Re: USB installation - MD5s for RHEL 5.3 Fail
Allen Kistler
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:06:48 -0400, <QuadZe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I may be able to install from a USB device, never tried it with
>
> Another option, if you have the space available, is to install from
> the hard drive. Much faster.
>
> Copy the dvd to a .iso file on the hd.
>
> Use any distro that has a live cd to boot into linux, and then run
> a script similar to the following, which is what I use ...
>
> [snip]
Wasn't the heart of the OP's problem:
>> I cannot select the DVD drive as a
>> bootable device from within the already updated BIOS.
So he needs to be able to boot from something that's not his optical
drive. That would be floppy, USB, or PXE, if the machine supports PXE.
I can't think of a way to do a floppy-based or USB-based installation
for RHEL. You could probably bootstrap into RHEL by starting with
another distro that does support floppies, if you have a floppy drive
and lots of floppy disks. Install that distro first, then use the
method David mentions to boot to the RHEL iso.
PXE needs a separate machine. The separate machine need not be Linux.
It just needs to run a tftp service and one service of nfs, ftp, and
http. This option is probably the sanest inexpensive option, if you
have another machine and if your first machine supports PXE booting.
Creative alternatives:
1. Get an add-in CD/DVD controller card with its own BIOS that *does*
support booting from CD/DVD. Attach the CD/DVD to it.
2. Repartition the HD and use your favorite Windows VM software to
access the whole physical drive. It will probably take some skill
and lots of forethought to keep from turning your machine into a
doorstop, but it could be viable.
3. Give up on RHEL5. There might be a way to do a floppy-boot
installation of RHEL3. If there is, at least you'd also be able to
boot into the RH rescue environment if you ever needed. I don't know
how much time RHEL3 has before it's EOLed, but it shouldn't be too
hard to check. BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
4. Get a whole new machine that supports booting from CD/DVD.
Sidney Lambe
[delete]
> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
for Linux.
But even worse, people are _selling_ Linux.
I'd guess that RH uses closed-source proprietary software, too.
And that they have 800 numbers for paid tech support.
Add KDE and you've got Windows.
[delete]
It'll be a cold day in Hell before I'll pay for Linux software
or install closed-source software on my box. Or pay for technical
support.
Sure, I send a few bucks to various developers/maintainers now and then, but
this is a gift of appreciation, not payment. It isn'[t business. It's
amateurs supporting amateurs.
Real Linux is amateur.
When did the corruption of Linux by the corporate technocrats begin?
With user interfaces like KDE and Gnome, making it possible, with
the help of formal technical support, for ignorant appliance operators
to use the obscured Linux OS underlying the interface without knowing
anything about it. They don't learn Linux, they learn KDE.
Sid
B Sellers
what they must support, This is good for businesses
and perhaps government agencies. Mandriva has supported versions
that are sold with documentation though the docs are trivial next
to the big books that RHEL gets on the market.
SuSe sell supported version and offers limited time
support for versions that accompany magazines like Linux Pro
and Linux Format.
I think there are other supported versions like Xandros
as well but I don't pretend to know all versions available with
support.
It is nothing to get worked up over, IMO.
later
bliss
Sidney Lambe
Both of which are the enemies of the freedom that Linux represents.
Real Linux. Business controls government...
> Mandriva has supported versions
> that are sold with documentation though the docs are trivial next
> to the big books that RHEL gets on the market.
Okay
>
> SuSe sell supported version and offers limited time
> support for versions that accompany magazines like Linux Pro
> and Linux Format.
Didn't know that.
>
> I think there are other supported versions like Xandros
> as well but I don't pretend to know all versions available with
> support.
>
> It is nothing to get worked up over, IMO.
Oh yes it is.
They _will_ try again to use the Courts to make Linux/Gnu
software the property of one or more corporations.
And most Linux people are making it happen by supporting
these sellout distros.
Even Slackware has sold out to KDE and they'll be following
RH soon.
But I've got all the software I need from them, so cutting them
loose won't be difficult.
Sid
Sidney Lambe
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>>
>> [delete]
>>
>>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
>>> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>>
>> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
>> for Linux.
>
> maintenance. They also charge for the compiled versions of the software, but
> the source is available for free.
>
> They have no problem with others compiling their source (other than their
> trademarks) and distributing and maintaining their own binaries. CentOS do
> this, and Red Hat is not prosecuting them.
>>
>> But even worse, people are _selling_ Linux.
>
> free, so those who pay vendors such as Red Hat must feel they are getting
> something of value in return for their money.
>>
>> I'd guess that RH uses closed-source proprietary software, too.
>> And that they have 800 numbers for paid tech support.
>
> pay, the better support you get. Their Enterprise Linux distributions do not
> have proprietary software in it. They also sell other packages that are
> proprietary if you want them.
>
> Note that Red Hat contribute to the Linux software effort with the donation
> of paid staff to work on parts of it.
>
> [snip]
So it's not quite as grim as it seemed. But the trend is downhill and
snowballing. The corporate technocrats and couch potatos and office drones
have their feet in the door.
Real Linux is for amateur hackers, not appliance
operators and office drones and technocrats.
But it won't be long before the latter try to
take it away from us, using the patent laws.
They already have, once.
Just Say No
to KDE/Gnome/Xfce/and so on.
Learn Bash.
Sid
Running Slackware 9.1 (2.4.22) 134MB on the hdd, full development environment
and X; using 13MB RAM at the moment; CPU 99.9% idle.
Johnny Rebel
> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>
> [delete]
>
>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
>> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>
> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
> for Linux.
Nothing wrong with that at all, it is all in the spirit of the GPL. The
best thing is, you don't have to pay for it, it is your choice.
>
> But even worse, people are _selling_ Linux.
Again, nothing wrong with that - it is still in the spirit of the GPL.
The best thing is, you can sell it as well, or give it away. Your call.
These are the benefits of Open Source - it is your choice to pay for
it, sell it, give it away... you have the freedom to do what you want.
>
> I'd guess that RH uses closed-source proprietary software, too.
> And that they have 800 numbers for paid tech support.
Not that I know of, but I could be mistaken. The certainly do have
support numbers.
>
> Add KDE and you've got Windows.
I disagree, but my disagreement is irrelevant.
>
> [delete]
>
> It'll be a cold day in Hell before I'll pay for Linux software
> or install closed-source software on my box. Or pay for technical
> support.
That is great! All in the spirit of the GPL. The great things is - if
you choose to pay for a support contract, you can, but you don't have to.
>
> Sure, I send a few bucks to various developers/maintainers now and then, but
> this is a gift of appreciation, not payment. It isn'[t business. It's
> amateurs supporting amateurs.
That is great as well. I think more people should do this. BTW, is the
software developer/maintainers software in Redhat per chance?
>
> Real Linux is amateur.
So are the Olympics right? I disagree with that statement. Real Linux
is community driven. That community consists of large companies giving
time, code and/or whatever else. It also consists of "Bob" in his
basement. Linux is community.
>
> When did the corruption of Linux by the corporate technocrats begin?
>
> With user interfaces like KDE and Gnome, making it possible, with
> the help of formal technical support, for ignorant appliance operators
> to use the obscured Linux OS underlying the interface without knowing
> anything about it. They don't learn Linux, they learn KDE.
Sure, but what does that have to do with corruption? This simply makes
it better (IMHO) to use, and easy for less achieved users. My wife
wouldn't know how to use the CLI efficiently (I am trying though... :) )
but has been a pretty serious end user on Linux for about 6 years now.
She loves it, and tells people just that.
JR.
>
> Sid
>
--
--> GNU/Linux is user friendly... it's just picky about its friends.
The Natural Philosopher
No, it isn;t
Its for everybody, including those that want to pay someone to make it
work for them.
> But it won't be long before the latter try to
> take it away from us, using the patent laws.
>
Not in anybodies interest anymore.
