Re: [SLUG] A comparison for fun ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've tried a few, settled on guidedog, guarddog. I still see no way of adding these to my firewall rules: iptables -A INPUT -i tun+ -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i tun+ -j ACCEPT for shorewall in /etc/shorewall/zones add a vpn zone in /etc/shorewall/interfaces: (associate that zone with tun+) tun+vpn and in /etc/shorewall/policy make policys for your vpn zone: vpn lan ACCEPT lan vpn ACCEPT seriously, use shorewall. anyway - unless you are routing openvpn tunnels to lots of different lans, you only need a tun0 interface (use the server-client mode). if you want to route subnets behind the clients the ccd option is useful for this. dave -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A comparison for fun ...
> > For things like mail server systems, web servers and so on, I would choose > > the Debian/Ubuntu world without worry. > > I've tried a few, settled on guidedog, guarddog. > I still see no way of adding these to my firewall rules: > iptables -A INPUT -i tun+ -j ACCEPT > iptables -A FORWARD -i tun+ -j ACCEPT So have you chosen the tool that fits your task? > I want a desktop image saved in .icons. What did I NOT do to find out that > ^L will let me see hidden dirs? ( I asked SLUG) This is IMHO a trick > rather than things that are different. This will actually be exposed in GTK+ 2.10 - earlier, it was up for debate as to whether or not it should be there at all. So I guess you could call this a GTK+ "trick", but it's really a matter of software in flux. (The new GTK+ file chooser should never have gone in so early - it basically went in unfinished because we listened too much to the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the noisy, vocal minority who felt the GNOME file chooser was the only thing stopping Linux from succeeding on the desktop!) > An eg of patchy. Specific now: latest dapper 6.06: > System -> Administration -> Services Good example - the GUI tools are pretty lame. When you said "server", I was under the impression you meant an actual server, not a desktop that happens to run services. > I'm sure that you are correct :-), I'm trying to be objective, so your > comments are most usefull. > I guess that having spent years using RedHat, the transition to SuSE was > quick (1 week to say this is better) and easy. > Its clear (and it's been since the release of Dapper) that I'm not finding > this transition easy. Specially since I'm jumping in and trying to do > fairly complex stuff right off (eg openvpn, with associated firewall > setup) Discovering more awesomeness deep in the bowels of Debian/Ubuntu is a never ending pleasure. :-) - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2007: Sydney, Australia http://lca2007.linux.org.au/ "Spam is about consent, not content." - Craig Sanders -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A comparison for fun ...
On Saturday 08 July 2006 23:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Suse Ubuntu > > > > Easy for complex server Hard for complex server > > eg Firewall, MASQ, tun setup & > > routing > > So, I would not describe these as 'complex server' tasks. These are basic > network things for which Debian/Ubuntu don't provide an *enormous* amount > of built-in clicky-clicky (CLI or GUI, helper tools are still > clicky-clicky). > > On the other hand, for a truly complex server infrastructure, I would not > choose anything but Debian/Ubuntu. I have been doing some Red Hat admin > again recently, and every task reminds me how much easier life is on Debian > and Ubuntu. Partly, this is because Red Hat chose to marginalise RHEL by > making it available only to enterprise-paying customers, so the community > around RHEL is *significantly* smaller than the communities around Fedora, > Debian and Ubuntu. > > For things like mail server systems, web servers and so on, I would choose > the Debian/Ubuntu world without worry. I've tried a few, settled on guidedog, guarddog. I still see no way of adding these to my firewall rules: iptables -A INPUT -i tun+ -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i tun+ -j ACCEPT > > Sysadmin works, is easy, is nice Sysadmin patchy, some works, some > > does not eg system -> administration -> services see tricks later: > > update-rc.d > > I'm surprised you'd say 'patchy' about a distro that is essentially made by > sysadmins, for sysadmins. That has been a delight for me about Debian since > I first started using it. When you say 'tricks', I think you mean "things > that are different and/or that I'm not used to because I don't have as much > experience on this platform". How different, really, is update-rc.d to, > say, chkconfig? They're both obtuse command line programs. I want a desktop image saved in .icons. What did I NOT do to find out that ^L will let me see hidden dirs? ( I asked SLUG) This is IMHO a trick rather than things that are different. An