I disagree. The CLI is less, but almost as badly, fragmented as the GUI layer. There's still no standard way to set up an IP address for an interface on Linux.
Furthermore, I don't think the ability to learn something is tied to the interface used to talk to that part of the system.
As long as someone knows that, for example, physical volumes are combined to make volume groups, which are then divided into formattable, mountable logical volumes, whether they're using the LVM CLI tools or GUI equivalents really doesn't matter - as long as they understand the oncepts they'll be able to easily figure out each tool.
You could test my claim by reading eweeks report of Suse 9.1, or by reading Mandrake's bugzilla.
Out of interest, did you partition your system whilst using 2.6 or not? If you did, and particularly if you have a smaller drive, the bug should have made itself apparent.
This problem is most certainly NOT caused by merely running Kernel 2.6.x.
I never said it was. Its from partitioning while Linux kernel 2.6.
Its informative because most of the posters have been assuming that the bug affects Fedora exclusively - it affects Mandrake and Suse, and if Debian installed using kernel 2.6, it'd affect Debian too.
Sorry for the caps. This bug does not cause people to lose data. This does not wipe your partition table. It creates a correct partition table that Windows can't read, on some machines, where partitioning was done while running a 2.6 kernel.
Debian doesn't show the problem cause most Debian users aren't partitioning their system while running on 2.6.
gpart is a little dangerous. Your current partition table is correct, its just in the wrong format. Use sfdisk (see above) to fix the prolem.
I wonder if this could be another bug caused by a vendor forking their own kernel, like Mandrake's recent problem adding a CD-ROM packet driver that caused LG CD-ROM drives to fail. And no, this is not a troll.
The problem wasn't caused by Mandrake's kernel. it was caused by bad CD ROM drives that decide to update their firmware when told to clear their buffer.
The fix is to get an updated firmware that's not retarded.
I dual boot FC2 which I repartitioned using kernel 2.6 and a copy of XP. The problem didn't show up for me, but it could have. Like your Suse and Mandrake installs, from what I've heard it mainly depends on your drive geometry.
This is Linux kernel 2.6 - Mandrake 10, Suse 9.1 and Fedora Core 2 all suffer from this problem.
Switching to Debian won't help if you want Linux kernel 2.6. Your paritition table will be fubared.
Furthermore, people do know what's causing the problem. The Linux kernel now doesn't show the same disk geometry as the BIOS does. The fix is to use sfdisk to recreate the partition table.
It does not limit me. I get EVERYTHING the newbie Linux distros offers, except hand holding.
Someone using such a system is limited precisely because there's no hand holding. Most people don't learn through immersion, they learn through building one piece of knowledge on top of another. Something which seems like what they already know allows them to learn about the new thing, rather than the new thing and a particular interface for people.
This is why I don't like the LPI - having someone know how to set up the LVM is more important than testing whether they know that the 'tac' commands is cat backwards.
And vice versa. Which makes it hard to compare the two.
And the future is multiprocessors...
According to whom? Sun? There's a lot of high end work that's massively parallel, and clusters on commodity hardware are becoming huge. That said, if you want to pay for a 256 CPU Linux box, SGI will sell you one. Including hot swappable CPU support.
I wouldn't be surprised if page locking wasn't available in Linux too.
Rather than overwhelming them by limiting their interaction to the system to the command line, I'd let them approach things on their own terms - CLI if they prefer, GUI otherwise. The interface used to set something up has little bearing of the understanding of such concepts.
Microsoft denounces Linux, which is a competing operating system. They don't necessarily denounce open source software in general (at least, not that I've heard of.) That would be sort of foolish...I mean, you have to denounce a rival's products, that's obvious. But to denounce the way he makes them when other world class software vendors are considering them would be shooting yourself in the foot.
From http://news.com.com/2100-1001-270684.html?legacy=c net
Earlier in the year, that feature led Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer to call open-source software a "cancer" and Windows leader Jim Allchin to call it "an intellectual-property destroyer."
All this is actually kind of funny... because couldn't all of his arguments be fix by simply... adding the option to browse in a single window as a menu option???
Yes. That this basic functionality wasn't included for such a significant UI change is a perfectly valid basis for criticism.
