Linux-Advocacy Digest #47, Volume #31 Sun, 24 Dec 00 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (mlw)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Annoyed at installations (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Conclusion (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: My pet peeve: Developers who don't furnish a complete application package. (The
Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. ("Vann")
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: My pet peeve: Developers who don't furnish a complete application package.
("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (sfcybear)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (steve@x)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (J Sloan)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (J Sloan)
Re: Redhat needs an update tool. Was: My pet peeve (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:20:08 -0500
Tim Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:42:02 -0500, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hardly; it is the textbooks which agree with mlw's statement that
> >"Windows" is not an OS. And it isn't. Its middleware, most
>
> Which textbooks?
>
> The typical definition of OS is along the lines of it is the software
> that does the scheduling, controls access to devices, manages memory,
> and provides the filesystem.
>
> Let's check Win95 against these:
>
> Scheduling: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
Scheduling is done by two pieces of code. The Windows 386 executive does
VM scheduling, and the Windows system schedules Windows threads.
> Device access: Handled by VXDs, which are Windows drivers, not DOS
> drivers.
Just another API.
> Memory: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
First accounted by himem.sys (a DOS driver, try removing it!)
> Filesystem: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
Not entirely true, the DOS driver links DOS and Windows ifshlp.sys. (Try
removing it!)
It is the installable file system helper.
So, but this definition, DesqView/QEMM and Java are operating operating
systems.
Scheduling: DesqView
Device Access: QEMM
Memory: QEMM
File System: QEMM/DOS
Obviously these quantitative arguments are silly, because by these
arguments, we can prove things which we know not to be true. These
arguments support the notion that Java is an OS.
We must depend on qualitative arguments. DesqView is not an OS, Java is
not an OS, and thus Windows is not an OS. There is a common denominator
in that they all rely on a base OS on which to function. They are not,
themselves, operating systems.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 24 Dec 2000 16:32:39 GMT
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:59:39 GMT, Tom Wilson wrote:
>The election results were determined by a system that foresaw close
>elections and litigated outcomes and worked despite the best efforts of the
>Democrats to monkey-wrench it.
The election results would probably not have been closer had everyone voted
randomly. To chalk this up as a decisive win for Bush is naive or dishonest.
It was a win,sure. But it was hardly a landslide, something Stevens completely
ignores.
>> >AL GORE LOST THE NATIONAL VOTE.
>>
>> On technicalities.
>
>...No, by constitutional law.
Whatever. However you try to slice it, the election boiled down to the finer
points of the law, the electoral system, errors etc.
>Denying alternate parties a political voice would be reprehensible. They
>have as much right to campaign and lobby as the major parties do.
If you really cared about the right of smaller parties to campaign, you would
advocate an instant runoff system, instead of defending the existing system,
which is essentially a two-party duopoly. The current system is the worst of
both worlds -- the support for third parties is artificially reduced by "wasted
vote" issues.
>> But while I think electoral reform is due, it needs to be performed in an
>> even handed manner, and not in an ad-hoc manner during counts
>
>Any system will break when you abuse it via the judiciary. That's one of the
>reasons a state's Legislature has the final say in appointing electoral
>representatives. The courts have NOTHING to do with it nor should they.
I'm talking about instant runoffs. I still don't believe that third parties
should sabotage elections. And I don't believe in a two-party duopoly.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 24 Dec 2000 16:41:27 GMT
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 01:35:30 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>I claimed that XFree86 4.0.1 claims to support it. There is a specific
>Hercules Dynamite 128/Video selection in the list of adapters in DrakX.
>Further, under /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/Cards it specifically states: Hercules
>Dynamite 128/Video see ET6000 (generic)
Yes, but XFree86 4.x is still bleeding-edge software. It works OK with the
"well supported" card models (Matrox, nVidia, some ATI models) but using it on
anything else is an obvious way to shoot yourself in the foot.
The list in DrakX is probably derived from that in the XFree card list.