eg of patchy. Specific now: latest dapper 6.06: System -> Administration -> Services I want to enable bpalogin (which I installed). It is not listed. I select 'help'. It shows a menu, with checkboxes. That's not an option, despite the help display. That's patchy! I'm quite happy with the CLI. If you need the CLI to do stuff then System -> Administration -> Services should say "For more, use update-rc.d" > > RPM is usually easy and lots of info apt-get is very easy > > is available about installed not detailed info about packages > > packages, changed packages, eg apt-get install kubuntu-desktop > > adds 800M contents of packaghes apt-get remove > > kubuntu-desktop dels 40K !! > > Others have answered about apt-get vs. aptitude/synaptic/etc, but... Info > about packages is lacking in Debian/Ubuntu? Dude, this is the platform that > *drove* modern package management demands. What info are you missing? I'm > pretty sure this comes down to "I'm familiar with the rpm commands, but not > familiar with the apt/dpkg commands" - same as above. I'm sure that you are correct :-), I'm trying to be objective, so your comments are most usefull. I guess that having spent years using RedHat, the transition to SuSE was quick (1 week to say this is better) and easy. Its clear (and it's been since the release of Dapper) that I'm not finding this transition easy. Specially since I'm jumping in and trying to do fairly complex stuff right off (eg openvpn, with associated firewall setup) > > > multimedia possible multimedia easy - easyubuntu > > > > KDE Very clear and obviousGnome Full of undocumented (obviously) > > tricks Cheers James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Linux now Illegal
On Sunday 09 July 2006 11:18, James Purser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's my understanding from the discussions I've had with Chris Smart and
> others that the NVIDIA drivers use a GPL compatible shim to interface
> between the actual kernel and the binary blob. And that the
> communications between the shim and the blob are done using system calls
> rather than included code. This would seem to get round the GPL
> requirement.
That was my understanding as well. Nvidia's Linux driver (I can't speak for
ATI or anyone else) is apparently based on their Windows driver, and derives
nothing from Linux itself. The shim is what glues the driver to the kernel,
and there is no legal issue since it is GPL compatible.
At least that's what I heard...
--
Sridhar Dhanapalan
{GnuPG/OpenPGP: http://www.dhanapalan.com/yama.asc
0x049D38B4 : A7A9 8A02 78CB AB1B FCE4 EEC6 2DD9 249B 049D 38B4}
"Maybe somebody else comes up with a better way to do it, or with a really
compelling reason to. 'Feel free to try' is definitely the open source
motto." - Linus Torvalds
pgplxKBwJflEw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Linux now Illegal
I'm still confused on this issue. It's my understanding from the discussions I've had with Chris Smart and others that the NVIDIA drivers use a GPL compatible shim to interface between the actual kernel and the binary blob. And that the communications between the shim and the blob are done using system calls rather than included code. This would seem to get round the GPL requirement. That hasn't been addressed in the email Chris received it would seem. -- James Purser Producer/Presenter - Linux Australia Update http://james.k-sit.com - My Blog http://k-sit.com - My IT Consultancy http://localfoss.org - LA Update Podcast, LUG Roundup and more Skype: purserj1977 SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Linux now Illegal
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 08:51:19PM +1000, Gerald wrote: > Please read the enclosure from Chris at kororaa.org. > Or go to his site at : > www.kororaa.org > and see what you think of the response Chis had to his required > Clarification. > Gerald As far as I can tell, this whole thing stems from the XGL Live CD that was linked the nvidia binary modules on the fly. It does not make linux illegal, it just highlights the fact that the binary modules are on a very tenuous legal footing. The e-mail to me seems to be saying that Nvidia and ATI with their binary modules are violating the terms of the GPL, and therefore anyone who distributes the modules linked with the kernel (as was done on kororaa) is violating the terms. In contrast, distributing the source and a binary module is not illegal since it has not been compiled against the kernel yet. It is not illegal to do this, just illegal to redistribute it. But I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure other people have their own interpretations. I just remember the history of this story and some of the original debate surrounding it. Byron -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Is Linux now Illegal
On Saturday 08 July 2006 20:51, Gerald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please read the enclosure from Chris at kororaa.org.
