one step forward, two steps back..

one step forward, two steps back..

Post by MH » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



Just checking in. (= Haven't been here in a LONG time. I used Linux for a
couple of years back in the RH 4.2 to 5.1 days. Ditched it because I just
didn't have the time, was learning windows development, going to school, and
the 'linux allure' just didn't grab & wipe off on me as easily as it does
some. Not to mention the email threats from COLA I got one day. Nice bunch.
(-:

So, I decided what the heck, I've got a little time this summer - I'll try
it again.
Quick update from the front:

The distros are doing exactly as I knew they would three years ago. Trying
to emulate windows installation programs. It isn't working. They're better
in some regards, worse in others. I've installed W2K, and on this PC, winME.
The installation was flawless.

RH still insists that my external modem is missing on each boot, (when it's
there), sometimes the sound works, sometimes it doesn't. Half of what I
installed is buried somewhere - not on the menus.  The default installs I
think are a good idea. Trouble is, some of them leave you* with a
useless setup or bomb out trying to deliver the latter, or won't let you
setup things they didn't install very easily.
Having said that, however, it has improved for a novice.

The window managers are trying to emulate windows. It isn't working.
Neither Gnome or KDE comes close. I can see the point of trying, but if
you're going to do it, do it right or don't do it at all. It's not right.
The menu systems are a complete mess. Why does gnome have to automagically
plaster that useless bar across the bottom by default no matter what WM you
use? I know these things can be configured by hand in the config files, ..
but I thought we were doing GUIs here, remember? Drag and drop support?
Nope. Half baked at best. We're doing GUIs here, remember? We're better than
windows, remember? Not at gui's your not. Not even in the same ballpark in
the same league, in the same decade.

Memory useage. When I ran Linux last, it was RH 5.1 on a P100 with 64MBs of
ram. This box would NEVER swap. I was running Afterstep for the WM. Even
that terrible excuse for a browser NN, when running with three or four other
apps...no swap. none.. nada. I loved it. Now? HA. KDE, NN only, on a PPRO
200 with 96MBs of ram- I'm generating 50+ MB swap files. Not only that, the
system does not seem much faster than the P100. The MS bloat syndrome has
come home to roost. As I have said before, Linux was agile, and stable
because it was lean and well tuned. The apps (small & lean) most people ran
were tried and true. Now the $$ has taken over and wants the desktop.
They're trying to emulate windows. It isn't going to work. You run big GUI
based apps on top of big GUI'd window managers and you have created the same
problems you have in windows. Only worse because windows has had years
'tuning' this slop to the point that it's getting practically stable
now. --well, in windows terms any way!

If it wasn't for bedroom hackers wanting their PC's desktop to look
different because they have the newest theme of the month, with skins
flapping off the walls I don't think many home users would be coming to
linux at all. The distro's are just turning out bloated slop that doesn't
have HALF the features of windows. Thank god for building your own Linux
setup. Otherwise, I'd ditch it for good. This 'takeover the desktop' thing
is just as I predicted. A mess. The iceWM is all I need with as many
terminals as my screen will hold, running gcc or simple editors, writing
scripts so on and so on. Internet? Big apps? Forget it. NN is  just plain
sub standard compared to IE. Have you ever really used IE? It's another
world. Talk about features and ease of use. Star office? I've seen it. I
wouldn't install that bug fest if Larry blew my dog. You think office is
bad? Whew. Star office is chilling.
Desktop domination?-- it's a LONG way off, if at all. And I think that's a
good thing for Linux. And computer users in general.

 
 
 

one step forward, two steps back..

Post by Cihl » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Well, this is obviously a troll, but i'll answer anyway.


> Just checking in. (= Haven't been here in a LONG time. I used Linux for a
> couple of years back in the RH 4.2 to 5.1 days. Ditched it because I just
> didn't have the time, was learning windows development, going to school, and
> the 'linux allure' just didn't grab & wipe off on me as easily as it does
> some. Not to mention the email threats from COLA I got one day. Nice bunch.
> (-:

> So, I decided what the heck, I've got a little time this summer - I'll try
> it again.
> Quick update from the front:

> The distros are doing exactly as I knew they would three years ago. Trying
> to emulate windows installation programs. It isn't working. They're better
> in some regards, worse in others. I've installed W2K, and on this PC, winME.
> The installation was flawless.

I don't think the installation programs are emulating Windows in
particular. What the distributions want, in general, is to provide for
easier installation procedures for new users. The older installation
procedures were good in itself, but they tended to scare off these new
users.

