makes sense...the more upstream developers, the more exposure debian gets
lets face it...when you look around and see Linux Software the
first name you see is RedHat and the first package format (not
counting tarball) is RPM...
And thats the kind of stuff that gives them real presense
Yup! Even to the technically inclined monitor and card setups
tend to be difficult and boring, even when you can find all the
information needed.
On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What we need here is more clout with the hardware
On 08/04/98 at 05:34 PM, Mark Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Technical excellence is about doing something well, and coming up with
a system which is highly capable. One measure of capability is how
much software runs on the system. If RedHat runs a greater variety of
commercial applications
On 08/04/98 at 08:49 PM, George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Debian has things like pre-depends that Red Hat lacks the last time I
looked. Also, Debian tends to do the right thing more often with
regard to such things that should got into /etc or /usr/X11R6/lib where
Red Hat and other still put
On 04-Aug-1998, Nathan E Norman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
:
: That is the point that I create a slightly modified subset of Debian that
: does conform to the standard and sell the sucker for $100 a pop to
: businesses needing a better Linux than Red
GB == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GB Debian is, quite frankly, too small to dictate to the rest of the linux
GB community how things should be done. On the other hand, it is too good for
GB the other distributions to ignore.I think they all secretly desire to be
GB as well
GB == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GB On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, George R wrote:
GB locations every time it is run. Even if you run it Red Hat's UUCP package
GB through alien, it will continue to look in /usr/lib/uucp for its configs
GB rather than the proper /etc/uucp directory. The bad
On Wed, Aug 05, 1998 at 12:25:40PM +0200, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
GB == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GB Debian is, quite frankly, too small to dictate to the rest of the linux
GB community how things should be done. On the other hand, it is too good for
GB the other
On 5 Aug 1998, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
OTOH, three friends of mine wanted to try Linux. I gave them Debian
and saw, that it *is* too complicated for the average Windoze user to
set up. X setup is a pain in the ass and we know it. Still one of them
wants to learn it, and I believe he will
SJC == Stephen J Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SJC makes sense...the more upstream developers, the more exposure debian gets
SJC lets face it...when you look around and see Linux Software the
SJC first name you see is RedHat and the first package format (not
SJC counting tarball) is
Hi,
George == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George I agree. If I am speaking nonsense, just tell me what part of
George my idea is nonsense and why rather than a blanket statement
George along the lines of The thoughts of the user community are of
George no importance to us which is
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
Well, it is obvious that some people here are just being hard headed. I
really do not think there are that many dummies here. Look at it like
this. A person wants Linux and decides to spend about 30 minutes to choose
which one they are going to buy.
On 08/03/98 at 02:27 AM, George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj, I find that remark disturbing. That is who you are writing the
software for. The luser community produces the developers over time.
Without a stong and vital user base, you will not attract a good
developer community. If
On 08/03/98 at 11:53 AM, George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Well, it is obvious that some people here are just being hard headed. I
really do not think there are that many dummies here. Look at it like
this. A person wants Linux and decides to spend about 30 minutes to
choose which one they
Hmm. I started this thread, but it moved to a different topic very
quickly! Getting back to the original point: there have been a couple of
responses from people who have said that they did see the release of
Debian 2.0 on Linux Announce, yet I don't think I ever received it ---
I am
George Bonser wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George R wrote:
I'm neither a sysadmin nor a kernel programmer, I'm not even a unix
user, I'm just a guy that wanted something stable that was still
progressing (deciding to leaving OS/2 took a long time). Funny thing,
when I decided to switch
The responses to George's suggestion were . . . interesting. I wonder
if the majority of developers share this hostility towards new users.
Dear all,
snip
Forgetting the version numbers matter (that was showed to be somehow silly
after George remembered LSB in his *second* posting), what I really could not
understand and neither expect was the hostility to newbies.
Oh, yes, I agree with that community staff. This is one of the
Mark Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Hmm. I started this thread, but it moved to a different topic very
| quickly! Getting back to the original point: there have been a couple of
| responses from people who have said that they did see the release of
| Debian 2.0 on Linux Announce, yet I
[back to the original thread]
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-announce-98/msg00015.html
[now to the version number thread]
George, you never replied to:
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-user-9808/msg00242.html
Did I miss the point again?
[now to the new user hostility
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
: On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George R wrote:
:
: I'm neither a sysadmin nor a kernel programmer, I'm not even a unix
: user, I'm just a guy that wanted something stable that was still
: progressing (deciding to leaving OS/2 took a long time). Funny thing,
:
Netiquette aside, I agree with most of Mark's comments;
especially his points about contininuing to strive for technical
excellence, but putting a higher priority on marketing.
Technical excellence is about doing something well, and coming up with a
system which is highly capable. One
: progressing (deciding to leaving OS/2 took a long time). Funny thing,
: when I decided to switch my home OS silly me took a few hours and read
: about various OSs.