The most damaging part of the "review" is that it says nothing aboout Gnome as a whole. It's just a rant about this user's opinion about how Nautilus was designed ( changed) to work in 2.6
Er, no. Did you read the review? Petreley's main concern is that he isn't given the choice in how Gnome operates - in fact, he's given less choice than in Windows, which (unlike Gnome) doesn't require registry editing to change the default behavior.
I think its got a long way to go til it becomes usable. Too much effort is spent on making Gnome a next generation desktop when its not yet up to the standard of a current generation desktop.
Emblems, spatial Nautilus, contextual sidebars etc are great. So are Evo, Gimp 2, XChat Gnome, etc.
But the current Gnome desktop:
* No menu editor * No way to modify what a launcher points to * A file manager that acts like it can display web pages, then can't * A bloody complex file associations menu that doesn't know about either the programs in my Gnome menu, or $PATH. * No display of emergency messages when your hard disks decide to melt (apparently users have to be proactive and read/dev/console themselves all the time, you know, just in case...) * No decent looking, comprehensive theme. Minor in comparision to the rest, but still...
If you want a real Open Source emulator that's complete enough to run Windows XP (and do so with usable speed), QEmu is your only option. Currently it simulates a Pentium, Vesa fgramebuffer video card, and ISA NE2000 NIC.
Check out this dude's blog for screenshots of QEmu running Win2K.
Combine it with a copy of x86 glibc and a recent Crossover, you can use it to run Office XP for Windows on Linux on a Mac. Scary:^).
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. The CLI is less, but almost as badly, fragmented as the GUI layer. There's still no standard way to set up an IP address for an interface on Linux.
Furthermore, I don't think the ability to learn something is tied to the interface used to talk to that part of the system.
As long as someone knows that, for example, physical volumes are combined to make volume groups, which are then divided into formattable, mountable logical volumes, whether they're using the LVM CLI tools or GUI equivalents really doesn't matter - as long as they understand the oncepts they'll be able to easily figure out each tool.
You could test my claim by reading eweeks report of Suse 9.1, or by reading Mandrake's bugzilla.
Out of interest, did you partition your system whilst using 2.6 or not? If you did, and particularly if you have a smaller drive, the bug should have made itself apparent.
I'd also like to add I think you're a dickhead.
Cheers.
Mike.
This problem is most certainly NOT caused by merely running Kernel 2.6.x.
I never said it was. Its from partitioning while Linux kernel 2.6.
Its informative because most of the posters have been assuming that the bug affects Fedora exclusively - it affects Mandrake and Suse, and if Debian installed using kernel 2.6, it'd affect Debian too.
Nody has lost any data from this. The partition table written is usable, it just needs to be changed into the right geometry format.
No data is lost. 512 bytes of data is written in a format that's incompatible with Windows.
Sorry for the caps. This bug does not cause people to lose data. This does not wipe your partition table. It creates a correct partition table that Windows can't read, on some machines, where partitioning was done while running a 2.6 kernel.
Debian doesn't show the problem cause most Debian users aren't partitioning their system while running on 2.6.
gpart is a little dangerous. Your current partition table is correct, its just in the wrong format. Use sfdisk (see above) to fix the prolem.
I wonder if this could be another bug caused by a vendor forking their own kernel, like Mandrake's recent problem adding a CD-ROM packet driver that caused LG CD-ROM drives to fail. And no, this is not a troll.
The problem wasn't caused by Mandrake's kernel. it was caused by bad CD ROM drives that decide to update their firmware when told to clear their buffer.
The fix is to get an updated firmware that's not retarded.
I dual boot FC2 which I repartitioned using kernel 2.6 and a copy of XP. The problem didn't show up for me, but it could have. Like your Suse and Mandrake installs, from what I've heard it mainly depends on your drive geometry.
Yes, it is. Did you partition your system while running a 2.6 kernel? Most Debian users don't. If you did, there's a chance this could happen.
I have Fedora Core 2 and don't have the problem either - its some machines - I'm assuming its to do with the geometry of the hard disk.
Rather than tell a newbie he MUST do something the "most people" way, I prefer to give him or her a choice.
Er yes. Me too. That's why I want to give them the choice of hand holding or not. It seems you don't.
The fix is here.
This is Linux kernel 2.6 - Mandrake 10, Suse 9.1 and Fedora Core 2 all suffer from this problem.