Basically open source has broken the license fee stranglehold, but it
wont break the need for support for those that need it.
Nico Kadel-Garcia
[ ranting deleted ]
Folks, we've got a troll. He's not answering the questions raised by
the original poster, has no apparent actual knowledge to contribute,
and his entire posting history under this alias is 90% troll and 10%
useless comments that do not actually provide any information or
reflect any direct experience.
Killfile him and move on.
Sidney Lambe
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
[delete]
>> Just Say No
>>
>> to KDE/Gnome/Xfce/and so on.
>
> It is no fun trying to run the lynx web browser with modern web sites.
Now there is a remarkably ignorant statement coming from someone
who claims (in the rest of this article, deleleted) to be a
Linux expert.
I run firefox here when necessary, and bash is my user interface.
I don't run an "integrated graphical desktop environment" like
KDE or Gnome or Xfce.
You just enter "firefox &" on the commandline and firefox is
launched and the prompt is cleared.
Duh <<<<<<<<<
(I have it 'aliased' to a function
in my bashrc to "ff", so that's all I have to enter).
So are you actually this ignorant or are you a corporate shill
trying to disinform people?
It's not that I can do anything from the commandline that someone
can do with KDE. I can do _more_.
And it's easier to learn bash than it is to learn KDE, starting
from scratch.
Don't let these technocrats mislead you. They want to produce
ignorant appliance operators so that you'll be dependent on
them.
[delete]
Sid
Sidney Lambe
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>>
>> [delete]
>>
>>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
>>> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>>
>> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
>> for Linux.
>
> Nothing wrong with that at all, it is all in the spirit of the GPL. The
> best thing is, you don't have to pay for it, it is your choice.
Yes, there is something wrong with it. They are paying for avoiding
learning Linux.
They are paying to remain ignorant appliance operators.
I don't know why you call yourself "Johnny Rebel".
You are a corporate sheep.
Oh yeh. I forgot. Lies the corporations' principal tools.
[delete]
Sid
Sidney Lambe
The lying technocrats move in for the quick kill, the cheapest shot
on the internet: The person disagreeing with the party line
is a TROLL and he isn't talking sense, he's RANTING.
<yawn>
Linux, the _real_ Linux, is for, by, and about amateur hackers.
Without them it would have never come to pass. Without them
it will die.
Now, the corporations (technocrats, investors, couch potatoes,
and office drones, etc.) are trying to take it over.
Their principal tool of conquest? Windows-like user interfaces:
KDE and Gnome and the like. They provide the illusion of 'user-friendliness'
while, by design, forcing the user to rely on technical support, and
divorce him/her from the underlying OS.
These bloated and overly-complex applicatio-suites require millions of
lines of code that was/is financed by a bunch of different corporations
at enormous cost. And corporations do not spend money without expecting
to make a profit on the investment.
The fact is that it is easier to learn to run Linux from the commandline
than it is to learn KDE (etc.), starting from scratch.
You can run any application, including any Gnome/KDE apps, with just
the X-Window System. You don't need KDE/Gnome.
Sid
The Natural Philosopher
> Johnny Rebel <re...@none.com> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>>>
>>> [delete]
>>>
>>>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
>>>> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>>> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
>>> for Linux.
>> Nothing wrong with that at all, it is all in the spirit of the GPL. The
>> best thing is, you don't have to pay for it, it is your choice.
>
> Yes, there is something wrong with it. They are paying for avoiding
> learning Linux.
>
own cattle?
Jeez.
The Natural Philosopher
> Jean-David Beyer <jeand...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
> [delete]
>
>>> Just Say No
>>>
>>> to KDE/Gnome/Xfce/and so on.
>> It is no fun trying to run the lynx web browser with modern web sites.
>
> Now there is a remarkably ignorant statement coming from someone
> who claims (in the rest of this article, deleleted) to be a
> Linux expert.
>
> I run firefox here when necessary, and bash is my user interface.
> I don't run an "integrated graphical desktop environment" like
> KDE or Gnome or Xfce.
>
> You just enter "firefox &" on the commandline and firefox is
> launched and the prompt is cleared.
>
Golly. I remember people doing that ten years ago..
Matt Giwer
Their business model is to sell support for the Enterprise version. The free
releases are their provers. Also I have read the free releases are to get
feedback to identify all the bugs and glitches which, when fixed, go into the
Enterprise releases. If that is correct then FC9 with all the updates should
be very close to the latest Enterprise release. Going by the stock price it is
working quite well.
--
Jews make no bones about their desire for all Arabs to die.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4159
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/ a12
Mon Jul 6 06:52:51 EDT 2009
Sidney Lambe
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>> Johnny Rebel <re...@none.com> wrote:
>>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>>> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [delete]
>>>>
>>>>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
>>>>> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>>>> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
>>>> for Linux.
>>> Nothing wrong with that at all, it is all in the spirit of the GPL. The
>>> best thing is, you don't have to pay for it, it is your choice.
>>
>> Yes, there is something wrong with it. They are paying for avoiding
>> learning Linux.
>>
> Do you service your won car? Perform your own lobotomies? Salughter your
> own cattle?
>
> Jeez.
Says a man who can't tell the difference between sitting at a computer
and typing and reading and doing the above tasks.
Not too long ago a person this stupid would not have been able to
run Linux.
Then along came KDE and the like, and ignorant and lazy couch
potatos like him can now pretend that they are.
No, fool. I don't do any of those things. But like scores of
thousands of people around the world, I run Linux without KDE
or anything like it. I run Linux from the commandline.
All one needs to learn are the basics of how Linux works
and the basics of Bash.
Yes, I know. You are too busy running around the Internet
and posting stupid articles like this to do a little studying.
(I can't believe I bothered to read one of this obnoxious
motormouth's articles.)
[delete]
A quick google of "how linux works" brings us:
http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
Looks decent.
Here's the best aid to learning bash I know of:
Don't let the 'advanced' in the title throw you. It
starts with the basics. Lots of great examples.
Sid
B Sellers
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>> Johnny Rebel <re...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>>>> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [delete]
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
>>>>>> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>>>>> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
>>>>> for Linux.
>>>> Nothing wrong with that at all, it is all in the spirit of the GPL. The
>>>> best thing is, you don't have to pay for it, it is your choice.
>>> Yes, there is something wrong with it. They are paying for avoiding
>>> learning Linux.
>>>
>> Do you service your won car? Perform your own lobotomies? Salughter your
>> own cattle?
>>
>> Jeez.
>
> Says a man who can't tell the difference between sitting at a computer
> and typing and reading and doing the above tasks.
>
> Not too long ago a person this stupid would not have been able to
> run Linux.
>
> Then along came KDE and the like, and ignorant and lazy couch
> potatos like him can now pretend that they are.
Are what?
They are using a computer nothing more and nothing less.
They are not finding their self-worth by indulging in
the use of obscurely named commands in virtual terminal sessions.
That you can is great. Most of the LUG I see twice a
month is more skilled than I but some of the most skilled have no idea
of the aesthetic quality available in setting up a GUI or much skill
in using it outside of their browser and old fashioned Text processors.
>
> No, fool. I don't do any of those things. But like scores of
> thousands of people around the world, I run Linux without KDE
> or anything like it. I run Linux from the commandline.
Congratulation on having learned to do something that
makes you feel so special. I used to use Amiga OS from the
CLI formatting up to 4 floppies at a time. Before that
I used a C=64 & 128 with an old fashion WP that embedded its
commands but I was younger then. I am about 20 years older
than that now. When I switched to WYSIWG WP on the Amiga
my through-put went up.
Stop trying to scare off the newbies from using
GNU/Linux. KDE 3.5.9 works fine. And it is not like Windows.
I use XP on Dual Boot with LiLo and it is harder to setup
than Mandriva Linux which found my old Farralon E-net card
right off the bat and ran with it. Friday I switched to a more
modern card from Trendnet and it found it and used it immediately
with minimal input from me. When I go out to bi-monthly
meetings of the LUG it finds my AirCard and connects automatically.