> Or go to his site at :
> www.kororaa.org
> and see what you think of the response Chis had to his required
> Clarification. Gerald
I don't see anything there that would indicate that Linux is illegal. The
argument is that it is probably illegal to distribute closed source drivers
with Linux.
--
Sridhar Dhanapalan
{GnuPG/OpenPGP: http://www.dhanapalan.com/yama.asc
0x049D38B4 : A7A9 8A02 78CB AB1B FCE4 EEC6 2DD9 249B 049D 38B4}
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
pgpr8tYOMGuN3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Re: Dapper Drake
* On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 01:24:24AM +1000, Michael Chesterton wrote: > That's a little different to a desktop, I have no problems configuring > apache, samba, asterisks, quagga, whatever, but choose not to tweak my > desktop. I used to modify sawfish, add hotkeys and a whole bunch of > bash aliases and functions, etc. I just got sick of seeing things like > "bash: ll: command not found" when I'd jump on a different box, and I > got sick of upgrading sawfish and starting from scratch. I tend to move around a lot of different linux machines, so what I have is a 'movein' script - modifies .bashrc, /etc, and so on. Has a bit of intelligence eg doesn't modify /etc on machines I shouldn't. This is all documented in O'Reilly's 'Linux Server Hacks', hack 72, "Get Settled in Quickly". -- Sonia Hamilton. GPG key A8B77238. . "Complaining that Linux doesn't work well with Windows is like ... oh, say, evaluating an early automobile and complaining that there's no place to hitch up a horse." (Daniel Dvorkin) -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Is Linux now Illegal
Please read the enclosure from Chris at kororaa.org. Or go to his site at : www.kororaa.org and see what you think of the response Chis had to his required Clarification. Gerald Title: Kororaa Project FSF Chimes In - Part 2 Thursday, June 15, 2006, 04:45 This is a reply from the Free Software Foundation to the questions I asked in reply to the original email from them (if you didn't see the original email from the FSF, you can find it here). In essence, the FSF stand by their opinion that the nVidia and ATI drivers (and binary modules in general) DO violate GPL license. There seem to be a few contradictions to me, but it's here in its entirety so have a read for yourself (it's not very long) and let us know what you think! Once again, I've tried to make the formatting readable. NOTE: The italicised text with "> >" are from the original FSF email against which I have asked my questions; bold text with ">" are my said questions as posed in the last email; the clear italicised text is the new reply from FSF. Dear Chris I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. Your questions generated some discussion over here, and I wanted to make sure we got you the best possible answers. > I have some questions below I am hoping you, or someone, can > answer for me so that I can get some clearer understanding as > to why they are a violation. I've addressed your questions as best I can below. Please feel free to reproduce in full any e-mail that I send you. I ask that you please don't just quote specific portions of the mail, or omit any parts; the context goes a long way to prevent confusion. > > We believe that kernel modules are derivative works of Linux. > Can you explain WHY you believe the kernel modules are > derivative works of Linux? What actually makes them a derivative work? The term "derivative work" is defined in copyright legislation, including all the relevant case law. Put generally, one piece of software is a derivative work of another if the first is combined with the second to provide some functionality. This is true even if the functionality is optional or not commonly used. For example, if a program uses readline to provide support for rich command editing, it's a derivative work of readline. Note that this does require a dependency on a *specific* piece of code, instead of on software that performs a particular function. A wide variety of programs run on systems with the Linux kernel, but they're not all derivative works of Linux: most simply require that the kernel recognize certain system calls, which is more about functionality than particular code. Likewise, web browsers have the capability to interact with web servers, but this does not make the browser a derivative work of any particular server. There is admittedly a fuzzy line here; in close cases, deciding whether one work is a derivative of another is a judgment call, which is why we have courts. But let me be very clear about this: it is impossible to write a kernel module for Linux that isn't a derivative work of Linux. Even if we assume that all these proprietary drivers shun Linux's implementations of common data