Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Some things (like diskdrake) really don't work at all in text mode. Maybe fewer features is understandable as in fewer bells and whistles, but the software still needs to be able to perform its basic functions in text mode. wait and see :)
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
On 12 Aug 2001 23:10:09 +0200, Pixel wrote: David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Some things (like diskdrake) really don't work at all in text mode. Maybe fewer features is understandable as in fewer bells and whistles, but the software still needs to be able to perform its basic functions in text mode. wait and see :) you and gc are good at drakx suspense :P ~waiting on edge of chair~
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
First of all , why run a firewall with a Mandrake installation? They haven't
got a good security update system ,
the release of packets are way to early , other distributons would tag them
as unstable . The main reason to have a firewall
is security and not a nice graphical interface.
Debian for example takes up about 120 Mb of diskspace(Default installation
will of course make you able to run a firewall) ,
OpenBSD will take up even less , don't ask for something that already exist
in other distributions. Mandrake are excellent
on a desktop system , but on a server? No , not according to my opinion.
A bare minimum would be a nice option. I have a router/firewall at home
that I do put to occassional other uses. Starting it off from the
smallest possible install would be a nice choice.
Pixel wrote:
Grégoire Colbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What should I answer when a person, who want me to install Linux
onto
his computer, drop his jaws by learning it will takes about 2 GB?
but aren't you creating a /home? in that case why are you / (or /usr) so
huge?
create a 600MB /usr and it will fit in the allocated space.
i'm considering adding an unselect nearly everything or keep the
strict
minimum in the package selection tree. Would that please you?
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 04:46:09PM +0200, Marco Wesselgren wrote: First of all , why run a firewall with a Mandrake installation? They haven't got a good security update system , the release of packets are way to early , other distributons would tag them as unstable . The main reason to have a firewall is security and not a nice graphical interface. Debian for example takes up about 120 Mb of diskspace(Default installation will of course make you able to run a firewall) , OpenBSD will take up even less , don't ask for something that already exist in other distributions. Mandrake are excellent on a desktop system , but on a server? No , not according to my opinion. Ever heard of SNF or corpo ..
RE: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
PS : for the other vision of minimal, that is No X, no apps, hardware support, and newt version of the drak tools, I wish text mode drakxtools really work :-(
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
During the bombing raid on Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:34:23 +0200 (CEST), Pixel was heard mumbling in fear: Grégoire Colbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: PS: criticizing Emacs (and XEmacs) is risky business! It's not only risky, it's blasphemy! :P Vox, -- Pain is the gift of the gods, and I'm the one they chose as their messenger... For info on safety in the BDSM lifestyle http://www.the-vox.com Think of the Linux community as a niche economy isolated by its beliefs. Kind of like the Amish, except that our religion requires us to use _higher_ technology than everyone else. -- Donald B. Marti Jr. Vox populi, vox deii
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
On Friday 10 August 2001 01:15 pm, you wrote: Hmmm, perhaps time to take a couple steps back and look at the issue from a fresh angle. vi is just as newbie-vicious as emacs, with its two modes and such. Should we be looking at a minimal install for a newbie or should we be installing a useful set? I think the latter, if we can agree on what a useful set would be. But we will obviously lack such agreement. We have this integrated menu structure, and it describes needs If we modified the database for menus and added a needslevel= to it so that this worked out to a number that is a power of a single prime. Let's say we use 3, 5, 7, 11 For each prime number we could define levels lets say up to the fourth power. Each person interested in this takes a track and announces a territory... Like Python-based simple newbie apps, cooledit, etc. could be a territory. Motif-like tools could be a territory (Xfce, Nedit, etc) This is set up in 4 levels corresponding to needslevel=7, 49, 343, 2401, for example using the 7s track. In the needslevel=2401, you put exactly one editor, one filemanager, one web browser, one email program. Groups agree which to choose based on the criteria of compatibility with other packages and ease of use. Then if a user is set up with menulevel=2401 or any multiple of 2401, this menu manager revision will show him the needslevel=2401 group. He will also see it (and other items) if his level is any multiple of 343 except a multiple of 2401, and still more if it is some multiple of 49 but not a multiple of 343, and everything the 7s group chose if his menulevel is 7 or any non-7 multiple of 7. So a newbie gets a selection made by folks who sincerely believe that is his best choice, and he can see more by modifying his level, when he is ready. And an expert can choose menulevel 1 which shows everything installed And mixes from the selection groups are possible. Newbie selections from the 3s group and the 5's group are at menulevel=50625 in some yet-to-be named resource file in the user's home. What is the advantage? Well, you can proceed without agreement and let user choice be the arbiter. You don't _need_ to have a minimal install to serve a newbie. Disk space is continuing to cheapen. Basically you can have many users on the _same_ system, with the _same_ installed packages and totally disjoint menus. Then who should the minimum install be for? For the experts, who want to roll their own, and then it is simply a convenience feature. And for people adjusting systems for newbie users, what is herein proposed is a low-inertia feature set. The feature set can be changed almost trivially without having to worry about installing--everything is already installed, all it has to be is activated. And then of course we have needslevel=13 editor=emacs email=emacs browser=Xemacs shell=eshell Windowmanager=Xemacs ...it works.-) All kidding aside, the main thing blocking a simple newbie environment is the task of defining it. I have demonstrated here that a method exists to accommodate multiple definitions with very minor modifications to existing structure. So how about making a definition? If you really want to try, I would recommend recruiting a group to do this and setting up a project on sourceforge. If that actually happens, I will volunteer my expertise in consensus-building tools to the project. Civileme The elegance of your dissertation is awe inspiring!!! JoAnne -- Founding member of AILLING **Acronymically Impaired Linux Lovers Increasing Needed Grumbling**
