Very Computer

by **yt..** » Thu, 01 Nov 2001 06:00:03

> Our latest creation, Linuxsale.org, is.. online! This is the message type,
> admins and some users hate, but we had to post this. Please consider this as
> an ONE-TIME ANNOUNCEMENT.
> LinuxSale.org is not the project that will actually "sell" linux, it is more
> like a free distribution effort. At the time this words are being written,
> CDs cost only $5 each(or ?3.50) and posting is FREE for certain items. Our
> list includes nearly ALL the distributions that are being developed.
> We believe that this service will give people with slower connections and
> low budget, a chance to discover the great world of Linux systems.
> Please, grab your favorite browser and proceed :O)
> http://www.Linuxsale.org

1. Progeny is no longer being developed
2. How can you guarantee "latest" of something like wood? Its updated every
few hours
3. Yellowdog has distribution rules about some of its homegrown utilities. Are
they included in your sale?
4. phatlinux is no longer being developed, and was admitted to being a lame
and somewhat dangerous dist. in the first place.
5. AFAIK, stormlinux is also no longer being developed

-----.

--
Theres a hole in the world like a great black pit and
its filled with people who are filled with shit and the
vermin of the world inhabit it

by **Charlie Ebe** » Thu, 01 Nov 2001 09:09:29

>> Our latest creation, Linuxsale.org, is.. online! This is the message type,
>> admins and some users hate, but we had to post this. Please consider this as
>> an ONE-TIME ANNOUNCEMENT.

>> LinuxSale.org is not the project that will actually "sell" linux, it is more
>> like a free distribution effort. At the time this words are being written,
>> CDs cost only $5 each(or ?3.50) and posting is FREE for certain items. Our
>> list includes nearly ALL the distributions that are being developed.

>> We believe that this service will give people with slower connections and
>> low budget, a chance to discover the great world of Linux systems.

>> Please, grab your favorite browser and proceed :O)

>> http://www.Linuxsale.org

>1. Progeny is no longer being developed
>2. How can you guarantee "latest" of something like wood? Its updated every
> few hours
>3. Yellowdog has distribution rules about some of its homegrown utilities. Are
> they included in your sale?
>4. phatlinux is no longer being developed, and was admitted to being a lame
> and somewhat dangerous dist. in the first place.
>5. AFAIK, stormlinux is also no longer being developed

Perhaps we should have a discussion as to why there are several
clones of RedHat and only Libra-net of Debian.

I'll start off by saying, you just can't improve upon
debian's quality. It's perfection in the tools department.

--

Charlie

by **yt..** » Thu, 01 Nov 2001 10:02:49

>>> Our latest creation, Linuxsale.org, is.. online! This is the message type,
>>> admins and some users hate, but we had to post this. Please consider this as
>>> an ONE-TIME ANNOUNCEMENT.

>>> LinuxSale.org is not the project that will actually "sell" linux, it is more
>>> like a free distribution effort. At the time this words are being written,
>>> CDs cost only $5 each(or ?3.50) and posting is FREE for certain items. Our
>>> list includes nearly ALL the distributions that are being developed.

>>> We believe that this service will give people with slower connections and
>>> low budget, a chance to discover the great world of Linux systems.

>>> Please, grab your favorite browser and proceed :O)

>>> http://www.Linuxsale.org

>>1. Progeny is no longer being developed
>>2. How can you guarantee "latest" of something like wood? Its updated every
>> few hours
>>3. Yellowdog has distribution rules about some of its homegrown utilities. Are
>> they included in your sale?
>>4. phatlinux is no longer being developed, and was admitted to being a lame
>> and somewhat dangerous dist. in the first place.
>>5. AFAIK, stormlinux is also no longer being developed

> Perhaps we should have a discussion as to why there are several
> clones of RedHat and only Libra-net of Debian.
> I'll start off by saying, you just can't improve upon
> debian's quality. It's perfection in the tools department.

I was just going to say that. Debian has nothing to fix; redhat has
*everything* to fix.

-----.

--
Theres a hole in the world like a great black pit and
its filled with people who are filled with shit and the
vermin of the world inhabit it

by **yt..** » Fri, 02 Nov 2001 00:44:27

> On 31 Oct 2001 01:02:49 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,

>>> I'll start off by saying, you just can't improve upon
>>> debian's quality. It's perfection in the tools department.

>>I was just going to say that. Debian has nothing to fix; redhat has
>>*everything* to fix.
> Debian has hardware management to fix. Messing about with kernel modules
> merely to install hardware is no way for a decent operating system to
> operate.

