Slashdot Mirror

Linux From Scratch. Not for newbies, but you can make an extremely small distro yourself.

I've just upgraded to Linux From Scratch 3.1 (which I can highly recommend by the way) and I was not looking forward to compiling and installing all of Gnome and/or KDE from scratch. I even got halfway through compiling Gnome 1.4 before I tripped over the fact that a key system library needs the new Gtk+ which doesn't want to run with many other Gtk+ apps I have. Anyway, out of curiosity I grabbed WindowMaker because it was a) small and b) needed very few dependencies - the basic image libraries I think was all and since I had those I needed nothing more.

I'm not going elsewhere anytime soon. WM is fast, easily configurable and almost as pretty as E without chewing half the CPU. And to echo the sentiments of Bronster, it doesn't get in your way.

I have perfect functionality at less than 200 megs with LFS. Look into it.

Microsoft designed its own Windows operating system ontop of DOS because they are a bunch of cheap bastards that think compatibility with the old DOS-mode 1980's WordProcessors and cruddy SVGA programs and games is a feature and Microsoft implies stability in their advertizing, but dump any promise of stability in their End User License Agreement. Linux is the opposite, but simply can't guaruntee stability on certain combinations of hardware. I must admit that the latest batch of discension among newly converted-to-Linux users can be credited to RedHat. RedHat deserves a pat on their back. Mandrake too for following RedHat closely as they took the long walk off the short bridge...a pat on the back for losing any "won-over people" because RedHat chose to corrupt the Linux building block mechanism by using GCC version 2.96!

Do you know how many tech support problems I help answer on www.linuxquake.com/messageboard are from RedHat and Mandrake users? I find it hillarious that Mandrake based their 8.x releases on RedHat's 7.x releases. Sure it is stable to a certain point; but I can't overlook that RedHat killed alot of people's ideals of what a Linux operating system could do for them because by using GCC over version 2.95, many programs, like the simple yet convenient MPlayer, have a difficult time compiling with certain optimizations. Thankyou RedHat for using GCC 2.96 and thankyou Mandrake for being a mirror image of RedHat's crusty ass.

The point is this... When I tried RedHat 5.2 over 2.5 years ago, I was impressed. I was impressed becaus my measely non-MMX Pentium 150MHz computer /with 48MB of RAM got some deserved stability and bugfixes as opposed to Microsoft Windows 95. That old computer /with RedHat Linux 5.2 proved to me a better edu-tainment tool than Microsoft Windows of any release, and I enjoyed fast and stable multi-tasking. Thanks goto RedHat for their earlier works. My old computer, to date, can be found at my local computer-equipment preservation archive, buried under 7 billion tons of landfill. Now that RedHat has the greatest software to work with, they fucked up their distro's build. The 7.x series is bad. In numerology, 7 is supposedly a magic number for perfection. RedHat demonstrated such perfection. RedHat demonstrated poor leadership and management in their release and have lost my advocacy for their product. Also, I never liked the name of their company because it instilled the thoughts of a "Russian American's" Linux(Red Commy bastards). I now advocate SuSe Linux Professional edition version 7 simply because that distro is automated better than RedHat's 7.x distro, includes more software and better documentation for the same cost as RedHat's distro, and because SuSe was built using GCC version 2.95.2; which means it retains Linux as the most stable desktop to date.

However, I advocate SuSe for regular family users. My desktop system, on the other hand, was built under plan of LinuxFromScratch and I wouldn't dare install any other modern-ized distro on it. All the Linux distros are too bloated and will overwhelm my computer's harddrive. I can care less about eye-candy, but I advocate SuSe to families just because of the modern eye-candy and its stability and large applications selection. However, though I advocate SuSe for making such a greate distro, their installer is real nice and offers 100% installation of all their software easily and efficiently at only 6 GB. You heard me correctly, six gigabytes! SuSe is a nice distro and they must be installing six gigabytes of something good. How does it compare with Microsoft Windows and Mac OSX? BLOATED! My favorite distro offers you to install BLOAT, but it doesn't have to be that way... Still, there is that little twitch in the end-user's brain that says he needs 100% installed and this is what he gets, 6GB of bloat!

