I notice the article doesn't mention WINE. I for one don't have a vested interest in WINE, and have never been able to use it for what I need to do. I can't run Oracle Developer/2000, AFAIK, or several other devel tools I use regularly.
However....
I do think we need some sort of emulation (like WINE) that will allow us to run Windows apps. Even better would be something that lets us compile Windows apps natively. PowerBuilder has that type of functionality--you can design a project and take the project file to any of the several platforms PowerBuilder runs on, and compile the program for that platform. I think they use Berlin libraries (correct me if I'm wrong) for all the GUI and system calls PB apps make, on the different Unix platforms they support. Unfortunately, Linux isn't one of those.:/
Bridges sounds like a decent app. From reading the article, I get the impression it is mainly used for deploying apps over the Internet, like what Sun wants to do with SO, and MS with Office, and Corel, I guess, with Corel Office. I don't know how this would affect local installs (i.e., not running over the Internet)--presumably, they would still need a translation layer between the app and the OS. So perhaps this is an addition to the architecture, and not a dismissal of WINE.
Are you kidding???? Have any of you 31337 Linux kiddies taken a look at the source code? *BSD is released when it works, Linux is released on deadline. Ouch!!! I'd hate to have to develop for Linux.
I'm not sure where you get your Linux kernel release information from, but you are obviously not familiar with standard Linux kernel release procedure.
A kernel is released when Linus Torvalds says it's good enough to release, based on what testing he is able to do. There aren't any deadlines involved. There are occasionally, of course, feature freezes (as opposed to code freezes), which can last an indeterminate amount of time. This allows the code to get shaken out and bugs fixed on current features. But it definitely does not qualify as a "deadline".
That being said, I'm sure there is a timetable to major releases (e.g., 2.0->2.2->2.4). But nothing is written in stone. When the kernel works, it is released.
Also, I'd like to point out that first releases of anything are prone to bugginess. This is as true for Windows, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OS/390, et al, as it is for Linux. There's no way any of us can afford to cobble together every possible configuration to test our software on. As it is, the Linux/*BSD/GNU distribution model tends to give us just that: a very large and varied testing laboratory.
Please, before couching your comments in anonymity and spewing them forth, check up on what you are spewing about. Stop by sometime and read the Linux kernel mailing list archives. Pay attention to what Linus and the other leaders (Alan, Andrea, Richard, etc) have to say about various issues, as well as other regular posters. Many of your "31337 Linux kiddies" are actually top-notch developers and IT specialists, as well as the academicians. Together, they have managed to put together a stable and popular kernel which works on a plethora of hardware platforms--more than most other operating systems, I think.
And if this event doesn't prove that it's time for the U.S. to go 100% metric, I don't know what will. Oy!
Why should the U.S. go metric?? Everyone knows that the U.S. is the leading country in the world, and that everything we do over here must be right! =P Thus, everyone else should go to "English" measurements (or is that "American" now?).
Seriously, though, miscommunication is bad, but...I really like inches, feet, and miles. There's nothing like watching a quarter-mile drag, and what would we do with football? 100-meter fields? I don't think so! And a car going 100kph? Bah! I sit tapping my fingers (thumpety thump) at 100kph, wondering when the car is gonna start moving.
No, if you want to measure it in the laboratory, then metric may be nice, but in real life, give me miles and miles and gallons and gallons!!
This particular e-mail rumour has been floating around the U.S. and Canada for quite some time (years, if I remember correctly). It's a complete and total hoax. It's even posted on the Web hoax pages. As idiotic as our government can be at times, I still find it hard to believe that anyone would even consider lending credibility to such an idiotic idea. It's simply absurd in the most extreme fashion. Urban Legends has a writeup about this particular hoax, with a link to the USPS rebuttal of the idiotic message.
Hopefully, no one takes this thing seriously, but I fear it already too late, judging by the amount of/.'s resources wasted by this thread.
If you want Creationism taught in school science courses, you need to justify it according to science, not faith! Because faith is belief based on the idea of the supernatural and science is the study of the natural. Science cannot be expected to accept into its practices the idea that nature is all a creation of an outside force and that all the collected knowledge of scientists could suddenly be made false because God decides that Pi should be rounded off to 3 tommorrow or something similar.
