Linux rant

Linux rant

Post by Sam E. Trenhol » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



People may be interested in reading my rant about Linux, which is
available on the web here:

        http://www.samiam.org/linux/linux_rant.html

Lynx users can use this link:

        http://www.samiam.org/linux/linux_rant.text.html

I generally feel that Linux is an excellent OS, but I do have my
critisims, which are detailed in the above web pages.

People without web access can ask for the article from me by emailing
me.

- Sam (The reason I am only linking to the article, and not posting it
       here is to minimize the knee-jerk reactions that are little more
       than personal insults without facts to back them up)

 
 
 

Linux rant

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



> People may be interested in reading my rant about Linux, which is
> available on the web here:

>         http://www.samiam.org/linux/linux_rant.html

> Lynx users can use this link:

>         http://www.samiam.org/linux/linux_rant.text.html

> I generally feel that Linux is an excellent OS, but I do have my
> critisims, which are detailed in the above web pages.

> People without web access can ask for the article from me by emailing
> me.

> - Sam (The reason I am only linking to the article, and not posting it
>        here is to minimize the knee-jerk reactions that are little more
>        than personal insults without facts to back them up)

Here here!! I agree with everything you said. Well put, I might add as
well.

--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Take the Mohawk Software Computer Survey at: www.mohawksoft.com

 
 
 

Linux rant

Post by Mark Weave » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


If your description of the binary compatibility problems with libc upgrades is
correct, it sounds to me like Linux has it's very own equivalent to the
Windows "DLL Hell" problem -- the difference being that MS seems to*up
binary backward compatibility with DLL upgrades sometimes and by mistake,
while with libc it is apparently intentional.  (In fact, didn't I recently
read a post in this NG about somebody installing a package that upgraded their
libc and had it break their Linux install?  Plus ca change...)

Mark

 
 
 

Linux rant

Post by Chris Costel » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> If your description of the binary compatibility problems with libc upgrades is
> correct, it sounds to me like Linux has it's very own equivalent to the
> Windows "DLL Hell" problem -- the difference being that MS seems to*up
> binary backward compatibility with DLL upgrades sometimes and by mistake,
> while with libc it is apparently intentional.  (In fact, didn't I recently
> read a post in this NG about somebody installing a package that upgraded their
> libc and had it break their Linux install?  Plus ca change...)

   What I like, love and continue to love is that FreeBSD's
upgrade path was fairly simple.  You could build the entire
system to ELF with the following command:

cd /usr/src; make aout-to-elf

   Unfortunately, that works optimally only with an integrated
system.  I seriously consider the multiple-distribution system
Linux uses as a bad thing.

Quote:> Mark

--
Chris Costello
Programming just with goto's is like swatting flies with a sledgehammer.
 
 
 

Linux rant

Post by Stig Are M. Botter » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



>   Unfortunately, that works optimally only with an integrated
>system.  I seriously consider the multiple-distribution system
>Linux uses as a bad thing.

The different Linux distributions *are* integrated systems.  By your
logic, if someone created an alternative system based on the FreeBSD
kernel, FreeBSD would cease to be an integrated system.  And while
having multiple distributions might not be much of a technical
advantage, Linux is certainly benefitting from the fact that many
companies are pushing it, including, to a small degree, Walnut Creek.

--
Stig Are M. Botterli

 
 
 

Linux rant

Post by Chris Costel » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




> >   Unfortunately, that works optimally only with an integrated
> >system.  I seriously consider the multiple-distribution system
> >Linux uses as a bad thing.

> The different Linux distributions *are* integrated systems.  By your
> logic, if someone created an alternative system based on the FreeBSD
> kernel, FreeBSD would cease to be an integrated system.  And while

   Incorrect.  There is no "Linux" operating system distribution.
There is only a kernel.

Quote:> having multiple distributions might not be much of a technical
> advantage, Linux is certainly benefitting from the fact that many
> companies are pushing it, including, to a small degree, Walnut Creek.