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
Ainsi parlait Guillaume Cottenceau : Marco Wesselgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First of all , why run a firewall with a Mandrake installation? They haven't got a good security update system , the release of packets are way to early , other distributons would tag them as unstable . The main reason to have a firewall is security and not a nice graphical interface. For your information, this is not the mandrake-flame Mailing List. So, where can we found this last one :-) ? -- Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG key http://bohm.snv.jussieu.fr/~rousse/gpgkey.html
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
On 10 Aug 2001, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: Borsenkow Andrej [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: PS : for the other vision of minimal, that is No X, no apps, hardware support, and newt version of the drak tools, I wish text mode drakxtools really work :-( Report bugs. I do. See another mail. Even reproduced :-) Currently I am really interested in building minimal installation (for use as proxy) so I'll give it more attention. So far, if text mode drakxocnf is what I get selecting text mode install (I guess) it provides less features than GUI, expect precise list later. Unfortunately, just currently both GUI and text versions do completely work :-) -andrej
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
I'm not claiming that Mandrake are insecure , just saying that there are more secure systems. Let's take two other operating system that are in general secure and compare them to Mandrake The first one Debian Debian releases packages in two groups Stable and Unstable , Stable has been tested for security and that it's actually stable on a running server. All packages released to Mandrake are directly from the CVS , almost anyway, and the bugtesting is up to the user , the package released haven't been tested enough(It takes some time to go through the code to remove obvious and less obvious exploit possibilities, it also takes time to remove bugs that can make your product vunerable to DOS attacks). Debian has an established way to patch the system called apt-get , you can run it from a script every hour if you feel like it. You use it like this and as you can see it connect's to a server containing all the latest patches to keep your system secure. Login via SSH(Secure Shell) Beefy:/etc/X11/xdm# apt-get update Hit http://security.debian.org stable/updates/main Packages Hit http://security.debian.org stable/updates/main Release Hit http://security.debian.org stable/updates/contrib Packages Hit http://security.debian.org stable/updates/contrib Release Hit http://security.debian.org stable/updates/non-free Packages Hit http://security.debian.org stable/updates/non-free Release Hit http://http.us.debian.org stable/main Packages Hit http://http.us.debian.org stable/main Release Hit http://http.us.debian.org stable/contrib Packages Hit http://http.us.debian.org stable/contrib Release Hit http://http.us.debian.org stable/non-free Packages Hit http://http.us.debian.org stable/non-free Release Hit http://non-us.debian.org stable/non-US/main Packages Hit http://non-us.debian.org stable/non-US/main Release Hit http://non-us.debian.org stable/non-US/contrib Packages Hit http://non-us.debian.org stable/non-US/contrib Release Hit http://non-us.debian.org stable/non-US/non-free Packages Hit http://non-us.debian.org stable/non-US/non-free Release Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Beefy:/etc/X11/xdm# apt-get upgrade Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Beefy:/etc/X11/xdm# Yes you have mandrakeupdate which is a gui tool , how do you use that one on a server located 500 miles from you with the only possibilty to login is SSH(If you use telnet or RSH your main concern isn't security) , you could do it manually = it might not be done that often --- You've got yourself an insecure system. Another thing : A mail from debian security , concerning all distros, July 28, 2001 - Package : apache,apache-ssl Problem type : remote exploit Debian-specific : no Couldn't find anything about it on the Mandrake security list and what I could see the last patch released from Mandrake was released 2001-07-25 , went through the bugtraq list and found several things that should affect the Mandrake distribution , but nothing could be found att Mandrake security ,you can check for yourself in the bugtraq archives. The last thing a quote taken from the fw dist of Mandrake Easy to use remote web interface , The reason for running a webserver on a firewall , to make it more secure? don't think so. The other one OpenBSD, well a quote from http://www.openbsd.org says it all :) Four years without a remote hole in the default install! I work as a System Administrator for stockmarket systems and we have security and stability as our main focus , we run every system on Debian and our firewalls are running OpenBSD. A few last word , want this thread to end , a system isn't more secure then the person who administer it makes it , but if he doesn't have the means to keep it secure it won't be secure. And yes I rather choose Mandrake on a firewall then a Windows version , but why not choose the most secure system while you're at it? On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Marco Wesselgren wrote: For your information , I'm not flaming Mandrake , just pointing out that it might not be the best choice if you're going to run a firewall or another system that are being exposed to potential threats. What precisely is so insecure about Mandrake compared with other distros? I mean, if you make such statement, you should have some reason. -andrej
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
on 8/9/01 12:52 AM, David Walluck at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Terrible Tom wrote: My vote is for the minimal porn station We'd best not vote on this unless we want it to end up in the distribution, as I'm sure you're not the only one who wants this g As much as I'd like it, I just don't think it would fly :) heh :)
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
Ainsi parlait Pixel : the pb is not to provide it. The pb is isn't it too powerful?. There's is already 2 simple ways to have minimal install: - unselect XFree86-libs - load from floppy an empty file I could be wrong, but as installer doesn't ask confirmation for X configuration now, X get installed whatever your initial selection. -- Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG key http://bohm.snv.jussieu.fr/~rousse/gpgkey.html
RE: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
Just remember to make it newt and cmdline urpmi and such, that is the whole point of this thread from start. Yes, Yes, YES! -andrej
RE: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
