Slashdot Mirror
Distros To Try: Slackware 9.0-rc1 And Yoper 1.0
FrosGate writes "Slackware 9.0-rc1 is now available for public consumption over at www.slackware.com. From the site: 'Some of the main components included are the 2.4.20 Linux kernel, KDE 3.1, GNOME 2.2, and XFree86 4.3.0, as well as gcc-3.2.2 and the latest development libraries. Enjoy!' Enjoy is right!" And Scorchen writes "YOPER has released Version 1.0 of their increasingly popular distro. This is the their first stable release." Here's the announcment. The website claims "With Yoper it is possible to import packages from all the other major distros including rpm's, deb's, and tgz packages."
I've been looking at YOPER recently, and it really doesn't seem to be much more than just another distro. The website makes all sorts of amazing claims, but when it boils down to it, it just doesn't seem to have a lot to it. Slackware + alien?
:)
I dunno - somebody prove me wrong!
Prisoner #655321
Gentoo is a great distro, but i wouldnt recommend it to any newbies... Slackware is also a fun distro to use, but gentoo has better package management.
keanmarine.com
Latest GCC, latest stable kernel, latest GNOME, latest KDE, latest Xfree86, and yet solid as a rock :)
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Yoper has already been discussed thoroughly in an OSNews feedback thread and it has been decided that a lot of their claims are duds or dont quite work and they dont add anything visually pleasing to the distro. Everything Yoper looks like crap. Dont believe me, check out their screenshots. That Y instead of the K looks terrible.
--------- I have no signature
Yay for the Slack. I can't say I have never deviated, but I always come back for more. Pat's still doin' it for those who want to run linux for all the right reasons...
You are not what you own.
Wait till you check the price of yoper. Xandros get's my money, even over SuSE's "Office Desktop".
We've got all these different distributions of Linux, but nothing seems to separate one from another. This one's got standardized app installing. This one's got a nice OS install script. This one's got a better app installation system. This one can use all the different installation systems.
Whatever. There simply isn't any value added by any of these distributions.
Which one stands head and shoulders above the rest? Any suggestions?
I have been pwned because my
Ya know, ftp.slackware.com had JUST quieted down enough for the -current mirrors to rsync to a reasonably-recent version. At least I grabbed everything up to when Patrick threw in the Sendmail fix....
I am too tempted to agree.
:). Also, one cannot get to choose the packages to install in Yoper.
Having tried both Slackware and Yoper for sometime, I think here are some things to note that might try to differentiate the two distros:
a. Installation process- let me say that typing something like "yoper" to start the installation process of an OS is...um...different. But then, there is no rule/law which says that one *must* use the term "setup"..
b. Default Desktop: Slackware offers a choice. Yoper doesn't. I personally prefer XFCE (just a matter of choice, nothing personal against KDE), something that Yoper does not provide by itself.
c. Under the hood, there is no noticable difference between the two distros. They both have similar package menagement
I haven't even touched Slack since the 5.x days. I think that it's time to get back to my roots. I love Redhat and all, but I miss the good old days of building it all up the way I like it from the get go (to a certain extent, anyways). I do enjoy the ability to install Redhat and be on the web, IM'n and coding my bullshit php scripts in 30 minutes, but sometimes when something breaks, I have to jump through hoops finding what directory Redhat decided to put /insert config script that is usually somewhere else in every other distribution here/.
And despite what anyone says, I think Bluecurve looks nice. I'll probably still use it in SLackware.
Yoper. Right.
Shouldn't last long, with an 80k PNG of text.
Aside from that, they use alien to import other distros' packages, set CFLAGS, and possibly want to become the next Lindows... (from the about page)
What is the purpose of Yoper?
Yoper has not been designed to compete with or replace existing Linux distros. However, it will be used to support commercial conversions of office software from Windows to Yoper. These conversions will be done by trained and certified professionals within the Yoper franchise. Most technical issues with conversion can be resolved quickly by typing a few commands or running a few purpose built scripts. We prefer this method to having to develop and support an auto-detection system, that in time itself will become increasingly difficult to support.
So, what?
Other than yet another distro. Possibly with delusions of grandeur. And they seem to want your money.
--- this comment is presented in WIDE SCREEN STEREO!!!
I'm sorry, I didn't get the joke. And I've used (past tense) slackware.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Just make sure you select English as your language before you boot (unless you injoy using Linux with a German attitude.)
This distro of Linux is geared more twards grade school students, but it is still a very good distro and it runs compleatly from the CD. Good for those who just don't want to commit a hard drive to Linux but want to use it.
Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.
If you download the '-en' version of the ISO, it's default language is English.
Which one stands head and shoulders above the rest? Any suggestions?
:^) The freedom to choose which distro is best for you is most important. I'm still trying to figure out why after all these years, people are still comparing distros as to which is the best. Learn linux first, then go for the eye candy.
Corel Linux
My question is, does Slackware put things in the correct directories? I am becoming more and more annoyed with Red Hat with their emphasis on Gnome at the expense of KDE. It is a real pain in the rear installing a KDE app on Red Hat when they've strewn the directories for things to heck and gone, changed some of the names and have a crippled kcontrol.
Hmmm.. this seems to be turning into yet another Distro War [lite]. So, I'll try to plug in that LFS is the coolest, and if you've never done it before you're not a cool linux person. ;)
Red Hat, Mandrake, and the others are for getting work done, LFS is just plain cool. When you install it you learn about how linux really works and ticks--it's really satisfying. So, grab an unused box and throw it on.. it doens't take too long...
Isn't that application dependent?
What matters is that a distro a) does what it promises and b) is interoperable with other distros.
Requirement (b) is already handled by tarballs for most distros, and also in some by the low overhead in creating packages for them (e.g., Gentoo).
Requirement (a) is really what separates the distros.
...reaffirm your masculinity with a goofy red hat?
;)
whatever floats your boat dude
As you may know, Open Source has always lagged far behind in many 'consumer' type of features. Among the most prominent are 'power saving' modes featured on many of the newer PCs. The subsystems, of hardware, BIOS, and operating systems, reduce the amount of power consumed by the computer when it is not in use, and thus save energy and the environment. However, it is clear that by eschewing these features as being for 'lame desktop windoze lusers', the open source community firmly establishes itself as standard American energy sucking social reprobates, unconcerned about the fate of the rest of the planet, and not caring one whit if the entire nation collapses just like California did last year. In this article I show just how much energy would be wasted if people did, in fact, switch to linux or BSD.
.083 * 120 = 9 watts. Thats pulling all the time. Day and night. 24/7. Now, lets say I have this thing plugged in all year. Thats 8760 hours. The power company measure this stuff in 'kilowatt-hours', so how many of those am I using? 9 watts * 8760 hours = 78,840 watt-hours, or 78 kilowatt hours. At 14 cents a kilowatt hour in my district, I have payed 11 dollars to the power company this year for my computer system to do absolutely nothing at all. Not even be turned on.
.How much energy, though? I mean what's a few pounds of coal between friends. OK a few dozen pounds. Some of us get that much for christmas in our stockings free from Santa Claus. But what if there was more than one person running Linux? What if Wal-Mart gets it's wishes and Lindows becomes used by, say, I don't know, everyone who has a computer in the United States of America?
