> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 09:53:53AM -0700, Cory Petkovsek wrote:
> > Debian is the "pure" linux. Pure as in untainted by non-free code.
> >
> "If linux were a beer, they'd ship it across the ocean in open barrels
> so everyone could p**s in it." - a popular .sig at openbsd.org
>
heh, good one.
> How can an OS, or even a kernel, that is hodgepodged together from
> patches and binaries from anyone and everyone, without ever going
> back to look at where things are and how they got that way, be
> considered "pure" in any way?
>
you have just described every OS i've ever used save Mac, Windoze
and Dos. The main problem i am finding with Linux is that each distro has
it's own place to put things and nothing is "standardized."
> Sure, Linus gives his OK on the next revision. So using stock
> linux kernel source could be "pure Linux". But has anyone reviewed
> the kernel? Does development slow down so a security audit can be
> made? No, more patches, lets see what this baby can do!
> Linux itself is not an OS, it's a kernel. Most of the GNU tools,
> which let one use a kernel, are by default installed in /usr/local.
> For good reasons, OS designers put them other places where they
> are more usable. So right there, we see again that "pure" is
> somewhat elusive.
>
explain to me these "good" reasons. i don't understand why
"standardization" within a given OS (or kernel...) is bad
> Or perhaps you mean "pure" as in an OS without crufty GUI sysadmin
> crap. Or perhaps a system that doesn't rely on binary micropackaging,
> and all the lovely files in /var and binaries and scripts that go
> along with the circular dependency trap known as a "package manager".
>
find that package managers ease my problems considerably. i don't
have to worry about "non-standardized" directory structures at this point.
don't have to worry about my next program compile ("is everything in the
right place? will it actually work? is my OS "standardized" enough for the
program?")
> Or maybe "pure" means a system that can be completely rebuilt from
> source on the machine it will run on with a few 'make's? Or maybe
> you're looking for an OS that allows and encourages you to download
> it's RCS archive, so you can go and make your own OS?
>
make my own OS? kewl. where do i sign up? is it easy? i'm merely
a lowly VBA programmer with expensive hardware. i have very little C skillz
and i can't even comprehend a Perl script, but i'd like to give windoze a
miss. do i have to write my own Detonator driver for this fscking GeForce
card? 'cause i can't.
> Then again "pure" could also mean clean, so what about an OS that
> actually has undergone a security audit, with unnecessary and
> potentially dangerous code being removed?
> Or maybe "pure" means you don't even rely on bash?
>
i like bash. bash is kewl. (aaarrrggghh! no good reason...)
>
> Maybe the "pure" Linux isn't even Linux at all?
>
> http://www.openbsd.org/
>
OS doesn't look very "mature". four years and they still don't even
have SMP support? will it run X (this was not answered on the page, aside
from some reference about running *most* binaries from linux)?
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I do what the words in my manpages tell me. <Sorry, Mike :>
>
manpages do no good when they are written from the programmer's
perspective. honestly, how many books about computing, networking,
programming, physics, higher math and underwater basketweaving do i have to
read to understand a manpage? these people don't seem to think about their
users at all. if you want new converts to an OS, make it easy to use and
install. why do you think Microsoft dumbed-down their OS so much (aside
from the obvious reasons...) BeOS is the same way. a friend of mine is
constantly raving about the fact that it installed within two minutes,
finding every piece of hardware he had. i'd switch if it was more widely
supported... hell, i'd use a Mac with OSX if the freakin' hardware wasn't
so expensive and non-proprietary...
>
> > 'rm -i' is not burned into your .bashrc. Remove it from your .bashrc of
> your current logged in user. Look in .bash_profile. Log out and log in,
> or run 'source ~/.bashrc' Or run "alias rm='rm' " To remove it from
> your current session. 'alias' will show you your current aliases.
>
> Don't forget about /etc/skel. I think this is where the idea of 'burned
> in' comes from.
>
haven't tried that... then again, i just killed Mandrake and went
back to Debian, where i know how to configure bash. Mandrake's .bashrc and
.bash_profile have no references to aliases. so, as far as i know, being a
relatively new linux user, it's "burned in".
> PS I find the BSD license to be less "non-free", as in free speech
> and free enterprise (freedom in general), than the GPL.
>
i could care less, so long as i don't have to pay some exorbitant
fee for software that is "required" by my computer. IMO, an OS should be
free anyway.