8/8/01 10:23:26 PM, Borsenkow Andrej [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No ! A *minimum* install is an install with *just* urpmi and draktools working... Minimal for whom? The end user wanting an HTTP server for example would probably have a different definition of minimal This way you can configure network and adds whatever you want. I missed beginning of this thread, but being unable to install a server without X and a bunch of gnome-related package with 8.0 was frightening. Yes, that would be excellent, or a better server install option would be nice. You pick the server(s) and the remote config tools and then choose the level of security. No X, Gnome, KDE, no five different text editors, etc. Just solid command-line Linux; no fluff, no bloat. Yes, Yes, YES! -andrej -m-
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
On 8/6/01 6:07 PM, Thierry Vignaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First, let me say that having to untick all the boxes to get the Holy Minimal Install is inefficient, not to say ridiculous. unselect XFree86-libs and you'll end in only ~90-100Mb of packages to install :-) That's nice, and I'm sure that the newbies that are gifted with the power of prediction and mind-reading will have no trouble figuring this out. Since as far back as I can recall, there have been regular echoes of requests for the options of 'select all' (in fact, commonly still pointed out as a flaw in reviews) and 'minimum install'. Neither of these options require rcoket science to implement, yeat, steadfastedly, Mandrake refuses to add these simple options. Why? (While at the same time weighting down the installations with cutting edge, but largely unnecessary apps, and leaving out relatively useful and established files (like the rather obscure 'traceroute'). Sometimes I really wonder. Harry
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
Ainsi parlait Pixel : anyway, at the moment, it's in 'Utilities', like lsof, tcpdump... it could be moved to the default install. No ! A *minimum* install is an install with *just* urpmi and draktools working... This way you can configure network and adds whatever you want. I missed beginning of this thread, but being unable to install a server without X and a bunch of gnome-related package with 8.0 was frightening. -- Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG key http://bohm.snv.jussieu.fr/~rousse/gpgkey.html
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
on 8/8/01 1:44 PM, Harry at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/6/01 6:07 PM, Thierry Vignaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First, let me say that having to untick all the boxes to get the Holy Minimal Install is inefficient, not to say ridiculous. unselect XFree86-libs and you'll end in only ~90-100Mb of packages to install :-) That's nice, and I'm sure that the newbies that are gifted with the power of prediction and mind-reading will have no trouble figuring this out. Since as far back as I can recall, there have been regular echoes of requests for the options of 'select all' (in fact, commonly still pointed out as a flaw in reviews) and 'minimum install'. Neither of these options require rcoket science to implement, yeat, steadfastedly, Mandrake refuses to add these simple options. Why? (While at the same time weighting down the installations with cutting edge, but largely unnecessary apps, and leaving out relatively useful and established files (like the rather obscure 'traceroute'). Sometimes I really wonder. Harry just for kicks and giggles and I did an install all on a redhat install today, and guess what? Wouldnt even boot lol. i think the problem is not enough testing, too much stuff to conflict with each other. mind you, i'm no linux expert at all, I'm just an OS junky who really likes mandrake
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
Harry wrote: On 8/6/01 6:07 PM, Thierry Vignaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: unselect XFree86-libs and you'll end in only ~90-100Mb of packages to install :-) That's nice, and I'm sure that the newbies that are gifted with the power of prediction and mind-reading will have no trouble figuring this out. At last, someone who cares about the bad feeling you have when you do not understand something! I think that Mandrakesoft miss a few real newbies who would be chosen to install the distro on Mandrakesoft's computers, and comment about it. What about asking people in the street if they have a couple of minutes to contribute to the futur of computing? I thought Paris was full of tourists during summer... Since as far back as I can recall, there have been regular echoes of requests for the options of 'select all' (in fact, commonly still pointed out as a flaw in reviews) and 'minimum install'. Neither of these options require rcoket science to implement, yeat, steadfastedly, Mandrake refuses to add these simple options. The question is : why? Why? That is indeed the question! ;) No, this is a serious question, and mankind is waiting for an answer. (While at the same time weighting down the installations with cutting edge, but largely unnecessary apps, and leaving out relatively useful and established files (like the rather obscure 'traceroute'). You have the same ideas than I. You are GREAT! laugh Sometimes I really wonder. Me too! I thought Mandrake was aimed at the beginners, and yet, three years after the first release, there is still not a plain minimal install. Let me rephrase it : there is no standard install. At the moment, which packages are installed depend on the space left on the device (with this percentage thingy). I wish there was only 650 MB for a standard install, with a precise set of which packages are installed and which ones are not. Oooh, obviously, this would apply to the End-user installation only. I'm not saying this is the only way to go! But I'm confident that it would make debugging more efficient, because we could all test the same distro, test everything thoroughly, and make the Standard Mandrake bug-free or so. Then, the user would have a very clean OS that he could fill with Mandrake's stock RPMS. This is how I see things, but again, I'm not Bill Gates so my visions may be foggy. ;) Grégoire
RE: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
and who uses aurora? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Terrible Tom Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 12:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks... on 8/8/01 2:17 PM, Pixel at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Neither of these options require rcoket science to implement, yeat, steadfastedly, Mandrake refuses to add these simple options. Why? simple: too dangerous. eg, try installing redhat on 300MB, it's hard! - minimum install = people don't have many stuff installed and can't make their system working - maximum install = more install pbs, less tested, conflicts, weird slow services... Even more true with Contribs being available at install! Agreed, i tried doing a minimal install of another distro on my mac this morning, eeek! (While at the same time weighting down the installations with cutting edge, but largely unnecessary apps, and leaving out relatively useful and established files (like the rather obscure 'traceroute'). i've never used traceroute so i don't care much ;pp anyway, at the moment, it's in 'Utilities', like lsof, tcpdump... it could be moved to the default install. (though i won't move lsof unless its doc is lowered to a reasonable size) i still think it's funny that gimp gets installed but not traceroute, but thats another story ( nothing against gimp either, just that I doubt many people use it much )