The way to calculate power consumption of a computer is relatively simple and will cost about 50 bucks. First you need to get a multimeter that can measure AC current up to a few amperes. The next step is to get a 3 prong power cord. After that get some connector thingies and a wire stripper/crimper. Then take the hot wire of the power cable and split it and make it so you can plug the multimeter into it, in series w the circuit to measure. In this case, a computer.
Next, power is measured in watts. A good familiar yardstick is lightbulbs, with 60 watt being pretty normal to see in ceilings in people's houses. Volts * amps = watts, and since the voltage will be roughly 110-120 volts, (measure w a voltage meter if u wanna be exact), you can multiply the number on the ammeter by 120 to find out how many watts the computer system is using up.
Now, surprisingly, in 'off' mode, power supplies and monitors and so forth draw current. 83 milliamps in my case.
Now let's say I turn it on! My system draws roughly 0.66 Amps with windows running. When I start an open gl game its 0.68A. If i decide to unplug the fan that saves me 0.02A. basically, though, its roughly 0.66 Amps.
If I left my computer on full blast all the time, hard disk going, monitor on, etc, this is what it costs me to be up 24/7. 0.66Amp * 120v = 79.2 Watts. 8760 hours in a year at 79.2 watts makes roughly 693,000 watt-hours, or 693 kilowatt hours. Again at 14 cents per, thats about 97 USDollars worth of electricity a year for the computer to be on.
But the nice folks at Microsoft, being tree hugging hippies and all, have implemented easy to use, reliable, and safe 'power saving' mode. This mode will make your hard disk stop spinning, and on suitable monitors will turn them off as well. Now, how much power does this actually save? Well, you can measure it. Just wait a few minutes for the comptuer to go into power saving mode.
In my case, when the monitor goes into sleepy mode, (the orange sleepy light instead of the green power light on the monitor case) consumption plummets from 0.66 Amps to 0.27 Amps. All because of an operating system software feature interacting properly with the a simple monitor hardware feature that has been around at least 5 years. Now when the hard disk shuts off, it goes down even more to about 0.23 Amps. Now, with the hard disk not spinning and heating in my machine, I could theoretically shut the case fan off and save another 0.02 amps... but my box doesn't do that. Anyways, there is even a 'more power saving mode', its called 'suspend' mode I believe, and that drops me down to a low low 0.20Amps. I guess it shuts down some circuits on the motherboard as well as the HD and monitor. I don't know.
Anyways, lets say the box was in 'power saving' mode all year, monitor at sleepy-orange, and hard disk spun-down. 24/7. 120V * 0.23 Amps = 27.6 Watts, * 8760 hours = roughly 241.7 kilowatt hours, down from 693 kilowatt hours. Thus I spend 33.8 dollars, down from 97 US dollars, a savings of roughly 63 dollars, or about 2/3 off. Thanks Windows.
Let me be more realistic and say I use the computer 5 hours a day. 1,825 hours a year I am on the computer using it, so it cannot be in 'sleepy mode'. Thus, 6935 hours I am in sleepy, using 27.6 watts, and 1825 hours I am in 'doing things' mode, sucking up 80 watts. I still end up with 6935*27.6+1825*80 , 337 kilowatt hours, which is about 47 dollars. Compared with the 693 kilowatt hours / 97 dollars above, that's still 1/2 as much as leaving it in 'awake' mode all the time.
Let us say, though, that instead of running a modern, secure, stable operating system like Windows, I was instead running a legacy app from the 60s: Unix. It is no wonder that FreeBSD and Linux both have unusable 'power saving features'. First off, you have to recompile your kernel to even use them, depending on which of the 100+ 'distributions' of Unix you get. Second of all, you can never be sure exactly what you are supposed to fiddle with to get it turned on. For there is the 'kernel' power saving subsystem, and there is the 'GUI' power saving subsystem, often hidden deep in the bowels of a window manager like KDE. Frequently these 'power savers' do something pathetic like 'screen blanking', which doesnt save much of anything. It just turns the monitor black.
In such a case,the monitor keeps sucking power. So does the hard disk. I know that you will say 'but hdparm lets you turn it off'. Sure, if you can figure out how to use it. After you do that, you may find that even when it shuts off the hard disk, the hard disk will randomly spin back up for fun. Why, I ask you? Because linux is full of programs that feel they need to write to disk periodically, and none of them have given a second thought as to cooperating with things like hdparm and so forth. Or maybe they have, but linux and unix are so hopelessly confused with 5 different layers of configuration subsystems, that nobody knows how to do it. The end result is that for all but a very few expert users, who probably recompile their kernel, Linux and other open source products end up making the computer suck TWO TO THREE TIMES MORE POWER than Windows.
Thus, to run Unix is about the same as leaving a 50 watt lightbulb in your closet on all the time for no reason other than to suck power that you didn't need to use. They say there is a 'Windows Tax' on computers, but there is a 'linux tax' on our national economy and our environment.
Thankfully, mercifully, Linux has not yet been forced upon the vast majority of people, despite the efforts of tens of thousands of linux zealots holding 'install fests' and other bacchanalian orgies of 'enthusiast'ism.
Well, I know what you are thinking. I promised this would be about the environment, and so far all I've talked about is money grubbing penny pinching of a few measly ten dollar bills (Featuring the genocidal racist maniac, Andrew Jackson, I might point out, but that is another story for another time).
So let's perhaps figure out how much of that mucky black stuff it takes for Linux to sit on its lazy ass not reducing power consumption. Ah yes here we go
One kilowatt hour = 3.6*10^6 Joules,
42 gallons (1 barrel) of oil = 6.1*10^9 Joules.
So lets convert oil to kilowatt hours ok so it'll be the same units as I used to calculate how much the computers use, above. 6.1e9j/barrels-oil / 3.6e6 j/kwh --> 1694 kwh per barrel of oil. Divide by 64 gallons/barrel and you get 26 kilowatt-hours per gallon of oil. Now, you probably have an idea of how much a gallon of milk or 2 liter bottle of soda pop is, so I will leave you to imagine filling it with black slimy crude oil pumped out of the ground and realize it will run a ~3 watt item for ~8600 hours (like, say, a hard disk spindle motor, for 1 years time)
Well, how much mucky muck will be wasted in toto? As before, 693 kwh for a computer w/o powersaving, on all year round. 337 kwh for a computer in sleep+5hours a day of use. Thus, the first computer is using up 693kwh... divide by 26kwh/gallon, you get roughly 26 gallons of oil a year to run the first computer. The second computer is using 13 gallons of oil. Thus, the second computer is SAVING 26-13, or 13 gallons of oil from being pumped out of the ground.
What's that you say? You don't run your computer on oil! You don't have some diesel generator out back burning gasoline (and no, kids, you dont "gain energy" by refining oil into gasoline. you just pack it differently. For that matter, oil produced is a fuzzy term, for a great deal of energy must be expended to haul it, produce it, refine it, etc, sot he numbers are not pure in the first place. Hopefully we get a good rough idea though.) Now your power plant doesn't probably burn oil either! Probably true. So what about coal? Maybe your local power plant burns black rocks so you can play quake?
