Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:13:26AM +0800, csj wrote: > On 19. July 2004 at 10:46PM -0700, > Mark e Plummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have just read your article as best I could. I am > > confused, but not by you but by me. I have been using Firefox > > as a browser and Thunderbird as mailbox for about a week and a > > half now and I love them. I am thinking about dumping Windows > > XP because it is a pain, I was looking at Mandrake and > > ReHat. Debian Woody I have never heard off until five minutes > > ago. Is it really hard to understand. Or as I am not a > > programmer should I even be thinking about using it. This is a > > vague letter I know. What I am asking, I suppose, is would you > > go for it. Do I have to dump Windows before I start downloading > > Woody? Any help in the form of ideas would be wonderful. > > There's just one google search word you need to know if you want > to try out GNU/Linux: "knoppix" > And if you do decide to go with debian, avoid woody and go with the new beta installer for sarge. Woody is for servers and it will scare you right away again (its somewhat old, and although its _very_ stable, it can be hard to install if you don't know what you are doing). > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > +++ > This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System > at the Tel-Aviv University CC. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP
On 19. July 2004 at 10:46PM -0700, Mark e Plummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have just read your article as best I could. I am > confused, but not by you but by me. I have been using Firefox > as a browser and Thunderbird as mailbox for about a week and a > half now and I love them. I am thinking about dumping Windows > XP because it is a pain, I was looking at Mandrake and > ReHat. Debian Woody I have never heard off until five minutes > ago. Is it really hard to understand. Or as I am not a > programmer should I even be thinking about using it. This is a > vague letter I know. What I am asking, I suppose, is would you > go for it. Do I have to dump Windows before I start downloading > Woody? Any help in the form of ideas would be wonderful. There's just one google search word you need to know if you want to try out GNU/Linux: "knoppix" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP
Hi, Mark. My two cents follow Simon's, inline. According to Simon Kitching, > On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 17:46, Mark e Plummer wrote: > > Hello, > > I have just read your article as best I could. I am confused, but not > > by you but by me. > > I have been using Firefox as a browser and Thunderbird as mailbox for > > about a week and a half now and I love them. > > I am thinking about dumping Windows XP because it is a pain, I was > > looking at Mandrake and ReHat. Debian Woody I have never heard off > > until five minutes ago. > > Is it really hard to understand. Or as I am not a programmer should I > > even be thinking about using it. > > This is a vague letter I know. > > What I am asking, I suppose, is would you go for it. Do I have to dump > > Windows before I start downloading Woody? > > Any help in the form of ideas would be wonderful. > > Hi Mark, > > You should definitely give Linux a go - it's got some great features, > and gets better by the day. > > Provided you have a reasonable-size hard drive, you can have multiple > operating systems installed on the same PC by "partitioning" your disk > drive. Or if you're short of disk space, you can always buy another disk > drive to experiment with. > > It is probably better to do this than simply wipe Windows; like all > drugs, going cold-turkey can be hard :-). I guess it depends what you do. If you mostly do web browsing and e-mail, it can be easy. But if you are stuck in the Microosft application file compatibility morass, it's a lot harder. (Office folks I won't identify got anal when I gave them back an OpenOffice-edited Excel spreadsheet that had had the zoom factor or even printer settings changed even though it was fine where it counted) > With multiple operating systems installed (often called "dual boot" or > "multi-boot"), when you turn your PC on you get a list of the installed > operating systems to choose from, including your existing Windows setup. > > There are even Linux versions that run direct from CD without needing to > be installed at all, but that is probably not what you're looking for. Might be good if you want to just try it out. Morphix and Knoppix are both Debian-based and run straight off CD. > If you've got Windows 95/98/ME right now, then you can simply run a > "disk defragmentation" from inside Windows, then boot from a linux > install CD and follow the instructions to split off some spare disk > space for the use of Linux. If you've got WindowsNT, 2000 or XP, you'll > probably need the commercial tool "partition magic" to create a > partition on your existing drive. Or buy that new drive I suggested. > There may be a way to partition your existing windows drive with free > software, but someone else will have to tell you how, because I don't > know of a safe way to do this. ... Xandros and Progeny do this for you. But do back up your drive before you start. > Regarding which linux distribution to install, both Mandrake and RedHat > are good choices. Debian is a little harder to use initially, but more > powerful once you get to know it. As your first entry into Linux, you > might be better off with Mandrake or "Fedora" (what RedHat call their > free version). But Debian is ok to start with, too. The "woody" (3.0) > version you mentioned, though, is pretty old. If you choose Debian, you > will probably be better off downloading the "debian-installer" program > from http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/. This is "beta" > software, ie not officially released, but it's a lot easier to use than > the "woody" (aka 3.0) release of Debian. This will install everything > over the internet, so you only need to make one CD. However you'd better > have a good internet