Q: LispWorks on SuSE 7.2?
Mark Watson
good true type font support, automatic recognition of
IDE CD-R, etc.), and everything is great except LispWorks
4120 Personal segfaults (11) on sartup. I installed
lesstif (very new verion) before the LW install.
Any ideas?
Thanks!,
Mark
-- Mark Watson
-- Java consulting, Open Source and Content: www.markwatson.com
Christopher Stacy
Mark> I installed SuSE 7.2 last night (wonderful, BTW, with
Mark> good true type font support, automatic recognition of
Mark> IDE CD-R, etc.), and everything is great except LispWorks
Mark> 4120 Personal segfaults (11) on sartup. I installed
Mark> lesstif (very new verion) before the LW install.
What's a "SuSE"?
Jordan Katz
A German Linux distribution <http://www.suse.de>.
--
Jordan Katz <ka...@underlevel.net> | Mind the gap
Reini Urban
: I installed SuSE 7.2 last night (wonderful, BTW, with
: good true type font support, automatic recognition of
: IDE CD-R, etc.), and everything is great except LispWorks
: 4120 Personal segfaults (11) on sartup. I installed
: lesstif (very new verion) before the LW install.
: Any ideas?
Could be GLIBC 2.2 or the new xfree or the new 2.4 kernel.
That's why I'm still stuck with SuSE 7.0, though CMUCL demands 7.1
(or better Debian)
--
Reini Urban
http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/acadwiki/AutoLispFaq
Pierre R. Mai
> Could be GLIBC 2.2 or the new xfree or the new 2.4 kernel.
> That's why I'm still stuck with SuSE 7.0, though CMUCL demands 7.1
> (or better Debian)
CMU CL does? Doesn't SuSE 7.0 have a glibc 2.1? In that case the
glibc21 release binaries for CMU CL 18c should work correctly.
The current Debian packages probably do depend on glibc 2.2, since they
are part of potato, which will be glibc 2.2 based...
Regs, Pierre.
--
Pierre R. Mai <pm...@acm.org> http://www.pmsf.de/pmai/
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents. -- Nathaniel Borenstein
Greg Menke
> Could be GLIBC 2.2 or the new xfree or the new 2.4 kernel.
> That's why I'm still stuck with SuSE 7.0, though CMUCL demands 7.1
> (or better Debian)
I have it running under XFree 4.2, on a Debian 2.2 system.
Gregm
Erik Naggum
> I installed SuSE 7.2 last night (wonderful, BTW, with good true type font
> support, automatic recognition of IDE CD-R, etc.), and everything is
> great except LispWorks 4120 Personal segfaults (11) on sartup. I
> installed lesstif (very new verion) before the LW install.
>
> Any ideas?
With a GNU/Debian system using Linux kernel 2.4.6, glibc 2.2.3, xfree
4.0.3 and a statically linked motif of some unknown kind and version, the
Personal Edition of LispWorks does not segfault. It has about a billion
other annoying problems and disobeys or over-obeys X resources (for fun,
try setting *BorderWidth to _any_ value), some of which are extremely
hard to figure out how to correct, and is generally such a pain even to
try out that I have dropped the option of using it in addition to Allegro
CL. I have probably spent more time trying to get it to behave than I
have spent getting _sendmail_ to behave. Admittedly, a software package
that presents itself with "we know which fonts and colors and shit you
hate and we chose them for your first impression" must do a lot of good
work to make up for it, but when documentation files are unreadable
because they were installed under a non-existing user with user-only
permiessions (nice work! not only are they not that interesting or
informative, did they not _want_ people to read them?), the web browser
interaction somehow manages to avoid reusing running browser images even
after I figured out why launching the web browser mysteriously failed to
use the $PATH environment variable and debugging from failure to launch
it did not reveal the variable that was used to construct the bogus path,
you _really_ have to work hard to make me want to investigate further.
Unix users are not Windows monkeys, guys. Those who came to Linux from
Windows could maybe tolerate this, but those who came to Linux from Unix
most probably will not, like so much other Windows-like cruft in Linux.
#:Erik
--
There is nothing in this message that under normal circumstances should
cause Barry Margolin to announce his moral superiority over others, but
one never knows how he needs to behave to maintain his belief in it.