I don't think there's a great deal of merit in trying to prove that it's
possible to shoot yourself in the foot with Linux if you try hard enough
- everyone here is already aware of that.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Annoyed at installations
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 17:15:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jacques Guy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 07:50:35 +0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>> That's why they call it Lie-Nux.
>
>(hey!)
>
>Tymm! Timb Parmre iz bakq! Whalecum bakc Tymb ole
>kokk! Wy didya chaenj yor spell checquer tho?
>Jee, nevvar myend, giss a beeeeg smootsh, Tym,
>**** smoooooch ****
>
>An annuvver wun fer th'rode
>
>**** smooooooooch *****
>
>PS Eny nooz off Klayre laightli? Wee mis er.
Ye gods, my brain hurts from looking at that spelling!
*chuckles*
(I wonder if Tim Palmer's got the hint yet that he needs
a good dictionary.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- probably not, considering all the other hints we've
thrown at him since he's been here
up 88 days, 9:21, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 17:19:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tom Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 13:58:32 GMT
<cin16.175$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:SG816.23891$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:922u16$hpp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Right chad. And you still have NO proof to show that the numbers are
>> > wrong. The only thing you can say is that the netcraft numbers don't
>> > come from the computers *you* think they should. YOu and the winvocates
>> > here have NEVER shown that the numbers are NOT From W2K boxes and that
>> > they are not accurate. Even Erics statement of how it works states
>> > basicly the same. All of which is CLEARLY documented on the Webcraft
>> > page. From all the actual evidance (real, not your claims) shows that
>> > the numbers are indeed from W2K boxes and are indeed accurate.
>> >
>>
>> So how do you gain anonymous administrator access to secured performance
>> metrics?
>>
>> > 2 sources claim the same thing you despite your persistand claims that
>> > they are worng, neither have been PROVEN to be giving false information.
>> > Yes, Netcraft does not always get the numbers from the webserver proper,
>> > but the numbers it does get for W2K DO come from W2K and are accurate,
>> > even according to eric.
>> >
>>
>> Repeating the big lie, Joe Goebbells would be proud of you.
>
>Looking for the 'H' word, I take it? ;)
Hell?
Harpies?
Hatred?
Hat rack?
Hoopla?
Hacked-up numbers?
Hacked systems?
Hurts?
Hertz?
Hambone?
(um...can you give us a hint, here? :-) )
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random word beginning with 'H' here
up 88 days, 9:23, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 17:23:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 24 Dec 2000 16:06:30 GMT
<9256u6$i0s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writ:
>
>> All this hardware works because they all have the fortune of being based
>> around America's top 10% hardware.
>
>> 9.Jaz 1G: It's a tape drive, it's from iomega. But it's still a tape drive.
>
>Jazz 1Gb by Syquest is a removeable cartridge *hard drive*. I
>guess Iomega made some sort of equivalent device. What actually
>did you have in mind?
Uh...I think you're thinking of Iomega, not Syquest. Syquest
actually made (makes?) the SyJet, which is a 1.5 GB cartridge unit.
(The cartridge contains no head-disk assembly, merely the platters.)
But I'm pretty sure both units are semirandom access, as opposed to tape,
which is sequential access.
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 88 days, 9:27, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: My pet peeve: Developers who don't furnish a complete application
package.
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 17:28:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tom Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:59:46 GMT
<Syl16.230$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> mlw wrote:
>> >
>> > This is one of those good/bad trade-off things about open source. We do
>> > not live in an ideal world.
>> >
>> > I am a software developer, and sometimes I don't do the documentation.
>> > The issue is that I am not as productive doing docs as I am doing
>> > software.
>>
>> The key is: Document AS you code, not afterwards.
>
>I have an unusual approach. I write the docs before I even start on the
>code. It tends to keep me focused and on track. If I didn't do this, I'd
>wind up writting business applications with silly shit like Hardware
>accelerated pie-charts and surround sound. I have the same problem with my
>code that some women do with their thighs. <g>
I've never seen anyone try to remove cellulite from their code... :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- or do women have bugs in their thighs? Ugh! :-)
up 88 days, 9:34, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 17:34:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 04:22:44 GMT
<oSe16.55343$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Windows NT TERMINAL SERVICES EDITION does exactly that genius. And Windows
>2000 now serve's a remote console session (remote DOS prompt)
>
>Gee, sucks when Windows is moving along, and Linux is standing still.