Fortunately those smart folks who study things like energy have written down the kwh for coal too. 1 pound of coal (size of your fists) has 1.6*10^7 joules of energy. You can see this in action at a medieval fair, many of whom have 'blacksmiths' nowdays burning coal in a little oven to bend metal with. Fun and stinky. Coal, btw, is ripped out of the ground where poor people live, because they don't have any lawyer friends to get the neighborhood standards committee to get the coal company. Normally when someone strip mines a mountain, kills a few thousand trees, leaves them dead on their lawn, and causes landslides and black smoke to pour over everyone, the homeowner's association and the neighbors get mad and send nasty letters and perhaps point out that mud slaked yards to don't comply with the 'neatly trimmed grass' provision of the subdivision homeowner agreement.Anyways at least the coal companies don't hire assassins to go and kill miners trying to get higher wages anymore. At least not in the US.
But I should not link linux to murder, that would be a bit of a wacky stretch. This article is about a serious topic! A pound of coal has 1.6*10^7 joules of energy, and 1 kwh is the same as 3.61*10^6 joule, so a pound of coal has 1.6*10^7j/pound divided by 3.6*10^6kwh/j or roughly 4.4 kilowatt-hours of energy. Pretty crap compared to oil I must admit. But 4.4 kwh is still nothing to sneeze at, as I myself if burned in an oven probably wouldn't produce all that much more, and I weigh 200 times more than a pound of coal.
But how much of that could Linux waste? Let's say As before before, 693 kwh for a computer w/o powersaving (linux), on all year round vs 337 kwh for a computer with powersaving (Windows), 5 hours a day of non-powersaving use. Thus, 693kwh divided by 4.4kwh/pound-coal means about 158 pounds of coal go to run the first computer, while 693kwh divided by 4.4kwh/pound-coal means roughly 77 pounds are needed for the second computer. That's 81 pounds of coal a year some person in a coal mine is hauling up so that Linux can sit there wasting energy.
Now I know what you are saying, 'I don't burn coal to run my computer! My power comes from the power company, and who knows what they do. Maybe hydro or nuclear or maybe they have gerbils running in cages.'
That's OK though, there is a way to get a rough idea of what exactly they might be using. Yes here we are, a chart of how energy is produced in the US. Roughly, Coal: 22%, Nat. Gas: 20%, Oil: 14%, Nuke: 7%, Hydro: 3%, 'biofuel': 3%, other 3%... so linux is probably wasting coal, oil, or natural gas. Maybe plutonium. Probably not solar, wind, geothermal, tides, ocean thermal whatever, biomass, bamboo/wood/sugarcane burning/whatever.
So there you have it. Linux wastes energy
So how many computers are there in the US anyways? In the US, here says roughly 60 million on the internet[broken link] , Here says 133 million flat out. I like to be conservative and use round numbers so lets say 50 million people switch to Unix, the 'non-powersaving OS', for a year. Then what?
First let me calculate the power consumption of 50 million computers that have usable working powersaving (Windows) and compare it with those that don't (Open Source, like Linux or BSD). Again, in one year: 693 kwh for a computer w/o powersaving, on all year round. 337 kwh for one with powersaving. Multiply each of those by 50 million. That is 3.47*10^10 kwh for the first computers, and 1.69*10^10 kwh for the second. A difference of 1.87*10^10 kwh, or 18.7 -billion- kilowatt hours.
Now, how much is this 18.7 Billion kilowatt hours, all of which would be wasted turning hard disk platters that were not being read/written, and shooting light out of monitors that went unwatched? How much is that in terms of oil, coal, or natural gas? 1 kwh is 3.61*10^6 joules, so in joules the waste is 6.75*10^16 joules. Now there's 1.6e7 joules in a pound of coal, 1.1e6j in a cubic foot of natural gas, 6.1e9 in a barrel of oil, and 3.7e13 joules in a pound of uranium.
Thus, the waste of switching 50 million computers to Linux would be 6.75e16j divided by 1.6e7j per pound-coal, or 4.2 billion pounds of coal. Gas? That'd be 61 billion cubic feet of natural gas (roughly a 3/4 square mile blob of gas). Or 11 million barrels of oil. Or, 1,824 pounds of Uranium
Speaking of Uranium, it's stripped from Uranium ore (rocks), two pounds U per ton of rock, and 1 percent of that the right kind of U for splittin'. So, we would be diggin thru roughly 182 thousand tons (1824pounds*100percentages) of radioactive dirt so that Linux computers can sit there spinning the hard drive motors and spewing electrons out of the monitor for no reason.
Now, those are big numbers. But how much do they mean relative to say, eating a ham sandwich? Well, I don't know about ham sandwiches but at least there are some numbers about total production/consumption out there. Example: In the USA, Nuclear produces 674 billion kwh/year . Thus, if 50 million open source operating systems were wasting 18.7 billion kilowatt hours a year, that is 1/36th of the nuclear power generated for a year, or roughly 10 days worth of nuclear power plant operation. 10 days of people slogging through spent nuclear fuel rod canisters, watching dials, calculating steam pressure, etc, all because of no powersaving mode in computer operating systems.
Or perhaps open source would rather waste coal energy. Say there is 1.12 billion short tons coal/year produced in the US, and a short ton is 2000 pounds, so wasting 4.2 billion pounds of coal, that is 2.1 million short tons, or one 500th of US coal production. Half a days worth at least. Mining, shipping, transport, burning, smoking, polluting, etc. All for the little devil and penguin to burn up doing nothing.
Or oil. There are roughly 6.25 million barrels produced every day in the USA, so basically 50 million open source computers, if they took the place of Windows computers for a year, would be wasting 2 days worth of the entire oil production of the United States. All the drilling rig hands, all the oil field workers slinging drill casing around in their 5 ton trucks and whatnot.
Clearly, our nation cannot afford to be doing this . Nor can our environment. When we do things like strip minerals from the earth and burn them, or pull sludge from where it's been buried 150 million years and put it through lots of tubes, and combust it, we aren't doing it for fun. We are doing it because we feel it is an easier way to live than being hunter gatherers. Or something. Actually most of us are probably not quite sure. After all in modern society you can live your whole life and never see a single thing that you have eaten grow, nor have any idea whatsoever where your heat, food, water, clothes, etc, actually come from. The assembly line mentality. But anyways.
The reasons behind this are many, but chiefly it is that open sourcers in general DO NOT CARE. They have listen a thousand reasons why they program and what motivates them and what they care about. Energy consumption is very very low on the list. For them, computers are a magic resource that comes from a store that they can fiddle with for fun. Or 'to solve a problem for themselves', which usually involves some obscure administrative task that 99.99% of the world would not care about or want to take the time to understand. Thus we have open source software, written by people who don't care about the environment, for people who don't care about the environment. It's power saving features, if they exist, are buried in obscure, hard to use, crappily implemented subsystems that require a great deal of technical knowledge to even switch on, let alone set up. Thus they go unused.