connection... If you can, use Debian Sarge, installed from the new "beta-installer net-install" cd image. It's a smallish download (about 100 MB instead of 700MB) and features kernel 2.6.6, which supports so many devices most things are just plug and play. If you are too much a newbie to sucessfully download and burn a CD or you have trouble with the Debian install, I'd recommend a boxed version of one of the several excellent Debian-based Linux distributions. I've used and like Progeny Linux (no they are not dead, they've got a new distrib on the way) and Xandros (formerly Corel Linux). Xandros is probably the best migration path for someone comfortable with Microsofty ways. A Debian-based distro has several advantages over Mandrake or Redhat/Fedora or Suse etc: a) you are building on the famous strength and discipline and moral purity (heheh) of Debian instead of a corporate for-profit product (don't get me wrong- I love profit. but corporations have split loyalties, so things like quarterly reports and shareholder value and strategic alliances can get in the way of Doing The Right Thing) b) you don't have to unlearn redhatisms and suseisms and mandrakeisms if you decide to switch to pure Debian later. c) it's easier
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP
Simon Kitching wrote: On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 17:46, Mark e Plummer wrote: Hello, I have just read your article as best I could. Just curious -- what article? I am thinking about dumping Windows XP because it is a pain, I was looking at Mandrake and ReHat. Debian Woody I have never heard off until five minutes ago. Is it really hard to understand. Or as I am not a programmer should I even be thinking about using it. I pretty much agree with Simon's comments, but here's a few of my own. If you are the type of person who likes to buy an old junker car and dive in a rebuild the thing, go with Debian; elsewise go with a distro such as Mandrake or Redhat that is more tuned for beginners. (This is not to say that Debian requires the same level of effort needed to rebuild a junker car, but it does take more of that type of mentality than does Mandrake, et al, although Debian is getting easier for the newbie.) Provided you have a reasonable-size hard drive, you can have multiple operating systems installed on the same PC by "partitioning" your disk drive. Or if you're short of disk space, you can always buy another disk drive to experiment with. If you're not familiar with partitioning, I'd _highly_ recommend a second disk drive, or even better, a second computer to tinker with. There are even Linux versions that run direct from CD without needing to be installed at all, but that is probably not what you're looking for. This might be the easiest way for you to get your feet wet. For example, you can go to http://www.knoppix.org and download the most recent Knoppix image and burn it to CD (not as a data file, but as an image). Then you can boot off the resulting CD. This will provide you with a complete Linux environment (based on Debian, but not actually Debian) that will give you a good feel for how Linux looks/feels. Be aware that running the system from CD means it'll run slow; a properly installed Linux system will run faster than a LiveCD. When you need to go back to Windows, just shut down the Linux system, remove the CD, reboot, and you're back to your normal Windows system like nothing ever happened. Also, because everything's running off the CD, your settings won't be saved from Knoppix session to Knoppix session, unless you put in a little extra work to save the settings to some other medium (floppy, flash drive, space on your hard disk, etc); there's a menu item in Knoppix to help you do that, but I've never used it so don't know what's involved. About 6 GBytes is a good amount to use for a linux install. Of course if you can spare more, then that is good - you'll need somewhere to put your music and photo collections ;-). You can install Linux (depending on what features you want) in a considerably smaller space, just like you can install Windows in a considerably smaller space than what's comfortable. But like Simon, I'd suggest about 6GB for a comfortable playground. Regarding which linux distribution to install, both Mandrake and RedHat are good choices. Debian is a little harder to use initially, but more powerful once you get to know it. It's been my impression that a lot of Debian fans start off with one of these other distros, then try another, then try another, never being quite happy, and then finally try Debian, and stick with it, because it just works better. But as Simon implies, Debian requires a steeper learning curve to get started than does those other distros. So if you're willing to put up with frustrations and work and effort, but with lots of learning how the under-the-hood processes work (thus making you a more knowledgeable gnerd), then start out with Debian. If you just want something easy to play with for a few months to figure out what you think, try Mandrake, Redhat, S.u.S.E., etc. If you just want to take a quick look-see, try a LiveCD like Knoppix or Morphix or Gnoppix. -- Kent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP
