Linux-Misc Digest #178, Volume #20 Thu, 13 May 99 00:13:14 EDT
Contents:
Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?) (david parsons)
Re: GNU reeks of Communism (Andrew Carol)
upgrading SUSE 5.2 to 6.1 (Ramin Sina)
Re: X-Windows does'nt start anymore (Christopher Browne)
Re: GNU reeks of Communism ("Martin Ozolins")
Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?) (Leslie Mikesell)
Need Presentation Graphics Software (Jack Steen)
Re: cdrom filesystem? ("JACK")
Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Pro-Unix vs anti-WinTel (Steve Lamb)
Re: Most stable kernel? (jik-)
Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?) (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Pro-Unix vs anti-WinTel (was: Re: Is Unix a single user operating system?)
(Steve Lamb)
Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?) (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s (david parsons)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?)
Date: 12 May 1999 18:29:51 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >snip<
>: These days it is pretty much hopeless with massive shared library changes
>: on every release.
>
> This problem is almost entirely self-contained to the Linux world.
>
>: Most things work, but the time it takes to track down and fix a couple of
>: bugs just isn't worth it when you can replace everything at once for the
>: same (free) price. And before someone says that freebsd doesn't have
>: problems like that
>
> It doesn't.
He goes on to list a situation where FreeBSD *does* have problems
like that, which makes your followup seem inane at best, self-
defeating at worst.
Is this some sort of inferiority complex here, where you can't stand
the world thinking that Linux has more assholes than FreeBSD does,
so the call has gone out to the Perl-using world to stop drinking
coffee and go and defend the honor of FreeBSD? If that's the case,
congratulations; you make the long-standing assholes of the Linux
advocacy world seem like a well-mannered high-school debate team.
Of course you might also scare people away from using FreeBSD, but,
hey, that's an attitude that can be found in the Linux world too,
so you'll be number one in Yet Another anti-PR competition.
____
david parsons \bi/ Keep it up; you're making Jesus Monroy look moderate.
\/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Carol)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU reeks of Communism
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 19:56:16 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Powe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> You seem to confuse lack of exposure with the quality of software
> available.
What about the quality of Free Software? I've never put that down. I
think it's fine stuff. There's just precious little of it in the
consumer domain that is reasonable to expect the average non-technical
person to install and run on their home computers.
I can find endless development and server offerings, but very few
polished games, good word processors, tax software, etc. A few exist,
but lack important features or are very unpolished. Either way, there
is simply no "free" OS to run them on that I could expect my Mom
to be able to figure out.
> Most "Joe User" types with whom I come in contact (daily) do not
> particularly like windows, are not generally happy with it and are
> suffering from the lack of alternatives. Many, many users, if given
> the opportunity, will vent their dissatisfaction -- even while at the
> same time they believe they have no alternative but to suffer through
> the "inevitable" crashes and errors.
I find the disatisfaction of Windows users is relative to what they expect
out of it. Power users who try complex projects are often rewarded by
failures and other ugly problems. People who play games, word proccess,
and surf the web a bit rarely have any real trouble. Guess who which
camp the average *consumer* belongs to?
Remember, my whole issue is about what free software can do for CONSUMERS
(ie home users) today, not office projects, IS deparments, and other
professional users.
Even if MS went away overnight and the entire public started screaming
for free software it would do them no good. What free OS do you expect
consumers to run today? Linux?
> MS is where it is because it was there at the beginning.
I agree. We are where we are. We can't change the past. Where are
we going from here?
===== Andrew
--
Andrew Carol [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Remove leading x from my address to e-mail)
------------------------------
From: Ramin Sina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: upgrading SUSE 5.2 to 6.1
Date: 12 May 1999 19:51:54 PDT
Hi all,
Is it possible to upgrade SUSE directly from 5.2 to 6.1 or do I need to
do it one version at a time?