Windows is far less secure and seems to work by obfuscation between
the User and the machine.
> All one needs to learn are the basics of how Linux works
> and the basics of Bash.
Oh sure! But I am of little brain like the honorable
Pooh Bear.
>
> Yes, I know. You are too busy running around the Internet
> and posting stupid articles like this to do a little studying.
No my attention span is short and my brain is damaged
by illness. When I study I prefer historical and sociological
works.
> (I can't believe I bothered to read one of this obnoxious
> motormouth's articles.)
>
> [delete]
>
> A quick google of "how linux works" brings us:
>
> http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
>
> Looks decent.
>
> Here's the best aid to learning bash I know of:
>
> http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/
>
> Don't let the 'advanced' in the title throw you. It
> starts with the basics. Lots of great examples.
>
>
> Sid
The CLI/Terminal Only religion. Are you the
Pope of it?
later
bliss
The Natural Philosopher
Why not?
Do you pay someone else to do them for you?
But like scores of
> thousands of people around the world, I run Linux without KDE
> or anything like it. I run Linux from the commandline.
>
So do I on occasion.
Gien that two machines I manage dont even have screens..
> All one needs to learn are the basics of how Linux works
> and the basics of Bash.
>
Oh purlease. I knew bash before there was Linux.
I was paid to support Unix systems. Install them Code up using them.
Network them.Turn them into routers and firewalls.
Your are really Naif you know. You think that peolac...@alice.itle
who disagree with you know less than you. They know far far more.
One of the biggest users of Linux that I know, is using it on extremely
large powerful servers running multiple VMware servers for hosting
clients. Not because its free, but because it works extremely well. I am
sure they have a very expensive support contract with someone to look
after it. They are too busy managing a customer base and multiple
hosting cecenters.
> Yes, I know. You are too busy running around the Internet
> and posting stupid articles like this to do a little studying.
>
you really don't know who you are talking to do you?
Nico Kadel-Garcia
RedHat also tests out material for the enterprise world by trying it
on us eager beavers with Fedora. It seems a workable business model,
and has paid my salary the last few years. (Getting the GNU licensing
spelled out for my work can be an adventure, but education is half the
fun.)
And I seriously predate Linux, Hell, I was beta-testing HURD and was
delighted when Linux provided a useful license.
Check "Sidneys" posting history, note the lack of any political or
technical insight, maybe even note how he discusses "Linux" and
"Magick" with the same sorts of attitude and lack of documentation and
move on.
Johnny Rebel
> Johnny Rebel <re...@none.com> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>>>
>>> [delete]
>>>
>>>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
>>>> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>>> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
>>> for Linux.
>> Nothing wrong with that at all, it is all in the spirit of the GPL. The
>> best thing is, you don't have to pay for it, it is your choice.
>
> Yes, there is something wrong with it. They are paying for avoiding
> learning Linux.
I don't see anything wrong with it whatsoever. I don't think R.M.S has
an issue with it either - and if he doesn't, you sure don't have an excuse.
>
> They are paying to remain ignorant appliance operators.
I am actually an SA with quite a number of years of experience thanks.
>
> I don't know why you call yourself "Johnny Rebel".
<yawn>.
>
> You are a corporate sheep.
Not at all. It's just that I can read, and am not 13 years old.
>
> Oh yeh. I forgot. Lies the corporations' principal tools.
Not at all, spin is.
>
> [delete]
Sidney Lambe
[delete]
>
> Check "Sidneys" posting history, note the lack of any political or
> technical insight, maybe even note how he discusses "Linux" and
> "Magick" with the same sorts of attitude and lack of documentation and
> move on.
In your last post you said to killfile me because I was a 'ranting
troll'.
Yet YOU haven't killfiled me. YOU haven't moved on. Why is that?
Answer: Because you are a stinking, lying technocrat who wants Linux
runners to become ignorant appliance operators who are dependent
on you and others like you.
And you want people to killfile me I _do_ make sense.
Here are some valuable links for people who want to break free
of the KDE/Gnome appliance operator/couch potato Windows-clone
interfaces.
To break free of lying assholes like this "Nico" character.
General:
http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html
http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.
html
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
Bash:
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ
http://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/index.html
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1052574.html
kind of odd "shell ninja" but lots of good info:
http://www.slideshare.net/brian_dailey/nyphp-march-2009-presentation
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/classes/s243/bash.html
http://www.learnaboutlinux.net/blog/41-programming/50-bash-basics-1
Sid
Sidney Lambe
>> runners to become ignorant appliance operators who are dependent
>> on you and others like you.
>>
Now that everyone knows how dishonest you are, it doesn't really
matter what you do.
The corporations are trying to take over Linux with the help of technocrats
like this fellow.
Their chief tools of conquest are windows-clone user interfaces like
KDE. These obscure the Linux operating system and you end up learning
KDE, not Linux, and they have you by the balls.
Don't let them do this to you. Learn the basics of how Linux works
and the shell, the command line. It isn't hard and it is very
interesting.
General:
http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html
http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.
html
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
----------------------------
Keith Keller
On 2009-07-07, Sidney Lambe <sidne...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Learn the basics of how Linux works
> and the shell, the command line. It isn't hard and it is very
> interesting.
I agree.
> http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
But don't use this document, unless you want a very general and in some
places (unintentionally) misleading or inaccurate overview. It's many
years old, claiming to talk about ''Sidney's'' hated RedHat, version 6.
Version six was likely out before ''Sidney'' was born.
> http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
This link also seems somewhat older (the copyright date is 2002, and the
document doesn't seem to cover grub, the more common boot loader).
> http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.html
This document claims to cover Slackware 10.0, also many years old. The
official Slackware documentation (from 2005) is probably a little better:
(though it probably covers, at best, 10.2):
But perhaps the best piece of advice was left implicit in ''Sidney's''
post: never trust any technical advice given by ''Sidney''. This troll
used to brag about his idiotic method of ignoring posts, ostensibly
written in bash, that was a poor imitation of what any reasonable nntp
client (e.g., slrn, trn, tin) can do trivially. Now that I'm mentioning
it we're guaranteed that he won't respond to my post, as he's claimed on
multiple occasions to have added my address to this mechanism, and won't
want to admit that even after many years it still doesn't work.
But I digress.
Be sure to check the date on any documentation you read. It's not a
guarantee that it's good, and not all old documentation is inaccurate.
But it's still better to look for recent docs by a reputable source
(e.g., not ''Sidney'').
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Nico Kadel-Garcia
> Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Check "Sidneys" posting history, note the lack of any political or
> > technical insight, maybe even note how he discusses "Linux" and
> > "Magick" with the same sorts of attitude and lack of documentation and
> > move on.
>
> In your last post you said to killfile me because I was a 'ranting
> troll'.
>
> Yet YOU haven't killfiled me. YOU haven't moved on. Why is that?
>
> Answer: Because you are a stinking, lying technocrat who wants Linux
> runners to become ignorant appliance operators who are dependent
> on you and others like you.
Nahh, because my killfile threshold is pretty high, and I'm currently
using Google Groups for portability. Killfiles don't integrate into
that services as well as a normall NNTP feed, which my ISP no longer
provides.
> And you want people to killfile me I _do_ make sense.
Wait for it....
> Here are some valuable links for people who want to break free
> of the KDE/Gnome appliance operator/couch potato Windows-clone
> interfaces.
Hey, Wait for it.....
> To break free of lying assholes like this "Nico" character.
>
> General:
Let's see. Oh, yes, a dozen or so mostly bash references, apparently
none of which "Sidney" wrote and none of which were relevant to the
original poster's USB issues nor to any topic raised here except by
Sidney's odd logic. I'm an old Bash fan, and wish most Perl
programmers would use it to learn how to actually write shell scripts,
but this is ridiculous.
