Mandriva is dead? Long live Mageia!
RonB
your favorite application and refuses to release their code into the
public domain? About all you can do is form a user group around it and try
to find work-arounds to keep it alive as long as possible.
Apparently Mandriva Linux, as is now, is on its way out. It looks like a
Russian company is buying them to make an official Russian Linux... or
something. At least that's one rumor. Whatever is going on, Mandriva has
laid off most of their workforce and basically closed up shop in France,
except there will be a small crew taking of care Mandriva Server software.
And so, what now happens to Mandriva Desktop and its users?
The ex-Mandriva employees will get together and build a fork of Mandriva
called Mageia. And so the "Mandrake/Mandriva/Mageia project lives on...
and will probably be healthier than it has been in years, no longer
relying one the fickle whims of one company.
And an article in OSNews about the fork.
So, once again, choice and freedom (and open source software) proves
itself superior to closed, proprietary software. Mandriva users change the
name of their OS and continue using the same software.
--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
Hadron
> So what do you do in the proprietary world when a software company drops
> your favorite application and refuses to release their code into the
> public domain? About all you can do is form a user group around it and try
> to find work-arounds to keep it alive as long as possible.
>
> Apparently Mandriva Linux, as is now, is on its way out. It looks like a
> Russian company is buying them to make an official Russian Linux... or
"buying them out".
So long and thanks for the all the fish.
Lusotec
Lets see what the future brings. Mandriva reducing their development stuff
is not a good sign to the distribution. I will keep a close eye on
developments. Still have about a year to see how Mandriva evolves before a
decision has to be made to switch distribution or not.
Regards.
RonB
> Lets see what the future brings. Mandriva reducing their development
> stuff is not a good sign to the distribution. I will keep a close eye on
> developments. Still have about a year to see how Mandriva evolves before
> a decision has to be made to switch distribution or not.
I haven't used Mandrake/Mandriva in several years. Is their distribution
still pretty solid?
Lusotec
> Lusotec wrote:
>> Lets see what the future brings. Mandriva reducing their development
>> stuff is not a good sign to the distribution. I will keep a close eye on
>> developments. Still have about a year to see how Mandriva evolves before
>> a decision has to be made to switch distribution or not.
>
> I haven't used Mandrake/Mandriva in several years. Is their distribution
> still pretty solid?
Very solid. The quality of their releases is very good. The package upgrades
are also very reliable, with very few regressions in the updates for the
many thousands of packages the admins and users use.
They provide repositories with varying package version freshness (Updates,
Backports, and Testing), allowing the admins to try/use recent versions if
(s)he so chooses.
Their major version upgrades are also very reliable. My personal workstation
saw several major upgrades (since Mandrake 7 or 8) in the same ext2 (later
upgraded to ext3) file systems almost without issues.
The only issue I came across was when trying to upgrade a system from a
partially updated mirror. The upgrade stopped because some packages where
still not in the mirror. The system was left without a working desktop
environment. I had to wait for several hours, and rerun the upgrade command
to get the system fully updated. After that experience, I know do a trial
run that downloads all packages, checks for package validity, and
dependencies, before actually starting the upgrade.
For the most recent major upgrade, Mandriva 2010, I did a fresh install on
my workstation, because I wanted the file systems to be ext4, and upgrading
from ext3 is suboptimal.
Regards.
RonB
> Very solid. The quality of their releases is very good. The package
> upgrades are also very reliable, with very few regressions in the
> updates for the many thousands of packages the admins and users use.
>
> They provide repositories with varying package version freshness
> (Updates, Backports, and Testing), allowing the admins to try/use recent
> versions if (s)he so chooses.
>
> Their major version upgrades are also very reliable. My personal
> workstation saw several major upgrades (since Mandrake 7 or 8) in the
> same ext2 (later upgraded to ext3) file systems almost without issues.
>
> The only issue I came across was when trying to upgrade a system from a
> partially updated mirror. The upgrade stopped because some packages
> where still not in the mirror. The system was left without a working
> desktop environment. I had to wait for several hours, and rerun the
> upgrade command to get the system fully updated. After that experience,
> I know do a trial run that downloads all packages, checks for package
> validity, and dependencies, before actually starting the upgrade.
