Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 04:06:47PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 02:04:56AM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote: Argh! %s/Linux/Linus (almost did it again again). Why couldn't he call it LSD (Linus Software Distribution) instead of Linux? So you mean: Yes, Linus wrote Linus when BSD wasn't available. No, he said %s/Linux/Linus not $s/Linux/Linus/g so he is right (finally). :) Tells you how often I use that feature (i.e. never). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
Am 2008-06-07 13:14:32, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In the editor I remember, it would have been s/Linux/Linux/g to get both to change. That was in the 70's. Shit, - YOU WON! And, delightful to hear from you again. Haven't heard from you much since I desubscribed from linux-users because of too much incoming stuff. Now I try the get things running... My new ARM1176, the graphic controller, the Nexperia NPX6712, ... It is easy to build a computer arround ARM or MIPS, but someone will fail if he/she try this with a AMD/Intel CPU... But WHO want this resource hogs if no one type letters faster? Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
Am 2008-06-05 11:38:57, schrieb Lennart Sorensen: Which unix? One of the BSD derivatives of the original unix, or one of the commercial ones, of which solaris is probably the only one you can now get for free. Like what is unix these days? OS/400, HP-UX, Solaris, ... Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: An Idea whose Time has Been and Gone (Was: Re: How would I get debian unstable?)
Am 2008-06-05 19:44:48, schrieb A J Stiles: need that a package maintainer didn't think of (or need to mix licences and create an unredistributable package in doing so). And that's when the whole -dev ugliness comes into play. Even if -dev wasn't to be done away with altogether, it would be nice at least to have an option in apt to make it automatically fetch corresponding -dev packages whenever they existed. This would install on my 1.4 Gbyte system over 4 GByte of files, I never need... It seems you do not know, what are you talking about... Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
Am 2008-06-06 11:40:35, schrieb Douglas A. Tutty: Yes, Linux wrote Linux when BSD wasn't available. I've read a quote somewhere that if BSD had been available he wouldn't have bothered with Linux. I have to point that out that you just did it again. :-) Argh! %s/Linux/Linus (almost did it again again). Why couldn't he call it LSD (Linus Software Distribution) instead of Linux? So you mean: Yes, Linus wrote Linus when BSD wasn't available. Doug, you are weird... Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
Am 2008-06-06 01:46:35, schrieb Robert Isaac: Except they don't make that claim, OpenBSD claims two _remote_ security holes in the last ten years, which is entirely different from only two security holes. They aren't making any claims about local exploits. Yeah, and I remember there where many Security holes in it exspecialy using this wuftpd on those BSD machines... Hacked regulary and you had to compile nearly each week a new version. People do the same thing using variants of the Linux kernel. The bsd kernel is nothing special in that regard :) ACK Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 02:04:56AM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote: Am 2008-06-06 11:40:35, schrieb Douglas A. Tutty: Yes, Linux wrote Linux when BSD wasn't available. I've read a quote somewhere that if BSD had been available he wouldn't have bothered with Linux. I have to point that out that you just did it again. :-) Argh! %s/Linux/Linus (almost did it again again). Why couldn't he call it LSD (Linus Software Distribution) instead of Linux? So you mean: Yes, Linus wrote Linus when BSD wasn't available. In the editor I remember, it would have been s/Linux/Linux/g to get both to change. That was in the 70's. -- hendrik Doug, you are weird... Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant And, delightful to hear from you again. Haven't heard from you much since I desubscribed from linux-users because of too much incoming stuff. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 02:04:56AM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote: Argh! %s/Linux/Linus (almost did it again again). Why couldn't he call it LSD (Linus Software Distribution) instead of Linux? So you mean: Yes, Linus wrote Linus when BSD wasn't available. No, he said %s/Linux/Linus not $s/Linux/Linus/g so he is right (finally). :) -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 01:54:35AM -0400, Robert Isaac wrote: Do you know the difference between Unix and Linux? Short answer is that Linux wrote Linux when he needed a Unix but Unix was caught in the Unix wars and there wasn't one available that wasn't tied up in legal wrangling and rewriting to remove copywritten code. So the kernel wrote itself? How is that possible? Has it become so advanced in the future that it is capable of time travel and traveled back to 1991 to self replicate? Should we be worried about consciousness within the Linux kernel? Or did you mean Linus wrote Linux? Ha! I thought I was careful to use s instead of x, but I'm not at my IBM clicky keyboard. I hate modern keyboards. Yes, Linux wrote Linux when BSD wasn't available. I've read a quote somewhere that if BSD had been available he wouldn't have bothered with Linux. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 01:46:35AM -0400, Robert Isaac wrote: Note that the reason that OpenBSD can claim only two security holes in the default install in the past 10 years is that there are no services active in a default install (you have to add commands to the startup script to enable them). Except they don't make that claim, OpenBSD claims two _remote_ security holes in the last ten years, which is entirely different from only two security holes. They aren't making any claims about local exploits. I'll have to look into that and see what it was exactly. People reoutinely built appliances like routers using OpenBSD and e.g. a Soekris box and put it on the shelf. They may only update it when a security bug happens (rarely). Since there are simple HOWTOs for making OpenBSD on a CF card, updating the appliance consists of swapping the CF card. People do the same thing using variants of the Linux kernel. The bsd kernel is nothing special in that regard :) Well, I suppose the difference is that you can do it with a stock OpenBSD kernel with all the security audits happening to it, where as with linux its a variant with who-knows doing the audit. Then there's the licensing thing: have to supply the source for the kernel variant and everything else (GPL). Even if that's not a philisophical problem, it may be a logistical one. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
Douglas A. Tutty escreveu: On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 01:54:35AM -0400, Robert Isaac wrote: Do you know the difference between Unix and Linux? Short answer is that Linux wrote Linux when he needed a Unix but Unix was caught in the Unix wars and there wasn't one available that wasn't tied up in legal wrangling and rewriting to remove copywritten code. So the kernel wrote itself? How is that possible? Has it become so advanced in the future that it is capable of time travel and traveled back to 1991 to self replicate? Should we be worried about consciousness within the Linux kernel? Or did you mean Linus wrote Linux? Ha! I thought I was careful to use s instead of x, but I'm not at my IBM clicky keyboard. I hate modern keyboards. Yes, Linux wrote Linux when BSD wasn't available. I've read a quote somewhere that if BSD had been available he wouldn't have bothered with Linux. I have to point that out that you just did it again. :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
Yes, Linux wrote Linux when BSD wasn't available. I've read a quote somewhere that if BSD had been available he wouldn't have bothered with Linux. I have to point that out that you just did it again. :-) Don't worry, we'll just be used as lubricants when the kernel fulfills its mission of human subjugation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 10:07:00AM -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: Douglas A. Tutty escreveu: On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 01:54:35AM -0400, Robert Isaac wrote: Do you know the difference between Unix and Linux? Short answer is that Linux wrote Linux when he needed a Unix but Unix was caught in the Unix wars and there wasn't one available that wasn't tied up in legal wrangling and rewriting to remove copywritten code. So the kernel wrote itself? How is that possible? Has it become so advanced in the future that it is capable of time travel and traveled back to 1991 to self replicate? Should we be worried about consciousness within the Linux kernel? Or did you mean Linus wrote Linux? Ha! I thought I was careful to use s instead of x, but I'm not at my IBM clicky keyboard. I hate modern keyboards. Yes, Linux wrote Linux when BSD wasn't available. I've read a quote somewhere that if BSD had been available he wouldn't have bothered with Linux. I have to point that out that you just did it again. :-) Argh! %s/Linux/Linus (almost did it again again). Why couldn't he call it LSD (Linus Software Distribution) instead of Linux? Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 11:40 -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: snip Argh! %s/Linux/Linus (almost did it again again). Why couldn't he call it LSD (Linus Software Distribution) instead of Linux? Doug. Well, IF he did that, then the dyslectic and the type-lectic would get it confused with the LDS. Hey, have you tried LDS yet? No way! Never, I just am not religious. Then LSD would never have gotten a foot hold. Not to say anything about The War On Drugs (US Centric). Think of the confusion, think of the poor law enforcement agents trying to track all the LSD communication! Oh! The humanity! -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linkedin.com/in/dchesser signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 11:40:35AM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: Argh! %s/Linux/Linus (almost did it again again). Why couldn't he call it LSD (Linus Software Distribution) instead of Linux? Because I already have LSD - Levanto Software Development ;-) -H -- Heikki Levanto In Murphy We Turst heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