I can go plow through someone's toolbox for fixing washers, dump the
tools into their car engine and say "see, see! I know how to fix cars
too!" Flooding references doesn't demonstrate knowledge, it
demonstrates an ability to select Google links. Flooding irrelevant
references isn't merely foolish, it's wasting other people's time on
purpose.
i.e., trolling.
On the off chance that Sidney is merely foolish rather than a
deliberate troll: I know Richard Stallman, and have for... oh, my god,
27 years. There's plenty of things he dislikes about RedHat and the
other Linux companies, such as their willingness to include non-GPL
software, But his comment about my switching a company from SCO
OpenServer to RedHat Linux was typical: "It's a good start."
It paid my salary for a year, too.
Sidney Lambe
[juvenile trolling deleted]
Nico here is one the technocrats who wants you to remain
ignorant of how Linux works so that you will be dependent
on him and others like him.
So they encourage the use of Windows-clone interfaces like
KDE and tell you, without ever saying it outright, that you
are too stupid to learn how to run Linux from the commandline.
They lie. Take some time to do a little studying and playing
with the commandline and you can break free of these corporate
pawns.
I run the X-Window system and can use any application that anyone
running KDE can, but I don't have KDE or anything like it.
General:
http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html
http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.
html
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
Bash Specific:
Johnny Rebel
Oh, so you have no problems using the KDE libraries then? I find that
surprising especially giving your rant about only using the CLI. Now
you are contradicting yourself.
JR.
Keith Keller
On 2009-07-07, Johnny Rebel <re...@none.com> wrote:
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Oh, so you have no problems using the KDE libraries then? I find that
> surprising especially giving your rant about only using the CLI. Now
> you are contradicting yourself.
He is a *troll*! All he wants is for you to keep engaging him. If you
stop responding (or at least stop trying to find any sense in his posts)
perhaps he'll go away. (It is, sadly, still important to correct any
blatant misinformation he posts, so as not to mislead new readers who
may be unaware that he is a troll. This is why he posts so much
misinformation couched as verified fact.)
do...@01.usenet.us.com
> I can't think of a way to do a floppy-based or USB-based installation
> for RHEL. You could probably bootstrap into RHEL by starting with
> another distro that does support floppies, if you have a floppy drive
> and lots of floppy disks. Install that distro first, then use the
> method David mentions to boot to the RHEL iso.
RHEL 5 supports the use of the /images/bootdisk.img, copied to a bootable
USB flash drive. Instructions in the RHEL install guide.
"To boot using a USB pen drive, use the dd command to copy the diskboot.img
image file from the /images/ directory on CD-ROM 1. For example:
dd if=diskboot.img of=/dev/sda
"
Other sources on the web explain how to perform the copy if you don't
already have dd.
--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
Sidney Lambe
[delete more garbage]
See what happens when you criticize the Windowsization of Linux.
The technocrats freak because they want Linux runners to be
dependent on them and the couch potatoes freak because they
want Linux to be an appliance like Windows.
Of course, most of the participants here are just your ordinary
usenet losers whose life consists of mocking and degrading people
while they hide behind fake names (usually more than one of them).
KDE and the like are "gifts", multi-million dollar "gifts", from
a group of corporations who are trying to take Linux away from
amateurs and turn it into a clone of Windows. Corporations do
not spend this kind of money unless they plan on making it
back with a big profit thrown in.
KDE is just a bunch of applications wrapped up in a pretty
package that supposedly makes it possible for the average
ignorant couch-potato to run Linux. But only with dedicated
technical support.
And it makes your Linux OS so very complicated, all of itself,
that it naturally discourages anyone from trying to learn Linux.
This is by design.
I don't run anything like KDE. Like tens of thousands of
real Linux runners, I run Linux from the commandline. KDE
is more than 10X the size of my entire OS yet I can do
anything it can do. No, I am not some kind of guru. Just
a guy who spends a little time on most days reading about
Linux and trying out what I learn on my computer.
KDE users spend that time earning money to pay for the
privelege of holding on the telephone for technical
support.
Allen Kistler
Makes sense. I think I remember diskboot.img being for a floppy long,
long ago. Then it became too big to fit on a floppy.
I also found some fedora-test-list articles that talked about having to
copy the image to the first partition on the USB stick if the machine
didn't support booting to a USB floppy image (varies machine BIOS to
machine BIOS).
The OP had Windows, so he'll have to find a way to write the image to
USB via something in Windows.
In any case, the OP has something else to try now.
Nico Kadel-Garcia
> In alt.os.linux.redhat Allen Kistler <ackist...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>
> > I can't think of a way to do a floppy-based or USB-based installation
> > for RHEL. You could probably bootstrap into RHEL by starting with
> > another distro that does support floppies, if you have a floppy drive
> > and lots of floppy disks. Install that distro first, then use the
> > method David mentions to boot to the RHEL iso.
>
> RHEL 5 supports the use of the /images/bootdisk.img, copied to a bootable
> USB flash drive. Instructions in the RHEL install guide.
Yeah, I'm afraid that the kernel has gotten so burdened with funky
utilities required by various hardware, and the bare installation
utilities have grown so much, that one would be very, very hard
pressed indeed to stuff it in a floppy image. I used to do that: it
was a pain in the neck, especially because the 'initrd.img' was
actually an already gzip compressed file: it should have been named
'initrd.igz'.
> "To boot using a USB pen drive, use the dd command to copy the diskboot.img
> image file from the /images/ directory on CD-ROM 1. For example:
> dd if=diskboot.img of=/dev/sda
> "
>
> Other sources on the web explain how to perform the copy if you don't
> already have dd.
Have you actually tried this? I've found booting from pen drives
problematic over the last 6 years or so, and hope it has improved.
Nico Kadel-Garcia
> d...@01.usenet.us.com wrote:
Maybe the old 'rawrite' utility? I used to use it for floppies: will
it work for USB devices?
do...@01.usenet.us.com
> > "To boot using a USB pen drive, use the dd command to copy the
> > diskboot.img image file from the /images/ directory on CD-ROM 1. For
> > example: dd if=diskboot.img of=/dev/sda"
> The OP had Windows, so he'll have to find a way to write the image to
> USB via something in Windows.
I used cygwin dd to write it from Windows and tested the boot.
cat /proc/partitions
# before and after USB stick insertion to see what the /dev name is
dd if=diskboot.img of=/dev/sdb
A quick sniff on the web shows several "dd" programs available.
do...@01.usenet.us.com
> Have you actually tried this? I've found booting from pen drives
> problematic over the last 6 years or so, and hope it has improved.
After I did the dd of the RHEL image yesterday, I did boot a desktop from
it. It showed RHEL 5, and looked like the normal install boot prompt from
a booted CD. I didn't try "rescue" or anything. It timed out, and went to
an install GUI, asking for the location of the install media.
Recently, in the quest to recover a damaged WinVista laptop, I tried making
bootable USB LiveCD sticks for Ubuntu and Fedora, using a combination of
dd, various programs found on the web, including some eeprom-update tools
from HP.
Eventually, I used a physical Ubuntu LiveCD (I didn't have a writer
available initially) to make an Ubuntu bootable stick. That worked, and I
recovered all of the docs I needed from the laptop, and loaded Ubuntu on
it, instead of buying the WindowsVista media for a reload...
From Windows, the Ubuntu-suggested UNetbootin did not work for me, but the
Fedora liveusb-creator.exe worked, and has the added benefit of leaving me
with a usable USB flash for normal storage.
Aragorn
wrote in /comp.os.linux.setup:/
> See what happens when you criticize the Windowsization of Linux.
First of all I would like to say that I have not been following the
entire debate into detail because of health issues, and although the
word "troll" has come up a few times in this part of the thread, I have
now chosen to - even if only for a short while - put in my two cents
worth, with respect to both parties, as I see valid points in both of
them.
