Someone has already mentioned Debian's apt-get, which is great, but there's also another really good solution from the Gentoo team: portage.
Everyone probably knows Gentoo compiles everything from source (which is what earns it so much of both praise, and mockery). What a lot of people miss is the immense power and similicity in portage.
It takes care of dependencies automatically, and does a very good job of it. In the two years that I've been running gentoo on both my workstation, AND server, I've never once had a dependency issue. I just 'emerge application' sit back for a few minutes while it compiles, and away I go.
Another thing to note is that it also automatically handles situations where multiple versions of a single program or library are needed.
And one of my favorite features is its wonderful 'emerge --unmerge.' I no longer fear installing applications that may have poorly written make files, and thus no uninstall. Portage can uninstall any application with ease.
Basically Gentoo takes care of all of the parent poster's problems, and does it in a wonderfully elegant way. It's true that Gentoo isn't for everyone, but neither is any distribution. Take your pick, but just be aware that if you're having a problem, there's probably a solution to it already. Do your research, instead of simply complaining, and maybe you'll come out a much more relaxed person.
Not impressed with Linux on the XBOX!? What's the matter with you!? How about converting your xbox into a full PVR that you can access via the web to start and stop recording, or hell that you can access via ssh or telnet!
Linux on the XBOX is freakin' cool! It's basically a full linux PC for 200 bucks.
I just canceled my local service and signed up for Primus' TalkBroadband Service. It's considerably cheaper than the regular land line, and the quality is pretty close.
I too was initially worried about emergency services and so forth, however all this stuff functions as normal with a regular land line. I can call 911, or 411 or whatever just like anybody else can. In the event of a power-outage you can have your service forward to a cell-phone, voice-mail, or even another regular land phone. So I'm really not that worried about it. In the event that the power goes out and the cell phone is dead, and I accidentally cut off my leg, thus disabling me from crawling to my neighbors house to use their land phone to call 911, I suppose I'll just have to suffer:o).
Seriously though, here's my experience so far:
The Good
Cheap.
Works with regular phones, and it actually works pretty good.
Says #$&@ you to the local @*&!@ telco monopoly.
The Bad
Can't use your regular house phone jacks (although if you need a phone in every room you can get one of those multi-set cordless base phones).
The service isn't perfect. (A couple of times someone has called, and before I could pick it up, the system hung up on them). But let's be realistic, this is pretty new technology.
All in all, I'm happy I decided to try out the VoIP phone. It saves me $10-15 / month, and lets me call way more long distance to boot. And I'm a no frills user. No calling features, no call display, I don't really call long distance. For someone who has a big calling feature pack and calls long distance, I could see a VoIP phone saving them a TON of cash.
As a proud Canadian citizen I am truly embarassed by the Canadian Arrow. It most certainly does not live up to the Avro Arrow, which was ingenious and revolutionary in every sense of the words.
Multi-stage space vehicles are so 1970s! Come on guys! Let's see some true innovation coming from Canada. Maybe, the Canada Super Arm, which would simply pick people up and put them directly into orbit. Or how about, the Canadian Slap Shot Ship, a large black single stage saucer like device launched via contact with a huge wood paddle.
Even I can think of better plans than the Canadian Arrow. Pffft.
By my calculations you could record 34.2 years of continuous mpeg4 compressed video (with audio), or 51.3 years if you don't record while you're sleeping.
ie: 100*1024*1024/700*2/24/365
That is assuming 700 mB of space yields 2 hours of audio/video. Obviously more advanced algorithms could be used to lower the bit rate when sleeping, or working.
Personally I think I could handle switching discs once ever 34 years. Hell I might even go crazy, and double the quality. I know changing a disc once every 17 years might be a little annoying, but I'm crazy that way.
To all those people complaining that 7 tuners is too many, I suppose 640K was too much for you too.
Have some forsight. Maybe you only use 2-4 at once now, but one day when there's 3 of your favorite shows, a newscast, 2 movies, and the video feed from your backyard flying home maintenance robot that you want to capture all at once... I bet you'll be pretty pleased.
