yeah, right now slack is absolutely my favorite (posting from it on my laptop right now), but I am concerned with the one man show aspect of it, and the silence on the website.
the lack of a network install was too much of a pain for me last week so I just went ahead and installed freebsd (i lost my copy of slack 8.0 somewhere along the way).
gentoo.org not available
on
Debian NetBSD
·
· Score: 1
Re:I would prefer the other way around
on
Debian NetBSD
·
· Score: 2, Informative
dude, chill out, I'm not dissing bsd!
binary support means I can run jdk1.3 natively without any emulation layer.
more drivers (like nvidia) are things that I do use on linux, and as for the rest, no they are not things that I need, but a possible reason why some one would choose linux over FreeBSD.
there is no need to start a flame fest here - both BSD and linux have their respective advantages.
how is it GNU-based if it has a _BSD_ kernel?
on
Debian NetBSD
·
· Score: 1
is it just me or is it terribly pretentious to take the work of the NetBSD team, shove some debian/gnu stuff on top of it and call it a GNU-based operating system?
Re:I would prefer the other way around
on
Debian NetBSD
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
not so much what's wrong with the FreeBSD kernel as what's wrong with linux user land. I would like to see the FreeBSD installer & ports system, to begin with, exist on a linux distro.
I'm new to FreeBSD, so I might be wrong, but it seems like linux gets more of the new 'sexier' things. sambafs was on linux first, numa, IBM s/390 port - those kinds of things. not to mention binary support, which ok, there's linux emulation in FreeBSD, but it's easier to do it straight on linux.
I would prefer the other way around
on
Debian NetBSD
·
· Score: 5, Informative
personally, I would like to see a BSD distro with ports and all, but with a linux kernel.
I just installed FreeBSD recently and have to say i was blown away with how professional the installer was, very simple and powerful - not to mention the ports system.
debian is nice, apt-get is a great program and the net install is awesome, but I can't say I have much love for dselect. I think debian shows the most promise of any linux distro right now, but in terms of polish, I have to give it to FreeBSD so far.
ok like the subject says, the windowmaker/gnustep/freebsd combo is just as fast as windows. I really think that part of the problem rests 1) with the linux kernel, as it needs some more work to be a desktop friendly os (windows has had many years to make optimizations specifically for this task), and 2) with the desktop environments of both gnome and kde which just aren't as fast as gnustep.
that said, a new windowsystem would be great - competition is good right?
hey, I think I know how you feel. kde, as much as I love it is always a little klunky and frustrating, not to mention slow.
gnome is cool, but tends to be little jerky and uneven in both look & feel and performance.
I've found windowmaker & gnustep to be the first environment that really makes me feel like I'm in a clean, professional desktop, where everything looks good AND perfomes well.
please not that the experiences with gnome and kde are my own - I haven't done a big study or comparison of the two - just my observation. so, if you're observations are different, that's great, I was just trying to offer some help to another poster who seems to have the same opinions.
Re:Xfree is sufferring from poor PR
on
Xfree86 4.2.0 Out
·
· Score: 1
mine is an aesthetic opinion as well, I've just come to think that the plan9 window system is a lot cleaner and smaller code wise and api wise than X.
for one, they don't have mouse events, they just read from the mouse file (which is multiplexed over the network). other things like implementing the window system as a file server (ok, this can't be done in unix without extensions) are also quite nice.
all in all though, I think you're right that the ugliness of the x protocol is probably overstated. I tried windowmaker/gnustep on freebsd last week and was quite pleased with the performance.
I do think that there is room for other ways of doing a windowsystem, and with toolkits like gnustep and qt which abstract the underlying system, there really isn't a reason why other windowsystems can't be explored and those api's just ported (gnustep has an especially good division of front end and 'backend'- window system specifc, code).
Re:Xfree is sufferring from poor PR
on
Xfree86 4.2.0 Out
·
· Score: 1
> Compiling and installing Xfree is difficult.
