-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 C.C.Chakkaradeep wrote: ... > After using Linux for some 2 years, and trying Linux From > Scratch(LFS)/Customizing > Knoppix,Slackware/Gentoo and other small stuffs, what i found is, there is no > common STANDARDS > followed except for the filesystem & directory hierarchy. You can even find > each distribution > having its own directory structure nowadays.Each one is having their own > packages.
Standards for what ? - - APIs: POSIX, SUSv2, System V, BSD: Linux and Unix are much more standardized as you might think - - Filesystem: FHS, mostly followed, but there are differences on various Linux distributions (e.g. Apache htdocs, KDE/GNOME, ...) - - package management: mostly RPM (Redhat, Fedora, SUSE, Mandriva, ...), DPKG (Debian, Ubuntu, ...) and some don't have any real package management at all (e.g. Slackware) - at least those are just tar.gz files without dependency management (and some call that a "feature") - - HIG (Human Interface Guidelines) for desktop: GNOME has, KDE is working steadily towards it (expect a lot of that for KDE 4).. not perfect, but it's a beginning - - ... lots of other stuff... So what are you exactly relating to with "STANDARDS" ? As a whole, Linux is definately the most standards-compliant platform ever, as almost every OpenSource project uses standardized technologies, file formats, etc... Just saying "there is no common STANDARDS" like that doesn't mean a thing and is close to trolling. > Now take Windows - here i want to tell something, Please dont consider > windows as THE ENEMY.Why > do Linux people hate Windows?, its mainly becoz of the EULA and propeiratory > stuffs.But just look > into their OS.You will find many things where it gives u light on how Linux > can be enhanced, and You actually don't understand what OpenSource and Free Software is all about. You don't get it *at all*. Windows is not "THE ENEMY", it's a platform most of us don't want to use because of a number of reasons: - - proprietary, closed-source - - expensive - - the behaviour of Microsoft itself and its managers (Gates, Ballmer, ..) - - not listening to the needs of their customer and users - - trying to enforce their monopoly by *always* creating non-standard, proprietary technologies and formats of their own, instead of using standards (even when they're sitting in the standard bodies (e.g. OpenDocument) - - buggy, sluggish, crashes, bad OS design - - no control, no customization possible, no way to correct failures (just reinstall) - - unsecure, virii, trojans, malware ... ... ... Now, some of us (as far as I can speak for others) certainly see Microsoft as "the enemy", because they represent what we dislike most a) in IT and software development b) as an operating system and applications c) in human behaviour BTW, Microsoft is the company that makes products that _does not follow any standards at all_ (except maybe TCP/IP, HTML, XML and CSS... (no, not CSS ;)) because they had to, as they joined the Internet move really late). So much for "STANDARDS". Go read some serious stuff about OpenSource and Free Software. Really. > thats what my discussion is.Just think why Windows is used Widely for > Desktop...yes i do agree > people use Pirated Editions...but even then they ARE USING Pirated editions > rather than going for > Linux which is free! Reasons: - - misinformation, FUD - - windows and office at half price in schools, uncapable "IT teachers" in schools, brainwashing - - lazyness for change - - unawareness of what OSS and Free Software is really about (just like you) - - Windows comes preinstalled on most PCs, Linux not (although that seems to be changing, slowly) There are many reasons for Windows being used so widely on the desktop, almost none of them being technical. > First and foremost, why SuSE??...well, i think SuSE has given importance in > GUI and equally > comparable with Microsoft Windows for GUI.I have used Xandros also where it > is competent with > both.But think about the Package Management System,System Updation and Driver > Support and easy to > use system controls and even the Menu System. Certainly. But SUSE Linux has a number of other assets: it's a high quality, well engineered, well tested Linux distribution that has the best installation and administration framework in the Linux world (YaST2 and its modules) (*). (*) ok, granted, Debian's dpkg isn't bad either but has a very different approach and isn't well suited for unexperienced users > here i think RPM/Debian are becoming the common standard in the linux > industry and whereever u > go, u will find your package either in RPM/Debian.But wait?..is there a > SINGLE CLICK RPM and dpkg/deb have been a "common standard" (although they have nothing in common, besides being package management tools) for a few years. > install??...yeah i have read about the Klick which SuSE is trying out.Thats > an amazing thing. For certain things, yes, Klik is great. But there are a lot of things it does not solve or even help with. Having "single click install" is "just" a matter of the package management front-end. It could be implemented on SUSE Linux (e.g. with "yast:", "suse:" or "rpm:" hyperlinks and plugins in Firefox and Konqueror). Maybe that's an idea to explore in the coming weeks and months, now that the community has better communication with the SUSE development staff. Don't complain and whine, make _technically well-founded_ proposals. As you've been citing Windows as being so great... Windows does not have "single click install" either. With Windows, you _execute_ a binary application that could do _anything_ on your system (reformat, install a trojan, whatever). You don't install a package. Windows has no package management at all. Just look at their 200MB+ service packs. You call that a package ? > What about un-installation?...it is not easy to un-install a package becoz of > the dependency Uninstallation is pretty easy. Start YaST2 => Software Management => "Search" or browse by category => right click and select "Remove". That's it. Or if you know the package name, do "rpm -e packagename" or "y2pmsh remove packagename". > problem.This is a real disadvantage for linux users.Many of my friends > install a lot in their > linux distribution very easily but they dont un-install because they fear, > that may affect the > system. Ouch. Sorry but you are completely wrong here. Package management and dependencies are the basics for having a *consistent* system. When you uninstall and don't bypass the dependencies, you should always end up with a system that works. If not, bug the package maintainer, he has something to fix. When you don't have package management (e.g. Windows or Slackware (*)), when you uninstall something, it *never* checks whether it breaks a requirement for another application or library. That's where you "affect the