Hrm... some further google research found this on linux-usb.org:
Device: Disks, CD-RW, etc. Driver: usb-storage Comments: Linux USB 2.0 support seems to work pretty well for the usb-storage devices that now exist, though it's slowed down since the usb-storage driver does not queue its USB requests. (Some devices will run twice as fast when that's fixed.) Most devices seem to use the In-System Design ISD-300 part internally.
(for actually using the device in conjunction with your Linux based PC)
I know kernel 2.5.2 has USB 2.0 support, but does USB 2.0 have some kind of generic storage support like USB does? What filesystem does the device use? If so, would it be easy to simply mount the device as a generic USB 2.0 filesystem without writing drivers?
Yes I have - I mentioned it as an example of a noncompliant application. Mozilla, as packaged by most distribu tions, violates the FHS. Anything which isn't a library or non-user executed binary does not belong in/usr/l ib. Read hte FHS definition for/usr/lib. Hundreds of other apps correctly use/usr/share for this purpose.
BTW, when your using a linux box as a workstation, IE. you are the local administrator
If you are using a Linux box as a workstation you aren't necessarily a system administrator, but anyway...
and should be able to do what you want
Why? This makes it unmaintable for whoever takes over your job / system.
this is why you have/opt and/usr/local/bin/usr/local/sbin,/var/adm, blah the list goes on
Read the FHS. The FHS sorts files by their importance, then by whether they are administrative in nature, and the n by what kind of file they are. / is for programs necessary to recover the system/usr is for others. The sbin d irectories are only for system administrator use, the bin directories aren't./var/adm doesn't exist, because var
is for variable information-,i.e that which changes frequently withlout system administrator information. Binar ies don't belong in/var.
The point is, if you use single directories for applications, you can back the directory up, and install new s oftware without touching system files.
You can already do this with a packaging system.
Why would anyone sane put system files in with application files?
If by system you mean required to repair the system (one common definition), this is already the case: see the FH S definition of / versus/usr.
Microsoft have "Program Files", unix should use/opt or/usr/local.
Why? This limits what I can do. With the current system, I can
back up/etc/home and/var and have everything that's unique about my system.
Mount / read only, and/home and/var read write
Keep all the apps I need for repairing my system in a small and centralized place, so I only need one filesys tem to repair my machine
Keep all my applications in one short path
Keep all my libraries in a short path
I agree heartily with the concept but in this case Unix has something which is massively superior. None of the be nefits listed above would be avaliable, and you haven't shown any gain in your method. I can think of one though : chrooting services would be easier. But asides from that I don't see any reason to change the current system an d lose its many benefits.
Re:On use of /opt
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
FHS says to use/opt for add-in software
Cool. All you have to do is define what add on application software means...good luck.
The FHS also says The directories/opt/bin,/opt/doc,/opt/include,/opt / nfo,/opt/lib, and/opt/man are reserved for local system administrator use...distributions may install software in/opt, but must not modify or delete software installed by the local system administrator without the assent of the local system administrator. I.e, distributions should avoid/opt and leave it to the local system administrator.
Mozilla should puts its bins in/usr/bin, its lib in/usr/lib, and everything else in/usr/share.
Using 1 directory for all your bins is Unix
Re:There is nothing wrong with RPMs. Only packager
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 2
I have never heard any argument that.rpms have a technical superiority to.debs
I have. You just hear these arguments less because, in my experience, there's honestly more Debian people who seem to want to bash people over their head for their choice of distribution.
RPMs verification options are much more powerful (they provide more information about what's changed) than Debsums, which doesn't even exist at all in the stable Debian release.
RPM's database, DB3, has transaction capabilities that make it a little more robust
Various non-technical arguments which are important but not to do with file formats: signing Deb's to particular people is great, now what do you do when they trojan their package. Fire them? Again, this doesn't matter to the file format, but because Debian folk keep throwing policy (which can and does exist for RPM based Linux distro's) I thought I'd throw it in.
so I have to wonder: why don't RPM-based distros don't switch to deb?
Because they both have areas where they are superior to each other
Because RPM has a massive user base and Dpkg doesn't. It would be a long undertaking to do this for little benefit (see below)
Because having a package depend on what an application does is logical. Apt-get works fine with this - I run a repository for Red Hat 7.3 at work.