You guys are all missing the point. A lot of the benificial aspects of using unix come from the power and flexibility of it. You don't get this flexibility without a cost. You simply can't have a system that is so easy to use, so quick and beautiful, so user friendly, without having the initial learning curve steeply high.
In case you're all confused, let me explain. Windows is NOT user friendly. Once you adjust to unix, and command line arguments, and all the various things that make unix so great to use, you realize this. But during the transition, all those things SUCK. They're confusing, they slow you down, they make your life hell. I went through this, just like so many other people.
People complain that unix is hard to use, but it's just got a steeper learning curve. People should also realize though, that this learning curve can be lessened through the use of gui systems such as kde and gnome. For the very computer illiterate, learning one of these will likely be just as easy/hard as learning to use windows. These type of people will all be able to access their email, write word documents, etc.
It's the in-the-middle computer user that has the most problems, because these are the people who are installing new programs, using file sharing, trying to customize their settings, etc. And if we're honest we have to realize that these are the people who also have the most problems with windows. They're the one getting and propagating the virii, trojans, and other nasty things that are inherent problems with windows. They're the ones who get their registries up to 50+ megs by installing tons of useless programs.
These people should probably stick with windows, since they tend to want a quick and easy solution, and they certainly dont want to learn anything new. I don't see the obsession with people wanting to convert the world to linux. Unix isn't for everyone, some people just aren't interested in the type of computing freedom that comes at the cost of a larger learning curve.
I also want to mention that another point that came up in peoples post is the difficulty of installing linux. I've had to walk several people through installing windows, and since windows comes pre-installed on most machines these days I don't think the argument is completely valid. Most people can't do a windows install, let alone a linux install. And if linux came pre-installed, I think that people would have a much easier time getting to know it. Another thing to note is that today with more modern installers like the ones that mandrake, suse, red hat, etc use... these are very easy to install, and very comparable to the windows install.
I think people should not get in such a knot about this issue. Unix isn't for everyone, nor should it be! Us unix fans love unix because it is so easy to use and so user friendly, but new unix users hate it because it's so hard to learn, and while learning how to use it effectively it slows you down, and frustrates you. In my opinion the beauty of unix is the fact that it was born from choice. People who are truly into computing simply need something better than windows. You don't see everyone driving around in race cars, even though they're technically superior to cars in many ways. (negating cost of course). It's not a perfect analogy but it serves my point.
In my experience in helping people convert to GNU/Linux it's not the "tetrazillion" choices that scares Joe, it's really the notion of Change. Joe is fearful that he won't be able to do the things he used to do. He's worried that his way of doing things will have to change.
Every single person that I've helped convert to GNU/Linux has been in love with all the available choices once I've given them a brief hand-holding, and showed them how they can effectively find those choices, and review them, without being overwhelmed -- which by the way is not that difficult.
It is obvious through your post that you are not a knowledgeable unix user/administrator otherwise you would not have said a few of the things you did. It is possible to set up a GNU/Linux install in a completely arbitrary way. You don't even have to follow the standard file system specifications if you don't want (/usr,/bin, etc). You can choose from different init systems, or invent your own. But if you knew how unix actually worked, was booted, etc, you would know that no matter how a unix system is set up, it is *easy* to figure out how it has been set up, and no matter what the case may be, problems can be diagnosed even if you are initially unfamiliar with the setup. Thankfully almost every modern linux distribution is set in essentially *exactly* the same way. Subtle differences like package management, and installed packages are simply not problems for experienced unix people.
For knowlegdeable unix people all unix systems are homogenous, regardless of their setup. You have clearly presented yourself as Joe Sixpack, and it is obvious that you are fearful, and that is what has drivin your comment.
Now that I have been using unix for several years, have done countless installs (including building Linux From Scratch multiple times), use it on a daily basis at home, at work, and at school, whenever my friends or relatives call me asking for help diagnosing their windows problems I find that I quickly become frustrated at the very system that made me frustrated when I first decided to try GNU/Linux. The transition can still be made easier, but it will always be a transition. Why? Because the GNU/Linux, and the opensource movement is a completely different philosophy. And I am glad that it is.
