Linux-Advocacy Digest #272, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 08:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? (Daniel Haude)
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? (Daniel Haude)
Upgrade rh 6.1 kernel to 2.2.16 (Francisco De La Cruz)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Stuart Krivis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (2:1)
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux. (Sean Akers)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Haude)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Date: 23 Jun 2000 09:21:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 22 Jun 2000 12:27:21 GMT,
J Bland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in Msg. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The minimum install for SuSE 6.4 is ~80MB. Which would easily fit onto the
| harddrive, and that's with Perl iirc.
Sure, I was just talking about the default assumptions of what the
customer wants. There, I'd judge Slackware and Debian as "small" and SuSE
as "big".
--Daniel
--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy
way to factor large prime numbers." -- Bill Gates, "The Road Ahead"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Haude)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Date: 23 Jun 2000 09:23:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:44:58 -0700,
Chris Harshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in Msg. <y0u45.17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| We've been running SLS on an AMD
| 386sx/40 with 4MB RAM and an 80MB hard drive, and we're only using 17MB of
| space on the drive (not including swap)!
C'mon, why don't you scrap the swap. You don't really need it.
--Daniel
--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy
way to factor large prime numbers." -- Bill Gates, "The Road Ahead"
------------------------------
From: Francisco De La Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Upgrade rh 6.1 kernel to 2.2.16
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 05:18:57 -0400
For the last couple of days I've been trying to bring my kernel
to 2.2.16. No matter the method i get this error:
no setup signature found
Now i know rh released rpms for that kernel. I hope that
does not mean i can't "manually" upgrade. Anyways, the first
time I tried 'make oldconfig' for as you might remember, use
my old .config file. That didn't work. So i said, ok let me just
try 'make xconfig', but after going through the emotions i got
the same error...What am i'm doing wrong?
Thanx in advance, Francisco.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:46:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 15:33:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Another interesting benchmark would be mail programs. I use Outlook,
>which has a sophisticated indexed system. My mail box has more than
>5,000 messages, and Outlook can open this mailbox (on a dual Pentium
>133, my main Windows workstation), in less than 2 seconds. Unix mail -
Outhouse can infect your system and all your friend's computers in mere
seconds. :-)
>which uses nothing but a huge text file, and has to parse through every
>byte (!) to open the mailbox, is very slow. On fast Unix systems, such
>as Sparc's, it takes several _minutes_ to open a mailbox of 200-300
>messages (compared to 2 seconds for a mailbox over 10x bigger on
>Windows). Mailboxes over that length are absolutely unwieldy for Unix,
>but no problem with a sophisticated mailer (security issues
>notwithstanding).
You are either lying, or you have never used a Sun. I use them daily,
and Pine or Mutt will open a mailbox far faster than "minutes."
As for sophisticated mailers, Mutt is capable of doing more than Outlook
in terms of mail.
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 23 Jun 2000 11:09:39 +0100
>>>>> "Mark" == Mark S Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Phillip
Mark> Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mark" == Mark S Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> Nope -- I didn't say any of that stuff; attributions fixed
Mark> below.
My apologies if I screwed up my attributions. I try to take
care to get this right, but occasionally fail.
Mark> Stallman's last sentence here does say that "the system as a
Mark> whole [is] wrong" in some ways. But he's not a communist
Mark> (believer in people sharing *everything* equally), nor a
Mark> Communist (believer in Stalinism), because his general
Mark> political beliefs, as expressed in these two paragraphs, are
Mark> neither.
Well I would not say that this is a terrible accurate
description of communism! As you say latter "to each according to his
needs" does not mean that everyone gets the same.
>> Of course to say that he has been influenced by "leftist
>> Anarchism" but "not at all by communism" is rather nieve. Leftist
>> Anarchism and Communism have been intertwinned through out their
>> existence. Sometimes happily so, and sometimes much less
>> so. Still they have influenced each other heavily, and if you are
>> influenced by one, then you are by the other as it were.
Mark> Presumably you are talking about small-c "communism" here, but
Mark> Stallman was referring to the big-C Russian kind, because
Mark> that's what his red-baiting critics accuse him of.