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that, yes, creationism can to a large extent be scientifically explained. The cataclysm theory, or whatever they're calling it nowadays, is one such explanation, that is very plausible, and well-documented and logically explained based on currently known facts and observations. (facts, not faith).
Evolution also has a strong scientific foundation, also based on facts and observations, as we all know.
However, evolution *theory* have many holes in it, which cannot be explained. In fact, this may be the largest single shared trait between creationism and evolutionism. Both philosophies have many things that simply cannot be explained.
In an objective world, disregarding passion and emotion, both theories are equally valid and should be treated as such. Not so much focusing on Christian-centric creationism, because many different cultures record similar events.
Did God create the world? I think so. Do you disagree? Good! Life would suck if we all believed the same things. Are fossils an evil plot by Satan to encourage disbelief in God? Or did God create the dinosaurs, and then OOPS! no room on Noah's ark for them? Who knows? Does it really matter? Is it going to affect your paycheck next week? No? Move on, then, I say.
As far as education is concerned, these days it seems that the purpose of education is to expand a person's understanding of the world around him/her, in addition to the three "R"s. You cannot accomplish this purpose if you restrict educators from teaching the most prominent theories. And these days, the most prominent theories are evolution and creation. So present both dispassionately, with all available facts (as if that could ever happen!!)
When you get down to it, they are all based on faith. Evolution has the almighty adapting cell as it's God, and Darwin is the evolutionary messiah. Creation has an omniscient, omnipotent entity as God, and Jesus as the messiah in the Christian world, Muhammed (sp?), in the Muslim world, and Moses as the closest thing to a messiah in the Jewish world. Evolution, creation? They're both religions. The question is, which one do you want to believe in, and is it right to force someone to believe any of them? That's the important question.
To answer that last question is NO! And that's what Kansas has finally decided to stop doing. Teach them all, or don't teach any of them.
Just my 2 cents. Believe what you will, it won't change my life!;)
This is definitely a step in the right direction. We need more RAD tools for Linux, especially if we want it to grow effectively. There's Appgen, which I've never tried, but Appgen seems to be pretty much proprietary (use Appgen-developed apps with Appgen developed DBs). There's Glade, and KDevelop, but I don't think you can really consider those to be enterprise level applications.
What would be nice also, is if Sybase could port Powerbuilder over to run/compile on Linux. It is, to me, unrivaled as a GUI application development environment.
Kudos to Borl--Inprise, and hopefully they run ahead of schedule. I'm sure there will be a very nice market for commercial development apps, plus it will add a bit of diversity to the compiler world for Linux. Just because it's not free, doesn't make it bad...
Not to burst your bubble, but... I spent all last semester deep under the waves of the raging ocean known as VC++ 6.0. I was beset on all sides by hordes of MFCs, each one trying to suck the life out of my slowly dying body. My attempts to write embedded SQL were thwarted at every turn by unnecessary and overly complicated layering and so-called 'encapsulation' (is it really necessary to split a SQL statement into ten different parts, each with it's own function, and then join them together at some unforeseen juncture in time and code, yet hiding that juncture deep in the bowels of some dll where even a deep-code diver is afraid to go??). I've had gray hairs popping up all over simply because of that one development environment. Trying to get the code to behave as I wanted was next to impossible. Plus, excepting a $1000 library, there wasn't any way to manipulate (store, save, view) image files other than MS formats.
As for GUI development, VC++ is really not any good in that environment. After having use Powerbuilder and (shudder) Visual Basic, I can't see any reason at all to use VC++ for GUI development. And now you have an interface that mimics VC++?? For shame!! Everyone is entitled to use what pleases them, of courses, which is one of the guiding principles behind Linux, but what we need is not imitations of life-sucking programs which Microsoft foists on the public, but innovative new programs which foster RAD, or for companies to port existing excellent software over to Linux, like Inprise is doing.
That being said, let me qualify by saying that I've never tried Kdevelop, and probably won't ever, because it requires Qt/KDE, and I have enough libraries without adding another set + desktop environment.
Still, anything that reminds me of Microsoft on my Linux machine is summarily deleted.
bah. It's one person's opinion, and the posted letter was refuted by Raster, anyhow. He may be moving West, and he may be leaving RH as confirmed in an IRC channel (FWTW), but another person *did* post a paste from his Website refuting the inflammatory comments made in a spurious and fraudulent post.
