you would not see the Texinfo manual for dd. While the documentation viewer (ie./usr/bin/info) may have been installed, the actual documentation (eg./usr/share/info/coreutils.info.gz) was not.
The rationale given (again, IIRC) by Arch Linux for the exclusion of the Texinfo manuals was that the manuals added too much bloat. My problem with this was that the Texinfo manual of a package is often the canonical (or more complete, or up-to-date, take your pick) documentation, at least for many GNU packages.
The last time I tried Arch Linux was around 2004 or 2005; I was just wondering if things have changed since then.
Yes, I am well aware that this will never happen given the legal issues involved, however as an end-user, this is the biggest pain-in-the-butt reason not to use Fedora, which is a fine distro in itself.
And yes, I know you can "just add Livna", but sometimes Livna doesn't have what you want but another repo does... and then you get caught in the painful process of evaulating which repos contain quality software, which conflict with each other, which alter the "core" of Fedora, etc.
I know there are efforts to unify the repos, and I wish them luck, but in the meantime, my lazy ass will be running Ubuntu.
I too can confirm this "feeling". I frequently (ie. every 3-6 months) switch to KDE for a while to see if I like it yet. At first I love the extra control and integration that KDE seems to provide, then it's back to Gnome for some "sanity" and "beauty" and "standardness".
KDE is great, don't get me wrong -- it's just that Gnome looks and feels more solid. It really does feel like the "default linux desktop".
Distro note: I tend to run Debian. My most recent "long-term" experience of these two desktops is on Debian Etch. When I run KDE, I like to minimise use of non-Qt applications. Likewise, when in Gnome, I minimse use of non-GTK+ applications.
I'm ok with people calling it whatever they like, be it Linux, GNU/Linux, BarbieOS or whatever, but I call it GNU/Linux (it's my choice) so I don't feel like a hypocrite bashing the GNU project while using all of it's tools on a day to day basis.
+5, Insightful: I too call it "GNU/Linux" for this reason (and others).
I've used BSD and Solaris (albeit relatively briefly), and it "feels" the same (once all my favourite programs are installed) because it's (largely) GNU (and Unix-like, etc.).
apt/apt-get (after an apt-get update) is generally faster than yum -C list/search (after a yum update), in my experience. Yum seems to chew through more system resources and real time than apt does (although the "Reading database" time of dpkg seems to lengthen as the installed set of packages grows).
This is all on a P3 600MHz with 256MB RAM.
Debian (currently Stable/Etch) is my favourite and most used GNU/Linux distribution, but I have used Fedora for months at a time (Fedora Core 5 and 6).
hehehe
was pretty funny to read about that vista voice control exploit at work this week:D
me? yea i run xp pro at work, but i'm actively (albeit slowly) migtrating my work setup to what will be some form of GNU OS;)
gotta love the gnu.
IIRC, Mono is based on open ECMA standards submitted to the standards body by Microsoft.
They can't sue for someone implementing an open standard, can they?
From the article: "Ballmer did not provide details during his comments Thursday. But he was adamant that Linux users, apart from those using SUSE, are taking advantage of Microsoft innovation, and that someone -- either Linux vendors or users -- would eventually have to pay up."
Umm.... if non-Suse users infringe, then so do Suse users, given that -- what, 90%+? More? -- of Suse's upstream is shared with "non-Suse users".
* Ubuntu mangle upstream like Satan's little bitches (case in point: compare Dapper's Gnome logout dialog with Zod's implementation). I *like* vanilla Gnome. Leave us poor "vanilla GNU/Linux" people alone! Go modify your artwork and plug some gaping holes if you have to, but FFS...
Fedora generally works closer with upstream, from what I've seen.
* Debian doesn't package FreeNX. While it is possible to use a 3rd party repo, I'd really rather not -- I don't want to run some subtle fork of Debian. Debian's design and enforcement of quality distro policy is what makes Debian so great, and I want to see this greatness preserved, alive and evolving.
Fedora Extras gives me FreeNX. I can't live without FreeNX -- it makes those long days at work sooo much nicer to have my home FC6 box at my fingertips in a fast way.
* Arch Linux strip GNU Info documentation -- Arch becomes inconvenient to many, and may be seen as disrespecting the GNU Foundation.
Fedora has GNU Info documentation. Duh!:-)
* openSUSE are Novell's bitches, and Novell seem to be involved with travesties such as AppArmor and XGL. SELinux and AIGLX are the better implementations. Oh, and I remember cringing when finding PDF (not HTML) Novel/Linux documentation on Novell's site once upon a time. Ugh.
Feodra have the most evolved SELinux implementation I've seen.
* Foresight Linux is still a little unusable/unreliable for my needs. But "go team" for rPath and Foresight, that conary package manager has extreme potential:-)
Ooh, and just one more little doosie: Fedora was the first *major* distro on the block with a stable (albeit self-declared "stable") Gnome 2.16.
My experience:
A TNT2 Ultra 32MB GPU coupled with a Sony CPD-G400 19" CRT combination is not auto-configured by *buntu (either Breezy or Dapper).
It is auto-configured by Fedora Core 5 and various other distros.
In Ubuntu, I have to edit xorg.conf and specify HorizSync and VertRefresh for the Monitor, and ensure the Driver is "vesa" or "nvidia" ("nv" never seems to work).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, for example, if you ran a command like
you would not see the Texinfo manual for dd. While the documentation viewer (ie. /usr/bin/info) may have been installed, the actual documentation (eg. /usr/share/info/coreutils.info.gz) was not.