Reini Urban
: Reini Urban <rur...@x-ray.at> writes:
:> Could be GLIBC 2.2 or the new xfree or the new 2.4 kernel.
:> That's why I'm still stuck with SuSE 7.0, though CMUCL demands 7.1
:> (or better Debian)
: CMU CL does? Doesn't SuSE 7.0 have a glibc 2.1? In that case the
: glibc21 release binaries for CMU CL 18c should work correctly.
yes, it works okay now. but it was a headache to install.
(as always wit CMU CL)
: The current Debian packages probably do depend on glibc 2.2, since they
: are part of potato, which will be glibc 2.2 based...
that's what I originally meant. apt-get for suse also demands 2.2.
The perl script to convert the glib2.1 based DEB to RPM works partially,
so I can work around it, but it's still causing headaches on SUSE. also the
"strange" directory layout.
Nils Goesche
> Pierre R. Mai <pm...@acm.org> wrote:
> : Reini Urban <rur...@x-ray.at> writes:
> :> Could be GLIBC 2.2 or the new xfree or the new 2.4 kernel.
> :> That's why I'm still stuck with SuSE 7.0, though CMUCL demands 7.1
> :> (or better Debian)
>
> : CMU CL does? Doesn't SuSE 7.0 have a glibc 2.1? In that case the
> : glibc21 release binaries for CMU CL 18c should work correctly.
>
> yes, it works okay now. but it was a headache to install.
> (as always wit CMU CL)
Strange. I installed it a few days ago and it was absolutely
trivial. Maybe because...
> : The current Debian packages probably do depend on glibc 2.2, since they
> : are part of potato, which will be glibc 2.2 based...
>
> that's what I originally meant. apt-get for suse also demands 2.2.
>
> The perl script to convert the glib2.1 based DEB to RPM works partially,
> so I can work around it, but it's still causing headaches on SUSE. also the
> "strange" directory layout.
Why didn't you just download the two .tar.gz files? Anyway, everybody
who uses SuSE gets what he deserves ;-)
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x42B32FC9
Reini Urban
: Why didn't you just download the two .tar.gz files? Anyway, everybody
: who uses SuSE gets what he deserves ;-)
You are right. I hate it also. ;-)
but it was not my decision. on any other dev machine I'll only install
debian. but on my two production systems we have to use this old SUSE
stuff. So we got used to install everything from source.
Besides CMUCL of course.
The headaches weren't that technically motivated. It was quite easy and
fast to setup. My problems were related to ancient tools like alien, rpm
and more the strange directory layout which I had to symlink manually, and
which doesn't fit at all to the SUSE layout. Hope that this will settle
sooner or later.
Problems like this happen everyday with other tools like apache, php or
icecast also. Compared to compiling php from source it was trivial. This new
sucker php-4.0.6 broke one of my live databases due to setlocale/gettext
problems and I still don't know how to fix that. With perl, python or lisp
it would not have happened. (perl being the worst besides php. maybe even
worse...)
--
Reini Urban
Jochen Schmidt
> Nils Goesche <car...@cartan.de> wrote:
> : Why didn't you just download the two .tar.gz files? Anyway, everybody
> : who uses SuSE gets what he deserves ;-)
>
> You are right. I hate it also. ;-)
> but it was not my decision. on any other dev machine I'll only install
> debian. but on my two production systems we have to use this old SUSE
> stuff. So we got used to install everything from source.
> Besides CMUCL of course.
SuSE is not *so* bad as it's fame. It is worlds better then Redhat so far...
Particularily the SuSE7.2 is a really good distro - I had practically
nothing to setup...
I'm a programmer - I don't want to fiddle around with OS-Administration if
I'm not forced to do so.
But I think this whole SuSE bashing is mainly a new kind of
"Microsoft-bashing" - speakingly "Bash the vendor if you don't get it
right".
ciao,
Jochen
Martin Simmons
news:c5h67.4255$Xn.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I installed SuSE 7.2 last night (wonderful, BTW, with
> good true type font support, automatic recognition of
> IDE CD-R, etc.), and everything is great except LispWorks
> 4120 Personal segfaults (11) on sartup. I installed
> lesstif (very new verion) before the LW install.
