Slashdot Mirror
2.6.13 Linux Kernel Released
LynuxFre@k writes "Linux Torvalds announced the release of the 2.6.13 Linux kernel. He noted that there was a major change to the x86 PCI code, and that while all bugs from the change were believed to be found during the release candidate phase, it's possible that some devices may have problems. From this release on, it is intended that major changes only be merged into the kernel within two weeks after a major release. The rest of the time will be spent fixing bugs, with the goal of both increasing overall stability and decreasing the amount of time between major releases. Download the latest Linux kernel from a kernel.org mirror."
"From this release on, it is intended that major changes only be merged into the kernel within two weeks after a major release. The rest of the time will be spent fixing bugs, with the goal of both increasing overall stability and decreasing the amount of time between major releases."
I wish Linus would arrive at a policy and just stick with it instead of all these gyrations of "we'll use this method from now on...no wait...we'll use this one from now on...and by the way I want everyone to switch revision control systems now...oh wait...sigh.
I'm not really a grammar/spelling/correctness nazi either, so I can't really complain about slashdot going down hill. I just feel compelled to post.
Uh... I wish my name was Linux?
This is a cool use for the Coral Cache, mirroring files this big: the kernel.
--
Dreamhost superb hosting.
Kunowalls!!! Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
It's LINUS Torvalds. God, I hate reading typoes!
funny :)
What kind of person are you that these "linux fanatics" would make so angry and desperate as to spend hours writing this stuff and posting it to slashdot?
Sorry, I don't know if your post was intended to be funny, or simply a troll, but the kernel is just Linux and nobody ever claimed otherwise, least of all Stallman.
The non-technical people out there understand version #s only enough to be confused here. They probably think Linux is stagnating. I'm not saying we need to rush ahead to "Linux XP" or something, but wouldn't it be wise to start incrementing something other than the 3rd set of digits?
Non-technical people probably don't give a rat's arse which version of the kernel their Ubuntu/ SUSE/ Linspire install is running, if they even know what a kernel is at all.
The new release strategy being introduced as of this kernel, with two weeks before a feature freeze is an interesting step. The kernel development process has been changed a lot, and as much as some people may complain about these frequent changes, I believe it is in the search for a better way of working/more productivity. Surely exploring the problem for better solutions is a better way of trying to improve releases than putting up with a good-enough release method..
Business Voyeur
2.6.13 Linux(TM) kernel
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
Are you running Windows?
Note to mods: I'm probably being sarcastic.
- RMS
Even non-technical people these days know that version numbers don't mean jack shit.
I'll give you my opinions on these.
A) It's been years since I've recompiled a kernel, and I've only compiled a few software packages in years. I use Linux daily at work, and exclusively at home. It may not be as easy to install software as on a Mac, but a good distro is equal to Windows.
B) I agree, but at the same time I find it rare that I have to drop to a command line to do normal computing tasks. I still go there daily, but by choice.
C) I can usually find anything I need online without having to post to a message board myself. However, I do agree that it needs significant improvement. I wouldn't expect non-technical people to search online for their answers.
By the way, you should find other examples to "prove" your technical skill. Ripping videos and using Photoshop aren't too "technical" in nature, especially here. Alternatively, don't try to prove it, just leave it assumed. Note: I'm not calling your knowledge into question, just your examples.
Industry standard 3d, compositing and editing tools all run under linux which is the natural progression because of their IRIX legacy.
I've also done some DTP under linux but that probably wasn't professional, since I didn't just bang a series of poorly masked raster images together like most 'professional' agencies we dealt with.
Does this make me a linux fanatic?
As they say in osnews, devfs seems to have been removed from the kernel.
--
Dreamhost superb hosting.
Kunowalls!!! Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
As you may have noticed, this article is about the KERNEL. Changing your kernel is a very much geek thing to do. If there is any place you should expect to need the CLI to install something it is the kernel!
Compiling and installing a new kernel isn't for everyone, that's why there are these collections of tested software known as "Linux Distros" where geeks get the software packaged nicely so you can use a GUI to do all your upgrading. If the CLI scares you so much and you want to use Linux, I'd recomend using Fedora or Ubuntu and sticking to standard packages.
You don't have to. years ago when I used SuSE, I never ever compiled anything, and I had no problems
Linux does have something similar. How about Yast or Synaptic or up2date? True, it's not identical to way things are done in Windows or OS X. But Linux is not Windows or OS X.
I don't think the kernel-developers are to blame if some GUI-tool doesn't do the job. They work on the kernel, not on the GUI.
Failed at what? To satisfy the whims of some random user who propably hasn't paid one dime for the software he's using? Here's a hint to you: they (the developers) don't owe you anything.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Linux Torvalds announced the release of the 2.6.13 Linux kernel.
If it is, it's funny, if it's not...well, it's even funnier!
I've been using Linux since 2.0.27. It has usually been generally quite stable for me. But recently, I've been encountering more and more kernel crashes. For trivial things to, like a kernel crash when I try to use ifconfig yesterday when setting up a machine. And random crashes on one of my servers that doesn't seem related to RAM. I know that some kernel versions have "problems", but it seems to be more than that. A recent trend of unstability. Can anyone else who has been using Linux for a significant amount of time attest to this?
2.7 would be the unstable version, this is currently being done by a branch of the 2.6 kernel which was designed to be expanded and have features ported back into it.
Hi! Where else have I seen your _exactly_ same points? Do you get paid for doing this?
You will never, ever, become successful on the desktop until idiocy like this is exorcised from the OS
Well, it sounds like we've got you out of the way, so we must be getting close.
It does..
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Does it run linux?
This PCI code rewrite doesn't bother me as much as some of the recent 2.6 releases including new drivers for obscure proprietary hardware.
A large number of organizations (as well as Debian Stable and Redhat) still use 2.4. It's pretty pathetic. 2.6 was released in December of 2003, over a year and a half ago. It offers significant performance advantages over 2.4 in many areas. Maybe instead of spending time switching policies, kernel developers should be consulting with end-users (note: this does not mean just/predominantly IBM and the other big fish. It means people like US, too) to find out why we're not using 2.6. Aside from security patches, any effort on 2.4 development/maintenance needs to stop. It's a brain drain, and active maintenance is encouraging people to be lazy in upgrading (and that's probably part of the issue).
Right now 2.6 is a lame-duck kernel, and if they keep trudging on and release the next stable without looking at why 2.6 isn't the defacto kernel of choice today, Linux will be rather fubar'd.
Please help metamoderate.
Do you have to post this in EVERY goddamn thread about linux? Enough already.
Use SuSE or Mandriva. No compilation necessary, pretty user-frontends for config, and a big thick paper manual in the box in SuSE's case. If you don't want to have to make any choices, try ubuntu.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
A) For any distro that considers itself a desktop distro you don't have to compile a kernel. Hell, evem when you use debian you don't have to compile a kernel. Needing to complile is only for those who want to do something very specific or for those who want to have "full control", which are very wide spread in the Linux community for some weird reason. And it is like this for at least 5 years already.
B)Anytime there is something I can't do automated, because there is no proper comand line or scripting tool, then the developer has failed. Right, computers are becoming used by virtually everyone. So the things everyone has to do with them (like opening doors in a car, and sitting into it) need to be simple. But if you want do real work (like actually driving a car), you need lots of training and learning, and preferably a test and a licence (this was kidding now) anyway. With computers it is far too often that people who only were passengers so far want to do a car mechanics job, and complain that it's hard, and that they fucked up their computer. But is sealing the whole chassis the solution? Access to the engine must be there...and not everything can be done from the backseat.
C) A little comparison. Whole company staffs, schools, public offices etc. get company sponsored, and even Microsoft sponsored training programs for Microsoft products several times every year. Yet most of them still are inept with computers and fail to grasp such simple concepts as file versioning. For Linux such things are just developing at the moment. Yet, there are millions of very able linux users out there who learned all they learned by only this very documentation and mailing lists you just trashed so passionately. Something's odd.
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
A) Fine. So we'll distribute one binary version of the kernel. It won't work as fast. It'll be hundreds of megs in size. It will take ages to load as it checks for every single known piece of hardware. You've just lost all the speed/memory advantage of having a tailored kernel. Alternatively, it'll come with a hundred modules. It'll also never be x64 optimised or, for that matter, able to work on every machine (some options crash some machines, while the opposite options may crash others) and APM/ACPI will NEVER work on some machines.
B) Fine. You come up with a GUI that can allow me to find files modified on the second Tuesday of every month between May 1, 1946 and June 27, 1978, which contain the words 'secret' and 'report' within 26 characters of each other, sort them by date, and replace any occurence of the word 'anchovie' by 'dead bug'. Some things GUI's just cannot do, some things GUI's do that are just command line interfaces in a fancy coloured textbox, some things GUI's can do once in the time that someone who knows the command can do twenty times.
Secondly, how do you expect a GUI to be able to do stuff like modify computer internals safely? Windows answer to this is usually that settings won't take effect until the next reboot, which makes your computer *stop all it's work* until it's done. X can be restarted with a single keystroke to have the same effect. Maybe a couple of command line edits in between but meanwhile none of your users have been disconnected, no programs have stopped doing what they were supposed to be doing.
Command-lines are not for the faint-of-heart. Then again, last time I touched the command line on my own Linux desktop (not counting other machines that are cmd-line only via SSH) was to run LILO - not something that a "desktop doughnut" should be doing. You obviously have either different ideas of what you should be doing on a normal desktop machine or have not found out how to do them GUI-wise. By the same token, Windows should never expect me to recover in safe mode, or via recovery console, or by running any batch commands ever. Fine for the ordinary desktop user because it very rarely does. Not fine for a power user. An ordinary desktop user wouldn't even notice if you ran a Windows GUI on a Linux machine.
C) Man pages can be a pain in the arse (make it compulsory to include enough examples to demonstrate every option!). HOWTO's are not always up-to-date. Forums are, pretty much, for people who want to know how to install this Linux thing they downloaded. Then again... how much documentation do you get with Windows?
A small booklet showing you how to use a mouse to point at the various icons. An online help system that, even with it's wizard-style help for some items, is next to useless if you don't know the terms to look for (I work support for six schools... that's about 60-100 staff and a few thousand pupils. I have NEVER seen or heard of anyone even bother to try using Windows Help or Help inside ANY program because it's never been useful to them). Annoying dogs, wizards, paperclips that people want me to TURN OFF for them because they can't figure out how.
That's surely Linux 0-0 Windows in terms of help.
If you're an advanced user, you've got to be comfortable with the command-line. I carry a USB key full of cmd-line utils and use them almost every day on Windows and Linux. It's amazing how much quicker "Start, Run, Cmd, ipconfig" is than navigating that poxy GUI network settings. And while I'm there, doing "route print" is the ONLY way to discover Windows network routes.