Personally, I like Redhat. I'm not sure *how* much they are getting for 6.0, but mine was free. Gotta love the Internet!;). Redhat is good for Linux. Debian is good for Linux. SuSe is good for Linux (isn't it?). Etc., etc.
I see Redhat as trying to satisfy requested needs/wants from various and sundry users. If more of their users are corporate customers, then it stands to reason that the flavor would have a decidedly corporate taste. If you don't like the way it tastes, go eat something else. There aren't any chains holding anybody down at a particular table...
As far as Desktop environments go, again, each to his own. My favorite is Window Maker + GNOME. Someone else's is KDE. Again, others are just happy with twm. We're all about diversity, and it's a good thing.
Yes, software is a great thing, and it will be necessary for our kids to learn computers. However, what's the use of teaching them how to use computers if you're not going to teach them to read?!? Or do arithmetic? The primary function of our primary/secondary schools is *supposed* to be to teach basic skills to our children, such as reading, writing, and 'rithmetic. They fail miserably at this, as evidenced by the explosion of remedial courses being required of many students entering college, not to mention the level of grammar seen in IRC and newsgroups. If a person can't read and write, then all the software in the world won't help.
Personally, I'm strongly in favor of hard copy, *especially* in primary school. These kids shouldn't be able to get out of writing their cursive 'A' 100 times just because they can punch a button on a keyboard.
When a person has mastered (or is fairly competent at) the basics, *then* expend the money on software to enhance more advanced learning. And as always, reinforce the learning skills.
Surprisingly (or not), This is a fairly good explanation of ANSI-92 SQL. It covers SQL nicely, and throws in some DB design basics: Normalization, etc. It's easy to read (aren't they supposed to be?), and fairly complete.
My univ uses Solaris. Should we call that GNU/Solaris also? They use GNU utilities....but I don't think Sun would approve.
jove:/home/jove/stu/mev0003 & bash --version GNU bash, version 2.01.1(7)-release (sparc-sun-solaris2.6) Copyright 1997 Free Software Foundation, Inc. jove:/home/jove/stu/mev0003 & emacs --version GNU Emacs 20.2.1 Copyright (C) 1997 Free Software Foundation, Inc. GNU Emacs comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. You may redistribute copies of Emacs under the terms of the GNU General Public License. For more information about these matters, see the files named COPYING. jove:/home/jove/stu/mev0003 & uname -srv SunOS 5.6 Generic
So, are we going to call every OS which utilizes GNU utilities, "GNU/"? That seems silly.
Let Linux be Linux. Common useage dictates that it remains that way. To get in a spat about something so silly is, well, silly. What's wrong with using a CREDITS file? Oh, wait, don't all GNU utilities print out their versions if you ask the right way? Hmm, must be something there...
Lastly...Did anyone else notice how slow Slate's webserver is. It must have taken me 4 tries to load the site. It just stops loading halfway through...is that because they are running it on NT? Also notice in both articles practically ever y other article was a praise to Microsoft.
me2v:reliant me2v$ webgrab -h http://www.slate.com
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Server: Microsoft-IIS/4.0 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 09:04:44 GMT Connection: close
Of course their web site runs slow. They're running IIS 4.0. What else would you expect from them?
Anyone using a Zip drive and a printer on par0?
on
Linux 2.2.4
·
· Score: 1
Probably better sent to a newsgroup appropriate to the subject, but what the heck....
With the 2.2.x and 2.1.x kernel, there is no need to separate the printer and Zip drivers into separate modules. Compile them right in there, as part of the kernel. They work fine together. Of coure, when I did it (before my networked printer.;) ), I was using/dev/lpX, not/dev/parX. They have the same major/minor, though. You might try using/dev/lpX instead, and see if that works.
If you're still in the dark ag..I mean, using 2.0.x, then yes, you will need them as separate modules.
Do what? You should read more. Pay attention to the Linux motto: "RTFM!". rpms have plenty of documentation. There's a HOWTO, and even a downloadable book. I have it in PS format. I was running rpm on Slackware long before I even *considered* installing Redhat. I started w/Slack 2.0, and lasted thru 3.4, before moving to Redhat.
