Wierd since, Fedora decided to copy Debian's mistaken policy of offering three software troves called stable,testing and unstable.
Uh, no.... Have a look here and tell me where it mentions stable/testing/unstable. The official Fedora package set contains exactly one version of each application. Third party packagers like Fedora.us and Livna.org have adopted the stable/testing/unstable split, but they are separate entities from Red Hat, and are not official Fedora packages.
I'll readily admit that I won't use Fedora without adding Fedora.us and Livna.org to my yum/apt sources, but you're either mistaken in your understanding of the Fedora community or spreading FUD.
I cant believe more distros dont do this. Ubuntu do it quite well. Its a one CD install which is the way it should be, not download 3 or 4 to get a piece here and a piece there. Ubuntu gives you a nicely polished install with enough to satisfy most people and almost everything works out of the box.
As Ubuntu is Debian based, you can say the same for Debian. I always just download the netinstall ISO to do a base install, and fetch the rest of the stuff - I need - online via APT.
Actually, you can't. The Ubuntu kernel is patched different, and for some reason I have not investigated, hardware config is better in Ubuntu during install. I am aware that Ubuntu uses the new debian-installer, and I have installed Debian using it. But things like dual mouse config (nice on a laptop to not have to pick between having the integrated mouse device or an usb mouse without manually configuring support for both devices) Little things that nobody wants to think about, are handled much more sensibly in Ubuntu. If they were handled that way in Debian, then much of the reason for Ubuntu would not exist.
What kind of default ACPI scripts do they have, especially for laptops? I'm struggling to get ACPI going on my Inspiron 2600, and a distro that has this working with no fuss would really be something (already tried the liveCD of suse, which surprisingly has the ACPI control panels in it, it works the same as ubuntu so far). Does the kernel have any suspend-to-disk patches enabled/built by default?
its so obvious and not some sort of secret technology that no one else has not figured out.
Technically that is enough reason to not grant a patent. There's just something about adding "online" to a patent that throws common sense out the window.
wake me when they stop breaking reference implementations in their laptop BIOS. They screw up their DSDTs breaking ACPI. They intentionally remove functionality from Intel i8x0m integrated graphics chipsets with the result that the VESA X driver might not even work. The Latitude line is much better than the Inspiron in these respects, and it varies greatly from model to model. But Linux on most Dell laptops is pretty much a UFiA*.
Debian unstable is much more recent, but supposedly less stable, than Debian stable or Debian testing.
The stable/unstable naming is more an indication of version changes than uptimes. The unstable version of debian can have packages changing versions several times a week sometimes. The problem is that you have to keep updating. If you get too far behind, then doing an update will likely be similar to a dist-upgrade and can run into problems because you have so many packages with major version changes introducing new features, half of them might be incompatible. So when people say it's unstable, they really mean packages are being updated so frequently they break with incompatible new features, rewrites, and config file format changes.
Meta-packages for one-click selection of a typical desktop, development or server machine á la Mandrake
They have this sort of thing, probably in testing, but definitely in unstable. They have ones for KDE desktop, GNOME desktop, kernel images (a meta package that always depends on the latest kernel of a particular major version and platform). Probably a bunch of other ones too, but I'm primarily a fedora user. Getting into Ubuntu lately too.
You shouldn't run testing or unstable on production servers. They get major version upgrades of packages which introduces new features that sometimes break existing deployments. The stable version only gets bugfixes and security patches, sometimes backported to the version that was shipped. This is necessary in a production environment.
blahblahblah.heard.it.all.before.blahblahblah
Debian's main selling point depends on the role you want it to fill. But the apt dependency resolving package management system combined with the number of packages available are the advantages universal to every role you would try to fill.
I thought one of the ideas behind UserLinux was that companies could be created specifically to support it.
Right, outside companies can come to the table to offer support services, but they don't develop/maintain the distribution. Support companies can offer consulting services for any ditribution they want. Debian tends to be too much to bite off for those companies though, hence UserLinux. I don't think Bruce is being paid to develop UserLinux, but his consulting firm will (hopefully) make money supporting it.
Why not pour resources into user Linux, or Debian directly? Does the world need another Debian based distro.
UserLinux is community developed, just like Debian. Ubuntu is company developed. So basically, Ubuntu is the corporately funded version of the same concept that drive UserLinux development (Debian-based, new-to-linux user-friendly, GNOME desktop).
I believe that I'm not wrong when I say that it is the most cleaned and polished distro out there (and I tried preview release)
In some areas, not so much in others. There are quite a few people who have had persistent trouble with CD burning. The Nautilus interface works for just about everyone. But that is really only usefull for burning ISOs and data discs. If you want to do an audio or video disc, then you probably want k3b, and that only works reliably (in Ubuntu) when you run from a root shell. If you don't run from a root shell (as opposed to opening a regular terminal and running 'sudo k3b') then ~/.ICEauthority ends up with the wrong permissions and you can't log back in until you fix them.