structures, perform their own memory management, and so on, they still have to register themselves as modules. To do that, they have to use code in the kernel to call functions like module_init(), and that's enough to make the software a derivative work of Linux. The argument in the kerneltrap link you provided that these modules make "no Linux specific calls" is absurd on its face: if they made no Linux-specific calls, they wouldn't be kernel modules. > >If there weren't any special licensing considerations for > > Linux, we would say that those modules must adhere to the > > requirements set forth in the GPL. > So is this due to your understanding that they ARE > derivative works, and therefore also have to be GPL? That's correct. > > In particular, this means that they, too, would be licensed under the > > GPL, and users would be able to obtain source when the work > > is distributed in binary form. In such a case, if there were binary-only > > modules, we would say they were violating Linux's license, along with > > anybody who was distributing them. > Would you be able explain why a binary-only module violates the license? Because such a module is a derivative work, it's subject to the terms in section 2 of the GNU GPL. Again, if there were no special licensing considerations for Linux, binary-only modules would clearly violate section 2(b) of the license. > > Some kernel developers apparently agree with him. Others do not: I > > was at OSCon last year, and I saw Greg Kroah-Hartman give a quick > > presentation about kernel development where he flatly stated that > > binary modules are illegal. > Is this presentation available? He doesn't really elaborate on this issue in the presentation, but slides are available at ; in particular, see the bottom
Re: [SLUG] Re: Dapper Drake
Ben Buxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Documentation, documentation, documentation (sorry, mr chair) > > I started with defaults and every single change I made from the > default box was documented, often just by copying the changed config > file to a USB stick. Copies of all non-default packages and non-default > files are saved there. Where possible, I made changes to only > "user-editable" files rather than primary files. Also, i update a list > of all these changes and their purpose, so I know what i've done and > why. > > This means that I should be able to easily upgrade - just install then > re-copy the packages and config files over from the backup. That's a little different to a desktop, I have no problems configuring apache, samba, asterisks, quagga, whatever, but choose not to tweak my desktop. I used to modify sawfish, add hotkeys and a whole bunch of bash aliases and functions, etc. I just got sick of seeing things like "bash: ll: command not found" when I'd jump on a different box, and I got sick of upgrading sawfish and starting from scratch. My current distro works how I want it to work out of the box. I don't think that's a coincidence, either, I think a lot of thought and some testing went in to it. Somethings might have been different at the start, but now it all feels natural, quick and productive out of the box. > No need to stick to defaults - just remember to document everything that > is changed. Docuwhat? -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Re: Dapper Drake
Michael Chesterton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered the following thing: > > I used to really enjoy tweaking my desktop, and dot files like > .bashrc, and etc. But had a change of heart for a number of reasons. > > I'd jump on to another system and be lost without all my tweaks, and > when i needed to upgrade, reinstall or build a new box, it would take > me ages to re-tweak, if I could be bothered, and I'd never get it just > right. So I would avoid upgrading, and the longer i left it, the bigger > hassle it became. I've had similar issues. Some of my systems have LOTS of tweaks and customisations on them, and upgrading was a big pain, leaving me with older software running. I recently bought a nice Asus wireless router that can run openwrt and decided to move all of my old network configuration from my debian based gateway. I've got *lots* of tweaks - dhcp, ipv6, ipsec, tunnels, proxies, ppp, VPN tunnels, etc. It took me a while to actually realise what I had. But I finally moved all the pure network stuff over to the openWrt box in such a way as to make it upgradeable when need be. How? Documentation, documentation, documentation (sorry, mr chair) I started with defaults and every single change I made from the default box was documented, often just by copying the changed config file to a USB stick. Copies of all non-default packages and non-default files are saved there. Where possible, I made changes to only "user-editable" files