The problem isn't within the distro itself. Certainly all the RPM's in Mandriva's repositories will install just fine on Mandriva systems. And Fedora's on Fedora systems. But when you try to install a Mandriva one on Fedora, or a SuSe on Ubuntu... then the problems begin. Not just with dependencies, but with where the files are to be installed on the system.
But the real need for LSB really has nothing to do with a distro's own native packages, it is about cross distro development, distribution, and installation of COMMERCIAL packages that can't be part of a distro's repositories. So the commercial developers have to somehow figure out which base libraries each distro has, and where the important configuration files live, and then build separate packages for every distro and version. That is a real pain... it could mean dozens of packages to support just the top distros: Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, SuSe, and Mandriva (take those 5 and then multiply by however many versions you wish to support... perhaps 4? = 20!)
LSB tries to ensure that most Linux systems will have a certain "minimum/base" set of similar libraries needed for non-statically linked binaries, and some standardization for configuration files. It is a good idea, even if it hasn't really caught on or turns out to be impractical to really implement.
>I hate it that my otherwise fantastic Mandriva 2008-1 system can't be (easily) upgraded to Firefox 3.
I agree with your posting, but that is not the best example. I upgraded to FF 3 under 2008.1 fairly easily. Backports was added to my sources, and I just used "urpmi firefox3", wham, it was installed (and works, and doesn't break the firefox2 install). If you want it to replace ff2, then cd/usr/bin; ln -s firefox3 firefox and you are done. Granted, it COULD have been easier, but not without breaking FF2.
Apparently Mandriva found a way around it too, because their packages of Firefox are modified in many ways from the official source, too (different icons, different file browser, Font changes, non-default color scheme, preloads of different bookmarks, etc).
>Does this mean Debian can go back to using Mozilla/Firefox too?
Probably not. The issue that Debian had is with the restrictions on the Firefox name and logo. Mozilla didn't want people to change the code and then still call it "Firefox", which is a registered trademark. As far as I know, those restrictions have not gone away, they are just not requiring a first-run pop-up with EULA agreement.
>If they had a desire to get this right, they would not have sprang a EULA requirement on Canonical this late
Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around Ubuntu Linux. Firefox is used in lots of other distros, not to mention MS-Windows and MacOS. I seriously doubt the timing had anything to do with anything related to any particular distro.
That aside, THANK YOU MOZILLA FOUNDATION! It was silly to require any type of pop-up to begin with, but being "big enough" to admit it was a mistake and take it off is a VERY good move. Put your license and other info under "Help"... people will see it if/when necessary.
Mandriva has been using noatime as the default on ALL mounted Linux partitions since something like 2008.0 or 2007.1. I do, however, think that "relatime" (you mistyped it) is a better way to go than plain noatime.
Mandriva is a very strong distro. It has a long history, great hardware support, nice GUI install, refined GUI and text admin tools, a huge repository of packages, and several versions to meet just about any Linux need. They were the first (besides Debian) to have automatic package dependency resolution, the first to have 586/686 optimized kernels, and they still treat Gnome and KDE as equal citizens within a single distro without splitting things up. It isn't as popular as it used to be, but that is not because they are doing anything "wrong", there are just more strong players in the "market" now (which is a good thing).
Distrowatch has not been proven to be a reliable indication of number of users of any distro... although it can be a useful statistic. Personally, I known more people that have gone from Mandriva to some other distro (like Ubuntu) and then returned to Mandriva, than those who have left and stayed gone.
As for a "netbook" specific flavor of Mandriva- I think they did the right thing at the beginning, which was to just have the mainline iso (2008.1) adapt the install when it senses it is being installed on a netbook (like an EEE). Adjust screen res, adapt the draketools, change sync strategy, etc. I am not sure having a separate iso just for a single type of install is a good idea. It is more to maintain, more to download, etc.
If people respond, you will probably get suggestions for just about everything out there. I would suggest trying Mandriva. If the problems you are having is with the kernel, then it is likely switching distros is not going to help. You will just have to wait for and hope for eventual support.