Sidney, I can feel your frustration over the "Windowsization" of
GNU/Linux, and to a large degree, I even share it. However, I think
you are being so frustrated about it that you are generalizing and
polarizing your views to extents beyond reality. Allow me to
explain...
There is indeed a tendency to make GNU/Linux more Windows-like, but I do
not believe that this tendency is as fierce as you yourself are
describing it, and what bothers me the most in this is that this
tendency has arisen from the demands of GNU/Linux newbies who of course
all come from the Windows world.
I myself have once been a newbie too, albeit that I was never that
Windows-conditioned as I already knew of other operating systems long
before I had a computer of my own. I only used MS-DOS 5.0 and Windows
3.x for about five or six months on my own first computer as it came
with those pre-installed and I was awaiting the commercial and stable
release of OS/2 2.x, which I have subsequently used for over five
years. On my next machine, I have used Windows NT 4.0 Workstation for
two years, but back then I was not all that seriously into computers
yet as I have become since I installed GNU/Linux for the first time,
late 1999. I have never used anything other than GNU/Linux since, and
wouldn't want to if my life depended on it. (In fact, I think I'd
rather have my life depend on GNU/Linux than on any other operating
system. ;-))
Now, I was a newbie too back then, albeit with some minor UNIX knowledge
and free from the Windows-isms like "folders" and /sea-drives./ I have
always found the UNIX methodology far more logical and transparent.
But as a newbie, KDE - back then still at version 1.1.1 - was a very
welcome environment as it facilitated getting acquainted with all
aspects of the operating system. I did however check out many of
the /man/ and /info/ pages from the start, read the /HowTos/ and of
course, prior to even installing the operating system, the printed
manual - it was a shrinkwrapped retail version of Linux Mandrake 6.0
Powerpack, which was back then basically a copy of RedHat with KDE
added, because RedHat refused to supply KDE due to the fact that KDE
1.x was built using non-freely licensed Qt libraries. Another
difference was that Mandrake 6.0 came with kernel 2.2.9, whereas RedHat
still carried 2.2.5.
I am a big fan of KDE, and more specifically KDE 3.x. I find KDE 4.x to
be promising, yet at the same time daunting because it's obviously
still very experimental and so far I haven't heard of any distro that
has managed to iron out the problems KDE 4.x poses. KDE 3.5.10 on the
other hand, although no longer maintained by the KDE developers
themselves, is stable and fully functional.
I also don't make it look like Windows - and I hate that distro vendors
do that - because I don't find the Windows GUI all that intuitive. On
my system, it looks a bit like the GUI of a MacIntosh, but not with the
intent of duplicating it. I have not set it up to look like anything
that exists, but rather like something that I can use and that feels
good for myself, not for everyone else. But even in its default look &
feel, I don't consider KDE 3.x to be a Windows clone, especially not if
you consider LXDE (which *does* look like Windows XP) or the Vista-look
of KDE 4.x - if I ever do switch to using KDE 4.x, then that will be
the first thing I change - or even the perversions of whatever UNIX
desktop environment is used by Linspire and the likes and have been
completely converted to the look & feel of Windows, desktop wallpaper
included.
So I do use KDE, and I like it. But don't let that statement fool you,
because I keep a terminal window open at all time and launch additional
terminal emulators when needed, and I do most of the stuff from the
commandline. It's just that when handling graphical objects a lot, it
is easier if you get to see a preview, and graphical manipulation of
photos et al does require running X11 anyway, and these days, diskspace
and RAM are cheap, so there's no reason for me to run a CLI-only system
- not for a workstation anyway. But I copy, move, delete, create and
otherwise manipulate files from the commandline. My filemanager only
serves so as to get a clear overview of the thumbnails. Being autistic
however, I really do like the aesthetics of (my customized version of)
KDE 3.x.
However, there is another angle to the Windows-ism story, in which you
are partly right, i.e. commercial distributions need an income, and
that income comes from selling a distribution of GNU/Linux in a
computer market segment that is for most part occupied by Windows. And
Microsoft has gone to great lengths at hiding what a computer really is
and what it does from its users, presenting them with their own
"Microsoft logic", in which thinking for yourself is strongly
discouraged. As such, the new batch of IT professionals gets trained
on using Microsoft stuff only, and as such, a new generation of idiots
is produced.
So now there are the computer illiterates who only know Windows - and
have never even heard of anything other than Windows because of
Microsoft's monopolizing tactics of pushing a license of Windows with
every new consumergrade computer from a big name brand - and you've got
the Windiots who call themselves IT specialists but only know how to
set up Microsoft software for use by the illiterates. Treat your
customers like idiots and idiots are the customers you'll attract - the
old adage still stands. And that is why distromakers tend to cater to
their Windiot clients.
> The technocrats freak because they want Linux runners to be
> dependent on them [...
On this I do not agree. I don't think that the technocrats would want
users to be dependent of them at all. In fact, it is my experience -
at least on Usenet, and I tend to follow this tendency myself when
giving advice - that the more technically experienced among us are
trying to teach the newbie how to think for themselves and "RTFM",
instead of thinking that GNU/Linux must behave like Windows.
By the same token, I always advice everyone to ditch the entire HAL
stuff with the automounting features and stick to a traditional and
static */etc/fstab* with manual mounting. Not that I'm conservative,
but I don't like things screwing around with system data that should be
kept static and that is known to work, while the automounting stuff
often doesn't.
> ...] and the couch potatoes freak because they want Linux to be an
> appliance like Windows.
On *that* I agree.
> Of course, most of the participants here are just your ordinary
> usenet losers whose life consists of mocking and degrading people
> while they hide behind fake names (usually more than one of them).
The use of pseudonyms is not such a bad idea, provided that one stays
consistent and uses the same pseudonym continuously, or at the very
least, when adopting another one, make an announcement to that regard.
Shifting pseudonyms is rather a habit of trolls or spammers. I use a
pseudonym but I have used this one for many years already. I used to
have another one long before this one, but those who know me know that
this other "person" was me, and why I have chosen a different name -
among other things, I was being stalked by people who knew my pseudonym
and what newsgroup groups I was posting in.
> KDE and the like are "gifts", multi-million dollar "gifts", from
> a group of corporations who are trying to take Linux away from
> amateurs and turn it into a clone of Windows.
I disagree on that. KDE was an effort to build a contemporary graphical
desktop environment for all kinds of UNIX systems - not just GNU/Linux
- and its name is a parody on CDE, the Common Desktop Environment that
shipped with most commercial UNIX implementations. KDE contains
elements of CDE, NeXtSTeP, pre-OS-X MacIntoshes, OS/2 and Windows. The
first iterations of KDE even looked far more like Motif and CDE than
like Windows.
Most (but not all) of the original KDE developers did work at Trolltech,
which produces the Qt widgetset, and hence they also used Qt to build
KDE upon. Originally Qt was not released under a free license, and
this is why the FSF and certain "politically correct wannabe"
distributions like RedHat refused to support KDE, despite KDE itself
being released under a free license. Meanwhile Trolltech has - with
the advice from RMS himself - licensed Qt under a GPL-compatible
license, and so that problem has been eliminated.
I will however agree with you that KDE 4.x does look a lot like Vista in
its default trim with the black panel, and that this is probably done
so as to make life easier for the Windows-to-GNU/Linux crossover
newbie. And I will also agree with you that this was absolutely
unnecessary. Yet that does not mean that I will agree that UNIX must
be a CLI-only operating system. But then again, it should also not be
seen as a CLI-only operating system of course, as the operating system
itself is CLI-only and everything else runs on top of that.
For the record, my system is normally up 24/7, but it boots to runlevel
3 anyway, not to a GUI login screen. I consider X11/KDE an extension
to the system, not an essential component to it. By the same token, I
maintain our not-for-profit organization's servers via /ssh/ - my
colleague is a Windows user and prefers /webmin/ - so I do not need any
GUI tools. It's just that having those tools available (for local
administration) might come in handy sometimes. ;-)
> Corporations do not spend this kind of money unless they plan on
> making it back with a big profit thrown in.