Thanks,
Ramin
--
========================================================
Ramin Sina
http://www.concentric.net/~rsina
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: X-Windows does'nt start anymore
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 02:54:42 GMT
On 12 May 1999 17:18:01 GMT, Geert Van Loy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I had forgotten to include my X.out file
>So here it is
>
>XFree86 Version 3.3.3.1 / X Window System
>(protocol Version 11, revision 0, vendor release 6300)
>Release Date: January 4 1999
> If the server is older than 6-12 months, or if your card is newer
> than the above date, look for a newer version before reporting
> problems. (see http://www.XFree86.Org/FAQ)
>Operating System: Linux 2.2.1-ac1 i686 [ELF]
>Configured drivers:
> Mach64: accelerated server for ATI Mach64 graphics adaptors (Patchlevel 0)
>(using VT number 7)
... material elided ...
[critical material...]
>failed to set default font path 'unix/:-1'
>Fatal server error:
>could not open default font 'fixed'
There should be a section in the XFree86 config file (usually in
/etc/X11) that deals with where fonts may be located.
The problem you're having definitely has to do with a lack of font
location information. I suggest you post the lines that contain the
word font; might do this thus:
% grep -i font /etc/X11/XF*
and then paste in the results of that.
Make sure that the paths that are indicated exist, and have fonts in
them. You may perhaps have had fonts upgraded to be in a new location
that the configuration is not aware of.
--
"On the Internet, no one knows you're using Windows NT"
-- Ramiro Estrugo, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: "Martin Ozolins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU reeks of Communism
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 20:25:37 -0700
Andrew Carol wrote in message ...
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Powe
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> You seem to confuse lack of exposure with the quality of software
>> available.
>
><edited for television>
>
>> MS is where it is because it was there at the beginning.
>
>I agree. We are where we are. We can't change the past. Where are
>we going from here?
>
Don't you mean Were do you want to go today? :-)
>
>----- Andrew
>
>--
>Andrew Carol [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Remove leading x from my address to e-mail)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?)
Date: 12 May 1999 22:11:06 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >snip<
>: I thought the freebsd ports/packages system installed things under
>: /usr/local which then become mingled with the things that you
>: need to maintain yourself.
>
> How do you *think* we "maintain" them?! With the ports system and
> package database!
You put your own local programs into ports?
> Even if you do a non-port/non-package install you'll still be *far*
> better off if you register them in the package database to *help*
> you *maintain* them yourself. It's really quite trivial.
So if I take the time to do this for the freebsd boxes, build RPMS
for the Linux boxes, and whatever the equivalent is for the solaris
boxes, what do I get in return? How does this end up being easier
than just grabbing the source from cvs or nfs mounting a master
copy for the install in a new or updated system?
I really don't want to track every program that other people are
maintaining, I want to upgrade everything to the newest in one shot
and be done for a while. That means I'll blow away the package
database anyway and then put my own programs back if necessary.
>: I'm easily confused. I want the unmodified installations to go one place,
>: the ones I expect to have to tweak even after the next upgrade in another.
>
> No one should "expect" to have to tweak *any* non-system components
> after a system upgrade, period.
OK, it just hasn't worked that way for me.
> This isn't Linux; We don't have random a.out vs ELF, g?libc[0-9],
> etc BS to deal with after a system upgrade.
I have no problems with that under Linux. There were some versions
where the compatibility libs were broken. I don't use those versions.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jack Steen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Need Presentation Graphics Software
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 21:06:07 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I work for a company which makes UNIX based engineering desktop
applications. We recently ported our flagship product to Linux and I run
it on RH 5.2 on a laptop. Often during sales presentations I need to
display slides a la MS Powerpoint or SGI Showcase. I am unaware of any
software to do this under Linux. Can anyone suggest something? Any
comments from experienced users would be welcome.
BTW, I read in several postings here that WINE was not really a good
alternative running Powerpoint, but if that will work I am willing to
give it a try.
Thanks in advance.......
Jack Steen
Dynamic Graphics
Houston, Texas
------------------------------
From: "JACK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cdrom filesystem?
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 04:07:11 +0100
Frank Waarsenburg wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hi,
>
>since my Linux box does not have a CD of it's own (Usually it's just a
>dedicated router), I share a CD on a Windoze box if I need one, using
>smbmount. This works, but the files on the CD appear on the Linux
>console in 8.3 all capital format. Is there a way to mount the CD so it
>presents long filenames?
>
>Frank
>
i know it sound obvious but check for a line in your smb.conf that sets
filenames to 8.3 format..i'll check here for the exact line and systax and
follow up.
j
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?)