   To a rather large degree, actually.  It's the primary
Slackware site and the biggest Red Hat mirror (gets more hits
than all of the others including the primary combined).

> --
> Stig Are M. Botterli


--
Chris Costello
Press [ESC] to detonate or any other key to explode.
 
 
 

Linux rant

Post by Navindra Umane » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



Quote:> People may be interested in reading my rant about Linux, which is
> available on the web here:

>    http://www.samiam.org/linux/linux_rant.html

IIRC, Ken Thompson didn't say that Linux is unstable exactly, he said
it was unreliable.  Or did you write him and get an explanation?  If
so, I'm sure a lot of us would like to see it.

Quote:> - Sam (The reason I am only linking to the article, and not posting it
>        here is to minimize the knee-jerk reactions that are little more
>        than personal insults without facts to back them up)

Yeah, whatever, I think there've been plenty of flames on this issue
already (nice article to post on the Linux news sites though).

Btw, you might want to try Debian instead of Red Hat, as in my case
the switch from libc5 to libc6 has been practically transparent.  As
for glibc2 -> glibc2.1, one would hope that as soon as glibc attains
full posix compliance the madness will stop.  Also, the LSB specifies
glibc2.1 as the Linux libc.

-N.
--
"These download files are in Microsoft Word 6.0 format.  After unzipping,
these files can be viewed in any text editor, including all versions of
Microsoft Word, WordPad, and Microsoft Word Viewer."  [Microsoft website]
           < http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~navindra/editors/ >

 
 
 

Linux rant

Post by Navindra Umane » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




>>   Unfortunately, that works optimally only with an integrated
>>system.  I seriously consider the multiple-distribution system
>>Linux uses as a bad thing.

> The different Linux distributions *are* integrated systems.  By your
> logic, if someone created an alternative system based on the FreeBSD
> kernel, FreeBSD would cease to be an integrated system.  And while

Hehe.  Debian was considering making a Debian GNU/FreeBSD
distribution.  In fact, people are working on it.

-N.
--
"These download files are in Microsoft Word 6.0 format.  After unzipping,
these files can be viewed in any text editor, including all versions of
Microsoft Word, WordPad, and Microsoft Word Viewer."  [Microsoft website]
           < http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~navindra/editors/ >

 
 
 

Linux rant

Post by david parso » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




Quote:>Btw, you might want to try Debian instead of Red Hat, as in my case
>the switch from libc5 to libc6 has been practically transparent.  As
>for glibc2 -> glibc2.1, one would hope that as soon as glibc attains
>full posix compliance the madness will stop.

    Until glibc 2.2 rolls around and breaks some more interfaces, for
    the sake of compatability with some other standard of the week.
    Being ``standards compliant''(tm) doesn't mean that you have to take
    a pitchfork to backwards compatability.

Quote:>Also, the LSB specifies
>glibc2.1 as the Linux libc.

    And that settles the LSB as yet another nonsensical linux ``standard''
    that will be hyped like the second coming of christ, then quickly
    shoved aside when the next best thing is invented.

    If the LSB was serious, they'd publish an interface and say that a
    system conforms to their standard if it matches the interface.  But
    that wouldn't be the Linux way, because that would be compelling
    people to stick to a published behavior and that is apparently just
    the first step towards Microsoft control.

    Sheeesh, I'll bet that according to the LSB my distribution Mastodon
    (which has about 4 times as many BSD programs as FSF programs, and
    the only reason for that is I'm stuck with the GNU compiler
    toolchain) doesn't even count as Linux.

                  ____
    david parsons \bi/ Where can I get a gif of the LSB logo with a red slash
                   \/                                              through it?

 
 
 

Linux rant

Post by David Steube » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


->    Unfortunately, that works optimally only with an integrated
-> system.  I seriously consider the multiple-distribution system
-> Linux uses as a bad thing.

Maybe.  But I think that competition among even the Free unixen to be
a good thing.

--
David Steuber   |   s/trashcan/david/ if you wish to reply by mail

* movies are all alike ... the only thing they leave to the
imagination is the plot.