Quote:> RH still insists that my external modem is missing on each boot, (when it's
> there), sometimes the sound works, sometimes it doesn't. Half of what I
> installed is buried somewhere - not on the menus.  The default installs I
> think are a good idea. Trouble is, some of them leave you* with a
> useless setup or bomb out trying to deliver the latter, or won't let you
> setup things they didn't install very easily.
> Having said that, however, it has improved for a novice.

When you say that you're accustomed to older versions of Linux, even
mentioning these problems seems strange at best.
For instance, i don't recall Linux ever mentioning anything on boot
about modems. They either work or they don't. And how can the sound
work sometimes and sometimes not? In Linux it either works always, or
never. Three years ago installed programs were never mentioned on any
menus.

You talk about default installs. Well, there i really have to agree
with you. The default installs tend to install programs most people
will never need, like Apache, SSH, various ftp-servers and stuff like
that. Programs people often WOULD have a use for, don't get installed,
like Sane for instance. Standard installs, however, depend heavily on
the distribution, and maybe you will find one that suits your needs.

I wouldn't describe it as badly as you say, though. For now, i'd go
with selected exactly the packages you need, but this required a
little experience in knowing what all the packages do exactly.

Quote:> The window managers are trying to emulate windows. It isn't working.
> Neither Gnome or KDE comes close. I can see the point of trying, but if
> you're going to do it, do it right or don't do it at all. It's not right.
> The menu systems are a complete mess. Why does gnome have to automagically
> plaster that useless bar across the bottom by default no matter what WM you
> use? I know these things can be configured by hand in the config files, ..
> but I thought we were doing GUIs here, remember? Drag and drop support?
> Nope. Half baked at best. We're doing GUIs here, remember? We're better than
> windows, remember? Not at gui's your not. Not even in the same ballpark in
> the same league, in the same decade.

KDE is actually a general Unix GUI-system that's making an attempt to
bring a user-friendly GUI to all Unix and Unix-like systems, including
Linux. KDE uses a policy of 'borrowing' ideas from Apple and Microsoft
for this. (Mostly Apple)
Gnome is a more Linux-specific approach, and not as much a
Windows-clone. Gnome looks a little more like the all the older WM's
in Linux/Unix, like CDE.
The only window-manager which deliberately emulates the Windows
desktop, is Fvwm95.

Drag 'n drop support has been completely rewritten just recently, and
both Gnome and KDE are going to use it in their next incarnations.
(I'm talking about XDnD, of course)

Quote:> Memory useage. When I ran Linux last, it was RH 5.1 on a P100 with 64MBs of
> ram. This box would NEVER swap. I was running Afterstep for the WM. Even
> that terrible excuse for a browser NN, when running with three or four other
> apps...no swap. none.. nada. I loved it. Now? HA. KDE, NN only, on a PPRO
> 200 with 96MBs of ram- I'm generating 50+ MB swap files. Not only that, the
> system does not seem much faster than the P100. The MS bloat syndrome has
> come home to roost. As I have said before, Linux was agile, and stable
> because it was lean and well tuned. The apps (small & lean) most people ran
> were tried and true. Now the $$ has taken over and wants the desktop.
> They're trying to emulate windows. It isn't going to work. You run big GUI
> based apps on top of big GUI'd window managers and you have created the same
> problems you have in windows. Only worse because windows has had years
> 'tuning' this slop to the point that it's getting practically stable
> now. --well, in windows terms any way!

If you run the same WM's you did three years ago, you will have the
same amount of memory usage, too. NN hasn't changed much, either. It
added some support for things, and some instability with it. Looks
like somebody is exaggerating here. :)

And again, nobody's trying to emulate Windows. They're just trying to
get more user-friendly, and not lose too much stability and
flexibility in the process. We'll see how it turns out pretty soon.

Quote:> If it wasn't for bedroom hackers wanting their PC's desktop to look
> different because they have the newest theme of the month, with skins
> flapping off the walls I don't think many home users would be coming to
> linux at all. The distro's are just turning out bloated slop that doesn't
> have HALF the features of windows. Thank god for building your own Linux
> setup. Otherwise, I'd ditch it for good. This 'takeover the desktop' thing
> is just as I predicted. A mess. The iceWM is all I need with as many
> terminals as my screen will hold, running gcc or simple editors, writing
> scripts so on and so on. Internet? Big apps? Forget it. NN is  just plain
> sub standard compared to IE. Have you ever really used IE? It's another
> world. Talk about features and ease of use. Star office? I've seen it. I
> wouldn't install that bug fest if Larry blew my dog. You think office is
> bad? Whew. Star office is chilling.

But you can still have it the way you had it three years ago. IceWM
still exists. Linux is a *fully modular* system. You can install it
anyway you want it. It doesn't require any more work than it did three
years ago.