What this means to someone migrating from MS Windows is alot of stability(pun intended). If you know what Operating system is stable, easy to use, has a nice file-managing GUI, a beautiful desktop, and is really stable and compiles programs perfectly, then the MS Windows users WILL convert to that operating system in a heartbeat! Software is software and they see something new, fun, and pretty! When they discover it offers a large list of commercial games and free games, they'll wallow in stable-happiness bliss.

I just got back from Fry's electronics and saw a Mac OSX box with a kernel crash from darwin due to a memory access exception, I saw a Microsoft Windows XP laptop frozen, and approximately 18 yards from that heard of desktop extravaganza was the row of commercial Unix software exhibits: sporting Yellow Dog Linux, RedHat Linux 7.x, SuSe Linux 7.x, Kandara Linux, freeBSD and its PowerPak, and Mandrake Linux 8.x. Do I dare offer my assistance to a sailsman and a small audience of 17 people on the installation and administration of Linux on a PowerPC, a Sony VAIO, and an Athlon-based desktop? I think I'll try offering some guidance next time I'm in there. I'm at Fry's electronics once a week to buy something anyways, so while I have 3 hours to blow, I can have fun with a stable OS teaching everyone the basics, like...

use an eMail client,
use Netscape and Mozilla,
use Gnome's and KDE's file manager,
why the file system is the way it is,
howto manage users,
howto setup a printer and share it with other Linux users,
howto integrate Linux with Microsoft Windows computers using SAMBA,
howto share files and printers with Microsoft Windows users,
howto download, compile and install new programs from sourcecode,
howto use a gui to manipulate a tar, tard'gzipd', and a tar'bzip2'd file and benefit,

And of'course tell them and demonstrate conclusively why and where Microsoft has lied to them about Linux, virii, and about Microsoft software on their website.

-oh wait, that's what they learned just to use Microsoft Windows! That must mean the average Microsoft Windows user has a brain and knows the basics of computers already! Now they just need help with some Unix primitives and be able to trust a free operating system for their daily tasks and they're set...

You really should try LFS ... It's kinda neat! (And runs my Loki games without a hitch!)

/Djn

The trick to configuring CLI progs is reading the manual (really, it only takes 2 minutes) and linux has plenty of GUI tools where u dont even need to read the manuals.

I have recently converted several of my friends to linux. None of them new to computers but also none had previous *nix experience. They're all doing fine on it, typing on staroffice 6, browsing on mozilla or konqueror.

During the last year or so there's been alot of focus on Linux making it as a desktop OS. I use Linux, and nothing but Linux, on all my desktop machines, both at home and at work, and have had no larger problems doing so.

The only big problem with using Linux on the desktop is the inability to handle Microsoft Office files 100% correctly. But what people seem to forget is that this is not a shortcoming of any of the Linux office suites, the problem lies with Microsoft's closed file formats. If Microsoft had released the specs to their file formats we would have Linux support for them in no time.

This, however, is not the issue I'm concerned with. See, I like Linux - in fact, I absolutely love it. And the reason for this is that it's not dumbed-down so that even the most ignorant user can use it. This is because Linux is an OS for computers, not people. Most software is created so that programs can easily exchange data and communicate effortlessly - and to do this the software has to play by computer rules. This is also what makes Linux so powerful and beautiful. Anyone who has set up a linux system from scratch (for example by checking out www.linuxfromscratch.org ;)) knows just what a beautiful ballet of smaller programs Linux actully is. And each of these small programs has a vast range of configuration options, enabling a skilled user to tweak the system into working excactly as he/she wants. This is why I love Linux, and this is also why i hate Windows.

The problem with turning Linux is a desktop OS is that for it to be successful the system has to be dumbed down so even my grandma can use it without any problems. And when doing this I fear that Linux will no longer be Linux - when normal users start migrating to Linux, they will increasingly request features which will make data formats and communication protocols much more complex, and thereby also more messy (see my comment on html for examples of this). This will, in turn, mean that when writing desktop-software for Linux one will need to support these bloated standards, and your software will in turn get bloated. And when the standards get bloated enough, they will mean that only large development teams have the resources to develop new applications - which means that corporations will take over the desktop, further enhancing it's "user-friendliness" with even more complex standards. In the end, the Linux desktop OS will become one huge, monolithic system just as Windows is today, and not leave any room for newcomers.