annne annnie: I'd like to use debian unstable, but I do not know how to get it. Generic answer: if you don't know how to get it then you should think twice before using it. ;-) To be honest, I am running stable only on servers (and my girlfriend's laptop), all of my workstations run unstable as well. But although severe problems are very rare, unstable is only a good choice for you if you either know the distribution quite well already or if you are willing to learn it. Casual users without any interest in playing with the system itself are better off running stable (or any other distribution with shorter release cycles if you need software not yet available from stable or backports.org). For a start, I'd recommend to start with stable and try it for a few months. If you know aptitude and a little bash (not necessarily programming, only console usage) you can then go ahead and try to dist-upgrade. If someone could direct me to a site that has the steps set out or type the steps or something it would be much appreciated. I have the image for debian testing from about a month or two ago (it's lenny), can I use testing to get to unstable? Yes, that's exactly the way to go. There are no installers for unstable. (You can edit your sources.list to point to unstable during installation, but I don't know how well that works.) Also, why did you people choose to use debian? Is it just better than other distributions? I don't know, I have never used anything else (besides short adventures with Gentoo and Ubuntu and a few more live CDs). It seems like you people are elite linux users, This is a common conception but I don't think this is true anymore (or if it ever was). Debian has improved a lot on usability, it's just that other distributions focus even more on polishing the user experience for a regular desktop user. In a way, Debian offers more choices and doesn't force anything on you which you don't strictly need. On the other hand this means you have to make more choices yourself which is hard if you don't understand your options in the first place. and I just wanted to the differences between debian and some other distributions. I haven't tried many, but to me they would all seem the same (I'm new). The main difference between distributions is still about package management. There are RPM and DEB based distributions, there are source-based distributions. Then there's the choice of a default desktop environment (Gnome, KDE, Xfce) but this already a very blurry line because most distributions contain all of them. In my opinion, if you are searching for a versatile system which you can use for very different purposes (workstation, home server, learning system), Debian is a very good choice. If you only want to use a system that's free (in whatever sense you choose) and simply works without you having to learn very much about it, I'd recommend Ubuntu. J. -- I wish I had been aware enough to enjoy my time as a toddler. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
Also, why did you people choose to use debian? Is it just better than other distributions? I don't know, I have never used anything else (besides short adventures with Gentoo and Ubuntu and a few more live CDs). I switched from Gentoo to Debian on my laptop 6 months ago. I used Gentoo (and I'm still using it on servers) for many years. I learned a lot about GNU/Linux this way. I liked to test the latest software releases, choose the dependencies in really need, test some unusual compilation flags, etc. Now that I'm a bit older, I don't want to spend so much time in setting up my system. I want something that works (quite) out of the box. Moreover, compiling every single piece of software is a time-consuming task. So I wanted to try something else. One of my friend is a Debian maintainer and it convinced me to give it a try. I'm quite happy with my Debian unstable. I have a 6 months old laptop so I had few problems at the beginning with bad hardware support. But now, everything is working as I want to. I regret that some software takes a long time to come into unstable/experimental (e.g. Gnome development release). And I find that it is easier to create Gentoo's ebuilds than Debian's packages. But I still have to learn a lot about Debian. I'm using Ubuntu at work and on my girlfriend's laptop. This is probably one of the best desktop distribution I think. And I don't see so much differences compared to Debian. The only reason for me not to use Ubuntu is, as you said, It seems like you people are elite linux users, I don't want to use the same distribution as my girlfriend or a distribution that my mother could install herself :D I still haven't found a distribution that makes me 100% happy. But I'm really happy with Debian at the moment. In a way, Debian offers more choices and doesn't force anything on you which you don't strictly need. On the other hand this means you have to make more choices yourself which is hard if you don't understand your options in the first place. Gentoo offers even more choices. So if you have time and want to learn more about a GNU/Linux system, give Gentoo a try. Moreover, the forums and the documentation are awesome. Regards, Cyril Jaquier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
Cyril Jaquier: It seems like you people are elite linux users, I don't want to use the same distribution as my girlfriend or a distribution that my mother could install herself :D Don't you know that Debian can be installed by a chicken? It simply has to pick on enter a few times. ;-) Gentoo offers even more choices. So if you have time and want to learn more about a GNU/Linux system, give Gentoo a try. Moreover, the forums and the documentation are awesome. That's another difference between distributions: what kind of support channels they offer. I hate web forums with a passion and cannot imagine using a distribution where I had to resort using them to get in contact with other users. J. -- I wish I looked more like a successful person even though I'm a loser. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thursday 05 Jun 2008, annne annnie wrote: I'd like to use debian unstable, but I do not know how to get it. If someone could direct me to a site that has the steps set out or type the steps or something it would be much appreciated. I have the image for debian testing from about a month or two ago (it's lenny), can I use testing to get to unstable? Yes, just edit /etc/apt/sources.list and change every occurrence of stable, etch, testing or lenny to sid. Then # apt-get update apt-get upgrade and you should be good to go. Also, why did you people choose to use debian? Is it just better than other distributions? It seems like you people are elite linux users, and I just wanted to the differences between debian and some other distributions. I haven't tried many, but to me they would all seem the same (I'm new). For me, Debian is all about purity (only Free software is installed by default) but also about not getting in the way of the user. Debian doesn't insist for you to use some fancy graphical configuration tools; you can just edit configuration files by hand without fear of breaking anything or having them overwritten by some magical master configurator. And you can choose whether you want to install pre-compiled packages or compile from Source. Almost every piece of Free software ever written is available in the repositories anyway, ready to use; but if you happen to have some special requirement, you can easily build your own hacked-up version (for instance, I have a specially-modified copy of Gramofile -- a vinyl LP ripping program -- that is tied to the USB audio input). Debian isn't the easiest distribution in the world, or it certainly wasn't when I started out on it. Try as I might, I couldn't quite get to grips with it and so went over to Mandriva (or Mandrake, as it was called then). That was fine for awhile, but I eventually outgrew it: their package repository was limited and I ended up learning to compile things from Source Code. And by the time you're doing that (and you have learned the hard way about -devel packages, or -dev packages as Debian calls them) then it no longer matters which distro you're running anymore. This, of course, was a long time before there was such a thing as Ubuntu. For the most part, Ubuntu *is* Debian, just customised. Bits have been sawn off and bits have been welded on, but the engine and chassis are recognisably Debian. Ubuntu is what I would recommend to anyone seeking to try Linux out; just because I know that if it fouls up, it's familiar enough for me to be able to fix it -- all the configs and logs are exactly where I have come to expect them to be. The other distributions with a reputation for being hard (because they involve understanding, if not how things work under the bonnet then that there *is* a bonnet with moving parts under it, and sometimes doing things by hand without the benefit of slick graphical wizards to allow you to select one of a number of pre-set configurations; some people seem conditioned to think that there is something intrinsically hard about reading text and typing on a keyboard) are Gentoo and Slackware. Slackware is very old-skool (though it has up-to-date packages), and tends to stay even further out of your way than Debian does. This extends to not having a package management and dependency resolution system of its own. I tried it, and it didn't really seem to offer anything that Debian didn't. Gentoo is famous for tweakability. Instead of pre-compiled packages, Gentoo packages contain Source Code and automated build instructions; they are compiled right on your machine to suit your machine, according to various optimisation flags specified by you. Again, I tried it; and it also didn't seem to offer anything special over Debian apart from the fact of there being no more need for -dev packages. It was a good learning experience, though: I'd seriously advise anyone who is thinking of creating their own GNU/Linux distribution to do an install of Gentoo from Stage One, even if you don't plan to base your distro from Gentoo. In all fairness to Slackware and Gentoo, I am quite sure that had I been using either of these first and dallied with Debian, I would have gone back to what I knew. And if Ubuntu had been around when I lost patience with Debian, then that's what I would have tried next. If I'd tried Ubuntu sooner, I'm not even sure I'd ever have reverted to Debian; except maybe for GUI-free servers. BTW. If you want to see real elitism, try hanging around with a bunch of SuSE users -- they are all boss-eyed from looking down their noses at everyone else! ;) -- AJS delta echo bravo six four at earthshod dot co dot uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
Scrive A J Stiles [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yes, just edit /etc/apt/sources.list and change every occurrence of stable, etch, testing or lenny to sid. Then # apt-get update apt-get upgrade and you should be good to go. Br! better apt-get dist-upgrade to handle in a better way packages replacing and new dependencies. More better is aptitude... only apt-get upgrade may cause a lot of locked packages not upgrade automagically and the system became too much hybrid... -- Sythos - http://www.sythos.net () ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against html/rtf/vCard in mail /\- against M$ attachments This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
Hi, I'm the one who asked about getting unstable and the different distributions compared to debian. I have a few more questions, sorry. First question: How would I reply correctly so that my reply is still in the same topic? Someone mentioned something about apt-get upgrade causing locked packages that won't get upgraded or something... thats the kind of stuff I want to learn. How would I learn about how debian works and how to configure it all? All I have been doing so far is just googling the problems I have run into, but I'm not really learning anything. Also, when you guys say SUSe do you mean openSuSE? Because I would like to try it out, but the only one I could find out how to download was openSuSE. Last question(s), is there a unix one I could get for free? Are they similar to linux? What are the differences? Sythos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scrive A J Stiles : Yes, just edit /etc/apt/sources.list and change every occurrence of stable, etch, testing or lenny to sid. Then # apt-get update apt-get upgrade and you should be good to go. Br! better apt-get dist-upgrade to handle in a better way packages replacing and new dependencies. More better is aptitude... only apt-get upgrade may cause a lot of locked packages not upgrade automagically and the system became too much hybrid... -- Sythos - http://www.sythos.net () ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against html/rtf/vCard in mail /\- against M$ attachments This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email.