Dumb question, but what can Windows NT Terminal Services do that
Linux + X + xterm + ssh (ssh has an X server proxy that encrypts traffic)
can't?
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random peanut gallery here
up 88 days, 9:39, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 17:53:56 GMT
References: trimmed back.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 02:45:50 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>>
>> "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>> >
>> > > > Also, the "Free" in Free Software doesn't primarily refer to
>> > > > money bu to sourcecode. Then you can do all the source auditing
>> > > > out want. Infact, one of the BSDs is geared specifically with
>> > > > that in mind.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > So you would pay for a freebie?
>> >
>> > Many people do just that. The Free Software Foundation has been selling
>> > free-software compilations for nearly 20 years. If you speak French think
>> > "libre" rather than "gratis". In English think "free country", not "free
>> > lunch".
>> >
>>
>> So much for lower up front costs. There goes TCO even further up for Linux.
>
>$20 CD, used among 1000 computers = $0.02 / computer.
Actually, that is a naive analysis -- and you may be overestimating
the acquisition costs for the initial CD, which can be gotten
for $2 plus shipping from such places as CheapBytes. (The
shipping costs, however, are like $7 or so, I think, but depend
more on weight and/or box size, which means one can purchase
8 (different) CD's for the same shipping costs as one -- that's
what I ended up doing, many a moon ago.)
However, there are other costs such as
- work time to pass the CD from system to system; somebody's not
doing productive work while he's hunting for that elusive CD
($100 / hour = $1.66 / minute; if he spends 15 minutes, he's
already cost more than the disk in lost productivity)
or
- time to burn extra copies, assuming the company has a CD-burner
already (if not, that's additional cost)
or
- time used to set up a central distribution system (somewhat a la
HP's, although in the case of Linux it would be as simple as
an FTP server) to read the data from the CD and either mirror it
on a high speed disk, or read the data for each install, whichever
one is faster. (Note that mirroring it on a disk incurs a cost
of about $0.01 to $0.03 a megabyte, nowadays -- or $10-$30 a gigabyte.
Of course this depends on disk quality and local market conditions for
hard drives -- and my estimates may be off, but hopefully not
by much.)
Of these three, I suspect the third one to be the cheapest in the
long run. One can even envision a distribution mirroring tree,
spanning departments, if required. IT departments would probably
love it, and it could be remotely administered as needed.
It's about as low a TCO as one can get, IMO.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 88 days, 9:46, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 18:21:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ok, I wanted to try this program that is supposed to be good.
>
> When I tried to install AbiWord using rpm, I get the error
>
> "only packages with major numbers <= 3 are supported by this version of
> RPM"
>
> Ok, after searching the net, I found rpm version 4 out there
> (I was using rpm 3.0.3). So, I download rpm for rpm 4.0, but
> when I try to install rpm 4.0 using my current rpm, I also get the same
> error.
>
> So, I search the net again, and I find someone saying that rpm 3.0.5
> will not give the above error. So, I search for rpm 3.0.5 and
> downdownload the rpm file for it.
>
> I rpm -Uhv it, but I get dependcy error, it wanted these
>
> error: failed dependencies:
> textutils is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x sh-utils is needed by
> rpm-3.0.5-9.6x bzip2 >= 0.9.0c-2 is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> libbz2.so.0 is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
>
> Ok, so I hit the net again searching for textutils, I download it, then
> I do
>
> root>rpm -Uhv textutils-2.0g-1.i386.rpm only packages with major numbers
> <= 3 are supported by this version of RPM error:
> textutils-2.0g-1.i386.rpm cannot be installed root>
>
>
> Ok, so to update my rpm, I need an rpm that needs a packages that will
> not install with my current rpm.
>
> This is so amazing. NO wonder 90% of the world uses windows.
>
> On windows, I never had such idiotic installation problems. never.
>
> back to windows, you guys can keep this junk.
