Linux-Advocacy Digest #228, Volume #26 Sun, 23 Apr 00 09:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Jim Richardson)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Jim Richardson)
Re: which OS is best? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Mig Mig)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Terry Porter)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (Damien)
Re: Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux (Andy Newman)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (David Steuber)
Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I have a dream! (Kaleb Yilma)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 07:43:31 GMT
On 22 Apr 2000 14:09:25 -0700,
test@myhome, in the persona of <test@myhome>,
brought forth the following words...:
>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.
This is due to one of the few (imho) flaws of SuSE, the default installation
installs rpm packages via "ms-dos safe" 8.3 file names. It's a constant
annoyance of mine. All the packages listed above are installed in the full
install, they are called by slightly diff names, but what is worse, is that
the names in the spec file are also different. This means that many packages
built for RH or Mandrake et al, complain bitterly on SuSE. Either stick to
packages built for suse, recompile from source, or --nodeps where the names
are diff.
>
>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.
>
Gee, is all the stuff downloadable for windows only on one site?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 07:45:17 GMT
On 23 Apr 2000 01:58:20 GMT,
abraxas, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>test@myhome wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>If you didnt get gnome-libs or libglade with your SuSe install,
>then you did not install the entire distribution.
SuSe names the packages strangely, gnome-libs is called gnlibs for instance,
it's a mistake imho, and is one of the most irritating flaws in an otherwise
superb distro.
>Besides that, I believe SuSe uses the deb package manager as well.
>You may want to look into that.
>
No, SuSE uses rpm.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:03:28 GMT
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 15:21:50 -0500,
David Corn, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>mlw wrote:
>>
>> David Corn wrote:
>> >
>> > Craig Kelley wrote:
>> > >
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> > >
>> > > > On 21 Apr 2000 18:40:45 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >>Did I say domain controller? No - I said NFS and SMB sharing. And
>> > > > >>for sharing in WinXX, click the device to be shared, click SHARING...,
>> > > > >>and away you go. It's far simpler than Linux.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >OK, try again. Which button did you click on NT to get tha
>> > > > >NFS sharing done and how long did it take to find?
>> > > >
>> > > > NT doesn't come with it. The objective is to get OS-native sharing
>> > > > going - somehow, anyhow, with a minimum of fuss. NT (and 95/98) do
>> > > > that very well. Linux doesn't. Editing /etc/exports for NFS, for
>> > > > example, isn't my idea of fun. ksysv and such make the automation of
>> > > > such things easier, but I don't consider it 'easy' by any stretch.
>> > >
>> > > So use Linuxconf. You can't complain about the lack of tools which
>> > > exist.
>> > >
>> > > [snip more oh-my-god-I-have-to-use-a-text-editor stuff]
>> >
>> > The point, which is correct and perfectly valid, is that Linux is far
>> > more difficult to set up for even basic filesharing.
>>
>> There is no evidence that supports that pointing and clicking through
>> several dialogs is any easier to use than a text editor. No scientific
>> study what so ever. While one can have an opinion, one can not say for
>> sure. And BTW, there is a huge difference between easy to use and easy
>> to learn. Something slightly harder to learn but much easier to use
>> (text files) may, in fact, be better than something that is slightly
>> easier to learn, but consistently harder to use (levels of dialog
>> boxes).
>>
>
>I just can't buy it. I can tell someone in about 3 seconds how to get
>this going in Win98; can you do the same in Linux (SMB sharing vs NFS
>sharing)?
>
>Bear in mind:
> The person on the other end probably can't type.
> The person .. can easily make a typo.
> " " doesn't know anything about IP addresses.
> " " doesn't know if he's using DNS or not, so machinename resolution
>can't be trusted.
> " " may or may not have a NIS server.
>
>For an office setup, sure, with NIS it isn't that bad once you've done
>it a few times, but for one-offs, *I* wouldn't want to be the one to set
>up someone else's filesharing over the phone.
With Linux, I could log into his system over the network, and configure it
right speedily.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:12:13 +0200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2:1) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >I can't comment on SCSI cards (I have none), but my SB16 ISA PNP ETC
> >works fine on my P133.
>
> It must work then 8)
Yeah... but do you expect everything weird to work on Linux? Remenber that
hardware producents have their eye on Windows. Its easy.. never buy a PC if
its components are not supported by Linux.
> >A P166 (and indeed a 133) are now quite slow machines. If you want to go
> >faster, use a slimmmer window manager under X, such as Fvwm or
> >Windowmaker. I also found that slightly older systems (such as Redhat
> >5.2) run faster on old hardware, probably because it's smaller.
