Linux-Advocacy Digest #622, Volume #26 Sun, 21 May 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("Jim Ross")
Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (mlw)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("Jim Ross")
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("Jim Ross")
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("Jim Ross")
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Streamer)
Skullboning WindowsNT problems... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!) ("Stephen S.
Edwards II")
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David Steuber)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 20 May 2000 22:06:47 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>You need them IF you have installed a modern distribution that
>>already includes the thing you are updating, and you want
>
> Who said anything about 'updating'. I'm talking about the
> 'new' stuff I compile. I typically don't bother with source
> for more stable projects.
I just haven't run into much 'new stuff' for a while that
wasn't available as an rpm, with updates also likely.
>>You do avoid it if you wait till someone else does it and
>>then just install the packaged version. If you have some
>
> Is this supposed to be describing binary packages or
> makefiles, as I've always thought of reasonably
> complete source packages as serving this purpose.
Things packaged as rpms are nearly always available as source
rpms as well (the rpm tool packages the source as well as the
binary). If the binary doesn't work because of library conflicts
you can often get a working copy by rebuilding the source
rpm - or if you need a local patch you can add it.
>>reason to need a fix the day a patch is out or need some
>>local changes until the next release, you need the futzing
>>but with the rpm scheme even most of the futzing is automated.
>
> Where I've found rpm most useful are those projects that
> seem to be made of a million or so parts and doing a
> 'build World' is a manual process.
That too, but in almost every case there is going to be a new,
improved version out within 6 months or less - maybe tomorrow.
If you use the 'packaged' version, a simple update command is
the most it takes to keep up.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 03:16:15 GMT
On 20 May 2000 22:06:47 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>>
>> Where I've found rpm most useful are those projects that
>> seem to be made of a million or so parts and doing a
>> 'build World' is a manual process.
>
>That too, but in almost every case there is going to be a new,
>improved version out within 6 months or less - maybe tomorrow.
>If you use the 'packaged' version, a simple update command is
>the most it takes to keep up.
...as would be 'make World' if there were a complete package.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 23:17:28 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yNxV4.36687$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Direct X, which although not a standard like OpenGL, it seems
> > more customized to each app, maybe for that reason.
>
> I have programmed DirectX. It's a bad mismash between ugly C and poorly
designed C++.
I'll take your word from it since I don't program.
Maybe MS makes companies use their stuff. DirectX is popular.
>
> >
> > Thread support seems more mature.
> > At the Linux Business Expo at Comdex, someone I can't remeber his name
> > was giving a talk who was from CodeWeavers. They use Wine, but focus on
> > the porting of Windows apps to Linux. He mentioned the missing calls
that
> > are powerful in
> > the Windows API that are missing from Linux, thus causing many problems.
He
> > mentioned the
> > name of a call specificaly which I can't remember (hey I don't program),
> > but it was basically a "wait for multiple events" thread that Linux
lacks
> > and it hinders porting.
> > I understand 3D support lags behind that of NT a fair amount.
>
> Not really. With Xfree 4 and DRI you can get pretty good performance from
Linux. I can get great performace from my Voodoo3 in Linux.
I do too.
In XFree86 3.3 I got slow performance. Games were unplayable.
Most everyone still uses 3.3 vs 4.0.
Jim
>
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of'
> > |||
> >> a document? --Les Mikesell
/ |
> > \
> >>
> >> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Date: 20 May 2000 22:16:12 -0500
In article <97FV4.88864$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: No. This is an untrue statement.
>
>Never mind the fact if Linux can't contact the DNS server at
>bootup time, then it takes 4-5 minutes to time out the search for the DNS
>server.
This only happens if it doesn't know it's own name. Put all the
names it has to resolve at bootup in /etc/hosts along with the
matching addresses (usually just your own). Most installs
ask for this and do it for your. I prefer to start a named
at bootup configured as primary for my local net, but that
is to take care of the other machines when the internet link is
down.
