If you've ever used a Real Operating System such as VMS or even maybe a not-so-Real one like Solaris, you'll find that the package management tools are pretty good - and vast wads of documentation are available for them.
Naturally, VMS has the best one (PolyCenter) but the pkgtool that Solaris has isn't bad either.
But the point is these tools are not akin to a bootloader in simplicity because the problem they attempt to solve is not a simple problem. --
This perhaps needs to be mentioned more clearly in the handbook section on ports; even better, wrap it up in a shell script so dummies like me can do "sh/usr/ports/updateports.sh" or something and all the hard bits are done for me...
A platform-agnostic packaging system is desperately needed. I'd do something about it myself if I didn't have the coding ability of a sleeping snail. --
Ports is indeed a very cool system, but there are one or two wrinkles.
Firstly, it's not easy to update the ports tree itself; either I'm dumb or the documentation doesn't tell you how to do it. I'd like to be able to do something like this:
$ cd/usr/ports
$ make update
And magically, version numbers update and new packages appear.
Secondly, ports doesn't seem to support any kind of history on the packages; you get the latest version that your ports collection knows about and that's it.
Thirdly, there seems to be no way of verifying the installation of a particular package; like rpm --verify.
I'm sure that these things will get straightened out in time (or not if they're dumb ideas). --
"I haven't figured out how to clean my glorious old PS/2 keyboard yet, though, mainly because I'm afraid I'll break it. It would be *impossible* to find a suitable replacement."
But wouldn't Bugzilla be a useful tool for the Linux kernel people?
That way, you wouldn't have to faff on with trying to get email to a small and select group of highly busy individuals, AND you could see if you were duplicating a bug that someone else had already reported... --
"Beware of anybody that claims to be balanced yet fails to admit that (1) Ken Cutler designed the NT kernel architecture and he's an OS god, and (2) Linux is a based on a very good, but very old operating system (UNIX). This does not automatically make NT good and Linux bad. However, most of the good things about NT and the bad things about Linux derive from those facts."
(1) Ken Cutler left MS in disgust after the 3.51 debacle (video drivers into the kernel to gain speed at the very obvious expense of stability).
(2) The NT kernel is based on the VMS kernel which dates from 1976. And VMS is still light-years in front of both Linux and NT/2000 in terms of scalability, manageability, flexibility, reliability and... *clustering*
If all the good stuff that the NT team COULD have pinched from VMS had actually found its way into the operating system then (a) NT would cost a lot more and (b) you wouldn't be comparing it wth Linux.
FWIW, most of the similarities between NT and VMS are at an architectural level, in the design of things like the process scheduler and the memory manager. --
But there's a touch of ego going on here; if he were to put the kernel in CVS, like the FreeBSD guys do, then he would lose a certain amount of control over who gets what and when.
Linus is quoted as saying "Think of me as CVS with brains", which tells you everything you need to know about his attitude to source control. --
Slashdot Mirror
Because it was the MI6 building that got hit.
--
Got any bites yet?
/. trolls on K5, and up you pop.
Taco was lamenting the lack of any good
All you ACs who think you're trolling? YOU SUCK.
--
Instead of using eterm, use something smaller, like rxvt.
--
lead to things like this:
http://www.lionblakey.co.uk/
which is not a bad thing...
--
are a STAR!
This worked fantastically well.
Eternal thanks and gratitude.
--
If you've ever used a Real Operating System such as VMS or even maybe a not-so-Real one like Solaris, you'll find that the package management tools are pretty good - and vast wads of documentation are available for them.
Naturally, VMS has the best one (PolyCenter) but the pkgtool that Solaris has isn't bad either.
But the point is these tools are not akin to a bootloader in simplicity because the problem they attempt to solve is not a simple problem.
--
I will take a look. Told you I was being dumb :)
/usr/ports/updateports.sh" or something and all the hard bits are done for me...
This perhaps needs to be mentioned more clearly in the handbook section on ports; even better, wrap it up in a shell script so dummies like me can do "sh
A platform-agnostic packaging system is desperately needed. I'd do something about it myself if I didn't have the coding ability of a sleeping snail.