Because policy is nontechnical and easy to implement on RPM based distros
Because up2date, apt-get, urpmi, and various other front ends do for rpm what apt-get does for dpkg.
Because its probably easier to add the few things which are better about dpkg - suggested / recommended dependencies, and either of dependencies (FTP Server OR Web Server) than to move most distros from RPM to Dpkg and then add the missing features of rpm to dpkg
On use of /opt
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
rpm installs should use the opt directory for major programs./usr/bin and/usr/X11R6/bin is not a dumping ground.
Er, yes they are. Unix has sorted files by their type, rather than what application they belong to, for a very long time. This allows, for example:
All your applications to be in path
Short ldconfig paths
Someone to back up, say, only/var and/etc and get everything they need to restore your system (because the binaries are reloaded from media)
And a great deal more.
If you want to address the files by what application they belong to, that's what a package manager is for. No distribution's packages can use/opt, doing so is forbidden by the FHS.
Luke, package the damned source
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Really, there is nothing to difficult about: ./configure make make install
And all RPM does is automate and standardize this process. The strength of any management system is based around its ubiquity. Installing software outside the packaging system is a bad idea, as suddenly all those standard installation, uninstallation, querying, and verifying systems no longer work - for your unpackages apps, and all the broken packages or other unpackaged apps that rely upon it. Stop thinking of RPM as being seperate from source. it isn't. An RPM is a cpio archive with a source tarball and a spec file like the one below which automates the build process.
Summary: An addictive and frantically paced puzzle game with cute 3D graphics Name: crack-attack Version: 1.1.7 Release: 2mm Source0: http://aluminumangel.org/cgi-bin/download_counter. cgi?attack_linux+attack/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz License: GPL Group: Amusements/Games URL: http://qcd2.mps.ohio-state.edu/attack/ Packager: Mike MacCana BuildRoot: %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version} BuildRequires: glut-devel Requires: glut %description Crack-attack is addictive and frantically paced puzzle game with cute 3D graphics, playable either against the computer in single player or across a network mnultiplayer, where o ne players success clearing blocks dumps large immuntable tiles upon the others block pit. Muahahahaha! %prep %setup -q
%build %configure make
%install %makeinstall
%post -p/sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p/sbin/ldconfig
%clean rm -rf %{buildroot}
%files %defattr(-,root,root) /usr
This will catch all the files installed in/usr, but after you do this, note the names of these files in the package and specify them individually
%doc AUTHORS COPYING INSTALL NEWS README
%changelog * Thu Apr 11 2002 Mike MacCana 1mm - Created packages
Now I'm going to sit back down on my Red Hat 7.3 box and apt-get dist-upgrade all my RPMs from Freshrpms.net
I've tried today to get my system to use this, but I can not find many RPMS that I need.
Freshrpms contains all of Red Hat 7.3 plus a wide variety of additional packages. It doesn't include avifile (but rather, mplayer and xine) but Mathhias Saou, the maintainer, will generally provide additional packages on request.
Alternatively, you could set up your own local apt repository. All you need is a http server (apt-get install thttpd), some packages, and the genbasedir command, which creates some indexes.
The source is the best way, but unpackaged source isn't. It takes less than five minutes to create an RPM from any app that uses GNU autoconf once you're familiar with the system, and if you have the brains to compile your own software, you have the brains to create packages. I'd suggest taking a look at the IBM Developerworks RPM tutorial sometime.
Euw. A package management system, like any other management system, has network effects. I.e, the power of the system is the square of the nodes. I don't install unpackaged applications because removing one of those nodes has a substantial effect on the usefulness of the system. I.e, I can't install any apps on top of Cinererella if I install it from an unpackaged tarball. Luckily we have the Linux Standard Base and RPM, but the Cinererella package apparently must be force installed. Euw.
If Heroine Warrior or anyone reading this will host it, I can provide RPMs that will install on most major Linux distributions. If package dependencies are a support issue that HW don't want to deal with, make an apt repository to serve out the RPMs. Any dependent package will be downloaded as necessary from the apt source of the main distro and installed automatically. My email address is mikem, at the domain name above.
"The bad: Incompatible with some sites built for Internet Explorer"
Uh. Well. Duh.