On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 17:46, Mark e Plummer wrote: > Hello, > I have just read your article as best I could. I am confused, but not > by you but by me. > I have been using Firefox as a browser and Thunderbird as mailbox for > about a week and a half now and I love them. > I am thinking about dumping Windows XP because it is a pain, I was > looking at Mandrake and ReHat. Debian Woody I have never heard off > until five minutes ago. > Is it really hard to understand. Or as I am not a programmer should I > even be thinking about using it. > This is a vague letter I know. > What I am asking, I suppose, is would you go for it. Do I have to dump > Windows before I start downloading Woody? > Any help in the form of ideas would be wonderful. Hi Mark, You should definitely give Linux a go - it's got some great features, and gets better by the day. Provided you have a reasonable-size hard drive, you can have multiple operating systems installed on the same PC by "partitioning" your disk drive. Or if you're short of disk space, you can always buy another disk drive to experiment with. It is probably better to do this than simply wipe Windows; like all drugs, going cold-turkey can be hard :-). With multiple operating systems installed (often called "dual boot" or "multi-boot"), when you turn your PC on you get a list of the installed operating systems to choose from, including your existing Windows setup. There are even Linux versions that run direct from CD without needing to be installed at all, but that is probably not what you're looking for. If you've got Windows 95/98/ME right now, then you can simply run a "disk defragmentation" from inside Windows, then boot from a linux install CD and follow the instructions to split off some spare disk space for the use of Linux. If you've got WindowsNT, 2000 or XP, you'll probably need the commercial tool "partition magic" to create a partition on your existing drive. Or buy that new drive I suggested. There may be a way to partition your existing windows drive with free software, but someone else will have to tell you how, because I don't know of a safe way to do this. And best of all, if you keep your existing windows files around you can access them from Linux. Not your old emails, unfortunately (Microsoft makes that very difficult), but certainly your MS-Word documents, your photos, your mp3 music files, etc. About 6 GBytes is a good amount to use for a linux install. Of course if you can spare more, then that is good - you'll need somewhere to put your music and photo collections ;-). Regarding which linux distribution to install, both Mandrake and RedHat are good choices. Debian is a little harder to use initially, but more powerful once you get to know it. As your first entry into Linux, you might be better off with Mandrake or "Fedora" (what RedHat call their free version). But Debian is ok to start with, too. The "woody" (3.0) version you mentioned, though, is pretty old. If you choose Debian, you will probably be better off downloading the "debian-installer" program from http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/. This is "beta" software, ie not officially released, but it's a lot easier to use than the "woody" (aka 3.0) release of Debian. This will install everything over the internet, so you only need to make one CD. However you'd better have a good internet connection... I suggest you use "google" to search for articles about installing and learning linux. You should find plenty of information there. Regards, Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP
Hello, I have just read your article as best I could. I am confused, but not by you but by me. I have been using Firefox as a browser and Thunderbird as mailbox for about a week and a half now and I love them. I am thinking about dumping Windows XP because it is a pain, I was looking at Mandrake and ReHat. Debian Woody I have never heard off until five minutes ago. Is it really hard to understand. Or as I am not a programmer should I even be thinking about using it. This is a vague letter I know. What I am asking, I suppose, is would you go for it. Do I have to dump Windows before I start downloading Woody? Any help in the form of ideas would be wonderful. Thank you Mark e Plummer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
on Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:27:55PM -0800, Erik Steffl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Edward Murrell wrote: > >On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 12:23, Roberto Sanchez wrote: > > > >>>I haven't come across packages that install into /opt. For source > >>>packages, I use ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/stow/packagename > >>>and have "stow" handle the symlinking to /usr/local/bin, etc. > >>> > >>> > >> > >>The OpenOffice.org binary tarball defaults to /opt (at least it did > >>in version 1.0) > > > > > >I've never understood the need for /opt/. Or more precisely, I've never > >understood the need for /opt/ when you have /usr/local/, and in my > >travels have yet to find any solid reasoning beyond what seems to be > >that the first person to create /opt/ didn't know about /usr/local/. > > > >(I'm almost certainly wrong of course, but I still haven't been able to > >find anything that tells me so with any decent authority.) > > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/ > > /opt : Add-on application software packages > /usr/local : Local hierarchy > > the way I understand it: if I install some non-debian package (from > tarball etc.) it should go into /opt/package-version (or something like > that) > > the /usr/local is for my own (=admin) stuff, no software that I > download someplace else should touch it (unless I ask it to). > > I usually install extra software in /opt/package-version and use stow > to create links in /usr/local, but I guess installing it somewhere under > /usr/local works as well (I just don't think packages should default to > that). And you can in practice symlink the two in some way, if you want to keep all your local installation(s) under a single tree: # mkdir /usr/local/opt # ln -s /usr/local/opt /opt ...which gives a subdirectory under /usr/local for opt. Or: # ln /usr/local /opt ...which puts all your /opt installs in /usr/local. Personally I prefer thet first. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? SCO is the thief who puts a gun to his own head and says give me your money or I'll shoot. -- Bruce Perens http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=56225&&cid=5456337 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
Monique writes: > That seems like a really arbitrary way to choose to split up executables. > I guess I just don't understand why I as an admin would care to make that > distinction. /opt was invented by the commercial Unices for closed-source third-party applications. /opt was added to Linux to accomodate these third-party vendors. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, Wisconsin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