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
Scrive annne annnie [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, I'm the one who asked about getting unstable and the different distributions compared to debian. I have a few more questions, sorry. First question: How would I reply correctly so that my reply is still in the same topic? Someone mentioned something about apt-get upgrade causing locked packages that won't get upgraded or something... thats the kind of stuff I want to learn. How would I learn about how debian works and how to configure it all? All I have been doing so far is just googling the problems I have run into, but I'm not really learning anything. Also, when you guys say SUSe do you mean openSuSE? Because I would like to try it out, but the only one I could find out how to download was openSuSE. Last question(s), is there a unix one I could get for free? Are they similar to linux? What are the differences? 1st answer: use reply to all :) 2nd answer: every packages have docman 3rd answer: I suppose yes... 4th answer: how kind of unix do you mean? -- Sythos - http://www.sythos.net () ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against html/rtf/vCard in mail /\- against M$ attachments This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
2008/6/5 Sythos [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Scrive annne annnie [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, I'm the one who asked about getting unstable and the different distributions compared to debian. I have a few more questions, sorry. First question: How would I reply correctly so that my reply is still in the same topic? Someone mentioned something about apt-get upgrade causing locked packages that won't get upgraded or something... thats the kind of stuff I want to learn. How would I learn about how debian works and how to configure it all? All I have been doing so far is just googling the problems I have run into, but I'm not really learning anything. Also, when you guys say SUSe do you mean openSuSE? Because I would like to try it out, but the only one I could find out how to download was openSuSE. Last question(s), is there a unix one I could get for free? Are they similar to linux? What are the differences? 1st answer: use reply to all :) use reply to debian-amd64@lists.debian.org 2nd answer: every packages have docman 3rd answer: I suppose yes... 4th answer: how kind of unix do you mean? -- Sythos - http://www.sythos.net () ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against html/rtf/vCard in mail /\- against M$ attachments This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Pere Nubiola Radigales Telf: +34 656316974 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 01:34:24PM +0100, A J Stiles wrote: For me, Debian is all about purity (only Free software is installed by default) but also about not getting in the way of the user. Debian doesn't insist for you to use some fancy graphical configuration tools; you can just edit configuration files by hand without fear of breaking anything or having them overwritten by some magical master configurator. And you can choose whether you want to install pre-compiled packages or compile from Source. Almost every piece of Free software ever written is available in the repositories anyway, ready to use; but if you happen to have some special requirement, you can easily build your own hacked-up version (for instance, I have a specially-modified copy of Gramofile -- a vinyl LP ripping program -- that is tied to the USB audio input). Debian isn't the easiest distribution in the world, or it certainly wasn't when I started out on it. Try as I might, I couldn't quite get to grips with it and so went over to Mandriva (or Mandrake, as it was called then). That was fine for awhile, but I eventually outgrew it: their package repository was limited and I ended up learning to compile things from Source Code. And by the time you're doing that (and you have learned the hard way about -devel packages, or -dev packages as Debian calls them) then it no longer matters which distro you're running anymore. This, of course, was a long time before there was such a thing as Ubuntu. For the most part, Ubuntu *is* Debian, just customised. Bits have been sawn off and bits have been welded on, but the engine and chassis are recognisably Debian. Ubuntu is what I would recommend to anyone seeking to try Linux out; just because I know that if it fouls up, it's familiar enough for me to be able to fix it -- all the configs and logs are exactly where I have come to expect them to be. Debian stable releases seem to upgrade better to the next release than Ubuntu. I think Ubuntu should really put some more effort into making sure upgrades work flawlessly. I think fixed release dates is a huge mistake on the part of Ubuntu, but rather typical of anything with commercial backing. The other distributions with a reputation for being hard (because they involve understanding, if not how things work under the bonnet then that there *is* a bonnet with moving parts under it, and sometimes doing things by hand without the benefit of slick graphical wizards to allow you to select one of a number of pre-set configurations; some people seem conditioned to think that there is something intrinsically hard about reading text and typing on a keyboard) are Gentoo and Slackware. I think many people don't realize that installing a system is hard. I think most computer users would have difficulty installing windows if their system hadn't come with it pre installed. Slackware is very old-skool (though it has up-to-date packages), and tends to stay even further out of your way than Debian does. This extends to not having a package management and dependency resolution system of its own. I tried it, and it didn't really seem to offer anything that Debian didn't. Gentoo is famous for tweakability. Instead of pre-compiled packages, Gentoo packages contain Source Code and automated build instructions; they are compiled right on your machine to suit your machine, according to various optimisation flags specified by you. Again, I tried it; and it also didn't seem to offer anything special over Debian apart from the fact of there being no more need for -dev packages. It was a good learning experience, though: I'd seriously advise anyone who is thinking of creating their own GNU/Linux distribution to do an install of Gentoo from Stage One, even if you don't plan to base your distro from Gentoo. If they don't have -dev packages, that means every system is wasting space on header files that it probably doesn't need. I have never tried gentoo, since it is fundamentally the wrong way to do a system. I have built stuff from source before, and I really don't have any need to waste cpu cycles on doing what the package maintainer already did. In all fairness to Slackware and Gentoo, I am quite sure that had I been using either of these first and dallied with Debian, I would have gone back to what I knew. And if Ubuntu had been around when I lost patience with Debian, then that's what I would have tried next. If I'd tried Ubuntu sooner, I'm not even sure I'd ever have reverted to Debian; except maybe for GUI-free servers. I started with SLS, went to slackware, then redhat, and finally Debian. At no point did I ever want to go back, since each time was a vast improvement. BTW. If you want to see real elitism, try hanging around with a bunch of SuSE users -- they are all boss-eyed from looking down their noses at everyone
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 02:51:02PM +0100, annne annnie wrote: Hi, I'm the one who asked about getting unstable and the different distributions compared to debian. I have a few more questions, sorry. First question: How would I reply correctly so that my reply is still in the same topic? Someone mentioned something about apt-get upgrade causing locked packages that won't get upgraded or something... thats the kind of stuff I want to learn. How would I learn about how debian works and how to configure it all? All I have been doing so far is just googling the problems I have run into, but I'm not really learning anything. Also, when you guys say SUSe do you mean openSuSE? Because I would like to try it out, but the only one I could find out how to download was openSuSE. Last question(s), is there a unix one I could get for free? Are they similar to linux? What are the differences? I have never used apt-get ugrade. I always use dist-upgrade. I have no idea when I would want to use upgrade instead, and I have used debian for 9 years now. I think it has no actual purpose really. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: Debian stable releases seem to upgrade better to the next release than Ubuntu. I think Ubuntu should really put some more effort into making sure upgrades work flawlessly. I think fixed release dates is a huge mistake on the part of Ubuntu, but rather typical of anything with commercial backing. No, I think it is typical for any distribution that is new enough not have made enough mistakes in the upgrade process. One of Debian's strengths is that they have been around for a long while, and have learned most of the time. I bet that in the beginning, upgrading a Debian/Stable was still a hazzle. I have never tried gentoo, since it is fundamentally the wrong way to do a system. Sorry if I over react, but I am a bit allergic to anyone claiming something is fundamentally the wrong way to do almost anything. I guess most of the ways have their justifications for some situations. I learned a lot from the year I installed and run Gentoo on my desktop. That experience was the direct cause that I dared to to a Debian install over the net, with not much help from the local people... Just stick in a CD (I think it wasn't even Debian, possibly Knoppix), enable me to ssh in, and I took it from there. Bit scary to tell it to reboot, but it did come up, and was a functional system... I guess a Debian wizard would have done it with just Debian background, but walking through the Gentoo installation was a good learning experience. (and maintaining the system for a while too, although that was what convinced me to switch back to Debian). Best regards Heikki -- Heikki Levanto In Murphy We Turst heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
--- Sythos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scrive annne annnie [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, I'm the one who asked about getting unstable and the different distributions compared to debian. I have a few more questions, sorry. First question: How would I reply correctly so that my reply is still in the same topic? Someone mentioned something about apt-get upgrade causing locked packages that won't get upgraded or something... thats the kind of stuff I want to learn. How would I learn about how debian works and how to configure it all? All I have been doing so far is just googling the problems I have run into, but I'm not really learning anything. Also, when you guys say SUSe do you mean openSuSE? Because I would like to try it out, but the only one I could find out how to download was openSuSE. Last question(s), is there a unix one I could get for free? Are they similar to linux? What are the differences? 1st answer: use reply to all :) 2nd answer: every packages have docman Don't forget Debian's own documentation, which is excellent: http://www.debian.org/doc/ http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/installmanual http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/ http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ Also, if you're relatively new to linux you should also check out the linux documentation project: http://www.tldp.org/ 3rd answer: I suppose yes... 4th answer: how kind of unix do you mean? -- Sythos - http://www.sythos.net () ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against html/rtf/vCard in mail /\- against M$ attachments This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Scott Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