I would strongly disgagree with this statement. True, windows is still easier when it comes to configuring video, but XFree86 > 4.0 is really pretty straightforward to install. Especially in comparison to the linux kernel.
Before 4.0, it was a pain to install,and compiling was practically out of the question, but now it pretty much comes down to doing a `make world` to compile.
Configuring has also gotten a lot easer. There is xf86cfg which can be run in gui or text mode and is pretty straightforward. on top of that, the config file, has been overhauled and is really quite readable, but most importantly well documented. `man XF86Config` gives a detailed explanation of every section. This, combined with the config program do away with almost all the problems I had with XF86 3.
Also, I don't think peoples gripes about X11 are due to pr. For myself, I think that X is an ugly protocol on top of an elegant system (unix). The implementation of X though, namely XFree86 is a great program that nobody should be complaining about (does anyone really?).
yes I know about that patch - its been around for a while now.
a solution that used that for linux would be linux specific. a nice feature of x is that it runs on pretty much every unix that I know of.
have you tried the namespace patch? I haven't yet, but am thinking about giving 2.5 a run b/c it was included.
well you couldn't do it exactly the same on unix b/c there aren't per process namespaces like plan9, so you can't multplex a fileserver like you can with plan9. you could perhaps write a filesystem, but that's different, b/c it's not in userspace like p9 allows you to do.
also plan9 allows you to mount these remote fileservers (w. multiplexed data) which is central to rio - that would take quite a bit of work to bring into the unix world.
still though, why is a file or a device so different from a socket? a similiar solution to rio could be devised on unix with something sockets in user land, don't see why not.
right on - I don't know why everyone says as a knee jerk reaction that choice is better (kde/gnome;linux/bsd) but when it comes to x windows nobody wants to even think about an alternative.
it shouldn't be impossible hard to create a window system that can also run as a window inside of x or vice versa. that's one solution - mapping the x apis could be another.
i disagree with your comment that networking doesn't belong in a window system though. having used x for a while, i find it an absolute prerequisite, especially over a lan.
go to the plan9 site -
http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/
(for starters see this paper on the old plan9 window system) - http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/8%bd/8%bd.html
there is some information there, and the source code for the window system is actually readable because it is much few lines of code and over all simpler than x windows.
also Rob Pike (who worked on plan9) has written several interesting papers on windowing systems.
try reading them by poking around this site - http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/144447.html
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/pike89concurrent.html (sorry the actual articles - linked off of the above links are only ps or pdf, no html)
These papers, the plan9 window system as well as the inferno window system prove that a simple, elegant window system can be created that is both fast and runs over a network.
Granted these use some features that don't exist in the unix world (like plan9's threading model, and the use of per process namespaces) but I believe these can be emulated somewhat using standard networking.
The size, complexity and performance of x windows are all indications that it is not the optimal solution.
actually it changes the fact that since it is a national standard - companies could start asking for it, no demanding it, before every transaction - just like an ssn, but they can check it with just the swipe of a bar code reader.
nice huh?
the thing about XP is that I just don't give a flying crap anymore.
that's right, I don't care if XP is stable, not stable, secure, fast, slow whatever. the fact is, I'm done with microsoft os's. I'm typing this from slackware 7.0. I'm not even sure of that, haven't upgraded in a while. Why? becuase I'm just so damn happy with the setup I have - nice and stable, fast and I still run all the new and interesting software I want. most important though, is that it does what I need it too, none of that bullshit fawning over os's that microsoft always pushes on us.
people get so wound up over these things, always scrambling to prove how great the next new microsoft what ever is. I haven't even bothered to look. I am so confident that the time and energy I put into learning _my_ os is (and has been) rewareded tenfold with the control I have over it now and in the future, that I have no need for all of this marketing and arguing.
if people want to expolore interesting operating systems they should check out hurd or plan9 or inferno or even osX. but braggin about a os being stable is pretty fucking far from impressive these days. too little too late - I'll take my year and a half old shitty slackware install any day.