Anyone who's not going to set up networks or advanced stuff (i.e. users), or home users shouldn't ever NEED to worry about the command line on either OS. And they don't. They pick a distro like Lindows and once the installation is complete, they never see it again. Or they have a decent desktop set up and then never see the command-line again. You, however, are on the border. You are trying to do stuff that NEEDS a command line, stuff that's beyond a GUI point-and-click.
There's a good summary of the new features over at LWN. Among other things, inotify has finally been merged in - about time! I wonder when Gentoo will add the new version to Portage, and if I'll dare to upgrade?
Wow, I'm really impressed you managed to pass a multiple choice test, where you don't even need to have used the OS in question to get a certificate!
You sound like a fill the printer with paper lacky. Ooh, we're so impressed.
Download the latest Linux kernel from a kernel.org mirror.
apt-get install kernel-image-2.6-686
No, it won't get the latest kernel, but it will get one that has been tested a bit first.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
That would be Gnome XP or KDE XP or whatever-window-manager-you-are-running-XP. The kernel would be Linux NT. \m/
\m/
I just finished configuring and compiling the kernel for my desktop last night, and now Linus decides that I'm not important to him. Why doesn't he return my calls? Doesn't he love me anymore??
I have bad karma
They forgot the attribution as well:
Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.
http://www.linuxmark.org/attribution.html
Deleted
How quickly they forget about the XP service pack that broke everything and of course Microsoft's lack of documentation is laughable compared to the wealth of additional documentation availiable on linux (HOWTO's and package documentation).
Sounds like you already found an OS that fits your needs but feel free to rant about unrelated software in a story about a new kernel release.
Who is this "you" that you keep referring to? Your post reads like every person involved in linux development is part of one coherent group that has the single aim of producing a successful desktop operating system, and that not reaching this aim is failure.
The extent to which kernel developers care about end users is that it works, and works well. Saving users from compiling kernels? Not there problem, it's the distribution makers role to produce packages. Protecting users from the command line? Likewise. Similarly for documentation.
Don't get me wrong, Linux being suitable for everyone's desktop would be wonderful. But that it isn't there just yet isn't failure. For me, everybody working on Linux has already won. They've produced an operating system that I want to use, and choose to use over the alternatives (and not due to the cost). For that, I thank them.
Having to recompile kernels/worrying that apps will be broken by upgrading that kernel. For that matter, I don't want to have to compile anything, ever. Just to make this clear, never. Come up with either something akin to Windows where I click on a standard installer, or make it like Mac where I just drag and drop the folder.
I'm a debian user. I am very lazy. I install everything with apt. If I don't know what I want installed I use synaptic (graphical installer, click to install). Soooo... `apt-get install kernel-headers-2.6-686`
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
>> Any time I'm forced to drop to a command line, you as a developer have failed.
> I don't think the kernel-developers are to blame if some GUI-tool doesn't do the job. They work on the kernel, not on the GUI.
In fact, if some functionality requires a GUI, people like me are mightily upset. The moment I'm forced to drop to a goddamn GUI, you (the grandparent poster) as a whiny user have failed.
[Disclaimer: not a single byte of my code can be found in the official kernel tree, so take my words with a grain of salt. Still, I don't really imagine Linus using mouse for anything but cut&paste]
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Oops, I am also very careless. that should read kernel-image-2.6-686
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
There ought to be limits to freedom.
- G. W. Bush
Feel free to continue paying (but see the * below) for inferior one-size-fits-all software. Linux is not for you, as you're certainly not a technical or advanced user as borne out by your odd reference to man pages - you are aware that there are alternative interfaces to the man pages other than the terminal? Oh wait, I forgot - you're neither technical nor advanced. Riddle me this - if a command line is such a failure, why are MS making a song, dance & musical extravaganza about the new command-line shell in a certain forthcoming OS? Bet that caught you out.
Quick rant - it's obvious that you want Linux to become some kind of free Windows clone so that you stop warezing* it and hunting around for serialz.
Just admit that you would rather pay for software, than use (or god forbid, contribute to) free software.
Woah, that Linux Torvalds guy must be annoyed that some retarded bearded hippie at MIT insists that he's a really is wilderbeast and thus should be named thereafter.
make menuconfig kthx
Linux DOES has a stable ABI, this is, the syscall interface. It hasn't been changed in years...I know people who is running binaries compiled for linux 1.0 in 2.6 kernels. If your app breaks or works bad when changing the kernel version (ej: openoffice when the semantics of yield() where changed in 2.5) is probably because your app was broken in first place. Now, regression and bugs can happen too, but those aren't on purpose
s /linux-2.6.git;a=blob;h=f39c9d714db3d6bf2f6440d2f6 cf9353057eeae5;hb=02b3e4e2d71b6058ec11cc01c72ac651 eb3ded2b;f=Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt
Maybe you mean the internal kernel API - which affects to modules, NVIDIA & friends etc. That API is unstable on purpose, as explained here: http://kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvald
Or maybe you mean "compatibility" WRT gtk & friends, if GTK breaks compatibily thats their broblem
...When 2.6.12 came along it broke my IDE-SCSI setup (I use one quirky piece of software that REFUSES to work unless my DVD-ROM drive is accessable as a SCSI device, and there's no alternatives available for it) and I couldn't make it work again. In addition, I completely lost audio from my bttv device and couldn't restore it.
I'm a bit hesitant to switch from 2.6.11.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
kernel.org has plenty of bandwidth for this.
of course! you can run an X window system (xfree86, xorg) and the window manager of your choice.
You must be new here.
I mean, here in slashdot we have high-quality trolls, we love to be troll-ized by them.
But your start has been quite poor, really. Continue training...
Add to that that noone's actually forcing him to compile his kernel or anything or even *shock horror* open the command line. Why can't the guy just wait until the distro has compiled it for him?
> Having to recompile kernels/worrying that apps will be broken by upgrading that kernel. For that matter, I don't want to have to compile anything, ever.
I always want to compile EVERYTHING from scratched, tuned to my precise build settings, I NEVER want to install binary-only applications again.
Until Windows and Mac give me this option, I won't consider them.
All this being said, there are Linux distros that are as easy to use and administrate as the Mac or Windows, I encourage you to seek them out and use them, but don't imagine that your idea of a perfect operating system coincides with everyone else's.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
OK, first off, this guy is obviously a desktop user. So, yeah, it's understandable he wants everything driven via a GUI. Fair and reasonable request really. But he should understand that not everyone is a desktop user and many people who use Linux as more than just for servers are power users who LIKE having the power and flexibility of low level configuration files. Man pages do suck when not written properly. Would a few examples kill people to write?? But, the argument that Linux is free and that "the developers don't owe you anything" is getting old. Ok, it's free. BUT it's being put out there as a superior OS to Windows. So if you're going to develop and tout it as such, stand behind it and stop running for cover behind statements like: "Failed at what? To satisfy the whims of some random user who propably hasn't paid one dime for the software he's using? Here's a hint to you: they (the developers) don't owe you anything" This isn't helping anyone's cause. Learn to take and use criticism to make a better OS. Linux isn't better becuase it's free, linux is btter becuase it's a superior system is so many ways. Hardly any REGULAR desktop users would say it's as easy to use/configure as Windows and until they do, there's work ahead for developers....
I always have trouble finding the new features and driver changes with each major release.
For reference, Kernel trap has a copy of Linus' e-mail to the Linux Kernel Mailing List with a list of changes. If someone has a better link, please reply.
Can people please stop pretending that everything that doesn't have a click-and-go binary installer GUI whizzbang gadget is somehow a flaw in Linux?
Linux is perfectly usable as it stands. You can get your command line if you want it, you can get your GUI if you want it, it comes with a slew of drivers for various kinds of hardware, and a typical installation will provide you with everything you need for browsing, email, chat, development, and some light entertainment.
Just because you have to dive into an editor to get some leet-o feature to work, or recompile the kernel to get your not-yet-fully-supported hardware to work, doesn't mean the system sucks. At least you have the possibility, aye?
And if you want to use the system in a certain way, but you don't like the interface you have to use, you can develop another. If you won't develop another, then maybe Linux isn't for you. Well, guess what? Nobody is forcing you to use it.
Linux is primarily a system developed by the people who use it, and used by the people who develop it. That it has gotten user-friendly enough for even non-developers to use is a great achievement. It's intention was to be a Unix-like operating system, developed purely for the fun of it.
Sure, criticism is good, as it can help improve the product. But this criticism of yours insn't helpful in any way. All your saying is "it's flawed because my favorite features don't work the way I want them to." If at least you had been specific about what things needed to be improved and how, somebody might be kind enough to do it for you. But that still doesn't mean Linux is flawed, it just means it isn't your perfect match.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I completely disagree with you on several points. In a comparison to your Windows operating system, every single one of these points fail. A) Remember when SP2 got released, that broke several applications, and applications had to be rebuilt around SP2. Furthermore, Microsoft forces you to upgrade to SP2 (the only way to get around that is hacks, that John Q. Public doesn't know). In linux, you are never *forced* to upgrade your kernel, if you live in fear of it breaking an application. ( I really have nothing to say about you not wanting to compile programs, if you don't want truely optimized code for your specific machine, fine. ), there are many "binary" installers available that many companies build. For instance, I just installed QLogic's SANSurfer program from a single executable. Works great. B) I don't care what operating system you run. Command line is *not* a bad thing. The fact that people are generally inept to do anything that requires typing is scary. Remember that device that was around long before the mouse, the keyboard? What is the big deal of using it. It may not be quite as easy, but c'mon. C) man pages are completly acceptable, and they do cut it. As compared to Microsoft's KB, you got to give me a break. I've searched for information using a fairly accurate search string and still have found KB articles buried 3 pages deep. Furthermore, man pages give you a full description rather than KB articles that can either be good or be crap. They can give you a quick workaround, or they could give you a description on a command or a problem. This is not a linux error. And on your last little comment you make. I'm one of those who still believe that each OS has its place. I don't think linux deserves to be on the desktop, but in that same idea, I don't think that Windows deserves to be on my server.
YOU'RE WINNER !
Another lame blog
You should really brush up on your trolling skills. This one is to obvious:
- A and B are simply not true for the stuff you describe you are comfy with.
- man pages are fine, only thing (IMHO) they might be lacking are decent examples.
- the need to prove yourself
- posting as an AC
The non-technical people out there understand version #s only enough to be confused here. They probably think Linux is stagnating. I'm not saying we need to rush ahead to "Linux XP" or something, but wouldn't it be wise to start incrementing something other than the 3rd set of digits?