>
> it is true what they say, linux is for those whose time is worthless. It
> has been years, and this system is still as hard to install programs for
> as ever, I thought maybe after all this time, someone would have fixed
> this crap. But I was wrong.
RPM is sort of like that. Use Debian where you can just use apt-get, as
another poster pointed out. Personally, I compile everything from
source. I have _less_ trouble with that than dealing with RPMs when they
are pre-compiled. Oh well, I never liked the RPM system, anyhow, nor did
I like Mandrake and RedHat. Please don't think that RPM is the only
package management system.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: 24 Dec 2000 18:59:40 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Obviously these quantitative arguments are silly, because by these
: arguments, we can prove things which we know not to be true. These
: arguments support the notion that Java is an OS.
: We must depend on qualitative arguments. DesqView is not an OS, Java is
: not an OS, and thus Windows is not an OS. There is a common denominator
: in that they all rely on a base OS on which to function. They are not,
: themselves, operating systems.
In my view, Java and Win32 both serve as higher-level abstractions
over services that traditionally are, but in any specific case may or
may not be, performed by the operating system. Since DOS is rather
stupid but VMS is not, the DOS implementation of Win32 provides these
services whereas the VMS implementation (aka NT4/W2K) defers them to
the actual OS which sits under Win32 on an NT/W2K system. Java
ordinarily provides few of these services, but, in some cases where
the underlying OS is limited (e.g., Linux with respect to threads, or
DOS with respect to pretty much everything), a Java implementation may
be forced to provide or emulate them.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My pet peeve: Developers who don't furnish a complete application
package.
Date: 24 Dec 2000 19:10:43 GMT
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> The key is: Document AS you code, not afterwards.
:>
: That's good, but the best approach is document before you code and then
: adjust the documentation as needed as you code.
I like to use (or build) tools that will generate both design documents
and interface specifications (and, therefore, 80% of the code) and
will force both to remain in sync no matter which one you change.
Rational's "Rational Unified Process" and Knuth's "Literate
Programming" are methodologies which stress, among other things, the
need to keep documentation and code consistent throughout the entire
lifecycle of a piece of software. The need may not seem as obvious
during the early analysis, design and coding phases, but if you ever
have to maintain software years or even decades after it was first
written, you'll end up wishing that whoever wrote the damn thing had
done so.
Joe
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 19:17:21 GMT
Funny, my Mandrake 7.2 comes with AbiWord that installs at the time of
install and runs just great. I notice that you did not mention what
distribution or distro version you were using. Could it be that the
version you are using is hopelessly out of date?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
steve@x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ok, I wanted to try this program that is supposed to be good.
>
> When I tried to install AbiWord using rpm, I get the error
>
> "only packages with major numbers <= 3 are supported by this version
of RPM"
>
> Ok, after searching the net, I found rpm version 4 out there
> (I was using rpm 3.0.3). So, I download rpm for rpm 4.0, but
> when I try to install rpm 4.0 using my current rpm, I also get
> the same error.
>
> So, I search the net again, and I find someone saying that rpm 3.0.5
> will not give the above error. So, I search for rpm 3.0.5 and
downdownload
> the rpm file for it.
>
> I rpm -Uhv it, but I get dependcy error, it wanted these
>
> error: failed dependencies:
> textutils is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> sh-utils is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> bzip2 >= 0.9.0c-2 is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> libbz2.so.0 is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
>
> Ok, so I hit the net again searching for textutils, I download
> it, then I do
>
> root>rpm -Uhv textutils-2.0g-1.i386.rpm
> only packages with major numbers <= 3 are supported by this version of
RPM
> error: textutils-2.0g-1.i386.rpm cannot be installed
> root>
>
> Ok, so to update my rpm, I need an rpm that needs a packages that
> will not install with my current rpm.
>
> This is so amazing. NO wonder 90% of the world uses windows.
>
> On windows, I never had such idiotic installation problems. never.
>
> back to windows, you guys can keep this junk.
>
> it is true what they say, linux is for those whose time is worthless.