Yes, rpm was a RH creation. That would be bad why? For the same reasons debs are bad, you say? Bah! It is completely open source, and used by at least one other distribution (um, what do you think SuSe uses?), and has plenty of documentation.
The point is, rpm is not specific to RedHat anymore. It's a very nice and easy way to get stuff installed. And rolling your own is fairly easy, too. Oh, but I forget, the detractors of rpms must not know how to RTFM.
Granted, rpm isn't the only package management tool out there. Slackware has the.tgz, Debian has their packages. But you know what? There are some very nice tools for converting rpms to other package formats, which I hear work very well! (Well, I know the rpm2tgz worked well when I bothered to use it).
In closing, I like RedHat. I use RedHat. I will probably try Debian and FreeBSD or OpenBSD. Nothing will hurt the Linux community as much as being narrow minded. Give rpms a chance; if you don't like them, use something else. But don't sit there and bitch about how bad they are, because 1) they are a good, effective tool, as is dpkg and debs, and 2) Redhat isn't the only distribution using rpms. Before you knock 'em, though, read the docs. I usually roll my own, and have been since my Slackware days.
BTW, what bugs are inherent/specific to the RH distribution? I can't seem to find any that aren't also present in other distributions.
Linux is Linux, let's leave it at that and be done
on
Feature:Free Linux
·
· Score: 1
Linux is an operating system comprised of a kernel maintained by Linus Torvalds and a few others, with contributions from hundreds (thousands?) of people from around the world, and some utilities distributed/freely available from GNU sites, which have been written by a plethora of individuals, and contributed to/improved on by many thousands of others. This is a team effort, people! Heck, I've made and sent patches to my kernel, and to various other programs as well.
Let's let Linux be Linux!. For me, it's easier to say than "GNU/Linux". Linus + thousands of people maintain the kernel source. RMS/FSF + thousands of people maintain the source for the various utilities, and there are utilitities based on BSD code, and many programs are written from completely original code.
Let's just call it "Linux" (it's easier to say, and we all know that the best programmers are the laziest people!;) ), and stand back in awe of this great creation which has grown from the minds of thousands of thousands of programmers around the world, and not just from a few people or one or two organizations. Bleh!
This is simply a reorganization. Instead of being organized around product lines, they are now going to be organized around four major market areas: Major businesses, consumers, programmers, and what they call "knowledge workers" (don't ask me, I just read it in the WSJ). This move will have absolutely no impact on the current DOJ trial. It's not splitting up into separate businesses. They aren't spinning off any companies. It's more like, say, you want to reorganize your refrigerator. Day old leftovers go on the top shelf, week old on the middle shelf, and growing on the bottom shelf. You don't take anything out, you just move it around a little.
Companies do it all the time, and in this case, who really cares? The only thing this *might* do is make more games, etc, for the home user.
For kernel 2.2.x, all you need is the source tarball. Period. That's it. Compiles and works fine. Now, if you want some of the other stuff to work, like masquerading and NFS and Samba, you might want to get the latest and greatest. But stay away from Rawhide. It's very unstable. Especially don't mix in any Rawhide binary rpm's with stable systems.
As for the libc5 question, you might want to hang on to that. There are still quite few proprietary programs linked against it. RH is nice in that libc5 is shove off in a corner; if you read the glibc HOWTO, then your libc5 will also be shoved off in a corner.
Slashdot Mirror
However....
I do think we need some sort of emulation (like WINE) that will allow us to run Windows apps. Even better would be something that lets us compile Windows apps natively. PowerBuilder has that type of functionality--you can design a project and take the project file to any of the several platforms PowerBuilder runs on, and compile the program for that platform. I think they use Berlin libraries (correct me if I'm wrong) for all the GUI and system calls PB apps make, on the different Unix platforms they support. Unfortunately, Linux isn't one of those. :/
Bridges sounds like a decent app. From reading the article, I get the impression it is mainly used for deploying apps over the Internet, like what Sun wants to do with SO, and MS with Office, and Corel, I guess, with Corel Office. I don't know how this would affect local installs (i.e., not running over the Internet)--presumably, they would still need a translation layer between the app and the OS. So perhaps this is an addition to the architecture, and not a dismissal of WINE.
Just my $.02
I'm not sure where you get your Linux kernel release information from, but you are obviously not familiar with standard Linux kernel release procedure.