The rationale given (again, IIRC) by Arch Linux for the exclusion of the Texinfo manuals was that the manuals added too much bloat. My problem with this was that the Texinfo manual of a package is often the canonical (or more complete, or up-to-date, take your pick) documentation, at least for many GNU packages.
The last time I tried Arch Linux was around 2004 or 2005; I was just wondering if things have changed since then.
Do Arch Linux binary packages include GNU Info documentation of upstream packages which provide it, yet?
Perhaps its the overall implementation of Kubuntu.
I know that when I switched from Kubuntu 7.10 to Debian Sid, I noticed a performance improvement from KDE in general.
Lack of an official "non-free" repository.
Yes, I am well aware that this will never happen given the legal issues involved, however as an end-user, this is the biggest pain-in-the-butt reason not to use Fedora, which is a fine distro in itself.
And yes, I know you can "just add Livna", but sometimes Livna doesn't have what you want but another repo does... and then you get caught in the painful process of evaulating which repos contain quality software, which conflict with each other, which alter the "core" of Fedora, etc.
I know there are efforts to unify the repos, and I wish them luck, but in the meantime, my lazy ass will be running Ubuntu.
Wow, htop is pretty cool!
How'd you find out about it? I wonder if there's a gnomefiles.org-style website for ncurses apps...
I too can confirm this "feeling". I frequently (ie. every 3-6 months) switch to KDE for a while to see if I like it yet. At first I love the extra control and integration that KDE seems to provide, then it's back to Gnome for some "sanity" and "beauty" and "standardness".
KDE is great, don't get me wrong -- it's just that Gnome looks and feels more solid. It really does feel like the "default linux desktop".
Distro note: I tend to run Debian. My most recent "long-term" experience of these two desktops is on Debian Etch. When I run KDE, I like to minimise use of non-Qt applications. Likewise, when in Gnome, I minimse use of non-GTK+ applications.
On my Debian Etch system, Epiphany (the Gnome web browser) feels generally more responsive than Iceweasel (Firefox), and this is on Gnome 2.14!
+5, Insightful: I too call it "GNU/Linux" for this reason (and others).
I've used BSD and Solaris (albeit relatively briefly), and it "feels" the same (once all my favourite programs are installed) because it's (largely) GNU (and Unix-like, etc.).
apt/apt-get (after an apt-get update) is generally faster than yum -C list/search (after a yum update), in my experience. Yum seems to chew through more system resources and real time than apt does (although the "Reading database" time of dpkg seems to lengthen as the installed set of packages grows).
This is all on a P3 600MHz with 256MB RAM.
Debian (currently Stable/Etch) is my favourite and most used GNU/Linux distribution, but I have used Fedora for months at a time (Fedora Core 5 and 6).
Epiphany.
http://www.gnome.org/projects/epiphany/
Is Epiphany affected? (My install of Epiphany (Debian Etch) is using a gecko-1.8 backend, according to Help >> About)
lolz
:-)
yea it's a must watch
For another well-travelled classic, see Steve the Super Villain *
==
* actual title does vary
hehehe was pretty funny to read about that vista voice control exploit at work this week :D
me? yea i run xp pro at work, but i'm actively (albeit slowly) migtrating my work setup to what will be some form of GNU OS ;)
gotta love the gnu.
Pre-RTFA, this articile passes the "Holy Jesus and Mohammad, Microsoft really IS fucking evil!" test...
IIRC, Mono is based on open ECMA standards submitted to the standards body by Microsoft. They can't sue for someone implementing an open standard, can they?
I want to hear praise for my beloved distro!
Not smelly little nVidia problems!
Not patent-encumbered .mp3 files!
WHY I LIKE FEDORA (comments/corrections welcome):
* Ubuntu mangle upstream like Satan's little bitches (case in point: compare Dapper's Gnome logout dialog with Zod's implementation). I *like* vanilla Gnome. Leave us poor "vanilla GNU/Linux" people alone! Go modify your artwork and plug some gaping holes if you have to, but FFS...
Fedora generally works closer with upstream, from what I've seen.
* Debian doesn't package FreeNX. While it is possible to use a 3rd party repo, I'd really rather not -- I don't want to run some subtle fork of Debian. Debian's design and enforcement of quality distro policy is what makes Debian so great, and I want to see this greatness preserved, alive and evolving.
Fedora Extras gives me FreeNX. I can't live without FreeNX -- it makes those long days at work sooo much nicer to have my home FC6 box at my fingertips in a fast way.
* Arch Linux strip GNU Info documentation -- Arch becomes inconvenient to many, and may be seen as disrespecting the GNU Foundation.
Fedora has GNU Info documentation. Duh! :-)
* openSUSE are Novell's bitches, and Novell seem to be involved with travesties such as AppArmor and XGL. SELinux and AIGLX are the better implementations. Oh, and I remember cringing when finding PDF (not HTML) Novel/Linux documentation on Novell's site once upon a time. Ugh.
Feodra have the most evolved SELinux implementation I've seen.
* Foresight Linux is still a little unusable/unreliable for my needs. But "go team" for rPath and Foresight, that conary package manager has extreme potential :-)
Ooh, and just one more little doosie: Fedora was the first *major* distro on the block with a stable (albeit self-declared "stable") Gnome 2.16.
-chemaja
My experience: A TNT2 Ultra 32MB GPU coupled with a Sony CPD-G400 19" CRT combination is not auto-configured by *buntu (either Breezy or Dapper). It is auto-configured by Fedora Core 5 and various other distros. In Ubuntu, I have to edit xorg.conf and specify HorizSync and VertRefresh for the Monitor, and ensure the Driver is "vesa" or "nvidia" ("nv" never seems to work).
Just curious, to which OS did you switch?