But the real issue is that you should have researched Linux compatibility of your hardware BEFORE buying! When you shop for tires for your car, you typically make sure you are looking at ones that are the correct size...
If the card can be read without my permission, it will be. They try it now, even though it has no RFID. All it takes is cross-referencing the number to be very dangerous.
I "accidentally" damaged the barcode on my licence AND one of two digits of the printed number on the front. And for this exact reason. I will give you one of MANY real-world (actually happened to me) examples why:
I tried to return a shirt to a store s: store m: me
s: We will be glad to offer you an exchange or refund. We need to see your ID. m: Here is my driver's license to prove I am who I say I am. s: (looks at license and IMMEDIATELY starts keying my number into the register) s: Oh, your number is damaged, could you please tell me the missing digits. m: Sorry, but you need to verify who I am. I didn't give you permission to record my number into a computer. s: But we have to have it to prove we saw your ID. m: Um, having the number doesn't really prove anything. s: But we have to have the number. m: No you don't- you have to know I am who I say I am, now you know. My name matches the receipt. You do not need to record my DRIVER'S LICENSE number to return a shirt at a retail store. s: But the license is invalid. m: No it isn't. You can see the picture. The watermark is intact. My name and address are on the card. It is not expired. I paid money for it. I passed the required tests. I assure you, it is authentic. s: But what if you get pulled over by the police? m: Then I will happily tell them the number. If I refused, it would be no different than if I didn't produce my license at all. If I lied (which I would not do), they would know immediately, also. s: Well, it is our policy, so I can't offer you a refund or exchange without the number.
Get the idea? And what happens when your "ID" is used to get into a club? Or buy alcohol or whatever? They have need to verify my age, not record my identity in some computer that can then be searched, stolen, cross-referenced, whatever. With RFID, the problem is even worse- your info could be recorded into a database without even knowing it. You will have NO control over what is done with the information or how long it is retained.
The only way to protect your privacy is ACTIVELY, it cannot be done by trusting others will do the right thing. Privacy has nothing to do with "if you have nothing to hide" and everything to do with "what MIGHT you lose".
That is what is "scary" about the whole business of someone like Google releasing something supposedly so innovative and important like Chrome... Although Google does support Linux coding, and does use Linux and MacOS internally, and has even released SOME multiplatform stuff (like Google Earth) they have repeatedly released software that is single-platform, MS-Windows-only. The Linux and MacOS crowds certainly have reason for concern and scepticism about Chrome.
In any case, my point with the thread is: Although I do believe that EVENTUALLY Chrome will be ported to Linux and MacOS, a lot of the "damage" is done by not releasing multiplatform right from the get-go. If they want to promote choice in browsers, they should have started with choice in OS.
>But Chrome is still at a beta (?) stage isn't it...
What difference does it make if it is beta or not? There is almost no work done on Linux or MacOS versions, so what are those? Pre-alpha? Pre-concept? Is beta + preconcept * 2 = beta? Chrome is a hell of a long way from being multiplatform.
> give it (well, the Windows version anyway) a chance!
Many of us *can't* give it a chance, because we can't run Chrome on our platforms. Google had their chance- a chance to set an example of how software can be released for more than just one OS. Now it is just history.
Google had the chance to show openness, platform independence, support for Open Systems principles and designs, and true independence from Microsoft control with Chrome, but lost it. If ever there were an important time to make sure of a simultaneous, multiplatform release, this would have been it. Instead, we have a typical "release for the largest platform" with weak promises of eventual support for everyone else. That isn't a good message for 2008; it doesn't match the "visionary" of what they are trying to do with Chrome.
Google irritated a large number of users that would have been most likely to try and promote Chrome and to give contributions to the code- those NOT using MS-Windows. I think it was a huge mistake they didn't hold the release until there was a reasonable set of code for all the three major platforms. Given Google's resources, I doubt it would have been all that difficult.
I have talked to many Linux and MacOS users about Chrome- most are disappointed, some extremely disappointed, and many are quite bitter, too. You can't blame them for being unhappy... and this article indicates that seeing Chrome on Linux and MacOS is nowhere near "right around the corner".