Long before this has happened I'll probably have left Linux behind, focusing on some other operating system which has the flexibility I seek. Then this will probably happen again, and again, and again.

Why do Linux have to become more user-friendly? Why do we have to have a Linux-box in every office, and even have our moms running it? I like Linux just the way it is; a powerful and flexible OS for users who actually knows what they're doing, and desire more from a computer than a spreadsheet editor and word-processor. I agree fully that we should get more people running Linux, because it is a truly great OS, but I don't think we should transform it into what Windows is today. Instead of bringing Linux to the normal lusers, we should focus our efforts on having fairly computer literate people give Linux a try.

But seriously, tools like Red Carpet are great for providing a comfortable environment for the non-geek or linux newbie, giving them a friendly interface to package management. Not everyone out there is ready for Debian - in fact, I'd say that the majority of Linux users aren't ready for Debian or anything beyond it, and even some of those who are ready just want something they can slap onto a machine and go with, a la Red Hat or Mandrake. It's all about comfort zones.

• Cooling. This was your primary concern, so I think you'll grok it immediately.
• Power. (This is actually directly related to "Cooling", but I'll treat it separately because most slashdotters don't know a thing about thermodynamics.) If UPS'ing is important, you'll be able to keep a single server up for twelve times longer than a dozen equivalent servers, given the same UPS capacity.

  Just as a data point, I have recently consolidated all but one of my servers onto a single little box, drawing a little bit under 100 watts. My UPS can keep this little guy up for two hours during a power outage.

• Redundancy. Want full redundancy for all your operation? With one server, you just double to two. With twelve servers, you have to double to twenty-four!
• Software maintenance. Do you really enjoy maintaining a dozen different machines? Do you feel you need a dozen different OS installations for some reason? Maybe you feel that no one single OS or distribution is the "right one" for you and that's why you need so many machines? Seriously think about making your own personalized custom Linux From Scratch distro, where you are the guy in control. No more whining about the way Redhat does package configuration!

What was the last version of Mozilla you used?

As for Windows versions of Mozilla...it's been a few months. It rendered pages properly without crashing too much, but I wouldn't have characterized it as a better browser than IE. More recently, I've installed K-Meleon. It seems stable enough, but doesn't offer any compelling reason to switch away from IE. I haven't seen that it supports anything that IE doesn't. OTOH, I will allow that it does a much better job of handling CSS than Nutscrape 4.x ever did.

apt-get install xmms

hard wasnt it

%apt-get install xmms
apt-get: Command not found.

lynx -dump http://www.xmms.org/files/1.2.x/xmms-1.2.5.tar.gz >xmms-1.2.5.tar.gz
tar xzf xmms-1.2.5.tar.gz
cd xmms-1.2.5
./configure && make && make install

:-)

(I don't know offhand if that's all there is to it, though that will build 99% of what's out there. I don't run X11 on any of my Linux boxen, so I don't have a way to test it.)

I would say that one of the best ways to learn and understand Linux is to have a look at Linuxfromscratch
You get an excellent understanding and appreciation of what goes into a Linux system by installing ALL packages yourself. This is not for the faint of heart Linux user. It instructs you step by step on how to build your own custom Linux system.

try Linux From Scratch or look at BSD-Portal-File-System...

My home Linux system is based on the Linux From Scratch documents, with the added organisational principle of having every /usr destined package in its own directory, and links made into the /usr tree.

This has worked fine for me with ldconfig, which reports itself as being version 1.9.9. My /etc/ld.so.conf doesn't require an entry per directory at all - provided there are symlinks from (say) /usr/lib/libblah.so to whereever the library really is.

On first inspection, it of course makes identifying and finding what put whom where ludicrously simple.

find / -group KDE

On second reflection, it adds a finer layer to group/user mangement, and administrative delegations.