Did you hear that, debian developers? Some retard in the UK cant figure
out how to make kernel modules work. Fix that at once.

-----.

--
Theres a hole in the world like a great black pit and
its filled with people who are filled with shit and the
vermin of the world inhabit it

by **The Ghost In The Machi** » Fri, 02 Nov 2001 03:23:26

wrote
on 31 Oct 2001 15:44:27 GMT

>> On 31 Oct 2001 01:02:49 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,

>>>> I'll start off by saying, you just can't improve upon
>>>> debian's quality. It's perfection in the tools department.

>>>I was just going to say that. Debian has nothing to fix; redhat has
>>>*everything* to fix.

>> Debian has hardware management to fix. Messing about with kernel modules
>> merely to install hardware is no way for a decent operating system to
>> operate.

>Did you hear that, debian developers? Some retard in the UK cant figure
>out how to make kernel modules work. Fix that at once.

And while you're at it, make everything GUI driven, of uniform look
and feel (that means Athena must go and KDE and Gnome must look
identical), just like Windows, make sure that there are NDA
business deals as necessary for the latest hardware and software
(including winmodems), change the OS as necessary to incorporate
menus and web servers in Ring 0, and implement .NET tomorrow.

Sure, it might happen. I might also be hit by an asteroid
in the next 5 minutes. :-)

(Personally, I like Debian just the way it is. There are some
glitches in a package or two -- mostly misspellings in my favorite
game, Crossfire :-) -- but these are extremely minor.)

[.sigsnip]

--

EAC code #191 111d:03h:01m actually running Linux.
This is a voluntary signature virus. Send this to somebody.

by **Charlie Ebe** » Fri, 02 Nov 2001 10:23:04

>On 31 Oct 2001 01:02:49 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,

>>> I'll start off by saying, you just can't improve upon
>>> debian's quality. It's perfection in the tools department.

>>I was just going to say that. Debian has nothing to fix; redhat has
>>*everything* to fix.

>Debian has hardware management to fix. Messing about with kernel modules
>merely to install hardware is no way for a decent operating system to
>operate.

Let me just add to Drsquares comments:

Drsquare,

You obviously don't know anything about OS's.

--

Charlie

by **Charlie Ebe** » Fri, 02 Nov 2001 21:59:25

>On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 01:23:04 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,

>>>On 31 Oct 2001 01:02:49 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,

>>>>> I'll start off by saying, you just can't improve upon
>>>>> debian's quality. It's perfection in the tools department.

>>>>I was just going to say that. Debian has nothing to fix; redhat has
>>>>*everything* to fix.

>>>Debian has hardware management to fix. Messing about with kernel modules
>>>merely to install hardware is no way for a decent operating system to
>>>operate.

>>Let me just add to Drsquares comments:

>>Drsquare,

>>You obviously don't know anything about OS's.

>OK then, name one advantage of having to mess about with kernel modules
>merely to install hardware.

Performance and features *.

We don't want the god damn world loaded at boot time.

When are you *ing windows users going to realize this.

--

Charlie

by **The Ghost In The Machi** » Sat, 03 Nov 2001 02:08:51

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert

wrote
on Thu, 01 Nov 2001 12:59:25 GMT

>>On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 01:23:04 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,

>>>>On 31 Oct 2001 01:02:49 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,

>>>>>> I'll start off by saying, you just can't improve upon
>>>>>> debian's quality. It's perfection in the tools department.

>>>>>I was just going to say that. Debian has nothing to fix; redhat has
>>>>>*everything* to fix.

>>>>Debian has hardware management to fix. Messing about with kernel modules
>>>>merely to install hardware is no way for a decent operating system to
>>>>operate.

>>>Let me just add to Drsquares comments:

>>>Drsquare,

>>>You obviously don't know anything about OS's.

>>OK then, name one advantage of having to mess about with kernel modules
>>merely to install hardware.

>Performance and features *.

>We don't want the god damn world loaded at boot time.

>When are you *ing windows users going to realize this.

Not to mention that putting things such as the browser into the
OS is IMO a Very Strange Idea(tm).

The essentials I would think would be needed depend on the
nature of the install, but here's a few scenarios for drsquare.
These are IMO the absolute essentials -- the rest can be added later,
with a modular design such as Linux's kernel. (To be fair, it
appears NT/2k/XP has a vaguely similar modular design, implemented
somewhat differently, together with some sort of device autoscan.)