I beg to differ. A hard link is a hard link. If you delete or rename one hard link in Unix/Linux, it most certainly does not make the original file "disappear". Unix/Linux hard links can be used in EXACTLY the manner in which the poster I replied to described. And with hard links, there are no "originals", every link points to the one file. It doesn't matter what you do to any of the hard links (move (on the same filesystem), rename, delete), it does nothing to the remaining hard links, which remain exactly the same. Although if you change the SETTINGS on one hard link (owner/group/modes), then all the other hard links change also.
Although I certainly like the idea of open source books and content, and on the web, CK-12's user interface is horrible! Have any of you tried it???? Unnecessary animation, dreadfully slow reaction, strange web design elements that put a tremendous load on the browser, no way to go "back" from where you came, etc. I used the scroll wheel to move up and it was still trying to scroll it several SECONDS after I let go of the wheel! This is on a fast dual processor machine!! Well, at least it is not IE only.
You will note the post I replied to never said anything about moving a file from one filesystem to another, he only said "rename" it and it will break:)
> Try this with Linux or Windows. Keep a link to a file on your desktop, now drop down to the command line and rename the original file. Used to break Linux, it might try to search now, Windows will try a search if it's similar. OS/2 has no such problem, the 2 are automagically linked.
Um, you can do that in Linux with a simple hard link instead of a symbolic link. You could do that in Unix with hard links before symbolic links were even invented and before there was such as thing as Linux, MacOS, OS/2, or MS-Windows.
Yes, but that is webkit- just the rendering engine. It is not the same as Chrome, a desktop web browser. It is like taking gecko, which might be small and efficient and throwing it into the largest Mozilla possible. Still, good point (I was thinking about that when posting, but posted anyway).
Re:While comparing browsers...
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
That is actually something I have used in the past- intentionally slowing things down to really see how they perform. One of the best ways under Unix/Linux is to use an Xterminal to which you restrict the bandwidth. Of course, you can get the same effect by just running the Xclient remotely through ssh from another Linux machine, across a slow connection. Then you can "see" and "feel" what might not be evident on fast LAN connections.
When working with thin clients, it is a good way to see how things might behave if you were to scale up the number of users on a centralized system.
"Thin" won't be "in"
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
>"surely announce a new, very demanding era in Web-centric computing"
Yep, an era that won't sit well for users of thin-clients, multiuser servers, older machines, and smaller mobile stuff. I think some of the ideas in Chrome are good, but I am not so sure I like the idea of ultra-fat browsers. I recently was complaining that Firefox was starting to get bloated (defeating the goal of FireFox, to be lean and mean). I don't mind different concepts, except the design of web sites will, no doubt, start demanding more and more "fatness" to work (kinda like trying to use the web without Flash).
Since (as of THIS posting) my observations were modded as a "Troll", which it is not, they might not see it anyway. Oh well... I guess I am just whacked and Google can do no wrong.
Yes I would. If it is that major of a project and that important to them.... Absolutely yes.
If it is supposed to be open and supposed to be multiplatform and really is portable... YES.
And I would think it just as odd and inappropriate if they released it only for Linux or only for MacOS first.
Even though it was unlikely meant to be an insult, I bet in one move, they have successfully pissed off at least 50% of the users that would be MOST LIKELY to try Chrome- those NOT using MS-Windows. And those MOST LIKELY to give feedback and contributions.
And there you have it. Google dropped their bombshell. Chrome. This is going to send shockwaves throughout the Internet.
And when you go to check it out:
MS-Windows only??? WTF??!?!!
What a perfect way to show openness, platform independence, support for standards, support for Open Systems principles and designs, and independence from Microsoft control.
Yes, we all know it will be "coming soon" for Linux and MacOS, but that is no excuse. If ever there were an important moment to make sure of a simultaneous, multiplatform release, THIS WOULD BE IT. *YOU BLEW IT GOOGLE* Thanks for sending such a positive message.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem isn't within the distro itself. Certainly all the RPM's in Mandriva's repositories will install just fine on Mandriva systems. And Fedora's on Fedora systems. But when you try to install a Mandriva one on Fedora, or a SuSe on Ubuntu... then the problems begin. Not just with dependencies, but with where the files are to be installed on the system.