The parent post represents a greater common truth. If GNU/Linux were interested in a huge userbase (right now), as many suggest it should, then a good idea would be to present Joe with a closed system free from choices... one that Joe is familiar with (as the parent poster suggested). I believe that the slow (but steady) conversion of people from Windows to Unix shows that as more people become interested in computers, more people realize that there are options... and that is what GNU/Linux was born from. GNU/Linux itself IS an option. It would be suicide to eliminate the very thing that it is based upon.
If people want to use GNU/Linux, and benefit from all that it offers, they have to be willing to accept that their way of doing things IS going to change. If people are interested in that change, they will find themselves gravitating toward GNU/Linux, or FreeBSD, or whatever other choice they decide upon. This is essentially a blue pill / red pill question.
For Joe to take the red pill is a scary thing. It means his world changes, and it means that his cushy life may be disturbed... but I believe that the benefits of freedom will eventually outlive the benefits of imprisonment.
I am just wondering why Gentoo (which I use) put 2.6.4 in the "~x86" architecture when all "emerge development-sources" does is download and extract.
You didn't, it was implied. If, for instance, you have been following the development-sources tree, you'd know that it has always been that way, and for a reason: It's the development tree.
The gentoo team puts a great deal of effort into making sure that a standard gentoo install is going to be as solid as a rock. Given the relatively short life span of the 2.6 kernel, I think it's a smart move to keep it in development sources, until all the bugs are worked out, not just in the new kernel, but in the way that the rest of the gentoo system handles the kernel.
For many of us who know what we are doing, migrating to 2.6 was simply a matter of upgrading portage, and rebuilding the entire tree cache, however for some users this seemingly trivial task may not have been. Also at the time that 2.6 first became available, the only recourse was to use a development version of portage. Another thing to note was that udev support was highly limited and the only real choice was to stick with devfs, and if you read the kernel help which says "DEVFS is deprecated" you may have been mislead, and produced an unusable system.
Of course many of these issues have been ironed out, but I think it's safe to say that the gentoo team knows what they're doing. You have every right to question their methods, but when you do so without having done any research into your question, or having had much experience you will certainly come off sounding like a newbie asking the same old newbie-type questions.
Thus the implication that you are new to linux and gentoo. One which I maintain is certainly true.
How do they get by making them experimental? How is this ebuild any different than the 2.6.3 ebuild? All it does is download and extract the archive. You still have to configure and install yourself.
That's the whole point of the develoment-sources tree. But since you're new to both linux and gentoo, I'll give you some nice and easy tips:
- first, re-create the/usr/src/linux link, making it point to the new source tree (ie ln -sf/usr/src/linux-2.6.4/usr/src/linux)
- now copy over your previous versions.config file (ie cp linux-2.6.3/.config linux-2.6.4/)
- now change to the new source tree directory and simply type make
2.6 is wonderful; it will now ask you to specify what you want for any new options that weren't included in the previous version, and continue to build the kernel.
All That's left at this point is to do a make modules_install, and copy arch/YourArch/boot/bzImage to your boot partition. Oh and you should copy System.map too.
Easy as 1-2-3!
If you're worried that this sounds like it may become a pain after a while, not to fret, that's the beauty of unix. Simply write a script to automate the process, and two things will happen: 1) You'll probably learn something in the process, and 2) You'll be happier.
Instead of complaining... try doing something about it, it's a wonderful feeling to find progress being made as the result of your own work.
But seriously folks, yeah, the FBI is returning the equipment now, but how much damage was done to an innocent ISP just because the FBI couldn't figure out how to do on-site data mining?
Everyone here is so quick to bash the FBI for doing what they did, but we can't really be sure what happened that caused them to confiscate their equipment. They may, in fact, be a an "innocent ISP," but in my experience how well any interaction goes really depends on both parties. For example maybe it went something like this:
FBI: "We're going to need access to your logs."
ISP: "Sorry, but the FBI can suck my ass."
FBI: "We'll be back with the moving vans."
or maybe it went like this:
FBI: "We're going to need access to your logs."
ISP: "Ahhh CRAP, CODE RED, CODE RED, hit the button JOHNNY THEY'RE ON TO US, JOOOHHHNNNYYY!!! [ahem] Sure thing FBI dudes."