:
: Missing the point again as all seem to be in this discussion. I think I
: have seen maybe one post that got the
Nathan E Norman wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
: On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George R wrote:
:
: I'm neither a sysadmin nor a kernel programmer, I'm not even a unix
: user, I'm just a guy that wanted something stable that was still
: progressing (deciding to leaving OS/2 took
, 1998 10:16 AM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Was the release of Debian 2.0 put on Linux Announce?
: progressing (deciding to leaving OS/2 took a long time). Funny
thing,
: when I decided to switch my home OS silly me took a few hours and
read
: about various OSs
On 3 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Well, the minute Red Hat changes their version numbers and
starts following the Linux File system standards, we shall all be in
sync.
At the moment, moving to the new Linux File Heirarchy Stnadard
(FHS) is way more important than doing
Young, Ed wrote:
I may be out to lunch on the following but I believe we're zeroing in on
something anyway. That's what lists are all about, right?
One thing I've gotten out of the thread is that RH and SUSE, (etc) are not
adhering to standards but have the market share. Therefore
I didn't ever notice an announcement of the release of Debian 2.0 on Linux
Announce (apart from the beta announcement). Maybe I just missed it ---
did someone see it?
Just thought I'd mention it because we do want people to know about it I
think!
Cheers,
Mark.
Hi,
George == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George The problem with the current versioning system is that people
George look at Debian 2.0 and Red Hat 5.x and S.u.S.E 5.x and
George Slackware 3.x and figure Debian is seriously lagging when it
George is not.I have had people tell me
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think I am really grateful for not having people like that
trying Debian; it only increases the support headaches later on. Any
one who is, umm, challenged, enough to make any technical decision
based on version numbering would probably find Debian is not the
George Bonser wrote:
Some of these people are highly skilled Solaris system administrators that
do not understand the concept of the different distributions and
versioning until I explain it to them. All they know at first glance is
Debian is shipping 2.0 Linux while Red Hat is shipping 5.2
George Bonser wrote:
I suppose the Linux Standard Base will provide common versioning over
distributions and take care of this problem. I fear that it will end up
being Red Hat driven, though.
I would be very scared if the LSB went into such a level of detail and tried
to dictatte to much to
George Bonser wrote:
No, LSB would not dictate Debian's version but Debian could say that
Debian-2.0 is LSB-1.2 compliant and someone looking at Red Hat 5.2 might
see that it, too, is LSB-1.2 compliant and get the idea that both are
roughly equal.
Someone might today, see that both debian and
Hi,
George == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George Some of these people are highly skilled Solaris system
George administrators that do not understand the concept of the
George different distributions and versioning until I explain it to
George them. All they know at first glance is
Hi,
George == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
I have to wonder why such people bother with linux (2.0) when there are such
obviously numerically superior os's out there like, say, windows (95).
George I suppose the Linux Standard Base
Hi,
George == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George People that are not Unix SysAdmin's by trade or hobby are not
George going to give a rat's pair of hips what version of libc they
George have. People have a job to do that usually does not involve
George spending hours of learning a
Hi,
George == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George THere are still a great many Solaris, HP-UX, and Irix admins
George who have heard the word Linux but that is about the extent of
George their exposure. Many still laugh with Linux is mentioned.
Yes, ignorance is a blight
George Bonser wrote:
Let me put it another way. Non-geek calls software vendor to buy
WonderWare for Linux. He asks if it will run on his system. The guy asks
what version of libc he is using. The non-geek says he has no idea. Vendor
asks what the LSB version is and the non-geek says 1.2.
George Bonser wrote:
Never anywhere in any posting did I even imply that. Where do you get this
stuff? What I am saying is that they WILL likely conform to some version
of LSB in the future. If WonderWare 54.2 is targeted for LSB-2.1 and my
Debian-13.2 system is also LSB-2.1 compliant, I know
Hi,
George == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George On 3 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Market domination is not a goal for me.
George No, but being able to even be IN the market should be.
We have remained alive without having to jump through hoops
for lusers so far.
Hi,
George == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
Why do you expect non-geek will know what version of LSB his
system complies with?
George Because it would be right on the Debian Website and probably
George on the software box.
So,
On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 01:53:07AM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
True, but kernel version is not as important as libc version and
filesystem layout. Kernel version really means very little. It simply
provides an easy method of very basic configuration
On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 02:46:38AM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
Major versions for ONLY major changes, minors for minor, and
not entering the version-number-hype-marketing-bandwagon is
the hackers' view of version numbers.
What constitutes a major change is fuzzy. I think it should be
Hi,
George == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if they call me a geek, I call them a luser
George Manoj, I find that remark disturbing. That is who you are
George writing the software for.
No. No. No. Let me put that foul canard to rest. I do *NOT*,
repeat *NOT* write
May I step in? I'm pretty new to this list.