Monique Y. Herman wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 at 23:33 GMT, Paul Morgan penned: In my experience, /opt and /usr/local have slightly different functions. /opt would be used for vendor applications, etc., whereas /usr/local would be used for locally built tools, etc. That seems like a really arbitrary way to choose to split up executables. I guess I just don't understand why I as an admin would care to make that distinction. A real life example: If you're administering a couple of hundred servers on a corporate network, then it makes sense. The key is standardization. The apps that the different servers run you put in /opt (for instance, one server may be running an Oracle-based application, another an Informix application, so you put Oracle orInformix and the app in /opt). /usr/local can be the same on all the servers. This is current normal practice with Unices, and, much to its credit, is the way the FHS is also defined. -- paul To any other Nation the loss of a Nelson would have been irreparable, but in the British Fleet off Cadiz, every Captain was a Nelson. -- Adm Pierre Charles de Villeneuve, after the death of Adm Horatio Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar, October 21, 1805. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 17:12, Tom wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 06:33:57PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote: > > In my experience, /opt and /usr/local have slightly different functions. > > /opt would be used for vendor applications, etc., whereas /usr/local > > would be used for locally built tools, etc. > > Adobe Acrobat and VMWare both install to /usr/local. > Should they be in /opt or are there further considerations... > > > What does /opt stand for? "Optional"? "Options?" according to fhs it's definitely /opt > What does /var stand for? I guess variable (fhs says: /var contains variable data files) see http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/ erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 at 23:33 GMT, Paul Morgan penned: > > In my experience, /opt and /usr/local have slightly different > functions. /opt would be used for vendor applications, etc., whereas > /usr/local would be used for locally built tools, etc. > That seems like a really arbitrary way to choose to split up executables. I guess I just don't understand why I as an admin would care to make that distinction. -- monique PLEASE don't CC me. Please. Pretty please with sugar on top. Whatever it takes, just don't CC me! I'm already subscribed!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
Edward Murrell wrote: On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 12:23, Roberto Sanchez wrote: I haven't come across packages that install into /opt. For source packages, I use ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/stow/packagename and have "stow" handle the symlinking to /usr/local/bin, etc. The OpenOffice.org binary tarball defaults to /opt (at least it did in version 1.0) I've never understood the need for /opt/. Or more precisely, I've never understood the need for /opt/ when you have /usr/local/, and in my travels have yet to find any solid reasoning beyond what seems to be that the first person to create /opt/ didn't know about /usr/local/. (I'm almost certainly wrong of course, but I still haven't been able to find anything that tells me so with any decent authority.) http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/ /opt : Add-on application software packages /usr/local : Local hierarchy the way I understand it: if I install some non-debian package (from tarball etc.) it should go into /opt/package-version (or something like that) the /usr/local is for my own (=admin) stuff, no software that I download someplace else should touch it (unless I ask it to). I usually install extra software in /opt/package-version and use stow to create links in /usr/local, but I guess installing it somewhere under /usr/local works as well (I just don't think packages should default to that). erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
Tom wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 06:33:57PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote: In my experience, /opt and /usr/local have slightly different functions. /opt would be used for vendor applications, etc., whereas /usr/local would be used for locally built tools, etc. Adobe Acrobat and VMWare both install to /usr/local. Should they be in /opt or are there further considerations... What does /opt stand for? "Optional"? "Options?" What does /var stand for? Depends on how you want to administer your system. opt = optional var = variable http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/fhs/ Also in debian-policy package. ...paul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 06:33:57PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote: > In my experience, /opt and /usr/local have slightly different functions. > /opt would be used for vendor applications, etc., whereas /usr/local > would be used for locally built tools, etc. Adobe Acrobat and VMWare both install to /usr/local. Should they be in /opt or are there further considerations... What does /opt stand for? "Optional"? "Options?" What does /var stand for? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
Edward Murrell wrote: On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 12:23, Roberto Sanchez wrote: I haven't come across packages that install into /opt. For source packages, I use ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/stow/packagename and have "stow" handle the symlinking to /usr/local/bin, etc. The OpenOffice.org binary tarball defaults to /opt (at least it did in version 1.0) I've never understood the need for /opt/. Or more precisely, I've never understood the need for /opt/ when you have /usr/local/, and in my travels have yet to find any solid reasoning beyond what seems to be that the first person to create /opt/ didn't know about /usr/local/. (I'm almost certainly wrong of course, but I still haven't been able to find anything that tells me so with any decent authority.) - Edward Check out the FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard) in the debian-policy package. In my experience, /opt and /usr/local have slightly different functions. /opt would be used for vendor applications, etc., whereas /usr/local would be used for locally built tools, etc. For instance, on SunOS/Solaris boxes, you would probably find, let's say, a reservation system, in the following trees /opt/apps/res /var/opt/apps/res#data, logs, etc And you would probably find bash in /usr/local/bin/bash ..paul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