Quote:> Desktop domination?-- it's a LONG way off, if at all. And I think that's a
> good thing for Linux. And computer users in general.

See above. Desktop extensions are only being *added* to Linux. They
are not replacing any old systems.

--
I live!
I hunger!
Run, coward!
               -- The Sinistar

 
 
 

one step forward, two steps back..

Post by Jame » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Check in again a year or two from now ...


Quote:> Just checking in. (= Haven't been here in a LONG time. I used Linux for a
> couple of years back in the RH 4.2 to 5.1 days. Ditched it because I just
> didn't have the time, was learning windows development, going to school,
and
> the 'linux allure' just didn't grab & wipe off on me as easily as it does
> some. Not to mention the email threats from COLA I got one day. Nice
bunch.
> (-:

> So, I decided what the heck, I've got a little time this summer - I'll try
> it again.
> Quick update from the front:

> The distros are doing exactly as I knew they would three years ago. Trying
> to emulate windows installation programs. It isn't working. They're better
> in some regards, worse in others. I've installed W2K, and on this PC,
winME.
> The installation was flawless.

> RH still insists that my external modem is missing on each boot, (when
it's
> there), sometimes the sound works, sometimes it doesn't. Half of what I
> installed is buried somewhere - not on the menus.  The default installs I
> think are a good idea. Trouble is, some of them leave you* with a
> useless setup or bomb out trying to deliver the latter, or won't let you
> setup things they didn't install very easily.
> Having said that, however, it has improved for a novice.

> The window managers are trying to emulate windows. It isn't working.
> Neither Gnome or KDE comes close. I can see the point of trying, but if
> you're going to do it, do it right or don't do it at all. It's not right.
> The menu systems are a complete mess. Why does gnome have to automagically
> plaster that useless bar across the bottom by default no matter what WM
you
> use? I know these things can be configured by hand in the config files, ..
> but I thought we were doing GUIs here, remember? Drag and drop support?
> Nope. Half baked at best. We're doing GUIs here, remember? We're better
than
> windows, remember? Not at gui's your not. Not even in the same ballpark in
> the same league, in the same decade.

> Memory useage. When I ran Linux last, it was RH 5.1 on a P100 with 64MBs
of
> ram. This box would NEVER swap. I was running Afterstep for the WM. Even
> that terrible excuse for a browser NN, when running with three or four
other
> apps...no swap. none.. nada. I loved it. Now? HA. KDE, NN only, on a PPRO
> 200 with 96MBs of ram- I'm generating 50+ MB swap files. Not only that,
the
> system does not seem much faster than the P100. The MS bloat syndrome has
> come home to roost. As I have said before, Linux was agile, and stable
> because it was lean and well tuned. The apps (small & lean) most people
ran
> were tried and true. Now the $$ has taken over and wants the desktop.
> They're trying to emulate windows. It isn't going to work. You run big GUI
> based apps on top of big GUI'd window managers and you have created the
same
> problems you have in windows. Only worse because windows has had years
> 'tuning' this slop to the point that it's getting practically stable
> now. --well, in windows terms any way!

> If it wasn't for bedroom hackers wanting their PC's desktop to look
> different because they have the newest theme of the month, with skins
> flapping off the walls I don't think many home users would be coming to
> linux at all. The distro's are just turning out bloated slop that doesn't
> have HALF the features of windows. Thank god for building your own Linux
> setup. Otherwise, I'd ditch it for good. This 'takeover the desktop' thing
> is just as I predicted. A mess. The iceWM is all I need with as many
> terminals as my screen will hold, running gcc or simple editors, writing
> scripts so on and so on. Internet? Big apps? Forget it. NN is  just plain
> sub standard compared to IE. Have you ever really used IE? It's another
> world. Talk about features and ease of use. Star office? I've seen it. I
> wouldn't install that bug fest if Larry blew my dog. You think office is
> bad? Whew. Star office is chilling.
> Desktop domination?-- it's a LONG way off, if at all. And I think that's a
> good thing for Linux. And computer users in general.

 
 
 

one step forward, two steps back..

Post by MH » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



Well, this is obviously a troll, but i'll answer anyway.

Actually I wasn't trying to troll. I think Linux is fantastic. I just don't
like some of the directions the major distributors are taking. I realize I
can take that or leave it.
Thank goodness for that!

Oh, and thanks for the very reasonable counterpoint devoid of flame.
'--------------

I don't think the installation programs are emulating Windows in
particular. What the distributions want, in general, is to provide for
easier installation procedures for new users. The older installation
procedures were good in itself, but they tended to scare off these new
users.