Why is it so obvious that Mozilla wouldn't do a good job of displaying sites designed for IE? You'd think it was one of the primary goals for Moz. Otherwise, the only hope for a standards compliant web comes from Oepra and Konqueror. Its pretty simple:
Joe Average was gonna use Mozilla because he liked it, but it doesn't apparently want to show sites designed for IE
So Joe Average will stick to using IE
So Dave Web Developer can continue developing sites for IE, because that's what Joe average uses.
When I run the current version of Windows, I use both Mozilla and IE regularly.
Mozilla recently had a major security issue with 1.0RC1, IIRC. Nobody running Mozilla would have known they were vulnerable unless they a) still has their home page set to mozilla.org (yeah right) or b) subscribed to a security mailing list (doubtful for most users).
IE recently had a major security issue with version 6. Anyone running a vulnerable version would realize this as soon as they looked at the screen, because there's a flashing item in the task bar telling them a critical security update needs to be installed.
In this case, response times are irrelevant - someone using the vulnerable Mozilla still wouldn't know about the update as we speak.
What is everyone using--Verisign to verify the identity of a public key?
Generally a passport and drivers license, or two other forms of state funded photo ID, at key signing `parties' for major OSS projects. People bring ID, they state their name and their key, they it is added to the projects list of acceptable public keys.
Only in the Windows world do you really really need a workstation of your own
Windows NT 4 Terminal server has been around for quite a while, and Citrix's Winframe/Metaframe products before that. Get out more before spreading FUD.
However, if it supplied its source code to anyone who bought the built product (even with side-conditions that the source could not be used to commercial advantage etc etc), that would still constitute open source software.
The reason that it's hard to infect a Linux... system is that hardly anyone runs daily activities as root and only updates their/bin,/usr/bin, etc binaries from a known source or from source code.
You said it yourself - hardly anyone updates from a known source. Put up your web page of `mplayer 0.98 CVS packages' and tell some folks on IRC about it (maybe actually include mplayer CVS). This great new version of Mplayer doesn't have packages or come with anyone's distro. Tell some people on IRC. They'll download it, and it will infect every RPM on their system (or Dpkg,but Dpkg isn't LSB and its distros don't have as many users as RPM based ones).
Hell, sign the source / binary packages if you want - if you live in a country where the law doesn't care about this sort of thing, and you don't work for a company where you might be fired for such behavior, go ahead. So many people seem to make a big deal about knowing packages came from a particular source - it doesn't matter if you can't punish that person if they do trojan an app.
So how do you infect your Linux box? Easily, through denial of an obvious threat.
Let me guess, you hang around on IRC a lot? In my experiece, which might not count for much, people that use other distributions, particularly Debian, seem to like advocating their distro by pointing out the shortcomings of others wherever they can. A fellow at my local LUG giving a talk about using Dpkg must have made at least four or five OT remarks about how much he dislikes Red Hat and the things they did in version 6.2 he didn't like (FYI, 6.2 is four releases old and a gret deal has changed since then - conversely I don't rant on about the lack of package verifications tools in the old cut current Debian Potato). Oh well...
In the server market, Red Hat is generally acknowledged to be running on more than 50% of Linux systems. According to Netcraft: On a crude count of Linux Apache sites found by Netcraft where the Apache signature has been branded by the Linux distribution company, Red Hat currently has 69%. SUSE and Debian are the closest challengers with 9% and 8% respectively on a worldwide basis, though SUSE is the leading distribution in German speaking countries.
Thanks for your vast quantity of supporting arguments. If you want most distros to use a very good quality packaging system ou have two options:
Option 1:
Add the features for Dpkg that RPM currently does better (eg, rpm's verification provides more information about what was changed than debsums). Apparently the RPM GPG stuff it also a little more mature than the Debian equivalent, but I'm not 100% sure.
Switch every major distro, which would be easily more than 95% of deployed Linux servers, from RPM to Dpkg. Modify the LSB accordingly.
Move all the third party organizations who package for the LSB to package from rpm to dpkg
I reckon this should only take seven years. If I were following an OS whose standards body did such a thing, I'd decide to change OSs.