>
> For the most recent major upgrade, Mandriva 2010, I did a fresh install
> on my workstation, because I wanted the file systems to be ext4, and
> upgrading from ext3 is suboptimal.
Thanks for the review. So I can see where this fork would be unsettling
for Mandriva users. Sorry. Hope everything works out. It may just turn out
to be something like Ubuntu/Mint and be fine.
I see Sidux has the same issue that almost killed the CentOS name.
Unfortunately for Sidux developers, they ended up losing the Sidux name
and had to change to "aptosid" -- which I think is a name I would have
reconsidered, but it's too late for that now.
Terry Porter
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:21:32 +0100, Lusotec wrote:
>
>> Lets see what the future brings. Mandriva reducing their development
>> stuff is not a good sign to the distribution. I will keep a close eye on
>> developments. Still have about a year to see how Mandriva evolves before
>> a decision has to be made to switch distribution or not.
>
> I haven't used Mandrake/Mandriva in several years. Is their distribution
> still pretty solid?
>
Yes.
I tested Mandriva 2010 spring edition (Kde) just a couple of days ago, and
it is very polished indeed.
Everything worked, and their alternative to Network-Manager for WiFi is very
slick indeed.
I may try it on my netbook if I get the time.
--
This quadcore running Gnu/Linux Gentoo:
http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml
Tattoo Vampire
> Lets see what the future brings. Mandriva reducing their development stuff
> is not a good sign to the distribution. I will keep a close eye on
> developments. Still have about a year to see how Mandriva evolves before a
> decision has to be made to switch distribution or not.
There's a new post on their forums - Mandriva states the distro will
continue with new people at the helm. Way to go - dump all the ones who made
the distro what it is, and bring in a "community manager" to run things.
--
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
...Aibohphobia, n. -- the fear of palindromes.
DFS
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:27:39 +0000, Terry Porter
> <lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>> I tested Mandriva 2010 spring edition (Kde) just a couple of days ago, and
>> it is very polished indeed.
>>
>> Everything worked, and their alternative to Network-Manager for WiFi is very
>> slick indeed.
>>
>> I may try it on my netbook if I get the time.
>
> Only an idiot would switch over to a dying distribution.
>
> In the Linux world distributions come and go like the wind.
> That's one reason why big businesses are reluctant to bet the shop on
> Linux.
>
> They could spend 2 years migrating to say Mandriva, only to find the
> company is going out of business.
>
> Bet my business on Linux?
> No way Jose.
When the founder ran off for a year, PCLinuxOS lost every single member
of its "development team". Now it's down to the founder, and some admin
chick.
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090330#news
This is totally amateurish and unprofessional. This is Easy-Bake-Oven
kiddy-software development.
This Is Linux!
RonB
> Lusotec wrote:
>
>> Lets see what the future brings. Mandriva reducing their development
>> stuff is not a good sign to the distribution. I will keep a close eye
>> on developments. Still have about a year to see how Mandriva evolves
>> before a decision has to be made to switch distribution or not.
>
> There's a new post on their forums - Mandriva states the distro will
> continue with new people at the helm. Way to go - dump all the ones who
> made the distro what it is, and bring in a "community manager" to run
> things.
I don't quite get it. So you're going to pay for employees anyhow, why not
keep the ones who know the distribution? Infighting?
I guess I'm hoping for both Mandriva and Mageia to do well. Anyone else
read that Mandriva was being bought by a Russian Telecommunications
company and that they were going to use Mandriva to make an official
Russian Linux distribution? Sounds kind of crazy, but I think I saw that
on one of those side stories on Groklaw.
RonB
> RonB wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:21:32 +0100, Lusotec wrote:
>>
>>> Lets see what the future brings. Mandriva reducing their development
>>> stuff is not a good sign to the distribution. I will keep a close eye
>>> on developments. Still have about a year to see how Mandriva evolves
>>> before a decision has to be made to switch distribution or not.
>>
>> I haven't used Mandrake/Mandriva in several years. Is their
>> distribution still pretty solid?
>>
>>
> Yes.
>
> I tested Mandriva 2010 spring edition (Kde) just a couple of days ago,
> and it is very polished indeed.