--
Ports is indeed a very cool system, but there are one or two wrinkles.
/usr/ports
Firstly, it's not easy to update the ports tree itself; either I'm dumb or the documentation doesn't tell you how to do it. I'd like to be able to do something like this:
$ cd
$ make update
And magically, version numbers update and new packages appear.
Secondly, ports doesn't seem to support any kind of history on the packages; you get the latest version that your ports collection knows about and that's it.
Thirdly, there seems to be no way of verifying the installation of a particular package; like rpm --verify.
I'm sure that these things will get straightened out in time (or not if they're dumb ideas).
--
OpenVMS V7.1-2 on node GUISA1 14-SEP-2000 12:40:55.15 Uptime 190 20:29:44
Had to reboot it 190 days ago, got a new processor...
--
Such things do exist; search your favourite on-line supplier.
Here's one:
http://www.allusb.com/products/P10902.html
--
"I haven't figured out how to clean my glorious old PS/2 keyboard yet, though, mainly because I'm afraid I'll break it. It would be *impossible* to find a suitable replacement."
Not true. See my earlier postings for the URL.
--
http://store.yahoo.com/pckeyboards/ibm101.htmlr .html
http://store.yahoo.com/pckeyboards/ibmspacesave
Go forth and type noisily!
--
The date of manufacture on my keyboard (printed on the bottom) is 27 September 1988.
Quality gear.
--
http://store.yahoo.com/pckeyboards/ibm101.html
I have one (but it cost me nothing - a gift from a friend) and it's absolutely fantastic.
Those $10 keyboards are shite, and I won't disgrace my computer with one.
--
...until you realize there's no navigation stuff at the left...
--
Renders fine in Mozilla M17 for Windows.
--
I mean, come on.
/. team head over to Fark.com and recycle some of that; at least it's funny.
IE has had bookmarks that redirect through the MS version checker since 4.0.
This is not news.
I suggest that the
--
is that MS operating systems don't come with the tools that lets you do this in one line:
cat mydosfile.txt | tr \r\n \n > myunixfile
and so you have to write 105 lines of code in the second-worst string handling language in the world.
(I might have the tr switches wrong. Bite me.)
--
and wait for the fishies to bite...
--
Did you ever get the Lynx mob to give you their code so you could use it in your very-non-free project?
Still sore that FreeBSD doesn't have the marketshare of Linux, I see.
--
There is no such thing as "more code than Emacs"...
/me ducks
--
I might be talking out of my arse here.
But wouldn't Bugzilla be a useful tool for the Linux kernel people?
That way, you wouldn't have to faff on with trying to get email to a small and select group of highly busy individuals, AND you could see if you were duplicating a bug that someone else had already reported...
--
"Beware of anybody that claims to be balanced yet fails to admit that (1) Ken Cutler designed the NT kernel architecture and he's an OS god, and (2) Linux is a based on a very good, but very old operating system (UNIX). This does not automatically make NT good and Linux bad. However, most of the good things about NT and the bad things about Linux derive from those facts."
(1) Ken Cutler left MS in disgust after the 3.51 debacle (video drivers into the kernel to gain speed at the very obvious expense of stability).
(2) The NT kernel is based on the VMS kernel which dates from 1976. And VMS is still light-years in front of both Linux and NT/2000 in terms of scalability, manageability, flexibility, reliability and... *clustering*
If all the good stuff that the NT team COULD have pinched from VMS had actually found its way into the operating system then (a) NT would cost a lot more and (b) you wouldn't be comparing it wth Linux.
FWIW, most of the similarities between NT and VMS are at an architectural level, in the design of things like the process scheduler and the memory manager.
--
Linus is a nice guy. He really is.
But there's a touch of ego going on here; if he were to put the kernel in CVS, like the FreeBSD guys do, then he would lose a certain amount of control over who gets what and when.
Linus is quoted as saying "Think of me as CVS with brains", which tells you everything you need to know about his attitude to source control.
--
Start->Settings->Control Panel->Administrative Tools->Telnet Server Administration
If it's not there, you've prolly not installed it.
--