,
>
>Mark
What *are* you talking about? I give my honest impressions based on
actually running side by side the OSes in question, and you make me
out to be some kind of Microsoft employee or something?
I'm sorry if you can't deal with facts and honest, informed opinions.
BTW, check comp.os.os2.setup.misc for the rundown of my trials and
tribulations installing OS/2 4 on an IBM Thinkpad 600E laptop. At
least the people there are friendly and willing to help. This group
is composed of the most bigoted and closed-minded people I've run
across in a long time.
Dave
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
Date: 10 Mar 2000 22:05:52 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dbt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>>In article <8abrmp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So.... don't use it.
>>>> Use vi or joe or ed or pico or NOTEPAD.EXE under Wine. You could even
>>>> be a Real BSD Man(tm) and pipe together some head and tail.
>>>
>>>Use it on what file? The dotfile the makefile creates? Is that guaranteed
>>>to be even semi-sane when you upgrade the kernel?
>>
>>Yes, but then you should 'make oldconfig' which will let you
>>select 'yes/no/module' for only the new features that have been
>>added to the kernel since you created the old .config. How do
>>you do that with a bsd build?
>
>% head -1 MYCONFIG
># $OpenBSD: GENERIC,v 1.62 2000/03/02 10:50:29 art Exp $
>% cvs diff -u -r1.62 GENERIC | tee patch
>.. unified diff output ..
>% patch MYCONFIG < patch
>% config MYCONFIG
>% cd ../compile/MYCONFIG ; make depend bsd
Can you run that by again a little slower? I missed the place
where you inspected the list of new features and decided
which to activate.
>This whole idea of getting prompted "yes/no/module" seems silly to me,
>but that's a personal preference.
What's the point of building a kernel at all if you don't want
to specify how it should be configured? Linux distributions supply
perfectly usable binaries so the only reason to build your oneself
is to choose the compiled-in and module components.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
Date: 10 Mar 2000 22:14:03 -0600
In article <8ac968$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes, but then you should 'make oldconfig' which will let you
>> select 'yes/no/module' for only the new features that have been
>> added to the kernel since you created the old .config. How do
>> you do that with a bsd build?
>
>You read the release notes and decide what you want to add. I don't *want*
>to be presented with a "here's something new, decide to add it or not now".
In general it will work with an old config file anyway, but worst
case you could just answer 'no' to everything. Usually when I
build a new kernel it is specifically to get a new feature, so
the prompts make sense to me.
>Incidentally, how do you go about specifying things like default IRQs in the
>Linux config file? That's part of your configuration documentation as well.
I take the easy way and fill in the form in 'make xconfig' for that.
The X setup is a bit more event-driven and lets you go directly
to the component you need to configure. Do you ever make syntax
errors when you edit the kernel file directly?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
Date: 10 Mar 2000 22:22:15 -0600
In article <8ac8rv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Use it on what file? The dotfile the makefile creates?
>
>> cp arch/$MY_ARCH/defconfig .config
>> $EDITOR .config
>> make dep && make clean && make bzImage && make modules && make modules_install
>
>> Of course, `make menuconfig` is nice and quick, but if you are a
>> masochist...
>
>Remembering or writing down (on paper or electronically) a set of answers
>to a bunch of questions is how we used to do "kernel configuration management"
>under RSX-11.
That probably had about 1% of the device handling possibilities
that you get with Linux.
>(peeks at files)
>
>I don't think .config is necessarily that desirable an alternative.
Yes, there are reasons for the friendlier alternatives
(menuconfig, xconfig, etc.).
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Why post?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 04:37:51 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Mig Mig would say:
>mlw wrote:
>[cut]
>> As for the anti-linux camp, I am not sure. What motivates anti-anything?
>> Usually hate of some kind. Hate is usually irrational, and when it comes
>> to inanimate objects like an OS, it must be irrational. The only other
>> alternative, and this is falls into the conspiracy theory, is that it is
>> an effort which is funded by a corporation, like an astroturf movement.
>
>Is this so different from Satanism where [many] satanists define Satanism
>as being to opposite of Christianity in any aspect?
>(Off course Satanism= Windows Christianilty=FreeUnices some (Drestin
>and Chad) might view this the other way around)
I thought it was the other way around; many Christians *consider*
Satanism as being some "opposite" to Satanism.
The problem then is that they don't have a clear definition of any of:
- Christianity
- Satanism
- What it means to be "opposite."
The *immediate* result is that it is easy to demonize (boy, there's an
appropriate term if I ever saw one!) just about anyone that they
happen to disagree with today.
*Reality* is that the movement that calls itself "Satanism" does not
use the same terms of reference, and is not based on the common
Christian mythos of what Satanism *ought* to be.
And thus Satanism != "Popular Witchcraft" != Wicca, just to name some
of the more commonly-thought-of associations...
But the *important* result is that due to the vagueness of the
definitions, and the vagueness of peoples' understandings, people on
just about all sides wind up mis-defining their way into great errors.
That applies nicely whether to religious positions surrounding deities
(or lack thereof) as well as operating systems.
>> I am skeptical of many of the "I tried to install Linux and failed"
>> posts because they seem to contain too much information for the person
>> to be a newbe, yet anyone with this much knowledge should have no
>> problems installing Linux.