[1] CD-ROM installation.

* CD-ROM (duh)
* CD-ROM interface card (usually the same as the disk card,
although there are exceptions)
* ext2 filesystem [*]
* VGA video
* keyboard
* hard drive + interface

[2] Network installation.

* Network interface card -- there are some issues here; in an
ideal system it would be a necessary module
* ext2 filesystem
* VGA video
* keyboard
* hard drive + interface

[3] NFS installation = Network installation, except that the nfs
filesystem is also required.

[4] Local hard drive.

* ext2 filesystem
* possibly dos+vfat, depending on where the download sits
* VGA video
* keyboard
* hard drive + interface

[5] Floppy install -- if anyone bothers anymore :-)

* ext2 filesystem
* possibly dos+vfat, depending on where the download sits
* VGA video
* keyboard
* hard drive + interface
* floppy + interface

In *none* of these is a sound card even mentioned -- with one
exception. The old PAS16 card had a SCSI interface specifically
for CD-ROM.

Ditto for X, mouse, flatbed scanner, NIC and CD-ROM on some installs, etc.

Quote:
>--

>Charlie

[*] soon to be replaced by ext3, I suspect. There might also
be options for jfs and reiserfs.

--

EAC code #191 112d:13h:17m actually running Linux.
Hi. What's your sign? Mine's "Out To Lunch".

by **Chris Ahlstr** » Sat, 03 Nov 2001 12:34:52

While stuck in the full lotus position, drsquare chanted this mantra:

Quote:> When are you *ing Linux users going to realize that having to locate,
> download and uncompress a massive kernel source, install a compiler and
> everything needed to compile the kernel, then playing about with multitudes
> of dialogue boxes before waiting for module to compile, then installing
> module manipulation software, manually starting the module via the command
> line, then playing about with the init startup files, is no way for a
> professional OS to operate.

You don't need to do that. Most distros supply the modules you need.

And that _is_ the way a professional OS operates. The toy OS's are the
ones that make the choices for you, and you have to accept them.

Chris

--
"What's in _your_ wallet?"
"Uh, nothing, I just bought an XP machine."

by **TuxTra** » Sat, 03 Nov 2001 20:58:51

With great ceremony, Chris Ahlstrom spoke unto the masses:

Quote:> While stuck in the full lotus position, drsquare chanted this mantra:

>> When are you *ing Linux users going to realize that having to locate,
>> download and uncompress a massive kernel source, install a compiler and
>> everything needed to compile the kernel, then playing about with
>> multitudes of dialogue boxes before waiting for module to compile, then
>> installing module manipulation software, manually starting the module via
>> the command line, then playing about with the init startup files, is no
>> way for a professional OS to operate.

> You don't need to do that. Most distros supply the modules you need.

> And that _is_ the way a professional OS operates. The toy OS's are the
> ones that make the choices for you, and you have to accept them.

Sorry Chris, but just had to jump in here and add something.

To the other gentleman: When are you folks going to realize that;

A) we really don't care whether or not you like our OS

B) It really makes no difference what you consider to be a "professional"
OS.

C) Your OS has been written, linked and compiled just like ours was. The
difference is that in addition to being able to load it on the computer
as-is, no muss, no fuss, we also have the ability to recompile our OS any
time we have the desire to update it, or just for the hell of it, if it
suits our fancy. This is in stark raving contrast to the months of waiting
for so much as a security patch from microsoft, saying nothing of the wait
for an OS update, which, by the way, costs way more than it's worth by
about a factor of 20.

D) Those compilers and linkers and other programming tools come free with
Linux. Microsoft charges thousands of dollars for thier professional
programming tools, which are *not* better than the free ones that come with
Linux.

C) I am unsure why you are making comments on an OS you clearly know little
about. I know nothing about the mac OS but I hear that it's a decent OS.
That dosen't mean I'm going to go to a mac group and pretend like I know
anything about it.

Dialog boxes? what are you talking about? There are no dialog boxes when
compiling a new kernel and you don't have to change a bunch of config
files, either. you compile the modules and the kernel, install them, and
change the symlink to point to the new kernel. And what on earth is
"module manipulation software"?

And that's all I have to say about that.

Cheers,

Mathew

--
TuxTrax (n.) An invincible, all terrain, Linux driven armored *
vehicle that can take as much fire as it gives ;-)

(definition courtesy mjcr)

My politically unimportant, socially insignificant, work-in-progress
web site is at www.tuxtrax.com