Edward Murrell said on Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 09:31:42AM +1300: > I've never understood the need for /opt/. Or more precisely, I've never > understood the need for /opt/ when you have /usr/local/, and in my > travels have yet to find any solid reasoning beyond what seems to be > that the first person to create /opt/ didn't know about /usr/local/. > > (I'm almost certainly wrong of course, but I still haven't been able to > find anything that tells me so with any decent authority.) /opt is designed for commercial software; the idea is that you can install into /opt/CompanyName/SoftwarePackage, and not worry about conflicts. Of course, this isn't exactly integration with the rest of the OS or anything, but it's a leftover from proprietary Unix, really. It does come in handy, though. M pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 12:23, Roberto Sanchez wrote: > > I haven't come across packages that install into /opt. For source > > packages, I use ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/stow/packagename > > and have "stow" handle the symlinking to /usr/local/bin, etc. > > > > > > The OpenOffice.org binary tarball defaults to /opt (at least it did > in version 1.0) I've never understood the need for /opt/. Or more precisely, I've never understood the need for /opt/ when you have /usr/local/, and in my travels have yet to find any solid reasoning beyond what seems to be that the first person to create /opt/ didn't know about /usr/local/. (I'm almost certainly wrong of course, but I still haven't been able to find anything that tells me so with any decent authority.) - Edward -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:27:33 -0700 Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, I wonder why the RH powers never tried to copy dselect, apt-get, > etc. Surely, they were aware of their existence. They did; it's called redhat-config-packages. But it's GUI-only, AFAIK. There's also apt-rpm, but I never tried it. Krum -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 20 November 2003 16:16, John Cichy wrote: > This is when you find something that you need to run on your RPM based > system, you download the RPM and attempt to install it, only to find out > you need another RPM (actually a lib from another RPM) you search for > the required RPM and download it and attempt the install, only to find > out you need another RPM (actually a lib from another RPM) you search > for the the required RPM and download it and attempt the install, only > to find ... Didn't the rpm people already solve this with up2date, and whatever Mandrake and SuSe is using. There is even an apt-rpm port. - -- John L. Fjellstad web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAj++sL0ACgkQkz0vhQtHHRhvIACdHrEgekyWEP5N1LLEQldHRdMK uD0An2EDHqhmUOkT8RyYuKcLhrGsbwnV =b/fp -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 15:20, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On 20 Nov 2003 10:16:05 -0500, > John Cichy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > This is when you find something that you need to run on your RPM based > > system, you download the RPM and attempt to install it, only to find > > out you need another RPM (actually a lib from another RPM) you search > > for the required RPM and download it and attempt the install, only to > > find out you need another RPM (actually a lib from another RPM) you > > search for the the required RPM and download it and attempt the > > install, only to find ... > > ..I found it workable, it was simply cut and paste rpm commands and > whines back and forth between the first ssh session and an editor untill > it quit whining, then toss that 55 line 'rpm -Uvh ' into all ssh > sessions. Very interesting, you should write a mini-howto on this, would help a lot of people. The problem with me is, I do have a couple of boxes I 'fool' around with, but in most cases it's hard to justify spending time to find 'interesting' ways to do things (especially when you have to justify to manglers who believe that M$ stuff just works). I spent very little time learning the Debian install, and actually (putting on flame-proof suit) enjoy dselect, and found that everything just worked. Also, as I say below, this was the primary reason for the switch, the secondary reason had to do with a phone call I had with support where the tech guy said he would NEVER do an upgrade, and that they would only support clean installs. > > > This was the primary reason I looked a Debian in the first place, I > > have installed/setup MANY Debian machines to do many different tasks > > have have never thought about returning to hell. > > > > I think RH's recent announcement will be their downfall, as more > > people who are 'forced' to try Debian, the more that will realize > > maintaining and adding functionality to a system does not have to be > > something that wakes you up in the middle of the night SCREAMING! > > ..I came over on RH's decision to ditch the free DL's, "going > Enterprize", is workable when you pass the bills onto your clients, > but I couldn't see where they were going nor how they planned to > match or beat Debians performance good enough to have me buy > a license for myself too. > > ..now, had I, 6 months ago, known Fedora would match > RH-7.3, I would have stayed. Too late now. ;-) > > -- > ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) > ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... > Scenarios always come in sets of three: > best case, worst case, and just in case. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
