Slashdot Mirror
Debian Reveals glibc2.1
piman writes "Today
Debian wrapped up glibc2.1 nicely into the unstable/main directory.
I hade to remove timezones (not needed anymore), egcc (replaced
with new gcc), and checker (don't know why), but it's working
fine so far. " I don't even have a slink CD and I'm already
eyeing the unstable tree. This isn't healthy. All you
livin-on-the-edge types jump in there and screw your boxes
up. Can't be worse than the GNOME 1.0 rpms...
Does anyone know when they're going to come out with a new version of gnome that's actually worthy of the 1.0 release number?
What advantages does glibc2 have over libc5? What improvements can I expect if I upgrade? Etc...
Basically, why should I even consider it?
Well, Gnome Libs are already up to 1.0.3, so I'd guess when they hit 2.0. Maybe 3.0... *Sigh*
Do they have more info ?
libc5 is *discontinued*. It is not developed any further, and nobody will care about bugs.
:)
libc5 was a branch of GNU libc, and now we are back in sync, that means better compatibility and portability, too.
Then, glibc2.1 will have versioned symbols, and that means that we will never make any such transition like libc4->libc5 or libc5->libc6 again.
And, Debian 2.0 as well as 2.1 are completely based on glibc2, so you want that, too
Marcus Brinkmann
No anonymous coward here.
Basically, better performance, especially in the string and math department (the math library in glibc is MUCH faster than libc5).
2.1 adds UNIX98 pty support if your into that.
Also its been out for a long time so there may be compatiblility problems if your still using libc5.
Glibc upgrade and stuff sound kind of scary ...
I would rather stick to Slink...
Considering that both Debian 2.0+ and Redhat 5.0+ packages (DEB and RPM) both rely on glibc2, and others are following suit, using libc5 will leave you unable to obtain precompiled binaries. If your machine is slow (like my 486DX2), you'd know that precompiled binaries are lifesavers.
If you compile everything yourself, then there's also the binary incompatibility between glibc2 and libc5.
Incidentally, what other distros use glibc2? Have Slackware, OpenLinux, and S.u.S.E. upgraded yet to glibc 2.0?
The GNU libc is *very* standards compliant. Much more than the libc5 and it beats some older Unix boxes we've got at work hands down 8)
... let's share the blame).
... versioning ... something "real" Unices know about for quite some time. Anyway, not using a distribution for years the gain was worth the pain and Unix98 style PTY's are supported by 2.x only anyway. Go for it.
For developers glibc-2.x is a must, really and nicely enough it even seems to be faster (I upgraded both, kernel and libc finally
Some problems remain though, as usual, and glibc-2.1.1 is coming (got pre1 here right now).
Very nice
I'd say to anyone who's considering (as Rob mentioned) moving up to Debian potato ("unstable"): go ahead! I've been running potato/2.2.1/XFree3.3.3 since January, with no ill effects whatsoever.
stable = slink
:)
unstable = potato
sid = weird archs that are not in stable or unstable yet
the directory is
unstable/main
which is the same as
potato/main
Every Debian user knows that. If you don't use Debian you should not be asking any way
I tried upgrading to glibc 2.1 last week (I downloaded a precompiled tarball) and just did "tar zxvf glibc-2.1.tar.gz -C /" and it worked fine except that as soon as tar got to libc.so.6 or whatever it's called it core dumped, leaving me with no working libc (that's bad.) So I was left with an unuseable system. Did I do something wrong, or did tar just pick a reeeaaalllly bad time to core dump?Matt Spongspong@wam.umd.edu
huh?
Blue Moon Rendering Tools (A RenderMAN
RIB compatable renderer) runs only under
The weasel doesn't release the source (which
is ALMOST understandable), but then
releases only a Glibc2 version... of course
I use Radiance
JWitt
Ok, what? So I, as a long-time Debian user, should not be asking any questions about, say, SuSE's new release? The person was understandably confused by the post. I know it certainly took me a while to figure out Debian's directory structuring (or Red Hat's, or anyone else's).
bahahahaha....That's why we have staticly linked gzip and tar binaries boys and girls...
Yeah, okay, maybe I shouldn't have been so enthusiastic... 8) I should also have mentioned that the newest kernel and XFree86 were compiled from source, and not installed using .debs. But still, I am sure anyone considering going to unstable in the first place does realize that there very well may be some problems.
You still assume their move was caused by KDE license concerns? Funny.
Am I the only person who actually finds Gnome 1.0 to be stable? I've been running it since day 1 and the worst thing I've experienced is the panel crashing and restarting itself. Even that hasn't happened more than once per day. I was even a pussy and installed from RPMs.
and btw, I did not have trouble with upgrading a SuSE 4.4.1 and a Debian 1.x (too old to remember the version) box to glibc2.1.
Yes, I would. Perhaps not if it were Caldera, who keeps its mitts on NDS, but RedHat has been very good about freely releasing things they've created. (Look at rpm) Since they continue to back the GPL so highly, I don't feel that conspiracy theories have credibility. Far more likely to me is that RedHat started GNOME because of license concerns, and now since it's already started, there's no reason to abandon it. (Plus the machismo of the lead developer won't let them.)
I just bought Debian 2.0 CDs. (I wondered
:)
why they were cheap-- $2.00 for all three.)
How does one patch it up to 2.1?
How then does one patch the patch to include
glibc 2.1?
I'm learning lots about Linux, and liking
every moment!
I downloaded the raws and had my CDs burnt six hours after Slink was released! -- How sad am I??
D.
The only problem I've had with Gnome 1.0 is that gtcd crashes. Other than that, everything runs perfectly the way it's supposed to. I don't see what everyone is complaining about. (I compiled it myself in case anyone was wondering)
Actually, it seems to be glibc-2.1.1...m ain/source/libs/
Take a look at:
ftp://ftp.debian.org/pub/debian/dists/unstable/
It lists: glibc_2.1.1.orig.tar.gz
so how is that possible ?
the readme on ftp.gnu.org shows this:
glibc-2.1 has been (temporarily) removed, until some
political issues are worked out.
so whats the state of glibc 2.1 ???
It's downloading right now (got fast connection,
:)
but I just selected the basic upgrade.)
Thanks so much! That was very easy.
If you follow the license agreement in glibc 2.1, it is GPL, so they can "pull" it from their servers, but once you have it it is yours..
Gotta love that GPL! (or LGPL in this case)
As long as you release source with any binaries you are good to go.
Give me a break. It's exactly this kind of patronizing, self-aggrandizing tripe that perpetuates the (false, overall) stereotype that Debian is for snobbish "I'm such an uberhacker" types. Besides, I'd think an "expert" like yourself would have realized that there are many other reasons for wanting a CD than not knowing how to install via FTP: poor/slow/non-existent net connexion, nice to boot CD directly (if you can), easy to share with friends, etc.
It is good to see that some other people answered the question succintly and effectively. Mark linux-hw.com off my list of web sites.
You can get slink from netgod.net
Reasonable price and right now.
I have to agree... The newest gcc is 2.8.1, the newest gcc snapshot is from somewhere around january 1999 - and egcs is coming out with 1.1.2 somewhere around this weekend, which is definitely newer and better than the gcc 2.8.1 crap (sorry, just couldn't resist). egcs 1.0 was already better and more stable and more standard conforming than gcc 2.8.1 and egcs was released over a year ago...
As to what egcc might stand for - I am at loss...