'--------
I agree now that I think about it. They aren't emulating it at all. If they
were, the installation would work a little better. :-)
'-------

When you say that you're accustomed to older versions of Linux, even
mentioning these problems seems strange at best.
For instance, i don't recall Linux ever mentioning anything on boot
about modems. They either work or they don't. And how can the sound
work sometimes and sometimes not? In Linux it either works always, or
never. Three years ago installed programs were never mentioned on any
menus.
'--------

Red hat has included 'value added' features. One of these is checking for
new hardware during boot up. A red hat screen pops up (color) that informs
me that the device (serial modem) is no longer present and will be removed
from the system. But, I have the choice to 'ignore' this and the device
isn't removed. The serial modem is where it is every boot. Jacked into the
com2 serial port.
The sound I can't explain. Doesn't really bother me. I don't use it other
than to play audio CD's...which I can live without. Just seems funny to me,
I get no error messages when it doesn't function. At least none that are
obvious. But then I'm not that *about reading all the system messages
and logs. I'll leave that tedium to those with nothing better to do with
their workstation.

As for menus. I remember installing RH 5.1 and with only 2 exceptions,
everything I installed in the way of programs showed up on any window
manager's menu. Now it seems not. And the menus seem very disorganized.

'----------------

Drag 'n drop support has been completely rewritten just recently, and
both Gnome and KDE are going to use it in their next incarnations.
(I'm talking about XDnD, of course)

'---
Perhaps I'll try it when it's done.

'--

If you run the same WM's you did three years ago, you will have the
same amount of memory usage, too. NN hasn't changed much, either. It
added some support for things, and some instability with it. Looks
like somebody is exaggerating here. :)
'------

I would, I just don't have time to figure out how to 'de-gnome' my
interface.
When I switch to say, windowmaker that damn Gnome taskbar is still there
with WM laid over top of it. The memory? I'm not making it up. Unless free
is lying, I'm swapping when I never used to. Of course I think RH has
installed every daemon known to nix, of which 50% I don't need. I haven't
gotten around to t* the modules.
'--------

But you can still have it the way you had it three years ago. IceWM
still exists. Linux is a *fully modular* system. You can install it
anyway you want it. It doesn't require any more work than it did three
years ago.

'----

I agree. Just wondering if I can *kill* Gnome. It seems entangled into the
very knooks and crannies of any window manager I choose to run (=

take care.

 
 
 

one step forward, two steps back..

Post by Cihl » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> Actually I wasn't trying to troll. I think Linux is fantastic. I just don't
> like some of the directions the major distributors are taking. I realize I
> can take that or leave it.
> Thank goodness for that!

> Oh, and thanks for the very reasonable counterpoint devoid of flame.
> I agree now that I think about it. They aren't emulating it at all. If they
> were, the installation would work a little better. :-)

Well, to be quite honest. Installation procedures aren't very good in
Linux. And the same goes for Windows. The only good example of a
capable installation procedure is BeOS. (Too bad BeOS doesn't do much
else, though.)

Quote:> Red hat has included 'value added' features. One of these is checking for
> new hardware during boot up. A red hat screen pops up (color) that informs
> me that the device (serial modem) is no longer present and will be removed
> from the system. But, I have the choice to 'ignore' this and the device
> isn't removed. The serial modem is where it is every boot. Jacked into the
> com2 serial port.

I believe you can turn the hardware detection bit off on boot. I can't
remember how in RedHat, though. In Mandrake you just run DrakConf.

Quote:> The sound I can't explain. Doesn't really bother me. I don't use it other
> than to play audio CD's...which I can live without. Just seems funny to me,
> I get no error messages when it doesn't function. At least none that are
> obvious. But then I'm not that *about reading all the system messages
> and logs. I'll leave that tedium to those with nothing better to do with
> their workstation.

Well, i can certainly tell you that's not supposed to work that way.
Maybe it has something to do with a BIOS-setting. PnP-OS?

Quote:> As for menus. I remember installing RH 5.1 and with only 2 exceptions,
> everything I installed in the way of programs showed up on any window
> manager's menu. Now it seems not. And the menus seem very disorganized.

Personally i avoid RedHat like the plague. My best experience with
Linux installation and configuration lies with SuSE. Maybe you should
try that one as well.

[referring to dnd]

Quote:> Perhaps I'll try it when it's done.

KDE2 will certainly use this new technology. It's be out in a maximum
of 8 weeks from now. The first distributions carrying KDE2 will come
out next fall or so. For some wow's, look at the KDE2-screenshots from
http://www.veryComputer.com/.

I don't know about Gnome. Can anybody else fill this in?