I'm talking about communism in the sense of Marx rather
than anything else. I'm not sure that "red-baiting" critics actually
have a refined enough knowledge to actually be able to
differentiate. As Stallman said people usually like to describe him as
communist so that they can argue against this rather than his actual
views. In otherwords a jingoistic form of the classic strawman
technique. Funnily enough the same technique is used against many on
the left. Many would rather argue against a caricature of Marxism
rather than what is actually being said.
Mark> And indeed, a sort of small-c communism, or leftist anarchism,
Mark> "From each according to their (voluntarily exercised) ability;
Mark> to each according to their need (as fulfilled by copies of
Mark> software that require almost no effort by its creators to
Mark> reproduce)" does describe the workings of the Free Software
Mark> movement.
Well I think that this is the point the original web page
was attempting to make. There is a linkage between the ideology that
informs the FSF and many of the ideologies expressed by the left.
Phil
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 23 Jun 2000 11:16:25 +0100
>>>>> "Kenneth" == Kenneth P Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kenneth> On 22 Jun 2000 15:27:19 +0100, Phillip Lord
Kenneth> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [Snip]
>> Of course to say that he has been influenced by "leftist
>> Anarchism" but "not at all by communism" is rather naive. Leftist
>> Anarchism and Communism have been intertwined through out their
>> existence. Sometimes happily so, and sometimes much less
>> so. Still they have influenced each other heavily, and if you are
>> influenced by one, then you are by the other as it were.
Kenneth> I should jump in here and note that although leftist
Kenneth> anarchism and communism have some things in common they are
Kenneth> not based on a similar set of principles at all. Leftist
Kenneth> anarchism holds independent action of the individual in
Kenneth> great esteem, but communism does not.
Really?
Kenneth> Leftist anarchism is based on the cooperative, voluntary
Kenneth> participation of the individual, communism has the
Kenneth> dictatorship of the proletariat as one of its steps.
"dictatorship of the proletariat" means that the working
class should rule themselves rather than being ruled over by small
powerful class.
The difference between leftist anarchism and communism is
not one of democracy. Both forms are democratic. The difference is
that anarchism sees no role for the machinery of the state, whilst
communism sees the state as a mechanism for democracy.
I'm still not sure which side of the fence I sit on. To me
it appears that the aims are fairly similar in that they both aim to
end the class system, but that the means are very different.
Phil
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:28:17 +0100
This is hard for me, but I'm trying to give a reasoned response.
> * that the Unix model doesn't extend well into the graphical user
> interface
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but I don't think I agree.
The part of the UNIX/GUI model which allows you to easily switch on and
off the gui at will I find very useful. When I want the best performance
out of my SVGALib games, I usually dob't bother with haveing X running,
because it takes up resources. I find this no inconvienience at all,
because I don't mis working (usually involves X) or playing (often
involving SVGALib).
Secondly, there is no need to have X running on a server. you can still
have GUI config tools, which display on a remote machine, but there is
no need to lower the servers resources by running a GUI (and all GUIs
are resource hungry).
The other thing that you might be talking about is the unix model of
lots of little tools that can be connected together. I think this does
extend well in to the GUI because little tools such as TCL/TK can be
used to give nice front ends to useful tools like find, without removing
functionality form the GUI of CLI user.
As for piping and so on, I think it is a very valuably tool that it
would be bad to loose, but I (personally) see no easy way to integrate
it in to a GUI, but never say never. On the other hane, I see no reason
to remove that functionality for those who prefer CLIs or use scripts.
> * that having two competing desktop enviroments will be causing
> inconveniance to users for years.
I assume you're refering to GNOME vs KDE. It is a potential problem, but
I'd rather have the choice. Although, for new users it makes it harder
to leaarn. Personally, I like a minimilist/nonexistant desktop, which is
why I use either virtual terminals or FVWM2. I would hate to loose that
choice.
> * that perhaps we need to get rid of these middle-level C-like languages
> that make it easier for even great programmers to introduce memory leaks and
Remove all the C like languages? I think that would never work. Some
people like C, and some things need to be done in C like languages for
speed etc. Also many people have quite a lot of old C/FORTRAN/WHATEVER
code kicking around, and loosing those languages would prevent such a
system from catching on with the people most likely to develop it.