A kernel is released when Linus Torvalds says it's good enough to release, based on what testing he is able to do. There aren't any deadlines involved. There are occasionally, of course, feature freezes (as opposed to code freezes), which can last an indeterminate amount of time. This allows the code to get shaken out and bugs fixed on current features. But it definitely does not qualify as a "deadline".
That being said, I'm sure there is a timetable to major releases (e.g., 2.0->2.2->2.4). But nothing is written in stone. When the kernel works, it is released.
Also, I'd like to point out that first releases of anything are prone to bugginess. This is as true for Windows, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OS/390, et al, as it is for Linux. There's no way any of us can afford to cobble together every possible configuration to test our software on. As it is, the Linux/*BSD/GNU distribution model tends to give us just that: a very large and varied testing laboratory.
Please, before couching your comments in anonymity and spewing them forth, check up on what you are spewing about. Stop by sometime and read the Linux kernel mailing list archives. Pay attention to what Linus and the other leaders (Alan, Andrea, Richard, etc) have to say about various issues, as well as other regular posters. Many of your "31337 Linux kiddies" are actually top-notch developers and IT specialists, as well as the academicians. Together, they have managed to put together a stable and popular kernel which works on a plethora of hardware platforms--more than most other operating systems, I think.
This is me, signing off...
Why should the U.S. go metric?? Everyone knows that the U.S. is the leading country in the world, and that everything we do over here must be right! =P Thus, everyone else should go to "English" measurements (or is that "American" now?).
Seriously, though, miscommunication is bad, but...I really like inches, feet, and miles. There's nothing like watching a quarter-mile drag, and what would we do with football? 100-meter fields? I don't think so! And a car going 100kph? Bah! I sit tapping my fingers (thumpety thump) at 100kph, wondering when the car is gonna start moving.
No, if you want to measure it in the laboratory, then metric may be nice, but in real life, give me miles and miles and gallons and gallons!!
As idiotic as our government can be at times, I still find it hard to believe that anyone would even consider lending credibility to such an idiotic idea. It's simply absurd in the most extreme fashion.
Urban Legends has a writeup about this particular hoax, with a link to the USPS rebuttal of the idiotic message.
Hopefully, no one takes this thing seriously, but I fear it already too late, judging by the amount of /.'s resources wasted by this thread.
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that, yes, creationism can to a large extent be scientifically explained. The cataclysm theory, or whatever they're calling it nowadays, is one such explanation, that is very plausible, and well-documented and logically explained based on currently known facts and observations. (facts, not faith).
Evolution also has a strong scientific foundation, also based on facts and observations, as we all know.
However, evolution *theory* have many holes in it, which cannot be explained. In fact, this may be the largest single shared trait between creationism and evolutionism. Both philosophies have many things that simply cannot be explained.
In an objective world, disregarding passion and emotion, both theories are equally valid and should be treated as such. Not so much focusing on Christian-centric creationism, because many different cultures record similar events.
Did God create the world? I think so. Do you disagree? Good! Life would suck if we all believed the same things. Are fossils an evil plot by Satan to encourage disbelief in God? Or did God create the dinosaurs, and then OOPS! no room on Noah's ark for them? Who knows? Does it really matter? Is it going to affect your paycheck next week? No? Move on, then, I say.
As far as education is concerned, these days it seems that the purpose of education is to expand a person's understanding of the world around him/her, in addition to the three "R"s. You cannot accomplish this purpose if you restrict educators from teaching the most prominent theories. And these days, the most prominent theories are evolution and creation. So present both dispassionately, with all available facts (as if that could ever happen!!)
When you get down to it, they are all based on faith. Evolution has the almighty adapting cell as it's God, and Darwin is the evolutionary messiah. Creation has an omniscient, omnipotent entity as God, and Jesus as the messiah in the Christian world, Muhammed (sp?), in the Muslim world, and Moses as the closest thing to a messiah in the Jewish world. Evolution, creation? They're both religions. The question is, which one do you want to believe in, and is it right to force someone to believe any of them? That's the important question.
To answer that last question is NO! And that's what Kansas has finally decided to stop doing. Teach them all, or don't teach any of them.
Just my 2 cents. Believe what you will, it won't change my life! ;)
My PB 6.0 Professional was only $100. Not sure why you would need to pay $3000 for a $100 product.