Am I the only one who finds the phrases "stable" and "panel crashing....hasn't happened more than once per day" a bit incongruous? ;-)
I've installed the Gnome 1.0 RPMs on a RedHat 5.2/2.2.3 kernel system, and haven't had any
problems with crashing. It doesn't save some
preferences which is a little annoying, but
otherwise it is pretty good for a 1.0 release.
I totally agree with you. I just wanted to add that I am using Debian, not because I'm a hacker snobb who need something to brag about. I use it because I think Debian is a lot more easy to install, use and maintain then Redhat that I had before.
Debian is indeed no hacker distro. To me it's Linux done right.
Yes, the replacement for dselect is out now.
AptFind!!!!!
And it rocks.
ftp://fx1.circlefx.com/AptFind/
They have given up. They realized that: because after who knows how many years, they can't even produce a stable file manager and panel, they have been wasting their time.
RedHat labs will now fully devote their working hours to playing nintendo and working on more 'leet dude themes.
I was supprised that anyone released this. I had beta .30 and it was for more stable and it has alot of the functions of 1.0. The rpms of the 1.0 included a beta version of enlighment .14 which was absolutely terrible and full of bugs galore. I don't think afterstep and windowmaker are totally ready for gnome yet but enlightment .14 is awefull and it is very alpha. I often wonder why gnome decided to include this rpm. I believe the gtk rpm was beta as well but I forgot. I had to delete linux and put NT because I have a 11s4 exam soon. I wonder if the beneifit of desktop intergration is really a good idea at all in linux. Its great for os's like windows and the mac but unix is designed to have the user think and not the os. I think mixing this together spells trouble. They should make an os based on the linux kernel for gnome/kde and another for unix. Linux was never designed at first to be a unix but just an experimental os. It just became the way it did. I love windows managers but I don't like smart os's because they just get in the way. You hear windows users all the time calling their computers high speed idiots but you never hear this from unix users. eg....Windows has found a cd-rom drive. Please insert the windows95 into the cdrom-drive to install the cdrom drive. :-)Lets hope gnome doesnt become like this.
I am going to stick with window maker for awhile.
You can still find glibc2.1.1pre1 (the version that Debian will upgrade to) on alpha.gnu.org, GNU's beta-testing FTP. There's a lot of other good stuff, too.
seriously though, I hope the powers that be will have better luck sticking to a release schedule this time. Not a big deal though since I track unstable.
Ok, I'll not associate your comments with the website. I am not posting from the same machine on which I first created my slashdot account; thus, AC post. I do not work for a competitor of yours, but I'm rather a simple programmer/database administrator who doubles as a long-time Debian (currently potato/2.2.1/X3.3.3) user. I also happen to think it does not help the community (or anything else) to call people "twirp" [sic] and belittle them for doing nothing more than asking a simple question about CD availability.
glo83@yahoo.com
Has anyone had problems upgrading the required libraries, etc. using the RPMS on GNOME's page? I'm a little hesitant to try them on RH 5.2....
Why don't they just include both?
Glibc 2.1 has a whole pile of teething troubles
still. They are quite visible in places.
If a dist hass glibc 2.1 as "stable" right now
it means "we dont test anything"
Its a sad world but almost everyone agrees that microsoft makes the best products period! However we all know better but the average boss doesnt. Most IT technical people believe NT is a uppior product and even if it isn't we all need to pretend it is because our competitors use it and this is what everyone is using. Unix suuports multitaksing..so does NT. unix is scalable....NT is only half as scalable but that isnt bad and thats good right. Unix supports threads...so does NT. I know NT sucks but IT managers all read zd mags. They see what NT supports and know unix supports them but only NT offers intergration with vb and office and sql server. Its sadly hopeless. I choose to be an mcse because all the unix guys are resisting certification and I am prepared to take their jobs away when their employers all switch to NT. This is how the ms marketing department works.
:-) I tried to tell people to downgrade to 95 and they say "according to microsoft i shouldn't because of stablity." This is what is going to happen when windows2000 is released. IT doesn't matter if unix is better or right for the job. Microsoft will abuse its power to take advantage fo the server market. Face it! The server is just a service to the client and not vice versa. Since the client software is more important, therefor the server os is a commidity. Lets hope the doj splits ms before windows2000 is released.
microsoft:"You know vb intergrates with office soooo well."
bussiness:"lets switch to vb"
Microsoft:"great. But your database doesn't fit well with all your office clients and vb. Its time for sql server. Its not as scalable but hey with a few backups and clustering it will work and you can focus on solutions."
bussiness:"err ok"
microsoft:"say. You know! windows 2000 license requires you to install it in groups of 1,000 and we will only give it to you if your downgrade your mainframe and install NT server on 15 alpha boxes that will replace your mainframe and to aviod licencing trouble you also need to trash your solaris/oracle database for sql server on NT instead."
yada yada yada. Have any of you read microsoft's planned licensing deal. You must buy only in units of 1000 and put NT server on at least one mission critical machine. What will your boss say when you tell him why you can't upgrade your clients to windows2000. Thanks to microsoft marketing, this will be the same as windows 95 and 98 when people camped out at comp usa all night for it. No one will know or care that it is NT based and not 95 or 98 based. IT says WINDOWS2000 and therfore is the same as windows 95 or 98 and microsoft says its more stable. How many people that you know think that windows 98 is more stable then 95.
;'
I heard that debian is a bear to configure. No scripts just edit the files. t/f ?
gcc -O6 -fpic -ffast-math -funroll-all-loops -ggdb -Wall -c format.c
format.c:4: publib.h: No such file or directory
make: *** [format.o] Error 1
does anyone know with what library/deb that header file is associated? thanks!
Before you flame, you might want to take into consideration that Stampede is still a beta distro. AFAIK, they won't put alpha software in their "stable" tree, but anything that hasn't exhibited problems for the maintainers does belong in the "stable" tree. That's how they can get out of beta.
Oh, and WRT kernel 2.2.1, I've been running it on my Slackware box (Libc5/Glibc2.0.6) since the day it came out. I have not had a single crash or problem.
I would wager you're running RedHat. No, I'm not dissin' RedHat, but I haven't heard many success stories about RedHat/Kernel-2.2.x.
L8r. And chill out a bit...
yeah, ever heard of multithreading and IPv6?
You got it all in the new GLibc 2.1
Have been running Glibc 2.1 for some weeks now without any problems, runs very stable.
The only problem was with the libXPM.so library
that was fixed with a recompliation of the newest
libXPM package.
Have been running the new Glibc 2.1 on some of our servers, (Debian 2.0 (hamm)), no problems, no crashes, no instability issues. Uptime is now at 3 weeks and counting.
Just use Mandrake untill Redhat gets the message.
okay, it's in the publib-dev package (imagine that)... thanks again to www.google.com!
go to bugs.gnome.org
FLAME them
we are getting nearner to 1000+ in bugs
Well, hacker is definitly not a dirty word. I myself is a hacker and is being payed for it (though my card says "SW designer" :) Anyway, "hacker snobb" is a different thing.
I didn't mean to call you a hacker snobb. It's just that you made it sound like Debian was so difficult to use and I disagre to that.
Sure, Debain does not have many fancy GUI config tools (that I know of). But the config files are always well commented and fairly easy to understand. And from my experience it's very seldom that I have to dig around in those files anyway. When a package is installed the installation script asks me for all the vital data it needs for the config files, most of the time this works just fine and no more work is needed. But of course if having to answer config questions in a command prompt instead of a dialog box scares ppl, that's another thing.