>
> Any ideas?
Are you running with a 15 or 16 bit display? There is a problem with LW 4120 on
these displays.
--
Martin Simmons, Xanalys Software Tools
zne...@xanalys.com
rot13 to reply
Nils Goesche
Not in my case. I had nothing against SuSE when I first met it about
a year ago. It was installed on the machines of the company I
switched to. The problem was that I had already tried many different
distributions on my home box and _none_ of them was as unstable as our
SuSE machines. That was 7.1; recently I saw some presentation where
somebody used a laptop with SuSE 7.2 and again -- at some point the
system just hung and he had to reboot. Twenty minutes later some
innocent little program, I don't remember which one, maybe `make' or
something, started to eat all the machine's memory and fill the swap
space for no apparent reason.
Of course, there might be other explanations for this, but my first
bet was `It's SuSE', because similar stuff happened all the time on
our SuSE 7.1 boxes, too. And then there is this EXTREMELY ANNOYING
habit of yast to mess up my carefully edited configuration files... I
have no idea what they did to make Emacs behave in the weird way it
did on the SuSE 7.1 machines. Not even -q --no-site-file helped.
Finally, I wiped it off the disk and rebuilt it from the original
sources -- then everything was fine. Typical SuSE experience.
In January, I had enough. I formatted my hard disk and put Slackware
on it, which I use at home for years now. I never had a problem with
it, never _any_ reason to complain. When my coworkers curse about
their machines doing wierd things, I just smile and think ``Thank god
I got rid of SuSE'' :-)
Jochen Schmidt
> Not in my case. I had nothing against SuSE when I first met it about
> a year ago. It was installed on the machines of the company I
> switched to. The problem was that I had already tried many different
> distributions on my home box and _none_ of them was as unstable as our
> SuSE machines. That was 7.1; recently I saw some presentation where
> somebody used a laptop with SuSE 7.2 and again -- at some point the
> system just hung and he had to reboot. Twenty minutes later some
> innocent little program, I don't remember which one, maybe `make' or
> something, started to eat all the machine's memory and fill the swap
> space for no apparent reason.
AFAIK the 7.1 had many quirks - but I use SuSE for much longer and
therefore know that they have done it better. The problem is not so much
that SuSE delivers a unstable system, but that SuSE is not really in the
way of the user if he installs things that don't work stable enough. They
often delivered things like Reiser, or the NVidia 3D Drivers earlier than
others. If you install all this experimental stuff you should not wonder
when your machine boils down.
> Of course, there might be other explanations for this, but my first
> bet was `It's SuSE', because similar stuff happened all the time on
> our SuSE 7.1 boxes, too. And then there is this EXTREMELY ANNOYING
> habit of yast to mess up my carefully edited configuration files... I
> have no idea what they did to make Emacs behave in the weird way it
> did on the SuSE 7.1 machines. Not even -q --no-site-file helped.
> Finally, I wiped it off the disk and rebuilt it from the original
> sources -- then everything was fine. Typical SuSE experience.
Ahh - no real administrator should use Yast to configure SuSE! It is meant
for users that have no real clue what to do or do not want to think about
configuration much. It is _no_ problem to deactivate Yast and configure all
you want by yourself!!!
> In January, I had enough. I formatted my hard disk and put Slackware
> on it, which I use at home for years now. I never had a problem with
> it, never _any_ reason to complain. When my coworkers curse about
> their machines doing wierd things, I just smile and think ``Thank god
> I got rid of SuSE'' :-)
I don't think that it was a SuSE problem...
No distro works good if you intermix stable with unstable packages or if you
cannot decide if you're an admin (and deactivate yast) or a newbie.
As a tip the SuSE 7.2 is the best distro they have made for long - it is
stable, up to date and nicely preconfigured if you value that...
Kent M Pitman
> Ahh - no real administrator should use Yast to configure SuSE! It is meant
> for users that have no real clue what to do or do not want to think about
> configuration much. It is _no_ problem to deactivate Yast and configure all
> you want by yourself!!!
[Taking the opportunity to pull this back in a Lispy direction.]