This is not the fault of the users, nor is it the fault of the people who 'do nothing but whine'. It is the fault of people who don't care about any of this being the ones who control open source projects. It is pointless to release independent patches to projects without coordinating with people already working on areas of the project. Otherwise your patch will quickly become outdated, or simply not work, or be poorly integrated, and thus hard to use, which is part of the whole problem in the first place. Perhaps one could build a 'critical mass' of dissidents and create a fork, but that does not change the fact that millions of people will not use that fork, and will continue with their own familiar Linux/BSD distros, whose leaders will not change their retrograde attitude about such matters.
The answer, of course, is to give energy-tax credits to people who install Windows, rather than unix. There is basically no other way to prevent this energy tragedy from happening. Won't someone think of the children?
Why can't Linux just be on one CD? Why do we need to cram things just so we can fill two CDs? Why can't we just have the bare minimum in a distro: the OS, a notepad, the web browser and the web server?
What is with this problem people have with RedHat? The configuration management choices they made may seem unique, but after having managed quite a few systems with it, I really wish they would push harder for wider adoption of those idioms.
/etc/rc.d system. It ties in with pcmcia, networking and wlan-ng quite nicely. I almost wish their SysV style scripts and tools (chkconfig, svc, /etc/init.d/functions, ifcfg-[dev], etc.) were used by more distros. I guess I've been tainted by working with Solaris, but I enjoy that method. It makes adding and removing services easy and clean (no editing files for most stuff). And when I miss slackware (I used to run it) I can always add stuff to the /etc/rc.local and friends if necessary.
I'll admit it, I like RedHat's
I used to hate RPM, but I've come to appreciate it since most everything comes packaged as such, and the tool is rather powerful once you figure out how the hell to use it. Plus, those loonies at PLD give us i686 optimized software in RPM form of all the latest stuff that RedHat hasn't battle tested. This I cannot ignore!
I agree RPM tends to break on the kernel, but then I always install the latest kernel right after an install so I don't think about it. And a new stable kernel version later, a make oldconfig isn't too hard... I've never installed a kernel any other way, what's hard about doing it "manually"?
Don't know much about Debian, except that it has definitely moved on to 2.4 and Xfree 4.x
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
And of course, don't forget to checkout Dropline GNOME for Slackware. It's a GNOME-based desktop, similar to Ximian GNOME--instead of the plain GNOME packages shipped with slackware, you get an interface that has been tweaked to near-perfection and tons of extras (such as PAM support, allowing normal users to perform "root" tasks such as setting the time and date, and FAM, making Nautilus show up-to-date view of your file system) to make your desktop truely usable. You can learn more at www.dropline.net/gnome.
(And yes, I'm the main Dropline developer, so this is a bit of a plug and should be interpreted as such...)
the "minimum" RAM requirement of 128mb?
Agreed. Seems like someone wants to be a RedHat wannabe minus the ingenuity. Oh well.
It's bold and smooth, uncompromising.
Observe, no trendy Camel, no babes idling on the beach. One look, and you know why geeks flock to the Slackware label.
It's the LAMP baby, so light it up, kick back, and enjoy the pure flavor.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
:) :) :) :) :)
::clap clap clap clap::
^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^
I just got a standing ovation. Therefore, I deserve Mod: You Won the Academy Award (+1)
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
fuck is the Video Professor for jentoo!
or slackware! tell me punk.
It's a BIG country
Before peoiple start asking, there is NO official iso for rc1 yet. However, plenty of people make them, and if you're interested, you can visit #slackware on irc.freenode.net, or some other slackware channel. I'll be happy to provide you with the iso i make on a regular basis.
/a/glibc* first /a/sed*, /a/elflibs*, /a/pkgtools*
In addition, slackware.com has very limited bandwith. Be gentle with it, use one of the mirrors. It's hard for those mirrors to sync the updates regularly as it is.
For those who wonder, if upgrading from 8.1 to 9.0rc1 is possible - yes, it is. I don't think there's an official document that specifically talks about 8.x to 9.0 upgrade. If you're interested, please be careful, and backup of course. [i just upgraded live 8.1 to 9.0rc1 two days ago, and here are few things to keep in mind:
- upgradepkg [--install-new sometimes] is your friend
- upgradepkg
- next couple packages to upgrade are
- keep couple terminals open, with some tools in memory, say midnight commander. they may save your life if needed
- for people with nvidia cards, if you upgrade xfree to 4.3, you probably should also recompile the nvidia drivers, and install nvidia glx stuff. for that, you'll have to have kernel compiled with your fresh new compiler [gcc3.2.2].
To sum it up, if you're interested, visit #slackware on irc.freenode.net, and somebody may answer your questions. Slackware 9.0rc1 works well, and as slackware goes - it is very stable, simple and elegant.
--- d'oh
I completely agree with the Redhat statement. Also, SLackware 5.x ruled!! It was the best!
What does Yoper do that Debian Alien doesnt do? Wasn't Debian's Alien the first tool to be able to import any packaging system into debian (something only a nutcase would do btw!)
Once you go slack....you never go back!
Slackware 8.1 is currently my linux distro of choice. I've used redhat, debian, gentoo, and mandrake (for about 20 min) in the past. But I settled on Slackware because, like FreeBSD, its easier to figure out what is going on behind the system, and why. The /etc/rc.d directory is very easy to follow and understand.
My ONLY complaint with slackware is installing new software, and updating existing software. I don't mind the source approach, but I wish it implemented FreeBSD's ports, or emerge from Gentoo, or something similar. Basically, some option to update or install something with minimal effort. I would have stuck with gentoo if it didn't change /etc so radically. Learning Gentoo is like learning a whole new flavor of unix, rather than "another linux distro".
Does anyone know if slackware plans on coming up with its own package or source based install/update solution akin to FBSD's ports, pkg_add, or gentoo's emerge, or debian's apt-get? Something that settles dependencies.
-RobertJust tried out the latest release candidate. I was able to take a Toshiba laptop with Windows XP, shrink the NTFS partition, and auto-allocate Mandrakes partitions. Point-and-click, almost a no-brainer. I can't imagine making this any easier.
Hardware autodetect works great too, first time I see a distro that detects both my touchpad and USB mouse.
Usually a dual-boot setup gives me headaches, but this time I was delighted.
Nice!
Slackware philosophy with gentoo package management.
The distro is a minimal 686-optimzied linux base with wm as the default. Installing gnome, kde, *box, is as simple as an emerge in gentoo. So, for that matter, is installing GTK2 without GNOME and dispensing with the overhead (think phoenix:mozilla).
http://www.crux.nu/
(didn't I just say that?)
So what, it still isn't funny. Nothing about slackware is funny until you run fortune -o
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
nt
is that they have different dependency chains. Before I saw the glory of Debian Linux (I use non-free packages, so it isn't GNU/Linux) I tried using Redhat RPMs with Mandrake 7.something.
Each app wanted a different version of glibc or a different version of libfoo, and it eventually got to the point where I gave up.
I use debian for prepackages software and compile from source when no packages are available. Debian packages are of the highest quality, every one of them contains man documentation and stuff as well as a fully-integrated distro menu for those "other" window managers like windowmaker and blackbox.
If they made it work, then congrats to them. I just won't be betting on it any time soon.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Excuse the language, but I want people to notice this. On the "About" page, this is just two things I noticed on their "features" list:
Mozilla from Netscape Ltd.