I only can think of one thing about Debian that still causes me a headache, and that's dselect. They say it's very powerful, I believe them but for some reason I just can't get along with that tool. Now I've skipped dselect and uses APT instead, and it beats anything I have ever seen before.
mfc and win32 are the best period! If they werent then linux would outsell windows. Ask any programmer and he or she will tell you that vc and vb are the best products around and they only support win32 api's and mfc so therefor they are better then anything linux has to offer. I love being a libertarian.
Too bad that large corporations are too concerned with market share and not with product quality. I wish i could leave my workstation on overnight w/o having to come back and reboot the next morning. I would also like an OS that could run more than just a mail client/calendar program. It is sad that IT is more concerned with the "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" attitude. It's even worse to see the company hosting the sales people. I don't like having to reboot the servers once a week. My cell phone wouln't be needed (well, almost) if we would use linux for anything other than a REAL server.
:)
Maybe the CEO would listen to some figures.
Peace.
actually, after trying AptFind for a little bit, i must say that dselect/apt is still far superior. the package search didn't work, and it got all the package statuses wrong. about the only thing i liked was the alphabetical listing of all the packages.
i think it would be nicer if redhat shipped enlightenment. for one, it doesn't look like shit. i'm not knocking kde at all. it's complete and works good but it won't look good until qt looks good. and that's gonna be a while.
you sound like a winblows user. "oh, it only crashes once a day."
...but I get sick when GNOME people start talking about mindshare. GNOME has been into publicity stunts from the very start.
Weird observation, I was not at LinuxWorld but almost all pictures of screens I've seen were of computers running KDE and I did not see one single picture of GNOME.
...but I get sick when GNOME people start talking about mindshare. GNOME has been into publicity stunts and vapor from the very start.
Weird observation, I was not at LinuxWorld but almost all pictures of screens I've seen were of computers running KDE and I did not see one single picture of GNOME.
Not so, Windows rebooted automatically itself from the start. This is nothing new.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but I had bloody hell with the GNOME 1.0 debs. Including broken documentation, crashing applications, impossible dependencies (had to do --force-depends many times) and my system is now all the worse for it.
As far as I can tell, Debian is as pathetic as RedHat in this mater.
Aptfind is full of buffer overruns and stupid system() calls. Not the sort of thing you want to be running as the superuser.
Also, it cannot parse legit config files that are naming resources out of the official distribution trees.
I think I'll give it a miss.
(original AC) No problem, everybody does that every now and then. Hope Debian goes well for you. As you said, it's got its disadvantages like any other distro, but with apt, stability, and a new logo (any news on that?), it's poised to establish itself as... er.. something or other.
Funny because my panel in KDE does not crash, even for a few seconds.
GNOME's preoccupation with mindshare probably led to the premature announcement at LinuxWorld.
It's the poor bastard users who have to suffer this so-called 1.0 release.
Per, I hope it was worth it. I mean, I hope the mindshare you gained by the LinuxWorld release was more than you lost by such a crappy release.
Have you even _looked at_ the debs? They seem exactly like the RPM's repackaged for Debian but with all the stupid little mistakes typical of RPM's.
Even worse, the debs did not install the first time either. Now after much pain, its finally installed but apt-get doesn't work anymore. Oops.
Folks running Debian should avoid the above source for .debs. I begin installation from there and soon regreted it when version numbers of certain debs were bumped up a few moments later. It really broke apt.
As Crow- correctly states, you should know what you are doing before using these files. Morons need not apply!
My KDE has not crashed once in over one month of use. Something could be wrong with your system.
Hi Crow-, you sound like a newbie and Red Hat is generally good for newbies but you could have had a bad experience. I run Debian GNU/Lignux myself with my own custom compiled 2.2.1 kernel. It is very stable and it has not crashed a single time! If you are having problems with your current disto, I do recommend Debian. Good luck!
Thanks for clueing me in. I'm going to buy another drive this weedend.
Then I'm going to do a backup and install Debian.
Slackware 3.6 is libc5 based
I personally had no problems using the Gnome rpms
on my system. rpm -ivh *.rpm was fine...
however, several other people on campus had problems when they tried to *upgrade* to the 1.0.0 version from 0.99.8
- The install docs say to uninstall the packages fully before installing the new release, for some reason the rpm -Uvh doesn't work.
Also, gnome 1 really should be used with gtk 1.2.
I would just like to say that I haven't managed to crash any bits of grnome yet. A lot of the time, problems that manifest themselves in gnome are actually a result of problems with other parts of your system - I have a glibc2 RH5.2 installation with all the latest upgrades, and kernel 2.2.3,
and Daryll Strauss' X server for the Voodoo Banshee...
Sounds like you should be examining the /other/ parts of your system for out of date software and problems. I've had _no_ problems with gnome 1.0 - then again, I'm using glibc2, gtk 1.2, kernel 2.2.3 , latest XFree86, etc., etc.
How does 2.0 behave in comparison? Thought so.
You're absolutely right. Hopefully they will get better.
Does this mean I can't use packages for potato on slink any more, cuz they'll be compiled for glibc 2.1???? Will all potato packages be recompiled with glibc 2.1 now? Or are they already?
Since I have used slink for some months now and have installed potato packages on a regular basis, just a few ones that were not updated in slink..
So I can't do this anymore?? Is that it????
I have this theory that two OpenSource projects, with pretty much the same exact goals must converge at some point. Thats why you either have much momentum on one project (Linux, Emacs, Apache) or similar projects with different goals (joe, jed). Does anyone see this happening with KDE/Gnome. Maybe now is good time for them to change their goals so that will differ enough that they no longer have to be stealing from each other.
BTW: If anyone comments that I probably don't know what I am talking about are probably right. It's my theory anyway.
You should try FreeBSD. You'll be blown away and you'll at the time when you loved Debian.
Damn, I too downloaded updates from potato before upgrading the kernel to 2.2. I too stole GNOME from potato because Slink was outdated. I don't have the resourses to upgrade fully to potato from the internet plus I hear GLIBC 2.1 has all sorts of problems and RMS has removed it from the GNU/Linux site. I hope they keep potato based on the old version of LIBC.
I had pleny of problems with debs and more, thank you.
This stopped being a debate a long time ago. Now it's just random insults from GNOME or KDE zealots. Anyone with the intelligence to debate this, instead of simply flaming has obviously given up.
You have to feel sorry for the gnome developers. I think redhat just pushed for a gnome 1.0 release for linuxworld knowing kde would be all over the place. Of course this kind of stupidity makes gnome look bad when we should all be calmly waited for a good 1.0 release.
Hi Crow-, I noticed that you were running Potato. Could this be the reason of the stability problems you were complaining of in another thread? If potato is so unstable, then why do you hate Red Hat even so much more?
Good! It should never have started. Why throw good money after bad?
Sadly, I cannot recommend Linux to my non-nerd friends. The Windows desktop kills Linux - and the purpose of Gnome has nothing to do with a good desktop for users, but only with hype for RedHat marketing purposes.
It is possible to put together a good Linux desktop using a variety of components - some Kde, a window manager like icewm, Netscape, etc. - but the non-technical user can't do that. Kde, by itself, is close but still is not competetitive with Windows.
Redhat has damaged Linux severely for its own short term investment strategy and cannot be forgiven for this.
The people working on Gnome are INCOMPETENT. Maybe talented in some aspects of programming, but not in designing a system and getting the big picture regarding what non-technical users need.