But the real need for LSB really has nothing to do with a distro's own native packages, it is about cross distro development, distribution, and installation of COMMERCIAL packages that can't be part of a distro's repositories. So the commercial developers have to somehow figure out which base libraries each distro has, and where the important configuration files live, and then build separate packages for every distro and version. That is a real pain... it could mean dozens of packages to support just the top distros: Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, SuSe, and Mandriva (take those 5 and then multiply by however many versions you wish to support... perhaps 4? = 20!)
LSB tries to ensure that most Linux systems will have a certain "minimum/base" set of similar libraries needed for non-statically linked binaries, and some standardization for configuration files. It is a good idea, even if it hasn't really caught on or turns out to be impractical to really implement.
>I hate it that my otherwise fantastic Mandriva 2008-1 system can't be (easily) upgraded to Firefox 3.
I agree with your posting, but that is not the best example. I upgraded to FF 3 under 2008.1 fairly easily. Backports was added to my sources, and I just used "urpmi firefox3", wham, it was installed (and works, and doesn't break the firefox2 install). If you want it to replace ff2, then cd /usr/bin; ln -s firefox3 firefox and you are done. Granted, it COULD have been easier, but not without breaking FF2.
Apparently Mandriva found a way around it too, because their packages of Firefox are modified in many ways from the official source, too (different icons, different file browser, Font changes, non-default color scheme, preloads of different bookmarks, etc).
>Does this mean Debian can go back to using Mozilla/Firefox too?
Probably not. The issue that Debian had is with the restrictions on the Firefox name and logo. Mozilla didn't want people to change the code and then still call it "Firefox", which is a registered trademark. As far as I know, those restrictions have not gone away, they are just not requiring a first-run pop-up with EULA agreement.
>If they had a desire to get this right, they would not have sprang a EULA requirement on Canonical this late
Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around Ubuntu Linux. Firefox is used in lots of other distros, not to mention MS-Windows and MacOS. I seriously doubt the timing had anything to do with anything related to any particular distro.
That aside, THANK YOU MOZILLA FOUNDATION! It was silly to require any type of pop-up to begin with, but being "big enough" to admit it was a mistake and take it off is a VERY good move. Put your license and other info under "Help"... people will see it if/when necessary.
Mandriva has been using noatime as the default on ALL mounted Linux partitions since something like 2008.0 or 2007.1. I do, however, think that "relatime" (you mistyped it) is a better way to go than plain noatime.
Mandriva is a very strong distro. It has a long history, great hardware support, nice GUI install, refined GUI and text admin tools, a huge repository of packages, and several versions to meet just about any Linux need. They were the first (besides Debian) to have automatic package dependency resolution, the first to have 586/686 optimized kernels, and they still treat Gnome and KDE as equal citizens within a single distro without splitting things up. It isn't as popular as it used to be, but that is not because they are doing anything "wrong", there are just more strong players in the "market" now (which is a good thing).
Distrowatch has not been proven to be a reliable indication of number of users of any distro... although it can be a useful statistic. Personally, I known more people that have gone from Mandriva to some other distro (like Ubuntu) and then returned to Mandriva, than those who have left and stayed gone.
As for a "netbook" specific flavor of Mandriva- I think they did the right thing at the beginning, which was to just have the mainline iso (2008.1) adapt the install when it senses it is being installed on a netbook (like an EEE). Adjust screen res, adapt the draketools, change sync strategy, etc. I am not sure having a separate iso just for a single type of install is a good idea. It is more to maintain, more to download, etc.
You are full of s***.
If people respond, you will probably get suggestions for just about everything out there. I would suggest trying Mandriva. If the problems you are having is with the kernel, then it is likely switching distros is not going to help. You will just have to wait for and hope for eventual support.
But the real issue is that you should have researched Linux compatibility of your hardware BEFORE buying!
When you shop for tires for your car, you typically make sure you are looking at ones that are the correct size...