Lennart Sorensen: I have never used apt-get ugrade. I always use dist-upgrade. I have no idea when I would want to use upgrade instead, and I have used debian for 9 years now. I think it has no actual purpose really. The difference is that 'upgrade' never installs or removes packages to be able to install a newer version of a package you already have installed. That way an upgrade will never break your system by removing packages you actually needed. Always use upgrade and you will never be surprised by its results. If an upgrade needs to remove or install packages, you will do it consciously. Many people don't read it when apt-get/aptitude tells them what it is going to remove, only to complain afterwards that a dist-upgrade removed their favourite package. J. -- I'm being paid to act weirdly. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:26:55AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 01:34:24PM +0100, A J Stiles wrote: The other distributions with a reputation for being hard (because they involve understanding, if not how things work under the bonnet then that there *is* a bonnet with moving parts under it, and sometimes doing things by hand without the benefit of slick graphical wizards to allow you to select one of a number of pre-set configurations; some people seem conditioned to think that there is something intrinsically hard about reading text and typing on a keyboard) are Gentoo and Slackware. I think many people don't realize that installing a system is hard. I think most computer users would have difficulty installing windows if their system hadn't come with it pre installed. One of my systems had trouble with Windows ME after a routine hardware upgrade. I've never been able to get Windows running on it since, except in maintenance mode. Linuxes, on the other hane have been running wonderfully for ages, before and after the upgrade. -- hendrik Slackware is very old-skool (though it has up-to-date packages), and tends to stay even further out of your way than Debian does. Sometimes out of your way means there's no bridge, so the fact that the bridge is broken can't be a problem. But just put on your hip waders and cross the swamp -- no problem. This extends to not having a package management and dependency resolution system of its own. I tried it, and it didn't really seem to offer anything that Debian didn't. Gentoo is famous for tweakability. Instead of pre-compiled packages, Gentoo packages contain Source Code and automated build instructions; they are compiled right on your machine to suit your machine, according to various optimisation flags specified by you. Again, I tried it; and it also didn't seem to offer anything special over Debian apart from the fact of there being no more need for -dev packages. It was a good learning experience, though: I'd seriously advise anyone who is thinking of creating their own GNU/Linux distribution to do an install of Gentoo from Stage One, even if you don't plan to base your distro from Gentoo. If they don't have -dev packages, that means every system is wasting space on header files that it probably doesn't need. I have never tried gentoo, since it is fundamentally the wrong way to do a system. I have built stuff from source before, and I really don't have any need to waste cpu cycles on doing what the package maintainer already did. It does reduce package-dependency hell somewhat -- sunce only sourse-code compatbility is a problem, not the additional dependencies that come from linking with particular versions of binary libraries. But upgrades, like diamonds, are forever. In all fairness to Slackware and Gentoo, I am quite sure that had I been using either of these first and dallied with Debian, I would have gone back to what I knew. And if Ubuntu had been around when I lost patience with Debian, then that's what I would have tried next. If I'd tried Ubuntu sooner, I'm not even sure I'd ever have reverted to Debian; except maybe for GUI-free servers. I started with SLS, went to slackware, then redhat, and finally Debian. I started with slackware, went through RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, and ended up with Debian. The transition to Debian happened when the commercial systems put in so many security and configuration tools that I was unable to get networking to work at all. I switched to Debian on the advice of a janitor at my local church. Best distribution switch I ever made. I don't think I'll ever go back. At no point did I ever want to go back, since each time was a vast improvement. BTW. If you want to see real elitism, try hanging around with a bunch of SuSE users -- they are all boss-eyed from looking down their noses at everyone else! ;) I installed SuSE once. That didn't last long (the installer alone pissed me off). And SuSE support turned out to be nonexistent when I tried it. it turned out that the store had sold me an obsolete version (it does take time for these boxes to get through the warehouses, apparently) and they wouldn't support it. I wasn't even able to contact anyone to get them to exchange it for a newer version. The only contact address was a support emailo, which bounced everything on hearing my serial number, an wouldn't reply without it. That was it for SuSE, as far as I was concerned. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 03:26:33AM +0100, annne annnie wrote: I'd like to use debian unstable, but I do not know how to get it. I guess others have already given you instructions how to get it, and arguments why you should / should not do so. So I won't repeat them here. Also, why did you people choose to use debian? Is it just better than other distributions? It seems like you people are elite linux users, and I just wanted to the differences between debian and some other distributions. I haven't tried many, but to me they would all seem the same (I'm new). Well, it all depends what you want! I am a (semi?) professional sysadmin, and I appreciate the fact that Debian is extremely stable, and has a strict policy on what packages should be before they are accepted into the distribution. That means that Debian (at least stable or etch) is never really up to the bleeding edge, which is fine for my servers. Let some other people worry about getting things just right, and catch the last-minute errors that always creep in. When things get into Debian/Stable, I know I can trust them. And I can trust that when the time comes, I can upgrade to the next stable version, without much hazzle. I have had machines in production since stable was called potato (2003 or so, I guess), and never had to reinstall those (except a few that were broken into). I routinely do system upgrades on other continents (I'm located in Denmark, and I have servers in the US), and those usually go fine. As to my workstation(s), I prefer Debian for the simple reason that I know and trust it so well. I tend to use a hybrid installation of stable/unstable/sid, to get more recent packages, but I would not recommend that for people who do not know how to handle the occasional dependenvy problem... For what it is worth, I have my old father running Debian/Stable, and see no reason why I should not keep doing that for many years. Best regards Heikki -- Heikki Levanto In Murphy We Turst heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 02:51:02PM +0100, annne annnie wrote: Hi, I'm the one who asked about getting unstable and the different distributions compared to debian. I have a few more questions, sorry. First question: How would I reply correctly so that my reply is still in the same topic? Someone mentioned something about apt-get upgrade causing locked packages that won't get upgraded or something... thats the kind of stuff I want to learn. How would I learn about how debian works and how to configure it all? All I have been doing so far is just googling the problems I have run into, but I'm not really learning anything. Also, when you guys say SUSe do you mean openSuSE? Because I would like to try it out, but the only one I could find out how to download was openSuSE. Last question(s), is there a unix one I could get for free? Are they similar to linux? What are the differences? I believe Berkeley BSD is free. I'm told Apple chose it over Linux as a basis for OS/X because it didn't have all the restrictions of the GPL that required it to remain free, though. I'm also told it is developed less aggressively, does not support all the latest hardware, and is more stable than Linux. Not that anyone can really call Linux unstable. There have also been others. There's TUNIS (developed in toe 70's; no idea whether it is still available or was ever free), and MINIX (Which was in one sense an ancestor of Linux, but I don't think it was ever free). And the FSF's own HURD will also replace Linux. Now HURD, like LINUX, is not an operating system, but an operating system kernel. All the applications on top of the kernel (like cat, ssh, OpenOffice) will likele cun on HURD, Berkeley BSD, and Linux more or less indifferently (though you'll probably have to recompile from source and make other minor adjustments). In fact, I've heard that Debian has plans to support HURD as well as Linux when it comes out. At that point Debian will no longer be just a Linux distribution. By the way, there may well be other systems that should be mentioned, and I'd appreciate corrections if anything I've said is wrong. -- hendrik Sythos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scrive A J Stiles : Yes, just edit /etc/apt/sources.list and change every occurrence of stable, etch, testing or lenny to sid. Then # apt-get update apt-get upgrade and you should be good to go. Br! better apt-get dist-upgrade to handle in a better way packages replacing and new dependencies. More better is aptitude... aptitude maintains additiona information -- which packages are there because you asked for them as opposed to being there because other packages needed them. It can remove them when they are no longer needed. only apt-get upgrade may cause a lot of locked packages not upgrade automagically and the system became too much hybrid... I've found with aptitude, repeated use of upgrade usually end up accomplishing what dist-upgrade does. I've also found that doing a complete upgrade from one release to another (say, stable to testing) can chew up a lot of disk space on a temporary basis unless you can get it done in small chunks. Upgrading from testing to sid is probably not a huge problem, because the distributions are quite similar. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 14:51 +0100, annne annnie wrote: Hi, I'm the one who asked about getting unstable and the different distributions compared to debian. I have a few more questions, sorry. First question: How would I reply correctly so that my reply is still in the same topic? Someone mentioned something about apt-get upgrade causing locked packages that won't get upgraded or something... thats the kind of stuff I want to learn. How would I learn about how debian works and how to configure it all? All I have been doing so far is just googling the problems I have run into, but I'm not really learning anything. Also, when you guys say SUSe do you mean openSuSE? Because I would like to try it out, but the only one I could find out how to download was openSuSE. Last question(s), is there a unix one I could get for free? Are they similar to linux? What are the differences? SNIP for Unix, try this: http://opensolaris.org/index.html Unix is like a twilight zone version of Linux, somethings work the way you think it would, some things don't. (Unix users think the same thing only in reverse). Device names are very different, you will not have eth0, you will have (network card abreviation for the chipset)0. It will be vary confusing if you don't know your chipset and have more then one NIC. File system and HD formatting are vary different. File layout is very different. Commands are very similar. -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linkedin.com/in/dchesser signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 11:30 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 04:48:48PM +0200, Heikki Levanto wrote: No, I think it is typical for any distribution that is new enough not have made enough mistakes in the upgrade process. One of Debian's strengths is that they have been around for a long while, and have learned most of the time. I bet that in the beginning, upgrading a Debian/Stable was still a hazzle. When I installed 2.0 the first time, just getting it to install was a hassle. The number of times through dselect's install/configure cycle was quite a pain. I recall the dependancies of emacs were a nightmare to get it to work out. 2.1 and newer on the other hand always seemed to upgrade very well. Sorry if I over react, but I am a bit allergic to anyone claiming something is fundamentally the wrong way to do almost anything. I guess most of the ways have their justifications for some situations. It's inefficient, and the vast majority of arguments for the design are incorrect since it doesn't actually accomplish what people claim it is supposed to accomplish. You end up with less well tested software, (due to lots of variation in configurations and compile options), lots of potential for bugs (due to people playing with compiler options they don't understand), and the rather vocal (although probable minority of) users who believe that because they compiled it themselves on their CPU it must automatically run faster than if someone else compiled it for the same CPU. Gentoo! Because you have the time! (TM) But they do have good docs and howtos. I am an opinionated bastard (although I believe I have valid reasons for my opinions) and I think gentoo is a stupid waste of time with zero purpose for existing and all you learn from it is how much time you can waste compiling software, and you only learn that lesson when you stop using gentoo. Everything else you could have learned quicker and better using something like Debian if you really had an interest in learning how to mange compilation and optimization of software and the overall system. I imagine most gentoo users will think I am wrong, at least until the day they move on and realize their mistake. -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linkedin.com/in/dchesser signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:44:01AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the FSF's own HURD will also replace Linux. Now HURD, like LINUX, is not an operating system, but an operating system kernel. All the applications on top of the kernel (like cat, ssh, OpenOffice) will likele cun on HURD, Berkeley BSD, and Linux more or less indifferently (though you'll probably have to recompile from source and make other minor adjustments). In fact, I've heard that Debian has plans to support HURD as well as Linux when it comes out. At that point Debian will no longer be just a Linux distribution. Debian already has a hurd build, although how well it works I am not sure. Debian also has BSD builds. At this point I doubt Hurd will ever replace anything. Linux has a large support base and thousands of contributers. Hurd still doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Hurd seems to have fallen in to the trap of trying to be a perfect kernel from an academic point of view, and so far history seems to show that academic OS designs don't ever finish or really get anywhere other than potentially showing off some neat ideas, which is they are useful are then copied into systems people actually use and the rest, however good the design may be, seems to be forgotten. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 04:56:47PM +0200, Jochen Schulz wrote: The difference is that 'upgrade' never installs or removes packages to be able to install a newer version of a package you already have installed. That way an upgrade will never break your system by removing packages you actually needed. Always use upgrade and you will never be surprised by its results. If an upgrade needs to remove or install packages, you will do it consciously. Many people don't read it when apt-get/aptitude tells them what it is going to remove, only to complain afterwards that a dist-upgrade removed their favourite package. Of course I read that line. That's the most important line to read before answering the y/n question. Using upgrade seems incompatible with Debian development in general. I suppose in stable it shouldn't make any difference though. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:27:09AM -0400, Damon L. Chesser wrote: for Unix, try this: http://opensolaris.org/index.html Unix is like a twilight zone version of Linux, somethings work the way you think it would, some things don't. (Unix users think the same thing only in reverse). Device names are very different, you will not have eth0, you will have (network card abreviation for the chipset)0. It will be vary confusing if you don't know your chipset and have more then one NIC. File system and HD formatting are vary different. File layout is very different. Commands are very similar. Which unix? One of the BSD derivatives of the original unix, or one of the commercial ones, of which solaris is probably the only one you can now get for free. Like what is unix these days? -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:35:21AM -0400, Damon L. Chesser wrote: Gentoo! Because you have the time! (TM) If you want to waste cpu cycles, go help out [EMAIL PROTECTED] or something. At least then you are potentially contributing to making the world a better place. But they do have good docs and howtos. Debian has excellent documentation too. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 11:39 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:35:21AM -0400, Damon L. Chesser wrote: Gentoo! Because you have the time! (TM) If you want to waste cpu cycles, go help out [EMAIL PROTECTED] or something. At least then you are potentially contributing to making the world a better place. But they do have good docs and howtos. Debian has excellent documentation too. Agreed on all points. -- Len Sorensen -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linkedin.com/in/dchesser signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Lennart Sorensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 04:48:48PM +0200, Heikki Levanto wrote: Sorry if I over react, but I am a bit allergic to anyone claiming something is fundamentally the wrong way to do almost anything. I guess most of the ways have their justifications for some situations. It's inefficient, and the vast majority of arguments for the design are incorrect since it doesn't actually accomplish what people claim it is supposed to accomplish. You end up with less well tested software, (due to lots of variation in configurations and compile options), lots of potential for bugs (due to people playing with compiler options they don't understand), and the rather vocal (although probable minority of) users who believe that because they compiled it themselves on their CPU it must automatically run faster than if someone else compiled it for the same CPU. I am an opinionated bastard (although I believe I have valid reasons for my opinions) and I think gentoo is a stupid waste of time with zero purpose for existing and all you learn from it is how much time you can waste compiling software, and you only learn that lesson when you stop using gentoo. Everything else you could have learned quicker and better using something like Debian if you really had an interest in learning how to mange compilation and optimization of software and the overall system. I imagine most gentoo users will think I am wrong, at least until the day they move on and realize their mistake. In my (also opinionated!) view, what would have been the Real Better Thing would be if Slackware (which always had some affinity for BSD-like approaches to things such as init) had, instead of staying with Patrick Volkerding managing packages as a proprietor (he is dubbed, after all, the Slackware Benevolent Dictator for Life), adopted, DIRECTLY, the BSD Ports mechanism for managing packages. Had that happened, then those with an affinity for building from source would have The Same System that is being managed (quite competently) by the BSD folk, and, in my (opinionated!) view, Slackware would be of MUCH more significant public interest today, as its upgrade and deployment mechanisms would have progressed along with BSD, and provided a much better bridge between the communities. In that context, there would have been no need for Gentoo to emerge at all. Note that I haven't said anything about recompiling everything everywhere all the time; note that Ports happily lives alongside pkg_add, which allows deploying binary packages too. (Which I believe get built using Ports.) I learned a lot from the year I installed and run Gentoo on my desktop. That experience was the direct cause that I dared to to a Debian install over the net, with not much help from the local people... Just stick in a CD (I think it wasn't even Debian, possibly Knoppix), enable me to ssh in, and I took it from there. Bit scary to tell it to reboot, but it did come up, and was a functional system... I guess a Debian wizard would have done it with just Debian background, but walking through the Gentoo installation was a good learning experience. (and maintaining the system for a while too, although that was what convinced me to switch back to Debian). I learned a lot moving to Debian about how to do things right (or at least better than any other system I have used). I learned quite a bit the time I upgraded Slackware from a.out to ELF. There's a certain kind of learning that falls out of doing some similarly intrusive system upgrade by hand; after having done that once, somewhat badly, and finding that Slackware didn't cope with the change terribly well, I migrated to Red Hat, which coped with that migration better (albeit via a complete reinstall), and that was, in effect the cause for people leaving Slackware in droves, and adopting Red Hat in even greater quantity. It's not something I'd want to do by hand ever again - there are plenty enough problems *that interest me* that I am perfectly happy to let the Debian aggregate consciousness cope with many of the problems that *don't* interest me. Fighting with compiler flags, the Gentoo Ricer thing, doesn't interest me in the slightest... -- http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. -- assortedly attributed to Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Rita Mae Brown, and Rudyard Kipling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 02:51:02PM +0100, annne annnie wrote: Hi, I'm the one who asked about getting unstable and the different distributions compared to debian. I have a few more questions, sorry. First question: How would I reply correctly so that my reply is still in the same topic? Someone mentioned something about apt-get upgrade causing locked packages that won't get upgraded or something... thats the kind of stuff I want to learn. How would I learn about how debian works and how to configure it all? All I have been doing so far is just googling the problems I have run into, but I'm not really learning anything. Also, when you guys say SUSe do you mean openSuSE? Because I would like to try it out, but the only one I could find out how to download was openSuSE. Last question(s), is there a unix one I could get for free? Are they similar to linux? What are the differences? First, wrap your lines at 72 chars. The best (according to consensus on this list) is for replies to be interspursed with questions. That's very difficult if you ask several questions in one paragraph. 