the thing about XP is that I just don't give a flying crap anymore.
that's right, I don't care if XP is stable, not stable, secure, fast, slow whatever. the fact is, I'm done with microsoft os's. I'm typing this from slackware 7.0. I'm not even sure of that, haven't upgraded in a while. Why? becuase I'm just so damn happy with the setup I have - nice and stable, fast and I still run all the new and interesting software I want. most important though, is that it does what I need it too, none of that bullshit fawning over os's that microsoft always pushes on us.
people get so wound up over these things, always scrambling to prove how great the next new microsoft what ever is. I haven't even bothered to look. I am so confident that the time and energy I put into learning _my_ os is (and has been) rewareded tenfold with the control I have over it now and in the future, that I have no need for all of this marketing and arguing.
if people want to expolore interesting operating systems they should check out hurd or plan9 or inferno or even osX. but braggin about a os being stable is pretty fucking far from impressive these days. too little too late - I'll take my year and a half old shitty slackware install any day.
here is what I've seen happening whenever a negative microsoft related article gets posted on slashdot (xbox,windows,.net,etc).
first few hours most comments that spike up to 4 or 5 generally make a few good humored comments, ranging from neutral to chiming in with similiar microsoft dismay stories.
then a few hours later, lets say about 5 or 6 hours since the original post, those posts get sent back to 2 or 3 land, and a new crop of 5's crops up. The strange thing about this new bunch is that they are _all PRO microsoft_!
it is a strange phenomena to say the least. the posts themselves, at least some of them could be genuine, but the way they are moderated is _very_ suspicious.
anyway, my prediction holds that the same will happen today, watch for it.
actually the gamecube _WILL HAVE_ Mario Sunshine, Metroid and Zelda, and not for a while it sounds (summer hopefully).
your right about Smash though, and the gamecube too. it's a great system, and I'm a happy owner. slick hardware, nice small system,and great games like pikmin leave me very happy.
Slashdot Mirror
JFK was part of the cold war.
yeah, right now slack is absolutely my favorite (posting from it on my laptop right now), but I am concerned with the one man show aspect of it, and the silence on the website.
the lack of a network install was too much of a pain for me last week so I just went ahead and installed freebsd (i lost my copy of slack 8.0 somewhere along the way).
I wonder if the project is still going.
thanks, I'll check that out.
dude, chill out, I'm not dissing bsd!
binary support means I can run jdk1.3 natively without any emulation layer.
more drivers (like nvidia) are things that I do use on linux, and as for the rest, no they are not things that I need, but a possible reason why some one would choose linux over FreeBSD.
there is no need to start a flame fest here - both BSD and linux have their respective advantages.
is it just me or is it terribly pretentious to take the work of the NetBSD team, shove some debian/gnu stuff on top of it and call it a GNU-based operating system?
not so much what's wrong with the FreeBSD kernel as what's wrong with linux user land. I would like to see the FreeBSD installer & ports system, to begin with, exist on a linux distro.
I'm new to FreeBSD, so I might be wrong, but it seems like linux gets more of the new 'sexier' things. sambafs was on linux first, numa, IBM s/390 port - those kinds of things. not to mention binary support, which ok, there's linux emulation in FreeBSD, but it's easier to do it straight on linux.
personally, I would like to see a BSD distro with ports and all, but with a linux kernel.
I just installed FreeBSD recently and have to say i was blown away with how professional the installer was, very simple and powerful - not to mention the ports system.
debian is nice, apt-get is a great program and the net install is awesome, but I can't say I have much love for dselect. I think debian shows the most promise of any linux distro right now, but in terms of polish, I have to give it to FreeBSD so far.
ok like the subject says, the windowmaker/gnustep/freebsd combo is just as fast as windows. I really think that part of the problem rests 1) with the linux kernel, as it needs some more work to be a desktop friendly os (windows has had many years to make optimizations specifically for this task), and 2) with the desktop environments of both gnome and kde which just aren't as fast as gnustep.
that said, a new windowsystem would be great - competition is good right?
hey, I think I know how you feel. kde, as much as I love it is always a little klunky and frustrating, not to mention slow.
gnome is cool, but tends to be little jerky and uneven in both look & feel and performance.