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
on 8/8/01 2:17 PM, Pixel at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Neither of these options require rcoket science to implement, yeat, steadfastedly, Mandrake refuses to add these simple options. Why? simple: too dangerous. eg, try installing redhat on 300MB, it's hard! - minimum install = people don't have many stuff installed and can't make their system working - maximum install = more install pbs, less tested, conflicts, weird slow services... Even more true with Contribs being available at install! Agreed, i tried doing a minimal install of another distro on my mac this morning, eeek! (While at the same time weighting down the installations with cutting edge, but largely unnecessary apps, and leaving out relatively useful and established files (like the rather obscure 'traceroute'). i've never used traceroute so i don't care much ;pp anyway, at the moment, it's in 'Utilities', like lsof, tcpdump... it could be moved to the default install. (though i won't move lsof unless its doc is lowered to a reasonable size) i still think it's funny that gimp gets installed but not traceroute, but thats another story ( nothing against gimp either, just that I doubt many people use it much )
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
On Wednesday 08 August 2001 02:36 pm, Guillaume Rousse methodically organized electrons to state: No ! A *minimum* install is an install with *just* urpmi and draktools working... This way you can configure network and adds whatever you want. I missed beginning of this thread, but being unable to install a server without X and a bunch of gnome-related package with 8.0 was frightening. Yes, that would be excellent, or a better server install option would be nice. You pick the server(s) and the remote config tools and then choose the level of security. No X, Gnome, KDE, no five different text editors, etc. Just solid command-line Linux; no fluff, no bloat. I tried such an install on an intended web server. What a nightmare. Hoyt
RE: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
On 08 Aug 2001 13:16:29 -0600, Chris Edwards wrote: and who uses aurora? Looks pertty dont it? :)
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
Please read to the end, and comment! I may be wrong, and if so, please tell me so I know I have to shut up! (Full install is broken, let's forget it...) pixel just told me: too many buttons :-( if (too_many_buttons) reorganize(); you've a patch ? I guess it would require a modification in the way the questions are asked, so I guess that someone just cannot provide you with a patch, you would not accept it (otherwise I could do it, but before I need to learn Perl! gasp). minimal install might come alive :-) Hopefully. What I do not understand is why you do not like the idea. I guess you must have some good technical reason. To my point of view, a basic way to debug a program is to cut a big problem into smaller problems. A small standard install would be a step in the good direction, wouldn't it? (...) installation weight depend of what packages groups you select, size you select, fs size you made. What about the Standard Install requires exactly *** MB? This would make things more simple. [traceroute] usefull for you. every package not in the minimal install may not be usefull for everybody. yes, even traceroute. for this case, one can prefer tracepath or none. But this is Mandrake's role to choose the most useful tools, no? Or those who have the best ratio 'features/size', in the particular Minimal install case. It is a subjective choice that MandrakeSoft has to do for the communauty. Choose some apps, one for each category, call that Standard install. People are worried? Then modify your choice, until MOST people understand your choice and feel that this piece of software is a good compromise between features and size. And provide after-install alternatives (contribs, etc). do you see the problem with _your_ classification between what you called useful and unnecessary apps? this attitude is just plain insult for the work we've done to answer communauty request for apps. Please don't take it bad, we are just trying to make LM *even* better! We are not criticizing MandrakeSoft work, which is truly amazing for a so young company, but I think that the users can help Mdk to ship a better product. Good night, Grégoire
RE: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
the same people who top post :) I'm sorry
RE: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
On 08 Aug 2001 15:51:40 -0400, Blue Lizard wrote: On 08 Aug 2001 13:16:29 -0600, Chris Edwards wrote: and who uses aurora? Looks pertty dont it? :) That is not the question. Who uses it. Except Newbies. and they just look at it
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
on 8/8/01 3:16 PM, Chris Edwards at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and who uses aurora? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Terrible Tom Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 12:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks... on 8/8/01 2:17 PM, Pixel at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Neither of these options require rcoket science to implement, yeat, steadfastedly, Mandrake refuses to add these simple options. Why? simple: too dangerous. eg, try installing redhat on 300MB, it's hard! - minimum install = people don't have many stuff installed and can't make their system working - maximum install = more install pbs, less tested, conflicts, weird slow services... Even more true with Contribs being available at install! Agreed, i tried doing a minimal install of another distro on my mac this morning, eeek! (While at the same time weighting down the installations with cutting edge, but largely unnecessary apps, and leaving out relatively useful and established files (like the rather obscure 'traceroute'). i've never used traceroute so i don't care much ;pp anyway, at the moment, it's in 'Utilities', like lsof, tcpdump... it could be moved to the default install. (though i won't move lsof unless its doc is lowered to a reasonable size) i still think it's funny that gimp gets installed but not traceroute, but thats another story ( nothing against gimp either, just that I doubt many people use it much ) the same people who top post :) aurora could have been cool, too bad it died though. I hate posting to the list, mostly cause i'm no developer, barely able to code, and only half decent at scripting. But since I use 3 pcs here for mandrake and cooker, I sometimes get the gonads to post my opinions on somethings
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
What reasons the nondrakes would know is simply that minimal install is a different thing for each person. Thus the point of trying to figure out purpose focused installs so minimal webserver minimal mailserver minimal fileserver minimal office station.minimal game station (console or x?) minimal porn shop or whatever. cuz minimal game station does not require traceroute, nor does apache require xf86. minimal shminimal. Thus that would be good for defined install (recommended/defined/expert, see where i'm heading?).Pixel could have much much fun.