> It has been years, and this system is still as hard to install
> programs for as ever, I thought maybe after all this time, someone
> would have fixed this crap. But I was wrong.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: steve@x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: 24 Dec 2000 10:54:59 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nick says...
>
>rpm -i --force --nodeps
>
>The software might not work after install, though.
root>rpm -i --force --nodeps rpm-4.0.2-0.7.i386.rpm
only packages with major numbers <= 3 are supported by this version of RPM
error: rpm-4.0.2-0.7.i386.rpm cannot be installed
root>
root>rpm -i --force --nodeps textutils-2.0g-1.i386.rpm
only packages with major numbers <= 3 are supported by this version of RPM
error: textutils-2.0g-1.i386.rpm cannot be installed
root>
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 19:54:49 GMT
Tim Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 00:59:26 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >bzzt, wrong answer - there are mechanisms in Linux like
> >immutable files, etc which make it impossible for even root
> >to overwrite or delete them.
>
> Root can get around those mechanisms.
But a script kiddie attack would be stopped cold.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 19:59:09 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Philip Neves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:Xu_06.862967
> > As of right now There are no viruses that I know of for linux.
>
> Guess you've never heard of Bliss:
>
> http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/bliss/
>
ahem... While bliss is an obscure reference on a website
that most users have ever heard of, those saddled with windows
have been ravaged by one virus after another, losing files,
filesystems and security. Does anyone see a difference here?
jjs
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Redhat needs an update tool. Was: My pet peeve
Date: 24 Dec 2000 13:02:15 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) writes:
> On 22 Dec 2000 14:38:47 -0700,
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) writes:
> >
> >> On 22 Dec 2000 08:56:14 -0700,
> >> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> Actually, I like the way FreeBSD does it. If it needs something to compile,
> >> >> it goes out and gets it.
> >> >
> >> >Just like rpmfind and apt-get under Linux.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Can you do updates in rpmfind?? As in like:
> >>
> >> apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
> >
> >rpmfind --upgrade `rpm -qa`
> >
>
> Do you really do your updates that way?? I just tried it and it
> doesn't seem to work. I downloaded it for a RH62 machine from:
Sorry, I'd actually use this:
rpmfind --latest --upgrade `rpm -qa --queryformat "%{NAME}\\n"`
But, no, I upgrade by hand usually (call me paranoid), or use rpmfind
with a '-s my_local_machine' that has the RPMS I want to use. I do
this with about 20 machines regularly.
> So now you can see it wants to install RH 7.0 packages, which, if you
> check Redhats errata page, isn't event the right sucurity update for
> RH 7.0. RH 7.0 isn't even mention in the /etc/rpmfind.conf file. But
> as it turns out, the tool created a new file, ~/.rpmfind and put RH
> 7.0 in it. So I fix up the ~/.rpmfind, take the RH7.0 out of it,
> verify RH62 is at the top, and now everytime I run it it overwrites
> the ~/.rpmfind file with it's own configuration!!! What a peice of
> shit!!
If you just want RedHat 6.2 official security updates:
#!/usr/bin/perl
$RDIR = 'ftp://ftp.sourceforge.net/mounts/u2/mirrors/redhat/redhat/updates/6.2/\i386/';
@files = `ncftpls $RDIR`;
foreach $file (@files) {
print `rpm --Fvh $RDIR/$file`;
}
All the tools are there. If you don't want to use up2date, gnorpm, or
rpmfind -- you have many options. This all fits into the UNIX KISS
philosophy quite well (IMHO).
> Tell me how you get this POS to work on your system, Craig. This is a
> major weakness of Redhat, IMHO. Debian, the BSD's and even Win2k all
> have decently reliable update tools. With Redhat, you have up2date,
> which limits you to X-windows and wants you to pay for 'priority
> access', or a third party tool. The problem with third party tools is
> every time RH changes their dist it's gonna potentially break the
> third party tool.
1) It's different, not worse
2) Windows hotfixes are not automated at all
3) Debian is indeed cool, but it's not *that* much different
4) You don't need to pay for 'priority access' at all
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