Simple answer: wherever you read version 2.6.x, read 2.7.x instead. For all intents and purposes, I regard Linux 2.6.x as development branch.
Just look at the the huge number of patches that go into the kernel between 2.6.x releases. And check the size of all those patches combined. Even changelogs are in the MB. range. Compare that with 2.4.x series.
Anybody who claims 2.6.x is a 'stable' kernel series, is a liar. Stable running: yes. I'm used to compiling my own kernels from vanilla 2.6.x sources, and I can't remember ever having had a hard lockup (where the machine is totally frozen). And my use of Linux includes all common things like webbrowsing (JavaScript, Java + flash plugins all used on and off), MP3 music, and internet multipayer, hardware accelerated 3D gaming.
But stable from a development point of view ('mature')? No way. Personally I suspect things are done this way, because the 2.6.x series provide such a powerful foundation, that allmost everything you can cook up, one way or the other can be fitted into existing infrastructure. And putting it into 2.6 releases, exposes it to a lot of users/testers, so that bugs can be shaken out fast.
If you don't like this, then I suggest you either a) don't compile your own kernels, but have a stability-oriented distro like Debian or Slackware-based do it for you, or b) look at *BSD instead.To reply:
A) This is already done by all the people that put together distributions. They typically have one kernel that works on virtually everything. You're right, it's not going to be as streamlined for the particular hardware as a custom compiled kernel. re: ACPI/APM not working, either fix the code, or know that it's not going to work and disable it.
B) "modify computer internals safely"? What are you talking about? You mean mucking with important config files? Great, whatever uses those config files should know that the files have changed, and re-read them as needed.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
I guess it all depends on what you want from your Operating System.
When I read your post I kept thinking to myself "this person wants things exactely opposite of how I prefer them". Let me try and explain by using your own examples.
Not being able to recompile the kernel of my operating system would worry me. It would leave me unable to quickly fix bugs when they become known and would also leave me completely unable to customize my OS's inner workings (and yes, I actually do that, both for fun, but also for work).
As for "point and click" installation of software, I prefer building from source since I like to inspect the software I install before running it instead of just having to trust other peoples binaries.
You sound like a person who thinks you have some "technical skills" and heard the hype about Linux, but got bitten when you tried to jump on the bandwagon.
Here:
A) Use the package manager that comes with the distro. Don't upgrade your kernel unless you have good reasons. If you do, still use the one packaged by your distro.
B) It's just the preferred way of doing things in Linux (and most Unices). If that bugs you, don't use this method and use the GUI tools available. The major desktop environments like KDE and GNOME supports most (if not all) commonly used configuration options.
C) man pages are fine, thank you (at least on Debian). It's not to provide you with an introduction to Linux, and definitely not to tell you what you should be doing if you have no damn clue. It's a reference for those who know what they are doing -- the command line options, the config file format, the arguments of the C-library/system calls... etc. If you want documentation in the sense of "linux-for-dummies", then buy a book or something.
All of your ramblings suggest that you've heard somewhere (probably from some Gentoo zealots...) that you NEED to compile your own kernels, edit config files by hand, type in cryptic commands in a CLI and RTFM like nuts. No. Most Linux users do use it that way because they prefer it, but if you install and use a decent "user-friendly" distribution as some other posters have suggested and stay out of the dirty work like tweaking your system, you wouldn't need to even KNOW anything about compiling kernels, shell commands and man pages.
Yep, so quit trolling. Go back to your warm and fuzzy Photoshop and Illustrator apps and stop pretending to be 1337 in Linux (or in tech). All the "feats" that you have mentioned is nothing extraordinary and are things any computer-literate person with a sound mind could do easily -- except perhaps the Photoshop/Illustrator part, in which (if your claim is true) I'll acknowledge you as a decent graphics designer, but nothing else.
Don't quote me on this.
Any time I'm forced to drop to a command line, you as a developer have failed.
Without getting into the whole "you have failed" thing and whether or not your particular requirements are some sort of mandatory minimum, it's my opinion that the same thing applies to GUIs. I think every piece of functionality should be available in three different ways:
The common Unix and OSS methodology is to build the command-line tools first, then factor out libraries and add GUI interfaces that use either the libraries or even the command-line tools underneath. So, it's common that features are accessible for a while from the command line, but not from the GUI. In the Windows world, the methodology is to construct the GUI first, then expose functional components via OLE and then, maybe, to create command-line tools. Of course, it's very common in the Windows world to stop after the GUI.
IMO, the Unix and OSS approach is superior because it improves the odds that all three interfaces will be implemented, leading to maximum functionality not only for novices, but also for power users and developers. But I won't clam that Microsoft has "failed" because I understand the difference between my opinion and global Truth.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I'd like to use the stock kernel as much as possible.
:(
As of now no SATA DVD drive works well unless you change one line and recompile the kernel.
So many systems are now built as SATA-only (yes, the IDE ports are completely unused), stock kernels break all live-CD distributions - none of them will boot
Damnit! I just finished compiling Kernel 2.6.12-gentoo-r9 yesterday!!!! No. REALLY!
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
Assuming you mean Microsoft Windows, yes, it does.
If you just want to run some programs that are designed for MS Windows, look at Wine. It can be a pain to set up, but it's free and it works.
If you want to run a MS Windows OS, then you need VMware. This lets you run MS Windows in a virtual machine under Linux (or vice-versa). It's nto free, but works well.
If God had meant for man to see the sunrise, He would have scheduled it later in the day.
Hear, hear. I don't know of a single moderatly common desktop user task that requires the commandline, and that is the way it should be.
That said, the commandline is an exceptional tool, and while it has some shortcomings that could be adressed, there is no reason to remove it. Microsoft tried, realised their mistake and plan to release a next-generation shell to correct it. Let's not try to copy their mistake, especially not after their indirect admission of this mistake by creating the Monad shell.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
Update disc. Or can I just download an executable somewhere? Or can I just access a web site and run an ActiveX script or Java script to run a hotfix? Hmmm. OOOPS!!! My Bad!!! I forgot this was not a Microsoft Operating System. When are you Linux people going to figure out that the only way you are ever going to get mainstream acceptance is when I (the average joe blow user) can click on a link, choose to run or save and run later in order to update my system? Figure this out already why don't you.....
I guess it all depends on what you want from your Operating System.
Not being able to recompile the kernel of my operating system would worry me. It would leave me unable to quickly fix bugs when they become known and would also leave me completely unable to customize my OS's inner workings (and yes, I actually do that, both for fun, but also for work).When I read your post I kept thinking to myself "this person wants things exactely opposite of how I prefer them". Let me try and explain by using your own examples.
As for "point and click" installation of software, I prefer building from source since I like to inspect the software I install before running it instead of just having to trust other peoples binaries. If an OS forces me to use a mouse to accomplish every task instead of letting me quickly string together the tasks I want to perform on a commandline, then that OS has, in my oppinion, failed. If an OS forces me to only use GUI tools to configure things instead of plain text files that I can easily copy from host to host, easily write scripts to manipulate etc, that OS has again failed. Most of the time I find that man pages cut "it" just fine. I like my documentation brief and to the point, I don't appreciate documents that use up an entire page just to tell me something basic in a language that assumes I'm a moron. When man pages don't cut it, there are tons of HOWTO's available online at tldp.org as well as distributed with most distributions.
Ohh, and who said anyone expects you to jump aboard an alien computing environment? If you prefer something else then just go on using whatever that something else may be and I doubt anyone would loose any sleep on that account. The day Linux turns into an OS similar to Windows is the day I'm switching to something else. I don't want my OS to hold my hand, I want my OS to perform the tasks I set it in an efficient manner and I want to be able to script and modify every little corner of it. And I don't give a damn if Linux succeeds on the desktop or not - who cares, as long as it fullfills the needs of the people who create it.
Different people, different needs, different Operating Systems.
Why don't you just stick with Mac or Win if those make you happy? You can still use many Open Source apps on those platforms.
Too bad I don't have mod points SuperBanana. Hopefully moderators will see the obvious brilliance of your comment.
Good stuff.
I don't mind being trollbait, for this is not feeding the trolls; this is making the rest of the world see the troll feeding in a zoo.
So here's to the trolls.
1. You rejuvenate and dance when you hear a windows flaw exposed, but you conveniently ignore the thousands of security flaws exposed in linux.
We fix them too. We don't sit on our asses warming the chairs and overload the cooling. Microsoft takes ages to come out with an unpleasant fix, sometimes ONLY after a major outbreak. Go figure.
2. You yell loudly TROLL! at any person's post or at any person you see posting facts that you do not want to hear about your oh so cool linux.
You pour millions into a "Get the facts", fund "independent" studies with "unbiased" results, all the time lying through your teeth. We atleast have *FUN* calling you a troll, while you sit around paying your lawyer crowd. You throw the money, we get to crack the joke. Understandably, you're the one who's pissed off.
3. You know it's a classic case of penis envy, you don't have all the support, software and hardware available for linux and you have to let that anger out somewhere, but you don't have the brains to admit it.
Not everyone has the clout to SUCCESSFULLY support an installation. We help over mailing lists and stuff, you rip your paying customers for a slimy product. It shows.
Winmodems (eg.), etc. are pieces of specifity made for interoperating with specifics. Make more general hardware, without perverting standards, and your hardware will work. You will find people using Microsoft keyboards with Linux; for the reason that it doesn't suck as much as your crappy OS, and dont have to upgrade to a new keyboard after every three years.
4. You hate windows, hate Microsoft, but race to emulate windows, have programs to run office from within linux, and spend a $300 on a Windows emulator, only Windows fools.
You suffer from being a control freak; you cannot accept the fact that some people have to build stuff that serves to glue your crap into the rest of the world. If youre pissed off about someone ELSE making your stuff work with other stuff, you have an attitude problem. Fix it, look at and accept the reality, and THEN let your gob pour forth its inane ramblings.
5. You cannot admit that you don't have professional usage of Linux outside server markets.
You don't even have the PROFESSIONAL guts to admit your lock on the OEMs. If it wasnt for your nutcracker at their testicles, you'd be nowhere, and you are where you are cause you pay Congress to hold that nutcracker for you.
We admit that we do nothing of the above sort, and Linux's market share is built on goodwill, performance, and sheer superiority. We have cut into your market, and you're shit scared of it.
6. You cannot admit that most of the joe user out there when told that there is linux will respond, what is that?
Fix your senses, then your English. That doesn't make any sense at all. This is what happens when you have to do "Innovative(tm)" Feature Fillers.