That is unfortunately a trend we get to see with lots of commercial
distributions. But there still are non-commercial distributions,
albeit only a small amount. Gentoo for instance, or Debian.
> KDE is just a bunch of applications wrapped up in a pretty
> package that supposedly makes it possible for the average
> ignorant couch-potato to run Linux. But only with dedicated
> technical support.
I don't understand why you are dissing on KDE so much. As far as my own
experience goes, I find KDE to be far more customizable than Gnome, and
far better integrated with its applications than any of the smaller,
standalone desktop environments or window managers.
> And it makes your Linux OS so very complicated, all of itself,
> that it naturally discourages anyone from trying to learn Linux.
> This is by design.
This is mainly the influence of the distromakers themselves, because
they needlessly complicate things for the sake of branding them with
their own logos. For instance, Mandriva - formerly known as
MandrakeSoft - really goes out of its way in providing customized
versions of - among many others - all kinds of KDE-related things
(including /kdm/) and the fact that their customizations are left
largely undocumented seems more like a deliberate decision than a
manifestation of Occam's Razor.
> I don't run anything like KDE. Like tens of thousands of
> real Linux runners, I run Linux from the commandline.
There really is a distinct difference between realizing that the
Windows-insanity is trying to take over the GNU/Linux world out of
their inability to understand anything other than the pre-chewed
Microsoft junk, and radically opposing and hating anything GUI-related.
I can make that distinction, but I'm afraid you yourself cannot.
The tens of thousands of CLI-only users you are referring to are mainly
server admins, and for server administration you do indeed not need a
GUI, nor is it desirable to even install anything GUI-related on a
server. However, persisting at running a CLI-only system also causes
you to bypass *almost* everything multimedia-related, such as the
manipulation of graphics via The Gimp - which is one of my favorite
applications and which, despite the condescending remarks from
Photoshop addicts, is quite professional software.
I repeat...: I do our server maintenance via /ssh./ I do most of the
stuff on my own workstation computer using terminal emulators. But I
do use KDE and I do use KDE-specific applications. And I also do use a
browser - whichever works - to surf to websites that contain graphical
content.
There's nothing wrong with using a GUI, and one should not have to hate
GUIs or refuse to use them just because there is such a thing as
Microsoft Windows. I hate Windows too. Not because I've had any
problems with it - because I haven't used it for long enough nor
intensely enough to actually have had any significant problems with it
- but because of what it is, i.e. a perversion of what a computer is
and what it's supposed to do, and what it's supposed to allow the user
to do with it (as opposed to what Microsoft allows the user to do with
it). And I hate Microsoft as a company because of all their dirty
tactics and their attempts at disrupting the GNU/Linux community
through publicized FUD and Usenet shills/trolls, and because they are
clearly attempting to further dumb down the enduser so as to beat more
money out of their pockets or simply lead them into dependency.
> KDE is more than 10X the size of my entire OS yet I can do
> anything it can do.
And on today's hard disks with hundreds of GB of diskspace, in today's
computers with several GB of RAM, this matters how exactly?
> No, I am not some kind of guru. Just a guy who spends a little time on
> most days reading about Linux and trying out what I learn on my
> computer.
I enjoy learning new stuff about GNU/Linux (or UNIX in general) as well,
but I am not spending my entire days trying to learn something new
about it unless it is something of particular interest to me - e.g.
virtualization with Xen (and no, not with Windows as guests). I have
many fields of interest that I do research about, but I am not going to
go out of my way to become a real guru and/or run a system without a
GUI.
I will however agree that it is better to teach the newbie that
GNU/Linux (or any UNIX for that matter) is an entirely different
operating system from Windows and that they should abandon all they
know about Windows or all they were used to on Windows before
endeavoring into GNU/Linux.
It *is* a different operating system, but I do not buy into the "steep
learning curve" excuse. Someone who's never seen a computer in his
life and who gets to be confronted with Windows for the first time will
have an equally steep learning curve to overcome. The steepness of the
GNU/Linux learning curve is only an imaginary construct used as an
excuse by Windows addicts to adhere to their dumbed-down Windows-isms
and insist that GNU/Linux become "more userfriendly".
GNU/Linux is not user-unfriendly at all; it simply expects the user to
be a little more computerfriendly instead. It is far more logical and
transparent than any other non-UNIX operating system I've seen so far.
Hell, it even makes far more sense than DOS, and that was a
commandline-only system as well.
> KDE users spend that time earning money to pay for the privelege of
> holding on the telephone for technical support.
You only get to get technical support if you're using a commercial
distribution, even if the operating system is provided free of charge
by its vendors - e.g. the various Ubuntu-spinoffs. I used to buy
commercial distributions because I wanted to do something back to the
community, but I think I've already helped far more users here on
Usenet than that my money to the distromakers has helped the community.
At present I am still running an old Mandrake 10.0 on this machine -
purchased directly from MandrakeSoft (now Mandriva) itself through
their online store, albeit that this did not quite go as smoothly as
they were pretending - but for my other machine I am looking at Gentoo,
and since this machine here is becoming unstable hardwarewise and will
require a replacement, I will probably be installing Slackware on that
one. I don't know yet. I'll see.
One of the reasons why I won't get involved with RedHat/CentOS/Fedora is
that they refuse to let you install the system on anything other
than /ext3/ filesystems - and by now, probably /ext4/ as well - while I
have always preferred /XFS/ for large systems and /reiserfs/ on smaller
ones. Reiser's conviction for the murder of his estranged wife a while
ago has of course lessened my sympathy for his filesystem, but
technically /reiserfs/ has not given me any problems yet. /XFS/ does
have a far more elaborate toolset, however.
> General:
>
> [...]
>
> http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
This is definitely recommended reading, and so are many of the other
links you've provided, but I don't see the logic in listing all of
those links in every post you make.
However, if I may make a suggestion, take that list of links and post it
on a website somewhere, and then include a link to that website in your
Usenet signature. Saves on bandwidth and diminishes the spam content
score of your posts. ;-)
<snip>
--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
Aragorn
in /comp.os.linux.setup:/
> [...]
One thing I have forgotten to mention here but which is important for
the newbie is that I've managed to install Mandrake 6.0 - by far not as
"userfriendly" yet as today's distros - without that I had an internet
connection, and without *any* significant problems.
I did not have internet at home yet back then, and as such there was no
such thing as Usenet or helpful websites. I had simply opened the box,
read the printed manual, perused the documentation on the installation
CD as referenced in the manual, followed the on-screen instructions
while installing, and then read the HowTos, and many of the /man/ pages
and /info/ pages. And that was it.
The only I problem I had was when I finally obtained a cable internet
connection in the spring of 2000 - at that time I was already
exclusively running Mandrake 6.0 - because that was an aspect of IT
that I still knew little to nothing about and the ISP (still) only
provide(d) instructions pertaining to either Microsoft Windows or Apple
OS-X; they still do not officially support GNU/Linux. And as such, I
had to scout for the proper driver for the NIC they had installed in my
computer, and set up the proper DNS and DHCP information. Fortunately,
RedHat and its spinoffs - of which Mandrake was one - came
with /netconf,/ an /ncurses-driven/ menu interface (and a sub-program
to the more elaborate /linuxconf/ utility) that facilitated setting
things up.
> I will however agree with you that KDE 4.x does look a lot like Vista
> in its default trim with the black panel, and that this is probably
> done so as to make life easier for the Windows-to-GNU/Linux crossover
> newbie. And I will also agree with you that this was absolutely
> unnecessary. Yet that does not mean that I will agree that UNIX must
> be a CLI-only operating system. But then again, it should also not be
> seen as a CLI-only operating system of course, as the operating system
^^^^^^^^
That should have read as "GUI-only", of course. My bad. ;-)
> [...]
The Natural Philosopher
"Oh, it looks just like windows 95' she said..'without the windows bit'....