If the card can be read without my permission, it will be. They try it now, even though it has no RFID. All it takes is cross-referencing the number to be very dangerous.
I "accidentally" damaged the barcode on my licence AND one of two digits of the printed number on the front. And for this exact reason. I will give you one of MANY real-world (actually happened to me) examples why:
I tried to return a shirt to a store s: store m: me
s: We will be glad to offer you an exchange or refund. We need to see your ID.
m: Here is my driver's license to prove I am who I say I am.
s: (looks at license and IMMEDIATELY starts keying my number into the register)
s: Oh, your number is damaged, could you please tell me the missing digits.
m: Sorry, but you need to verify who I am. I didn't give you permission to record my number into a computer.
s: But we have to have it to prove we saw your ID.
m: Um, having the number doesn't really prove anything.
s: But we have to have the number.
m: No you don't- you have to know I am who I say I am, now you know. My name matches the receipt. You do not need to record my DRIVER'S LICENSE number to return a shirt at a retail store.
s: But the license is invalid.
m: No it isn't. You can see the picture. The watermark is intact. My name and address are on the card. It is not expired. I paid money for it. I passed the required tests. I assure you, it is authentic.
s: But what if you get pulled over by the police?
m: Then I will happily tell them the number. If I refused, it would be no different than if I didn't produce my license at all. If I lied (which I would not do), they would know immediately, also.
s: Well, it is our policy, so I can't offer you a refund or exchange without the number.
Get the idea? And what happens when your "ID" is used to get into a club? Or buy alcohol or whatever? They have need to verify my age, not record my identity in some computer that can then be searched, stolen, cross-referenced, whatever. With RFID, the problem is even worse- your info could be recorded into a database without even knowing it. You will have NO control over what is done with the information or how long it is retained.
The only way to protect your privacy is ACTIVELY, it cannot be done by trusting others will do the right thing. Privacy has nothing to do with "if you have nothing to hide" and everything to do with "what MIGHT you lose".
And the same thing in Virginia. Many people worked very hard to FINALLY get VA to remove the damn SS# off the card.
That is what is "scary" about the whole business of someone like Google releasing something supposedly so innovative and important like Chrome... Although Google does support Linux coding, and does use Linux and MacOS internally, and has even released SOME multiplatform stuff (like Google Earth) they have repeatedly released software that is single-platform, MS-Windows-only. The Linux and MacOS crowds certainly have reason for concern and scepticism about Chrome.
In any case, my point with the thread is: Although I do believe that EVENTUALLY Chrome will be ported to Linux and MacOS, a lot of the "damage" is done by not releasing multiplatform right from the get-go. If they want to promote choice in browsers, they should have started with choice in OS.
>But Chrome is still at a beta (?) stage isn't it...
What difference does it make if it is beta or not? There is almost no work done on Linux or MacOS versions, so what are those? Pre-alpha? Pre-concept? Is beta + preconcept * 2 = beta? Chrome is a hell of a long way from being multiplatform.
> give it (well, the Windows version anyway) a chance!
Many of us *can't* give it a chance, because we can't run Chrome on our platforms. Google had their chance- a chance to set an example of how software can be released for more than just one OS. Now it is just history.
Google had the chance to show openness, platform independence, support for Open Systems principles and designs, and true independence from Microsoft control with Chrome, but lost it. If ever there were an important time to make sure of a simultaneous, multiplatform release, this would have been it. Instead, we have a typical "release for the largest platform" with weak promises of eventual support for everyone else. That isn't a good message for 2008; it doesn't match the "visionary" of what they are trying to do with Chrome.
Google irritated a large number of users that would have been most likely to try and promote Chrome and to give contributions to the code- those NOT using MS-Windows. I think it was a huge mistake they didn't hold the release until there was a reasonable set of code for all the three major platforms. Given Google's resources, I doubt it would have been all that difficult.
I have talked to many Linux and MacOS users about Chrome- most are disappointed, some extremely disappointed, and many are quite bitter, too. You can't blame them for being unhappy... and this article indicates that seeing Chrome on Linux and MacOS is nowhere near "right around the corner".