7. You cannot admit that there is no professional printing capabilities in linux.
If "Professional", coming from the horses' mouth, means "insecure by default" and needs a "get the facts" push for shoving down closed throats, then I, personally, care to admit that printing in Linux works satisfactorily to suit my needs. I think most people feel so too.
8. You cannot admit that you are a masochist (otherwise why would someone spend hours playing with scripts,
and recompiling programs that are available for Windows?)
If thats the only language you will ever understand, here's a fitting reply for your like and brotherhood:
Doing Windows is S&M, actually. Install (fuck the computer up), 3 months and your computer is a wet soggy noodle, (get fucked by it). Then again, the next time around, we have DRM giving it to you up the other end of your digestiv
A. If you want bleeding edge features long before your distribution provides them to you, it's your choice to decide to be technical and build your own kernel. The other option is that you use whatever your distribution gives you. The third option is that you use Windows, and get virtually nothing for your $100+ every time an upgrade comes out.
Oh, by the way, there is strong resistence to breaking APIs in the kernel development community. Generally, it only happens with kernel-related systems like the deprecation of DEVFS - and even then, they leave it around and available and marked as on its way to the grave.
If your software breaks when you upgrade the kernel, chances are that you don't know what you're doing and should opt for the distribution's stock kernel. If it doesn't suit you, pick another distribution... choices and all.
B. This has nothing to do with the kernel, and while I'll grant that the desktop environments don't provide universal system control, this situation is gradually getting better.
C. Man pages are pretty damn informative. Some systems like KDE are lacking help in certain areas. It would be nice to have more of a universal help center, if you will - perhaps some of the free books available online could be distributed with the distribution?
Uhh maybe I'm missing something, but where precisely do you type "make menuconfig" if not the command line?
GP post comes up every other week or so, almost exact, word for word. Surprised it hasn't been modded to oblivion as Trollbait by now.
Insightful?
A) Precompiled kernels are there if you want 'em. And you can compile your own if you want to. Much simpler, friendlier answer.
B) Mac OS X's and Windows's search functions get closer to doing this search than most folks could easily get using the command line, so this is a pretty stupid example. Meanwhile, I think you might point out that having to edit the registry is no improvement over having to edit text files, both of which are about as necessary in the respective OSs.
C) I actually think man pages are a step up from Windows's now absent DOS docs.
I don't know if your trolling or really serious, but I feel your post elicits a response either way.
B) To call yourself a fairly technical user then start whining about having to drop into the command line is simply disingenuous. A command line is far more efficient and easy to work with than a GUI. Many times GUIs are a crutch which allow non technical people to do things they shouldn't be doing. Most technical people I know prefer the command line.
A) Recompiling the kernel? Come on. Only in very rare cases do you have to do ANYTHING that requires recompiling the kernel. Your making that problem up. It simply doesn't exist for most users.
C) Just because you don't like MAN pages, doesn't mean you have to villify them. Many volunteers have written great docs on sites like The Linux Documentation Project. If you don't like MAN pages do a little searching on the internet.
If you are going to call yourself an advanced user please act like one.
First I have been using some OS since 1984. I have admin and engineer experience with many OS's. There are issues with any OS/kernel. I have been using Linux regularly since 1997 and soley since 2000. Yet I really would rather use something like Linux with all of the support from the kernel dev's and user's out there. My cousin is having a really hard time with his Windows 2000 box get support it is always costing him an arm and a leg and the virus and other problems that just enundate WindowXXXX. Like I say I will continue using Linux as my sole OS for a long time.
Gah. Clueless n00bs.
The ABI doesn't matter all that much to you, even if you have to compile code yourself and use the prescribed compiler version. This is important when you are programming assembly, which you have already ruled out with your comment.
g 00153.html
In case you actually want to learn something new have a look at this:
http://www.caldera.com/developers/devspecs/
or this to get an overview:
http://www.linuxassembly.org/
You may have figured out by now that ABI means Application Binary Interface (How come you didn't write about it in the article?). As a user you run into trouble mainly when two compilers have to live together on one system, and they support a different ABI.
See here for an example:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2005/04/ms
While all those changes may seem a nuisance to you, this may just be the thing some people are willing to accept to get some benefits out of not having to carry along the remnants of a legacy architecture.
If that's not what you want then Windows may just be the thing for you. To say that Linux developers have failed is maybe a sign of a somewhat overboarding sense of self-importance. Don't forget, that those people frequently write the code for fun or to scratch an itch, if they are happy they certainly haven't failed.
Je me souviens.
I'm a fairly technical user, not a tech god by any stretch of the imagination, but I know my way around
...
Actually you don't, but have problems admitting it. That's one of the first problem you should overcome. I understand, given your attitude and perceived proficiency, the reactions you must have gotten from true technical users on Linux forums.
I do all my own XVID rips from Vdub, I can install most Linux distros without a problem, and I'm damned proficient at packages like Photoshop and Illustrator. In addition, I'm a gamer from back in the DOS days, so concepts like editing text files (config.sys, autoexec.bat, etc) don't necessarily scare me.
You are a vibrant example of the fact that you do not learn anything that lasts on a MS platform. Nothing of what you cited is actually valuable when learning to use a computer and understanding it. All what you learned will be lost. All the things I learned on Windows are lost already. On Linux it's the complete opposite. What you say also shows that people think they are technical when they learn such things, because clueless users around them praise them as gurus. Even your proficiency in Photoshop and Illustrator are very specialised and won't help you understanding how to use an OS.
That said, as much as I like the concept of Linux, I simply will not try it any longer until I hear that a number of problems have been solved.
Number one should be swallowing your pride and accepting you are a newbie. Your "problems" show it well
Number two should be really understanding the concept of Linux (you meant FOSS, but you're a newbie), which you still did not grasp, your "problem" B is evidence of that. Of course, often, for various reasons, this means you have to buy a commercial Linux distro. You are not a freeloader right ? I thought so, because you would not have the indecency to make such complaints if you were one.
A) Years ago, binary distros appeared to fix that very "problem". You are actually worse than a newbie for that matter.
B) Any time you are forced to drop to a command line, you should inform the developer. That is, if you really understood the concept of Linux. But obviously you don't, so such a thing is beyond you. And as you are a newbie, you still see the command line badly, even though even MS is tripping over itself to provide a decent one. It's strange too, that you have to modify so many text files constantly in Linux. You must be applying the MS way to your Linux tests I think.
C) You forgot to say what would "cut it" (since man pages and message boards won't). There is at least something positive : 50 % of the time, you got the answer you were searching for, which I find amazing because you are truely a clueless n00b like they called you. It shows because among the people giving you contradictory answers (or at least that's how you perceived the answers), you did not try one to come back and report to people what worked. FOSS is still a stranger to you I'm afraid.
You are not in favor of Open Source, as you think, because you do not even understand it and the process implied by it. You do not even know the existence of binary distros that fix all the problems you have stated. Too bad, but this only means that if everyone was to switch to Linux, you would be one of the last.
Well, i'm just curious why do the anti-gnu/linux (more fud | less insightful) stuff get posted by anonymous cowards ? >:)
And, no i don't have an account.
Besides being nearly a verbatum copy of something I've read before, this is really off topic as the announcement had nothing to do with either Quake or Linux on the desktop. Whatever these PCI changes are, maybe they'll be of interest in the server arena where Linux does have a sizable presence.
The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
In case anyone's interested, a torrent for this latest Linux kernel is available at torrent.ibiblio.org.
(1) Unless you know what the author's intentions were for a program, you don't know whether or not he failed to meet his goals.
(2) Some tasks are far easier on the command line than via GUI, because of stdin / stdout piping. It's also far easier to script together a set of command-line programs than a set of gui programs. You really should read Eric Raymond's great book, "The Art of Unix Programming".
(3) Actually, YOU failed because someone gave you something for free, and you bitched rather than put your should to the wheel and helped fix it, you ungrateful self-centered ass.
Linux packaging technology beats the ass of windows any time. I can click double click on .debs and get them openened by a installer just like .msi
.exe programs from docens of differents web pages. This becomes SCARY when you've to update things. For the vast majority of software you've to check for new versions visiting their web page and reading the text to check visually if there's a new version. Compare it to the magic of apt-get and emerge....I wonder when Microsoft will catch up with the early 90's and will develop a new .msi format where developers can suministrate a URL for a XML file which tells Windows what are the latest file versions of a given program...there're hints that makes me believe that they'll use RSS for this in Windows Vista, but I don't expect that much from microsoft...
The problem is in how they're delivered and the lack of 1) a common packaging format and 2) lack of a common "package namespace" (ie: xorg can be called xorg in fedora and xserver-xorg in debian, that makes dependencies fail and can be only fixed by using a common packaging framework where developers and not distros makers package things)
But Linux continues being much better than windows in some areas. For example, you've to download the
Snobbery like this is partly why Linux fails. GUIs are easier to use, especially for the non-technical user - i.e. 90% of computer users -or- who you should be catering to if you ever want Linux to be anything other than a niche operating system.
Okay, this is something that's been on my mind a while, so I hope it'll get some amount of attention and hopefully an interesting reply or two.
I also hope it's not going to get modded down to the seventh level of hell, as I'm about to (gasp!) express disagreement with Linus.
First of all, I am vaguely concerned about the Linux kernel development. It's been a long time since there's been major improvements under the hood. I've had Linux desktops freeze on me. In the past, that never happened. Ever. I don't know which kernels are trustworthy anymore. I've read something to the extent that stabilizing kernels is now considered the Linux commercial vendors' job. Excuse me, but WTF?
In the meanwhile, while we Linux types wave our dicks around and gloat over how great we are, the guys at Redmond are happily making it possible to change video drivers in their OS on the fly, and to unload a crashed driver without taking down the system. Will it work? Probably not 100% well right away, but trust me, they WILL make it work or they'll die trying. And Windows 2000 is proof that they can certainly do things well when they put their minds to it.
And Linux is about to become the unstable OS choice and it seriously pisses me off.
A very long time ago, Linus Torvalds and Andrew Tanenbaum had a since famous argument about the core structure of the kernel.
Linus's argument was, if my memory serves, that it all boils down to pushing bits around, and that you should as well push the bits in the simplest way.
And this is where I disagree.
Kernel development is about pushing around the bits that will push bits around. Those are the bits you want to push around in the simplest way. The goal is not simply to produce a good kernel, it's to produce a maintainable, efficiently improvable set of source that will compile into a good kernel. Otherwise, the end product you get is a good kernel for its time that will be a bitch to drag into the future.
Perhaps the state of the Linux kernel development today is but Tanenbaum's schadenfreude.