I've found windowmaker & gnustep to be the first environment that really makes me feel like I'm in a clean, professional desktop, where everything looks good AND perfomes well.
please not that the experiences with gnome and kde are my own - I haven't done a big study or comparison of the two - just my observation. so, if you're observations are different, that's great, I was just trying to offer some help to another poster who seems to have the same opinions.
mine is an aesthetic opinion as well, I've just come to think that the plan9 window system is a lot cleaner and smaller code wise and api wise than X.
for one, they don't have mouse events, they just read from the mouse file (which is multiplexed over the network). other things like implementing the window system as a file server (ok, this can't be done in unix without extensions) are also quite nice.
all in all though, I think you're right that the ugliness of the x protocol is probably overstated. I tried windowmaker/gnustep on freebsd last week and was quite pleased with the performance.
I do think that there is room for other ways of doing a windowsystem, and with toolkits like gnustep and qt which abstract the underlying system, there really isn't a reason why other windowsystems can't be explored and those api's just ported (gnustep has an especially good division of front end and 'backend'- window system specifc, code).
> Compiling and installing Xfree is difficult.
I would strongly disgagree with this statement. True, windows is still easier when it comes to configuring video, but XFree86 > 4.0 is really pretty straightforward to install. Especially in comparison to the linux kernel.
Before 4.0, it was a pain to install,and compiling was practically out of the question, but now it pretty much comes down to doing a `make world` to compile.
Configuring has also gotten a lot easer. There is xf86cfg which can be run in gui or text mode and is pretty straightforward. on top of that, the config file, has been overhauled and is really quite readable, but most importantly well documented. `man XF86Config` gives a detailed explanation of every section. This, combined with the config program do away with almost all the problems I had with XF86 3.
Also, I don't think peoples gripes about X11 are due to pr. For myself, I think that X is an ugly protocol on top of an elegant system (unix). The implementation of X though, namely XFree86 is a great program that nobody should be complaining about (does anyone really?).
yes I know about that patch - its been around for a while now.
a solution that used that for linux would be linux specific. a nice feature of x is that it runs on pretty much every unix that I know of.
have you tried the namespace patch? I haven't yet, but am thinking about giving 2.5 a run b/c it was included.
well you couldn't do it exactly the same on unix b/c there aren't per process namespaces like plan9, so you can't multplex a fileserver like you can with plan9. you could perhaps write a filesystem, but that's different, b/c it's not in userspace like p9 allows you to do.
also plan9 allows you to mount these remote fileservers (w. multiplexed data) which is central to rio - that would take quite a bit of work to bring into the unix world.
still though, why is a file or a device so different from a socket? a similiar solution to rio could be devised on unix with something sockets in user land, don't see why not.
I wonder how the ximian guys will feel about that.
so awesome that sun dropped it quite a while back - is there any good info about NeWS though? if you have some links I'd like to check it out.
yeah, I linked to that too - very nice and clean setup.
right on - I don't know why everyone says as a knee jerk reaction that choice is better (kde/gnome;linux/bsd) but when it comes to x windows nobody wants to even think about an alternative.
it shouldn't be impossible hard to create a window system that can also run as a window inside of x or vice versa. that's one solution - mapping the x apis could be another.
i disagree with your comment that networking doesn't belong in a window system though. having used x for a while, i find it an absolute prerequisite, especially over a lan.
go to the plan9 site -l
l
http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/
(for starters see this paper on the old plan9 window system) - http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/8%bd/8%bd.htm
there is some information there, and the source code for the window system is actually readable because it is much few lines of code and over all simpler than x windows.
also Rob Pike (who worked on plan9) has written several interesting papers on windowing systems.
try reading them by poking around this site - http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/144447.html
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/pike89concurrent.htm
(sorry the actual articles - linked off of the above links are only ps or pdf, no html)
These papers, the plan9 window system as well as the inferno window system prove that a simple, elegant window system can be created that is both fast and runs over a network.