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 03:06:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Perl 5.00502 currently resides in /usr/bin of recent FreeBSD
> releases.
I just checked my 3.1 box, and you are indeed correct.
Anyone in cubfm know why this was done? It seems a bit premature to me.
> Use of perl4 on FreeBSD for so long had nothing to do with language
> stability at all.
Hmm? Why was it done, then?
> > No, it's the other way around. Something goes in /usr/local *until*
> > there are no more revisions.
> Huh? To follow this logic the entire operating system should be
> under /usr/local.
I tend to exaggerate things. I should have said that something goes
into /usr/local until it's *stable*. In this case [and all others where
I use the word "stable"], I mean stable relative to the OS. If a
package is likely to be upgraded before the rest of the system, it
should be in /usr/local.
> > Then, if it's a common dependency, it's reasonable to stick it in
> > /usr/bin.
> That does not follow.
Why not? How else do you define "system" packages? I consider them to
be precisely those packages which are used [and expected to be there --
WITH standard features] by other standard system components. perl is in
/usr/bin because so many other parts of the system depend upon it, and
not for any other reason.
> > [Stuff about past and future releases of perl deleted]
perl was an example that's familiar. I specifically said _if_ perl6 is
ever released, simply as a hypothetical. This isn't a thread about
perl, it's a thread about FreeBSD vs. Linux, in particular about /usr
vs. /usr/local usage. I'll try to stop using perl as an example, since
it seems to just be confusing the issue [and since freebsd.org seems to
have decided perl5 is now stable enough to be "blessed" as the system
version of perl anyway].
> > Think of it this way: /usr/local is for things that are still
> > changing
> Like, umm, the operating system?
Darnit, can't you just read what I mean instead of what I write? :)
Fine, think of it THIS way: /usr/local is for things that are still
changing _relative_to_the_OS_.
If it's likely to change before you upgrade your system, it definitely
doesn't belong in /usr. Certainly there are exceptions [freebsd.org's
decision to put perl5 in /usr/bin will, regrettably, create many more
than usual][okay, okay, I'll shut up about perl already], but it's still
a reasonable rule of thumb.
> Perl's existence in /usr/bin has nothing to do with installation
> scripts what so ever and everything to do with the fact that
> many other system components are built with it:
Umm... since when is "building system components" not a part of the
installation process?
> And don't forget about its use in system make files ala
> /usr/src.
Again, make files are an integral part of installation.
By "install scripts" I don't simply mean copying pre-compiled binaries
into specified locations -- I mean *everything* that can be considered
part of the installation process, and this includes makefile
configuration and the build process. Except in rare cases, I don't know
anyone who installs anything on FreeBSD boxes except via the ports
collection, which builds packages straight from the source.
--
-Bill Clark
Systems Architect
ISP Channel
http://locale.ispchannel.com/
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Lamb)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Pro-Unix vs anti-WinTel
Date: 13 May 1999 03:16:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 07 May 1999 05:05:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Has Linux completely forgotten its Unix origins? No, of course not.
*SNIPPA*
> Of course you can run KDE on FreeBSD (I do, but only to support a
> few KDE based apps). Does FreeBSD push KDE, GNOME, and the rest of
> the desktop style code the way Linux does?
*SNIPPA*
> Unix kernel != Unix system
KDE != Linux. Case closed.
> As far as POSIX required utilities, yes. For more advanced systems
> like package management, no. Ports still blows away everything else
> to date, and lets not forget reliable integration issues ala make
> world and friends, builtin syncing systems using cvsup, etc.
> Playing the Linux patch of the week, RPM dependency "go fish", or
> the libc shell game isn't my idea of a fun sunday afternoon.
Hate to disagree with you there but Ports blows donkey chunks compared to
a decent packaging systen. So far I've had minimal problems with my Debian
system. Meanwhile I've seen FreeBSD systems that need to be upgraded so they
can compile software they *NEED* to run yet the admins leave it alone because
upgrading is too damned hard.
Ports, IMHO, is a joke compared to a good packaging system. A big, fat,
joke.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
===============================+=============================================
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 19:49:21 -0700
From: jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Most stable kernel?