Option 2:
Add suggested and recommanded dependencies to RPM
Add either/or dependencies to RPM
Document the changes, create a new RPM version number and make this the LSB standard
That should be about it. RPM already has apt-get support. There are RPM based Linux distributions with quality packaging policy and standards.
I'm off to to do a dist-upgrade on my Red Hat 7.3 machine now.
If the./configure scripts don't work, it's because they were created with some kind of dependency on a nonstandard (non LSB) platform such as RedHat.
That is completely and utterly false. Red Hat is a contributor for the LSB standard, having joined late in the process precisely because smaller distributions would be worried about their dominance. A guide to the FHS is part of the Red Hat Linux reference guide, and Red Hat is the author of many of many of the LSB standards. Jump of the FHS list sometime and see how many Red Hat employees they are, and how responsive they are to queries regarding certain packages.
Both SuSE and Red Hat do non LSB things. There is no 100% compliant LSB distro. Both have a tendency to put nonlibrary, non-binary files in/usr/lib where they should be in/usr/share. Suse specifically breaks the LSB definition of/opt. Both have newer versions of RPM than the standard.
But both distros are improving, and these should be ironed out over time, same as many older issues were -/usr/doc ->/usr/share/doc in Red Hat,/sbin/init.d ->/etc/init.d in SuSE. Someone will finally write an RPM 4 reference the LSB can use, the LSB's will be updated, and distro's will have new, major releaseswhere they can afford to move things round.
These things take time. In the meantime, quit it with the FUD.
The release was put forward a month by what Em called `internet bootleg djs' and Interscope called pirates.
But you can still try steal the album - you'll probably eventually get a full copy of it. But currently it might take a few days, at as a lot of the file sharing services are currently filled with bad mp3s, probably by Interscope, another organization they have hired, or a recording industry body. Most of the tracks you'll see from the Eminem show on file sharing networks are simply a ten second loop played over and over again. Others have a near complete track but stop and switch to country music in the middle, and others have quick noises thrown in there. The file sizes are often identical to the real tracks. There's probably a few different techniques, so its harder to look out for - a looped waveform is pretty easy to detect (with an app, or by listening to the music as it downloads), but the country music one is a lot harder to deal with (you'd already have downloaded 1/2 of the track before you realize its bad). There might be other techniques whoever is doing this has used.
I haven't even said I dislike Slackware, just that I can't see a benefit to forcing users to run text files (as the post I am responding to asserts is the case).
Respond. Don't moderate me into oblivion. That isn't a troll. If you think it is, explain why.
Some people may be wondering why someone would use slackware when there are distros like Mandrake which have a graphical configuration utility for everything. There is a very good reason: to learn about Operating Systems and about Linux. To change a configuration in Slackware, you have to edit text files.
To change configuration in any popular Linux distro you can edit text files. Why do people think that because more modern distros offer people the choice of GUI tools they somehow limit those who wish to edit text files? The only GUI tool I know of that eats hand configured text files this is Linuxconf, which is due more to bugs than design (which is why Linuxconf isn't installed by default in most recent distros). To summarize; how is Slackware better for learning than other distros? Because, as you say, you have to edit a text file?
This is asides from the argument that Unix should be more about building a working network using whatever tools you wish, graphical or text, which save information to text files, rather than dicking around with the intricacies of text file formatting. I'd rather have someone that knew how DHCP worked than how dhcpd.conf was formatted.
The other thing I'd argue is that if people were to learn about Linux they should learn about the Linux Standards Base - things like SysV init scripts, the FHS, and the RPM packaging system (although the FHS is still waiting on the RPM 4 version of Maximum RPM so v3 is still the written standard).
Slashdot Mirror
Hrm... some further google research found this on linux-usb.org:
Device: Disks, CD-RW, etc.
Driver: usb-storage
Comments: Linux USB 2.0 support seems to work pretty well for the usb-storage devices that now exist, though it's slowed down since the usb-storage driver does not queue its USB requests. (Some devices will run twice as fast when that's fixed.) Most devices seem to use the In-System Design ISD-300 part internally.
(for actually using the device in conjunction with your Linux based PC)
I know kernel 2.5.2 has USB 2.0 support, but does USB 2.0 have some kind of generic storage support like USB does? What filesystem does the device use? If so, would it be easy to simply mount the device as a generic USB 2.0 filesystem without writing drivers?