system" and end up with broken stuff everywhere. Also known as the "Windows DLL hell". (*) no pun intended, sorry for citing both in the same sentence ;) Please educate yourself and your friends about package management (e.g. RPM), what those dependencies mean, what shared libraries are. Without a doubt, you will see that it's a very important feature for having a stable system. > Package everything as components (Componentized Linux - > http://componentizedlinux.org). So > whatever u consider that forms the base system (with dependencies),package it > and then give > applications as separate compenents, so now if u want to un-install the > package(here Component), > it is easy!....and just think over...thats what Windows is doing!...So here > the dependency Did you actually *read* that page ? That has absolutely nothing to do with what you're saying. What you're mentioning is rather what klik is doing. And Windows is doing nothing, nothing at all: there are no packages. There are just directories in which they put everything, including a dozen DLLs that you already have elsewhere on your system. That leads to bloat, an unstructured system, security issues, etc... What happens when a library (Windows: DLL) has a security flaw ? On Linux you just upgrade a single package because that library is installed *once*, only once on the whole system, and all applications use that. On Windows, you would have to search everywhere on your harddisk where that DLL is installed and use, and manually copy the fixed DLL over all of them. But ok, on Windows you don't even get fixes for security flaws, you keep getting your daily feed of virii and trojans. > problem might not arise and this would get implemeted only if the release > cycle is planned > properly.Ofcourse there has to be some way to update the Base System :-). And there we end up at the same place where I have my gripes about all that klik PR talk. Where do you draw the line between the "base system" and the rest ? What about GNOME and KDE, are those "base system" or not ? If they are, you assume that a certain version of GNOME and KDE (and their hundreds of libraries) is installed, which - believe me, I make packages since years - are one of the major dependency "issues". If they're not, well, you end up shipping all the GNOME or KDE libraries with every single application. And if you don't see why that's not viable, then it's hopeless. > So,it would be like this, Package the Base Component and Applications > Components, give it to the > user.... That's what we do with our RPM packages. You just don't understand those dependencies and the technical reasons for them. > System Updation =========== > i think the above said idea would deal with System updation also.... RPM, YaST2, YasT2 Online Update, apt-get, synaptic, kynaptic, yum, smart, ... => those are all tools that handle package updates. YaST2 System Update, y2pmsh, apt-get, yum, smart, ... => those are all tools that handle complete system (distribution version) updates. > Menu System ========= > Ok, the menu system right now in Linux is, u group all the applications in > their Service > Groups.This is ok for a linux user but think of the new user, they will feel > uncomfortable.So i What do you call a "Service Group" ? > think , there should be some easy to use Menu System for a new user so that > he is not confused > with what all applications have been installed and also the administrator > menu items should not > be displayed while a normal user has logged in which would increase the > security even more! On Linux (and Unix systems) you can change the user for every application you run. Those "administrator" applications require that the user enters the root password to proceed. Actually, a major security guideline on Linux/Unix is to _never log in as root_, but rather execute certain applications and commands that require it to be run _as root_. Given that approach, it's perfectly fine (and even required) to have the administration menu items visible for every user. > Well, people might ask me that telling things would not work out and have to > do something!..yeah > here we are a team where we are working with LFS and trying to make a > distribution exactly as > what i discussed above.But till now i havent got into any discussion with any > forums about > these....and am also happy if i can try implementing these on SuSE but > how??.... It is great that you have your ideas, your opinions and that you share them. It is much better when you actually do something yourself instead of just criticizing and whining. I wish you a lot of success for your distribution project. But I think that there are major concepts, technologies and solutions on Linux and Unix that you don't understand at all. Most of the things you just cited as being "problems" are features and advantages of Linux. So, if you want to make a Linux distribution that's unstable, a complete mess and as unsecure as Linux can be, sure, go ahead. You know what, I think you've only been using Windows for years and it has influenced what you think is technically good and what is not so much that you're completely wrong on most of the stuff you stated here. Certainly, Linux is not perfect, neither is SUSE Linux. There's still a lot of work to do, a lot of issues to address. But what you're talking about is taking all the disadvantages and blatant architectural mistakes Windows has and put them into a Linux distribution, although Linux has much more effective, stable, proven concepts for those. - - take UNIX as an example of a proven, stable, mostly simple, effective OS architecture design that has survived and evolved during a few decades (even MacOSX is an Unix system now) - - take MacOSX as an example for good, consistent and mostly beautiful GUI design, and some innovative ideas in that area - - take Microsoft and Windows as an example for world domination tactics, aggressive PR and marketing and making fun of millions of people Oh, and another thing: please use a "Subject" line that clearly identifies what topic you're talking about. I already have almost 3000 mails from this list in my mailbox and "Hi all" really isn't helpful. Sorry for being harsh, I'm someone who's really hard to upset but your mail is really crap. Yeah, I know, don't feed the ..., I should have just ignored your mail, add your sender address to my spam list and that's it. I'm so stupid that I actually take some of my time to answer that. It's just the kind of mail that pi**** me off. Troll meter is at "critical". /me needs to cool down now cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _\_v FOSDEM 2006 -- 25+26 February 2006 in Brussels -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDQ9Bhr3NMWliFcXcRAjYAAKCneX8blzVkJOhH7UTEclPMHbv8sQCbBFHB KC+AkvhEZIzG4fTkQBonW1c= =8hZ5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