This is _EXACTLY_ why I use LinuxFromScratch. You do not HAVE to use the package managment system, you can install anything *just* the way *you* want it. X applications in /usr/bin? No way jose! (My appoligies to anyone named Jose, I'm sure you are sick of hearing that one), /usr/X11 it is! If you are not happy with the standards, make your own, it just takes a little time and in-depth knowledge.

I have an IBM ThinkPad i1400 2611-411 that I've upgraded to 256 MB RAM and a bigger, better, badder HDD. It suits Linux development *almost* perfectly. The screen only displays at 800x600x16bpp. I run a custom distribution: Linux From Scratch. I'm using kernel 2.2.20-aa1 with a handful of other modifications. Everything including the Lucent "winmodem" works great. I even get about 15 hours of battery life with a special battery made by Electrofuel, Inc.. There are several reviews of that product out there, too. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are several "older" notebooks out there that can be used for this purpose. My ThinkPad has survived several one meter drops without breaking (although the case did pop open a bit once). There aren't even damaged spots on my HDD! Combine this with a handheld (Palm, Visor, Pocket PC), and you can really be mobile...

SCSI is dead.

For most consumer and single-user environments, IDE is plenty fast enough. Even in the small server market, IDE is adequate.

SCSI won't be around as a serious disk option for much longer, I suspect.

(The storage I use at home is a mix of IDE and SCSI. The x86 boxen got IDE because it was cheap (though the 100GB Western Digital I bought recently is now in a FireWire case so I can schlep it between home and work). The Apples (a IIGS and a Mac Quadra 610) got SCSI because it's what they expect. I'll be building a "new" server soon with a pair of P!!!-500s that was given to me...the motherboard I bought for them has onboard UW SCSI, so I might snag a Barracuda or three from the local used-parts place and see how Linux runs on SMP.)

Not to mention that USB has killed SCSI for things like scanners.

(FWIW, I have lots of stuff that plugs in through serial, parallel, or SCSI. I even have a device now that uses FireWire (a hard drive, and I'd strongly consider a DV camcorder over VHS-C or 8mm, if I needed one). I've never bought anything that used USB, though...already had a nice SCSI scanner, SCSI Zip, various AT/serial/PS/2 keyboards and mice, etc.)

I did, & it was the least buggy Linux "distro" I have ever had. Use it with checkinstall/installwatch In case you screw something up.

Go there now and build a linux box the way it was meant to be: linux from scratch!!

You will write to thank me for it later.

I'd avoid Linux. I may well love the OS, and have been using it since the Linus boot/root disk days, but I'd advise something else for learning how to admin the box. Linux makes life too easy, with the consequence that you get used to the niceties and are then stuck when confronted with an OS that doesn't have them (and most of the paid Unix admin jobs will have such an OS).



I think you're right with the majority of mainstream Linux distributions, but I have two possible Linux exceptions to your argument:

Slackware

Slackware lacks many of the management tools that most of the distributions have so you have to go about it in the do it yourself way.

Linux From Scratch

I think this one speaks for itself, build your own system from scratch, it's a complete Linux course in itself that'll teach you a lot about UNIX as you go along.

Hmm, I've built Linux From Scratch with XFree86 4.x, KDE 2.x, & a few other bits & pieces, in less than a weekend. It simply isn't as hard as you think. For what one person can achieve by themselves, have a look at Peanut(I used it to build Linux From Scratch).

With slackware, I was able to poke, prod, and tweak everything about the system to do anything I wanted.

Installing new software usually consists of:

wget somesite.com/release.tar.gz
tar -xzvf release.tar.gz
cd release
./configure
make
make install

And I was HAPPY with that... it was cool, and I didnt have to wait for an RPM to show up, I could easily use pre-final release software, and configure the build options to whatever I want. If the build didn't work, I went in and tweaked the make file or even the source to get it to compile.

But now with SO MANY shared libs and other dependencies, it gets to be a major pain in the ass to get one package then have to go get 15 other libs to get it to work. RPM solves all that, and I've come to accept binary distributions as making sense

Times have changed I think. But if you still want to work with linux at the lowest level (excellant for learning) go seek out the Linux From Scratch (LFS) project. It's where you take a kernel and assemble your own distribution from scratch, making it work how YOU want it to, sort what slackware did for me back in the day.