Quote:> I would, I just don't have time to figure out how to 'de-gnome' my
> interface.
> When I switch to say, windowmaker that damn Gnome taskbar is still there
> with WM laid over top of it. The memory? I'm not making it up. Unless free
> is lying, I'm swapping when I never used to. Of course I think RH has
> installed every daemon known to nix, of which 50% I don't need. I haven't
> gotten around to t* the modules.

I have tried Mandrake, too. When you choose Sawmill at login there,
you only get the bare screen and the xterm. No toolbars or anything.
Very nice for monitoring work.

--
     You have changed the signature included in your e-mail.
For these changes to take effect, you must restart your computer!
          Do you wish to restart your computer now?
                      [YES]    [NO]

 
 
 

one step forward, two steps back..

Post by Jonatha » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




--snip--

Quote:> Memory useage. When I ran Linux last, it was RH 5.1 on a P100 with
64MBs of
> ram. This box would NEVER swap. I was running Afterstep for the WM.
Even
> that terrible excuse for a browser NN, when running with three or four
other
> apps...no swap. none.. nada. I loved it. Now? HA. KDE, NN only, on a
PPRO
> 200 with 96MBs of ram- I'm generating 50+ MB swap files. Not only
that, the
> system does not seem much faster than the P100. The MS bloat syndrome
has
> come home to roost. As I have said before, Linux was agile, and stable
> because it was lean and well tuned. The apps (small & lean) most
people ran
> were tried and true. Now the $$ has taken over and wants the desktop.
> They're trying to emulate windows. It isn't going to work. You run big
GUI
> based apps on top of big GUI'd window managers and you have created
the same
> problems you have in windows. Only worse because windows has had years
> 'tuning' this slop to the point that it's getting practically stable
> now. --well, in windows terms any way!

--snip--

I bet you took the default choice for which daemons to start on boot.  #
out all the unnecessary services in inetd.conf and check again :)

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

one step forward, two steps back..

Post by Pete Goodw » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



Quote:>RH still insists that my external modem is missing on each boot, (when
>it's there), sometimes the sound works, sometimes it doesn't. Half of
>what I installed is buried somewhere - not on the menus.  The default
>installs I think are a good idea. Trouble is, some of them leave you
>hanging with a useless setup or bomb out trying to deliver the latter,
>or won't let you setup things they didn't install very easily.
>Having said that, however, it has improved for a novice.

On my system, if I forget to switch on my external modem, the Linux startup
detects this and asks if it can remove the device!

Quote:>The window managers are trying to emulate windows. It isn't working.
>Neither Gnome or KDE comes close. I can see the point of trying, but if
>you're going to do it, do it right or don't do it at all. It's not
>right. The menu systems are a complete mess. Why does gnome have to
>automagically plaster that useless bar across the bottom by default no
>matter what WM you use? I know these things can be configured by hand in
>the config files, .. but I thought we were doing GUIs here, remember?
>Drag and drop support? Nope. Half baked at best. We're doing GUIs here,
>remember? We're better than windows, remember? Not at gui's your not.
>Not even in the same ballpark in the same league, in the same decade.

Ah, someone who agrees with me!

Quote:>Memory useage. When I ran Linux last, it was RH 5.1 on a P100 with 64MBs
>of ram. This box would NEVER swap. I was running Afterstep for the WM.
>Even that terrible excuse for a browser NN, when running with three or
>four other apps...no swap. none.. nada. I loved it. Now? HA. KDE, NN
>only, on a PPRO 200 with 96MBs of ram- I'm generating 50+ MB swap files.
>Not only that, the system does not seem much faster than the P100. The
>MS bloat syndrome has come home to roost. As I have said before, Linux
>was agile, and stable because it was lean and well tuned. The apps
>(small & lean) most people ran were tried and true. Now the $$ has taken
>over and wants the desktop. They're trying to emulate windows. It isn't
>going to work. You run big GUI based apps on top of big GUI'd window
>managers and you have created the same problems you have in windows.
>Only worse because windows has had years 'tuning' this slop to the point
>that it's getting practically stable now. --well, in windows terms any
>way!

The Gnome and KDE desktops are probably getting to where MOTIF was several
years ago. They descovered a lot of heavy memory usage and reinvented
'gadgets' to replace 'widgets' that consumed a window, whereas gadgets
don't. Down went the memory usage.

Pete

 
 
 

one step forward, two steps back..

Post by Pete Goodw » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




Quote:>Install is actually superior to Windows IMHO.

In what way? Installing Mandrake 7.0/7.1 the only real difference was the
number of reboots - Windows seems to require a few, Mandrake just one.