- Access to debian apt repositories
Using the debian repositories will most likely break your system. Ubuntu took a snapshot of unstable, and patched/rebuilt much of it. A core set of which is the main and restricted sections of the Ubuntu apt sources. The universe section is apps that have been rebuilt but are unsupported (no updates for security/bugfix in universe). If you add a pure debian repo, you run the risk of having the same package name/version from both the Ubuntu and the debian apt sources, and apt will select one at random. Unfortunately, these packages are likely similar in name/version only as the Ubuntu version has been at least rebuilt against other Ubuntu packages, if not also patched.
If you're just looking for some specific set of pure debian packages which aren't in the Ubuntu apt sources, or maybe the Ubuntu ones are too old, the safest solution is to go through dependency hell and download them manually (the debian debs) and install with dpkg -i.
There is a tonne of software in the Universe repo which is already listed in/etc/apt/source.list, it's just commented out. Add that, and you can get most media stuff. To play CSS DVD's you need to get like two packages from Marillat (search apt-get.org for css to get the apt source)
why he pays less than 13% federal income tax and why he didn't check the check box on his MASS state tax return to pay the higher rate.
Because he's not dumb. Do you pay more taxes than you are legally required to? I know I don't, and wouldn't start doing so if I started makeing a dalary in the hundreds of thousands.
man, with talk like that you'll get printers scanners banned under the DMCA as copyright control circumvention devices. Besides, the DRM might block the file from being printable.
You can download all the updates as source RPMs, build them, and install them. You can even download RHE (any version) in it's entirety as source RPMs and build it. Have a look a whitebox linux (it's RHE built from the publically available source RPMs).
I don't know about the yearly subscription for updates.
Ubuntu will need at least another 6 months (2nd release) to catch-up with SUSE excluding configuration tools. And much more time after to catch up with SUSE's YaST functionality (if they don't start to use it too:-)./i
Ubuntu is actually more usable for me today than Suse 9.1. I tried out 9.1 on my best laptop and wireless had some big problems. I'm using a prism-based card that works just fine with the orinoco_cs driver. Setting the NIC to use DHCP no default route was ever set. Setting it up statically, the wifi network had to use WEP or I would get destination unreachable trying to ping the router (and no it wasn't a problem with me having mismatched WEP settings on the AP and card, I quadruple checked because that's the obvious answer). When I jumped on #suse, someone said dhcp not setting the default route with wifi was a known problem (although apparently not reproducible)
Regarding Yast, the popular opinion of it on #ubuntu was not fit for print media, so don't hold your breath to see that show up in Ubuntu.
But Suse 9.2 isn't due out for another month, so that's almost two months to test the final release. And they could have been working with development snapshots in the buildup, too.
Assuming a 2.6 kernel (not sure aobut 2.4 kernels) look at/lib/modules/`uname -r`/build and find everything you should need to build modules against your current running kernel.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, no .... Have a look here and tell me where it mentions stable/testing/unstable. The official Fedora package set contains exactly one version of each application. Third party packagers like Fedora.us and Livna.org have adopted the stable/testing/unstable split, but they are separate entities from Red Hat, and are not official Fedora packages.
I'll readily admit that I won't use Fedora without adding Fedora.us and Livna.org to my yum/apt sources, but you're either mistaken in your understanding of the Fedora community or spreading FUD.
No, it's a complete distribution, rather than a DE like Ximian.
What kind of default ACPI scripts do they have, especially for laptops? I'm struggling to get ACPI going on my Inspiron 2600, and a distro that has this working with no fuss would really be something (already tried the liveCD of suse, which surprisingly has the ACPI control panels in it, it works the same as ubuntu so far). Does the kernel have any suspend-to-disk patches enabled/built by default?
Technically that is enough reason to not grant a patent. There's just something about adding "online" to a patent that throws common sense out the window.
sounds ironic, like a bunch spoons when all you need is a knife.
Their GNOME offerings are anything but top of the line. They only recently started offering GNOME 2.6.
wake me when they stop breaking reference implementations in their laptop BIOS. They screw up their DSDTs breaking ACPI. They intentionally remove functionality from Intel i8x0m integrated graphics chipsets with the result that the VESA X driver might not even work. The Latitude line is much better than the Inspiron in these respects, and it varies greatly from model to model. But Linux on most Dell laptops is pretty much a UFiA*.
* Univited Finger in Ass.
The stable/unstable naming is more an indication of version changes than uptimes. The unstable version of debian can have packages changing versions several times a week sometimes. The problem is that you have to keep updating. If you get too far behind, then doing an update will likely be similar to a dist-upgrade and can run into problems because you have so many packages with major version changes introducing new features, half of them might be incompatible. So when people say it's unstable, they really mean packages are being updated so frequently they break with incompatible new features, rewrites, and config file format changes.