I beg to differ. A hard link is a hard link. If you delete or rename one hard link in Unix/Linux, it most certainly does not make the original file "disappear". Unix/Linux hard links can be used in EXACTLY the manner in which the poster I replied to described. And with hard links, there are no "originals", every link points to the one file. It doesn't matter what you do to any of the hard links (move (on the same filesystem), rename, delete), it does nothing to the remaining hard links, which remain exactly the same. Although if you change the SETTINGS on one hard link (owner/group/modes), then all the other hard links change also.
Although I certainly like the idea of open source books and content, and on the web, CK-12's user interface is horrible! Have any of you tried it???? Unnecessary animation, dreadfully slow reaction, strange web design elements that put a tremendous load on the browser, no way to go "back" from where you came, etc. I used the scroll wheel to move up and it was still trying to scroll it several SECONDS after I let go of the wheel! This is on a fast dual processor machine!! Well, at least it is not IE only.
You will note the post I replied to never said anything about moving a file from one filesystem to another, he only said "rename" it and it will break :)
> Try this with Linux or Windows. Keep a link to a file on your desktop, now drop down to the command line and rename the original file. Used to break Linux, it might try to search now, Windows will try a search if it's similar. OS/2 has no such problem, the 2 are automagically linked.
Um, you can do that in Linux with a simple hard link instead of a symbolic link. You could do that in Unix with hard links before symbolic links were even invented and before there was such as thing as Linux, MacOS, OS/2, or MS-Windows.
Yes, but that is webkit- just the rendering engine. It is not the same as Chrome, a desktop web browser. It is like taking gecko, which might be small and efficient and throwing it into the largest Mozilla possible. Still, good point (I was thinking about that when posting, but posted anyway).
That is actually something I have used in the past- intentionally slowing things down to really see how they perform. One of the best ways under Unix/Linux is to use an Xterminal to which you restrict the bandwidth. Of course, you can get the same effect by just running the Xclient remotely through ssh from another Linux machine, across a slow connection. Then you can "see" and "feel" what might not be evident on fast LAN connections.
When working with thin clients, it is a good way to see how things might behave if you were to scale up the number of users on a centralized system.
>"surely announce a new, very demanding era in Web-centric computing"
Yep, an era that won't sit well for users of thin-clients, multiuser servers, older machines, and smaller mobile stuff. I think some of the ideas in Chrome are good, but I am not so sure I like the idea of ultra-fat browsers. I recently was complaining that Firefox was starting to get bloated (defeating the goal of FireFox, to be lean and mean). I don't mind different concepts, except the design of web sites will, no doubt, start demanding more and more "fatness" to work (kinda like trying to use the web without Flash).
Now I will go crawl back under my 90's rock...
Since (as of THIS posting) my observations were modded as a "Troll", which it is not, they might not see it anyway. Oh well... I guess I am just whacked and Google can do no wrong.
Yes I would. If it is that major of a project and that important to them.... Absolutely yes.
If it is supposed to be open and supposed to be multiplatform and really is portable... YES.
And I would think it just as odd and inappropriate if they released it only for Linux or only for MacOS first.
Even though it was unlikely meant to be an insult, I bet in one move, they have successfully pissed off at least 50% of the users that would be MOST LIKELY to try Chrome- those NOT using MS-Windows. And those MOST LIKELY to give feedback and contributions.
It was a huge mistake.
And there you have it. Google dropped their bombshell. Chrome. This is going to send shockwaves throughout the Internet.
And when you go to check it out:
MS-Windows only??? WTF??!?!!
What a perfect way to show openness, platform independence, support for standards, support for Open Systems principles and designs, and independence from Microsoft control.
Yes, we all know it will be "coming soon" for Linux and MacOS, but that is no excuse. If ever there were an important moment to make sure of a simultaneous, multiplatform release, THIS WOULD BE IT. *YOU BLEW IT GOOGLE* Thanks for sending such a positive message.
You insensitive clod!
I don't know about your field, but nobody *I* know gets offered a pension. I think that perk is mostly long gone, except for government workers.
401k/457/etc... start early, be serious, be consistent...