>
> Everything worked, and their alternative to Network-Manager for WiFi is
> very slick indeed.
>
> I may try it on my netbook if I get the time.
So, since the folks who were doing the developing at Mandriva have moved
on to Mageia, Mageia should probably be a pretty good distribution also. I
wonder if the two projects will "borrow" from each other.
Richard Rasker
> And could you imagine the poor folks who moved their entire
> corporation to Mandriva?
Worst case, you could simply drop in another mainstream KDE-based
distribution, and people can work on without any significant disruption.
Now try imagining migrating a herd of XP users to Win7 ...
> Good luck to them.
>
> Bet my business on Linux?
>
> No way.
I won't even think about making my business dependent on the whims of One
Vendor.
Richard Rasker
--
http://www.linetec.nl
Tattoo Vampire
> I don't quite get it. So you're going to pay for employees anyhow, why not
> keep the ones who know the distribution? Infighting?
From what I read, they're hoping the bulk of the work will be done by
volunteers, with their guy overseeing. Good luck with that!
--
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
...Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
Tattoo Vampire
> I won't even think about making my business dependent on the whims of One
> Vendor.
I moved all our office machines from PCLinuxOS to Mint.
--
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
...I am Drunk of Borg. Resistance is floor tile!
Chris Ahlstrom
> Richard Rasker wrote:
>
>> I won't even think about making my business dependent on the whims of One
>> Vendor.
>
> I moved all our office machines from PCLinuxOS to Mint.
There's generally not a lot of difference between distros... they all
include mostly the same apps, at least.
--
I have not yet begun to byte!
chrisv
> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>
>> And could you imagine the poor folks who moved their entire
>> corporation to Mandriva?
>
>Worst case, you could simply drop in another mainstream KDE-based
>distribution, and people can work on without any significant disruption.
Exactly. They could just continue to use what they have, and migrate
to a different distro at their leisure, using all the same
applications. It just ain't that hard.
This is the Open world.
>Now try imagining migrating a herd of XP users to Win7 ...
Well, expenses and retraining are "OK" as long as it's still
"Windows", you know (rolling eyes).
>> Bet my business on Linux?
>>
>> No way.
>
>I won't even think about making my business dependent on the whims of One
>Vendor.
Amazingly, some people are happy to have Microshaft up their ass, even
considering the $MILLIONS it can cost a business.
RonB
> Richard Rasker wrote:
>
>> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>>
>>> And could you imagine the poor folks who moved their entire
>>> corporation to Mandriva?
>>
>>Worst case, you could simply drop in another mainstream KDE-based
>>distribution, and people can work on without any significant disruption.
>
> Exactly. They could just continue to use what they have, and migrate to
> a different distro at their leisure, using all the same applications.
> It just ain't that hard.
>
> This is the Open world.
Not only can they move to another Linux distribution -- they can usually
move to one in the same "family" with the same package management and the
same locations for configuration files, etc.
That's the strength of the "fractured" open source model.
>>Now try imagining migrating a herd of XP users to Win7 ...
>
> Well, expenses and retraining are "OK" as long as it's still "Windows",
> you know (rolling eyes).
Exactly. Why do you think so many corporations are still refusing to
upgrade from XP to 7 -- too much retraining and retooling. Much more than
moving from Linux distribution to another.
>>> Bet my business on Linux?
>>>
>>> No way.
>>
>>I won't even think about making my business dependent on the whims of
>>One Vendor.
>
> Amazingly, some people are happy to have Microshaft up their ass, even
> considering the $MILLIONS it can cost a business.
Yep, and the $millions wasted attempting to bolt on security.
Snit
9/22/10 4:31 AM:
> Richard Rasker wrote:
>
>> I won't even think about making my business dependent on the whims of One
>> Vendor.
>
> I moved all our office machines from PCLinuxOS to Mint.
Do you use a mix of Intel and AMD chips?
--
"YOU were the person claiming that the ~ told people to go to
HardDrive/users/username/ while I stated the ~ indicated the name of the
hard drive only." -- Tim Adams
Richard Rasker
Well, it's not just Microsoft. My father has been using Macs for well over a
decade now (he's a graphics designer and DTP specialist, and depends
heavily on Adobe stuff).