For example, the Windows desktop and "widgets" are plain - but not ugly. The idea is to keep the interface out of the way unless it's being used, so users can concentrated on apps.
90% of computer users do not care about Raster's themes and graphic hacks. If anything this excess scares them off. They want functionality. Of course, people like to put pictures in the background of the root windows and have colorful icons with transparent backgrounds - this has been possible for some time without either Kde or Gnome. GNUStep's awful, oversized squarish icons get in the way instead of faciliting functionality. There are more and more examples of failed or doomed desktop subsytems every week, it seems.
Linux is trying so hard to be "not like Windows" that its desktop is doomed to many, many setbacks.
While there are some things I don't like about KDE, on balance its stable, functional and visually palatble (though the default panel is a little cluttered).
There is a certain beauty in functionality and a
clean look for a full-featured desktop that appeals to the AVERAGE computer user. The Amiga and Mac had it, and Windows has it also. Linux does not. There is very little which is really new in either Gnome or Kde which the Amiga did not have ten years ago or Os2 had 5 years ago. The difference is that these systems worked - and the desktop was a useful place to do work with PLENTY of eye-candy if one wanted that.
The Linux desktop appeals mostly to geeks who typically have text-based chat sessions (with the required fake-trasparent or translucent backgrounds) and space-wasting, useless "dock" icons to the side or on all sides. Oh - I forgot the obligatioy Netscape and/or Gimp windows to show that one is running at least a FEW useful apps. Puke.
Sadly, Gnome will not just die so Linux can move on and pick up the pieces. It will keep inflicting its demand on Linux users to install just the right versions of dozens of libraries (almost all of which are NOT compatible with previous versions) to have a chance of working at all. It's an all or nothing approach, for the user. Do it just this way, or not at all. The exact opposite of modularity. These developers are so INCOMPETENT that they cannot even use ifdefs to insure compatibility between libraries for even a few versions separated by weeks!
In the final analysis, this is a marketing scheme to insure that just these libraries and support files are installed just so - making users dependent on distributions that have them all according to RedHat's specifications, and who cares what other apps are broken by library incompatibilites so Gnome can work, maybe.
If Gnome were truly a required part of the system for X Windows to work at all with Linux, then its
developers might be FORCED to make it more cooperative with other endeavours which also use X. Not good, because diversity is better, but as it appears that RedHat has so much "mindshare" - translate marketing hype because of its investment partners - it may be better to go ahead and make Gnome required or default.
This is so sad. The proof is that RedHat is not shamed at all by the terrible quality of the 1.0 release. Fanatics don't care what Gnome can do or can't do, only that it is not Kde. The facts and the needs of non-technical users who might find Linux refreshing are not met by Gnome. May you rot in hell.
You and your friends run potato and yet you still complain? The kernel compilation depends on stable libraries and compilers, believe it or not. If you want to use unstable/spanking-new libraries or compilers that's your problem.
Well, no but you sounded really frustrated and wanted to kill yourself and hence we deduced you were a newbie.
apt-get install hello
Updating package status cache...done
Checking system integrity...dependency error
You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these.
Sorry, but the following packages are broken - this means they have unmet
dependencies:
gnome-utils: Depends:libart2 Depends:libgnome32 Depends:libgnomesupport0 Depends:libgnomeui32 Depends:libgtkxmhtml1 Depends:libgtop1
...etc...
dpkg --list|grep libart
ii libart-dev 1.0.1-0.1 The Gnome canvas widget -- development packa
ii libart2 1.0.1-0.1 The Gnome canvas widget
dpkg --list|grep libg
hi libg++27 2.7.2.1-14.4 The GNU C++ libraries (ELF version).
hi libg++272 2.7.2.8-0.1 The GNU C++ libraries (libc6 version).
hi libgdbm1 1.7.3-25 GNU dbm database routines (runtime version).
hi libgdbmg1 1.7.3-25 GNU dbm database routines (runtime version).
ii libghttp0 0.99.2-1 Gnome HTTP client library
ii libglib1.1 1.1.3-2 The GLib library of C routines
ii libglib1.1.13 1.1.14-1 Developers' release of the GLib library of C
ii libglib1.2 1.2.0-1 The GLib library of C routines
ii libglib1.2-dev 1.2.0-1 Development files for GLib library
ii libgnome-dev 1.0.1-0.1 The Gnome libraries -- development package
ii libgnome32 1.0.1-0.1 The Gnome libraries
ii libgnomesupport 1.0.1-0.1 The Gnome libraries (Support libraries)
ii libgnomeui32 1.0.1-0.1 The Gnome libraries (User Interface)
ii libgnorba-dev 1.0.1-0.1 Gnome CORBA services -- development package
ii libgnorba27 1.0.1-0.1 Gnome CORBA services
ii libgnorbagtk0 1.0.1-0.1 Gnome CORBA services (Gtk bindings)
hi libgpm1 1.13-5 General Purpose Mouse Library [libc5]
ii libgpmg1 1.14-3 General Purpose Mouse Library [libc6]
ii libgsm1 1.0.10-9 Shared libraries for GSM speech compressor.
ii libgtk1.1 1.1.2-2 The GIMP Toolkit set of widgets for X, unsta
ii libgtk1.1.13 1.1.13-1 The GIMP Toolkit set of widgets for X, unsta
ii libgtk1.2 1.2.0-1 The GIMP Toolkit set of widgets for X
ii libgtk1.2-dev 1.2.0-1 Development files for the GIMP Toolkit
ii libgtk1.2-doc 1.2.0-1 Documentation for the GIMP Toolkit
ii libgtkxmhtml-de 1.0.1-0.1 The Gnome gtkxmhtml (HTML) widget -- develop
ii libgtkxmhtml1 1.0.1-0.1 The Gnome gtkxmhtml (HTML) widget
ii libgtop-daemon 1.0.1-0.1 gtop daemon for monitoring remote machines (
ii libgtop-dev 1.0.1-0.1 Dev libraries for gtop system monitoring lib
ii libgtop0 1.0.1-0.1 Libraries for gtop system monitoring library
ii libgtop1 0.26.2-4 Libraries for gtop system monitoring library
hi libguile2 1.2-5 Scheme and interpreter libraries for guile
ii libguile2-dev 1.2-5 Header files and development libraries for g
ii libguile4 1.3-12 `libguile.so.4' shared libraries for Guile1.
If I try -f, it wants to remove my GNOME apps!!! But I don't want to remove GNOME!
Sorry but if you insist on using a distribution with new or broken libraries or compilers then you shouldn't complain if it miscompiles your kernel.
Notice that when you say you've been running unstable for months, this means nothing! Unstable has been changing in all this while! Especially now, things are getting in gear to move to glibc2.1 and egcc. Are you really surprised your system is now broken? What are you even running an unstable system for, if you intend to bitch all along the way?
Get a clue.
So amny people associate the problems with other parts of the system because... GNOME works fine on their system, and the variable between systems tends to be other parts of the system, since it is assumed the GNOME release being used is the same on both systems. This is not, of course, a valid assumption. GNOME works fine on my system, which is a modified RH5.2 installation. I used the GNOME rpms and GTK 1.2 to install GNOME. I was careful to fully remove any earlier versions of the packages ( it mentions in the docs that rpm -U might not be enough to do the upgrade- some of the pre-v1 packages are laid out differently - I rpm -e 'd followed by a manual scan, followed by rpm -i ). However, some people build the packages from source - how, then, can you be sure the bug is in gnome and not down to some obsolete version of gcc ( I use pgcc 1.1.1 ( as in pentium optimising gcc from www.goof.com)- the only problem I've had with it is compiling Mesa with a lot of optimizations enabled, when it screwed up some fp math stuff...)