Yes I have - I mentioned it as an example of a noncompliant application. Mozilla, as packaged by most distribu
tions, violates the FHS. Anything which isn't a library or non-user executed binary does not belong in
ib. Read hte FHS definition for
BTW, when your using a linux box as a workstation,
IE. you are the local administrator
If you are using a Linux box as a workstation you aren't necessarily a system administrator, but anyway...
and should be able to do what you want
Why? This makes it unmaintable for whoever takes over your job / system.
this is why you have
Read the FHS. The FHS sorts files by their importance, then by whether they are administrative in nature, and the
n by what kind of file they are. / is for programs necessary to recover the system
irectories are only for system administrator use, the bin directories aren't.
is for variable information-
ies don't belong in
The point is, if you use single directories for applications, you can back the directory up, and install new s
oftware without touching system files.
You can already do this with a packaging system.
Why would anyone sane put system files in with application files?
If by system you mean required to repair the system (one common definition), this is already the case: see the FH
S definition of / versus
Microsoft have "Program Files", unix should use
Why? This limits what I can do. With the current system, I can
tem to repair my machine
I agree heartily with the concept but in this case Unix has something which is massively superior. None of the be
nefits listed above would be avaliable, and you haven't shown any gain in your method. I can think of one though
: chrooting services would be easier. But asides from that I don't see any reason to change the current system an
d lose its many benefits.
FHS says to use /opt for add-in software
/opt/bin, /opt/doc, /opt/include, /opt / nfo, /opt/lib, and /opt/man are reserved for local system administrator use...distributions may install software in /opt, but must not modify or delete software installed by the local system administrator without the assent of the local system administrator. I.e, distributions should avoid /opt and leave it to the local system administrator.
/usr/bin, its lib in /usr/lib, and everything else in /usr/share.
Cool. All you have to do is define what add on application software means...good luck.
The FHS also says The directories
Mozilla should puts its bins in
Using 1 directory for all your bins is Unix
I have. You just hear these arguments less because, in my experience, there's honestly more Debian people who seem to want to bash people over their head for their choice of distribution.
so I have to wonder: why don't RPM-based distros don't switch to deb?
Er, yes they are. Unix has sorted files by their type, rather than what application they belong to, for a very long time. This allows, for example:
If you want to address the files by what application they belong to, that's what a package manager is for. No distribution's packages can use
Really, there is nothing to difficult about:
. cgi?attack_linux+attack/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
/sbin/ldconfig
/sbin/ldconfig
/usr, but after you do this, note the names of these files in the package and specify them individually
./configure
make
make install
And all RPM does is automate and standardize this process. The strength of any management system is based around its ubiquity. Installing software outside the packaging system is a bad idea, as suddenly all those standard installation, uninstallation, querying, and verifying systems no longer work - for your unpackages apps, and all the broken packages or other unpackaged apps that rely upon it. Stop thinking of RPM as being seperate from source. it isn't. An RPM is a cpio archive with a source tarball and a spec file like the one below which automates the build process.
Summary: An addictive and frantically paced puzzle game with cute 3D graphics
Name: crack-attack
Version: 1.1.7
Release: 2mm
Source0: http://aluminumangel.org/cgi-bin/download_counter
License: GPL
Group: Amusements/Games
URL: http://qcd2.mps.ohio-state.edu/attack/
Packager: Mike MacCana
BuildRoot: %{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}
BuildRequires: glut-devel
Requires: glut
%description
Crack-attack is addictive and frantically paced puzzle game with cute 3D graphics, playable either against the computer in single player or across a network mnultiplayer, where o
ne players success clearing blocks dumps large immuntable tiles upon the others block pit. Muahahahaha!
%prep
%setup -q
%build
%configure
make
%install
%makeinstall
%post -p
%postun -p
%clean
rm -rf %{buildroot}
%files
%defattr(-,root,root)
/usr
This will catch all the files installed in
%doc AUTHORS COPYING INSTALL NEWS README
%changelog
* Thu Apr 11 2002 Mike MacCana 1mm
- Created packages
Now I'm going to sit back down on my Red Hat 7.3 box and apt-get dist-upgrade all my RPMs from Freshrpms.net
I've tried today to get my system to use this, but I can not find many RPMS that I need.