He pondered replacing his 8-year-old Mac, but it turned out that most of his
older software is no longer compatible with the latest incarnation of Mac
OS. So instead of "just" some $2,000 for a new machine, he would have to
shell out an additional $4,000 to get the necessary software upgrades.
As he's already officially retired age-wise, and business is slowly
declining anyway (not that he minds having more free time on his hands), he
decided he'd stick with the older stuff -- both hardware and software.
Although it's a wee bit sluggish, and he can't open work created with the
latest versions (which happens once or twice a year, without any serious
consequences though), it does the job.
AFAICT, *every* major OS upgrade is painful -- and a Linux upgrade is in my
experience the least painful of all.
Richard Rasker
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:43:43 +0200, Richard Rasker
> <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote:
>
>
>>Worst case, you could simply drop in another mainstream KDE-based
>>distribution, and people can work on without any significant disruption.
>>Now try imagining migrating a herd of XP users to Win7 ...
>
> You have no clue how much is involved in doing this for a large or
> even medium sized corporation.
>
> On your 5 system home set up, sure.
> On a corporate system with 10k desktops and possibly servers as well?
> I don't think so.
Any upgrade is painful, to a certain extent. How much of a pain a corporate
IT upgrade is, depends heavily on the present IT infrastructure. Upgrading
individual desktop installs (as I do with my users) would be madness of
course, regardless of the OS used.
Still, I think that upgrading an existing Linux infrastructure is less of a
hassle than upgrading an existing Windows infrastructure -- both from the
sysadmins' and the users' viewpoints. But you're right in surmising that I
know little about these matters.
All I can see is that corporations world wide hang on to their XP-based
stuff like grim death. One of the major reasons I can think of is the fact
that Windows 7 generally won't run at all on existing hardware -- but the
fact that they'd have to replace old, no longer supported applications
everyone's used to (as in: 10 years old or thereabouts) is a major hurdle
as well, what with all the necessary retraining etcetera.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Amazingly, some people are happy to have Microshaft up their ass, even
> considering the $MILLIONS it can cost a business.
Heh. When I first read $MILLIONS, I thought it was an environment variable.
--
Paranoids are people, too; they have their own problems. It's easy
to criticize, but if everybody hated you, you'd be paranoid too.
-- D. J. Hicks
DFS
> http://tinyurl.com/33aay4v
>
> So, once again, choice and freedom (and open source software) proves
> itself superior to closed, proprietary software.
You can tell by the huge number of people who switched from Windows to
Linux (including yourself).
DFS
> I moved all our office machines from PCLinuxOS to Mint.
At home you run Windows:
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
Most hypocritical "advocates" go to other way 'round.
Hadron
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:39:22 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
> <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>
>>Heh. When I first read $MILLIONS, I thought it was an environment variable.
>
> idiot.
Creepy playing the "bumbling techy" bit again? Embarrassing.
DFS
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:17:07 -0400, Tattoo Vampire
>
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>
>>> Lets see what the future brings. Mandriva reducing their development stuff
>>> is not a good sign to the distribution. I will keep a close eye on
>>> developments. Still have about a year to see how Mandriva evolves before a
>>> decision has to be made to switch distribution or not.
>>
>> There's a new post on their forums - Mandriva states the distro will
>> continue with new people at the helm. Way to go - dump all the ones who made
>> the distro what it is, and bring in a "community manager" to run things.
>
> Mandriva and the development team?
>
> You guys have been claiming how great Mandriva is for years now.
> Spamowitz shills it all the time.
>
> So now all of a sudden when Mandriva is going down the drain you idiot
> start the blame game and the discrediting and the truth about Mandriva
> sucking comes out.
>
> It's classic Linux "advocacy".
I think Tattoo was being sarcastic.
TomB
>
> With Linux, they run the risk of the distribution going away.
> Redhat and maybe SuSE are the only reasonably sure bets.
And Debian. And Ubuntu. And Fedora. And Gentoo. And Slackware. And...
--
19:23:31 up 12:20, 9 users, load average: 0.05, 0.01, 0.00
I am son of Liarmutt.