Linuxfromscratch.com has a project that aims to automate the process of building your own linux setup storing configuration files in XML, read the intro page they propose you could go to a website and fill out a survey type form to define your system, which would create a configuration file that could build everything correctly. It sounds to me like a huge undertaking but if distros chimed in on this and contributed the tools and expertise they have in how to install a linux system automagically, Automated Linux From scratch could become a standard tool used by anyone wanting to setup linux on anything. To go one step further and convert my /etc directory to MPXML (My Penguin XML...I made that up) well I don't know if this would be a good thing.

There are two kinds of Linux users, those who INSTALL it and those who USE it.

Once I got ppp configured, I dialed into my ISP, ran dselect and installed the rest of my packages. dselect is a bit intimidating at first, but after a few moments you get the hang of it (don't go whipping by the Help menu it has lots of information. More than the pathetic "dselect HOW-TO" on the Debian site). As far as going back to DOS for a command-line ... no way!

I avoided X11 just to be safe with my low memory system, but now have a portable development machine that runs damn fast (for old hw)! My other old laptop (P75!) also runs Debian (w/o X11)and my main workstation runs Red Hat 7.1. Red Hat install was pretty painless - it runs X11 with Ximian Gnome and KDE. Most of the /. people seem to hate Red Hat, but migrating from the MicroSlug world, it makes the installation pretty easy. After you get used to Linux, then you can go play around with other distros that may be more difficult to install. Right now I am looking to roll my own distro using info on linuxfromscratch

Most of the commercial ones are "kitchen sink" distros that install and turn on everything to save the average user, who probably wouldn't know "make xconfig" or "/etc/rc.d" if we hit him over the head with them, the hassle of looking for them. .... Debian and Slackware are (or were, I run SuSe but am having hassles w/rpm, may go back to slack or deb) less prone to this

In some ways, Debian makes it too easy to install stuff leading to more bloat, although it is pretty easy to remove them as well.

I think you want something more like Linux From Scratch. Now there's a lack of bloat (8 Megs for an apache install, and they might be able to get it to 5!).

I've been using Mandrake, loved it.
I've been using RedHat, loved it.
I am using LFS, married it.

You say something is good in this distro, something is bad in that distro. Make your lives easy and get the most out of your machines. Make your own distro! I did it and now I'm running the very latest, the very best, and only the things I want to run. Nothing more, nothing less.

Caldera made me fall in love with Linux. Before trying out Caldera, I had been playing around with Debian and SUSE for a few months, and not getting much accomplished. Hardware support was terrible. Finally, I tried out Caldera...imagine my surprise to see that beautiful graphical login! and Tetris while it installs! This was the first graphical install I had seen (as far as I know, the first widely distributed one too), and it detected everything right off the back. My new DSL line was humming. All the networks services practically configured themselves. Granted it wasn't flawless...there was no swap space, as has been mentioned before...took a while to figure out Samba. But that Caldera 2.3 install I made over two years ago is still running my server. I've been using Mandrake on the desktop as of late, and I think it's definitely outpowered Caldera. And I'm moving both my workstation and server to a homebrew distro (linuxfromscratch). But Caldera 2.3 will always have a special place in my heart.

You should really check out LFS. It's your Linux box, make it truly yours. Everything compiled from source. You can even choose what init scripts set up to use.

Debian is just another distribution. Linux from scratch is the l33t thing.

1. what's wrong with being a server closet geek toy? it's not like everything commercial, shrink-wrapped, shiny and expensive is worth something (regardless of pricetag).

2. what's the problem with making developers and users more aware of the system? educating the users should be priority one, not writing software to work around their ignorance.

3. people have been saying "Linux will forever be ______ if we don't _______" since 1992. I remember John Dvorak of PC Magazine saying something like, "Linux will never exist outside college dormitories" I can't remember his reasoning exactly. This is a man I considered (up until that point) to be an industry oracle, and I gather that he still has some of this reputation today.