Freshrpms contains all of Red Hat 7.3 plus a wide variety of additional packages. It doesn't include avifile (but rather, mplayer and xine) but Mathhias Saou, the maintainer, will generally provide additional packages on request.
Alternatively, you could set up your own local apt repository. All you need is a http server (apt-get install thttpd), some packages, and the genbasedir command, which creates some indexes.
The source is the best way, but unpackaged source isn't. It takes less than five minutes to create an RPM from any app that uses GNU autoconf once you're familiar with the system, and if you have the brains to compile your own software, you have the brains to create packages. I'd suggest taking a look at the IBM Developerworks RPM tutorial sometime.
Use rpm -i --force --nodeps to install it.
Euw. A package management system, like any other management system, has network effects. I.e, the power of the system is the square of the nodes. I don't install unpackaged applications because removing one of those nodes has a substantial effect on the usefulness of the system. I.e, I can't install any apps on top of Cinererella if I install it from an unpackaged tarball. Luckily we have the Linux Standard Base and RPM, but the
Cinererella package apparently must be force installed. Euw.
If Heroine Warrior or anyone reading this will host it, I can provide RPMs that will install on most major Linux distributions. If package dependencies are a support issue that HW don't want to deal with, make an apt repository to serve out the RPMs. Any dependent package will be downloaded as necessary from the apt source of the main distro and installed automatically. My email address is mikem, at the domain name above.
Okay, everyone else already knows the results of the awards. However, there is one serious error on the MTV web site...
Vin Diesel was nominated for Best Male Performance
Uh. Well. Duh.
Why is it so obvious that Mozilla wouldn't do a good job of displaying sites designed for IE? You'd think it was one of the primary goals for Moz. Otherwise, the only hope for a standards compliant web comes from Oepra and Konqueror.
Its pretty simple:
In this case, response times are irrelevant - someone using the vulnerable Mozilla still wouldn't know about the update as we speak.
What is everyone using--Verisign to verify the identity of a public key?
Generally a passport and drivers license, or two other forms of state funded photo ID, at key signing `parties' for major OSS projects. People bring ID, they state their name and their key, they it is added to the projects list of acceptable public keys.
The DMCA's circumvention ban makes an explicit exemption regarding reverse engineering for purposes of interoperability (17 USC 1201(f)).
It certainly does. But try telling that to those that would like the Linux Operating System to interoperate with DVDs.
Only in the Windows world do you really really need a workstation of your own
/Metaframe products before that. Get out more before spreading FUD.
Windows NT 4 Terminal server has been around for quite a while, and Citrix's Winframe
However, if it supplied its source code to anyone who bought the built product (even with side-conditions that the source could not be used to commercial advantage etc etc), that would still constitute open source software.
No it would not. That clause violates section 6 of the Open Source Definition, therefore that would not constitute an Open Source license.
I'm a proud owner of a Mensa membership card.
:)
Nobodies perfect.
The reason that it's hard to infect a Linux
You said it yourself - hardly anyone updates from a known source. Put up your web page of `mplayer 0.98 CVS packages' and tell some folks on IRC about it (maybe actually include mplayer CVS). This great new version of Mplayer doesn't have packages or come with anyone's distro.
Tell some people on IRC. They'll download it, and it will infect every RPM on their system (or Dpkg,but Dpkg isn't LSB and its distros don't have as many users as RPM based ones).
Hell, sign the source / binary packages if you want - if you live in a country where the law doesn't care about this sort of thing, and you don't work for a company where you might be fired for such behavior, go ahead. So many people seem to make a big deal about knowing packages came from a particular source - it doesn't matter if you can't punish that person if they do trojan an app.
So how do you infect your Linux box? Easily, through denial of an obvious threat.
even though no one seems to use it
Let me guess, you hang around on IRC a lot? In my experiece, which might not count for much, people that use other distributions, particularly Debian, seem to like advocating their distro by pointing out the shortcomings of others wherever they can. A fellow at my local LUG giving a talk about using Dpkg must have made at least four or five OT remarks about how much he dislikes Red Hat and the things they did in version 6.2 he didn't like (FYI, 6.2 is four releases old and a gret deal has changed since then - conversely I don't rant on about the lack of package verifications tools in the old cut current Debian Potato). Oh well...