>
> Slow... 8) You're kidding right. If it's _slow_ running KDE but fleet of
> foot running Windows 98 SE, then does that say something about KDE?
No, on my P120 KDE runs much faster than Windows 98.. in fact the GUI feels
more responsive than NT on a PII 350... so i dont uderstand how you get
that experience
> >In terms of many things, it's not playing catchup. I use it for
> >everything I do, except games.
>
> I play games for a living 8).
Actually the only thing i miss in Linux is a good Exchange/IMAP client..
there is tkRat but it aint it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 23 Apr 2000 17:07:10 +0800
Oh I enjoy this type of troll :))
On 22 Apr 2000 14:09:25 -0700, test@myhome <test@myhome> wrote:
>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?
How would *you* know what your using ?
>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.
Size solves all huh ?
>
>Yet, many applications on the net, requires yes more packages
>that are missing.
So what, the world is a lot bigger than you realise, obviously.
>
>see, I wanted to install etherape:
And Xfce the window manager, and others:-
>
>>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
Excellent, now you know what you need.
>
>>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
Ditto.
>
>>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?
I imagine you will anyway ?
> The above chain reaction will
>go on for ever it seems.
No nothing last forever, not even your rantings.
> Each package wants few packages, and
>each one of those packages wants more few packages.
Yes thats how Unix works.
>
>and for each of those packages one has to go to the net search
>for it.
You should be thankfull you have net access, and that this terrific resource
exists.
>
>What an absolutly stupied design.
What a clueless remark.
>
>Who cares that a windows package is 5 or 10 MB instead of the few KB that
>linux package is.
I have a 28.8k line, please see above, where I mentioned the world is
a LOT bigger than you can imagine.
> 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.
I have 1.2 gig, and it supports 6 users.
> you can buy a
>40 GB disk for $200 these days.
Bullshit. 10 gigs costs $300 Australian dollars.
> I care not about large packages,
>I just need something that just simply works.
Then you'll be dissapointed, as not even your mind can meet that one
requirement imho.
>
>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.
I think Ms Windows sux bricks thru straws, and I'm able to install it and Linux
and Bsd, no problem, so perhaps you still have someting to learn ?
>
>Not only that, there seems to be no official home for the packages
>themselves.
You need a clue badly, Wintroll.
> 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.
>
What a imaginative mind you have.
90% (guessing) of all tarballs will install on ALL linux, Bsd and Unix boxes.
Linux is not too complex for me, perhaps you should stick with MsWindows,
as it seems to hold your mind in thrall ?
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 days 15 hours 35 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 23 Apr 2000 09:22:09 GMT
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 03:38:31 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
| On 23 Apr 2000 01:32:10 GMT, someone claiming to be Damien wrote:
|
| >On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:17:46 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| >Roger <roger@.> wrote:
|
| >| On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 15:59:23 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
| >| Devlin wrote:
|
| >| >This is the thing that interests me. What are the issues and disputes that
| >| >could arise from running MS Office on Wine? Wouldn't this be a violation of
| >| >the EULA (I seem to recall one of those outrageously excessive clauses I was
| >| >forced to agree to saying something about "you can only run this on the os
| >| >which we allow you to", that being, of course, Microsoft (c) (tm) (r) (pat.
| >| >pend.).
|
| >| There are no such clauses in the EULA for OFfice 2000 nor Office 97
| >| SR2, those being the only versions I have access to currently to
| >| check.
|
| >There is no reason to believe that the EULA is the same for all
| >shipped copies of MS Office, nor that the EULA will change in the
| >future.
|
| Without evidence to the contrary, there is more reason to believe this
| than to believe that such a significant clause would be a part of only
| some licenses. Have you such evidence?
I'll aggree that it's unlikely the clause is present in any past
versions of the MS Office EULA. But if MS sees it as advantageous to
include it in the future, I trust it will be there.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:30:07 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <8dsbgc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, pete@x wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David says...
>
>>From what I can see there are only a
>>couple of things that one cannot do on linux that one might want to do.
>>Create PDF's is one
>
>all these years I've been creating pdf's on linux with
>simple commands must have been a dream.
>
>ps2pfd
>pdflatex
>
I think he was actually referring to the lack of the "print
to PDF" in the Frame print dialog. Of course there are other
tools for other text processing systems.
--
Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:59:59 GMT
pete@hipe writes:
' When it comes to science of engineering, software is still in the dark ages.
' That is only to be expected. software by its very nature requires
' little science to create, it is a new field, and any one and any body
' can call them a software engineer after 2 days of VB programming,
' while other real engineering fields have been around for much much
' longer time.