 
 
 

Linux rant

Post by David Steube » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



->   http://www.samiam.org/linux/linux_rant.text.html

Finally!  A web page that looks good in the XEmacs W3 web browser!

I have to agree with the rant.  A stable API is extremely important.
I remember having to get an update of fetchmail for GLIBC 2.0.  It
wasn't enough to recompile.  I needed new source!

For people who want to do binary only distributions, relinking should
be the absolute most you need to do with new libraries.  Even that is
a lot to ask of an ordinary user.

--
David Steuber   |   s/trashcan/david/ if you wish to reply by mail

PL/1, "the fatal disease", belongs more to the problem set than to the
solution set.
                -- E. W. Dijkstra

 
 
 

Linux rant

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




> > Maybe.  But I think that competition among even the Free unixen to be
> > a good thing.

>    Do you consider Red Hat and SuSE to be separate free Unices?

> --
> Chris Costello
> It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.

Since Linux is not a Unix, it is a Unix LIKE System, No, I would not.
They are separate DISTRIBUTIONS of Linux. Each distribution is free to
offer different apps, windows managers, install programs and support
options. Each may chose which kernel to build their systems around. The
current Redhat 6.0 distribution costs $70 US in the stores near me. I
have seen several people pick up the Caldera OpenLinux 2.2 sitting right
next to it for much cheaper! I think competition is a good thing. I'll
bet that Linux will even force a change in the way MS does business over
the next year!
 
 
 

Linux rant

Post by Chris Costel » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> Maybe.  But I think that competition among even the Free unixen to be
> a good thing.

   Do you consider Red Hat and SuSE to be separate free Unices?

--
Chris Costello
It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.

 
 
 

Linux rant

Post by Chris Costel » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> Since Linux is not a Unix, it is a Unix LIKE System, No, I would not.

   I'm aware.

Quote:> bet that Linux will even force a change in the way MS does business over
> the next year!

   I doubt that.  Why do they need to?  They're making money,
still.

--
Chris Costello
Stack manipulation - the use of inflatable falsies.     -Datamazing, 4/1/78

 
 
 

Linux rant

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




>> Maybe.  But I think that competition among even the Free unixen to be
>> a good thing.

>   Do you consider Red Hat and SuSE to be separate free Unices?

        They're seperate enough to be useful to a capitalist consumer.

--

    Microsoft subjected the world to DOS until 1995.             |||
         A little spite is more than justified.                 / | \

                        In search of sane PPP Docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com

 
 
 

1. Linux RANT

It it a RedHat thing or what? If you do software development, it doesn't
take you long to realize that using the cc, gcc, or even egcs in RedHat,
when you upgrade your OS, you end up changing the compiler and default
libraries. Programs compiled no longer work on the other versions of
Linux you may having running.

Because of this, one usually ends up creating their own "/opt/compiler"
directory and using that for development.

The one thing I miss from Windows (I know, I know) is that the core
Windows libs, kernel32, gdi32, and user32 were totally dynamic, and the
low level compiler stuff is static. The end result is that the dynamic
portions of the system are totally dynamic and can be used by any
compiler generating "pascal" style linking can use them.

I think gcc (egcs) has too much compiler specific code in the shared
version of libc.

What d'yall think? I don't expect any real changes to gcc or egcs (isn't
egcs the official gcc nowadays?), just a little rant of mine.

--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Take a look at the Mohawk Software Mascot at www.mohawksoft.com

2. AFP Reverse conversion

3. WiFi under Linux - rant no 7

4. Titan Supercomputer-Ardent Computer Corp.

5. Linux rant (long)

6. DFW - Unix Admin

7. Linux RANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

8. lost post

9. I give up! Linux Rant.

10. Rant: Linux Copy and Paste is not "Linux"

11. A humorous way of looking at Windows XP + Mudie's Rant + Linux

12. Ranting: Linux Fails Me Once Again

13. Linux has spoilt me rotten (rant)