Assuming that kernel improvements have indeed, as is my admittedly fragmentary view, slowed down worryingly, I find myself wondering if, simply, now is when Tanenbaum should be speaking up, rather than all those years ago. The structural needs then were simple: few consumer devices, reduced architechtural diversity. Today's aren't. And there is STILL no 'just-works' way for third parties to deliver drivers to their customers. The least worse they can do is deliver sources to the kernel maintainers and hope that 1) they will be accepted, and 2) there won't be too many months between now and the moment their customer's OS uses that kernel. Or they can ship scripts that will compile glue code between their driver and the currently running kernel, and hope that the customer has a freaking compiler installed. I'm sorry, I can compile drivers and upgrade kernels manually, but neither are acceptable solutions for the mass market.
In fact, I'll go out on a limb and predict that unless the kernel's structure and development processes are rethought to take into account the use of an OS as a three-party system -- the OS vendor, the user, and the commodity/paraphernalia providers -- Linux will never be a significant player in the desktop market.
Thought on that? Please, please, please prove me wrong. I'm a long time Linux user, I did in my time the mandatory contributions to the kernel that allows me to speak up and bitch now, and from what I can see the future is not looking well for the Linux kernel. So please prove me wrong. Thanks.
Sounds like the big 2.4 memory management VM change that messed so much stuff up, made at around this point in the 2.4 release cycle (I think .10?).
Why aren't these major changes made when 2.6 is launched rather than changing things that may already be used in people's systems?
Keep some compatibility and have more releases more often that aren't minor. I don't see how VM chnagesin 2.4 and this change in 2.6 are minor and considered acceptable by its users.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
No it doesn't get old, because they really don't owe anyone anything! Well, they DO owe something to their employers, buut some anonymous coward on
there is valid criticism, and then there are unreasonable demands. To me the GP sounded like one of those users who shout "This doesn't work like I want it to work! Fix it! NOW!". He MIGHT have something to argue about if he was a paying customer. And even then he should be complaining to his distributor.
Seriously, where does this idea that users are entitled to something come from. Yes, it's great when things work really well, and everyone tries to make it work. But that doesn't mean that developers are required to bend over backwards because some almighty user feels that he's "entitled" to something.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".
Apparently: I've met many a Windows-user who's petrified of installing software, but I've never had any difficulty with running apt-get.
Look out!
People paying attention to Linux kernel releases are not non-technical. Non-technical people go with the latest version of their preferred distribution. The release numbers of the distribution are what counts to them.
Free Gamer - Free games list and commentary
... you won't be mod'ed up, but he will.
I plan to test the new kernel on a couple of my servers this weekend just because of, as you noted, the PCI changes.
As for the desktop, I'll wait until the Ubuntu people package the kernel update and automatically deliver it to me.
Anonymous poster claims to be a pilot, too:1 &cid=13360840
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=15955
I've had problems with adaptec drivers that actually delayed deployment of several new servers the other year, that was adaptecs fault and as a result they are now on our vendor blacklist
... *if* you can back up your opinions.
I use LSI also. Right now I'm having trouble with Megaraid 320 PCI-E cards overheating when under load. So tell me what the best solution for high performance SCSI and/or hardware RAID is on Linux. I'm mostly interested in DAS, but I'm also interested in any advice you have about SAN solutions also
You wouldn't dream of using iptables?! And this is supposed to be an argument in support of Linux?! Iptables has worked very well for me indeed, solving lots of problems for a price that can't be beat; and I use it for much more than simple port blocking.
Troll all you want, but please don't insult my emerge! /gentoo zealot
Which linux COULD definitely use - but I think the power of linux would disappear if the current interface were replaced by something like this.
When a new feature is added to a linux kernel, because of its text-based interface, it's very easy for it to flow to the end-user. No one has to update GUIs, etc.
Hmmmpfffff....
Go away you clueless n00b.
Wnyone else who can burn DVD's only single-speed with the new kernels?
:-(
I know it still works with 2.6.8 but reiser4 is only available for 2.6.9+
Any ideas (except "use 2.4.x...!" or "reiser4 blablabla...!")?
I would like to hear from someone if he can write DVD's with full speed using cdrecord (which version?) and a kernel newer than 2.6.8!
Thank you!
In an ideal world we could have a stable ABI and all the benefits of rapid development, and rapid improvement. But that is not possible currently. We choose the benefits of an unstable ABI, and those of us who understand the realities do not try and sell Linux to people who can't use it. I'm sorry someone lied to you about Linux, I'm sorry some zealot made Linux out to be something it isn't. The reality is Linux is not the same as what you are used to, and it may never be. Please don't be annoyed about this, it doesn't achieve anything.
I have a lot of respect for how MS manage to keep Windows so ABI stable. But it carries a lot of dead-weight with it. I love Linux because it strives for perfection. You apparently value other properties in your operating system, which is fine, but you have to accept that Linux is not for you.
So when is Longhorn due again?
Delaying the addition of new features in order to focus on reliability and stability is much different than delaying release because you have nothing to ship yet.
"Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup"."
Isnt that why we have GUI programs like synaptic?? You can use synaptic without even touching the shell.. I actually think it is easier to install programs this way, than doing it on windows. On windows i would have to first download the installer and then manually install it, while on linux distros, it would do both automaticly.
I could swear I see this exact post in every Kernel release story on Slashdot. No, it's not insightful, It's tired and repetative.
Not to mention off-topic, package isntallation isn't the responsibility of the kernel devs, it doesn't even really have much to do with the kernel itself. Maybe if this were copy/pasted to every distro-related story, it'd be less annoying, and actually worthy of a plus whatever insightful.
"B) Any time I'm forced to drop to a command line, you as a developer have failed."
I learned how to read and write in first grade and have had no problem doing it ever since. However I almost never understand funny looking little pictures on the screen or what they are supposed to mean. Don't they teach reading/writing in school anymore?
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Gentoo?"
/etc/X11/XF86Config and adding a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. The Section is called Device and the nv driver doesn't support 3D. You need the nVidia driver for 3D.
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! From a shell, su so you have rights to install software and execute emerge quake3.
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Just click on the setup icon."
User: "What setup icon?"
Zealot:"The one that appeared in windows explorer when you put the cd in"
User: "What CD? I need a CD?"
Zealot:"Yes, or you can download a demo from any random site. Just make sure your anti-virus is up to date and your spyware programs are running."
An interesting side note, The parent suggested editing
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
blah blah blah
Do you really think the kernel developers care about how easy it is for Joe Noob to install Linux and play Quake with it? I certainly don't, and I resent the fact that distributions like Lindows (or whatever it's called this week) and Ubuntu have drawn so many idiots to the Linux community because of their ease-of-installation.
anti-Linux (MS ?) Shills are at it again, with their support to mod them up. The oldest occurrence of this post I can find is this one : http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=135647&cid =11333134 .
...).
... I suppose this one will be resurrected often though. Reminds me of the good old days, when old trolls were reappearing even though the problems were fixed a long time ago. ...
What's sad is that you see them coming from far far away, but the worst is that their arguments are always flawed.
So they play with emotional things, and don't even get that right (Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with > 1% marketshare, I suppose they meant < 1 %
And then, say stupid things like :
Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".
Eliminating the context, and deliberately forgetting the part about the GUI, like Synaptic or Mandrake Update (which are available in the menu, with names like "Update your system" or "Add new applications").
But wait, they are even more stupid than that !!!! They have no shame. They even talk about the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and then, to illustrate that, ask How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?. Which of course, has nothing to do with Linux configuration issues, and everything to do with the Quake 3 editor not providing a convenient installation method. I don't know Quake 3 per se, so I can't verify what these unreliable sources say, but if these guy http://wcuniverse.sourceforge.net/ can provide an installation file for their Open Source game that works on any Linux thanks to the very old Loki installer, I think any proprietary company can do it too.
Oh but wait, I checked and Quake 3 actually comes with the same installer at least for the french version !!!!
But of course, this old troll had to detail all the installation instructions of the NVidia driver and whatnot for XFree, to sound complicated. Trolls these days
Heck, today I just saw "X does not support PNP displays", "X is slow", "Linux has bad font support"
Fortunately, anti-Linux trolls do not include "Linux has no games" when they talk about difficulty of installing Quake 3 on it, thank god !
It's amusing how "does it run Linux" for an article about windows would get modded +5 Funny and "does it run Windows" for an article about linux get modded -1 Troll :-)
I JUST installed the 2.6.12 kernel yesterday! Son of a bitch! Looks like this will be another exercise in "learn how to compile a Linux kernel... again..."
You will find people using Microsoft keyboards with Linux; for the reason that it doesn't suck as much as your crappy OS, and dont have to upgrade to a new keyboard after every three years.
Does Microsoft make the keyboards themselves (I doubt it) or do they just outsource the production of them or license their trademark to the company which produces it?
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I was able to use it to bootstrap my Gentoo install until I could install a custom kernal with STAT-ATAPI enabled.
" Fix oops in fs/locks.c on close of file with pending locks" Fuck Yeah they fixed it! !, now my plan for World domination can continue!!!!
Seriously, where does this idea that users are entitled to something come from.
They are "entitled" by the fact that if you don't make the change to cater to them then they will find someone else who will. This may mean your particular project dies because everyone is ditching it for another, similar project because they have that feature...or it could be a very small minority that you can safely ignore.
Other than that they aren't entitled in the least.
I'm a Windows user, and I just set up Ubuntu 5.04 in a VMWare session. It looks awsome, and I was looking forward to playing with it.
.rpm and .tar.gz. Ok, so I checked around the net and found out I had to use the alien -i command to convert it to a .deb package. Did that. No luck - both files open with an 'Archive Manager'. No buttons in the Linux equivalent of Add/Remove Programs to say 'run this' (and the Help | Contents entry for 'Running applications' was blank).
.rpm file was copied incorrectly, since I couldn't delete it afterwards. Had to remove it from a root command line, after searching the net for that command.
.pl file, which wasn't recognized by the commandline - so I had to find out how to run the perl command). Text installer, but works ok. Except it didn't recognize Ubuntu, so it wanted to recompile - and I didn't have the source installed.
.. my conclusion is this:
First install: VMware tools. Two files on the CD:
Apparently the original
I had to run a number of commands to mount the drive and copy the file, unzip it or whatever, and then try to install it (using a
In the end I gave up. And with a number of other serious flaws (such as 'Search for Files' not being integrated in the file explorer, and it's inability to find a fucking folder with the specified name), and a whole slew of other things
Ubuntu looks nice, but it won't replace my Windows system - or that of any of my friends' - for the next couple of years.
I might try SuSe or some other linux distro, but at the moment I'm not optimistic that my experience would be better.
I agree with one of the parent posters - Linux desperately needs to have more GUI options for day to day operations, and it sorely needs something like Windows Installer technology that works for all Linux distributions.