On 20 Nov 2003 10:16:05 -0500, John Cichy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This is when you find something that you need to run on your RPM based > system, you download the RPM and attempt to install it, only to find > out you need another RPM (actually a lib from another RPM) you search > for the required RPM and download it and attempt the install, only to > find out you need another RPM (actually a lib from another RPM) you > search for the the required RPM and download it and attempt the > install, only to find ... ..I found it workable, it was simply cut and paste rpm commands and whines back and forth between the first ssh session and an editor untill it quit whining, then toss that 55 line 'rpm -Uvh ' into all ssh sessions. > This was the primary reason I looked a Debian in the first place, I > have installed/setup MANY Debian machines to do many different tasks > have have never thought about returning to hell. > > I think RH's recent announcement will be their downfall, as more > people who are 'forced' to try Debian, the more that will realize > maintaining and adding functionality to a system does not have to be > something that wakes you up in the middle of the night SCREAMING! ..I came over on RH's decision to ditch the free DL's, "going Enterprize", is workable when you pass the bills onto your clients, but I couldn't see where they were going nor how they planned to match or beat Debians performance good enough to have me buy a license for myself too. ..now, had I, 6 months ago, known Fedora would match RH-7.3, I would have stayed. Too late now. ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
csj wrote: On November 20, 2003 at 11:53AM -0800, Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] that's why I don't like alien (or other ways to install rpms) - I'd much rather have tarball (either binary that goes into /opt/package-version or 'normal' source tarball that I can ./configure --prefix=/opt/package-version && make && make install) I haven't come across packages that install into /opt. For source packages, I use ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/stow/packagename and have "stow" handle the symlinking to /usr/local/bin, etc. The OpenOffice.org binary tarball defaults to /opt (at least it did in version 1.0) -Roberto pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
csj wrote: On November 20, 2003 at 11:53AM -0800, Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] that's why I don't like alien (or other ways to install rpms) - I'd much rather have tarball (either binary that goes into /opt/package-version or 'normal' source tarball that I can ./configure --prefix=/opt/package-version && make && make install) I haven't come across packages that install into /opt. For source packages, I use ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/stow/packagename and have "stow" handle the symlinking to /usr/local/bin, etc. exactly shouldn't that be a requirement? if the package is not signed by a debian maintainer it can only touch /opt (and possibly /usr/local) or something like that? (debian package system would create a directory in opt, make it writable by some user, sudo into that user, run install of particular package or something like that) at this point my personal rule is to install either official debian package or force the install into /opt (nicely or not so nicely:-) erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
On November 20, 2003 at 11:53AM -0800, Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >that's why I don't like alien (or other ways to install > rpms) - I'd much rather have tarball (either binary that goes > into /opt/package-version or 'normal' source tarball that I can > ./configure --prefix=/opt/package-version && make && make > install) I haven't come across packages that install into /opt. For source packages, I use ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/stow/packagename and have "stow" handle the symlinking to /usr/local/bin, etc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
Paul E Condon wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 01:36:56PM -0500, David Z Maze wrote:
Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:24:57PM -0500, M. Kirchhoff wrote:
Two months later, I--like so many others before me--came crawling back
to Debian, my hands weary from long hours spent fighting RPM dependency
^^
hell, instability, package conflicts, and a general lack of consistency.
I left RH long ago, when I was far less knowledgable. I was more
successful at install than you, but never felt I had any chance of
gaining control of my computer within the RH environment. I have no
desire to go back. So, out of curiosity, what is RPM dependency hell?
I'm not interested enough to find out for myself. It sort of sounds like
'what does it feel like to hit your thumb really hard with a hammer?'
i.e. the sort of question for which direct personal knowledge is best
avoided. So, what is it?
Try this for an experiment: pick a package. The 'openbox' window
manager is probably a good pick. Find it on your favorite Debian
mirror; take, for example,
ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/o/openbox/. Hmm, lots of files
there. Bet you want the newest one. So download
openbox_3.0-1_i386.deb, and try installing it with 'dpkg --install'.
Uh-oh, you're missing lots of dependencies. So return to the FTP site
and try to download and install those. Lather, rinse, repeat. The
experience with Red Hat is fundamentally the same, except you're using
rpm instead of dpkg, rufus.w3.org is hosed into the ground, and for
any package there are six subtly different versions built for every
Linux distribution but your own.
Debian has always dealt better with this particular case; if you
installed something in dselect, even before there was APT, you'd get
all of the dependencies. It now also happens to be easy to do this
from the command line ('aptitude install openbox').