The nice thing about Linux is that, like a virus ;), it will change into whatever you want. if you don't like having two APIs, spend a weekend tinkering with GNOME and KDE (or UDE or XFCE or whatever) and pick one you like. Then make your own distro (or use Linux From Scratch) and roll your own. Stand on the rooftop and shout, "KDE IS THE STANDARD FROM NOW ON!" Or whichever you pick.

And the cute thing is, the people who usually say, "We need standards here!" think that there is a Linux bureaucrat somewhere they could bribe into making this happen. No. The fact is, whichever desktop is default in the most Linux For Windows type deals will become the de-facto "standard" among newbies and the rest of us can jolly well use ION.

Hardware is a place where standards are important. Standard slots, sockets, plugs, cards, etc. Even there we don't have just one thing, we have all these crazy ISA and PCI and PCMCIA. Goll darn if only they'd pick one and stick with it! Software is not a hard science. User preference is key. But I must be lecturing the wrong person, because anyone who has a problem with the way Linux runs things and isn't writing code right now to solve the problem hasn't learned the essential truth behind the free software movement. Go use HP-UX.

Daniel

If you actually want to learn linux and its workings (which I advise) then use something which forces you to read a few faq's once in a while... like debian, or even better, slackware.

You're trying to satisfy two of the Linux newbie's objectives. Objective A is to get a working Linux system going and start discovering what you can do it with it. Objective B is to figure out all the complicated configuration and integration details of Linux and Unix. Both objectives are important, but I think it's a mistake to try to satisfy both at once. You're making the learning curve unnecessarily steep. And you're still insulating yourself from important details.

The best way is to do it in two stages. In stage one, you concentrate on Objective A. That means finding a distro that's easy to install and maintain. The two leaders in this area are SuSE and Red Hat. I find SuSE's total rewiring of system configuration a pain, so I prefer Red Hat.

Eventually you'll be comfortable with the shell, a text editor, and other basic Linux/Unix tools. (Damned important if you're used to Windows or MacOS.) And you'll know how to use the GNU compilers, libraries, and other development tools. That's when you're ready to attack Objective B -- by creating your own personal distro.

Gerard Beekmans has taken the concept of an Open Source OS to its logical conclustion with his Linux From Scratch writings. He shows you how to build a Linux system entirely from source code. (Of course, you need an existing Linux system with a spare partition.) This strikes me as the best way to learn all the obscure little details a pre-packaged system hides from you.

Using Slack *forces* you to know how the system works. It's just you, a text editor, and the config files.

If you want to take this to the extreme, go with linux from scratch (www.linuxfromscratch.org).
I twiddled with RedHat and Mandrake for a month and the learning process was very slow, and for some reason the rpm system made me apprehensive of installing things from source.
Then I found linux from scratch which takes you through compiling you're whole system. The lerning curve was pretty huge, but not necissarily difficult, becuase the nature of the process just helps you to absorb how the system works.
Once you have your basic system there's heaps of hints on the site for most of the major software you'd want to install.
Six months later I now have my router, and two other computers running that way and I wouldn't have it any other way.
The only disadvantage is that there's no package management. I've heard that other people with this setup have installed rpm on the machine, but I don't know how successful they'be been in getting rpm's to work on the system.

I never really tried another distro which you can compare to today (i've tried an ancient version of Slackware long time ago...)

For the people who really can't get satisfied with any distro, they can try Linux From Scratch, but you already need some linux installed for it. (or you can try with one of those "Linux on a cd" thingies, never tried those.)

Try Redhat 7.1 and/or Mandrake 8.0 out first. Make sure to create a /home partition during install if you just have one machine to use linux on. This will allow you to keep any work / files you have generated when you go to install a different distribution.

Head over to the HOWTO Index and peruse through any HOWTO's that interest you.

Open a terminal, and type 'man man' :)

After your comfortable using linux, or on a separate "test" machine try installing Debian 2.2 r3 and/or Slackware 8.0. You will now have some experience using linux and this will give you a chance to check out the more "advanced" distributions.

Ok, to know what is really going on try out linux from scratch

Seems like there are a million "how to setup linux" guides out there now, but I found this site here, TrinityOS to be very helpful years ago, and it still is.

Oh yeah, here is a great deal from Cheapbytes where I bought my first linux cd.