In the server market, Red Hat is generally acknowledged to be running on more than 50% of Linux systems. According to Netcraft:
On a crude count of Linux Apache sites found by Netcraft where the Apache signature has been branded by the Linux distribution company, Red Hat currently has 69%. SUSE and Debian are the closest challengers with 9% and 8% respectively on a worldwide basis, though SUSE is the leading distribution in German speaking countries.
Option 1:
I reckon this should only take seven years. If I were following an OS whose standards body did such a thing, I'd decide to change OSs.
Option 2:
That should be about it. RPM already has apt-get support. There are RPM based Linux distributions with quality packaging policy and standards.
I'm off to to do a dist-upgrade on my Red Hat 7.3 machine now.
If the ./configure scripts don't work, it's because they were created with some kind of dependency on a nonstandard (non LSB) platform such as RedHat.
/usr/lib where they should be in /usr/share. Suse specifically breaks the LSB definition of /opt. Both have newer versions of RPM than the standard.
/usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc in Red Hat, /sbin/init.d -> /etc/init.d in SuSE. Someone will finally write an RPM 4 reference the LSB can use, the LSB's will be updated, and distro's will have new, major releaseswhere they can afford to move things round.
That is completely and utterly false. Red Hat is a contributor for the LSB standard, having joined late in the process precisely because smaller distributions would be worried about their dominance. A guide to the FHS is part of the Red Hat Linux reference guide, and Red Hat is the author of many of many of the LSB standards. Jump of the FHS list sometime and see how many Red Hat employees they are, and how responsive they are to queries regarding certain packages.
Both SuSE and Red Hat do non LSB things. There is no 100% compliant LSB distro. Both have a tendency to put nonlibrary, non-binary files in
But both distros are improving, and these should be ironed out over time, same as many older issues were -
These things take time. In the meantime, quit it with the FUD.
The release was put forward a month by what Em called `internet bootleg djs' and Interscope called pirates.
But you can still try steal the album - you'll probably eventually get a full copy of it. But currently it might take a few days, at as a lot of the file sharing services are currently filled with bad mp3s, probably by Interscope, another organization they have hired, or a recording industry body. Most of the tracks you'll see from the Eminem show on file sharing networks are simply a ten second loop played over and over again. Others have a near complete track but stop and switch to country music in the middle, and others have quick noises thrown in there. The file sizes are often identical to the real tracks. There's probably a few different techniques, so its harder to look out for - a looped waveform is pretty easy to detect (with an app, or by listening to the music as it downloads), but the country music one is a lot harder to deal with (you'd already have downloaded 1/2 of the track before you realize its bad). There might be other techniques whoever is doing this has used.
I haven't even said I dislike Slackware, just that I can't see a benefit to forcing users to run text files (as the post I am responding to asserts is the case).
Respond. Don't moderate me into oblivion. That isn't a troll. If you think it is, explain why.
Slackware does things in very standard ways....The LSB is just wind.
:)
No comment.
Some people may be wondering why someone would use slackware when there are distros like Mandrake which have a graphical configuration utility for everything. There is a very good reason: to learn about Operating Systems and about Linux. To change a configuration in Slackware, you have to edit text files.
To change configuration in any popular Linux distro you can edit text files. Why do people think that because more modern distros offer people the choice of GUI tools they somehow limit those who wish to edit text files? The only GUI tool I know of that eats hand configured text files this is Linuxconf, which is due more to bugs than design (which is why Linuxconf isn't installed by default in most recent distros). To summarize; how is Slackware better for learning than other distros? Because, as you say, you have to edit a text file?
This is asides from the argument that Unix should be more about building a working network using whatever tools you wish, graphical or text, which save information to text files, rather than dicking around with the intricacies of text file formatting. I'd rather have someone that knew how DHCP worked than how dhcpd.conf was formatted.
The other thing I'd argue is that if people were to learn about Linux they should learn about the Linux Standards Base - things like SysV init scripts, the FHS, and the RPM packaging system (although the FHS is still waiting on the RPM 4 version of Maximum RPM so v3 is still the written standard).