>Been there done that, X locked up and there was no network to access the
>Linux box from. Reset was the only option and we all know how well Linux
>handles that. Takes forever to reboot.
Looking back, I don't think this has ever happened to me with
an *.2 version of RedHat. It is either coincidence or the get it
right by then.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 23:23:14 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Try Linux, that is all I ask. Try Suse, Caldera, Redhat,
> Mandrake,Slackware, Corel, whatever, for yourself.
>
> Try it and compare it to the Windows that you now use. A current
> edition of Windows, not Windows 95 or 98 without updates. This is a
> favorite trick of the LinoScrews, to compare a current version of
> Linux to an outdated version of Windows. Terry "The porter" Porter is
> an expert at this method.
>
> Try Linux, please try it. Decide for yourself. And then please come
> back here and post your experiences with Linux.
>
> If you like Linux, great, you have found a new life. If you hate
> Linux, let us know why.
>
> Try Linux and see for yourself....
Absolutely do try for yourself. It is important that people try Linux,
but let's set expectations and point out some things that are important.
You do not buy a car simply because of the color and leather seats. One
buys a car based on a wide range of factors. Performance, reliability,
price, availability, ability to meet ones needs, financing, many things,
yes leather seats have their place, but one does not buy a car for that
one feature. (Well, I guess one could, but it would not be considered a
wise decision.) Similarly, one should not choose an operating simply
because of one factor.
Windows 98'SE' does have some good features. It ought too, it costs
enough. Here are some things that one should consider were they
interested in reevaluating their OS strategy.
(a) Stability
In the stability arena, Windows NT, 98SE, and 2K can't hold a candle to
Linux. Linux is vastly more reliable.
(b) Overall cost and exposure.
As much as people like to say cost is not an issue, the reality is that
it is. Also, one should note that the BSA can't prosecute your company
for using Linux. BTW one of the biggest participants of the BSA is
Microsoft.
(c) Longevity of investment
Microsoft changes standards and APIs on a regular basis. As any
developer will tell you, just keeping up with the latest MS API change
is a problem. API's like DirectDraw, COM, OLE, and WinG are poorly
designed and badly implemented, often requiring huge changes after
publication, driving development cost up.
(d) Ability to perform a function
If a particular function is only available on Windows, then you are
stuck, however, if you can find applications to do it on Linux (and this
is becoming easier), in the long run the Linux solution will often work
similarly for a longer period of time.
(e) Ability to protect itself
Windows is a joke when it comes to protecting itself. Using the desktop,
it will ask you if you want to overwrite a file, but outlook will simply
run a virus (that will wipe out every file on your system) if you click
on it. Any person can log into your system, without a password, and do
anything they want to your machine. With Linux you can set it up such
that they would need a password or a screwdriver and alternate boot disk
to see what is on your system.
There are other bullet points of course, but these are the some good
ones to ponder.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 03:23:00 GMT
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:11:48 GMT, bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Am I the only one here who thinks that X Windows is crap?
>X Windows is extremely archaic, ridiculously bloated,
>way too slow, and extremely hard to install.
X is smaller and faster than all other mainstream windowing systems.
X was once considered to be bloated and slow---yes, by users running hardware
like ancient Sun workstations with 68020 processors running at 25 megahertz or
thereabouts, with somewhere between 4 and 8 megs of RAM. More recently, people
ran XFree86 on 386 based Linux boxes with 40 meg hard drives and 4 megs of RAM.
Anyway, not all X servers are the same. Are you talking about XFree86? Or all
flavors of X, proprietary or not?
>Let's get rid of it completely.
What do you mean by getting rid of it? Do you propose to erase any X window
related binaries or source from every machine in the world, including X window
terminals?
I think that what you are asking for is for X to be *superseded* by something.
In order for X to be superseded, there has to be a superior alternative which
includes all the useful functionality of X that current X users rely on. As
well, there has to be a migration path: people will probably want their
favorite X applications ported to the new thing.