I would also suspect bugs in the X-server. An unstable X-server is quite likely to break, since gonme+enlightenment wll push it hard. Incidentally, enlightenment has come a long way since the early days.
Plug :
TigerT's Brushed Metal theme for gtk + enlightenment provides a coherent, streamlined, and aesthetically pleasing look and feel across your gnome session.
He's a Debian developer!
In slink, the egcs C compiler is in the egcc package. The gcc package contains the older gcc.
Because glibc2.1 requires the egcs compiler, gcc now contains the egcs version of gcc and the egcc package is no longer needed.
anoyne running glibc2.1 in their *stable* tree right now is a flaming moron. I also heard stampede is shipping kernel 2.2.1 as stable also... that's all i needed to here. 2.2.1 is the most unstable piece of crap I've ever used and they call it stable?! stampede is the windows95 of linux as far as stability,
I would rather kill myself than use redhat.
Uhh
deb http://www.debian.org/~jules/gnome-stage-2 unstable main
put that in your sources.list, and if you have to force anything after that then you are a MORON.
Yes, you have to be running potato..
Uhh no, I have been running unstable for months, with 2.0.36, and the 2.2.0-pre series was fine, then I installed 2.2.1 and it crashed at least 3 times on me. Somehow I dont think it's crashing cause i run the unstable tree. Btw, it's not called unstable because of stability, it's called that because it is always a moving target.
I have a hard time believing that "it broke apt". How about posting the exact error message here?
Umm, i'm a newbie cause i wont run redhat? there is some good reasoning
the topic says it all, anyone who says 2.2.1 is stable is just getting lucky. I know at least 5 people personally who have had it crash their machines multiple times.
Hey, Rob, complaining about RPMs in a Debian article doesn't fit. It causes a psychological transference of flameage. You wrote somewhere that you use Debian on your laptop, so you should know that Debian's Gnome 1.0.1 packages install and work fine (modulo the intrinsic (upstream) instability in Gnome's self proclamed ``stable'' release).
As has Microsoft, RedHat has shown that market share is not at all related to quality.
Hey, nice way to win friends and influence neighbors.
I am sure linux-hw really apreciates how you alienate potential customers.
I hope that someday I can be as cool as you.
[sarcasm: off]
Can't someone ask a simple question with out getting blasted?
Thankfully, not all Debian users are as anoying as you.
I am not sure what you mean by ``interfering'' with the system, but I guess I would say that everything in Debian is the system. [If you want to install non-Debian stuff by hand, just put it in /usr/local and Debian is happy]. And I would say that Debian is very easy to maintain. What is easier than ``apt-get upgrade'' to update my entire system? And ``apt-get install gnome-core'' to play with the latest gnome stuff?
Any previous slack converts to debian have something to say about this? I'd really like some feedback.
Well, I got my start with Linux from Slackware. I downloaded boat loads of Slackware floppies to an office Win3.1 machine and biked them home to my old 486. This was back in the low 1.0.x kernel numbers. And I am gratefull for it, because it was a relatively easy and painless move away from a relatively hard and painful relationship with that MS OS. After about 6 months with Slack, I moved to Debian at it's 0.93 version and haven't looked back since. I have installed one RH system on my dad's PC and worked on one other pre-installed system and while I think RH is headed in the right direction, I prefer a system which just works (even if it lacks all those GUI buttons). I feel Debian gives me this.
Hey, give it a try and make up your own mind, it's free after all. (grin).
-Brett.
So, after 12 hours of Debian, are you a convert yet? I think it took me a whole day.
-Brett.
As seen in the latest Debian Weekly News you can get the new Gnome debs from this link, but see DWN for the link to the anouncement as this is not a stable (in Debian's conservative definition of ``stable'') set of debs nor an official release. Also, the announcement gives APT's /etc/apt/sources.list entry for even easier install.
I have installed these 1.0.1 Gnome debs with out any probs (my systems are mostly potato with a some slink left over). Unfortunately I have found a few probs running Gnome and related apps. I am afraid I must say that the Gnome project's 1.0.x designation is a bit premature. But, I also think this criticism will be outdated in a matter of a week or so.
-Brett
Excuse me, Mr. Coward?
:-).
My point was this: People have been brainwashed by the major distribution vendors to believe that the only way to install Linux is off of a CD-ROM. Obviously they have a business incentive to do so, since they charge for CD-ROM's, not for FTP access. But with Debian, you don't have to buy a CD-ROM unless you want one. (Or two, rather, with 'slink'). Yes, I have burnt CD-ROM's with 'slink' on them, but I explicitly did not bring those home with me so that I could test this hypothesis (that it is possible to install Debian quite easily over a normal dialup ISP line, thank you).
As for the stereotype of Debian users: Please note that I do not consider myself a "hacker". Rather, I am a database programmer and system administrator who happens to design hardware from time to time. Still, I AM quite knowledgable about Linux and its startup and installation processes. Without that knowledge, I'd still be fumbling around trying to get basic things set up and configured, rather than posting this message on Netscape 4.51 via Debian 2.1.
Also note that I don't think that expert Debian users are any "better" than expert Red Hat users, or vice versa. I better not, I use Red Hat a lot more than I use Debian
As for your comments about marking my employer's web site off your bookmarks list, a) read the disclaimer at the bottom of my web page, i.e. my opinions are my own, not my employer's, and b) are you sure you don't work for one of my employer's competitors? But I guess it's easy to make slanderous remarks when you're an Anonymous Coward....
-- Eric
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
When did "hacker" become a dirty word?
:-(.
:-).
Debian is Linux by hackers, for hackers. The people who create Debian are Debian users, people who step forward to maintain a package for the system. They're not sitting in corporate offices somewhere being paid to "do Linux".
As such, Debian has the strengths of most hacker software: It is rock solid, ultra-reliable, up-to-date... and not released until it is as close to bug-free as possible (as vs. certain other OS vendors who release when the marketing department tells them to). As such, it is also quite useful to non-hackers who want an ultra-reliable platform. But if you're saying that this makes Debian a platform for Linux novices, all I have to say is that if you want to "do" Debian, you better be willing to put in the work to become a Linux "expert", because Debian doesn't do a whole lot of pandering to novices. Sure, the dotfile generator is there, but that's not exactly an endorsement for ease-of-use either
Does this make Debian users better than other people? Of course not. Does this make Debian better than other distros? Well, I'm not going there
-- Eric
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Most Debian packages include a configuration script that'll ask you a few questions (in command line dumb terminal fashion) and then configure the package. I believe there's an option of dpkg that will run that script even after the package has been installed for awhile.
.emacs, .fvwmrc, etc. files. But you must know quite a bit about Emacs or fvwm2 or etc. before it is of use to you.
/etc/fstab to mount any extraneous filesystems. What Debian lacks is a central vision of system administration. No 'linuxconf' or 'coas' or 'yast' appears to be in Debian's future.