Could this happen to .deb packaging? Suppose people started producing .deb
packages that were specifically designed for use with Knoppix, or Libranet,
or whatever? It seems that .rpm in and of itself is not the problem.
Also, I wonder why the RH powers never tried to copy dselect, apt-get,
etc. Surely, they were aware of their existence.
I think you're right in saying that it's not the packaging system but
how it's used - the good thing about debian is that all debian packages
are debian packages, working well with the system, some debian
maintainer taking care of them.
packages that are external to debian should never ever provide .deb
that would install itself into system directories (/etc, /usr ...), they
should religiously use /opt, possibly creating links in /usr/local.
Otherwise debian becomes redhat-like hell of screwed up packages.
that's why I don't like alien (or other ways to install rpms) - I'd
much rather have tarball (either binary that goes into
/opt/package-version or 'normal' source tarball that I can ./configure
--prefix=/opt/package-version && make && make install)
erik
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 01:36:56PM -0500, David Z Maze wrote:
> Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:24:57PM -0500, M. Kirchhoff wrote:
> >> Two months later, I--like so many others before me--came crawling back
> >> to Debian, my hands weary from long hours spent fighting RPM dependency
> >^^
> >> hell, instability, package conflicts, and a general lack of consistency.
> >
> >
> > I left RH long ago, when I was far less knowledgable. I was more
> > successful at install than you, but never felt I had any chance of
> > gaining control of my computer within the RH environment. I have no
> > desire to go back. So, out of curiosity, what is RPM dependency hell?
> > I'm not interested enough to find out for myself. It sort of sounds like
> > 'what does it feel like to hit your thumb really hard with a hammer?'
> > i.e. the sort of question for which direct personal knowledge is best
> > avoided. So, what is it?
>
> Try this for an experiment: pick a package. The 'openbox' window
> manager is probably a good pick. Find it on your favorite Debian
> mirror; take, for example,
> ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/o/openbox/. Hmm, lots of files
> there. Bet you want the newest one. So download
> openbox_3.0-1_i386.deb, and try installing it with 'dpkg --install'.
> Uh-oh, you're missing lots of dependencies. So return to the FTP site
> and try to download and install those. Lather, rinse, repeat. The
> experience with Red Hat is fundamentally the same, except you're using
> rpm instead of dpkg, rufus.w3.org is hosed into the ground, and for
> any package there are six subtly different versions built for every
> Linux distribution but your own.
>
> Debian has always dealt better with this particular case; if you
> installed something in dselect, even before there was APT, you'd get
> all of the dependencies. It now also happens to be easy to do this
> from the command line ('aptitude install openbox').
>
Could this happen to .deb packaging? Suppose people started producing .deb
packages that were specifically designed for use with Knoppix, or Libranet,
or whatever? It seems that .rpm in and of itself is not the problem.
Also, I wonder why the RH powers never tried to copy dselect, apt-get,
etc. Surely, they were aware of their existence.
--
Paul E Condon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:24:57PM -0500, M. Kirchhoff wrote:
>> Two months later, I--like so many others before me--came crawling back
>> to Debian, my hands weary from long hours spent fighting RPM dependency
>^^
>> hell, instability, package conflicts, and a general lack of consistency.
>
>
> I left RH long ago, when I was far less knowledgable. I was more
> successful at install than you, but never felt I had any chance of
> gaining control of my computer within the RH environment. I have no
> desire to go back. So, out of curiosity, what is RPM dependency hell?
> I'm not interested enough to find out for myself. It sort of sounds like
> 'what does it feel like to hit your thumb really hard with a hammer?'
> i.e. the sort of question for which direct personal knowledge is best
> avoided. So, what is it?
Try this for an experiment: pick a package. The 'openbox' window
manager is probably a good pick. Find it on your favorite Debian
mirror; take, for example,
ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/o/openbox/. Hmm, lots of files
there. Bet you want the newest one. So download
openbox_3.0-1_i386.deb, and try installing it with 'dpkg --install'.
Uh-oh, you're missing lots of dependencies. So return to the FTP site
and try to download and install those. Lather, rinse, repeat. The
experience with Red Hat is fundamentally the same, except you're using
rpm instead of dpkg, rufus.w3.org is hosed into the ground, and for
any package there are six subtly different versions built for every
Linux distribution but your own.
Debian has always dealt better with this particular case; if you
installed something in dselect, even before there was APT, you'd get
all of the dependencies. It now also happens to be easy to do this
from the command line ('aptitude install openbox').
--
David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/
"Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal."