rather than primary files. Also, i update a list of all these changes and their purpose, so I know what i've done and why. This means that I should be able to easily upgrade - just install then re-copy the packages and config files over from the backup. No need to stick to defaults - just remember to document everything that is changed. BB -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Re: A comparison for fun ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered the following thing: > > Suse Ubuntu > > - > > Easy for complex server Hard for complex server > eg Firewall, MASQ, tun setup & routing Ubuntu server or ubuntu desktop? > RPM is usually easy and lots of info apt-get is very easy > is available about installed not detailed info about packages > packages, changed packages, eg apt-get install kubuntu-desktop adds > 800M > contents of packaghesapt-get remove kubuntu-desktop dels > 40K !! apt-cache show bash (for one example). dpkg -L bash Also, aptitude will happily remove all orphaned packages. Also try deborphan. > KDE Very clear and obviousGnome Full of undocumented (obviously) > tricks > (not really SuSE, but all eg ^L to list hidden files > all of SuSE seems to be (not really ubuntu, but see > comment re SuSE) > KDE minded despite Gnome eg update-rc.d > being the default choice now Don't like gnome in Ubuntu? Then Kubuntu is your friend. It's identical (same versioning and packages, just different desktop) I've not given comments on Suse - havent touched it in many years, but Ubuntu is more surprising than you think. BB -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A comparison for fun ...
> Suse Ubuntu > Easy for complex server Hard for complex server > eg Firewall, MASQ, tun setup & routing So, I would not describe these as 'complex server' tasks. These are basic network things for which Debian/Ubuntu don't provide an *enormous* amount of built-in clicky-clicky (CLI or GUI, helper tools are still clicky-clicky). On the other hand, for a truly complex server infrastructure, I would not choose anything but Debian/Ubuntu. I have been doing some Red Hat admin again recently, and every task reminds me how much easier life is on Debian and Ubuntu. Partly, this is because Red Hat chose to marginalise RHEL by making it available only to enterprise-paying customers, so the community around RHEL is *significantly* smaller than the communities around Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu. For things like mail server systems, web servers and so on, I would choose the Debian/Ubuntu world without worry. > Sysadmin works, is easy, is nice Sysadmin patchy, some works, some does > not > eg system -> administration -> services > see tricks later: update-rc.d I'm surprised you'd say 'patchy' about a distro that is essentially made by sysadmins, for sysadmins. That has been a delight for me about Debian since I first started using it. When you say 'tricks', I think you mean "things that are different and/or that I'm not used to because I don't have as much experience on this platform". How different, really, is update-rc.d to, say, chkconfig? They're both obtuse command line programs. > RPM is usually easy and lots of info apt-get is very easy > is available about installed not detailed info about packages > packages, changed packages, eg apt-get install kubuntu-desktop adds > 800M > contents of packaghesapt-get remove kubuntu-desktop dels > 40K !! Others have answered about apt-get vs. aptitude/synaptic/etc, but... Info about packages is lacking in Debian/Ubuntu? Dude, this is the platform that *drove* modern package management demands. What info are you missing? I'm pretty sure this comes down to "I'm familiar with the rpm commands, but not familiar with the apt/dpkg commands" - same as above. > multimedia possible multimedia easy - easyubuntu > > KDE Very clear and obviousGnome Full of undocumented (obviously) tricks ...? - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2007: Sydney, Australia http://lca2007.linux.org.au/ "The cool stuff coming out of freedesktop.org doesn't just happen as the result of an accident with a particle accelerator and a goat: it only happens when people hack on it." - Daniel Stone -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Re: Linux compatible Sydney 3G for notebooks
Matthew Palmer wrote: That page doesn't give exact model numbers, so it's hard to tell. It certainly looks more like the one I didn't get (Huawei brand, I think?); the Merlin I got has the SIM slot toward the back of the card. Both of them work fine with Dapper, though -- they appear to the kernel as being little more than an ACM modem. our contact at vodafone said you can get a Merlin card if you tell em you are using a Mac dave -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A comparison for fun ...