Debian also includes the "dotfile generator". This is a tool to create your
In short, the typical new user doesn't need to do a whole lot of hacking of config files, with the exception of
But for those willing to put in the time and effort, that's not much of a drawback. And you do get one advantage over the commercial distributions -- Debian is the most rock-solid distribution, period, no argument involved. The question of whether it's worthwhile to use it, in the end, depends on whether a) you have the time to learn it in-depth, and b) non-technical factors such as formal support, availability of commercial software in Debian-friendly format, etc. The non-technical factors in particular are one reason why Red Hat is much more popular than Debian amongst commercial interests -- they're still not accustomed to the idea of a project that they can't buy out, can't invest in, has no offices, and whose only real existence seems to be as a web site and ftp site.
Final note: I'm not saying that Debian is "better" than Red Hat/Suse/Caldera (or vice versa), just that Debian does have its own particular set of strengths and weaknesses.
-- Eric
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Ah well. Someday I'll learn moderation. Or at least how to think for a few seconds before hitting the "post" button :-(.
The odd thing is that I'm not even a Debian user, except for the past twelve hours that I've been playing with it. I usually use Red Hat.
-- Eric
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
An OS crash/reboot is one helluvalot different than a little bar at the bottom of the screen disappearing for a few seconds.
I find GNOME's stability quite acceptable.
HINT:
Glibc2 was introduced in HAMM... a.k.a. Debian 2.0
--
Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
The Penguin Producer
As to what egcc might stand for - I am at loss...
EGCC basically stands for "Experimental Gnu C Compiler."
I will have to agree that egcc has been more... capable than it's pure gnu counterpart.
--
Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
The Penguin Producer
I will have to agree with this individual, even if he/she is using the Anonymous Coward moniker.
The fact is that your original post came off dripping with the acid commonly associated with the common cracker/pirate culture.
I myself make pizza dough for a living, and so am hardly financially well-to-do enough to get my system out of the original Pentium line of processors, and certainly not stable enough to be spending $20 for any distro (quite simply the main reason I use debian -- I have a friend with a CD burner and a Road Runner connection).
However, upon the need for a reinstall, a CD is extremely preferable to using the only phone line I possess to install Linux.
And I'm no simpleminded hacker wannabe... I survived the Atari and Commodore Computers, and their BASIC interpreters (ugh, the memories!), Spent a lot of time on a floppy-bound PS/2 Model 60, ran Minix on a 386 for the longest time, spent some of my time on my previous 486DX2 using Slackware, and finally graduated to Debian, during Bo. (Meaning I had to upgrade to HAMM manually... I would have committed murder several times if I had only a net connection to pull THAT off!)
So, while you are entitled to your opinions (as am I to mine), I would suggest more respectful wording, or at least less ridicule.
--
Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
The Penguin Producer
GNOME has stability problems... It can't keep itself up, and is incapable of doing much of anything quickly.
:-)
KDE is more stable, but is not quite as good when it comes to good old-fashioned WM-agnosticism.
And my pick of the litter:
DFM+FVWM2!
(Okay, so I am going to get roasted over an open spit from both camps... but hey, at least I get my choice in.
--
Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
The Penguin Producer
Try cheapbytes.
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
It would be bad if the 6.0 release was delayed waiting for GNOME, or even worse if it was buggy. A few folks in the mainstream media would love to see that happen.
TedC
In part, yes.
I'm sure part of it's got to do with the fact that they're well into the project and don't want to abandon it, as a previous poster noted.
I also think part of it has to do with internal issues at Red Hat. My perception (which is not based on any inside information) is that Bob Young would be much more open to adopting KDE now that the license is "fixed" than some of the Red Hat developers are. People really get emotionally involved with some of these issues, and it obscures their ability to make sound, unbiased decisions.
TedC
Maybe they will. I've heard that KDE 1.1 is in the "rawhide" release, so hopefully it will make it into 6.0.
The way I see it, the KDE vs. GNOME war is one that Red Hat can't win, so why fight it?
TedC
I didn't say that; I said Red Hat can't win a KDE vs. GNOME war.
There is no need for either Gnome or KDE or "lose"
I didn't say that either. :-)
But Red Hat could lose by unnecessarily involving themselves in a KDE vs. GNOME war by chosing to promote one over the other. This is a "no win" situation for them; there is nothing to be gained but ill will.
There is nothing wrong with giving people a choice - that is what Linux is all about.
I agree. I am suggesting that Red Hat include them both in their next release let people chose the one they like best.
TedC
I think they plan to ship E as the default window manager for GNOME, but I'm not 100 percent sure. I might have made that up. :-)
TedC
The Real TedC
One of the major problems with the current 2.2 kernels seem to occur when swap and ram get filled. Basically, take up all the ram, and all the swap, which the system will allow, and it will go swap-happy and hang whilst it swaps itself to death.
Heavy G++ compiles are a good way to cause this.
John_Chalisque
We really need the GCC maintainers to get the EGCS code merged into the GCC tree, and have 2.8 and 2.7 dropped. Too many source compatibility problems have been brought around by 2.7's lack of standards conformance and tolerance of illegal constructs (read Linux 2.0). Essentially, EGCS 1.1 should be called GCC 2.9, EGCS 1.1.2 --> GCC 2.9.2 etc.
John_Chalisque
gnomecc fails to correctly swallow approx 2/3 of the preference windows. and yes -- gmc crashes far too much.
John_Chalisque
To make it blue screen... to run a GNOME applications, do (gnome-thingy || init 7) have runlevel 7 kill everything, print up the blue screen, and then halt the system. p.s. Windows is FAR more stable than GNOME -- and windows crashes a lot.
John_Chalisque
Yes, S.u.S.E. has upgraded to glibc 2.0 in their recent 6.0 release (which they did not see fit to send me, even though I ordered it). I installed 6.0 from a friend's CDs, and let me tell you it is frightfully unstable. I don't know if this is the fault of glibc 2, or what, but both tar and gzip are semi-broken ("Oh, you wanted to use tar?!?"), it includes an old and buggy version of Window Maker (my preferred wm), and Netscape can barely stay up.
There should be a description of how to do it at Debian's web page.
/etc/apt/sources.list and make sure there's a line like:
Basically, what you do is this:
(a) Install apt. If you can't find it in dselect, you should look on Debian's site to find it. This isn't required but it'll make your life a lot easier.
(b) Edit
deb http://www.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free
(c) Run "apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade".
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I'm assuming egcc is the binary name they gave egcs. Correct?
"In true sound..." -Agents of Good Root
Stampede Linux has had glibc2.1 in it's 'stable'
tree since February 8th.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
Have you actually tried Stampede? Do you know
anything about it's stability? Before you start
shooting your mouth off, consider running a distro
that actually has glibc2.1 packages.
My machine is under a fair amount of stress, and
has a high uptime. Nothing that worked before
stopped working, and as for kernel 2.2.1, I have
had no issues with that either. (I'm not on an Alpha, mind you) But nevertheless, don't talk
about something you seem to know little about.
(glibc2.1 was pulled because of issues with gcc 2.8.1, not for instability.)
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
Yesh. Just what I wanted. Now, if I only could get Slink first...
Slackware 3.6 includes glibc2, but nothing is compiled against it yet.
Don't get me wrong... I'm all for Gnome. I run it myself -- KDE's just not my thing. I've got to admit, though, that I've found at least 20 different ways to crash various parts of Gnome without even trying.
A few examples off the top of my head:
Changing the panel background bitmap
Re-theming the clockmail applet
Doing almost anything with gmc
Hopefully, this will be the only reply to this off-topic troll. Though I agree that camping out at ChumpUSA is pretty stupid, I don't think it has a helluva lot to do with glibc2.1
Did I miss something?