• MONDO Pack Edition 28 for $17.95.
• includes all 5 Redhat 7.1 cds, Mandrake 8, Slackware 8, and StormLinux 2000.
• Debian 2.2r3 3 CD set for $9.

Have you tried linux from scratch?

IIRC, Mandrake splintered from RedHat over KDE, and then they decided to recompile for Pentium processors on top of that. So the user base was basically people who would be using RedHat, but are too cheap to pay full price for it, and wanted KDE (back in the day). Now it just seems to be targetted at beginners; I think much more of the system administration type stuff is handled by the combination of LinuxConf and whatever the current Mandrake configuration tool is called. Those are disgusting programs if you grew up hacking the files by hand, but hey...

As you said, the newbies really seem to love them. And I have to admit, having tried Slackware, Mandrake, Redhat, Debian (YUCK!), and SuSE, the only one I think I'd ever be happy with is Linux From Scratch. :) Someday when I have that much time on my hands maybe I'll give it a shot

Daniel

SuSE is too reliant on YAST, which will ultimately be their downfall as a distribution. That, and lack of sales/profit, of course.

...and what is wrong with YaST? It's one-stop shopping for package management and system configuration. I've set up primarily SuSE boxen at my previous jobs; coming into a new job where the alleged sysadmin went with Redh*t (7.0, no less...isn't that the one with the borken gcc?) is a bit of a culture shock.

I use LFS at home as you can build the lightest, fastest system that way (and it's not that big a deal if I screw something up on my own boxen), but I wouldn't consider anything other than SuSE for a business system. I've used SLS and Slackware in the past, I have Debian on an old Mac as it's the only game in town, and I appear to be stuck with Redh*t at work (until I take over as sysadmin, at least). From what I've seen, SuSE beats them all.

If you're really that interetesd, try Linux from Scratch. You build everything from zero, it's great, it got me learning about what goes where. It does take a lot of time though, and the "book" only goes as far as explaining how to get a default Linux system running, which, without any user apps, is kinda useless. It doesn't even have X. The network works, but it doesn't mention browsers or mail programs, the rest, you have to do yourself. Although they do have hints files, which you can consult when you want to install neat things such as X, Gnome, or what-not.

or else we're going to start seeing "Windows/Pentium 4", "Windows/AMD", "Windows/64-bit AMD" and "Windows/Itanium" sections in compUSA

As another user commented above, high-performance consumer applications often put their hotspots into DLLs so that a build optimized for a given microarchitecture can be used. For example, Windows could have nthotp4.dll and nthotk7.dll. And no, *hammer and Itanium would not have their own sections, as app binaries would be shipped for multiple architectures (as was done during the Macintosh computer's transition from 68K to PowerPC processors).

The other way to do it would be to recompile the software at installation time. For example, ALFS and Gentoo are Linux distributions that come as source; a distro based on ALFS or Gentoo would provide boot floppies for each architecture, a CD with just enough binaries to get the compiler going, and a source CD, and then build everything especially for your processor at installation time.

The kernel is the central part but you can't do much without part 2). The two remaining parts are the real frosting when you compare to "Linux From Scratch" or even Slackware.

The best way to learn and use Linux is to grab a root/boot diskset and hand-craft your partitions, disk structure, and compile everything.

I just don't get Suse, the company. Their YAST and YAST2 programs are under their own, non-GPL license. I believe the distribution as a whole is under a funny license as well. They refuse to release installation iso's for 7.0 or 7.1 for x86. If you frequent LinuxIso.org you know what I'm talking about. But Suse released "live evaluation" iso's of 7.0 and 7.1. You can install Suse from ftp. You can even download installation iso's for every other arcitechture that they support. But not for x86. It just baffles me.

Linux Central just recently added a Suse 7.0 disc to their Linux Cental CD-Roms selection. But not 7.1. I know I could roll my own and stuff, but the new Redhat, Conectiva, and Debian beckon to come and try them out as well. Rather waste my time messing with getting Linux From Scratch working, than trying to get Suse installed.

I know. The patent answer is "It's business, stupid", but that argument doesn't make much sense when *all* of your competition is offering 'free samples', but you're not. As a dumb American, what's the reason for going with Suse instead of Redhat or Mandrake, or even Storm or Progeny? I just don't get it.