> core dumps into large applications that we depend on.
> * that there are so many ways in which GNU/Linux can be improved that it
> would be useful to start over from scratch and design a new OS light years
> ahead of what we have now.
I see no reason to design the entire OS from scratch. There are several
(very good) kernels (HURD and Linux) around, and several good FS (ext2fs
RiserFS). There is no need to scrap these. It seems to me that you are
unhappy with the GUI aspect, rather than the OS as a whole. MacOSX will
soon proove to use wheather is is possible to introduce a good (in many
people's opinion) GUI in to an `old' OS (BSD) without a complete
redesign. If it works, I see no reason why it couldn't be done to Linux
if that is what people want to do.
> And for those of you who curiously read "Nt is better" between the lines of
> any "GNU/Linux isn't God" posts, please note that: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO
> WITH NT. Sorry for shouting.
LOL!
> But if you look again at my last point you will see what I am suggesting. A
> new Operating System that takes what we have learned in watching this OS
> grow and uses that experience in creating a great OS.
> I guess as a disclaimer I am not much of a programmer (yet) so see this as a
> theoretical discussion. It is the kind of discussion that interests me
> greatly. I personally want an OS that will cater to all my needs. It would
> need to have all the necessary primitives ready to be scripted by something
> clean like scheme or python. It would need to have seamless networking and
> needs to be written in a language that increases productivity and never
> crashes.
Even the best languages can be crashed by the worst programmers :-)
> It will need be based on a GUI that is lightyears ahead of what we
> have now...something that provides functionality that both Mac Users and
> hard core command-lines users will find as useful as on their usual systems.
> It would have to be *that* configurable. But most importantly, it will need
> to have a focus and a design that makes the whole OS seem seamless,
> extremely powerful, and easy to use for the neophyte by default.
>
> I guess I am asking, do you really think GNU/Linux is a great OS or do you
> think there is enough room for improvement for work on a new, largely
> incompatible, OS be worthwhile?
I don't think working on a new OS is worthwhile. It would be wasteful to
scrap the components that are unarguably very good, such as the kernel
and file systems. IMO GNU/Linux is a great OS and I very rarely wish it
had a feature that doesn't, but I am a hacker/hard core commandliner and
it does appeal to me.
> And if you are in the opinion of the latter,
> how would you build such an OS? What programming language would you prefer
> it be built on? What other technologies would you want it to use?
>
> Thanks for your time,
> Kevin Holmes
> "extrasolar"
Just my �0.02
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:24:52 +0200
and of course, ten downloads, ( or even ten sales) can result in zero
installations. this is much less likely with NT.
most of the linux cd-s are burned because it is free and people want to
check it out. after that, it is left on a separate partition and never
booted into again.
davorin
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I think the 70% you're referring to is on sales $$$ not on actual
installed
> >base.
>
> For NT you might be able to come approximately close mapping
> sales to installations. With Linux, a single download (not even
> one sale) can result in dozens or hundreds of installations.
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:00:23 +0200
> * that the Unix model doesn't extend well into the graphical user
> interface
why?
> * that having two competing desktop enviroments will be causing
> inconveniance to users for years.
and rebooting a system some times a day is not inconvenient?
and every year a new 'std.' gui is not inconvenient?
and not have full access over the network to your computer is not
inconvenient?
etc.
> * that perhaps we need to get rid of these middle-level C-like languages
> that make it easier for even great programmers to introduce memory leaks and
> core dumps into large applications that we depend on.
what is better than C in your world for system-level stuff?
> * that there are so many ways in which GNU/Linux can be improved that it
> would be useful to start over from scratch and design a new OS light years
> ahead of what we have now.
well there are no better oses than unix (imho) on this world ...
well maybe some mainframe-stuff ... but else?
> But if you look again at my last point you will see what I am suggesting. A
> new Operating System that takes what we have learned in watching this OS
> grow and uses that experience in creating a great OS.
do it ... I am awaiting your solution :)
------------------------------
From: Sean Akers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:05:30 +0100
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:54:26 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:31:51 +0400, "Ferdinand V. Mendoza"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Installed Mandrake 7.1 recently. I got all the
>>partitions for reiserfs.