1. It depends on your email client. In mutt, I hit L for list-reply. 2. Your best bet, assuming it will boot on your computer (i.e. your computer isn't too new) is to start with stable and learn the system. Read the documentation on the debian website, including the debian policy manual, the debian-reference, and the whole debian installation manual. Last question re Unix vs Linux: Do you know the difference between Unix and Linux? Short answer is that Linux wrote Linux when he needed a Unix but Unix was caught in the Unix wars and there wasn't one available that wasn't tied up in legal wrangling and rewriting to remove copywritten code. That all ended up being fixed and the non-commercial unix-like OSs (brand-name UNIX is a brand name that costs money) are all based on the Berkley Software Distribution (BSD). There are three different BSD flavours with different targets: FreeBSD focuses on high-performance users and is closest to Debian as far as working on new hardware with good multi-processor support, etc, with the downside that it is large and is hard to put on embedded devices and only targets main-stream server hardware. NetBSD works well on most systems and supports a wide-range of hardware types but security updates take a while to show up compared to other distros. OpenBSD works well on most systems and doesn't do anything that can compromise security; it is religious in its licensing issues and doesn't allow any non-free stuff and only limited gpl stuff in the base system (and no kernel modules) but does have lots of packages available. Of the BSDs, the only downside I've found to OpenBSD is if you want high-performance video (e.g. you need the speed of nVidia's kernel module) you may not get it since you are limited to the drivers that come with xorg. OTOH, OpenBSD's documentation is first-rate but the list posters are not tolerant of people asking questions who haven't read all the docs and googled for themselves first. If your goal is to learn how to run Unix and are willing to read, I'd actually suggest OpenBSD over Debian since Debian does so much for you out-of-the-box. You can read OpenBSD's docs at www.openbsd.org. If you are serious about it there is one dedicated OpenBSD book: Abolute OpenBSD and for you would be a must-read. Once current downside to OpenBSD due to limited resources is that right now there are no security updates (backports) to older versions of packages. For example, if you have firefox and there's a security fix, you will need to update the whole system then update your source for firefox and had everything rebuild (due to new library dependancies). There are tools to automate it but nothing out there is as easy as Debian's apt. Of course, if your learning computer is not directly connected to the internet and contains no private data, just learn and don't worry about updating it. Just my 2c worth. I hope my comparisons were not offensive to the respective projects as none was intended. There are several pages comparing the BSDs and Linuxs on wikipedia.org. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:45:39AM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote: In my (also opinionated!) view, what would have been the Real Better Thing would be if Slackware (which always had some affinity for BSD-like approaches to things such as init) had, instead of staying with Patrick Volkerding managing packages as a proprietor (he is dubbed, after all, the Slackware Benevolent Dictator for Life), adopted, DIRECTLY, the BSD Ports mechanism for managing packages. I don't miss anything about slackware. Especially the BSD init. Had that happened, then those with an affinity for building from source would have The Same System that is being managed (quite competently) by the BSD folk, and, in my (opinionated!) view, Slackware would be of MUCH more significant public interest today, as its upgrade and deployment mechanisms would have progressed along with BSD, and provided a much better bridge between the communities. I am not a fan of the BSD ports system. I think it is ancient and outdated and hasn't progressed at all. If you want something that can use both source and binaries, then look at fink, which uses debian packages sources and tools, but supports pulling in sources and building everything along with all needed dependancies. It is quite impressive. I will stick with debian binaries myself though. In that context, there would have been no need for Gentoo to emerge at all. Note that I haven't said anything about recompiling everything everywhere all the time; note that Ports happily lives alongside pkg_add, which allows deploying binary packages too. (Which I believe get built using Ports.) Still seems awfully primitive to me. :) I learned quite a bit the time I upgraded Slackware from a.out to ELF. Yeah, that was interesting. I seem to recall SLS didn't want to move away from the old system, which essentially made them irrelevant. There's a certain kind of learning that falls out of doing some similarly intrusive system upgrade by hand; after having done that once, somewhat badly, and finding that Slackware didn't cope with the change terribly well, I migrated to Red Hat, which coped with that migration better (albeit via a complete reinstall), and that was, in effect the cause for people leaving Slackware in droves, and adopting Red Hat in even greater quantity. It's not something I'd want to do by hand ever again - there are plenty enough problems *that interest me* that I am perfectly happy to let the Debian aggregate consciousness cope with many of the problems that *don't* interest me. Fighting with compiler flags, the Gentoo Ricer thing, doesn't interest me in the slightest... Exactly. Let someone be an expert on a package and manage it. I will worry about the things I really care about. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On June 5, 2008 07:26:55 am Lennart Sorensen wrote: I installed SuSE once. That didn't last long (the installer alone pissed me off). -- Len Sorensen hahaha Len, I agree, The whole deal just annoys me! Chris W. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On 6/5/08, Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Lennart Sorensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 04:48:48PM +0200, Heikki Levanto wrote: Sorry if I over react, but I am a bit allergic to anyone claiming something is fundamentally the wrong way to do almost anything. I guess most of the ways have their justifications for some situations. It's inefficient, and the vast majority of arguments for the design are incorrect since it doesn't actually accomplish what people claim it is supposed to accomplish. You end up with less well tested software, (due to lots of variation in configurations and compile options), lots of potential for bugs (due to people playing with compiler options they don't understand), and the rather vocal (although probable minority of) users who believe that because they compiled it themselves on their CPU it must automatically run faster than if someone else compiled it for the same CPU. I am an opinionated bastard (although I believe I have valid reasons for my opinions) and I think gentoo is a stupid waste of time with zero purpose for existing and all you learn from it is how much time you can waste compiling software, and you only learn that lesson when you stop using gentoo. Everything else you could have learned quicker and better using something like Debian if you really had an interest in learning how to mange compilation and optimization of software and the overall system. I imagine most gentoo users will think I am wrong, at least until the day they move on and realize their mistake. In my (also opinionated!) view, what would have been the Real Better Thing would be if Slackware (which always had some affinity for BSD-like approaches to things such as init) had, instead of staying with Patrick Volkerding managing packages as a proprietor (he is dubbed, after all, the Slackware Benevolent Dictator for Life), adopted, DIRECTLY, the BSD Ports mechanism for managing packages. Had that happened, then those with an affinity for building from source would have The Same System that is being managed (quite competently) by the BSD folk, and, in my (opinionated!) view, Slackware would be of MUCH more significant public interest today, as its upgrade and deployment mechanisms would have progressed along with BSD, and provided a much better bridge between the communities. In that context, there would have been no need for Gentoo to emerge at all. Note that I haven't said anything about recompiling everything everywhere all the time; note that Ports happily lives alongside pkg_add, which allows deploying binary packages too. (Which I believe get built using Ports.) I learned a lot from the year I installed and run Gentoo on my desktop. That experience was the direct cause that I dared to to a Debian install over the net, with not much help from the local people... Just stick in a CD (I think it wasn't even Debian, possibly Knoppix), enable me to ssh in, and I took it from there. Bit scary to tell it to reboot, but it did come up, and was a functional system... I guess a Debian wizard would have done it with just Debian background, but walking through the Gentoo installation was a good learning experience. (and maintaining the system for a while too, although that was what convinced me to switch back to Debian). I learned a lot moving to Debian about how to do things right (or at least better than any other system I have used). I learned quite a bit the time I upgraded Slackware from a.out to ELF. Me too I learn to use Debian (dselect times) ;-) There's a certain kind of learning that falls out of doing some similarly intrusive system upgrade by hand; after having done that once, somewhat badly, and finding that Slackware didn't cope with the change terribly well, I migrated to Red Hat, which coped with that migration better (albeit via a complete reinstall), and that was, in effect the cause for people leaving Slackware in droves, and adopting Red Hat in even greater quantity. It's not something I'd want to do by hand ever again - there are plenty enough problems *that interest me* that I am perfectly happy to let the Debian aggregate consciousness cope with many of the problems that *don't* interest me. Fighting with compiler flags, the Gentoo Ricer thing, doesn't interest me in the slightest... -- http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. -- assortedly attributed to Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Rita Mae Brown, and Rudyard Kipling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Perhaps the depth of love can be calibrated by the number of different selves that are actively involved in a given relationship.