Until that comes, Linux stays in a VMWare to play with. If even that. And I don't care if it's 'linux's (as in the kernel) fault, or the apps that we use or try to install - it all just needs to 'work'. That's my experience in Windows, and I expect the same ease of use with Linux before I'll make the switch.
There are discussions here regarding Linux's instability. However, there is a bigger problem that exists which I have pointed out earlier.
The issue is that it is not Linux that is unstable, but X (XOrg or XFree). I recently installed a multitude of distributions recently*. X crashed on all of them, many times frequently. All occurred within the first few days of installing. Bear in mind that not everyone has another computer hooked up to the Internet where one can SSH into the machine and kill X. For some, the crash of X is the crash of the computer. CTRL + ALT + BACKSPACE doesn't always work. This is my biggest issue with Linux or UNIX variants.
I do propose a solution: a patch or replacement to X in where it does not run as root at all (to the uninformed, running X as a user still has parts run as root). If this is not possible, then revise it as such:
1) Include only the minimal, absolute necessary code required to run as root
2) A small, and as a result less complex, code will make it easier to reduce bugs and increase stability
3) Make this root code standard across platforms (Linux and other UNIX variants) so no modifications which add to code size are required, again reducing code and enlarging the audience that can review the code
Strip the code that runs as root the *barest* essentials and let all functionality run as a user. Long story short, whatever can't run as root can't crash your computer. Therefore, eliminate or make it as small as possible (significantly less than what X runs as root today).
Are there working projects available that I am not aware of? Recently, I have heard that OpenBSD has something akin to what I am talking about. Is this accurate? What of GNU Hurd? If I remember correctly it implements some of this (at least to my limited micro kernel understanding); however, is it even usable yet?
* I was let down by the new Debian Stable (stock install 3.1ra) (1 of 5 distributions I evaluated). It's wonderfully easy now and set up everything out of the box (mp3 and video support included which many users have been clamoring for from other distributions), but X crashes very frequently when switching to a VC and randomly crashes a lot in general.
Wait, you're complaining about the kernel not being as fast to boot? Are you seriously saying Linux is fast at that, with it's bloody serial boot process, initrd's, slow as hell SCSI detection (for those who have it)?
Am I trolling? No. I have a Dell PowerEdge 2300 2x400Mhz server sitting here, and two 800Mhz laptops. The Dell has a 6-drive SCSI RAID I/O subsystem (ServeRAID 3L, 6 x 9.1GB Seagate drives), and better bus speeds than the laptops. The laptops each load Windows (Thinkpad T21) or Mac OS X (iBook G3/800Mhz) in under a minute. The Dell takes a leisurely 5 minutes to boot Gentoo, Fedora, etc, taking a long time just to post (SCSI adapters, mostly), but then at least a minute and a half before reaching "INIT 2.85 booting" or somesuch, and then another minute or so after that. Windows on the same box takes (again) about 30 seconds to a minute after post.
As for the CLI vs GUI, haven't we fought this enough? You can of course come up with a bajillion bizarre completely unrealistic examples that can only be done with a command line. I can come up with many simpler examples that are BETTER done with a command-line. What the original poster referred to were the bajillion things in Linux that would be BETTER done with a GUI (or best, a GUI wrapped around CLI apps). After all, what's the point of all of these piecemeal UNIXy apps that can be chained together if someone can't put a decent GUI on top of common operations and text files? If I *force* you to use a GUI, that's bad. However, if you *force* someone to use the CLI, it's every bit as bad.
Finally, ABI. This isn't all that kernel specific, so it's not really germane; what breaks things isn't the kernel as much as things like glibc. And then once you upgrade a critical thing like that, you have to upgrade EVERYTHING else. I'm sorry, but you just don't see BS like that on Windows, Mac OS X, or anywhere else. That's just painfully fragile, and leads to the upgrade hell that turns people off to Linux.
On Windows and Mac OS X, I can download an app as a single file (not all the time) and it just works. I can copy an app from one system to another (or even when upgrading systems) and it just works. In most cases, I can even copy kernel extensions from one system to another, upgrading at the same time, and it all still works (sadly, the ext2fs driver was one exception to this). There is true binary compatibility there, and this just doesn't exist on Linux.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Uh, but "light-years" behind the Windows help system!!!
The PCMCIA subsystem has been substantially re-written. The good news is that the lame support that was there before has hopefully been fixed. The bad news is that people who had something running with the old, lame support may find out that 2.6.13 breaks it. Support in Fedora is *probably* coming but don't expect it right away:
> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 01:23:22 -0400
> From: Dave Jones
> Reply-To: For users of Fedora Core releases
> To: For users of Fedora Core releases
> Subject: Re: 2.6.13 Kernel
>
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 08:36:30PM -0600, David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud)
wrote:
>> The 2.6.13 version of the kernel is now available from
>> http://www.kernel.org/ as well as the usual mirrors. Anyone have any
>> thoughts as to plans by Fedora to move FC4 to the 2.6.13 kernel?
>
>'soon'. But not probably not in the next week or two.
>
>> I'm normally not a "new kernel junkie" but PCMCIA support gets
>> significant fixes in 2.6.13.
>
> read as: almost complete rewrite. It needs completely different userspace,
> and is almost guaranteed to break existing configurations.
> We're still trying to make it work in rawhide.
>
> I'm not sure how this is going to play out in FC4 yet.
> It may even come to the extreme of reverting chunks of it so that
> the existing cardmgr style in FC4 continues to work.
Unfortunately, by the time 2.6.13 finished building on my laptop (HP Pavilion zv6015) last night, it was too late to do much besides see if it would boot (it did). Next step is get ndiswrapper working with 2.6.13 (haven't even recompiled it yet) and then see if a PCMCIA card I insert is at least recognized (it would be a nice start).
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
And damnit, stop with the google posts too. It's getting ridiculous that every time that stupid tech company has a new online service, every geek in the world is supposed to stand up and clap.
Also get rid of all of these stupid technical scientific posts, since nobody normal understands it anyways, and just leave the gaming stuff. Windows gaming. That's all anyone has a computer for, right?
I'm a concientious
I know the OP was trolling, but your response (as well as the OP) is also based on assumptions. I mean, what if the 'user' cannot get his proprietary wireless card to work in Gentoo, hence no internet? What if he only has a dialup and emerge takes forever? What if he DID get it to install through emerge (assuming the gentoo installation itself wasn't too confusing), then his proprietary video card doesn't support 3D acceleration? ... Point being you can't ASSUME certain conditions and situations and use that as your basis to counter an argument (in this case) or to somehow illustrate that your option is in fact better than the alternative (which you allude to).
Do you think that anyone who can't compile a kernel or write an XF86Config is an idiot?
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I've seen this post before.
Maybe you are thinking about the C++ name mangling change? But that wasn't a glibc change, that was a GCC change, and it was done in the name of standards conformance. You know, so you can more easily combine objects created with different compilers. Is having more flexibility worth a bit of hassle or not?
You can do that on Linux too. Just statically link your app.Bullshit. You forgot about the registry, components, Application Data, etc.That binary compatibility comes at a cost in terms of maintenance, and is important to very few users who have special-case requirements. Limited manpower means it is prioritized very low at this time compared to things like having hardware drivers that actually work. It's a growing pain, nothing more.LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
...have you tried ctrl-alt-F1 to get back to the console? That may work even if X has stopped responding to ctrl-alt-backspace, as long as it's just X that locked up.
Fishing without a hook. The stream is muddy today.
... Standards and Practices !
PenGun
Do What Now ???
That works both ways - the users do not owe you anything either, which means that you can't complain if they then decide to go and use XYZ other OS.
"Why do all these lusers keep using crappy Windows? They should use a product that they don't understand and that we refuse to improve for them because it's free and we don't owe them anything!"
Because THAT'S a good sales pitch...
"If he were a plant, people would roll him up and smoke him."
If you can't figure it out with the wealth of information on the internet, then yes.
I was going for a healthy mixture of +1 Funny and -1 Redundant.
/usr/src/linux.
My complaint is wholly faux and not meant to be taken seriously. =)
But, good Sir, you are absolutely right of course... assuming one already downloaded and unpacked the 2.6.13 kernel and symlinked it up to
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
Second that motion. Why do they always go on about how advanced they are when they obviously have trouble crossing the street?
... Standards and Practices !
Yes with my karma ACs are my only friends.
PenGun
Do What Now ???
The wealth of information on the internet is not always relivante nor correct. Most of the information out there is so outdated where it takes someone who already has an idea of what they are doing to figure out what to chose.
(post anon because of mod)
You should have used my packages of VMWare. :p
The 2.6.13 kernel also includes updates to the DVB c ode / drivers to support newer devices.
- pchdtv.com HD3000 -- Previously, they used v4l drivers. It seems that the direction now is to use DVB drivers. The new kernel will work in DVB mode with th HD3000.
- DVico FusionHDTV3 QAM -- Newly supported card, I have one & have tested it with OTA and cable (QAM) reception. Works great with MythTV (as does the HD3000).
--
Support for the DVico FusionHDTV5 cards is also under way. I'm not sure if it made it into the 2.6.13 release ( I doubt it.. patching the kernel will probably be necessary ).
I figured as much. I didn't mention it because I wasn't absolutely sure (I haven't seen the repeat posts yet) and didn't want to offend someone I was trying to help if I was wrong.
It's open source. Go write your own distro that can do everything automagically without ever showing you a command-line, and I'm sure you'll convert thousands of Windows users. NOT.
You'll get added to the pile of "user-friendly" distros that grows every time someone bitches about Linux being arcane.
I personally enjoy the power of the command line. Anyone who regards a GUI-enabled app as superior just because it has a GUI is a stupid computer user.
You fail your trolling attempt.
Sorry, my karma just ran over your dogma.
To reach the desktop. You know, it's still starting services in the background. A distro could do this just as well, but they have chosen to not present the user with the desktop until the system is fully loaded.
And numerous HCI studies have shown people value responsiveness over necessarily "real" speed. After all, what is preemptive multitasking other than a way to keep responsiveness while processing a lot of other things (and dammit, I know there is a lot more to it - I'm not looking at "Design of the UNIX Operating System" and "Modern Operating Systems" on my bookshelf for nothing here)? Linux has its philosophy; other systems used to handle things that way and abandoned it. Meanwhile, it still doesn't cover the abysmally serial nature of the Linux boot. Mac OS X flew when they parallelized the boot process (was that Jaguar or Panther - I forget).
