Linux-Advocacy Digest #222, Volume #26 Sat, 22 Apr 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Christopher Browne)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Illegal to discount software - Linux is in trouble! (JoeX1029)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...) (Mig Mig)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Sierra Tigris)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Sierra Tigris)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Sierra Tigris)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (test@myhome)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Streamer)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (MG)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:13:57 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Joe Kiser would say:
>test@myhome wrote:
>>
>> lets talk a little about the broken way of installing software on linux.
>>
>> it is most certinaly is a broken system now.
>>
>> a simple example. I wanted to install some rpm package
>> to try some application. ok, i do
>>
>> rpm -Uhv foo.rpm
>>
>> it tells me it needs 5 others packages that are missing or not
>> to the right level.
>
>You'll love *BSD's ports system. Just cd to /usr/ports/application-name
>(well, the path may differ on OpenBSD and NetBSD, but this is what it is
>on FreeBSD), type make all install, and everything else is automated.
>The system downloads the source code for the program, as well as
>anything that the program requires to build, and finally, builds and
>installs the program on your machine. Cool stuff, I haven't seen
>anything comparable to this on any Linux distribution yet.
The package "AutoRPM" seeks to provide the ability to request a package,
and then seek out the things it depends on, for RPM-based systems. It
doesn't appear to be _widely_ deployed, but I _have_ used it.
And you've evidently not seen apt-get, on Debian, which has been providing
this sort of functionality [e.g. - "find the packages to satisfy the
dependancies for the packages that have been _requested_"] for several
years now, if you consider the progenitor, dselect...
If I want to install the lyx word processing package, I do:
# apt-get install lyx
And the system goes off and grabs xforms and whatever other dependancies
there are, and installs them.
Of course, if your assumption is that transferring precompiled binaries
is necessarily inferior to transferring source code, and compiling it
on the spot, then feel free to consider apt to be inferior.
I would consider that as bigoted an attitude as the converse attitude
that Ports is necessarily inferior to apt, because it requires compiling
the code from scratch.
For those of us that are quite comfortable with compiling code, and
patching things up if something breaks, Ports may be somewhat preferable;
for the "dumb consumer," who doesn't really know what a compiler _is_,
it seems to me that distributing precompiled code is probably preferable.
--
"... While programs written for Sun machines won't run unmodified on
Intel-based computers, Sun said the two packages will be completely
compatible and that software companies can convert a program from one
system to the other through a fairly straightforward and automated
process known as ``recompiling.''" -- San Jose Mercury News
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 17:20:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Donovan Rebbechi from alt.destroy.microsoft; 13 Apr 2000 18:28:22
-0400
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:13:53 -0700, Bob Lyday wrote:
>>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>>Hmmmmm, how come all those apps say, "for Windows 95, 98, NT and
>>2000" if the API changes all that much?
>
>Because Visual C++ lets you compile for multiple targets, including
>all the above. Just because I can compile a Qt application on Linux
>and Win98 and put "for Linux and Win98" on the box doesn't mean that
>Win98 is similar to Linux.
Yes it does. They both support Qt applications. Wouldn't that make them
extremely similar, from the perspective of Qt applications?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Illegal to discount software - Linux is in trouble!
Date: 22 Apr 2000 21:27:46 GMT
Hey brainchild Winblowme is properitary. Linux is freeware.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 17:28:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 01:45:45 GMT
>On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:44:27 -0400, someone claiming to be Rich C
>wrote:
>
>>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>> Then in what way are they forcing you to upgrade, which * was * your
>>> original contention, after all...
>
>>Well, I wasn't the one who said this, but I think B. Viking is lamenting the
>>fact that QBASIC.EXE doesn't run reliably under ANY modern version of
>>windows, which is testament to the fact that they don't provide true DOS
>>environments.
>
>Assuming that the first assertion is correct, and I would be
>interested in proof that it is so, this just pushes the premise back
>one step: in what way are they forcing you to use "modern" versions
>of Windows?
Roger, you are so outrageously boring, it is truly amazing.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:34:28 +0200
SeaDragon wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 13:13:31 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have met Linux users who are so new to computers, so unknowledgable
> about how computers work, that they couldn't give an intelligent discussion
> on e.g. what issues there are in SMP performance (aside from obvious
> issues, such as locking shared data structures), could not give an
> intelligent discussion on advanced data structures such as splay trees,
> or fibonacci heaps, and do not even understand the benefits of virtual
> memory (beyond the obvious applications of paging to disk, and memory
> protetction). In my experience, most Linux users are compiler jocks
> who think they are god's gift to programming because they know how to
> unpack a tar.gz file and compile it into a binary (a task, of course,
> which has nothing to do with programming, and is completely non-technical).