-- lk t lv ll th vwls t f wrds. T svs lts f tm t wrt bt ts pn n th ss t rd nd mks m lk lk cmplt dpsht.
Seriously. It takes some time and effort (hint: read the directions), but it's more enjoyable than endlessly sorting out RPM conflicts. My build started from a modified RH 5.2 system. Used egcs 1.1.1 (building this also requires following the suggested build directions).
Do it for your country. Do it for your cat. Ju Transfer interrupted!
Conflicts? I had no snafus with .deb packages.
The terminology is clear to a Debian user, probably not to outside people though. Debian has a stable and unstable tree, much like the linux kernel development. Since a week, the stable version is Debian 2.1, codenamed slink, and the unstable is called potato. The poster just said that glibc 2.1 is in potato (unstable) and, naturally, in the free part of it (main).
You should be prepared to accept future problems, when trying to upgrade, or install the missing parts; it was the case when X-windows was reorganized in slink, and it is a natural, and even healthy possibility of fast development. Having said that, I encourage you to test cutting-edge debian and help its development.
This could be why they're still in a special development "sandbox", and not released into even the unstable Debian distribution.
I rebuilt all of the RPMS from the SRPMs that were available last week... including some 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 stuff... seems a bit better already.
(rpm --rebuild whatever.src.rpm)
it's a subdirectory of any standard gnome mirror.... in /redhat/SRPMS or something like that.
Am I the only person who actually finds Gnome 1.0 to be stable?
It works for me too.
I've been running it since day 1 and the worst thing I've experienced is the panel crashing and restarting itself. Even that hasn't happened more than once per day.
Hasn't happened to me since I first tried it out before putting it in my .xsession file.
I was even a pussy and installed from RPMs.
I grabbed the tarballs and used the spec files to make RPMs, because I haven't been able to get Gnome's RPMs to work on my somewhat upgraded RedHat 5.1 system.
My only problem is that I'm not using a compliant window manager, but I've grown too attached to my current setup to change...
I miss Meept.
This is meant as a desktop system which is supposed to be comparable to Windows.
:-)
Now we only have to figure out how to make it turn blue on a crash...
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Just run dselect and use the FTP mode. It should go to the stable tree by default which is now Slink. Do an update (DO clear available list), select (choose nothing), and then install. It should automatically get and install everything which has been updated since 2.0. Warning: this will be a HUGE download. I install Slink by using my 2.0 cds and choosing the Basic package then I update that.... only then do I select more debs to fill out the system.
.
$ dpkg -s libc6
Version: 2.1.1-0pre1
I just installed it yesterday. I have already begun recompiling my packages to be linked against it.
Now the fun begins!
If you're willing to put up with the machine crashing "only maybe once a day"...
----------------------
There is no K5 cabal.
I am not the real rusty.
Yes.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
It's what makes Debian ... well, Debian. As a group that only makes a distribution (and doesn't care about income from CDs), they have more of an incentive for smooth online upgrades. And what a wonderful thing apt is (most of the time). Thank you, Jason Gunthorpe and Co.
Some of us have marginally more reasons to live. I suggest getting out more or getting antidepressants.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
What a wanker... The guy writes something good enough that he now works for Pixar, lets you use it for free, and even responds to newbie questions and feature requests in a timely manner, and for this you call him a weasel? Damn fine software that costs you nothing, on a free OS, and you complain. Grow up, and find something significant to complain about.
Bails out on me about once or twice a week. Puts me out to the console and all I can do is type startx again. Pretty bad. Time to go back to WindowMaker.
Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.
Jesus christ. I expected people would stop with the kde-vs-gnome thing after a month or two... or at least come up with some new arguments. Its still mainly the license/stability arguments. :)
--
Paranoid
Paranoid
Bwaahahahahaa.
My system still smells vaguely of a redhat 5.0 install (first, last and only time I've had to install from a CD, I'm proud to say). I've been running with the new-kernel pack since 2.2.0pre6(maybe 7, my memory sucks), compiling it with pgcc, and the only trouble I've had was installing/learning ipchains and a new version of nettools.
:)
Funny how the rpm database thinks I'm still running on 2.0.32... but hey, if it works, I'm all for it.
--
Paranoid
Paranoid
Bwaahahahahaa.
I seriously hope you were being sarcastic, as 3/4 of the examples you just used were the reasons I went to Linux in the first place.
/. is the right place for you :)
And if you weren't sarcastic, I doubt
--
Paranoid
Paranoid
Bwaahahahahaa.
Heh. I use redhat AND gnome. I'm just sick of the debate going in circles :)
--
Paranoid
Paranoid
Bwaahahahahaa.
1) KDE doesn't have nifty corporate sponsorship to have it waste time at silly conventions
2) KDE's core development is centered in Europe, so traveling to US conventions would be unlikely, anyway.
3) "this is 1.0 after all"... The thing shouldn't have been moved to 1.0 if it weren't ready for the world to use and abuse it.
Kinda like when the GNOME anouncement was mailed to the KDE-devel list saying that GNOME would take parts of KDE that they found usefull and rewrite them for GNOME. That pissed off quite a few people. There was even talk of changing licenses to one that would not allow GNOME to use any KDE source code. Not like that would have actually worked, but it still shows how angry people were.
-matt
I agree with that. KDE underwent a LONG period of testing and pre-1.0 releases before 1.0 came out. The result was a very stable release. There's a reason that people have this "wait till .1" mentality, it's because developers release software that is NOT ready for public use as .0 and figure everyone will test it and then they'll release .1 when the debugging is done. I still don't understand why GNOME released, then very quickly deleted pre1.0. The only thing I can think of is that they wanted to get 1.0 faster than they should have.
.xinitrc to start kde instead of gnome.
1.0 can be very stable. I used KDE 1.0 for a long time, and I don't remember a single crash. GNOME crashed on me after about 3 seconds of use. I clicked on the little terminal button on the panel and every GNOME app locked tight. I promptly killed X and changed my
And for those of you who think KWM is ugly, check out kde.themes.org. The themes are a pain to install, but KWM can look VERY nice and it doesn't have anywhere near the overhead of enlightenment.
-matt
Why is it that so many people associate all GNOME problems w/ "other parts" of the system. Is it too hard to admit that GNOME is buggy? I'm running redhat5.2 w/ all of the updates installed and it crashes for me in no time at all, I just click on the panel and boom it's dead.
-matt
No offense intended, but "Debian Reveals glibc2.1" then you talk about slink then you mention some directory.. This post makes no sense whatsoever. WTF is going on here, folks? Is glibc2.1 in slink? is it stable/unstable? Let us know these thigns, otherwise you're talking in swahilli.
.DEBs.
I'll agree that it took me 2 hours to get the damn gnome rpms installed (it's even harder to compile from source. I don't really like KDE, but at least they make their installation process fairly simple and straightforward. I can handle installing four or five RPMS in a specific order, but installing 20-30 of them, with know knowledge of whether i'll need the -devel- packages, is ridiculous.
I'm a redhat user, and I can say that RPMS are pretty piss poor compared to the stuff people can do with
Were did you get a gnome-libs 1.0.2 SRPM. I wan't one, as the spec included with the tarballs won't build (just ends up telling me what gnome requires).
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
I think you can get the CVS version under the QPL 1.0. Qt is now free, all we have to worry about now is GPL/QPL mixing.
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
I just can't beleive it. Even the gnome detracter will say gnome lasted 15 minutes. Mine last all day. Something must be wrong with your system. Ive never heard of this, even on slashdot.