Once a long time ago I thought the goal of "sophisticated" users was to know
more than those poor little novice users. But as I got more experienced, I
decided it was unfair and to some extent an admission of failure for a
person with advanced knowledge not to be able to construct a system
intelligible to novices. Often, not always, but often, novice users have
better intuitions about what configuration tools should do than do advanced
users, whose valuable intuitions have been destroyed by actual knowledge.
Daniel Barlow
> Once a long time ago I thought the goal of "sophisticated" users was to know
> more than those poor little novice users. But as I got more experienced, I
> decided it was unfair and to some extent an admission of failure for a
> person with advanced knowledge not to be able to construct a system
> intelligible to novices.
And of course, when you do you'll get no thanks for it because after
the right interface has been implemented, it's so blindingly obvious
that nobody seeing it could possibly conceive of doing it any other
way, or believe that it took considerable mental effort to design in
the first place.
The same goes for documentation. I often suspect that the Unix manual
page format was invented to avoid this problem.
-dan
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
Jochen Schmidt
> Jochen Schmidt <j...@dataheaven.de> writes:
>
>> Ahh - no real administrator should use Yast to configure SuSE! It is
>> meant for users that have no real clue what to do or do not want to think
>> about configuration much. It is _no_ problem to deactivate Yast and
>> configure all you want by yourself!!!
>
> [Taking the opportunity to pull this back in a Lispy direction.]
Yes sorry I did not even realized how much OT this discussion is so far but
I could not keep quiet when I hear people complaining in a way that is IMHO
unfair to in this case SuSE. C.l.l is a public forum and to my experience a
very disciplined one - so such bashing without real content is IMHO unfair
and certainly the wrong way to make critics.
> Once a long time ago I thought the goal of "sophisticated" users was to
> know
> more than those poor little novice users. But as I got more experienced,
> I decided it was unfair and to some extent an admission of failure for a
> person with advanced knowledge not to be able to construct a system
> intelligible to novices. Often, not always, but often, novice users have
> better intuitions about what configuration tools should do than do
> advanced users, whose valuable intuitions have been destroyed by actual
> knowledge.
I think the problem is that the goals of "sophisticated" users and newbies
is often very different. In my case I'm no newbie in the UNIX world and
have used with NetBSD a UNIX OS that forced me to do _all_ configuration by
myself. But system administration got uninteresting for me and I simply
wanted a system that runs and lets me do what I want. Therefore I think I'm
more willing to accept some decisions of the OS vendor I would not agree
with if this will mean that I would not have to do it by myself.
So in the case with SuSE I think the situation is very clear - the
complainer had other imaginations on how Linux should be configured and
therefore has no other chance then to do it by himself - if something
breaks it is IMHO his fault because the system was not meant to get changed
this way. It may now be a point of critique that the system is not
adaptable enough to fit the imaginations of the user, but this problem is
not exclusive to e. g. SuSE but also inherent in Redhat, Slackware and even
Debian - it simply depends from where you come and where you want to go to.
An interesting sideeffect that nicely draws Lisp back in the center of the
discussion is the fact, that driven through the success of the free
Lispimplementations which get mainly used on UNIX machines, the UNIX way of
thinking gets more and more adopted in the community. This is not a bad
thing at first but I think we should be careful not to adopt things that
was already solved through Lisp in a better way.
The discussions around the emerging cCLan project are often heavily based
on topics like in this thread, that do have nothing to do with Lisp at all.
But _most_ of this problems had to be solved in Lisp a long time ago. The
problem I see is that - instead of looking how this has been done in Lisp -
we simply adopt mechanisms of the UNIX world that often fit not very good
in the way Lisp works.
I always loved that programming Lisp was rather system-neutral. The
standard shows this in many parts by defining the right abstractions. Newer
developments are often more biased through the failings of other languages
(like C) that tend to create unnecessary complicated walls between
platforms. Therefore I think we should _not_ try to push Lisp to be more
like the UNIX way of doing, but try to adapt UNIX (and other OSes) to be
more like the Lisp way of doing. Please note that this does not mean to
change the OSes directly but more to try to implement the Lisp paradigma on
top of them when developing Lispsoftware.
ciao,
Jochen Schmidt
Nils Goesche
> Nils Goesche wrote:
>
> > Not in my case. I had nothing against SuSE when I first met it about
> > a year ago. It was installed on the machines of the company I
> > switched to. The problem was that I had already tried many different
> > distributions on my home box and _none_ of them was as unstable as our
> > SuSE machines. That was 7.1; recently I saw some presentation where
> > somebody used a laptop with SuSE 7.2 and again -- at some point the
> > system just hung and he had to reboot. Twenty minutes later some
> > innocent little program, I don't remember which one, maybe `make' or
> > something, started to eat all the machine's memory and fill the swap
> > space for no apparent reason.