I explained that a;ll operating systems looked like that, except with
windows the screen just goes blank, and with a MAC it goes grey with a
spinning wheel.
Aragorn
Philosopher* wrote in /comp.os.linux.setup:/
And Windows 95 was a GUI that ran on top of MS-DOS 7.0 - according to an
acquaintance of mine who had test-driven Windows 95 when it was still
called Windows 4.0 "Chicago", the DOS /ver/ command outputted
"Microsoft MS-DOS 7.00" - and DOS was basically a rebranded QDOS, which
was written by Tim Patterson of Seattle Computer - he later on
transfered to Microsoft after Bill Gates had purchased QDOS from him.
And Patterson's QDOS was in turn a not-too-legal "update" to CP/M by
Gary Kildall of Digital Research - not to be confused with "Digital",
the abbreviation of Digital Equipment Corporation (or DEC). And CP/M
was written specifically for floppy-only single-user and single-tasking
machines, but based upon the look and feel of... UNIX. ;-)
So, if we add it all up, then GNU/Linux and Windows are - at least, from
the purely technical point of view; I won't be discussing licensing
etc. - both descendents of UNIX, with GNU/Linux having the most UNIX
DNA and Windows being an offspring of an offspring of an offspring that
had serious genetic flaws. :p
Well, I don't see Windows running natively - as in "on the bare metal" -
on an IBM S/390 yet. ;-) GNU/Linux on the other hand is quite capable
of that, albeit that it's typically far more practical to run it inside
a virtual machine, even if only because of the limitations of the
amount of logical (processor) partitions in the Linux kernel versus
OS/390 (which I think is now called differently - zOS or something of
the likes? - but anyway).
Keith Keller
On 2009-07-08, Aragorn <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
> First of all I would like to say that I have not been following the
> entire debate into detail because of health issues, and although the
> word "troll" has come up a few times in this part of the thread
The word "troll" has come up because ''Sidney'' aka ''Alan Connor'' aka
''Tom Newton'' is a troll. Hit Google groups for some of his history.
> Shifting pseudonyms is rather a habit of trolls or spammers.
''Sidney'' aka ''Alan Connor'' aka ''Tom Newton'' has shifted at least
twice. (I think there's another nym that I'm forgetting.)
Daffy D.
<ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>
><snip>
If everyone is putting in their 2 cents....
Even though it's a very wel put argument, I think that it just doesn't
matter that much anymore...
I've been using Unix/Linux (AIX/SCO/RH5/Caldera, with or without
internet) waaaay before there was Win95 or worse, and still use Linux
for every main server I have.
While I do administer almost everything bij CLI, sometimes you just
need a GUI (like browsing.. Lynx is just a bit too much of a pain....)
or even Win (development...)
Same goes for the desktop.. If someone wants to learn how an OS works,
fine, let them read up on it, good for them.
But for the masses, they don't care about an OS, they just want to
surf, watch video's, see pictures (nude or not ;)) and do some word
processing. They don't care if it's Win/Linux/Mac as long as it
works... And your application is easy to install, works well on you
OS, and keeps on working well.
I agree, Linux if far better than Win for stability/performance/logic,
but has still too much differences across the distro's to make it easy
to install an app like it is in Win or Mac..
Linux is getting better, but still needs more end-user consistency and
that isn't necessary Win like....
For the new bunch of techie's, the just should try to learn how an OS
really works instead of just knowing where to click MS style. But
basically, that's their problem, when everything goes down the tubes
they'll need a real expert to fix things, (that's where we come in...)
and having to explain why they cannot fix things... and try to learn
then....
Just my opinion...
D.
Unix/Linux/Win admin/developer, RHCE
Sidney Lambe
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:24:54 +0200, Aragorn
><ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>
>><snip>
>
> If everyone is putting in their 2 cents....
>
> Even though it's a very wel put argument, I think that it just doesn't
> matter that much anymore...
>
> I've been using Unix/Linux (AIX/SCO/RH5/Caldera, with or without
> internet) waaaay before there was Win95 or worse, and still use Linux
> for every main server I have.
> While I do administer almost everything bij CLI, sometimes you just
> need a GUI (like browsing.. Lynx is just a bit too much of a pain....)
> or even Win (development...)
I have a GUI. I don't have anything like KDE. I run Linux from
the commandline and can run any application someone using KDE
or the like can, much faster, because my system resources are not being
used up by a massive suite of apps providing nothing but eye-candy
and the illusion of 'user-friendliness'. My OS is much more stable
more secure, too. Complexity leads to instability and insecurity.
It's also easier to maintain and modify.
> Same goes for the desktop.. If someone wants to learn how an OS works,
> fine, let them read up on it, good for them.
> But for the masses, they don't care about an OS, they just want to
> surf, watch video's, see pictures (nude or not ;)) and do some word
> processing.
It takes as long to learn an artificial interface like KDE as it does
to learn the commandline, the basics of the shell and how the Linux
OS works.
And people who only know KDE or the like are dependent on people who
know the shell and the OS.
You are offering the same erroneous arguments that have been stated
already on this thread in a dozen different guises.
Technocratic propaganda.
General:
http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html
http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.html
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ
http://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/index.html
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1052574.html
kind of odd "shell ninja" but lots of good info:
http://www.slideshare.net/brian_dailey/nyphp-march-2009-presentation
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/classes/s243/bash.html
http://www.learnaboutlinux.net/blog/41-programming/50-bash-basics-1
[delete]
Sid
Daffy D.
<sidne...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Daffy D <x66...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:24:54 +0200, Aragorn
>><ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>
>
>I have a GUI. I don't have anything like KDE. I run Linux from
>the commandline and can run any application someone using KDE
>or the like can, much faster, because my system resources are not being
>used up by a massive suite of apps providing nothing but eye-candy
>and the illusion of 'user-friendliness'. My OS is much more stable
>more secure, too. Complexity leads to instability and insecurity.
>
>It's also easier to maintain and modify.
Modifying any working thing also leads to insecurity
>
>> Same goes for the desktop.. If someone wants to learn how an OS works,
>> fine, let them read up on it, good for them.
>> But for the masses, they don't care about an OS, they just want to
>> surf, watch video's, see pictures (nude or not ;)) and do some word
>> processing.
>
>It takes as long to learn an artificial interface like KDE as it does
>to learn the commandline, the basics of the shell and how the Linux
>OS works.
CLI is also an artificial interface, a computer is artificial
>
>And people who only know KDE or the like are dependent on people who
>know the shell and the OS.
>
>You are offering the same erroneous arguments that have been stated
>already on this thread in a dozen different guises.
Analogy: You just ride your car of do you always strip away everything
that is not necesary to make it drive? Or fix everything that breaks
or let an "expert" fix it?
>
>Technocratic propaganda.
Neanderthale view of life
>
>General:
>
>http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
>http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html
>http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
>http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.html
>http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
>http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
>http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
>http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
>http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
>http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
>http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ
>http://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/index.html
>http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
>http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1052574.html
>kind of odd "shell ninja" but lots of good info:
>http://www.slideshare.net/brian_dailey/nyphp-march-2009-presentation
>http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/classes/s243/bash.html
>http://www.learnaboutlinux.net/blog/41-programming/50-bash-basics-1
>
>
>[delete]
>
>Sid
Ans please, skip the ad's
D.
Evergreen
> Sidney Lambe wrote (in part):
>
>> I have a GUI.
>
> Does your GUI run on top of the X Window System?
Where else? I have an x-server and a minimal window
manager and a mouse.
> Or do you provide something
> equivalent to it to support your GUI?
Just X.
> On my system, X is using about 36
> MBytes of virtual memory; actually, most of that is paged out and it is
> really using only about 7.5 meg of RAM. Some people might consider that
> massive. On my machine, though, that is only about 0.2% of the virtual memory.