Maybe you are thinking about the C++ name mangling change? But that wasn't a glibc change, that was a GCC change
I freely confess my ignorance of the specifics. I just know that whenever I go to update things in Gentoo, or in synaptic in ubuntu, or whathaveyou, more often than not I have to update a dozen seemingly unrelated packages because the new version of foo required an updated library of bar, and a whole bunch of programs dependent on bar suddenly need to be updated. Maybe it's just me, but I see a lot of similar comments and complaints.
You can do that on Linux too. Just statically link your app.
Then for God's sake, do it sometimes! I know, then you miss out on fixes and security exploits and such that could be fixed in one shared library, but this is seriously hell at times.
Bullshit. You forgot about the registry, components, Application Data, etc.
I said not many apps are single files (especially on Windows). On the Mac, I really can freely copy an application from one computer, and the vast majority of the time it Just Works. No hidden support files of whatever for most apps. Larger apps like Photoshop, yes (although even Microsoft Office can be copied by dragging its folder - everything it needs is right there).
That binary compatibility comes at a cost in terms of maintenance, and is important to very few users who have special-case requirements. Limited manpower means it is prioritized very low at this time compared to things like having hardware drivers that actually work. It's a growing pain, nothing more.
Then please get the Linux community to quit posting "This is the year of Linux" every damned year. It's not until these issues are recognized and accepted as legitimate.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
This one caused many hours of annoyance when some of my hardware stopped working. Apparrently you now have to pass no-apic as a boot argument now, if your computer has problems with apic (supposedly there was some fix in linux that meant people no longer had to have no-apic on, but not in my case with my MSI motherboard). Hopefully this hint saves at least one other poor soul from some hours of trying to figure out why their ethernet card no longer works properly (the driver loads, the interface appears, but the device doesn't actually work).
Very sensible. You blame Linux (Ubuntu actually) for the faults of VMware. And then you say "I don't care if its not Ubuntu's fault, that should just work." Your demands are unreasonable.
That's my experience in Windows, and I expect the same ease of use with Linux before I'll make the switch.
If your Linux box much match exactly your experiance with Windows, you will never be happy. Ubuntu is not Windows, nor is it a copy, nor is it trying to be.
But it does not matter in the end. Ubuntu and Linux do not need you and people like you: Windows users with high demands but no desire to help and make things better. Linux will get double digit desktop use by catering to most of the world that does not own a computer yet; people who have way less needs than you and are far less picky. Plus they might actually give something back besides complaints.
Enjoy Windows, I'm glad there is an option that fits you. Just please note that Linux as a whole gains nothing by your "conversion" so there is little reason to help you with it.
Open Source Sushi
What I like about FreeBSD is that it is noticeably more stable. Yes, with fewer shiny features.
:)
Really, if I need to run a heavy-loaded server, I consider FreeBSD first and Linux second. Your comment just explained why.
Not that I don't like Linux or want to start a flamewar
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes
yes - only because they can't RTFM!
jownz
Thats because Linux is not an OS like OSX and Windows are. Its just a kernel. Now if you take a Linux based OS, you will have the same results. An Ubuntu deb you install from the server will just work. If you copy that deb to another Ubuntu machine it will just work again. You can copy the settings, and your config files and it will still just work. Every deb file made for an Ubuntu release will work with every Ubuntu install that is of the same version. Its pretty simple.
I know what you are implying. You are saying that Linux (as in everything that uses the Linux kernel) does not have binary compatibility. And this is true, because such compatibility is impossible. One version of Linux runs on a router. One runs on a cell phone. One works in my Tivo. One is just to make a computer into a firewall. One is for clustering machines. One is for desktop use. One is for servers. How are you supposed to unify all of these different Linuxs into one binary file? Can you install a Windows XP file on a Windows CE device? No? but Linux takes up the role of both....and fits into the market with both. Linux is just a kernel. Operating systems matter. OSes like Ubuntu, OSX, Windows XP, SUSE, or FreeBSD. Complaining that you can't install a file on every Linux install out there is like complaining that you can't install a deb file from Ubuntu into FreeBSD even though they use the same desktop environment....they are different OSes.
Hope you learned something.
Open Source Sushi
Actually, Linus Torvalds is a KDE user.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=161
http://dot.kde.org/1057763789/
Yes, I know these links don't directly state he is a KDE user, but do a search for KDE on those pages and draw your own conclusions. You can use Google to see Linus has even reported bugs to the KDE team.
For the record, none of my Microsoft Windows 2003 Servers have ever been compromised. They've been probed, prodded and thrown around the room a few times but never actually broken in to.
Each admin runs their own game differently. Whether Linux or Windows, both provide great benefits as well as great risks.
"An interesting side note, The parent suggested editing /etc/X11/XF86Config and adding a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. The Section is called Device and the nv driver doesn't support 3D. You need the nVidia driver for 3D."
Jesus if this isn't a perfect example of what he's talking about. How in hell would the average (i.e. "what's a config file" average) Windows user even have a clue about something like this?
I did not claim one way or another that one approach to loading priority is correct and the other is not, and I don't believe that can be shown in general because different users have different requirements. (A server administrator has different requirements from a desktop user.). I certainly think that if this is some kind of stumbling block to user adoption, there will be some distro that takes the helm in addressing it.
I must confess that I'm puzzled why you see shared library components as a problem. As long as you don't have dependency problems when you go to upgrade (in other words, use a quality and well-supported distro), what could be the matter, even if tens of dozens of unrelated libraries are upgraded at the same time. If that functionality wasn't in libraries, it'd be a static component of the application you are upgrading, so you get to download it in any case.
As for installing apps in a single folder, I do this all the time for locally installed programs (that aren't managed by the package manager). Install into /usr/local/foobar-1.2 and link everything in /usr/local/foobar-1.2/bin to /usr/local/bin. If I want to get rid of that version of foobar I just trash the directory. Some programs are not smart enough to use relative paths, but that would be a bug in the program.
As for your last comment, I do not speak for nor control the "Linux community". I was responding to your insinuation that some obvious and utterly important user need was being overlooked in the area of binary compatibility. I can still run a copy of Maple from 1995 and a copy of Quake 3 from 1998; QED in my case.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
A few months ago I was running into problems with XFS crapping out and sometimes even doing file corruption when the filesystem got past about 80% full. I had to drop back down to a XFS patched version of 2.4. Anyone who has been activly following the RC's for the last few minor versions... has this been addressed?
Remeber the version numbering convergence to PI. The version number of an ideal piece of software equals PI. Real programs are never ideal and therefore have smaller version numbers. As they are perfected, the version numbers asymptotically approach PI. Linux is still at the very beginning of its lifespan and therefore it would be unwise to rush to version numbers that are too close to the goal state.
No, they shouldn't have to SFTW RTFM or even study *FOO to use a PC that anyone can purchase from a retailer and use out of the box with minimal stress. Now, lets not forget that is is not the hardcore, but, the hardened that sit any whine about others abilitys, the same USERS that forget about the first time they re-compiled a kernel which I can guarentee even with step by step documentation was a bit stressfull.
I must not be geek enough, what is ABI?
I have heard of API, use many API's and in fact have been involved in the development of a couple API's.
This is the first time I have ran into the abbreviation of ABI. What is it?
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
Explain how Microsoft is forcing users to upgrade to SP2. There are still many users of SP1, and even pre-SP1, many who willingly refuse to upgrade to SP2 for a myriad of reasons.
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
What You Should Know About Zotob
Zotob is a worm that targets Windows 2000-based computers and takes advantage of a security issue that was addressed by Microsoft Security Bulletin MS05-039. This worm and its variants install malicious software, and then search for other computers to infect.
Windows 2000 Transitions to Extended Support June 30, 2005
Microsoft is not ending support for Windows 2000. During the Extended Support phase, Microsoft continues to provide security hot fixes and paid support but no longer provides complimentary support options, design change requests, and non-security hotfixes.*
Nevermind, I guess I wasn't geek enough. :)
B I&i=37329,00.asp
I found it.
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=A
Slashdot: The more you know!!
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
Well, I've been using it since 0.01, and No kernel version has ever been even remotely stable for me (I've used every major/minor version)!! In fact, I'm compiling 2.6.13 by hand right now cause my 2.6.12 box won't stay up for move than a few seconds!!
You make a major release, and the first thing you do is throw tons of new crap into it? Surely the first priority ought to be, to see how it shakes out in the much larger testbed of public use? Then new stuff should be added on top of a stable base, rather than hung off the side of some iffy point-zero release, where bugs will compound on top of bugs.
if you are carefull and use the right tools (things like autopackages apbuild and relaytool for example) you can make binaries that will run on almost all reasonablly recent normal i386 distros and on freebsd too for that matter if linux binary compatibility support is installed.
The biggest problem comes from the way libraries and headers are normally dealt with on linux. e.g. if i build a gtk app normally on a system with gtk 2.4 then it won't run on a system with gtk 2.2 even if i don't use any of the new functionality from 2.4.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I understand your point and his, but you've got to realize that this type of person is the majority of computer users. If you want increased quality software (by bringing more developers [and money] to the table) and an increase in userbase, there has to be a way to find common ground for both parties: people who like to use the command line and people who want everything done by graphical means.
That's the benefit of Linux, it has both. I just think that some of the command-line people should lower the 'holier than thou' elitist attitude that is very common in Linux. It's scaring Joe User away.
By the same token, I understand the comment posted above that states the passenger of the car is trying to be a mechanic and wants to adjust technical things in a non-technical way.
I am not very technically adept at Linux, but that shouldn't affect the value of my opinion. Nor should it affect the value of the original poster's opinion. Everyone starts somewhere, and the best way to find out is to ask questions. IE: Why are we doing it this way? Why not this way? etc.
Tell me: Why can't someone create an app that compiles a new kernel? One that has checkboxes for every command-line switch?
So, the ideal release of Windows was version 3.1?
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
Maybe that the time has come for Linus to take in some consideration the need for a change in the kernel code model. As of today it is released as a monolythic piece of software wheighing 27+ MB of compressed code (almost 240 MB when uncompressed). /dev/null.
If you add this to the complexity of an OS anyone can easily understand why a "partitioned" schema would greatly help the development.
Of course I'm also thinking about an oldish querelle between Linus and Andy Tanenbaum about monolythic kernel and microkernel approaches. I'm not talking just about this, but at least about partitioning of the code into (almost) independed units.
And maybe a microkernel approach could help to move in this direction: none can deny that both of them have a lot to teach about OSes.
Please, send flames to
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
"Easy" to a Linux geek means, "These series steps are logical and make sense".
"Hard" to a Linux geek means, "All this black magic hides what's going on. How am I supposed to know if the "foo" audio|video|monitor|RAID controller is supported or make it supported if it isn't?"