>
> AFAIK the 7.1 had many quirks - but I use SuSE for much longer and
> therefore know that they have done it better. The problem is not so much
> that SuSE delivers a unstable system, but that SuSE is not really in the
> way of the user if he installs things that don't work stable enough. They
> often delivered things like Reiser, or the NVidia 3D Drivers earlier than
> others. If you install all this experimental stuff you should not wonder
> when your machine boils down.
Who said I installed ``experimental stuff''? As I wrote, SuSE 7.1 ran
on the machine I use at work. So, it was a standard installation and
I used pretty much nothing but Emacs, vi, gcc, make and stuff like
that. Nothing special at all.
> > Of course, there might be other explanations for this, but my first
> > bet was `It's SuSE', because similar stuff happened all the time on
> > our SuSE 7.1 boxes, too. And then there is this EXTREMELY ANNOYING
> > habit of yast to mess up my carefully edited configuration files... I
> > have no idea what they did to make Emacs behave in the weird way it
> > did on the SuSE 7.1 machines. Not even -q --no-site-file helped.
> > Finally, I wiped it off the disk and rebuilt it from the original
> > sources -- then everything was fine. Typical SuSE experience.
>
> Ahh - no real administrator should use Yast to configure SuSE! It is meant
> for users that have no real clue what to do or do not want to think about
> configuration much. It is _no_ problem to deactivate Yast and configure all
> you want by yourself!!!
What do I need SuSE for, then? That's exactly what I do on
Slackware... without having problems all the time. And without that
idiotic stuff in /etc/profile or /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/default.el
or wherever you look.
> > In January, I had enough. I formatted my hard disk and put Slackware
> > on it, which I use at home for years now. I never had a problem with
> > it, never _any_ reason to complain. When my coworkers curse about
> > their machines doing wierd things, I just smile and think ``Thank god
> > I got rid of SuSE'' :-)
>
> I don't think that it was a SuSE problem... No distro works good if
> you intermix stable with unstable packages or if you cannot decide
> if you're an admin (and deactivate yast) or a newbie.
I didn't intermix anything. I didn't play around with the system. In
fact, all I wanted was to get my work done. Unlike all other
distributions I tried, and BTW also unlike all other Unices I worked
with, SuSE just didn't let me. Just today somebody asked if I had an
idea why sshd ignores /etc/nologin when the user has an entry in
authorized_keys? It won't let you log in if you have to enter a
password, but if you set up an authorized_keys file, it ignores
/etc/nologin. Again, I have no idea why this might so, but a strong
indication for what the problem might be is that the server in
question runs SuSE. I checked, the problem definitely exists. And,
as always, the problem is _not_ reproducible on my Slackware machine.
Anyway, your point seems to be that I am too stupid to use SuSE.
Well, at least that is something new: Ten years of experience with
different Unices is enough for every Linux distribution except for
SuSE. Maybe people should stop telling everyone that it is
appropriate for newbies...
Peter Wood
> Ahh - no real administrator should use Yast to configure SuSE! It is meant
> for users that have no real clue what to do or do not want to think about
> configuration much. It is _no_ problem to deactivate Yast and configure all
> you want by yourself!!!
I did some remote work for somebody who was using SUSE, and sorry, its
a dog. They do stuff differently just for the sake of it. Is Yast
the SOB which produces the file called SUSEconfig (or whatever) in
/etc, which controls startup? If it is, then _not_ using it entailed
losing the right to the support which my customer had paid for, from
SUSE. There was a big fat warning to that effect on the file, if I
recall correctly.
The manual which came with SUSE (7.1, I think) was missing pages. I
am on record as slating proprietary companies, here. But my
(admittedly remote) experience with SUSE would put that company in the
same boat. Maybe its just suits, proprietary or not.