Quote:>I agree, but development is plodding on and they are all getting
>better with each new version. Aside from bug fixes and cycle sucking
>animation, what has changed about the Windows desktop in the last 5
>years?

The big jump in the Windows desktop was with Windows 95. Previously the
controls available were pretty naff. With the addition of the List control,  
Tree control, Rich Text and a few others it has made it easier to create
good GUI's.

MOTIF had a whole set of controls but no equivalent to List or Tree.
However it had controls that could attach to each other, something not
available in Windows (but available in Delphi!).

Quote:>Active desktop (or whatever it is called?)? That's the first thing
>users typically turn off.

Yes, Active Desktop. Along with a whole bunch of other features, like
animated menues, (Windows 2000) fadin/out menues, hidden files etc.

Quote:>Some folks like to do everything manually, and for them these WM's
>offer that level of control.

I'm still investigating KDE. I'm not sure I like the two toolbars - why not
one?

Quote:>My PERSONAL opinion is that Linux should focus on the server/technical
>user market and should forget going for the desktop.

Then it will remain in the background and never challenge Microsoft.

Pete

 
 
 

one step forward, two steps back..

Post by Gary Halloc » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> I'm still investigating KDE. I'm not sure I like the two toolbars - why not
> one?

Do you mean the separate toolbar and taskbar?   You can control their
positions so  they are right next to each other.   You can also disable the
taskbar or make it so that it disappears from view after a delay.   Move the
mouse to the edge of the screen and it comes back.   I do this on my thinkpad
since I only have an 800x600 screen and I need to preserve screen space.  I'm
not sure, but I seem to remember that KDE 2 had an option to embed the task
bar in the tool bar.

Gary

 
 
 

one step forward, two steps back..

Post by Colin R. Da » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> >Desktop domination?-- it's a LONG way off, if at all. And I think that's a
> >good thing for Linux. And computer users in general.

> My PERSONAL opinion is that Linux should focus on the server/technical
> user market and should forget going for the desktop.

But Linux isn't a single company. Should the KDE people drop KDE
and write server code?

Colin Day

 
 
 

one step forward, two steps back..

Post by B'iche » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




>A distribution like Slackware is what I believe Linux is really about.
>Linux shouldn't try and cheap'n itself by offering half assed
>solutions, but instead should focus on the many things it DOES do
>well.

>Slackware is Linux in it's rawest form. it makes no assumptions and
>for the most part expects the user to know what he is doing. In the
>hands of some one who knows Linux, this translates into awesome power
>and control over the OS.
>This is IMHO of course, and I DON'T fit into that catagory :)

        Us Slackware users thank you for your compliment ;) Slackware
is not the  Rawest form of linux but its pretty basic in its
configuration and setup. (for real raw, build Linux from scratch ;))
        I don't use a GUI much. If I do, I mainly fire up fvwm95 under
X, mainly for Netscape. (most of the time I use lynx under the cli).
        Unlike Redhat, Slackware's packageing system really is
rudimentry, Mainly a tar program with a built in script processor.
However, the setup package is NOT that bad. I can select what packages
I really need from a list of menus. Say for example I did not want X,
simple I just don't select X! maybe I don't want Ghostscript. Same
thing I deselect ghostscript. By selecting What I really need during
installation (or later on), I can maximize the Ram and disk space that
is available to me.
        I have no plans to switch to anything other than Slackware, as
I prefer the individual control I have with the system. There is no
linuxconnf or yast or whatever to get in my way. (I did intall
linuxconf under slackware but rarely use it). Its just me, Tar and vi
and good ole gcc when it comes to installation of software.

                        B'ichela

 
 
 

one step forward, two steps back..

Post by Jim Broughto » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> Just checking in. (= Haven't been here in a LONG time. I used Linux for a
> couple of years back in the RH 4.2 to 5.1 days. Ditched it because I just
> didn't have the time, was learning windows development, going to school, and
> the 'linux allure' just didn't grab & wipe off on me as easily as it does
> some. Not to mention the email threats from COLA I got one day. Nice bunch.
> (-:

> So, I decided what the heck, I've got a little time this summer - I'll try
> it again.
> Quick update from the front:

> The distros are doing exactly as I knew they would three years ago. Trying
> to emulate windows installation programs. It isn't working. They're better
> in some regards, worse in others. I've installed W2K, and on this PC, winME.
> The installation was flawless.

> RH still insists that my external modem is missing on each boot, (when it's
> there), sometimes the sound works, sometimes it doesn't. Half of what I
> installed is buried somewhere - not on the menus.  The default installs I
> think are a good idea. Trouble is, some of them leave you* with a
> useless setup or bomb out trying to deliver the latter, or won't let you
> setup things they didn't install very easily.
> Having said that, however, it has improved for a novice.