RE: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
No ! A *minimum* install is an install with *just* urpmi and draktools working... This way you can configure network and adds whatever you want. I missed beginning of this thread, but being unable to install a server without X and a bunch of gnome-related package with 8.0 was frightening. Yes, that would be excellent, or a better server install option would be nice. You pick the server(s) and the remote config tools and then choose the level of security. No X, Gnome, KDE, no five different text editors, etc. Just solid command-line Linux; no fluff, no bloat. Yes, Yes, YES! -andrej
RE: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
we just said that you can achieve this by deselecting a major component such as XFre86-libs :-) Exactly this is very bad idea. There are numerous programs that are linked against X libs even when you use them in text mode. Even SNF installs X libs. May I ask for a simple way to remove X *applications* without unselecting X *libs*. -andrej
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Neither of these options require rcoket science to implement, yeat, steadfastedly, Mandrake refuses to add these simple options. Why? simple: too dangerous. eg, try installing redhat on 300MB, it's hard! - minimum install = people don't have many stuff installed and can't make their system working - maximum install = more install pbs, less tested, conflicts, weird slow services... Even more true with Contribs being available at install! (While at the same time weighting down the installations with cutting edge, but largely unnecessary apps, and leaving out relatively useful and established files (like the rather obscure 'traceroute'). i've never used traceroute so i don't care much ;pp anyway, at the moment, it's in 'Utilities', like lsof, tcpdump... it could be moved to the default install. (though i won't move lsof unless its doc is lowered to a reasonable size)
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First, let me say that having to untick all the boxes to get the Holy Minimal Install is inefficient, not to say ridiculous. unselect XFree86-libs and you'll end in only ~90-100Mb of packages to install :-) That's nice, and I'm sure that the newbies that are gifted with the power of prediction and mind-reading will have no trouble figuring this out. Since as far back as I can recall, there have been regular echoes of requests for the options of 'select all' drawbacks : - nearly 6Bg installed with contribs RPMS2 - conflicts to resolve (do you want hylafax or another fax spoller?) - ... (in fact, commonly still pointed out as a flaw in reviews) and 'minimum install'. pixel just told me: too many buttons :-( Neither of these options require rcoket science to implement, yeat, we're waiting for your patches then :-) steadfastedly, Mandrake refuses to add these simple options. you've a patch ? Why? full install will never be done (too many problems - but maybe if you come with a patch ?). minimal install might come alive :-) (While at the same time weighting down the installations with cutting edge, but largely unnecessary apps, the apps which are in cooker or in contribs are there on request of the communauty or because maintainer uses it. so unnecessary for you. installation weight depend of what packages groups you select, size you select, fs size you made. and leaving out relatively useful and established files (like the rather obscure 'traceroute'). usefull for you. every package not in the minimal install may not be usefull for everybody. yes, even traceroute. for this case, one can prefer tracepath or none. do you see the problem with _your_ classification between what you called useful and unnecessary apps? this attitude is just plain insult for the work we've done to answer communauty request for apps. Sometimes I really wonder. wonder what ?
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
Terrible Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: anyway, at the moment, it's in 'Utilities', like lsof, tcpdump... it could be moved to the default install. (though i won't move lsof unless its doc is lowered to a reasonable size) i still think it's funny that gimp gets installed but not traceroute, but thats another story ( nothing against gimp either, just that I doubt many people use it much ) he!!! don't speak of my package like this :-)
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
Grégoire Colbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
minimal install might come alive :-)
Hopefully. What I do not understand is why you do not like the idea. I guess
but we didn't see we don't like it :-)
we just said that you can achieve this by deselecting a major component such as
XFre86-libs :-)
as someone has said, this is true this is not \mdk_jargon{aware} ie an end-user
won't see that he can do that, he will just complain about missing feature.
but you can do it at this moment.
you must have some good technical reason. To my point of view, a basic way to
debug a program is to cut a big problem into smaller problems. A small
standard install would be a step in the good direction, wouldn't it?
ask pixel for technical reasons :-)
(...)
installation weight depend of what packages groups you select, size you
select, fs size you made.
What about the Standard Install requires exactly *** MB? This would make
things more simple.
the point was not the weight of the minimal install, the point was that he
complains about mdk overweight : as you install mdk in 60-90Mb, i don't see us
as an overweith distro. we do offer a lot of choice (this is a free world); that
is different than being a fat/slow distro.
[traceroute] usefull for you. every package not in the minimal install may
not be usefull for everybody. yes, even traceroute.
for this case, one can prefer tracepath or none.