Granted these use some features that don't exist in the unix world (like plan9's threading model, and the use of per process namespaces) but I believe these can be emulated somewhat using standard networking.
The size, complexity and performance of x windows are all indications that it is not the optimal solution.
actually it changes the fact that since it is a national standard - companies could start asking for it, no demanding it, before every transaction - just like an ssn, but they can check it with just the swipe of a bar code reader.
nice huh?
the thing about XP is that I just don't give a flying crap anymore.
that's right, I don't care if XP is stable, not stable, secure, fast, slow whatever. the fact is, I'm done with microsoft os's. I'm typing this from slackware 7.0. I'm not even sure of that, haven't upgraded in a while. Why? becuase I'm just so damn happy with the setup I have - nice and stable, fast and I still run all the new and interesting software I want. most important though, is that it does what I need it too, none of that bullshit fawning over os's that microsoft always pushes on us.
people get so wound up over these things, always scrambling to prove how great the next new microsoft what ever is. I haven't even bothered to look. I am so confident that the time and energy I put into learning _my_ os is (and has been) rewareded tenfold with the control I have over it now and in the future, that I have no need for all of this marketing and arguing.
if people want to expolore interesting operating systems they should check out hurd or plan9 or inferno or even osX. but braggin about a os being stable is pretty fucking far from impressive these days. too little too late - I'll take my year and a half old shitty slackware install any day.
the thing about XP is that I just don't give a flying crap anymore.
that's right, I don't care if XP is stable, not stable, secure, fast, slow whatever. the fact is, I'm done with microsoft os's. I'm typing this from slackware 7.0. I'm not even sure of that, haven't upgraded in a while. Why? becuase I'm just so damn happy with the setup I have - nice and stable, fast and I still run all the new and interesting software I want. most important though, is that it does what I need it too, none of that bullshit fawning over os's that microsoft always pushes on us.
people get so wound up over these things, always scrambling to prove how great the next new microsoft what ever is. I haven't even bothered to look. I am so confident that the time and energy I put into learning _my_ os is (and has been) rewareded tenfold with the control I have over it now and in the future, that I have no need for all of this marketing and arguing.
if people want to expolore interesting operating systems they should check out hurd or plan9 or inferno or even osX. but braggin about a os being stable is pretty fucking far from impressive these days. too little too late - I'll take my year and a half old shitty slackware install any day.
here is what I've seen happening whenever a negative microsoft related article gets posted on slashdot (xbox,windows,.net,etc).
first few hours most comments that spike up to 4 or 5 generally make a few good humored comments, ranging from neutral to chiming in with similiar microsoft dismay stories.
then a few hours later, lets say about 5 or 6 hours since the original post, those posts get sent back to 2 or 3 land, and a new crop of 5's crops up. The strange thing about this new bunch is that they are _all PRO microsoft_!
it is a strange phenomena to say the least. the posts themselves, at least some of them could be genuine, but the way they are moderated is _very_ suspicious.
anyway, my prediction holds that the same will happen today, watch for it.
actually the gamecube _WILL HAVE_ Mario Sunshine, Metroid and Zelda, and not for a while it sounds (summer hopefully).
your right about Smash though, and the gamecube too. it's a great system, and I'm a happy owner. slick hardware, nice small system,and great games like pikmin leave me very happy.
oh that's rich, oh that's good.
hey guys check out my new toy, it's got the best graphics evar, wait, what's going on? darn it, why won't it work??? hey guys where are you going?