>>
>> (Installation is not a "Usability" issue for the average computer user,
>> as they will never install an OS.)
>
>I think youre wrong here. Usability is very much a issue... users install
>programs that sometimes break stuff that worked before so there is a need
>for tools/ability to do some kind of damage rocovery.
>This is true for Windows (as you probably allready know) and also for
>Linux. Unfortunattely neither platform as an easy way to do this recovery
>to a basic working system - Windows is leading here because of
>"Add/Remove->Windows Installation" comes very handy [nearly] allways ....
>but this in not even enough.
This misses the point; there are two dueling definitions for
"Installation" here:
a) Installation of the operating system, and
b) Installation of applications that run atop the operating system.
"I tried to install Linux and failed" is a statement about "definition
a)."
And it is *quite* fair to say that the average computer user never
installs an operating system.
By talking about installation of applications, you're changing
subjects.
On Linux, the presence of packaging systems that know how to check
dependencies, and particularly things like Auto-RPM and apt-get, are
*far* more useful tools for doing this than "it-only-verifies-at-
the-factory" InstallShield, which is quite capable of trashing your
system should a software package come with ancient DLLs that overwrite
ones critical to some other application. Which is a particularly
thorny problem in Windows that Linux does not suffer from.
There is a lack, at this point, of Really Friendly front end software
for the packaging tools, which is a legitimate weakness on Linux. On
the gripping hand, this is something that effort has been going into,
lately, and all the distributions are now starting to deploy pretty
decent front ends for this. Mind you, those of us that know how to
use "raw" dselect or autorpm may never wind up bothering with the
"pretty" tools because we're happy enough with the lower level stuff
that gives us a bit more power...
>> I have never met a windows user, except for these people, that isn't
>> frustrated with Windows' instability and forced upgrade strategy of
>> Office. Many windows' users would drop Windows the first opportunity
>> they get.
>>
>> So why, I ask, would these people go to the trouble that they do, to
>> post a negative messages?
>>
>> Are they threatened by Linux for some reason?
>> What could be threatening about a PC OS?
>> Are they paid by a corporation that views Linux as a threat?
>
>If you only knew about Windows and your job was dependent on people
>using Windows and the momentum was towards another
>platform... wouldnt you feel threatned? I think you would and i
>surely would :-)
... Which provides legitimate reason to discount these dissenting
opinions ...
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 Mar 2000 21:48:57 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > An aside - what kind of kernel config utility do you think Microsoft
> > used to configure the Windows 2000 kernel, huh?
>
> I don't know, but their Xenix stuff was interesting. You designed your
> disk partitions at kernel config time.
Wow.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:30:58 -0500
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mandrake=Poison?
I obtained both Linux-Mandrake 6.0 and 6.1 and tried installing them on
several machines, two different laptops and 1 very standard desktop.
I had difficulty getting Mandrake to load on the laptops, but with
fiddling I did finally succeed. However, once installed, I found
Linux-Mandrake to be the most unstable operating system I have ever used
(and this includes MS-DOS 3.3). Freeze ups were common (about once every
day or two) and total failure requiring a reinstall in every case within
a week. Somebody told me that the problem was that Mandrake used a buggy
compiler, but I'm not sure if that's supposed to restore my confidence
or diminish it. Beyond the instability, the package was amateurish. For
instance, in both the 6.0 and 6.1 documentation, there is reference to a
recovery boot disk that does not exist (but which once existed in the
RedHat distribution on which it was based). In some places the documentation
is so poorly written that it is hardly understandable.
By contrast, Caldera OpenLinux and RedHat have installed without
a hitch and never had these problems.
My experience with Mandrake was so singularly bad that I couldn't help hatch
a conspiracy theory. Is Linux-Mandrake secretly run by Microsoft to
draw sales away from other distributions and undermine Linux's reputation?
After all, mandrake root is a poison (but not as well known as it once
was). Why would a company name itself after a poison? If I were at MS
and wanted to undermine Linux this way, I'd probably name the company
something like Mandrake, as an inside joke. Then I'd just (legally) copy
the most popular distribution out there (RedHat), add something small
(not sure what Mandrake has added), compile it with a buggy compiler,
and sell it for slightly less than RedHat.
Maybe I'm being grossly unfair to Mandrake. All I'm going on is the
experience I had with two versions on 3 of my machines. Has anyone had
a different experience?
------------------------------
From: Mark Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 05:32:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>BTW, check comp.os.os2.setup.misc for the rundown of my trials and
>tribulations installing OS/2 4 on an IBM Thinkpad 600E laptop. At
>least the people there are friendly and willing to help. This group
>is composed of the most bigoted and closed-minded people I've run
>across in a long time.
On behalf of all, I'd like to welcome you to *.advocacy. I see you've
already picked up on the major theme of most threads. Just sit back,
grab your favorite beveridge and enjoy the mayhem.
--
Mark A Ritchie
http://members.home.net/knowbodies/index.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Mandrake=Poison?
Date: 10 Mar 2000 23:53:46 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I obtained both Linux-Mandrake 6.0 and 6.1 and tried installing them on
>several machines, two different laptops and 1 very standard desktop.
What is the point of posting this now that 7.0 has been out for
quite a while?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