>
>
>On the flip side Mandrake 7.1 locks up for me on a system with a 5
>year old video card while trying to probe for SCSI cards.
>
And Windows 2000 Pro locks up half way through the detecting hardware
phase during installation on my machine if I have a SCSI or Promise
Ultra/66 controller card fitted. Had to remove the cards, install,
then put the cards back in. Now that's quality for you ! Didn't have
this problem installing SuSe Linux 6.4 .
Sean.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 07:37:08 -0400
KLH wrote:
>
> Okay, the subject line definitely sounded like flamebait, but its not.
I am skeptical.
>
> I don't consider GNU/Linux a great OS, just marginally better that
> everything else I have used, at least for my needs.
GNU/Linux is a "good" OS. It isn't a great one, then again, it ain't
expensive. When compared to any of the Windows variants, it is far far
better.
>
> A true advocate would have to admit:
>
> * that the Unix model doesn't extend well into the graphical user
> interface
And just why would that be? Are you saying DOS lent itself better to a
GUI (ala Windows?)
> * that having two competing desktop enviroments will be causing
> inconveniance to users for years.
One mans inconvenience is another mans opportunity. An app written for
GNOME will run under KDE, and vice versa.
> * that perhaps we need to get rid of these middle-level C-like languages
> that make it easier for even great programmers to introduce memory leaks and
> core dumps into large applications that we depend on.
Again, are you saying that Windows, or ANY OTHER PLATFORM, has more and
different programming languages than UNIX/Linux?
> * that there are so many ways in which GNU/Linux can be improved that it
> would be useful to start over from scratch and design a new OS light years
> ahead of what we have now.
What do you mean? This is a powerful assertion, back it up with
something. Don't just say it and expect it to mean anything. "The empire
state building needs so much rework, we should destroy it and rebuild
from scratch" Surely, one would have to prove that one too.
>
> Either a true advocate will admit this or they know something I don't, which
> almost certain; so don't badger me about saying it this way.
The problem I see with your post is it is pure "opinion." And while you
have the right to hold any opinion you wish, when you make an argument,
usually a reason or two to support your opinion goes a long way.
[snippage]
>
> I guess I am asking, do you really think GNU/Linux is a great OS or do you
> think there is enough room for improvement for work on a new, largely
> incompatible, OS be worthwhile? And if you are in the opinion of the latter,
> how would you build such an OS? What programming language would you prefer
> it be built on? What other technologies would you want it to use?
I think people who wish to design an OS around a GUI should not be
designing an OS. It does not matter "how" or for what purpose the
operating system was designed, as long as it supports, or can be made to
support without major changes, features which a GUI would use.
Look at the Mac. It is designed around a GUI, yet, as an OS it lacking.
Because of its process model, memory management, and lack of application
security, it will slowly be replaced with something else. OS-X?
Look at NT. NT is a prime example of "good" OS gone bad. I like the NT
kernel, but Microsoft has taken fundamentally good work and made it crap
by moving services and features into kernel space, which IMHO, should
not be.
A GUI is nothing more than an application for running applications. It
can be improved, all it takes is work. Is KDE or GNOME perfect? No. Are
they usable now, I think so. Are they still improving? Yes.
The UNIX model is quite flexible. It can grow and do almost anything
people want to do with it without suffering the trauma that Windows,
Mac, and NT suffer every time major improvements happen.
The reason why UNIX has been around so long with its potential intact,
and operating systems like the Mac and Windows are being replaced by
newer operating systems line OS-X and NT, is because it UNIX is designed
around small modules which are reusable/replaceable/optional. The other
systems try to design around large scale monolithic environments which
require a huge amount of rework when a significant new feature is added.
In UNIX, it would be implemented as a few small processes running as
daemons.
It has been my experience that a well designed practical solution almost
always beats a "better" one. UNIX is a very well designed practical
solution, and over the decades, many "better" operating systems have
competed with it. UNIX has never suffered a reduction in number of
users. It has suffered a slowdown in growth, but never stopped growing.
Long after Windows and the Mac have been reduced to marginal usership
like the Amiga or OS/2 UNIX will still be growing.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