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. No. No. Let me put that foul canard to rest. I do *NOT*,
repeat *NOT* write software for darned users. I write software
because it pleases my muse, and becuase I feel like contributing to
the free
other than Red Hat, Caldera, or S.u.S.E. versions of their applications.
Try to talk Debian to them and they dismiss it saying they just do not
have the time.
And your solution is what?
Debian jump to 6.0 and always make sure to stay a version number ahead of
Red Hat?
Hey, Red Hat just
On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
The problem with the current versioning system is that people look at
Debian 2.0 and Red Hat 5.x and S.u.S.E 5.x and Slackware 3.x and figure
Debian is seriously lagging when it is not.
humor
There are two solutions to this problem:
1) change the next
*- George Bonser wrote about Re: Was the release of Debian 2.0 put on Linux
Announce?
|
| I have had people tell me that they are using Red Hat because it is at 5.2
| while Debian is still only at 2.0. The perception is that Red Hat is
I'm sorry but those people are ignorant then. Tell them
On 03-Aug-1998, Robert Claeson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong or too phragmatic, but I just don't see much of a
problem with using free and non-free code in the same system. If
Informix was to create a Debian package of their database, would they
be prohibited from doing so?
They
On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
: George Bonser wrote:
: No, LSB would not dictate Debian's version but Debian could say that
: Debian-2.0 is LSB-1.2 compliant and someone looking at Red Hat 5.2 might
: see that it, too, is LSB-1.2 compliant and get the idea that both are
: roughly
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
Why do you expect non-geek will know what version of LSB his system complies
with? LSB isn't something innately easier for non-geek to comprehend than
the libc or kernel version. Remember that the concept of standards is just
as foreign to non-geeks as is
On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 08:55:00AM -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
: George Bonser wrote:
: No, LSB would not dictate Debian's version but Debian could say that
: Debian-2.0 is LSB-1.2 compliant and someone looking at Red Hat 5.2 might
: see that it,
Hi,
Robert == Robert Claeson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert If Informix was to create a Debian package of their
Robert database, would they be prohibited from doing so?
By no means. Third party vendors are encouraged to make Debian
packages, even if the terms under which they are
On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 11:39:26AM -0400, Stephen J. Carpenter wrote:
good point...and who even says version numbers have to work in that way
anyway?
Many individual programs have versions like 19980420 ...or what
if I want to start with 100 and count down ;) or increase it by powers of 3?
Mark Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I didn't ever notice an announcement of the release of Debian 2.0 on Linux
| Announce (apart from the beta announcement). Maybe I just missed it ---
| did someone see it?
|
| Just thought I'd mention it because we do want people to know about it I
|
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Brandon Mitchell wrote:
Moral of the story, version numbers are specific to the product, don't
bother comparing.
Jeez, I never said I had trouble with it, only that it is confusing to
people in the real unix world that have
On Sun, Aug 02, 1998 at 10:41:42PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
On 3 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Some of these people are highly skilled Solaris system administrators that
do not understand the concept of the different distributions and
versioning until I explain it to them. All they
Hi,
George == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George Jeez, I never said I had trouble with it, only that it is
George confusing to people in the real unix world that have not been
George exposed to it. Get it through your head that not everyone
George that uses Unix has ever seen a
Hi,
I don't uderstand. The are Linux illiterate, and they display
all the discerning qualities of 2 year olds, they do not want to shop
around and learn about the merits of the distribution, and they do
not want to spend time because they are no hobbyists.
Why do I want them
On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 10:27:47AM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
Brian, these people do not use Windows, they want to use Unix because that
is what they know. They are just not familliar with Linux in general. They
never touch the internet after work and in general, have lives. They are
not
On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 06:22:00PM +0200, Peter Gervai wrote:
On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 11:39:26AM -0400, Stephen J. Carpenter wrote:
good point...and who even says version numbers have to work in that way
anyway?
Many individual programs have versions like 19980420 ...or what
if I want
George Bonser wrote:
I explain to them that it is like SVR4. There are SEVERAL different
versions of SVR4 put out by several companies each with their own version
numbering but they are all SVR4. Once I do that, they question how
protable applications are from one distribution to another and I
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
Look at it like this. A person wants Linux and decides to spend about 30
minutes to choose which one they are going to buy. These are sysadmins,
not kernel programmers. They take a quick glance, note that Red Hat is
5.2, Debian is 2.0 and all the
Hi,
George == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George Well, it is obvious that some people here are just being hard
George headed. I really do not think there are that many dummies
George here. Look at it like this. A person wants Linux and decides
George to spend about 30 minutes to
Hi,
George == George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
George The bottom line is this:
George If the Linux distributions do not share a common filesystem
George layout and to some basic degree a common set of libraries,
George software vendors will simply pick one distribution as the
George
65 matches
Mail list logo