One other thing, if anyone can help me. One of the most annoying things right now for me is the lack of good fonts in web pages under Konq. Do the boxed distros include fonts that aren't included in the download versions? I haven't bought a boxed distro in almost six months and it's about time to get one. I'll definately get one sooner than later if I can get some better fonts.

And finally, I feel the need to pimp some of the very cool distros I've come across. I've haven't been able to try these out yet (doh. got to get a cd burner.) but they do look cool. First, Caldera has released a beta for their upcoming 3.1 workstation release. Their is a review of it at Linux Planet. The coolest transistion distro I've found is Redmond Linux. Tries to focus on the destop and do away with the need for the command line. There is also Demudi. The Debian Multimedia Distribution. The name says it all. Then there's a few of the more hardcore, hacker type distros: Rock Linux, Stampede Linux, and Linux From Scratch. And last, but not least. The most vaporous of them all. Microsoft Linux.

linuxfromscratch.org times out for me here in France, but http://www.no.linuxfromscratch.org/ works.

-Kraft

-Kraft

Us LFS'ers though it was weird when the linuxfromscratch.org server disappeared yesterday around 6PM EST, it came back online about 8 hours later at are hosters colo rack, giving us the bad details.

Meh, what a shame in reality... oh well

This is very interesting.Everyone seems to have a different take on this which means not many people seems to understand the GPL very well. I know I don't but my immediate thought was: "hey wtf! They can charge for the binaries but they have to make the source available!"

I guess I didn't realise that they don't really contribute to any programs other than to distro specific ones...

I guess all most distros do is collect GPL software, compile it and configure it.. This way, they can charge for their service..

as far as the availability of the sources, that's up to the maintainers of the individual software programs. :)

They are out there! just look at LFS

phew! I have to admit I had quite a scare when I first read the headline though.

"just connect this to..."
BZZT.

Some months ago we decided it was time to upgrade all our webservers. I have been less than happy with the current (7.0) RedHat offering so we agreed to re-evaluate all the distributions on the market. Each has it merits, but nothing seemed to really fit the purpose as well as it might.

So we turned to LFS (Linux From Scratch). In the process we decided to just start making binary packages of everything we compiled for convenience. And of course the next step was to make a bootable CD with reiser and network support and a simple install shell script.

Gosh, now that we have all this 'in the can' we might as well share it, and maybe even get some feedback, bug reports, and help with packages. And thus was born Beehive Linux.

The point is that the Linux world is the only place that this could have ever happend. Don't like the available solutions for your particular need? Fine, make your own. Offer it up to others. If it's a good concept is good then it will flourish, if it's not it will die eventually.

Think of it as technical Darwinism.

Here is something that is very evil, but should work well. Get some older hardware (just to make sure it's actually supported), and have them install an old version of slackware (i.e. ~3.4) on it. Then have them configure X-windows to a working configuration. Although this could be considered cruel and unusual, it will make sure that they understand some of the basic concepts that one needs to know to get around the command line. Then start actually teaching them how to use it, as some stuff is difficult to figure out. Then move to newer distro's once their knowledge advances.

This way, the students will gain enough knowledge to, for example, remotely fix a server through telnet/ssh without using a GUI. I know that I would not know nearly as much as I know about linux (and I still don't know very much although I use it almost exclusively) without having gone through this process of installing a configuring a system without a shiny GUI configuration manager.

Near the end, you should definately try some of the commanly suggested stuff like creating a LFS system.

I'd think this to be an ideal course (but with a lot of tweaking first). Anyone care to give any thoughts?

-mdek.net

It's evolution basically. At this point, I'd start teaching them Unix hacking (differentiate hacking and cracking...). From here, your students will KNOW how to use *nix.

The final step is to go LFS - have them build a Linux From Scratch System. You have total control over everything done in the computer and know the system by heart (heck, you built it from scratch!). I doubt there is any experience in Linux more fulfilling and educational (and downright cool) than building your own OS. If you want to be really nice, let them burn it to a CD when they're done!

The problem with capped Karma is it only goes down...