FBI: "We'll be back with the moving vans."
and maybe it could have gone like this:
FBI: "We're going to need access to your logs."
ISP: "Sure no problem, we understand you want the requested information within two hours. We'll get you set up with stations you can use to search, and dedicate every available resource to helping you. We take this matter seriously."
FBI: "Dammit, cancel the moving vans!"
All I'm saying is... who knows what happened. If they were willing to wait two hours, then likely if diplomacy had gone well, they could have waiting three, or six, and eventually maybe a day or two.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone has already mentioned Debian's apt-get, which is great, but there's also another really good solution from the Gentoo team: portage.
Everyone probably knows Gentoo compiles everything from source (which is what earns it so much of both praise, and mockery). What a lot of people miss is the immense power and similicity in portage.
It takes care of dependencies automatically, and does a very good job of it. In the two years that I've been running gentoo on both my workstation, AND server, I've never once had a dependency issue. I just 'emerge application' sit back for a few minutes while it compiles, and away I go.
Another thing to note is that it also automatically handles situations where multiple versions of a single program or library are needed.
And one of my favorite features is its wonderful 'emerge --unmerge.' I no longer fear installing applications that may have poorly written make files, and thus no uninstall. Portage can uninstall any application with ease.
Basically Gentoo takes care of all of the parent poster's problems, and does it in a wonderfully elegant way. It's true that Gentoo isn't for everyone, but neither is any distribution. Take your pick, but just be aware that if you're having a problem, there's probably a solution to it already. Do your research, instead of simply complaining, and maybe you'll come out a much more relaxed person.
Not impressed with Linux on the XBOX!? What's the matter with you!? How about converting your xbox into a full PVR that you can access via the web to start and stop recording, or hell that you can access via ssh or telnet!
Linux on the XBOX is freakin' cool! It's basically a full linux PC for 200 bucks.
How did you do that? Just plug a cord from the VoIP gateway directly into the wall plug? Or did you have to run a line to your phone box?
I too was initially worried about emergency services and so forth, however all this stuff functions as normal with a regular land line. I can call 911, or 411 or whatever just like anybody else can. In the event of a power-outage you can have your service forward to a cell-phone, voice-mail, or even another regular land phone. So I'm really not that worried about it. In the event that the power goes out and the cell phone is dead, and I accidentally cut off my leg, thus disabling me from crawling to my neighbors house to use their land phone to call 911, I suppose I'll just have to suffer
Seriously though, here's my experience so far:
The Good
Cheap.
Works with regular phones, and it actually works pretty good.
Says #$&@ you to the local @*&!@ telco monopoly.
The Bad
Can't use your regular house phone jacks (although if you need a phone in every room you can get one of those multi-set cordless base phones).
The service isn't perfect. (A couple of times someone has called, and before I could pick it up, the system hung up on them). But let's be realistic, this is pretty new technology.
All in all, I'm happy I decided to try out the VoIP phone. It saves me $10-15 / month, and lets me call way more long distance to boot. And I'm a no frills user. No calling features, no call display, I don't really call long distance. For someone who has a big calling feature pack and calls long distance, I could see a VoIP phone saving them a TON of cash.
As a proud Canadian citizen I am truly embarassed by the Canadian Arrow. It most certainly does not live up to the Avro Arrow, which was ingenious and revolutionary in every sense of the words.
Multi-stage space vehicles are so 1970s! Come on guys! Let's see some true innovation coming from Canada. Maybe, the Canada Super Arm, which would simply pick people up and put them directly into orbit. Or how about, the Canadian Slap Shot Ship, a large black single stage saucer like device launched via contact with a huge wood paddle.
Even I can think of better plans than the Canadian Arrow. Pffft.
By my calculations you could record 34.2 years of continuous mpeg4 compressed video (with audio), or 51.3 years if you don't record while you're sleeping.
ie: 100*1024*1024/700*2/24/365
That is assuming 700 mB of space yields 2 hours of audio/video. Obviously more advanced algorithms could be used to lower the bit rate when sleeping, or working.