But this is Mandrake's role to choose the most useful tools, no? Or those who
have the best ratio 'features/size', in the particular Minimal install case.
the minimal install is an install where you've got everything to allow the
system to boot, having configured hardware, network, ...
traceroute isn't needed for that. basesystem only requires the very needed
packages for a small system.
main cooker hold most used tools. contribs hold less used one (or less
maintained like xfs, or buggier like mosix, ...).
not asked software can be freely downloaded on the net...
traceroute and tracepath are quite equivalent.
do we need such a tool in basesystem ? which one ?
and then if we accept this one, why not add procmail ? then apache?
not everybody need these tools.
as i said basesystem requires tools needed to boot the box in an usable state.
It is a subjective choice that MandrakeSoft has to do for the
communauty. Choose some apps, one for each category, call that Standard
install. People are worried? Then modify your choice, until MOST people
understand your choice and feel that this piece of software is a good
the point is that there's no std config.
loog at mail-readers for example. each poeple is a fanatic of his prefered
mailler which can be pine, gnus, netscape, mutt, vm, mailx, ...
why should we force users to have only one ?
same for kde/gnome/windowmaker/icewm
why should we force such wm in basesystem and not this one ?
this is a user policy, not a core system issue.
lets everybody being able to have the smaller system base and install its
preferred apps on top of it.
the point is that the same distro is being used by new old-zindoz users who
just don't anything about linux, experienced user, developpers, servers
sysadmins.
to server all you people, we mustn't bloat the basesystemn by adding traceroute
because it's usefull on servers, then xosview because it's usefull for desktop
users, then ...
you see the point ?
after all, we're in a free world :-)
compromise between features and size. And provide after-install alternatives
(contribs, etc).
do you see the problem with _your_ classification between what you called
useful and unnecessary apps? this attitude is just plain insult for the work
we've done to answer communauty request for apps.
Please don't take it bad, we are just trying to make LM *even* better!
i understand that. but i don't like adding this feature is so easy that you
could do it in 5mn :-(
it might be easy to implement minimal install [which may ended in forcing
deselecting XFree86-libs :-) ] but maybe not.
We are not criticizing MandrakeSoft work, which is truly amazing for a so
young company, but I think that the users can help Mdk to ship a better
product.
of course, they can; if they don't, the distro woudln't suit their needs :-)
i especially like constructive reports from users that let me leverage up the
quality of our packages.
but saying mdk is getting bigger and bigger like isn't :-(
Good night,
you too.
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
Grégoire Colbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please read to the end, and comment! I may be wrong, and if so, please tell me so I know I have to shut up! and excuse us if you found us rude but this is the end of long day that as beginned by running after a train to go in office (sncf just fscked :-) )
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
Grégoire Colbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A small standard install would be a step in the good direction, wouldn't it? for info, nearly all installs i make are small one so that reproducing/debugging install is fast. the pb is not to provide it. The pb is isn't it too powerful?. There's is already 2 simple ways to have minimal install: - unselect XFree86-libs - load from floppy an empty file
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
on 8/8/01 7:17 PM, Blue Lizard at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What reasons the nondrakes would know is simply that minimal install is a different thing for each person. Thus the point of trying to figure out purpose focused installs so minimal webserver minimal mailserver minimal fileserver minimal office station.minimal game station (console or x?) minimal porn shop or whatever. cuz minimal game station does not require traceroute, nor does apache require xf86. minimal shminimal. Thus that would be good for defined install (recommended/defined/expert, see where i'm heading?).Pixel could have much much fun. My vote is for the minimal porn station
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
On 08 Aug 2001 19:31:00 -0400, Terrible Tom wrote: on 8/8/01 7:17 PM, Blue Lizard at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What reasons the nondrakes would know is simply that minimal install is a different thing for each person. Thus the point of trying to figure out purpose focused installs so minimal webserver minimal mailserver minimal fileserver minimal office station.minimal game station (console or x?) minimal porn shop or whatever. cuz minimal game station does not require traceroute, nor does apache require xf86. minimal shminimal. Thus that would be good for defined install (recommended/defined/expert, see where i'm heading?).Pixel could have much much fun. My vote is for the minimal porn station pervert ;P
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
On 07 Aug 2001 15:33:02 +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: Blue Lizard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, gee. If you people would get off your lazy butts and make newt versions of every program Man, I could barely keep a straight face typing that. cool idea though huh? like mc-style everything under the sun. we already have a good bunch of MCC stuff which is available as newt version. interactive.pm rules. Love it.
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
Well, gee. If you people would get off your lazy butts and make newt versions of every program Man, I could barely keep a straight face typing that. cool idea though huh? like mc-style everything under the sun. heh heh heh
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
Blue Lizard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, gee. If you people would get off your lazy butts and make newt versions of every program Man, I could barely keep a straight face typing that. cool idea though huh? like mc-style everything under the sun. if you want a minimal system, then no X. if you want X, you'll be far away from the 100Mb barrier It is something like 60Mb without X and 150Mb with it if you use the Mandrake rpms
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
what's funny? The message suggested that mandrake rewrite every program in the distro to have a newt/curses/wslib equivalent or something that would make it look and work precisely the same as its x equiv while keeping the distro under 100M and fast as heck. It was not a serious suggestion. Seems a tad out of reach dont it?