This is definitely a step in the right direction. We need more RAD tools for Linux, especially if we want it to grow effectively. There's Appgen, which I've never tried, but Appgen seems to be pretty much proprietary (use Appgen-developed apps with Appgen developed DBs). There's Glade, and KDevelop, but I don't think you can really consider those to be enterprise level applications.
What would be nice also, is if Sybase could port Powerbuilder over to run/compile on Linux. It is, to me, unrivaled as a GUI application development environment.
Kudos to Borl--Inprise, and hopefully they run ahead of schedule. I'm sure there will be a very nice market for commercial development apps, plus it will add a bit of diversity to the compiler world for Linux. Just because it's not free, doesn't make it bad...
As for GUI development, VC++ is really not any good in that environment. After having use Powerbuilder and (shudder) Visual Basic, I can't see any reason at all to use VC++ for GUI development. And now you have an interface that mimics VC++?? For shame!! Everyone is entitled to use what pleases them, of courses, which is one of the guiding principles behind Linux, but what we need is not imitations of life-sucking programs which Microsoft foists on the public, but innovative new programs which foster RAD, or for companies to port existing excellent software over to Linux, like Inprise is doing.
That being said, let me qualify by saying that I've never tried Kdevelop, and probably won't ever, because it requires Qt/KDE, and I have enough libraries without adding another set + desktop environment.
Still, anything that reminds me of Microsoft on my Linux machine is summarily deleted.
bah. It's one person's opinion, and the posted letter was refuted by Raster, anyhow. He may be moving West, and he may be leaving RH as confirmed in an IRC channel (FWTW), but another person *did* post a paste from his Website refuting the inflammatory comments made in a spurious and fraudulent post.
;). Redhat is good for Linux. Debian is good for Linux. SuSe is good for Linux (isn't it?). Etc., etc.
Personally, I like Redhat. I'm not sure *how* much they are getting for 6.0, but mine was free. Gotta love the Internet!
I see Redhat as trying to satisfy requested needs/wants from various and sundry users. If more of their users are corporate customers, then it stands to reason that the flavor would have a decidedly corporate taste. If you don't like the way it tastes, go eat something else. There aren't any chains holding anybody down at a particular table...
As far as Desktop environments go, again, each to his own. My favorite is Window Maker + GNOME. Someone else's is KDE. Again, others are just happy with twm. We're all about diversity, and it's a good thing.
Yes, software is a great thing, and it will be necessary for our kids to learn computers. However, what's the use of teaching them how to use computers if you're not going to teach them to read?!? Or do arithmetic? The primary function of our primary/secondary schools is *supposed* to be to teach basic skills to our children, such as reading, writing, and 'rithmetic. They fail miserably at this, as evidenced by the explosion of remedial courses being required of many students entering college, not to mention the level of grammar seen in IRC and newsgroups. If a person can't read and write, then all the software in the world won't help.
Personally, I'm strongly in favor of hard copy, *especially* in primary school. These kids shouldn't be able to get out of writing their cursive 'A' 100 times just because they can punch a button on a keyboard.
When a person has mastered (or is fairly competent at) the basics, *then* expend the money on software to enhance more advanced learning. And as always, reinforce the learning skills.
Surprisingly (or not), This is a fairly good explanation of ANSI-92 SQL. It covers SQL nicely, and throws in some DB design basics: Normalization, etc. It's easy to read (aren't they supposed to be?), and fairly complete.
My univ uses Solaris. Should we call that GNU/Solaris also? They use GNU utilities....but I don't think Sun would approve.
jove:/home/jove/stu/mev0003 & bash --version
GNU bash, version 2.01.1(7)-release (sparc-sun-solaris2.6)
Copyright 1997 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
jove:/home/jove/stu/mev0003 & emacs --version
GNU Emacs 20.2.1
Copyright (C) 1997 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GNU Emacs comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
You may redistribute copies of Emacs
under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
For more information about these matters, see the files named COPYING.
jove:/home/jove/stu/mev0003 & uname -srv
SunOS 5.6 Generic
So, are we going to call every OS which utilizes GNU utilities, "GNU/"? That seems silly.
Let Linux be Linux. Common useage dictates that it remains that way. To get in a spat about something so silly is, well, silly. What's wrong with using a CREDITS file? Oh, wait, don't all GNU utilities print out their versions if you ask the right way? Hmm, must be something there...