OpenOffice from SUN.
I have sent them an email demanding that they change these -- Netscape is based on Mozilla and SUN has something called StarOffice, based on OpenOffice. My reason given for the demand was that slashdotters would obviously notice this and make the same demand, flooding their email.
So, come on, Slashdotters, start the email! At the very least we want:
Mozilla from Mozilla.org
OpenOffice from OpenOffice.org
or
Netscape from Netscape Ltd.
StarOffice from SUN.
Of course, considering the level of intelligence here, this appears to be a bunch of clever hackers without the cleverness.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Compared to -O2, I got about 10% overall improvement with -O3 -funroll-loops -march=pentium3 -ffast-math. The last one isn't one you should use generally, though.
The code used a great deal of double-precision floating point, so you could probably get an even greater speedup on a P4 by enabling SSE2.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Gnome is said to be prettier than KDE, and works like yours contribute to that IMO.
Nice work.
..maybe yoper is an excellent business plan with hopes of making enough cash to back up their claims of greatness to come, but not enough full time programmers to do some things yet?
... or ok, maybe they're just trying to make a fast buck. it wouldn't be the first time in the history of mankind someone tried that. I don't get the smell of "get rich quick" as much I do "good idea underresourced".
I'm not saying i think they're destined for greatness.. it just seems that their intricate threading of the small-business needle could easily be what's being flagged as bullshit. So they don't support PPPoE, does that make them koleco or something?
jfc, maybe it's like, hard to create the perfect product and stuff. give it time. i've been trying to start a small business and f'ing _a_ it's not easy
ok, $98 is not cheap. who said a good linux desktop isn't worth as mch as a shitty windoze one?
PS I give them a year.. i don't get the feel the market is ready to pay windows prices for a linux that doesn't carry something close to redhat's reputation. Sorry Yoper, Red Hat beat you to it. Unless you get some paying corporate customers up front, and really make a case for yourself as some kind of niche linux... hey, there could be worse things than "Oh, yoper's that linux they use for banking" etc... *g*
some call me... Tim?
(Sorry, I'm about to flame a Linux distro... Posting anonymously to dodge Karma burns ;) )
. ..
Ok everyone seems to agree that Yoper doesn't really have anything special. It's just slackware + alien... Also I guess I'm not the only one here finding the catchphrase "Your Operating System!" just super cheesy... Also, what's with their product page? A huge PNG image? Doesn't even look good...
I have no problem with people trying to make money selling Linux. But do they have to insist so much on the Yoper(TM) all over the place. The domain is of course a dot-com, the first link on their navigation menu is "Store"... Sorry but half of my BS alarm have already been tripped...
But I get specially annoyed when due credit isn't given. Where is the page that says that their YDesktop is just KDE with the nice "K" replaced by an ugly "Y"? But I'm sure you will easily find the page where you can order "YDesktop Pack 1.0 for only $98"... I mean, their pages hardly mention it's a linux distro. Let's play a game: try to count how many times the word "Linux" appears on their site...
We could go on about how their site should be nominated for www.webpagesthatsuck.com (check the "About" link at the top... that actually takes you to the FAQ... Hello? HTML formatting anyone?), how their "user community" seems to have a count of 3 (oh but wait, these 3 are actully just flaming the distro on its own boards...)...
Ok, so if we agree Yoper kinda sucks...
so the question is, how in h*ll did they make it to #1 on Distrowatch?
*cough*cheaters*cough*faking*chough*hits*cough*
Thats been around along time! I think the military used it in some Matthew Broderick movie?
"Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it" Richard Feynman
This is why linux is so great in general.
You may label these distributions as no added value, but in reality, we're receiving 100 distributions trying their darndest to try and keep up with everyone else.
Each distribution _is_ frighteningly similar to the next, but it's because the competition is so cut throat, that they must ALL have these added values, or they will drop like flies..
Seriously, name 1 of the top 10 linux distros that didn't borrow a big feature from another distro! It's impossible, because the community is so tight, and the information sharing is at it's peak. Don't you just love it when freedom of information makes things better for everyone? =)
arcane for life
It will be a tiny version of Debian called 'DE' and to please RMS I'll call it GNU/DE.
Before installing Slackware on my own computer:
-a few weeks as a Solaris "user" (two years ago)
-a few weeks researching distros and using a mini-distro to (re)teach myself some basic commands (Nov. 2002)
-a few weeks trying to fit Slack 7.1 on a 4MB-o'-RAM machine (absolutely true: I thought the thing had 16MB, and even then, I tried to follow the 4MB-Laptop HOWTO) (Dec.)
Then---finally---I installed Slack 8.1. It was running and stable immediately.
In retrospect, I guess I wasn't that newbie...
The current RC's do not include the precompiled packages, but with the release of 1.4, they will be available for the big things (KDE, Gnome, and some others), and will be optimized for common predefined architectures (like AthlonXP :-) ).
IIRC, one of the older 1.4 RC's had them in for testing.
So does it have the ability to view Yahoo webcams yet...?
Windows, MacOs Sex, and netbsd
That might be the case, but W2K is more expensive than Linux, and not every server requires that level of stability, security or performance...
Just curious- am I the longest Slackware user here? I haven't been able to part with any Slackware release since v1.2 (April 1994) which I still have right here. I've tried most others, find some strengths in some, but always use Slackware, and ditch the others I've trial installed. (Debian seems the next best).
I've messed with partial upgrades and had lots of fun with version skew, of course especially libs. But Slackware is always clean, fast, easy, and just works. The sources and lots of good "extras" are always available too.
How about it- anyone been on Slack since 1.2 or before?
Where can I download Yoper 1.0? It says I can download RC4, but if I want 1.0 I have to order it from their store. WTF??? http://www.yoper.com/download.html
Oh damn .... and I just finished upgrading my workstation from 8.0 to 8.1
you unfortunate turd. You have just wasted one of my two logged-in posts. Twat. Do you accept ASCII pr0n?
Got p00p?
I had to leave gentoo because I lost the gentoo1.3 installation instructions and all I could find were the gentoo 1.4beta. Appearently the stable instructions were gone??? So I downloaded the beta and had lots of headaches and bugs because it wasn't stable. I ended up finding the old instructions in german and using bable fish to translate them back into english to use the 1.3 iso images.
eg.....init steam deisel engine stages
1.) etc/zerhite.d -holds soft animal scripts
2.) etc/net.conf - network tcp/ip stream rivers
yuck. I ended up figuring out how to configure the system but when I complained on the gentoo message forum I was labeled as a troll and banned???
Anyway my old motherboard was flaky with the current linux kernels and could not shutdown properly. I had to physically unplug my computer after a shutdown to gain access to my keyboard even upon a cold reboot. All the recent distro's did this besides debian.
I switched to FreeBSD because I liked the ports and the stableness. The keyboard lockup bug went away. It also had the correct versions of software I needed for school installed by default and had great documentation. Gentoo is kind of bleeding edge and a little too disorganized for my taste. There is no execuse for the documentation flop. All the developers told me 1.4rc was stable enough and yet this was almost 6 months before it was labeled stable. Obviously it wasn't ready and they should of kept the instructions for 1.3.