They have this sort of thing, probably in testing, but definitely in unstable. They have ones for KDE desktop, GNOME desktop, kernel images (a meta package that always depends on the latest kernel of a particular major version and platform). Probably a bunch of other ones too, but I'm primarily a fedora user. Getting into Ubuntu lately too.
You shouldn't run testing or unstable on production servers. They get major version upgrades of packages which introduces new features that sometimes break existing deployments. The stable version only gets bugfixes and security patches, sometimes backported to the version that was shipped. This is necessary in a production environment. blahblahblah.heard.it.all.before.blahblahblah Debian's main selling point depends on the role you want it to fill. But the apt dependency resolving package management system combined with the number of packages available are the advantages universal to every role you would try to fill.
Right, outside companies can come to the table to offer support services, but they don't develop/maintain the distribution. Support companies can offer consulting services for any ditribution they want. Debian tends to be too much to bite off for those companies though, hence UserLinux. I don't think Bruce is being paid to develop UserLinux, but his consulting firm will (hopefully) make money supporting it.
UserLinux is community developed, just like Debian. Ubuntu is company developed. So basically, Ubuntu is the corporately funded version of the same concept that drive UserLinux development (Debian-based, new-to-linux user-friendly, GNOME desktop).
From the FAQ.
Most pure debian packages will work on an Ubuntu system. You just can't mix apt sources. See my earlier post.
In some areas, not so much in others. There are quite a few people who have had persistent trouble with CD burning. The Nautilus interface works for just about everyone. But that is really only usefull for burning ISOs and data discs. If you want to do an audio or video disc, then you probably want k3b, and that only works reliably (in Ubuntu) when you run from a root shell. If you don't run from a root shell (as opposed to opening a regular terminal and running 'sudo k3b') then ~/.ICEauthority ends up with the wrong permissions and you can't log back in until you fix them.
- Access to debian apt repositories
Using the debian repositories will most likely break your system. Ubuntu took a snapshot of unstable, and patched/rebuilt much of it. A core set of which is the main and restricted sections of the Ubuntu apt sources. The universe section is apps that have been rebuilt but are unsupported (no updates for security/bugfix in universe). If you add a pure debian repo, you run the risk of having the same package name/version from both the Ubuntu and the debian apt sources, and apt will select one at random. Unfortunately, these packages are likely similar in name/version only as the Ubuntu version has been at least rebuilt against other Ubuntu packages, if not also patched.
If you're just looking for some specific set of pure debian packages which aren't in the Ubuntu apt sources, or maybe the Ubuntu ones are too old, the safest solution is to go through dependency hell and download them manually (the debian debs) and install with dpkg -i.
They will be switching to X.org for the next release.
There is a tonne of software in the Universe repo which is already listed in /etc/apt/source.list, it's just commented out. Add that, and you can get most media stuff. To play CSS DVD's you need to get like two packages from Marillat (search apt-get.org for css to get the apt source)
Because he's not dumb. Do you pay more taxes than you are legally required to? I know I don't, and wouldn't start doing so if I started makeing a dalary in the hundreds of thousands.
man, with talk like that you'll get printers scanners banned under the DMCA as copyright control circumvention devices. Besides, the DRM might block the file from being printable.
You can't get free binary updates from RH. But if you look at a distribution like whitebox, you theoretically get the same thing.
If you want to build them yourself, just use `rpmbuild --rebuild `
You can download all the updates as source RPMs, build them, and install them. You can even download RHE (any version) in it's entirety as source RPMs and build it. Have a look a whitebox linux (it's RHE built from the publically available source RPMs). I don't know about the yearly subscription for updates.
Ubuntu will need at least another 6 months (2nd release) to catch-up with SUSE excluding configuration tools. And much more time after to catch up with SUSE's YaST functionality (if they don't start to use it too :-)./i
Ubuntu is actually more usable for me today than Suse 9.1. I tried out 9.1 on my best laptop and wireless had some big problems. I'm using a prism-based card that works just fine with the orinoco_cs driver. Setting the NIC to use DHCP no default route was ever set. Setting it up statically, the wifi network had to use WEP or I would get destination unreachable trying to ping the router (and no it wasn't a problem with me having mismatched WEP settings on the AP and card, I quadruple checked because that's the obvious answer). When I jumped on #suse, someone said dhcp not setting the default route with wifi was a known problem (although apparently not reproducible)
Regarding Yast, the popular opinion of it on #ubuntu was not fit for print media, so don't hold your breath to see that show up in Ubuntu.
But Suse 9.2 isn't due out for another month, so that's almost two months to test the final release. And they could have been working with development snapshots in the buildup, too.
Assuming a 2.6 kernel (not sure aobut 2.4 kernels) look at /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build and find everything you should need to build modules against your current running kernel.