So start hacking! The development platform is free, and you can share drivers
with XFree86, so what excuse do you have? :)
--
#exclude <windows.h>
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 23:27:11 -0400
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 20 May 2000 00:27:23 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Thu, 18 May 2000 20:36:57 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:8g0sl1$q5j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [deletia]
> >
> >Thread support seems more mature.
>
> Thread support NEEDS to be. There's no other effective method
> to achieve concurrency under NT. However, this is quite
> disputable.
There are some nice advantages of theads as they are lightweight.
It doesn't seem like a process can be a perfect substitute.
>
> >At the Linux Business Expo at Comdex, someone I can't remeber his name
> >was giving a talk who was from CodeWeavers. They use Wine, but focus on
> >the porting of Windows apps to Linux. He mentioned the missing calls
that
> >are powerful in
> >the Windows API that are missing from Linux, thus causing many problems.
He
>
> That sounds more like someone who can't quite make the shift from
> one enviroment to another more than anything else. Although, it's
> quite hard to tell in the total absence of ANY useful detail.
As modern and powerful Windows apps are more
likely to call these complex/powerful types of calls Linux might lack, this
is probably becoming more of a common problem.
>
> >mentioned the
> >name of a call specificaly which I can't remember (hey I don't program),
> >but it was basically a "wait for multiple events" thread that Linux lacks
> >and it hinders porting.
> >I understand 3D support lags behind that of NT a fair amount.
>
> Actually, it's NT in general that LAGS in 'gaming support'.
> This annoys gamers and game programmers to no end.
Yes. Although I think developers seem more willing to put up with NT's
difficulties.
Recent Linux games actually install w/o dependancy issues and performance is
ok with the new XFree86 4.0,
so the Linux game market is getting much better. In the past I couldn't get
anything to run and run well.
Jim
>
> --
>
> In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of'
|||
> a document? --Les Mikesell / |
\
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 20 May 2000 22:21:44 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>It requires your software to be GPL, if you use the Qt Free Edition.
>>>>Naturally, if you don't like that, don't use Qt.
>>>
>>> This alone makes the QPL more restrictive than the LGPL.
>>
>>Of course. GPL advocates were the ones who pushed for this
>>change and they don't like the LGPL much.
>
> Bullshit.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 20 May 2000 22:28:37 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Where I've found rpm most useful are those projects that
>>> seem to be made of a million or so parts and doing a
>>> 'build World' is a manual process.
>>
>>That too, but in almost every case there is going to be a new,
>>improved version out within 6 months or less - maybe tomorrow.
>>If you use the 'packaged' version, a simple update command is
>>the most it takes to keep up.
>
> ...as would be 'make World' if there were a complete package.
After getting the source, configuring, etc. If the project is
worth running there is a pretty good chance that it will be
added to the next RedHat base or powertools CD making the update
just a matter of course and no longer even a special case.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 23:30:10 -0400
George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94yV4.697$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 18 May 2000 15:36:20 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Certainly. Both the major desktops already have anti-aliased
> > font suppot and the standard X server just got support for it
> > as well.
>
> Which major desktops?
>
> KDE doesn't have AA fonts support - the developers rightly say it should
be in
> the X Server
>
> GNOME has some AA support - in its canvas widget. Its inefficient, slow,
and
> GNOME specific. Its also not going to affect widgets not derived from the
> canvas.
>
> Most X apps cannot take advantage of AA fonts, therefore.
>
> The standard X server does *not* support AA - there was a paper released
> describing how it could (and may be) added, and the author said he was
working
> on it. We'll see if its stable by 2002.
>
> George Russell
Thanks a million George for putting the facts out.
I knew my fonts were generally still not AA.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 23:39:38 -0400
Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8g6icm$mvb$13$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> xOGU4.2045$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> [snip]
>
> > Linux only has 4% desktop market share and won't grow since it's not
easy
> > enough,
> > and missing critical features like anti-aliased support.
>
> Why is anti-aliasing critical? Stability is critical, but most certainly
> not aa,
> when you still can read the fonts. That was a really dumb one.