Because of this I would not recommend gentoo to a newbie. I recommend redhat or suse due to their ease of use and standardness. If they really want to learn unix and not just play around with it I recommend FreeBSD because of the excellent book that comes with it.
I heard good things about slackware. My question is does slackware have the great book it once had 4 or 5 years ago that everyone raved about?
http://saveie6.com/
I am a power user, and I am using Gentoo here on my laptop -- like butter.K noppix/Slackware Linux, as well as openBeOS, BeOS, freeBSD, netBSD, openBSD, Solaris, openVMS, Lindows, and Tru64 Unix.
.0 is considered a redflag in my book).
...)
*Nice to meet you, power user. I'm a developer and I dislike all the shortcomings of typical commercial distributions of Linux. I develop applications in an environment I constructed myself: many users refer to it as LinuxFromScratch. When it is time to test the scalability and compatibility of my software, I quickly move over to a computer and test my application's compatibility as well as dependability on the various versions of the shitty default installations of RedHat/Mandrake/SuSE/Caldera/Turbo/Debian/Gentoo/
At the physics cluste here, they use Red Hat 8.0, because they need a set of standardized binaries, and didnn't want to invest the time to work out the kinks themselves.
*I do not know yet of any flaws in the subsystem of RedHat 8.0, but I do know that RedHat's bad design decision in 8.0 is that they made a hybrid GNOME KDE environment that breaks compatibility in many applications as well as exhibit serious program development and compilation errors that do more to hurt Linux' adoption than good. RedHat has a history of bad activities as this. When RedHat 7.0 was released, many applications did not compile, many applications crashed or corrupted the filesystem, and the stability of an idle computer was seriously hindered becaus RedHat chose to build the system on an unproven and unstable Gnu C Compiler they themselves named in their distro as "GCC-2.96" and it had not been named by Gnu yet other than "GCC-latest-CVS". This choice hurt many people and RedHat continues making bad choices. My first experience with RedHat, alas my first experience with Linux, was RedHat 5.2 on a Pentium 150MHz computer and Caldera OpenLinux 1.7 on a AMD K6-2 laptop. The Caldera system was quite stable, as well as the RedHat5.2 system being of quite good construction. Yet, at the time, Linux was advancing at a rate where a default install would need many costly/time-wise internet downloads just to update to the latest libraries and programs for better stability and compatibility to build the latest programs. Despite this, those were my favorite distribution versions of all-time; I have no complaining about RedHat 5.2, but I honestly do not know RedHat's initial caveats of the 5.0 (anywith with a
At my group back in undergrad, the PhDs had zero time for administration, so they installed Debian and never looked back.
*Debian is a verry reliable and stable distribution of Linux that I highly respect. The only downfall of Debian is you can't actually use a current release of Debian on the latest computer hardware. Debian is always 6 months behind. It's merits are extensive testing before package, consistent user environment and standards compliance in the filesystem and system layout, and always up-to-date security checks and patches from its maintainers. Debian's update system is verry reliable and flexible, yet due to Debian's obvious behind-schedule packaging, you often need to spend some expensive time on the internet just downloading the latest libraries and updates to be compatible with any software you may want to use. Despite these facts, I am quite confused as why you chose Debian, yet I still think consideration of Debian is a great step in the *good* direction of how an operating system should be. (Debian is accepting donations. *wink*)
(etc.
et al, just update Debian 3.0 stable with the latest and greatest XFree86 2.3.0, the latest stable GCC (3.2?), and the latest DRI and directfb and you have yourself a great system.
I can't disclose the details of the "benchmark" I was doing because it pertains directly to some as-yet unpublished research. Sorry!
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I use Slackware 8.1 on my desktop and server. I checked slackware-current and I don't understand one thing. Why there is no single movie player in Slackware? IMHO mplayer is quite stable. I compile most applications myself, but I think it would be nice to have "everything important" on CD (or CDs).
Slackware wasn't actually my first distro, back in 2000 (long time Linux user indeed...) I first installed Mandrake 8.0, but due to my fantastic computer specs - Cyrix 300, 32megs RAM etc... - I needed something a bit less heavy, and installed Slackware 7.1 (or 7.0?).
:)
I've learnt much more with Slackware than I would have had I used Mandrake or Red Hat etc. I think that's one of the keys about choosing your first distribution - do you want it up and running directly and are you going to be using the GUI all the time? Or do you actually want to spend some time on it and try to understand how the system works?
The only minor glitch imho, is that some of the major distributions such as Red Hat and SuSE have moved more from the original Unix than Slack has, you don't find the settings in the same places etc.. so that Slackware is kind of getting away from the new Linux standards, which can be annoying when you're supposed to support some RH systems occasionally. But then it isn't Slack's fault.
I've tried other Red Hat and Mandrake etc.. since then, and keep getting frustrated with them for various reasons, and keep coming back to Slack
I wich distro could I find a simple newbie friendly installation (a graphic one) and a complete WindowMaker environement synchonized with installed package?
RedHat provides WM but with default static menus and GNU/Debian in not an option...
I am a rather fresh Linux User but I love Slackware since it is the only distro i fully understand the startup scripts and wich gives me a logical patharchitecture where i find my stuff in the right places. I started out with Slackware because my local Linuxguru told me to but i tried a few other distros (Sonys PS2-Linux, Debian and SuSE) and found them mostly confusing...Since then I keep spreading the word in my neighbourhood and afaik most Newbies like it. Combined with Dropline-Gnome Slack makes a neat Multimedia/Desktop-Box as well.
Looking forward to Slack9!
cu,
Lispy
Allways did and allways will.
http://ebgp.net/ccc/
Yes it does.
It is MUCH MUCH better than redhat 8.0 now. more stable and much faster with a side benefit... both KDE and Gnome LOOK RIGHT and ACT RIGHT under slackware.
I've been using the unofficial slackware-current iso's of 9.0 rc1 for over a month now (No I will not tell you where to get them, it's a small server and cannot handle a slashdotting)
Slackware the Linux Distro for Linux experts who are tired of the non-standard redhat.
I like mandrake a lot being a recent ms convert. I'd like to try xandros but throwing away $99 on an OS I might not use seems foolish.
Head and shoulders above the rest? None of them.
But I do believe that one distribution is the best.
First, let me back up a step. Our judgement of distros is only as good as the breadth and depth of our experience with them. Perhaps I haven't used the best distro, so I don't know there's a better one out there. So, I'll start with my experience, so you can see what I'm comparing against.
I started using Unix variants (mostly BSD 4.3 and Solaris) about 20 years ago. I started using Linux with MCC, then moved on to SLS and Slackware as they each surpassed their ancestor. I picked up RedHat with my current job, and SuSE from a friend. I've also used Debian some, but not as extensively as the other distros.
If I had the time, I'd probably use Debian exclusively, more because of free software than as a consumer choice. But I don't have the time, so I need something that just installs, just works, and easily provides the features I need.
RedHat *almost* fits the bill. But that distro falls down in little annoying ways, like the fact that they broke the `sort` program. And their documentation often doesn't match the behavior of their system.