The notion that someone will make black-box installers that accomodate every target hardware invarient is unthinkable -- there must be a pattern or standard that is being leveraged... or is there? Maybe, my hardware isn't supported, but could be.
Complex, scalable, extensible systems can exist only because of an underlying robust structure. Linux exposes that structure, whereas Windows hides it, or tries to. Without seeing the structure, a geek can't understand how and why and is reduced to having to learn what appear to be a myriad set of unreleated things. This is unacceptable because such shallow understanding does not scale the way that deep understanding does.
Geeks don't want to know how to install a few most popular packages on a small number of platforms -- they want to know how to install anything that can leverage any hardware capable of providing the necessary capabilities said thing requires. Geeks buying a house want to know how a house is built, not just where the rooms are -- what if they want to change something?
For some pepole, a capacity for deep understanding comes naturally, and tends to accompany a capacity for abstract thought. Lacking deep understanding results in a belief in not understanding at all -- shallow understanding is useful only in such restricted specific circumstances that it isn't worth the storage space in the brain to remember.
So, yes, Windows is hard for geeks. Less so, if one develops for the platform, but that is generally not an option for anyone on a closed O/S.
A lesser effect is that geeks don't seam to respond to the same kinds of cues "normals" do. Take pictographic toolbar icons, for example. Many times, I could not use a Windows app because I could not understand the instruction "to print, click the print icon" because the latter was non-obvious to me and the familiar File->Print was somewhow not available. "Where?" "On the toolbar" "With the other pictograms?" "Yes" "Which one?" "The print one!" "But which one is the print one?" "The one that looks like a printer!!". "That's a printer? I wasn't sure what it was." "So! The tooltip will tell you!" "There are no tool tips." "Yes, there are. Mouse over the pictograms." "On the toolbar...?" "Yes! (exasperated)" "Nothing happens." "Show me... (comes over to look)." "See, nothing." "NO!! Like this! (mousing over s l o w e r)" "And just how was I supposed to know how fast to mouse over? And what was mouse-over-able?" "No one mouses over that fast, they can't read the tooltips, and they'd pop up too fast and when they weren't wanted." "Don't assume how fast I can read. Anyway, thanks, I can print now... er, how do I make this app select the same stuff and print from a command line?" "Well, if it has automation.... but why do you want to do that?" "Well, I want to do this every day at the same time and not forget." "Oh, it has to have an automation interface, and you code to that." "So, does it?" "Dunno." "How do I add one? Well, if you ask real nice, and lots of people want it, it will get done." "But I need it soon!" "Well, you're the minority."
To put it another way: Linux exists because someone found Windows hard. So, to argue that Linux is "hard" and Windows "easy" is just plain wrong as an absolute.
Oh, BTW, how do I get an equivalent to a backquote in the CMD shell?
that tracks when security patches go into the linux kernel.so if i have a box thats running a kernel.org kernel i can see if that kernel has any known vulnerabilities.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Very good.
Regarding the statement by the OP about man pages: If you are using a late version of KDE go into konqueror and type "man:/" then whatever man page you want into the address bar. On windows there is no common help 'area' is there ? KDE will even config 2.4 kernels through a GUI.
The man pages are meant to be developer/power-user friendly not idiot friendly. For example the page pages for printf(3) but not howToUseAMouse(9).
Lima India November Uniform X-ray
about drag'n'drop installing: Can be possible with something like kioslaves, rox-filer app folders or nautilus to wrap apt,yum or emerge so one can see a folder called "Respository" with all the available packages and another one called "Installed", so when you drag a folder from the first to the later, appears a dialog showing you the list of packages that will be installed, and asking you to confirm...?
if i delete a folder from "Installed", the package is uninstalled; the "repository" folder has some extra items in the right-click menu like "edit repository list" and "update repository", and the "Installed" folder can have the option for "update","purge unneeded dependencies" and "repair broken dependencies".
This could be made to shut up all those whinners that complain about apt... It's sad that they have to be tricked to make them quiet.
still wont allow dma to be set when your laptop uses sata
2 73.html
/usr/src/kernel-source-2.6.x-blah/include/linux/li bata.h:
even compiling the ide parts as modules and loading them later doesn't help. applying the patch
http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2005/Jul/0
doen't help.
even defining these
#define ATA_ENABLE_ATAPI
#define ATA_ENABLE_PATA
doesn't help.
hmm, bloodly Dell810's. It took me a week to get wpa wireless working on this thing. Lucky its a quite spell at work..
(ps, i went with ubuntu instead of debian testing, bummer eh, probably all my own fault)
if
I don't mind people posting complaints or problems with linux, but when you've seen the 5th repost of the exact same complaint by an AC, and it's modded up every time, it starts to get a little trollish.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Me too!
What in paticular is not working? What are your build options in 2.4.* vs those in 2.6.*? Have all the drivers for your hardware been updated to 2.6.* yet (some things like promise disk controllers only have old drivers) - what does the README in the directory for the drivers for the hardware that doesn't work properly have to say about the subject? All this may seem like a hassle, if so there are still 2.4.* kernels coming out.
From: The desk of LinuxCorp
To: Coward, Anonymous
Here at LinuxCorp we pride ourselves in creating the most usable desktop environment and most stable server environment available. It might not be as pretty as OSX or as familiar as Windows, but this is the path we have chosen.
I must regretfully inform you that your application to become a Linux user has been rejected. The following may have contributed to this decision:
* Too little relevant computer experience
* Intellectual laziness
* Failure to understand that a different operating system might have a different philosophy with regards to any of the following:
**installing software
**uninstalling software
**command line or lack of command line
**hand holding
* Belief that ability to perform mundane tasks corresponds in some way to computer knowledge or ability
* Unhealthy fear of compilation
We are sorry that we could not offer Linux use to you at this time. We hope you are satisfied with LinixCorp and will continue to recommend Linux to your friends and associates.
We would like to again remind you that you are not to attempt to use any Linux product, and use of said product(s) may cause you to be accosted and / or threatened by one Richard Stallman.
Sincerely,
LinuxCorp AutoReject 2.0
Linux succeeds every day where I work.
And since we aren't skimming 98% of the effort going into linux in order to fund an ever larger house for Bill 'Reginald' Gates III and other assorted Fops and Dandies, it takes very little to support the community.
So even with only 2% of the market share Linux is progressing faster than Windows, and only OS X is setting the pace, although OSX is built on a GNU base, and Darwin is OSS even if not GPL'd.
So by all measures Linux is better for people who 'know' computers than windows. I know if I had to use Windows at work I would find a different job instead, developing on windows is painful.
You pervert =]
Considering we don't have boot results for the released 2.6.13 kernel on a non-NUMA i386 ... maybe we should wait for a bit before installing it on our own x86 systems?
I am sitting here reading this and not believing what I am seeing. Everybody is complaining about the kernel but nobody is saying "I logged a bug report" or "I sent an e-mail to the maintainer".
/. does not count!!!
Yes I am a kernel developer (part of DCCP - to be in 2.6.14) but I cannot fix bugs if I am not told of them. And whinging on
I don't think Linux-folks are really concerned about that. Sure, they would like more people using the software. But that doesn't mean that the users are "entitled" to something. If the user switches to OS X (for example), they wouldn't really care, since the people writing the software are doing it mostly for themselves. If someone else find their software useful as well, good!
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
windows 2k/xp also runs beautifully in qemu, which is open source. '98 doesn't run quite so well, but it doesn't run quite so well natively either ;)
qemu has available a free (as in beer) kernel module that turns it into a virtualiser rather than an emulator, which you can use if you want the speed of vmware without the cost, and are not bothered by non-oss modules in your kernel.
with the kernel module, its slower than vmware only by a negligible amount, and vmware is definitely not worth the cost for the speed increase alone.
Handyboard Hackers' Resource Guide
The software IS improved. But it's not improved so that some AC on
But they are not "selling" anything. They are writing software. It just happens that many people find that software to be good and useful. But that doesn't mean that the developers owe the users anything.
I mean, really! The developers write kick-ass software and give it away to users. And still some people think that it's the DEVELOPERS who owe something to the users, and not vice versa?!?!
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Too bad, a patch between -rc7 and final broke the framebuffer in ATi based PPC machines (my iBook). Let's wait for 2.6.13.1
wasnt that an apple ? Linux is really aproaching microsoft , in a year we will it its patch release timming. Linux should be about stability, im switching some of my servers to BSD now. This update stravaganza is killing me :)
Bet ill get modded to troll fastest than the next kernel release .
Exactly, they're writing software. If they're not selling it (by which I mean actively promoting its use), why are you surprised when people don't use it? There are software users out there who have better things to do with their time that search out the best piece of software on SourceForge; they will simply buy commercial software where they KNOW that the developer owes them something.
"If he were a plant, people would roll him up and smoke him."
Am I surprised? And last time I checked, that software IS widely used. And most users are grateful when they get that kick-ass software for free. then we do have those "Fix this! Now!"-types who feel that the developers are required to crawl at their feet and kiss their asses.
Well, the commercial developers don't really owe them anything either. If you have a problem with Windows for example, and complain to MS, you will most likely be ignored.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Really, reading your comment makes me wonder what lame ass things you tried. a) Instead of a VMware Session, you should have just used the Ubuntu LiveCD. b) Search for the command to delete? What command? Right Click > Delete? Highlight > Delete Key? c) All your problems with installing could be avoided by either doing section a or using Ubuntu packages. Simply googleing "VMware Ubuntu" gives you a tutorial on as the FIRST RESULT. d) If you actually INSTALL Ubuntu it will auto-mount drives, CDs, iPods, etc. e) Applications > System Tools > Add/Remove Programs. f) Places > Search for Files. Most of your problems are from trying to use VMWare, which I'm almost sure you pirated. Or did you purchase a piece of software thats $299 last time I checked to test Ubuntu when you could have just burned the FREE LiveCD? When you can't even figure out Places > Search for Files, I wonder what the hell you are doing using something like VMware. Ubuntu GNU/Linux has it's flaws (some slight bugs in supporting my video card for one, Intel i810) but the community (ubuntuforums.org, ubuntuguide.org) are the best I've seen (they won an award at arstechnica) and once again, it's FREE. The first time you used a computer, did you sit down at your Wintel PC and know how to do everything you're doing now? No. People expect Linux to be a clone of Windows. The only thing is, it's better.
Hence the post I wrote. After some research, it looks like it was mostly FUD I was reading in regards SP2 being forced upon the user. But all my points still stand in my original post.
YOU'RE WINNER !
Another lame blog
Nine reasons to use aptitude instead of apt-get or dselect.
--
Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
Do what I do, just read what was supposed to be there and move on with your life. If you freak about every typo on slashdot you are going to give yourself a heart attack!