>
> >
> > Jim
>
> Marc
That's the server mentality.
On the desktop, why use an OS without jagged fonts when other OSes don't?
Hint: Windows stability is "good enough" for most people on the desktop.
NT's stability is "good enough" for virtually everyone on the desktop.
So, with that out of the way, good fonts are next. Why use Linux, when
Windows/NT has AA fonts and Linux+X doesn't?
Linux as a desktop system seems to take a backseat to Linux as a server.
If X can't support AA, Linux can't be billed as better than Windows/NT, not
as a desktop OS. Plus lack of apps and you should get the picture.
Jim
------------------------------
From: Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 22:45:44 -0500
mlw wrote:
> (a) Stability
> In the stability arena, Windows NT, 98SE, and 2K can't hold a candle to
> Linux. Linux is vastly more reliable.
Just curious....seeing that I will never upgrade to w2k, what is it's
stability compared to NT and 98SE? I know how 98SE justs gets slower &
slower until you have to reboot. I also know that NT keeps running, except
that one-by-one, explorer features and applications tend to break down
(Applications suddenly don't launch, NT Explorer suddenly can't see all of
the directories, etc.). I've heard from others that w2k tends to run just
fine for something like a week, then it just drops dead all at once. Is
this true?
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Skullboning WindowsNT problems... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!)
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 20:44:03 -0700
Reply-To: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Leslie Mikesell wrote in message <8g75bc$1k6h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In article <8g6up4$qb7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>As Christopher pointed out, I find it odd that nobody that I
>>know of that uses either Windows9x, or WindowsNT ever notes
>>that they've had any troubles with them (and I'm usually the
>>first person my friends come to).
First, Leslie, in reference to your DHCP problem, you might
want to have a look at this URL, if you're still interested:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q167/0/14.ASP
>I have, on my desktop, an NT box that will not complete the
>installation of sp6a due to disk errors that happen in the
>temp files after it unpacks them. Chkdisk say the partition
So, you mean the files are getting corrupted? If that's the
case, then could you start by listing the specs for the
hardware that you're running it on? The first step I always
take in diagnosing problems under WindowsNT is making sure
that every piece of hardware is properly supported, and has
proper drivers (ie: drivers written by the OEM). Microsoft's
drivers are pretty good in most cases, but in a few cases,
they have been unreliable (the Adaptec 2920 comes to my mind).
It could just be a physical error on the platter of the disk,
in which case, I don't know what else to recommend except to
replace it. Or, it could just be that the firmware on the
HD is outdated, or merely unable to properly communicate
with your motherboard, etc. If you can indicate what your
hardware specs are, I can at least try to help deduce the
possibilities.
>is OK. I'd appreciate any advice on how to fix this without
When you run it, make sure there is no value in the
"bytes in bad sectors" portion of the output. If
it reports bad sectors, that could be why your files
are getting zoinked. I had an HD at my old place of
employ that would behave similarly because of bad
sectors that were not properly remapped for some odd
reason. One of my project folders was unfortunately
the innocent victim.
For the record, the box in question was a cheap overseas
piece of junk, so I merely attributed the problem to that.
>having to reinstall all the software loaded on the box.
I hope it's not a hardware issue, because if it is, I wouldn't
know of any other way around that. On occasion, I've seem
strange filesystem glitches get fixed by simply defragmenting
the filesystem. Perhaps you could try using contig from
http://www.sysinternals.com/, just for kicks? It's freely
downloadable (with source, I think).
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: 20 May 2000 22:44:12 -0500
In article <CuCV4.276$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Okay, so I thought :
>"I have a problem with the file access permissions on my linux webserver.
>This, of course, come from the over-simplisitic permissions in linux, always
>thought I'd eventually come to problems with them. Only I had not expected
>so soon. Now, there's a lot of people here saying good of linux, and many
>of them saying the access permissions of linux are sufficient. So surely
>they know how to solve my problem..."