Switching to Debian won't help if you want Linux kernel 2.6. Your paritition table will be fubared.
Furthermore, people do know what's causing the problem. The Linux kernel now doesn't show the same disk geometry as the BIOS does. The fix is to use sfdisk to recreate the partition table.
It does not limit me. I get EVERYTHING the newbie Linux distros offers, except hand holding.
Someone using such a system is limited precisely because there's no hand holding. Most people don't learn through immersion, they learn through building one piece of knowledge on top of another. Something which seems like what they already know allows them to learn about the new thing, rather than the new thing and a particular interface for people.
This is why I don't like the LPI - having someone know how to set up the LVM is more important than testing whether they know that the 'tac' commands is cat backwards.
And vice versa. Which makes it hard to compare the two.
And the future is multiprocessors...
According to whom? Sun? There's a lot of high end work that's massively parallel, and clusters on commodity hardware are becoming huge. That said, if you want to pay for a 256 CPU Linux box, SGI will sell you one. Including hot swappable CPU support.
I wouldn't be surprised if page locking wasn't available in Linux too.
Why should someone be forced to learn something?
Rather than overwhelming them by limiting their interaction to the system to the command line, I'd let them approach things on their own terms - CLI if they prefer, GUI otherwise. The interface used to set something up has little bearing of the understanding of such concepts.
Yes I know. But they denounced Open Source, even while shipping it in Windows (the FTP clients, Perl on the ResKits, etc).
Just because its dumb doesn't mean they didn't.
Microsoft denounces Linux, which is a competing operating system. They don't necessarily denounce open source software in general (at least, not that I've heard of.) That would be sort of foolish...I mean, you have to denounce a rival's products, that's obvious. But to denounce the way he makes them when other world class software vendors are considering them would be shooting yourself in the foot.
c net
From http://news.com.com/2100-1001-270684.html?legacy=
Earlier in the year, that feature led Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer to call open-source software a "cancer" and Windows leader Jim Allchin to call it "an intellectual-property destroyer."
three seperate methods to access the old view, one of which is even on the panel by default
Yes, but no way to change this behavior permanently without hacking Gconf settings - which is precisely what Nick was talking about
All this is actually kind of funny... because couldn't all of his arguments be fix by simply... adding the option to browse in a single window as a menu option???
Yes. That this basic functionality wasn't included for such a significant UI change is a perfectly valid basis for criticism.
The most damaging part of the "review" is that it says nothing aboout Gnome as a whole. It's just a rant about this user's opinion about how Nautilus was designed ( changed) to work in 2.6
Er, no. Did you read the review? Petreley's main concern is that he isn't given the choice in how Gnome operates - in fact, he's given less choice than in Windows, which (unlike Gnome) doesn't require registry editing to change the default behavior.
Or the system colors.
I think its got a long way to go til it becomes usable. Too much effort is spent on making Gnome a next generation desktop when its not yet up to the standard of a current generation desktop.
/dev/console themselves all the time, you know, just in case...)
Emblems, spatial Nautilus, contextual sidebars etc are great. So are Evo, Gimp 2, XChat Gnome, etc.
But the current Gnome desktop:
* No menu editor
* No way to modify what a launcher points to
* A file manager that acts like it can display web pages, then can't
* A bloody complex file associations menu that doesn't know about either the programs in my Gnome menu, or $PATH.
* No display of emergency messages when your hard disks decide to melt (apparently users have to be proactive and read
* No decent looking, comprehensive theme. Minor in comparision to the rest, but still...
Thanks for fixing the File Open dialog though.
When will there be a viable challenger to Exchange Server?
Now.
In order to use Ximian Connector, you need to buy an Exchange CAL and a Windows CAL.
Why would I need to buy a Windows CAL?
If you want a real Open Source emulator that's complete enough to run Windows XP (and do so with usable speed), QEmu is your only option. Currently it simulates a Pentium, Vesa fgramebuffer video card, and ISA NE2000 NIC.
:^).
Check out this dude's blog for screenshots of QEmu running Win2K.
Combine it with a copy of x86 glibc and a recent Crossover, you can use it to run Office XP for Windows on Linux on a Mac. Scary
Go get it from the Qemu Site.