-- Abra Mitchell
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
This is when you find something that you need to run on your RPM based system, you download the RPM and attempt to install it, only to find out you need another RPM (actually a lib from another RPM) you search for the required RPM and download it and attempt the install, only to find out you need another RPM (actually a lib from another RPM) you search for the the required RPM and download it and attempt the install, only to find ... This was the primary reason I looked a Debian in the first place, I have installed/setup MANY Debian machines to do many different tasks have have never thought about returning to hell. I think RH's recent announcement will be their downfall, as more people who are 'forced' to try Debian, the more that will realize maintaining and adding functionality to a system does not have to be something that wakes you up in the middle of the night SCREAMING! Once they have a good nights sleep, the will head to the server room and send RH to HELL!! John On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 08:48, Paul E Condon wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:24:57PM -0500, M. Kirchhoff wrote: > > Out of personal curiosity, I will be conducting an experiment this > > ... > > > > Two months later, I--like so many others before me--came crawling back > > to Debian, my hands weary from long hours spent fighting RPM dependency >^^ > > hell, instability, package conflicts, and a general lack of consistency. > > > I left RH long ago, when I was far less knowledgable. I was more > successful at install than you, but never felt I had any chance of > gaining control of my computer within the RH environment. I have no > desire to go back. So, out of curiosity, what is RPM dependency hell? > I'm not interested enough to find out for myself. It sort of sounds like > 'what does it feel like to hit your thumb really hard with a hammer?' > i.e. the sort of question for which direct personal knowledge is best > avoided. So, what is it? > > -- > Paul E Condon > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:24:57PM -0500, M. Kirchhoff wrote: > Out of personal curiosity, I will be conducting an experiment this > ... > > Two months later, I--like so many others before me--came crawling back > to Debian, my hands weary from long hours spent fighting RPM dependency ^^ > hell, instability, package conflicts, and a general lack of consistency. I left RH long ago, when I was far less knowledgable. I was more successful at install than you, but never felt I had any chance of gaining control of my computer within the RH environment. I have no desire to go back. So, out of curiosity, what is RPM dependency hell? I'm not interested enough to find out for myself. It sort of sounds like 'what does it feel like to hit your thumb really hard with a hammer?' i.e. the sort of question for which direct personal knowledge is best avoided. So, what is it? -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Experiment: Neophyte versus Windows XP & Debian Woody
Out of personal curiosity, I will be conducting an experiment this weekend that may perhaps turn into a larger project. My very cooperative wife will be attempting to install Windows XP Professional and then Debian Woody--both from scratch--on one of our home computers. The impetus for this experiment hearkens back to my early days of Linux use, less than a year ago. At the time, I was using Microsoft Windows (XP at work, 98SE/2000 at home) for all of my computing needs, despite constant problems with crashing, BSODs, and general unproductivity. Eventually I resolved to try GNU/Linux. Unlike most *nix newbies, the first distribution I tested was Debian Woody. After forty-five frustrating minutes, I gave up and headed to a local bar for a pint of Guinness. Or five. After trying RedHat, SuSE, and Mandrake, I settled on the latter, as it proved the easiest to install, finding and configuring all of my system components without err. Why the hell had I wasted my time with Woody's archaic text-based installer? Why would anyone want to use such a hideous distribution? Two months later, I--like so many others before me--came crawling back to Debian, my hands weary from long hours spent fighting RPM dependency hell, instability, package conflicts, and a general lack of consistency. Why the hell had I wasted two months with a distribution backed by no clearly defined policy, that favored "newness" and sex-appeal over stability and performance? Why would anyone want to use anything *but* Debian? Since my return to Debian, I have used it exclusively at home, on both desktops and laptops, without regret. For the first time, I can actually get things done with my systems, rather than constantly fighting just to keep them functioning. My wife is now in the same boat that I was a year ago: fed up with Microsoft and ready for something different. As a result, I will in the coming months be teaching her what I have learned from personal experience and from, especially, the inimitable Debian user community. One of the biggest complaints lodged about Debian is that the installation process proves difficult for most users and that Windows XP is infinitely easier to get up and running. Well, this weekend I plan to test that claim. My wife has only general experience with computer technology, using PCs at work and home for word processing, email, and internet access. She has never installed an operating system from scratch, which makes her an ideal candidate for such an experiment. Is Windows XP truly easier to install than Debian? What parts of each are the most confusing? The most straightforward? Time providing, I'll also follow how she progresses with getting each system configured for her use, i.e. installing a word processor, configuring a ppp dial-up connection, etc. I'll post the results to this list (perhaps a weblog of sorts as well, again, time providing) following the initial experiment. I *must* be a geek to be excited about this already. It's only Wednesday! -- me Kirchhoff - "moai" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