Great.... lets continue and require that all computer users know about
Petrinets, Graph theory, invariants and scheduling algorithms. After a
while we can demand they know more complex stuff :-)
BTW compiling a program is not as easy a task as you think.. but hey youre
a genious.
> I find that most Linux advocates are completeley technically ignorant of
> any serious technical issues, but instead harp on on legal and economic
> issues. Most of these are obssessed with comparisons to Microsoft (and
> not serious, robust operating systems), and cannot say anything intelligent
> except vague, cliched generalizations about stability, security, and
> scalability, and in most cases they do not understand the real technical
> issues which bnenefit these areas.
Nahhh.. only in these silly groups were the purpose is the bash the oponent
and promote your own choice.. Sad that youre the only one taking this
seriously.
The cliched generalizations are not so cliched since most Windows oponents
are former Windows users that experienced the "cliches" on their own body..
i still do at work... and these are not cliche's.
[snip]
> Why the fuck are you so obssessed with Windows? DOes it make you feel
> really good that you are the second shittiest operating system in the
> world instead of the shittiest? Why don't you try comparising your OS
> to something serious such as TOPS-20 or MVS for a change?
Whats TOPS-20 and what makes it serious ?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
From: Sierra Tigris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:36:59 GMT
Craig Kelley posted Apr 22 re: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
|Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| [snip]
|
|> In any case, it's rather nice that X allows such a range of
|> taste across so many systems. Being able to have the
|> argument at all is a triumph of the protocol.
|
|I totally agree. It's sad that people complain about having a choice.
While I agree with the above sentiment, I must point out that in
some cases having multiple enviroments/manangers can cause some problems,
such as not being able to use an application because it requires another
enviroment than the one you choose to use.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Reply-To: Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 23:37:11 +0100
Colin R. Day wrote:
>Shell wrote:
>> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >TeX/LATeX does the job. As does emacs, gcc, etc.
>>
>> So does Notepad. Doesn't mean I like to use it.
>
>Does what job? Can you compile programs from within Notepad?
>
Writing? Can you edit text with gcc?
Don't get me wrong, I like and use emacs (altough I don't use it to compile).
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] · http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ · [ ICQ# 17519554 ]
I don't suffer from insanity... I enjoy every minute of it!
------------------------------
From: Sierra Tigris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:46:54 GMT
2 posted Apr 22 re: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
|Sadly, the best games don't run on Linux (I'm takling about C&C here), and I
|play it aagainst people whan I get the chance, so I still keep a windows 95
|disk.
What do you mean? I can play solitaire games... *grin*
Sorry. What's C&C, Command and Conquer?
As for games not being on Linux, it's slowly chaning, look we have
Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, Doom, and others [not that *I've* been able to
run any of these. It's a bit like what happened to Mac's, now games are
more and more coming out close to the same time on the Mac as on the IBM
platform.
Know what I want? PS2 with a ethernet connection. *grin* Imagine
combining the power of Play Station 2 with a Linux box. Woohoo!
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
From: Sierra Tigris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:52:50 GMT
Joe Kiser posted Apr 22 re: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst...
|You'll love *BSD's ports system. Just cd to /usr/ports/application-name
|(well, the path may differ on OpenBSD and NetBSD, but this is what it is
|on FreeBSD), type make all install, and everything else is automated.
|The system downloads the source code for the program, as well as
|anything that the program requires to build, and finally, builds and
|installs the program on your machine. Cool stuff, I haven't seen
|anything comparable to this on any Linux distribution yet.
Looks good, but only if one can tweak the settings. One thing I
like about Linux is that I can take the src, tweak the settings and them
compile and install. Not that I've yet to do so, due to my being a newbie,
but the possibility of doing so...
For example, lets say I run a program that doesn't behave exactly
like I want it to. When I'll have enough knowledge of programming I'll be
able to tweak the source code and recompile. Can you do that with Ports?
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
From: test@myhome
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: 22 Apr 2000 14:09:25 -0700
In article <8dsoom$7k9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John says...
> My rules of thumb:
>
> - if you are going to be doing a lot of rpm loading, update your
> full OS to at least the current major revision (ex: RH 6.X)
>
what makes you think I was not using the latest and greates?