>
> > In January, I had enough. I formatted my hard disk and put Slackware
> > on it, which I use at home for years now. I never had a problem with
> > it, never _any_ reason to complain. When my coworkers curse about
> > their machines doing wierd things, I just smile and think ``Thank god
> > I got rid of SuSE'' :-)
>
> I don't think that it was a SuSE problem...
> No distro works good if you intermix stable with unstable packages or if you
> cannot decide if you're an admin (and deactivate yast) or a newbie.
Your base packages have to be stable, but if a company distributes
unstable packages then that is an 'endorsement' of sorts, unless they
specifically and prominently disclaim it.
What you build on top of a stable base should not in any way affect a
properly built system. I haven't touched a commercial system,
proprietary or otherwise, for a long while now. I regard most IT
businesses as being positioned somewhere below estate-agents and
used-car dealers in the decency stakes.
Jochen Schmidt
> Jochen Schmidt <j...@dataheaven.de> writes:
>
>> Nils Goesche wrote:
>>
>> > Not in my case. I had nothing against SuSE when I first met it about
>> > a year ago. It was installed on the machines of the company I
>> > switched to. The problem was that I had already tried many different
>> > distributions on my home box and _none_ of them was as unstable as our
>> > SuSE machines. That was 7.1; recently I saw some presentation where
>> > somebody used a laptop with SuSE 7.2 and again -- at some point the
>> > system just hung and he had to reboot. Twenty minutes later some
>> > innocent little program, I don't remember which one, maybe `make' or
>> > something, started to eat all the machine's memory and fill the swap
>> > space for no apparent reason.
>>
>> AFAIK the 7.1 had many quirks - but I use SuSE for much longer and
>> therefore know that they have done it better. The problem is not so much
>> that SuSE delivers a unstable system, but that SuSE is not really in the
>> way of the user if he installs things that don't work stable enough. They
>> often delivered things like Reiser, or the NVidia 3D Drivers earlier than
>> others. If you install all this experimental stuff you should not wonder
>> when your machine boils down.
>
> Who said I installed ``experimental stuff''? As I wrote, SuSE 7.1 ran
> on the machine I use at work. So, it was a standard installation and
> I used pretty much nothing but Emacs, vi, gcc, make and stuff like
> that. Nothing special at all.
This is meant as a general "you" not as "you" personally.
I've often met Linux "Hackers" that always had to try the latest
experimental stuff and then complained how unstable Linux is.
>> > Of course, there might be other explanations for this, but my first
>> > bet was `It's SuSE', because similar stuff happened all the time on
>> > our SuSE 7.1 boxes, too. And then there is this EXTREMELY ANNOYING
>> > habit of yast to mess up my carefully edited configuration files... I
>> > have no idea what they did to make Emacs behave in the weird way it
>> > did on the SuSE 7.1 machines. Not even -q --no-site-file helped.
>> > Finally, I wiped it off the disk and rebuilt it from the original
>> > sources -- then everything was fine. Typical SuSE experience.
>>
>> Ahh - no real administrator should use Yast to configure SuSE! It is
>> meant for users that have no real clue what to do or do not want to think
>> about configuration much. It is _no_ problem to deactivate Yast and
>> configure all you want by yourself!!!
>
> What do I need SuSE for, then? That's exactly what I do on
> Slackware... without having problems all the time. And without that
> idiotic stuff in /etc/profile or /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/default.el
> or wherever you look.
I did not say you need SuSE - if you now it better how to run and configure
Linux then do it.
One of the annoying Problems of the SuSE 7.1 was in fact a broken XEmacs
if you would have taken a look at the Support-section of SuSE you would
have been able to download a fix. It is not nice if such things occur, yes
- but this is not a SuSE exclusive problem.
>> > In January, I had enough. I formatted my hard disk and put Slackware
>> > on it, which I use at home for years now. I never had a problem with
>> > it, never _any_ reason to complain. When my coworkers curse about
>> > their machines doing wierd things, I just smile and think ``Thank god
>> > I got rid of SuSE'' :-)
>>
>> I don't think that it was a SuSE problem... No distro works good if
>> you intermix stable with unstable packages or if you cannot decide
>> if you're an admin (and deactivate yast) or a newbie.