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
Grégoire Colbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First, let me say that having to untick all the boxes to get the Holy Minimal Install is inefficient, not to say ridiculous. unselect XFree86-libs and you'll end in only ~90-100Mb of packages to install :-) prove: # urpme XFree86-libs To satisfy dependencies, the following packages are going to be removed (1069 MB): (...)
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
Blue Lizard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, gee. If you people would get off your lazy butts and make newt versions of every program Man, I could barely keep a straight face typing that. cool idea though huh? like mc-style everything under the sun. if you want a minimal system, then no X. if you want X, you'll be far away from the 100Mb barrier heh heh heh what's funny ?
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
At 10:36 PM 8/3/2001 -0400, you wrote: Hello! First, let me say that having to untick all the boxes to get the Holy Minimal Install is inefficient, not to say ridiculous. What should I answer when a person, who want me to install Linux onto his computer, drop his jaws by learning it will takes about 2 GB? I usually try to convince the above person that they will get some applications, but in fact, I do not understand why a standard install takes up so much disk space. Basically, all they want is : - KDE - GIMP - XMMS - Mozilla - a few basic games - a word processor. So, I always select packages by hand, and that takes A LOT OF TIME, and then my beginner ask : Wooow, does Linux really need all that stuff? Then he begins to think that Linux is not an OS for him, that Windows is SO MUCH EASIER, and all the likes... Think about it, please. Grégoire Minimal install? Mandrake the way it is now just wouldn't do. Try Caldera or better yet Slackware and/or Debian distros. Don't condemn Linux just yet since Mandrake certainly does not represent the entire Linux community. I suggest that Mandrake should study how Slackware and Debian group their packages, and Debian for its ooh so smooth installation routine (while you are choosing optional packages it already starts to install the required packages and you could even play games while waiting for install to finish). Red Hat 7.1 is even much better than Mandrake 8.0, in installation experience that is. These past months i've been evaluating all the distros i could lay my hands on for a possible alternative gui desktop environment (I've tried 4 so far. Here are my personal opinions: Best Package Organization: Slackware With Slackware you can choose from the start which kernel to load, bare ide, bare scsi ,etc. Choosing applications is also a breeze (non-gui apps or gui apps), whereas in Mandrake, most of the time you wouldn't even have a clue whether its an X or a console apps. What i can't understand is with a default install of just the Workstation and KDE Environment checked in Mandrake, the install size is over 1GB whereas Caldera, Debian and Slackware are so much smaller (especially the last 2). Best Installation Routine: Caldera Best Desktop: None. they all failed in the font WYSIWIG category. BTW if you are looking for a lean web, ftp, mail, firewall, gateway server machine (no gui though), try E-Smith Linux. My install weighed in only at around 290MB.
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
On Saturday 04 August 2001 13:07, you wrote: Minimal install? Mandrake the way it is now just wouldn't do. Try Caldera or better yet Slackware and/or Debian distros. Don't condemn Linux just yet since Mandrake certainly does not represent the entire Linux community. I suggest that Mandrake should study how Slackware and Debian group their packages, and Debian for its ooh so smooth installation routine (while you are choosing optional packages it already starts to install the required packages and you could even play games while waiting for install to finish). Red Hat 7.1 is even much better than Mandrake 8.0, in installation experience that is. Yeah been there done that - not impressed. Debian's apt-get is a POS in my opinion compared to urpmi, I tried debian and followed the instructions to a T with apt-get to upgrade from stable to testing and got an unusable system, apt-get crashed on me several times, many dependancies were left out. I'd hardly call that smooth. These past months i've been evaluating all the distros i could lay my hands on for a possible alternative gui desktop environment (I've tried 4 so far. Here are my personal opinions: Best Package Organization: Slackware With Slackware you can choose from the start which kernel to load, bare ide, bare scsi ,etc. Choosing applications is also a breeze (non-gui apps or gui apps), whereas in Mandrake, most of the time you wouldn't even have a clue whether its an X or a console apps. What i can't understand is with a default install of just the Workstation and KDE Environment checked in Mandrake, the install size is over 1GB whereas Caldera, Debian and Slackware are so much smaller (especially the last 2). Best Installation Routine: Caldera Best Desktop: None. they all failed in the font WYSIWIG category. BTW if you are looking for a lean web, ftp, mail, firewall, gateway server machine (no gui though), try E-Smith Linux. My install weighed in only at around 290MB. Hrm, installed a 300MB mandrake cooker the other day that included devel tools like gcc. All I did was deselect all categories during install, hit install and after install was over I urpmi'ed in the things I needed. No one distro is every cut and dry better than any other for size or packaging reasons, slackware or debian you have to spend a week or so getting a system as up to date as mandrake and getting all the packages downloaded and installed and setup that mandrake includes as rpm's. Mandrake on the other hand may be a little weak in the package selection area like you had mentioned but I've always been able to setup mdk with different kernels. Better doesn't necessarily mean smaller, nor does it mean larger, it means more able. And as far as I am concerned mdk is more able to get my systems up and going with up to date/stable packages quickly and easily and yes even minimally. I'm responsible for about 20 servers, I've went from using redhat to mandrake on all of them and have been very pleased. Some of the servers actually run solaris, redhat and debian, but my pick of them all is the 11-12 mdk systems. And for those who boast debian/slackware stability - BS. I've seen friends debian/slack systems go down a heck of a lot more than my mdk systems. Some of which have been up now for over 230 days, and would be longer if not for rewiring power in the building. -- Jason Straight BlazeConnect President Phone: 231-597-0376 Fax: 231-597-0393