Of course their web site runs slow. They're running IIS 4.0. What else would you expect from them?
Probably better sent to a newsgroup appropriate to the subject, but what the heck....
;) ), I was using /dev/lpX, not /dev/parX. They have the same major/minor, though. You might try using /dev/lpX instead, and see if that works.
With the 2.2.x and 2.1.x kernel, there is no need to separate the printer and Zip drivers into separate modules. Compile them right in there, as part of the kernel. They work fine together. Of coure, when I did it (before my networked printer.
If you're still in the dark ag..I mean, using 2.0.x, then yes, you will need them as separate modules.
Do what? You should read more. Pay attention to the Linux motto: "RTFM!". rpms have plenty of documentation. There's a HOWTO, and even a downloadable book. I have it in PS format. I was running rpm on Slackware long before I even *considered* installing Redhat. I started w/Slack 2.0, and lasted thru 3.4, before moving to Redhat.
.tgz, Debian has their packages. But you know what? There are some very nice tools for converting rpms to other package formats, which I hear work very well! (Well, I know the rpm2tgz worked well when I bothered to use it).
Yes, rpm was a RH creation. That would be bad why? For the same reasons debs are bad, you say? Bah! It is completely open source, and used by at least one other distribution (um, what do you think SuSe uses?), and has plenty of documentation.
The point is, rpm is not specific to RedHat anymore. It's a very nice and easy way to get stuff installed. And rolling your own is fairly easy, too. Oh, but I forget, the detractors of rpms must not know how to RTFM.
Granted, rpm isn't the only package management tool out there. Slackware has the
In closing, I like RedHat. I use RedHat. I will probably try Debian and FreeBSD or OpenBSD. Nothing will hurt the Linux community as much as being narrow minded. Give rpms a chance; if you don't like them, use something else. But don't sit there and bitch about how bad they are, because 1) they are a good, effective tool, as is dpkg and debs, and 2) Redhat isn't the only distribution using rpms. Before you knock 'em, though, read the docs. I usually roll my own, and have been since my Slackware days.
BTW, what bugs are inherent/specific to the RH distribution? I can't seem to find any that aren't also present in other distributions.
Linux is an operating system comprised of a kernel maintained by Linus Torvalds and a few others, with contributions from hundreds (thousands?) of people from around the world, and some utilities distributed/freely available from GNU sites, which have been written by a plethora of individuals, and contributed to/improved on by many thousands of others. This is a team effort, people! Heck, I've made and sent patches to my kernel, and to various other programs as well.
;) ), and stand back in awe of this great creation which has grown from the minds of thousands of thousands of programmers around the world, and not just from a few people or one or two organizations. Bleh!
Let's let Linux be Linux!. For me, it's easier to say than "GNU/Linux". Linus + thousands of people maintain the kernel source. RMS/FSF + thousands of people maintain the source for the various utilities, and there are utilitities based on BSD code, and many programs are written from completely original code.
Let's just call it "Linux" (it's easier to say, and we all know that the best programmers are the laziest people!
Let's be bi-partisan and not quibble about names.
This is simply a reorganization. Instead of being organized around product lines, they are now going to be organized around four major market areas: Major businesses, consumers, programmers, and what they call "knowledge workers" (don't ask me, I just read it in the WSJ). This move will have absolutely no impact on the current DOJ trial. It's not splitting up into separate businesses. They aren't spinning off any companies. It's more like, say, you want to reorganize your refrigerator. Day old leftovers go on the top shelf, week old on the middle shelf, and growing on the bottom shelf. You don't take anything out, you just move it around a little.
Companies do it all the time, and in this case, who really cares? The only thing this *might* do is make more games, etc, for the home user.
For kernel 2.2.x, all you need is the source tarball. Period. That's it. Compiles and works fine. Now, if you want some of the other stuff to work, like masquerading and NFS and Samba, you might want to get the latest and greatest. But stay away from Rawhide. It's very unstable. Especially don't mix in any Rawhide binary rpm's with stable systems.
As for the libc5 question, you might want to hang on to that. There are still quite few proprietary programs linked against it. RH is nice in that libc5 is shove off in a corner; if you read the glibc HOWTO, then your libc5 will also be shoved off in a corner.