On 7/8/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why SuSE Why Ubuntu I've never used SuSE so nothing too useful to contribute however: SuseUbuntu - RPM is usually easy and lots of infoapt-get is very easy is available about installednot detailed info about packages packages, changed packages, eg apt-get install kubuntu-desktop adds 800M contents of packaghes apt-get remove kubuntu-desktop dels 40K !! Being picky, comparing apt-get and rpm is not really right, comparing yum or whatever other rpm management thingo's are out there now is more appropriate (dpkg is more the equiv for rpm). Not really a comment on main point of your comparison though. For that case apt-cache show is usually pretty good, although I can see that running it for kubuntu-desktop may not make it crystal clear that it is a meta-package (do rpm distro's have that concept??, if not maybe an additional point to add because it's a good feature). It does however say that the installed size is "40" (it just has heeaps of dependencies :) A more contstructive comment I could add might be that with ubuntu (and debian) you tend to go to one place to get all your packages (ie. their repo's), whereas my (now fairly dated) experience with other distro's is that you tended to need to add other repositries and therefore start to head down dodgy dependency street. Whether this applies to SuSE (or other's anymore) I'm not really sure. Cheers...Steve -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] A comparison for fun ...
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 03:30:15PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Why SuSE > Why Ubuntu > > Any useful stuff, I'll put on my wiki. Any flames to trash. > For me, I have a paying customer who wants Ubuntu and does NOT want SuSE. > As I struggled with the paradigms shift (from SuSE to Ubuntu) many people > have > been majorly helpful - thanks guys: > > Suse Ubuntu > > - > Easy for simple desktop Easy for simple desktop > > Easy for complex server Hard for complex server > eg Firewall, MASQ, tun setup & routing Isn't there a ubuntu server distro? > > Sysadmin works, is easy, is nice Sysadmin patchy, some works, some does > not > eg system -> administration -> services > see tricks later: update-rc.d There's also a bunch of other ways of doing these things. Like sysvconfig and others. It's just not very well integrated I guess. > > RPM is usually easy and lots of info apt-get is very easy > is available about installed not detailed info about packages > packages, changed packages, eg apt-get install kubuntu-desktop adds > 800M > contents of packaghesapt-get remove kubuntu-desktop dels > 40K !! apt-get is kind of a lower level tool. Using aptitude, in both command line and GUI mode (run without arguments) will give you detailed info. If you use aptitude to install, and then remove, it will also take all the dependencies with it. So you won't get the problem with kubuntu-desktop. > > multimedia possible multimedia easy - easyubuntu > > KDE Very clear and obviousGnome Full of undocumented (obviously) > tricks > (not really SuSE, but all eg ^L to list hidden files > all of SuSE seems to be (not really ubuntu, but see > comment re SuSE) > KDE minded despite Gnome eg update-rc.d > being the default choice now > - > I must admit, I use Debian, but Ubuntu is Debian based. Further discussion would be interesting and much appreciated. Byron -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] A comparison for fun ...
Why SuSE Why Ubuntu Any useful stuff, I'll put on my wiki. Any flames to trash. For me, I have a paying customer who wants Ubuntu and does NOT want SuSE. As I struggled with the paradigms shift (from SuSE to Ubuntu) many people have been majorly helpful - thanks guys: SuseUbuntu - Easy for simple desktop Easy for simple desktop Easy for complex server Hard for complex server eg Firewall, MASQ, tun setup & routing Sysadmin works, is easy, is niceSysadmin patchy, some works, some does not eg system -> administration -> services see tricks later: update-rc.d RPM is usually easy and lots of infoapt-get is very easy is available about installednot detailed info about packages packages, changed packages, eg apt-get install kubuntu-desktop adds 800M contents of packaghes apt-get remove kubuntu-desktop dels 40K !! multimedia possible multimedia easy - easyubuntu KDE Very clear and obvious Gnome Full of undocumented (obviously) tricks (not really SuSE, but all eg ^L to list hidden files all of SuSE seems to be (not really ubuntu, but see comment re SuSE) KDE minded despite Gnomeeg update-rc.d being the default choice now - I'd really like to see any supporting/debunking comments and any additions to the list James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