The one distro I've found that gives me what I want is SuSE, at least with release 8.1. (With 7.* and 8.0, SuSE seemed a little better than RedHat, but was still a bit lacking.) In 20 years of using Unix and Linux -- after years of Unix programming, system administration and OS release engineering -- I believe I've finally found an OS that satisfies me. When I dig down into the system (docs or system files) I'm occasionally struck by something inobvious that was done *right* in a way that I'm just not used to finding. I find package docs clearly explaining where the package fits in (e.g. has been replaced by this other package, but is kept in the distro for compatibility).
When I dig down into RedHat, I'm struck about as often by how *wrong* certain things have been done. I haven't looked at RedHat 8 (I gave up after 7), so maybe they've cleaned up their act. But SuSE's rough edges in old versions were due to a lack of refinement, while the problems I have with RedHat appear to be due (at best) to differences of opinion. I don't expect they will change.
RedHat, Debian, Mac OS X, and probably recent versions of Slackware are each nice in their own way, but given one Linux distro that I like best, there's no point in using the other Linuxes anymore. (There's still a point to running Mac OS X, though...) I've been replacing RedHat with SuSE on my machines, one at a time, as I've needed to re-install them.
I now find myself running SuSE Linux and Mac OS X everywhere (except on the many RedHat-based servers at work).
Propaganda b***s**t typically is the longest post available.
If the liars can't win with lies then they try floods.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Last time I've tried FreeBSD (several 4.*) the system required to know BSD and ports just to install it from the first time. The documnetation was terrible (recursively written for people who already know FreeBSD), forums answers mostly "RTFM". The building of my customized BSD kernel was just a nightmare comparing to what I used to do with Linux kernel (despite the fact that it didn't support everything I had in my PC, which was supported fine by Linux kernel).
If some OS is not for newbies - that would be *BSD. After Linux/Solaris/AIX/NT multi-year experience I was screwed up with FreeBSD. The first impression was: why this OS is so unfriendly if loose many functionality and drivers jumping from Linux to BSD?
But what I liked in FreeBSD was ports (eventually I've been learning FreeBSD anyway, partially just learn ports). So, when I found a Linux distro with the package management system like ports (right - Portage), I immidiately fired all my RH, YDL and FBSD installations (one by one actually), installed Gentoo and now I don't see the chance that any better distro will come around any time soon.
Well, better than Gentoo? There is such OS already, it's new Gentoo! Despite the fact that Gentoo is already the best OS, it's constantly being improved, enhanced, advanced and further developed.
Less is more !
Pay heed to the noble knight. Let's not turn this into a flame war. When it comes to competing against corporate feature/backdoor-ware we're all in this together. If we stand at the line and look at the Linux crowd then let's do this in a friendly manner. Let the best man win. Talk about strengths.
:-)
That said: Debian is an awesome primer to get to the meat with LFS.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
-1 OffTopic? Come on mods. The topic was Distro's to Try. Gentoo is a great distro to try.
Linux User #296508 Get Counted!
link : http://www.yoper.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5&a m
/. in the same article as slackware. Ignorance is bliss. Stay in your matrix and stay blind. This is a business and not a charity organization for brainless and gutless chickens that fill a forum up with junk.
From: yoper
Site Admin
"We compiled, tested, packaged, compiled, tested, packaged, compiled, tested, packaged. Until one of you actually tries it how can you even start talking. It is a complete new Linux not based on anything else, targetting the i686 business market. You nerds arenot our business. You nerds are no ones business and this is the reason why as a community we fail to fight M$ properly. After years of dev you could have actually given it an objective go instead of slagging it off and blindly comparing it to slackware only because it was posted on
Stay with your Linux and leave us alone. Business users need us, since they are sick of YOU. We do not need brainless nerds with too much time on their hand. We need businesses who want to save time and money and save their behind from having to hire you."
Although this guy is suicidal, he's a professionnal flamer! lol
...a 686 then you are correct. Somewhere on their site it says that all packcages are for 686. Which seems like a very decent compromise for people who don't feel compelled to compile every package they want to install (that is not a flame BTW, I like gentoo...).
This is not how you should install debian. What you should do is installing a minimal system, configure network, and then apt-get everything you need on demand, from the Internet (or from a local server). Hmm... I forgot the point: you SHOULD use debconf to remove silly questions.
No way! The installer has to be the most confusing and inconsistent ugly piece of crap. And the layout of software on CD's is totally screwed. If you want to install seven packages, you can be guaranteed each one is on a different CD.
Definitly. Do the least possible from the installer. The installer is crap, apt-get rules. The CD installation is dangerous, unfortunatly if you don't have network. If you only have a modem, Debian is problematic.
No, the topic is Slackware and Yoper.
We have heard of gentoo. Every time any Linux distribution is mentioned, some asshole has to come out with "Try gentoo.".
I will not try gentoo and I will not "Get a Mac.", simply because their users are so fucking annoying.
You're the fat, hopeless "I use Slackware so I'm cool" turd that everyone warned me about before trying it a few years back. If you haven't gleaned this from my posts so far: I don't pay much attention to the whole Slackware thing because I don't give much of a shit, and haven't used it in years. Motherfucking nerds man, I swear.
Apparently you make shit up. How do I know? Because FreeBSD is nothing in terms of ease of use if you have ever installed Solaris or (shudder)AIX. Sysinstall is a wonderfully easy to use yet powerful installer. It might seem strange at first since you can revisit any step when setting up the system( eg keep hitting esc to return to recycle steps where you left off) but its easy once you get the hang of it and is beneficial. The text mode scares alot of newbies. Aix is a great unix but its difficult to install if you have never done an AIX install before. You need to configure alot of things. Its made for hackers and senior level Unix administrators. No gui, no fancy installer, nothing. Just some IBM manuals to guide you through.
The FreeBSD manual that comes with any version of the boxed BSD set is one of the best books ever written besides Oriely's Unix Power Tools book. The version is free from freebsd's website. You can also get it at amazon.com under the title "The Complete FreeBSD" by Greg Lehey. No other linux or unix distro has such great documentation. If you need to learn Unix and not just how to click through an installer then FreeBSD is a great OS. Sysinstall also is a nice utility.
FreeBSD is one of the most stable operating systems ever written and is a better solution for servers then Linux due to its better i/o, vm, and award winning TCP/IP stack. Its so much easier and elegant to setup a firewall with FreeBSD then Linux. Linux's strength though is multiprocessor server farms and workstations because most distro's come with a dumbed down gui installers.
FreeBSD just works. I find it supperior quality and less prone to bugs then most Linux distro's. The testing done between releases is alot more then linux kernel or distro releases. You don't have a dictator deciding that its stable enough and releasing a patch every week like Linux. Its done( kernel and userspace) in releases when the core feels its ready.
Portage also isn't perfect. You may have to update scripts since upgrading some packages may require changes to /etc files. After you do an emerge their is always a script asking you to go to /etc to check if you want to make "x" changes to the following files....
With FreeBSD ports the port script takes care of this. Their is testing to make sure a port is stable before its listed on FreeBSD's website as a stable port. I can also do an emerge world with FreeBSD. Its make world.
apache - who says it supposed to go anywhere; I mean, where would you like it? Have you seen the installation scripts? RedHat picked one of the presets.