>
> I didn't intermix anything. I didn't play around with the system. In
> fact, all I wanted was to get my work done. Unlike all other
> distributions I tried, and BTW also unlike all other Unices I worked
> with, SuSE just didn't let me. Just today somebody asked if I had an
> idea why sshd ignores /etc/nologin when the user has an entry in
> authorized_keys? It won't let you log in if you have to enter a
> password, but if you set up an authorized_keys file, it ignores
> /etc/nologin. Again, I have no idea why this might so, but a strong
> indication for what the problem might be is that the server in
> question runs SuSE. I checked, the problem definitely exists. And,
> as always, the problem is _not_ reproducible on my Slackware machine.
So you have now _definitely_ checked that it is a SuSE system and that the
bug was from the vendor side? If not then this is IMHO only hot air....
> Anyway, your point seems to be that I am too stupid to use SuSE.
> Well, at least that is something new: Ten years of experience with
> different Unices is enough for every Linux distribution except for
> SuSE. Maybe people should stop telling everyone that it is
> appropriate for newbies...
No - I did not say anything similar - probably it's just the other way
round - SuSE emphasises to automate most Systemconfiguration Stuff as
*many* people ever complained about Linux. A professional administrator
will be everytime better than this automated scripts. The point I make is
simply that you can decide to do it _right_ _yourself_ - or you live with
what you get from the vendor. I personally and many others too made _very_
good experiences with SuSE. The only complainers I've heard came from other
distros and ranted why SuSE does things different from distro Y. They do
not even think a bit that Y may do it different to SuSE too...
But let's stop this here this does not belong to comp.lang.lisp .
Jochen Schmidt
> Jochen Schmidt <j...@dataheaven.de> writes:
>
>
>> Ahh - no real administrator should use Yast to configure SuSE! It is
>> meant for users that have no real clue what to do or do not want to think
>> about configuration much. It is _no_ problem to deactivate Yast and
>> configure all you want by yourself!!!
>
> I did some remote work for somebody who was using SUSE, and sorry, its
> a dog. They do stuff differently just for the sake of it. Is Yast
> the SOB which produces the file called SUSEconfig (or whatever) in
> /etc, which controls startup? If it is, then _not_ using it entailed
> losing the right to the support which my customer had paid for, from
> SUSE. There was a big fat warning to that effect on the file, if I
> recall correctly.
The differences are viewable from *both* sides - it is *not* SuSE partiular
that does something different.
If you really are a administrator then you _can_ deactivate SUSEConfig
because:
a) You don't need the support
b) If you need the support it is certainly nothing where SUSEconfig would
be a problem and therefore has not to be mentioned.
This is a newbie disclaimer!
> The manual which came with SUSE (7.1, I think) was missing pages. I
> am on record as slating proprietary companies, here. But my
> (admittedly remote) experience with SUSE would put that company in the
> same boat. Maybe its just suits, proprietary or not.
>
>>
>> > In January, I had enough. I formatted my hard disk and put Slackware
>> > on it, which I use at home for years now. I never had a problem with
>> > it, never _any_ reason to complain. When my coworkers curse about
>> > their machines doing wierd things, I just smile and think ``Thank god
>> > I got rid of SuSE'' :-)
>>
>> I don't think that it was a SuSE problem...
>> No distro works good if you intermix stable with unstable packages or if
>> you cannot decide if you're an admin (and deactivate yast) or a newbie.
>
> Your base packages have to be stable, but if a company distributes
> unstable packages then that is an 'endorsement' of sorts, unless they
> specifically and prominently disclaim it.
They disclaim it prominently and even pop up dialogs if you try to install
things like this. But this doesn't stop people...
> What you build on top of a stable base should not in any way affect a
> properly built system. I haven't touched a commercial system,
> proprietary or otherwise, for a long while now. I regard most IT
> businesses as being positioned somewhere below estate-agents and
> used-car dealers in the decency stakes.
You don't believe that using experimental 3D-acceleration Kernel-Modules
can bring a stable system to it's knees?
Ok let's stop it here or go over to private mail. This is not the right
place to discuss this things.