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
Get control-center-1.0.2, fixed that swalling thing (happens when you clicked stuff to fast). rpm -tb on the tarball worked fine. Gmc, well, they should set back it's version number, at least to 0.90.
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
> It will keep inflicting its demand on Linux users to install just the right versions of dozens of libraries (almost all of which are NOT compatible with previous versions) to have a chance of working at all.
One thing is for sure : windows dll's and service packs often have the same problem. I hardly had to install any new versions of any library before in Linux.
But you are right that incompatibility between (sometimes even minor) versions of libraries are real problems for an average user. Something has got to be done for that (cfr. Software for Redhat 5.1 is very unlikely to work fine for Redhat 5.0 and vice versa: I had to move to Redhat 5.1 or 5.2 from 5.0 to be able to run StarOffice 5.0: incompatiblities between glibc 2.0.5 and 2.0.7).
I don't know where you got your (incorrect) info, but that is just not true.
GNOME development has most certainly not stopped. Just today Miguel released a new version of MC, and bugs are being actively fixed. If you have found a problem, use the gnome-bug script that gets installed with gnome-libs. If you have not installed GNOME try getting informed before making comments like that.
Most cases where library versions are incompatible, the soname of the library has been changed. This way you can have the two libraries on your system at once.
As for requiring new libraries, how did you install GNOME. Was it from binary packages or from source? If it was from binaries, then it would have been configured for the libraries on the build system, and not necessarily yours. When GNOME requires a newer version of a library (that is not part of the project -- image libraries for instance), it is often because the interface has changed, or bugs have been found in the old one.
On an other note, how has the work of many volunteers (myself included) offended you so much? If you don't want to use gnome, then don't. There are alternatives. GNOME adds to your choices, not subtracts from them.
Chances are that your tar and gunzip utilities are dynamicaly linked against the original glibc. What probably happened is that your gzip unziped your new glibc, then tar stomped on the old one, tar exited, then gzip tried to do the next file. However, the old glibc was gone, and you ended up with the linker calling the wrong glibc, and this glibc had different symbols. The moral of the story is that YOU SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO UPGRADE YOUR GLIBC without first KNOWING what you are doing. glibc is a critical piece of your linux distro. Think of glibc being second in importance to the kernel. However, You DO NOT UPGRADE glibc like you upgrade your kernel. It is much more involved and delicate than kernels are. I recommend that you wait until your favorite distro has it installed. There is a lot of recompiling that must be done when upgrading your glibc's. In theory, you should be able to have both glibc2.0, and glibc2.1 on the same system, but it requires a delicate approach to do this right. And if something goes wrong in the middle, your fscked. If you loose the original glibc, your dynamicaly linked executables won't start properly, if at all. The ones that are running should be fine, but once you re-boot, forget it. You should use statically linked tar and gunzip to handle the upgrade of libraries. during the change over, they wont get hammered, and all will be well(at least we hope). Good luck.
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
Caldera was able to develop its Netware-compatibility software only because it obtained a license from Novell. I'm fairly sure that in order to get that license (and the secret protocol specs for the NCP and NDS protocols) they had to sign non-disclosure agreements. So unless I'm wrong, they can't release the source.
In our defense, that $20 is for the media, replication, and shipping costs, not the cost of the free software. To create the 2 CDRs involved, someone had to stare at a SCSI burner for the better part of an hour, then apply labels by hand (Avery 5931) and pack in bubblepack mailers.
Cheap discs of regular silver media will be available soon -- I hear cheapbytes will be able to ship next week.
Until then you can download the discs from one of the CD Image Mirrors, or just install via ftp. Theres nothing on any Official CD thats not already on ftp.debian.org.
Unfortunately yes, thats it -- unless you install glibc 2.1 and associated packages on your Slink system (libc6, libc6-dev, ncurses, slang, gcc, libstdc++2.8, etc.). I hear it doesn't break THAT many things, but I'm holding off for a few days myself. :-)
Of course in the opens ource/linux community haven't license and stability issues always been our drive!! We bash M$ Windoze because of its increasingly poor stability...and we want to keep our 'free' - (that's free in the open source sense) - software truly 'free'. I'm right behind RedHat for pushing GNOME, and if you want RedHat with KDE why not use Linux-Mandrake and you get the nice asscii penguin at the login screen :)
Steve
--
"You can have it fast.
You can have it cheap.
You can have it right.
Pick two..." Or pick Linux
regardless of whether you think the new QT license is good enough or not, the simple fact which all the redhat conspiracy theorists ignore is that QT 2.0 is STILL not out, and so the old license is still used for KDE 1.1. Don't let your personal hatred of redhat make you spout this stupidity.
First off, I use glibc2 because its threadsafe. However, I recommend getting the libc5 version of netscape because it is at least an order of magnitude more stable for me. Other's results may vary, but I went from netscape crashing every third time I closed a browser window to very rarely crashing. I'm now very happy with netscape's stability, which is not something I see very often among linux users.
perhaps you simply did not read the post that you are replying to. the panel crashed for this person once per day, and automatically restarted itself. Quite different from the usual windows crashes.
GNOME 1.0 was by far the WORST set of RPMs I've seen in a while (sorry, guys). It was like a downgrade from the whole .99 set. There's some nice stability in the applets, but gnomecc is just GONE from the menus (sorry, newbies), the help browser can't find the table of contents, and three of the packages won't even install due to all the changes (so why include them in the 1.0 directory?).
I way prefer GNOME over KDE, even aside from the philosophical reasons, but they really should have pulled a Debian and just said,"Be PATIENT, guys. It'll be worth it."
Patrick included glibc2.0.6pre7 in the /contrib directory. Aside from the compile time on slower machines, glibc2.1 works fine with Slackware as long as you update your other tools that access things that have changed (utmp/wtmp access, etc...)
This is so ridiculous. If you had been at LinuxWorld you would not say that Gnome can't win. It is already winning in important ways, including mindshare. (There was a large Gnome presence at LinuxWorld, but very little KDE presence.) Gnome 1.0 has a lot of functionality and sexiness. Ok, it is not as stable as it should be, but this is 1.0 after all.
There is no need for either Gnome or KDE or "lose". From all I've seen and heard, KDE is quite good, too. (At this point, probably better.) There is nothing wrong with giving people a choice - that is what Linux is all about.
This is interesting. I've been looking into the glibc2.1 and the Sparc support and it's been running great for quite some time now. It will be most interesting to see it in operation also on the i386.
At least as of 3.5 Slackware was still libc5 only. I think this is the type of thing that Pat V will probably save for 4.0 (which should not be too far away).
At least I have a fairly decent Pentium box so I don't have to rely on precompiled binaries.
-- Shawn K. Quinn
Can anyone who has Debian 2.1 on a CD tell me where they got it? I've looked at every single US vendor Debian points to on their page and the vast majority of them do not even acknowledge 2.1's existence. There are a couple that do, but you can only preorder it. Then there are a couple that actually have it, but they're charging $20 or more for something they got for free. Where can I get 2.1 now, at a resonable price?
I am not an idiot. Please use my name to email me.
"That's right, I'm quoting myself."
-Upsilon
Slackware 3.6 comes with glibc 2.06pre7. It made for a decent upgrade for me because I have a 486DX2 as well and it's a total pain trying to shift libraries. I still can't get glibc 2.1 to compile, which is obnoxious when it takes 24+ hours to find out.
For that matter, what's the deal with the 'political issues' that keep it off most of the FTP sites?