If any VB programmer calls himself a software engineer to my face,
I'll shoot him.
I know plenty of people who feel that software engineering is a
genuine engineering disipline. I know that Donald E Knuth calls it
'The Art of Programming'. He also likens it to literature. In the
end, you end up with a mathematical discipline that requires abstract
thought, creativity, and attention to detail. But yes, we are still
in the dark ages. However, we are moving forward. Many successful
design patterns are being codified into source libraries.
I think one of the bigger problems with software engineering is the
fact that you can doodle in source code. If you aren't thinking about
the cost of labor, like you do when you want to build a bridge, and
you aren't worried about a delivery schedule, then there is the
temptation to play around with different implementations. Hell, even
I do that. I generally don't know the solution to a problem until
I've solved it in code. Then I have to go back and clean up the mess.
One thing people don't like to do is throw away the mess and replace
it with a clean and correct design. The mantra of code reuse has been
pushed way to hard. Perhaps this is because of how difficult it is to
produce good code. The thing is, people want to reuse bad code too.
You only have to look at the DOS legacy to see that.
I only know of one bridge that had to be thrown away and replaced with
a new one. That was a bridge built in Tocoma Washington.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
http://www.packetphone.org/
Q: How many Martians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: One and a half.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:33:16 -0400
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
>SeaDragon 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 smp
>performance, splay trees, heap allocators, virtual >memory]
To which Bob Hauck responded:
> Are we talking about users or developers? I daresay that users of most
> every OS don't know about those things either. Or are you in favor of
> some kind of priesthood where only the few can touch the computer?
It seems that SeaDragon would have only developers using computers. I
have been around computers as a user since 1971. I have owned my own PC
since 1983 and have gone through MSDOS, Windoze 3.x, Windoze 95, and now
Windoze 98. I have never used Unix. I do not know what "smp performance"
is (I might recognize the words that smp stand for), I do not know what
"splay trees" are (again, a use of jargon that means little in the real
world), I do not know what "heap allocators" are (I think they have
something to do with memory, a jargonish display of so-called computer
expertise), and I do have some notion of what "virtual memory" is.
I am not sure why I need to know what the above jargon refers to or how
those things work. I do know how to use the software on my computer to
do what I want to do with it, thank you, SeaDragon. I just do not
understand your jargon. I might suggest that you operate many things
throughout your day that I might know more about than you and the jargon
of my chosen career field would leave you breathless with confusion. I
would not, however, advocate that somehow you should not do your daily
tasks or that you are intellectually less than capable.
As a PC user who is attempting to get into a new career authoring web
pages, I am in the process of studying all of the documentation I can
get my hands on in preparation to getting rid of all of the Microsoft
software on by computer and installing Linux. I am doing so because of
what Microsoft stands for. Not because it is a particularly bad form of
software, or that it performs unreliably. I have grown so used to how
Microsoft software functions that I am not sure which side of the
keyhole I am on anymore. One thing I am sure of, however is that Linux
is the way computers ought to interface with the ones and zeros on one
side of the screen and the humans on the other.
Bob Hauck, you put it well in your web page by saying "Welcome to my
purposely-plain home page." That philosophy and the design of the WCG
website lead me to believe you truly understand how this world operates.
That is we are all in service to each other. I have a service, you have
a service, and somehow maybe even SeaDragon, you have a service. All the
jargon in the world is not going to make our services better, only less
likely to be used.
Thanks,
Terry
--
We don't own this place, though we act as if we did,
It's a loan from the children of our children's kids.
The actual owners haven't even been born yet.
-- The Grateful Dead
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:48:26 -0400
William Palfreman wrote:
> blah blah jibberish and so on.
I have looked at the last several comments made by you on this thread
and it is obvious you have no clue about what socialism or communism
are. Just because a governing body says it is a certain thing does not
make that thing. Any first year political science student knows that.
You need to try to educate yourself about what you seem to enjoy
discussing so much. If your knowledge of those political systems and the
one in predominate use in the country is represented accurately by the
words under your name on those messages, you are horribly lacking in
understanding of what is going on in the world.
Terry
--
We don't own this place, though we act as if we did,
It's a loan from the children of our children's kids.
The actual owners haven't even been born yet.
-- The Grateful Dead
------------------------------
From: Kaleb Yilma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I have a dream!
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:49:25 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] People in bavaria dont care about Dr. King, [...]
Sorry, but you are wrong !!!
> -----yttrx
- Kaleb Yilma [from Germany]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