I have the latest SUSE 6.3, did FULL and COMPLETE installation,
the whole 11 GB I told it to load to the disk, all the packages
on the those 6 CDROM are INSTALLED on my disk.
Yet, many applications on the net, requires yes more packages
that are missing.
see, I wanted to install etherape:
>rpm -Uhv etherape-0.5.3-1.i386.rpm
error: failed dependencies:
gnome-libs >= 1.0.0 is needed by etherape-0.5.3-1
libglade >= 0.11 is needed by etherape-0.5.3-1
>rpm -Uhv gnome-libs-1.0.58-1.i386.rpm
error: failed dependencies:
gtk+ >= 1.2.1 is needed by gnome-libs-1.0.58-1
libjpeg.so.62 is needed by gnome-libs-1.0.58-1
>rpm -Uhv gtk+-1.2.7-1rh61.i386.rpm
error: failed dependencies:
gtk is needed by gkrellm-0.7.1-1
gtk is needed by ginetd-0.99.2-43
gtk is needed by libglad-0.7-3
gtk is needed by xfce-3.1.1-0
Do you want me to go on? The above chain reaction will
go on for ever it seems. Each package wants few packages, and
each one of those packages wants more few packages.
and for each of those packages one has to go to the net search
for it.
What an absolutly stupied design.
Who cares that a windows package is 5 or 10 MB instead of the few KB that
linux package is. I'd rather download a 10 MB package over my DSL line
that takes few seconds to do, that I can actually use and install
with one click, that download 30 small linux packages that I end
up after 3 hours not being able to use becuase of this mess.
disk space is cheap. I have 200 GB of disk space. you can buy a
40 GB disk for $200 these days. I care not about large packages,
I just need something that just simply works.
Linux people need to go back tto the drawing board and fix this
utterly broken sw installation system they have managed to create before
even think about talking down windows SW installation.
Not only that, there seems to be no official home for the packages
themselves. same package you see on number of websites, some even work
on suse, some on redhat, some on freshmeat, etc.. This only adds
another dimension of complexity, to an allready too complex of a system
for an end user.
------------------------------
From: Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 17:02:57 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> The AHA1520B has SCSI select and it's set to 0x340, 11, 7 (as in aha152x=
> 0x340,11,7). What puzzles me is that it has a BIOS - why then does Linux
> not automatically detect it? I have to enter aha152x=0x340,11,7 as an
> append to LILO.
Just an idea, but I seem to remember that the AHA series on-board bioses don't
work unless the jumpers are all in factory default positions. You might check
your settings as the linux kernel is probably trying to invoke/test the
onboard bios on your aha1520B, and the onboard bios isn't responding.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 22:04:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich C) wrote in <3901fa21@news>:
>As I stated, I believe that the SB-16 is stepping on the SCSI card
>because even though the SCSI card has more or less fixed settings (that
>stay from boot to boot) the SB-16 does not. Did you say that the SCSI
>card works in linux by itself? I've never heard of appending hardware
>setttings to LILO; is this a substitute for ISAPNP.conf?
Every distribution I've tried doesn't detect the SCSI card, until I add
"aha152x=0x340,11,7".
>> I'll try DIAGNOSE or ICU and see what it reveals. This configuration
>> did work with Windows 98 SE.
>
>Which configuration?
With both the SB16 and the SCSI card.
>> Not an advert I remember here in the UK.
>
>Sorry, I can usually pick up on a post from outside the US. :o) But your
>language had no clues and I didn't look at the headers!
There aren't that many differences after all!
Pete
------------------------------
From: MG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 16:08:26 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Illustrator slow to print? how utterly absurd it prints the quickest.
Lots of niave people posting on this board.
Charles Kooy wrote:
> Shock Boy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Eric Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I should point out that multiple instances wouldn't help here on the
> > > Mac, because most Mac printer drivers won't let you switch to *anything*
> > > else, whether another app or another instance of the same app, while
> > > they are writing the spool file.
> >
> > Yes, no matter how well an application is written, it can not overcome
> > sloppy programming in the operating system.
> >
> > Hell, I remember that I'ld start the print job.. then go out for lunch..
> > and hopefully when I get back, I could actually use my mac!
>
> The only apps I've ever seen do this are Quark and Illustrator.
> Presumably you're talking about those. Or are there other apps which do
> it of which I'm not aware?
>
> You did have background printing turned on?
>
> ck
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