/var/spool/postfix and /etc/postfix/... are the primary paths to remember.
::snicker:: what foolishness.
sendmail - don't use it. RPM of postfix has a logical layout by default.
And in all these cases, most times unsatisfactory paths can be fixed with rpm -i --relocate, or using --excludepaths to not install config files that need to be redone, or using a source RPM.
KDE/GNOME - OMG BLUECURVE. MWWWWWRFRRRRRRRR MY GOD BLASPHEMY
You shouldn't have to worry about selecting the right language when you boot. Knoppix ISOs are available in several different language versions. I speak English and therefore just use the EN version, and it boots to English automagically.
I find Knoppix extremely useful. I use it a lot when I want Linux tools, and all I have available is a Windows system. Knoppix is incredibly slick -- big-name distros like Redhat and Mandrake could learn from it. Check it out for sure. You have nothing to lose, as it runs off a CD.
Don't miss the forum
No download available. "Only via our store" and 98 bucks. Somebody mod up the guys at YOPER they're really funny.
If some OS is not for newbies - that would be *BSD.
I don't know about that - my first Unix was NetBSD, and I selected it because of the similarity to the userland of the (then upcoming) Mac OS X. The BSDs tend to be a little harder to use, but the documentation is light-years ahead of anything I've seen in the Linux world.
A newbie who wants to learn is probably better off with a BSD than with any other Free *nix.
--saint
They went from no one ever hearing them to having their first beta version capture number one distrowatch.
Any linux company that has the nerve to rig distrowatch just to gain attention for their alpha is pretty sad and more importantly not to be trusted.
If they didn't do it, then why are they crowing about it on their website? So either they A) did it and are stupid enough to gloat about it, or B) didn't do it, but are stupid enough to think their prerelease OS is now the most widely used one ahead of Redhat, Mandrake et al out of the nowhere.
I smell a PR driven company like Lindows who will do anything for a buck.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
So I downloaded all seven of those CD's for nothing? (I've got used to disappointment of this sort in the short time I ran debian).
The CD installation is dangerous, unfortunatly if you don't have network. If you only have a modem, Debian is problematic.
Funny you should say that. I do. I d/l'd the CD's at work (don't tell anyone) like I have with about eight other Linux / *BSD's and Solaris (and had GREAT success with all of them). CD Installation dangerous? Oh. Even WinNT CD installation (in itself) isn't dangerous (The OS you end up with on the other hand...)
Do the least possible from the installer.
I'd rather (as with every other distro) that the installer does _everything_ except pick the root password, and then ask me whether or not I want to trash my boot record (and then do it anyway) while I'm in the next room pounding your mom, so I can come back to a system that's ready to use. Not so much log straight into X and fire up a browser, I can handle setting up X and pppd by hand, as I said as AC (believe me or not) I'm no newbie. I just don't want to watch / have anything to do with the boring install. I'll install patches as and when needed, but I don't want to (can't) go onto the net and proceed to d/l another GB or two of stuff (I like a lot of apps, I don't need them all, but I like to try them all).
Like I say, I've got the install over with, and the system boots and runs fine. But there's nothing I particularly like about debian. Okay, dselect isn't bad, and a darn site better than any of Redhat's package managers or Mandrake's latest abortion (Installing and Uninstalling two completely different procedures, yeah, that's dumb).
The first Linux I installed was Slackware (anyone said Go Patrick! yet?) and it ruled! The install readme was very informative yet concise, and need I say, trouble free. The only reason I tried debian is that I wanted to try another non-bloatware Linux. As it turns out, I needed look no further than Slackware.
First, and last, time I post as AC
Sorry for all the parentheses, my brain is SMP.
And sorry if I sound like I'm trolling you, I'm just pissed off with debian.
Enjoy your new sig, saintlupus!
Maybe you're uninformed. My monitors turn off when I'm not using them. In console and X11. My computer makes Idle calls via ACPI, just like your fucking tree hugging friends in Redmond, dickhead.
Within your Xfree config, try kicking this in:
Section "ServerFlags"
Option "BlankTime" "0"
Option "StandbyTime" "5"
Option "SuspendTime" "0"
Option "OffTime" "20"
EndSection
Is it just me, but is anybody else tired of all these screenshots looking the same? Every distribution has the same screenshots and all that's ever different is the lower left hand corner icon on the 'Start' button. Linux distro's need to emphasize more on what they've done different from the other distro's, not show that their the same. Otherwise where is the value-ad to cut over?
This is not flamebait. It's a direct quote from Yoper's website. While browsing Yoper's forum today, I came upon this post in this thread by the "Yoper Admin":
/. in the same article as slackware. Ignorance is bliss. Stay in your matrix and stay blind. This is a business and not a charity organization for brainless and gutless chickens that fill a forum up with junk.
Stay with your Linux and leave us alone. Business users need us, since they are sick of YOU. We do not need brainless nerds with too much time on their hand. We need businesses who want to save time and money and save their behind from having to hire you." (emphasis added)
"We compiled, tested, packaged, compiled, tested, packaged, compiled, tested, packaged. Until one of you actually tries it how can you even start talking. It is a complete new Linux not based on anything else, targetting the i686 business market. You nerds arenot our business. You nerds are no ones business and this is the reason why as a community we fail to fight M$ properly. After years of dev you could have actually given it an objective go instead of slagging it off and blindly comparing it to slackware only because it was posted on
Amazing that a serious company would post a messag like this. Provides a true insight into their goals and intentions with releasing this distro (basically money).
"Aix is a great unix but its difficult to install if you have never done an AIX install before. You need to configure alot of things. Its made for hackers and senior level Unix administrators. No gui, no fancy installer, nothing. Just some IBM manuals to guide you through."
You havent installed AIX for a while have you?
After the BOS is in (boot off first CD and answer about 5 questions).
your done, or you can go into the CDE or KDE and do all the stuff through GIU.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
If you like Ninnle Linux, you'll LOVE Hooty Linux!
Fuck Ninnle!
Better yet, try Hooty!
Fuck Ninnle!
Why reinvent the wheel?
The new Hooty Linux does everything you need, and it's better than Ninnle, too!
Fuck Ninnle!
> I'll break even on the money I paid that kid to change the K to a Y for me
;-)
I never heard of Koper. Or YDE for that matter. What are these?
that "GNU/Linux" meant it was built on free software, most of which was GPL whereas other distros intermingle proprietary crap with OSS.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
I never thougt I would come across people who feel like me.
I am not a linux nerd, I do not need to be. Here are a couple of things I do not need to de as well.
I do not need to compile software to use it. I like well written software which doesn't crash. If it takes a 5% hit in speed then so be it. AMD is still making processors that are ever faster if I really need them.
I do not need depedency hell. Maybe, someone can tell these people providing software to make two sets of packages, one statically linked and one dynamically linked. A good rule of thumb would be, If its expected to be on the system, then dynamically link it, if its expected to NOT be thee, then do it statically, or provide the dependencies with it.
No, not everyone needs to know how Linux works, most people need to know how to make it work though. How many people know how their gearboxes work, or how a catalytic converter works??
I also downloaded Debian, it is especially silly that you get to install X, and it won't start. They should give it a good default setup which you can start and get using already.