On my system, X is only up when I need to use an X-app, and I use a
tiny-X server. The RAM usage is minimal unless the X-app needs a lot.
>> I don't have anything like KDE. I run Linux from
>> the commandline and can run any application someone using KDE
>> or the like can, much faster, because my system resources are not being
>> used up by a massive suite of apps providing nothing but eye-candy
>> and the illusion of 'user-friendliness'. My OS is much more stable
>> more secure, too. Complexity leads to instability and insecurity.
>
> GNOME and all the little eye candy (panel, icons, etc., are only taking 2.7%
> of my virtual address space.
There's a _lot_ more to it than that.
>>
>> It's also easier to maintain and modify.
>
> I have never even felt the need to maintain or modify GNOME and its related
> programs.
You haven't added or deleted applications or changed their configurations?
That would be very weird, if so.
I can't imagine being limited to only the apps that some geeks writing
a 'desktop environment' thought I should have.
>>
>> It takes as long to learn an artificial interface like KDE as it does
>> to learn the commandline, the basics of the shell and how the Linux
>> OS works.
>
> I had to learn the UNIX OS without any GUI stuff, because there was none in
> the early 1970s. I did not actively use a GUI until I got my first PC in
> 1996 that hat Windows 95 on it. The basics of that were kind-of trivial to
> learn, and I never managed to learn much of the rest. I abandoned that
> because of several factors:
Once again you are referring to a 'graphical desktop environment' as a GUI, and
that is inaccurate in the extreme.
GUIs have been around for 40 years. 'Graphical desktop environments' have
been around for about 15 and a lot less than that on Linux.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface
[delete]
I repeat: You can learn Linux, or you can learn a 'graphical desktop
environment' like KDE. Takes the same amount of time and those
who learn Linux have much more power and freedom and can use
a 'graphical desktop environment' without any problem because
they are, of necessity, dependent on the underlying operating
system.
The technocrats and the couch potatoes and office drones and
investors that support them want you to think that KDE and
the like _are_ Linux, but that isn't true at all.
Their user-friendliness is an illusion. Their purpose is
to keep you from learning Linux so that you will be dependent
on them and never know what you are missing.
http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html
http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ
http://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/index.html
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1052574.html
kind of odd "shell ninja" but lots of good info:
http://www.slideshare.net/brian_dailey/nyphp-march-2009-presentation
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/classes/s243/bash.html
http://www.learnaboutlinux.net/blog/41-programming/50-bash-basics-1
http://linux.about.com/cs/glossaries/a/aglossary.htm
http://tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Dictionary/
Sid
--
Sidney Lambe
Wiccan Priest and Apprentice Magician
http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
usenet4444 (at) gmail (dot) com
Sidney Lambe
> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
[delete off-topic ramblings --I think they are doing it on
purpose because they don't want these ideas to get around]
Windows-clone user interfaces, Graphical Desktop Environments (GDE)
like KDE are funded by a group of corporations in order to divorce
Linux runners from Linux. To turn us into ignorant appliance operators
who are dependent on their hired geeks and tech-support flunkies.
It takes just as long to learn to use KDE as it does to learn Linux,
and you are then limited to what the corporate geeks who maintain KDE
want you to do, and how they want you to do it.
Don't confuse a GUI with a GDE. They aren't the same thing at all.
A GDE is just a group of applications running on top of a GUI.
I run Linux and use a GUI when I need to run graphical applications,
but I don't have anything like KDE on my box. Yet I can run any
application someone using KDE can.
My OS is much simpler and easier to manage and customize, and
more stable and faster and more secure than those of people
who use GDEs.
Don't let the technocrats (and all of their sockpuppets) confuse
you or mislead you. Running Linux directly, from the commandline,
is easy and fun, and it's the path to power and freedom in this
arena.
Do a little studying and playing with the commandline,
and when you run into problems, you can find help here and
on other Linux forums.
There are a _lot_ of real Linux runners out here.
Just Say No to the corporate geeks who are trying to turn
Linux into a clone of Windows.
http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html
http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.
html
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ
http://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/index.html
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1052574.html
kind of odd "shell ninja" but lots of good info:
http://www.slideshare.net/brian_dailey/nyphp-march-2009-presentation
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/classes/s243/bash.html
http://www.learnaboutlinux.net/blog/41-programming/50-bash-basics-1
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>
> [delete off-topic ramblings --I think they are doing it on
> purpose because they don't want these ideas to get around]
>
> Windows-clone user interfaces, Graphical Desktop Environments (GDE)
> like KDE are funded by a group of corporations in order to divorce
> Linux runners from Linux. To turn us into ignorant appliance operators
> who are dependent on their hired geeks and tech-support flunkies.
>
> It takes just as long to learn to use KDE as it does to learn Linux,
> and you are then limited to what the corporate geeks who maintain KDE
> want you to do, and how they want you to do it.
>
> Don't confuse a GUI with a GDE. They aren't the same thing at all.
> A GDE is just a group of applications running on top of a GUI.
>
> I run Linux and use a GUI when I need to run graphical applications,
> but I don't have anything like KDE on my box. Yet I can run any
> application someone using KDE can.
>
So fucking what? anyone can do that.
> My OS is much simpler and easier to manage and customize, and
> more stable and faster and more secure than those of people
> who use GDEs.
>
So fucking what? Who really CARES?
> Don't let the technocrats (and all of their sockpuppets) confuse
> you or mislead you. Running Linux directly, from the commandline,
> is easy and fun, and it's the path to power and freedom in this
> arena.
Power and freedom?
Power to do what? freedom from waht?
I think you are seriously disturbed.
Your views are certainly not balanced. Is your mind?
Sidney Lambe
This is the sort of person who defends KDE and the like.
He's much too busy wandering the Internet calling people 'stupid'
(he knows a hundred synonyms for the word) to do any studying.
If it wasn't for training-wheel, kindergarten Windows-clone
interfaces like KDE he wouldn't be able to (sort of) run Linux
at all.
Sid
Daffy D.
<sidne...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
<skipping the dribble..>
Let just stop feeding the trolls, they've had enough
D.
The Natural Philosopher
state.
Paranoia.
> He's much too busy wandering the Internet calling people 'stupid'
> (he knows a hundred synonyms for the word) to do any studying.
I probably do know 100 synonyms for stupid, but that is because I did a
lot of studying in my youth..You are not stupid, Sidney, but you seem
somewhat..disturbed..
>
> If it wasn't for training-wheel, kindergarten Windows-clone
> interfaces like KDE he wouldn't be able to (sort of) run Linux
> at all.
>
Oh dear, Listen Sidney. I go one better than you. My linux server
doesn't even have a SCREEN. Or a keyboard..
I use telnet..
I write CODE on it. Do you write CODE.
But tell you what, because I've got a windowed environment I can watch
TWO SCREENS AT ONCE, OR MORE on it.
Na na nee na!
>
> Sid
>
>
Sidney Lambe
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
In your last post to me, you said:
> So fucking what? Who really CARES?
Obviously, YOU do, considering how many times you've
responded to me here, and from the viciousness of your
personal attacks you care a LOT.
You REALLY don't want this subject discussed.
You want to believe that you are running Linux when the
facts is that the geeks who maintain KDE and their
little "help desk" technical support drones are running
it for you.
[delete]
Sid
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> In your last post to me, you said:
>
>> So fucking what? Who really CARES?
>
> Obviously, YOU do, considering how many times you've
> responded to me here, and from the viciousness of your
> personal attacks you care a LOT.
>
> You REALLY don't want this subject discussed.
>
> You want to believe that you are running Linux when the
> facts is that the geeks who maintain KDE and their
> little "help desk" technical support drones are running
> it for you.
>
I don't use KDE, Sidney.
On this machine its Gnome, for convenience.
Other machines don't even have X-windows.
> [delete]
>
> Sid
B Sellers
> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>
> [delete]
snip your usual ignorance you multi aliased troll
>
> Sid
>
You are so ridiculous.