> The window managers are trying to emulate windows. It isn't working.
> Neither Gnome or KDE comes close. I can see the point of trying, but if
> you're going to do it, do it right or don't do it at all. It's not right.
> The menu systems are a complete mess. Why does gnome have to automagically
> plaster that useless bar across the bottom by default no matter what WM you
> use? I know these things can be configured by hand in the config files, ..
> but I thought we were doing GUIs here, remember? Drag and drop support?
> Nope. Half baked at best. We're doing GUIs here, remember? We're better than
> windows, remember? Not at gui's your not. Not even in the same ballpark in
> the same league, in the same decade.

> Memory useage. When I ran Linux last, it was RH 5.1 on a P100 with 64MBs of
> ram. This box would NEVER swap. I was running Afterstep for the WM. Even
> that terrible excuse for a browser NN, when running with three or four other
> apps...no swap. none.. nada. I loved it. Now? HA. KDE, NN only, on a PPRO
> 200 with 96MBs of ram- I'm generating 50+ MB swap files. Not only that, the
> system does not seem much faster than the P100. The MS bloat syndrome has
> come home to roost. As I have said before, Linux was agile, and stable
> because it was lean and well tuned. The apps (small & lean) most people ran
> were tried and true. Now the $$ has taken over and wants the desktop.
> They're trying to emulate windows. It isn't going to work. You run big GUI
> based apps on top of big GUI'd window managers and you have created the same
> problems you have in windows. Only worse because windows has had years
> 'tuning' this slop to the point that it's getting practically stable
> now. --well, in windows terms any way!

> If it wasn't for bedroom hackers wanting their PC's desktop to look
> different because they have the newest theme of the month, with skins
> flapping off the walls I don't think many home users would be coming to
> linux at all. The distro's are just turning out bloated slop that doesn't
> have HALF the features of windows. Thank god for building your own Linux
> setup. Otherwise, I'd ditch it for good. This 'takeover the desktop' thing
> is just as I predicted. A mess. The iceWM is all I need with as many
> terminals as my screen will hold, running gcc or simple editors, writing
> scripts so on and so on. Internet? Big apps? Forget it. NN is  just plain
> sub standard compared to IE. Have you ever really used IE? It's another
> world. Talk about features and ease of use. Star office? I've seen it. I
> wouldn't install that bug fest if Larry blew my dog. You think office is
> bad? Whew. Star office is chilling.
> Desktop domination?-- it's a LONG way off, if at all. And I think that's a
> good thing for Linux. And computer users in general.

Oh gawd another wintroll.

JIM

--
If Sense were common everyone would have it!

 
 
 

one step forward, two steps back..

Post by Matthias Wark » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


It was the Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:13:55 GMT...


> >Desktop domination?-- it's a LONG way off, if at all. And I think that's a
> >good thing for Linux. And computer users in general.

> My PERSONAL opinion is that Linux should focus on the server/technical
> user market and should forget going for the desktop.

Linux cannot focus on anything because Linux is neither an
organisation nor a product.

mawa
--
Bei allen Fernsehsendungen, seien das jetzt die Teletubbies,
irgendwelche Zeichentrickserien oder meinetwegen auch das nachgerade
kultige Telekolleg Physik II, gilt natrlich, dass es nie was bringt,
die Kinder alleine davor zu parken.                            -- mawa

 
 
 

one step forward, two steps back..

Post by sfcyb.. » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




> It was the Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:13:55 GMT...

> > >Desktop domination?-- it's a LONG way off, if at all. And I think
that's a
> > >good thing for Linux. And computer users in general.

> > My PERSONAL opinion is that Linux should focus on the
server/technical
> > user market and should forget going for the desktop.

> Linux cannot focus on anything because Linux is neither an
> organisation nor a product.

Linux is focused enough to become a treat to Microsoft! Seems focused to
me!

Quote:> mawa
> --
> Bei allen Fernsehsendungen, seien das jetzt die Teletubbies,
> irgendwelche Zeichentrickserien oder meinetwegen auch das nachgerade
> kultige Telekolleg Physik II, gilt natrlich, dass es nie was bringt,
> die Kinder alleine davor zu parken.                            -- mawa

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
 
 
 

one step forward, two steps back..

Post by RiCHaRD HaRLo » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00





> > A distribution like Slackware is what I believe Linux is really
> > about. Linux shouldn't try and cheap'n itself by offering half
> > assed solutions, but instead should focus on the many things it
> > DOES do well.