Personally I think I could handle switching discs once ever 34 years. Hell I might even go crazy, and double the quality. I know changing a disc once every 17 years might be a little annoying, but I'm crazy that way.
To all those people complaining that 7 tuners is too many, I suppose 640K was too much for you too.
Have some forsight. Maybe you only use 2-4 at once now, but one day when there's 3 of your favorite shows, a newscast, 2 movies, and the video feed from your backyard flying home maintenance robot that you want to capture all at once... I bet you'll be pretty pleased.
What are you? some kind of poet?
You guys are all missing the point. A lot of the benificial aspects of using unix come from the power and flexibility of it. You don't get this flexibility without a cost. You simply can't have a system that is so easy to use, so quick and beautiful, so user friendly, without having the initial learning curve steeply high.
In case you're all confused, let me explain. Windows is NOT user friendly. Once you adjust to unix, and command line arguments, and all the various things that make unix so great to use, you realize this. But during the transition, all those things SUCK. They're confusing, they slow you down, they make your life hell. I went through this, just like so many other people.
People complain that unix is hard to use, but it's just got a steeper learning curve. People should also realize though, that this learning curve can be lessened through the use of gui systems such as kde and gnome. For the very computer illiterate, learning one of these will likely be just as easy/hard as learning to use windows. These type of people will all be able to access their email, write word documents, etc.
It's the in-the-middle computer user that has the most problems, because these are the people who are installing new programs, using file sharing, trying to customize their settings, etc. And if we're honest we have to realize that these are the people who also have the most problems with windows. They're the one getting and propagating the virii, trojans, and other nasty things that are inherent problems with windows. They're the ones who get their registries up to 50+ megs by installing tons of useless programs.
These people should probably stick with windows, since they tend to want a quick and easy solution, and they certainly dont want to learn anything new. I don't see the obsession with people wanting to convert the world to linux. Unix isn't for everyone, some people just aren't interested in the type of computing freedom that comes at the cost of a larger learning curve.
I also want to mention that another point that came up in peoples post is the difficulty of installing linux. I've had to walk several people through installing windows, and since windows comes pre-installed on most machines these days I don't think the argument is completely valid. Most people can't do a windows install, let alone a linux install. And if linux came pre-installed, I think that people would have a much easier time getting to know it. Another thing to note is that today with more modern installers like the ones that mandrake, suse, red hat, etc use... these are very easy to install, and very comparable to the windows install.
I think people should not get in such a knot about this issue. Unix isn't for everyone, nor should it be! Us unix fans love unix because it is so easy to use and so user friendly, but new unix users hate it because it's so hard to learn, and while learning how to use it effectively it slows you down, and frustrates you. In my opinion the beauty of unix is the fact that it was born from choice. People who are truly into computing simply need something better than windows. You don't see everyone driving around in race cars, even though they're technically superior to cars in many ways. (negating cost of course). It's not a perfect analogy but it serves my point.
In my experience in helping people convert to GNU/Linux it's not the "tetrazillion" choices that scares Joe, it's really the notion of Change. Joe is fearful that he won't be able to do the things he used to do. He's worried that his way of doing things will have to change.
Every single person that I've helped convert to GNU/Linux has been in love with all the available choices once I've given them a brief hand-holding, and showed them how they can effectively find those choices, and review them, without being overwhelmed -- which by the way is not that difficult.
It is obvious through your post that you are not a knowledgeable unix user/administrator otherwise you would not have said a few of the things you did. It is possible to set up a GNU/Linux install in a completely arbitrary way. You don't even have to follow the standard file system specifications if you don't want (/usr, /bin, etc). You can choose from different init systems, or invent your own. But if you knew how unix actually worked, was booted, etc, you would know that no matter how a unix system is set up, it is *easy* to figure out how it has been set up, and no matter what the case may be, problems can be diagnosed even if you are initially unfamiliar with the setup. Thankfully almost every modern linux distribution is set in essentially *exactly* the same way. Subtle differences like package management, and installed packages are simply not problems for experienced unix people.
For knowlegdeable unix people all unix systems are homogenous, regardless of their setup. You have clearly presented yourself as Joe Sixpack, and it is obvious that you are fearful, and that is what has drivin your comment.