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
At 01:25 PM 8/4/2001 -0400, you wrote: Yeah been there done that - not impressed. Debian's apt-get is a POS in my opinion compared to urpmi, I tried debian and followed the instructions to a T with apt-get to upgrade from stable to testing and got an unusable system, apt-get crashed on me several times, many dependancies were left out. I'd hardly call that smooth. That's probably why they called it testing (woody) . Same thing happened with my LM8 though, crashed after updating from cooker. :-) Besides i only said that the installation part was smooth, not the whole experience of using it throughout. Here's a weird thing though, try unchecking playmidi in the default Mandrake selections and it will tell you that it has to unselect gnome and so many other gnome-related rpms. No one distro is every cut and dry better than any other for size or packaging reasons, slackware or debian you have to spend a week or so getting a system as up to date as mandrake and getting all the packages downloaded and installed and setup that mandrake includes as rpm's. I never mentioned any distro better over-all than any other either. I did mention better in package organization, installation routine, etc. I probably should have mentioned Mandrake being the best when it comes to packages collection. Mandrake on the other hand may be a little weak in the package selection area like you had mentioned but I've always been able to setup mdk with different kernels. Better doesn't necessarily mean smaller, nor does it mean larger, it means more able. And as far as I am concerned mdk is more able to get my systems up and going with up to date/stable packages quickly and easily and yes even minimally. I'm responsible for about 20 servers, I've went from using redhat to mandrake on all of them and have been very pleased. Some of the servers actually run solaris, redhat and debian, but my pick of them all is the 11-12 mdk systems. And for those who boast debian/slackware stability - BS. I've seen friends debian/slack systems go down a heck of a lot more than my mdk systems. Some of which have been up now for over 230 days, and would be longer if not for rewiring power in the building. As i believe was the original poster of this thread's intent, i was just also trying to see the Linux experience from the point of view of a person trying it out for the first time, to see whether it would be OK as replacement for a certain OS for day-to-day use (not for a singular use, say, as a server). From the installation process, configuration, ease-of-use, availability of suitable replacement for apps that i would be normally using with the other OS, etc. cheers,
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
I have my mother running Linux and I am slowly converting a legal office over to it. There is nothing wrong with the Linux desktop. It is more than capable of handling most issues, and openoffice looks very promising as filling in the office suite niche. If Wordperfect did quick words in Linux and would allow to send to qtcups for printing, then it would be fine since the office currently uses wordperfect. I don't think having a simple setup option for newbies would prevent more experienced users going for the workstation setup. --- Jason Straight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 04 August 2001 16:25, you wrote: As i believe was the original poster of this thread's intent, i was just also trying to see the Linux experience from the point of view of a person trying it out for the first time, to see whether it would be OK as replacement for a certain OS for day-to-day use (not for a singular use, say, as a server). From the installation process, configuration, ease-of-use, availability of suitable replacement for apps that i would be normally using with the other OS, etc. cheers, Yeah, but personally I find it offensive that people try to judge linux for the desktop and push it to be something it's not. Linux has made it as far as it has on it's individuality and now that linux is in the limelight everyone wants to change it to make dummy distro's that Joe Blow with an IQ of 60 could install. Which I actually don't have a problem with, but I don't want to see any linux distro stupidify itself for the under endowed at the expense of taking away the power that makes it linux for all the power users and linux savvy users that have brought it where it is today. It irks me as it would to hear people complaining that airplanes aren't easy enough to fly, or it's too hard to read your webpage you should make it with bigger letters for nearly blind people, or less big words for stupid people, or less packages for lazy people, or less options for impatient people, or As it is I think mdk offers what it offers which is a lot because that guarantees that it has more of the things people want, it also means there's more of what they don't, but it's easier to deslect packages (cumbersome as it might be) than it is if you get another unix and have to download and compile kde 2.2, mozilla, X4.1, gcc 3.0, etc... mdk has a lot of stuff on those CD's so you don't have to go download them, with a lot of packages there are bound to be a seemingly overwhelming number of options during install. And there are a lot of dependancies in mdk that some other distro's don't have because mdk compiles support for other packages into a lot of things to enhance it's abilities. I just personally would be pissed to see mdk take away packages and my ability to customize my install to cater to the ignorant, so mandrake being my distro of choice I feel the need to protect that :) Most of this of course is more directed to the orig poster. -- Jason Straight BlazeConnect President Phone: 231-597-0376 Fax: 231-597-0393 = SI Reasoning [EMAIL PROTECTED] gnupg/pgp key id 035213BC __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: [Cooker] [Holy Minimal Install] Why Linux sucks...
on 8/3/01 2:24 PM, Digital Wokan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A bare minimum would be a nice option. I have a router/firewall at home that I do put to occassional other uses. Starting it off from the smallest possible install would be a nice choice. I've moved to the freesco floppy install for firewall/routing now instead of MDK. Runs off a 486, 16 megs of ram, no HD, and two ethernet cards. It manages everything on the network nicely, except my macs ( you can all stop laughing now ) which I have vpn'd to the office. On my Macs, I use a combo of yellow dog linux and Mac OS 9.1, while I run Mandrake on my main pc, and slack on a lesser powered pentium pro 200. The slack box becomes a cooker box every once in a while though :)