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On 6/5/08, annne annnie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'm the one who asked about getting unstable and the different distributions compared to debian. I have a few more questions, sorry. First question: How would I reply correctly so that my reply is still in the same topic? Someone mentioned something about apt-get upgrade causing locked packages that won't get upgraded or something... thats the kind of stuff I want to learn. You need to setup your /etc/apt/sources.list for stable, testing and unstable repos and use aptitude to change differente versions of programs and know debian way to handle dependencies... you could use backports and unofficial and marillat repos to have more idea about all the info mentioned here... How would I learn about how debian works and how to configure it all? debian have all the configuration in /etc All I have been doing so far is just googling the problems I have run into, but I'm not really learning anything. You are learning that the many problems in debian are already solved... You need time to have your own problems to solve yourself... Also, when you guys say SUSe do you mean openSuSE? Because I would like to try it out, but the only one I could find out how to download was openSuSE. Last question(s), is there a unix one I could get for free? UNIX is a trademark and is owned by a few one of then is ¿Berkley University? they have various children projects to bring a UNIX-like experience for free (all the BSD FreeBSD OpenDSB and others) Are they similar to linux? mostly you should feel comfotable with any of them What are the differences? Some aplication have historic differences like ps or ls but they are pretty similar.. Linux have by far many more users and much more support, many programs A couple of historic data (hope I remmember well): -First version of linux has distributed allmost in source not precompiled packages... -apt-get could compile the program before install it in your system... Final note: Debian package system have many programs to admin the installed ones adept, kpackage, aptitude, dselect and others... Some of then are based on apt-get (that have many options you should learn an feel confortable to use whe your need it.) and (all should?) use dpkg to install the packages and if you hare really curiosity should know the use of all the dpkg-* programs... Any way you have so many posibilities with debian FEEL THE FREEDOM... do you has selected you x windows manager? (gnome/kde(3/4)/compiz/xfce/9wm/fvwm/)? iceape/iceweasel/konqueror? is your file system lvm/ext2/ext3/XFS or...? nvidia/ati/intel? gaim/pidgin/amsn/kopete/gnome messenger? Sythos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scrive A J Stiles : Yes, just edit /etc/apt/sources.list and change every occurrence of stable, etch, testing or lenny to sid. Then # apt-get update apt-get upgrade and you should be good to go. Br! better apt-get dist-upgrade to handle in a better way packages replacing and new dependencies. More better is aptitude... only apt-get upgrade may cause a lot of locked packages not upgrade automagically and the system became too much hybrid... -- Sythos - http://www.sythos.net () ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against html/rtf/vCard in mail /\ - against M$ attachments This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email. -- Perhaps the depth of love can be calibrated by the number of different selves that are actively involved in a given relationship. Carl Sagan (Contact) Jaime Ochoa Malagón Arquitecto de Soluciones Cel: +52 (55) 1021 0774 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
An Idea whose Time has Been and Gone (Was: Re: How would I get debian unstable?)
On Thursday 05 Jun 2008, Lennart Sorensen wrote: I think many people don't realize that installing a system is hard. I think most computer users would have difficulty installing windows if their system hadn't come with it pre installed. Agreed. I've installed Windows too many times. Modern Linux distros are easier. You don't need a keygen, for a start :) [Gentoo] didn't seem to offer anything special over Debian apart from the fact of there being no more need for -dev packages. If they don't have -dev packages, that means every system is wasting space on header files that it probably doesn't need. Given the price per gigabyte of HDD space nowadays, that's hardly a problem. I found it highly counterintuitive that when package foo said it needed bar and libbaz, and I had bar and libbaz installed, it still wouldn't build. Because what it *really* meant was that it needed bar, libbaz, bar-dev and libbaz-dev -- the files in the -dev packages would already have been there, of course, if I had built bar and libbaz from Source. I know all that *now*, of course. (And you can't have got to where you are now without knowing it.) I just don't think anybody else should ever have to go through all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that I had to. Back in the days when HDD space was expensive and internet connections were slow and/or metred, there might have been some merit in separating out -dev packages. But nowadays, they are More Trouble Than They Are Worth. Building packages from Source is **not** intrinsically hard, but separate -dev packages make it harder than it needs to be. Building a minimised system is a sufficiently specialised job that anyone who is trying to do that, probably will have a good idea what files they can comfortably live without. I think The Rest Of Us generally like the convenience of automatically-installed packages (whether they be downloaded as Source and compiled locally, as in Gentoo, or downloaded pre-compiled as in Debian and Others) whenever possible, but occasionally have some special need that a package maintainer didn't think of (or need to mix licences and create an unredistributable package in doing so). And that's when the whole -dev ugliness comes into play. Even if -dev wasn't to be done away with altogether, it would be nice at least to have an option in apt to make it automatically fetch corresponding -dev packages whenever they existed. -- AJS delta echo bravo six four at earthshod dot co dot uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: An Idea whose Time has Been and Gone (Was: Re: How would I get debian unstable?)
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 07:44:48PM +0100, A J Stiles wrote: Agreed. I've installed Windows too many times. Modern Linux distros are easier. You don't need a keygen, for a start :) Given the price per gigabyte of HDD space nowadays, that's hardly a problem. I found it highly counterintuitive that when package foo said it needed bar and libbaz, and I had bar and libbaz installed, it still wouldn't build. Because what it *really* meant was that it needed bar, libbaz, bar-dev and libbaz-dev -- the files in the -dev packages would already have been there, of course, if I had built bar and libbaz from Source. I know all that *now*, of course. (And you can't have got to where you are now without knowing it.) I just don't think anybody else should ever have to go through all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that I had to. Back in the days when HDD space was expensive and internet connections were slow and/or metred, there might have been some merit in separating out -dev packages. But nowadays, they are More Trouble Than They Are Worth. Building packages from Source is **not** intrinsically hard, but separate -dev packages make it harder than it needs to be. Many people live in areas where dialup is still the only available connection type. Some systems don't have lots of disk space (I work on a router that has 256MB flash, so wasting space on headers files is not an option). Building a minimised system is a sufficiently specialised job that anyone who is trying to do that, probably will have a good idea what files they can comfortably live without. I think The Rest Of Us generally like the convenience of automatically-installed packages (whether they be downloaded as Source and compiled locally, as in Gentoo, or downloaded pre-compiled as in Debian and Others) whenever possible, but occasionally have some special need that a package maintainer didn't think of (or need to mix licences and create an unredistributable package in doing so). And that's when the whole -dev ugliness comes into play. Why should it be a specialized job, when keeping it split makes sense in the first place? There are also conflicts that are avoided by keeping the headers seperate, such as different providers of the same header files from different implementations of the same type of library (multiple openGL implementations, readline, etc). Even if -dev wasn't to be done away with altogether, it would be nice at least to have an option in apt to make it automatically fetch corresponding -dev packages whenever they existed. apt-get build-dep packagename What more do you need? If you are building something from source, you should already know enough about what you are doing to figure that part out. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:44:01AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe Berkeley BSD is free. I'm told Apple chose it over Linux as a basis for OS/X because it didn't have all the restrictions of the GPL that required it to remain free, though. I'm also told it is developed less aggressively, does not support all the latest hardware, and is more stable than Linux. Not that anyone can really call Linux unstable. The BSD license allows distribution of binaries only for commercial use. Apparently if you install something called unix services for Windows and run strings on all the Windows binaries, you'll find a whole slew of BSD license copyright statements. This is a good thing since if TCP/IP wasn't licensed under BSD, there would be no internet; there'd be some microsoft network; there'd be an IBM net, an HP net, until someone did it under the BSD. Luckily, DARPA in effect hired USC-Berkley to write a network stack that could be used by different computers. I think the FreeBSD and OpenBSD people would argue with the developed less aggressively stance. OpenBSD folks do their development on new laptops. They release every 6 months but their -current (our Unstable) is never supposed to break and is perfectly fine in production; the only downside to -current is that there are no pre-built binary packages (use still use pkg_add but it ends up compiling the port instead of installing the package). NetBSD does seem to be developed at a slower pace. The big difference between FreeBSD and OpenBSD are that OpenBSD runs on more hardware and will not put binary-blobs or non-BSD code in the kernel whereas FreeBSD will do both. Hense, some drivers in FreeBSD are written by the hardware vendors (or others after non-disclosure agreements are signed) whereas OpenBSD (which often supports the same hardware as well or better) writes its own drivers via reverse-engineering the hardware if all else fails. As for stability: look at the debian packages it would take to make OpenBSD base install. At least a kernel, apache, shells, Xorg, standard tools, compilers, perl, lynx, ssh, ftp server, shorewall, various archivers, etc. Plus all their dependancies. Now look at the list of security updates to Debian Etch (yet alone Testing or Unstable) in the past six months. Now compare the number of security updates to OpenBSD in the same time-frame. Note that the reason that OpenBSD can claim only two security holes in the default install in the past 10 years is that there are no services active in a default install (you have to add commands to the startup script to enable them). People reoutinely built appliances like routers using OpenBSD and e.g. a Soekris box and put it on the shelf. They may only update it when a security bug happens (rarely). Since there are simple HOWTOs for making OpenBSD on a CF card, updating the appliance consists of swapping the CF card. I would call a box with a kernel security hole at least potentially unstable. Its been 10 years since OpenBSD had one, its been what, 2 weeks, since Etch last had one? On this basis alone, I'd call OpenBSD more stable. By the way, there may well be other systems that should be mentioned, and I'd appreciate corrections if anything I've said is wrong. I hope my corrections and amplifications are generally correct. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 06:13:51PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:44:01AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe Berkeley BSD is free. I'm told Apple chose it over Linux as a basis for OS/X because it didn't have all the restrictions of the GPL that required it to remain free, though. I'm also told it is developed less aggressively, does not support all the latest hardware, and is more stable than Linux. Not that anyone can really call Linux unstable. The BSD license allows distribution of binaries only for commercial use. Apparently if you install something called unix services for Windows and run strings on all the Windows binaries, you'll find a whole slew of BSD license copyright statements. This is a good thing since if TCP/IP wasn't licensed under BSD, there would be no internet; there'd be some microsoft network; there'd be an IBM net, an HP net, until someone did it under the BSD. Luckily, DARPA in effect hired USC-Berkley to write a network stack that could be used by different computers. I think the FreeBSD and OpenBSD people would argue with the developed less aggressively stance. OpenBSD folks do their development on new laptops. They release every 6 months but their -current (our Unstable) is never supposed to break and is perfectly fine in production; the only downside to -current is that there are no pre-built binary packages (use still use pkg_add but it ends up compiling the port instead of installing the package). NetBSD does seem to be developed at a slower pace. The big difference between FreeBSD and OpenBSD are that OpenBSD runs on more hardware and will not put binary-blobs or non-BSD code in the kernel whereas FreeBSD will do both. Hense, some drivers in FreeBSD are written by the hardware vendors (or others after non-disclosure agreements are signed) whereas OpenBSD (which often supports the same hardware as well or better) writes its own drivers via reverse-engineering the hardware if all else fails. As for stability: look at the debian packages it would take to make OpenBSD base install. At least a kernel, apache, shells, Xorg, standard tools, compilers, perl, lynx, ssh, ftp server, shorewall, various archivers, etc. Plus all their dependancies. Now look at the list of security updates to Debian Etch (yet alone Testing or Unstable) in the past six months. Now compare the number of security updates to OpenBSD in the same time-frame. Note that the reason that OpenBSD can claim only two security holes in the default install in the past 10 years is that there are no services active in a default install (you have to add commands to the startup script to enable them). People reoutinely built appliances like routers using OpenBSD and e.g. a Soekris box and put it on the shelf. They may only update it when a security bug happens (rarely). Since there are simple HOWTOs for making OpenBSD on a CF card, updating the appliance consists of swapping the CF card. I would call a box with a kernel security hole at least potentially unstable. Its been 10 years since OpenBSD had one, its been what, 2 weeks, since Etch last had one? On this basis alone, I'd call OpenBSD more stable. By the way, there may well be other systems that should be mentioned, and I'd appreciate corrections if anything I've said is wrong. I hope my corrections and amplifications are generally correct. Thank you. I wasn't aware of the way BSD has split up into different streams. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
Note that the reason that OpenBSD can claim only two security holes in the default install in the past 10 years is that there are no services active in a default install (you have to add commands to the startup script to enable them). Except they don't make that claim, OpenBSD claims two _remote_ security holes in the last ten years, which is entirely different from only two security holes. They aren't making any claims about local exploits. People reoutinely built appliances like routers using OpenBSD and e.g. a Soekris box and put it on the shelf. They may only update it when a security bug happens (rarely). Since there are simple HOWTOs for making OpenBSD on a CF card, updating the appliance consists of swapping the CF card. People do the same thing using variants of the Linux kernel. The bsd kernel is nothing special in that regard :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
Do you know the difference between Unix and Linux? Short answer is that Linux wrote Linux when he needed a Unix but Unix was caught in the Unix wars and there wasn't one available that wasn't tied up in legal wrangling and rewriting to remove copywritten code. So the kernel wrote itself? How is that possible? Has it become so advanced in the future that it is capable of time travel and traveled back to 1991 to self replicate? Should we be worried about consciousness within the Linux kernel? Or did you mean Linus wrote Linux? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 10:26 PM, annne annnie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to use debian unstable, but I do not know how to get it. If someone could direct me to a site that has the steps set out or type the steps or something it would be much appreciated. I have the image for debian testing from about a month or two ago (it's lenny), can I use testing to get to unstable? You surely can; essentially, you install [some version] of Debian, then edit /etc/apt/sources.list to change various references to (say) testing to indicate unstable. Or change stable to unstable. Then, run apt-get update to get the unstable list of packages, then apt-get dist-upgrade to shift to unstable. Also, why did you people choose to use debian? Is it just better than other distributions? It seems like you people are elite linux users, and I just wanted to the differences between debian and some other distributions. I haven't tried many, but to me they would all seem the same (I'm new). The crucial differences between Debian and other distributions are two-fold: 1. It has a public, democratic governance system, whereas other distributions tend to be under the control of some non-public organization. To some extent, the various Red Hat derivatives are controlled by Red Hat Software, irrespective of public participation. Likewise for Ubuntu and Canonical. Various Linux distributions have gone away due to changes in direction of the owners (Caldera being a most obvious example); there is little risk of that taking place with Debian due to its governance model. 2. As a result of the wide-spread participation, there needs to be a great deal of policy, which indeed extends to tooling for managing all sorts of aspects of software packaging and the interaction of packages with one another and with the distribution. Traditionally, the engineering of Red Hat-sourced distributions took place entirely internally to Red Hat Software, and packaging was a pre-cooked thing where you could only be fairly certain that things would work if the packages had RHAT people working on them. The RPM tool could build packages and manage a local installation repository; in contrast, Debian has long had a VASTLY more extensive set of package tooling addressing *way* more high level issues, and helping to enable a much more diverse set of contributors to contribute well-integrated packages. The consistency of having the huge set of diverse, yet well-integrated packages is what has enabled the creation of private labelled things like Ubuntu and Knoppix that derive the huge set of software by virtue of harnessing Debian's work at relatively little cost. -- http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. -- assortedly attributed to Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Rita Mae Brown, and Rudyard Kipling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
On June 4, 2008 09:53:33 pm Christopher Browne wrote: The crucial differences between Debian and other distributions are two-fold: 1. It has a public, democratic governance system, whereas other distributions tend to be under the control of some non-public organization. To some extent, the various Red Hat derivatives are controlled by Red Hat Software, irrespective of public participation. Likewise for Ubuntu and Canonical. Various Linux distributions have gone away due to changes in direction of the owners (Caldera being a most obvious example); there is little risk of that taking place with Debian due to its governance model. 2. As a result of the wide-spread participation, there needs to be a great deal of policy, which indeed extends to tooling for managing all sorts of aspects of software packaging and the interaction of packages with one another and with the distribution. Traditionally, the engineering of Red Hat-sourced distributions took place entirely internally to Red Hat Software, and packaging was a pre-cooked thing where you could only be fairly certain that things would work if the packages had RHAT people working on them. The RPM tool could build packages and manage a local installation repository; in contrast, Debian has long had a VASTLY more extensive set of package tooling addressing *way* more high level issues, and helping to enable a much more diverse set of contributors to contribute well-integrated packages. The consistency of having the huge set of diverse, yet well-integrated packages is what has enabled the creation of private labelled things like Ubuntu and Knoppix that derive the huge set of software by virtue of harnessing Debian's work at relatively little cost. Well said, Christopher! Chris W. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How would I get debian unstable?
See also: http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/talks/why_debian/talk.html Best, Gilles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