>
>So, here is the problem. I have one solution, which is a five-legged sheep.
>I will not tell it to you so that you start from a clear view of the problem.
>I want to know what would be your solution for the problem.
>
>* The files discussed here are part of a website. The server machine serves
>several websites, so major changes to the configuration of httpd are not
>a good idea. Httpd is running as "nobody/nobody".
>
>* The website uses PHP. The PHP scripts may need to create, next to each
>html file in the website, a sort of "translated" version of it. This file
>is regenerated when target is older or missing.
>
>* Several users have access to parts of the site as authors. They may want to update
>the site, and possibly remove the translated files generated by the server,
>using FTP, and, possibly, telnet. There is no restriction to how the
>user accounts must be : they will only be used for that job.
>
>So there are files that the user must write and read and the server read,
>and files that the server can create and read and the user remove.
>
>Who has got a solution for my problem ?
>
>Thanks in advance for any help.
>
>I still regret Windows NT's ACLs.
If you trust the users not to mess with each other's files, just
put everyone in group nobody and make all files and directories
group writable. Use a umask of 002 and 'chgrp -R nobody /topdir'
and 'chmod -R g+w /topdir' to get started. If you don't
trust the users with write access to each other's files, leave
the directories owned by the users but group nobody and group
read/write. This will allow both the httpd server and the
user to create and delete files and if you don't add users to
group nobody they can't write in directories belonging to
other users.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: 20 May 2000 22:55:02 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matt Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But X windows, Gnome and KDE made the desktop as easy as Window's
>> itself.
>> There IS no serious training curve learning X.
>> There is NO mystery in running Linux.
>
>OK, i didn't mention administrating the system in console. X pretty much sucks for
>admin'ing a server. But I agree with your point about some of the managers - they
>are easy for many common tasks...but not all.
Actually X is great for admining a server - you just want to do it
from your desktop machine, not walk over to the server room. It
is also nice that you can use telnet when you have to work from
a low-bandwidth connection.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 03:59:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
' In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
' David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
' >
' >' And as a result of SuSE predating RedHat, SuSE rpms are incompatible
' >' with RedHat ones :-( I wish they'd switch to dpkg, but I bet there would
' >' be incompatibilities with Debian there too - for the same reasons -
' >' maintaining backwards compatibility breaks sidewards compatibility :-(
' >
' >It is the RPM BS that has caused me to abandon that format whenever
' >possible. Instead, I prefere to install software from source.
' >Packages that conform to the ./configure, make, make install mantra
' >are easy to build and put where you want them.
'
' You left out the dozen obligatory arguments to ./configure that
' are different for every package to make it interoperate with
' the rest of your setup. Even then it is impossible to use
' this method alone to set things up so the next update from
' the stock distribution (that by now has the fixes you added plus
' more) will correctly replace your intermediate fix.
Most of the time, I've not passed _any_ arguments to configure. I did
for Qt and for KDE. However, those were not specific to my distro
(SuSE 6.2) which I have been hacking away from its original
configuration. It is also not a big deal to specify --prefix.
I am no longer interested in distribution specific sources anyway. I
am trying to move away from that. One of the reasons I have been
learning Linux is so that I am in charge of my system configuration.
Granted, when I first started out, SuSE was great. It allowed me to
set up my system without knowing much of anything. I still think SuSE
or some other good package is the way to go for a beginner. However,
I have started to outgrow it. And the natural distribution medium for
Un*x is source. This doesn't stop the packagers like SuSE or RedHat
from patching and compiling the source for their own taste. But it
does allow you to become independent of the packager you originally
choose if you decide to strike out on your own. You also don't have
to make the steep climb that diylinux would require from you.
While my system is still mostly SuSE, it is no longer pure SuSE. I've
already diverged in some non trivial ways. OTOH, SuSE 6.4 does now
provide some of the things I already have on my system, ie GCC 2.95.2,
libc 2.0.7, etc. I'm evolving towards a generic GNU/Linux.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