> > Slackware is Linux in it's rawest form. it makes no assumptions
> > and for the most part expects the user to know what he is doing.
> > In the hands of some one who knows Linux, this translates into
> > awesome power and control over the OS. This is IMHO of course,
> > and I DON'T fit into that catagory :)

>         Us Slackware users thank you for your compliment ;)
> Slackware is not the  Rawest form of linux but its pretty basic
> in its configuration and setup. (for real raw, build Linux from
> scratch ;))
>         I don't use a GUI much. If I do, I mainly fire up fvwm95
> under X, mainly for Netscape. (most of the time I use lynx under
> the cli).

I'll have to try this lynx browser.  As a new Slackware user, I'm
learning a lot everyday and am actually glad for the opportunity
to interact so intimately with the OS.  Probably a leftover
sentiment from the days when MS-DOS3.3 was my favorite tinker-toy!

Quote:>         Unlike Redhat, Slackware's packageing system really is
> rudimentry, Mainly a tar program with a built in script processor.
> However, the setup package is NOT that bad. I can select what packages
> I really need from a list of menus. Say for example I did not want X,
> simple I just don't select X! maybe I don't want Ghostscript. Same
> thing I deselect ghostscript. By selecting What I really need during
> installation (or later on), I can maximize the Ram and disk space that
> is available to me.

Just a word of praise for this relatively rudimentary setup: I have
a Pentium2 processor using an old, isa ne2k ethernet clone to connect
to the internet via cable modem.

My initial install of Linux was Slackware's BigSlack 7.1, running the
UMSDOS filesystem over Win98's FAT32 scheme.  After a couple of
questions in alt.os.linux.slackware, I was connected to the 'net
and feelin' fine!

Someone mentioned to me that if I wanted to experience the
advantage of Linux's native file system vs. FAT32, I ought to
consider installing on a native linux partition.  This sounded
like a good idea (not to mention a good exercise to see if I
could get Linux connected to the 'net on my own this time!  :)

I blew away the BigSlack install, used PartitionMagic to split my
6G hard drive in two, and  *then*  realized that I had no CD for
Slackware.

Well, I had a SuSE 6.2 CD set laying around and figured I could
probably get up and running so I installed this distribution.
No dice re: the 'net.

I tried SuSE's web site only to encounter "ne2k compatible cards
don't work".  <sigh!>

I also had a "Special Edition" CD of Mandrake 7.1 lying around,
courtesy of "Maximum Linux" magazine's Aug/Sep 2000 issue.  I
gave that a try and still: no dice re: the 'net.

Although I commend both SuSE and Mandrake for trying to insulate
their users from digging into the details, this insulation was
prohibitive to me.

Well, I went back to alt.os.linux.slackware (via Win98) and
explained my dilemma.  I was told where to find the Slackware
distribution, how to get it via FTP, how to make boot & root
diskettes, boot from a floppy, and install from the FAT32
partition to the native Linux partition.

It went smooth as silk!  in less than an hour (thanks to the
cable modem's throughput) I had downloaded the a, ap, and n
packages and installed them.

Viola!  I was back on the 'net in no time.  Installing the
rest of the packages was easy and here I am with a (nearly)
full Slackware distribution, happily posting to this group
from Netscape's news client running on Linux!  YaHooooooo!!!

Quote:>         I have no plans to switch to anything other than Slackware, as
> I prefer the individual control I have with the system. There is no
> linuxconnf or yast or whatever to get in my way. (I did intall
> linuxconf under slackware but rarely use it). Its just me, Tar and vi
> and good ole gcc when it comes to installation of software.

I heartily share your sentiment!   :)
--
   R i C H a R D   H a R L o S
SLaCKWaRe eNTHuSiaST, FReeTHiNKeR
 
 
 

1. one step forward, two steps back

I had to place the kernel on a non root fs for my raid set which would
include root.

I edited /etc/rc to have kvm_mkdb /boot/bsd

but now I am getting savecore errors

savecore: /bsd: kvm_openfiles: /bsd: No such file or directory

I have tried doing savecore -c /boot/bsd and savecore -f /boot/bsd and that
didnt work either?

any ideas?

2. Sonicwall Mail Problem

3. NT:One Step Forward,Two Steps Back

4. set .bash_profile

5. Two steps forward: two steps back.

6. Keyboard & Mouse permissions - 2.5.1

7. 1 step forward, 5 steps back - newbie HD problems - please help!

8. Bad sectors

9. Knode-2 steps forward, 1 back

10. Installation step by step for dumbys :)

11. Securing Solaris (HELP ME)Step by Step?????????

12. Step by Step Documentation??

13. Step-by-step instructions to set up 2 computer home network?