Tam wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to hear from anybody about your experience with stability
> of your Linux system. I want to do heavy serial I/O without ever seeing
> a crash:) Seriously, do I need to write my own embedded system to see
> this kind of reliability? I've heard stories of peoples' systems staying
> up for months at a time. Please (in)validate these stories.
2.0.35 seems to be quite stable. I did the 2.2.x thing for a while
until ppp stoped working and I got a whole seriese of kernel explosions.
>
> Any recommendations on a free OS avilable TODAY that speaks nothing but
> reliability?
Slackware Linux is very reliable. Also have heard good things about
*BSD, but have never gotten past the install on any of them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?)
Date: 12 May 1999 22:39:02 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: These days it is pretty much hopeless with massive shared library changes
>: on every release.
>
> This problem is almost entirely self-contained to the Linux world.
Oh?
>
>: Most things work, but the time it takes to track down and fix a couple of
>: bugs just isn't worth it when you can replace everything at once for the
>: same (free) price. And before someone says that freebsd doesn't have
>: problems like that
>
> It doesn't.
Let's see, here's the patched gnutar that amanda needs, compiled on
a 2.1.5-RELEASE system, executing on a 2.2.2-RELEASE:
tar --version
ld.so failed: Can't find shared library "libc.so.2.2"
Same on a 2.2.5-RELEASE system.
Go the other way and:
ld.so failed: Can't find shared library "libc.so.3.0"
Some other combinations that linked ok ran into some system call
changes that I've forgotten now. I ended up compiling it
on about 6 different machines to get them all working.
>: I have an assortment of versions and have generally not been able to
>: compile something on one and copy to the others (either up or down
>: versions).
>
> /etc/make.conf
Hmmm, make... That reminds me. Where's gnu make? Bsd make chokes on
the gnutar makefile.
> # If you want the "compat" shared libraries installed as part of
> # your normal builds, uncomment these:
> #
> #COMPAT1X= yes
> #COMPAT20= yes
> #COMPAT21= yes
>
> 1.x -> CURRENT compatibility is also available as part of the system
> install and *turned on* by default.
>
> Again, such library bull shit is nearly completely confined to the
> Linux world, period.
Did the guy that set these boxes up break them on purpose or is
this compatibility a very recent thing?
> /usr/bin/cc is a core system component under FreeBSD. Again, your
> problems are almost completely unique to Linux. Claiming that any
> other system has even 1/100th the problems with this as Linux does
> is spreading FUD, nothing more.
The problems I am describing are on freebsd boxes. Nothing similar
happens on my Linux boxes (not really a fair comparison because I
know how to avoid them on Linux). But that's part of the problem.
I just was never able to get any details about how to set up
a freebsd box. For example, I had one with a 2nd drive and wanted
to change it to boot from there after the initial setup and could
never find the directions for doing that.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Lamb)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Pro-Unix vs anti-WinTel (was: Re: Is Unix a single user operating system?)
Date: 13 May 1999 03:34:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 08 May 1999 10:34:40 +0200, Peter Mutsaers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Otoh I don't see much development in the kernel anymore. Look at the
>very very slow pace of Linux kernel development at the moment. I
>browsed a bit through linux-2.2.5,6,7 recently, and really not much is
>happening and a lot is old.
Let me give you an example of what you just said in FreeBSD terms, ok?
I browsed a bit through 2.2.8-STABLE recently, and really not much is
happening and a lot is old.
>Linux seems to come to a grinding halt in these areas, probably also
>because of the horribly inefficient and confusing development process.
This is because the even numbered kernels are, as you FreeBSD people would
coin it, -STABLE. 2.2.x is no longer the active development tree anymore than
2.2.x is for FreeBSD. You want to make a fair comparison, compare those.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
===============================+=============================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?)
Date: 12 May 1999 22:43:12 -0500
In article <7hcp4q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
david parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s> wrote:
>In article <7hauq8$klo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Why would you ever want to keep running some old apps on purpose when
>>the upgrade is available?
>
> Because the old apps work, and there's no point in promiscuously
> fucking around with them.
Is that what the maintainers are doing? And here I thought they
were doing as all a favor by working hard to fix the old bugs.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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.misc) 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-Misc Digest
******************************