Now that I have been using unix for several years, have done countless installs (including building Linux From Scratch multiple times), use it on a daily basis at home, at work, and at school, whenever my friends or relatives call me asking for help diagnosing their windows problems I find that I quickly become frustrated at the very system that made me frustrated when I first decided to try GNU/Linux. The transition can still be made easier, but it will always be a transition. Why? Because the GNU/Linux, and the opensource movement is a completely different philosophy. And I am glad that it is.
The parent post represents a greater common truth. If GNU/Linux were interested in a huge userbase (right now), as many suggest it should, then a good idea would be to present Joe with a closed system free from choices... one that Joe is familiar with (as the parent poster suggested). I believe that the slow (but steady) conversion of people from Windows to Unix shows that as more people become interested in computers, more people realize that there are options... and that is what GNU/Linux was born from. GNU/Linux itself IS an option. It would be suicide to eliminate the very thing that it is based upon.
If people want to use GNU/Linux, and benefit from all that it offers, they have to be willing to accept that their way of doing things IS going to change. If people are interested in that change, they will find themselves gravitating toward GNU/Linux, or FreeBSD, or whatever other choice they decide upon. This is essentially a blue pill / red pill question.
For Joe to take the red pill is a scary thing. It means his world changes, and it means that his cushy life may be disturbed... but I believe that the benefits of freedom will eventually outlive the benefits of imprisonment.
The gentoo team puts a great deal of effort into making sure that a standard gentoo install is going to be as solid as a rock. Given the relatively short life span of the 2.6 kernel, I think it's a smart move to keep it in development sources, until all the bugs are worked out, not just in the new kernel, but in the way that the rest of the gentoo system handles the kernel.
For many of us who know what we are doing, migrating to 2.6 was simply a matter of upgrading portage, and rebuilding the entire tree cache, however for some users this seemingly trivial task may not have been. Also at the time that 2.6 first became available, the only recourse was to use a development version of portage. Another thing to note was that udev support was highly limited and the only real choice was to stick with devfs, and if you read the kernel help which says "DEVFS is deprecated" you may have been mislead, and produced an unusable system.
Of course many of these issues have been ironed out, but I think it's safe to say that the gentoo team knows what they're doing. You have every right to question their methods, but when you do so without having done any research into your question, or having had much experience you will certainly come off sounding like a newbie asking the same old newbie-type questions.
Thus the implication that you are new to linux and gentoo. One which I maintain is certainly true.
- first, re-create the
- now copy over your previous versions
- now change to the new source tree directory and simply type make
2.6 is wonderful; it will now ask you to specify what you want for any new options that weren't included in the previous version, and continue to build the kernel.
All That's left at this point is to do a make modules_install, and copy arch/YourArch/boot/bzImage to your boot partition. Oh and you should copy System.map too.
Easy as 1-2-3!
If you're worried that this sounds like it may become a pain after a while, not to fret, that's the beauty of unix. Simply write a script to automate the process, and two things will happen: 1) You'll probably learn something in the process, and 2) You'll be happier.
Instead of complaining... try doing something about it, it's a wonderful feeling to find progress being made as the result of your own work.
FBI: "We're going to need access to your logs."
ISP: "Sorry, but the FBI can suck my ass."
FBI: "We'll be back with the moving vans."
or maybe it went like this:
FBI: "We're going to need access to your logs."
ISP: "Ahhh CRAP, CODE RED, CODE RED, hit the button JOHNNY THEY'RE ON TO US, JOOOHHHNNNYYY!!! [ahem] Sure thing FBI dudes."
FBI: "We'll be back with the moving vans."
and maybe it could have gone like this:
FBI: "We're going to need access to your logs."
ISP: "Sure no problem, we understand you want the requested information within two hours. We'll get you set up with stations you can use to search, and dedicate every available resource to helping you. We take this matter seriously."
FBI: "Dammit, cancel the moving vans!"
All I'm saying is... who knows what happened. If they were willing to wait two hours, then likely if diplomacy had gone well, they could have waiting three, or six, and eventually maybe a day or two.