I'll be Bach.
~ Johann Sebastian Schwarzenegger
TomB
> Tattoo Vampire stated in post o3e85ysk9hil$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
> 9/22/10 4:31 AM:
>
>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>
>>> I won't even think about making my business dependent on the whims of One
>>> Vendor.
>>
>> I moved all our office machines from PCLinuxOS to Mint.
>
> Do you use a mix of Intel and AMD chips?
That's quite the lame comparison.
--
19:25:55 up 12:22, 9 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
I am son of Liarmutt.
There's nothing more exhilarating than pointing out the
shortcomings of others, is there?
~ Randal Graves
chrisv
> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>
>> With Linux, they run the risk of the distribution going away.
>> Redhat and maybe SuSE are the only reasonably sure bets.
Then the more conservatively-minded can choose one of those.
Twit.
>And Debian. And Ubuntu. And Fedora. And Gentoo. And Slackware. And...
Indeed. Worthy developments continue-on, with various levels of
corporate sponsorship. If Mandriva isn't offering enough value to
justify it's continuing development, then it should fade-away.
Snit
AM:
> On 2010-09-22, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post o3e85ysk9hil$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
>> 9/22/10 4:31 AM:
>>
>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>
>>>> I won't even think about making my business dependent on the whims of One
>>>> Vendor.
>>>
>>> I moved all our office machines from PCLinuxOS to Mint.
>>
>> Do you use a mix of Intel and AMD chips?
>
> That's quite the lame comparison.
With software, you can just uninstall it and then install another... with
hardware you need to go someplace, buy it, physically set it up, and then
still install the software. You are even more tied to one vender with
hardware.
--
Survey: <http://nitobi.com/survey/>
241 of 571 said they use Dreamweaver (42%)
Tim Adams: "_80% DO NOT USE Dreamweaver AT ALL_!"
JEDIDIAH
Your characterization of the situation is a lie.
--
MSOffice is completely unremarkable except for the fact |||
that it is most compatable with itself. / | \
TomB
Well, it /should/ not, but if it does, then so be it.
I still am very grateful to Mandriva for introducing me to the amazing
world of GNU/Linux many years ago, when it still was called Mandrake.
--
20:00:39 up 12:57, 8 users, load average: 0.68, 0.21, 0.09
I am son of Liarmutt.
My luck is so bad that if I bought a cemetery, people would stop dying.
~ Ed Furgol
NekosilvertaiL
> You are wrong BTW.
> There are major differences between some of them.
> And some work better than others.
> Much better in fact.
Its like Debian and Ubuntu - Ubuntu may be based on Debian, but in some
way completely different.
--
nekosilvertail
Richard Rasker
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:21:32 +0100, Lusotec wrote:
>
>> Lets see what the future brings. Mandriva reducing their development
>> stuff is not a good sign to the distribution. I will keep a close eye on
>> developments. Still have about a year to see how Mandriva evolves before
>> a decision has to be made to switch distribution or not.
>
> I haven't used Mandrake/Mandriva in several years. Is their distribution
> still pretty solid?
I think it's among the very best in hardware support (especially when PLF
package sources are added for those pesky binary blobs), choice in
applications and ease of use.
Even with laptop machines, I only rarely come across hardware that is poorly
supported or unsupported -- the latest being a crappy Acer Aspire 5720 BIOS
which required Acer's ePower software (Vista version) to turn on the CPU
fan. Funny detail: the owner wanted to toss the machine because an XP
install crapped out after a few minutes due to overheating, but wanted to
give Linux a try. And after updating the BIOS, all went well -- he's my
latest happy Mandriva user.
As for other features: Mandriva has been pretty much rock solid for the past
years. The odd buggy application may crash, but apart from faulty hardware,
the OS itself or even the WM hasn't crashed in a long, long time -- either
with me or with any of my users.
But this doesn't appear to be typical for Mandriva -- I know several people
who use Ubuntu and FC, and they never complain about instability either.
The only thing I find a bit of a shame is that KDE4 requires quite a bit of
RAM. I used to be able to revive old machines with as little as 256MB RAM
with Mandriva, and 512MB used to be plenty to run pretty much everything at
the same time, but KDE4 is more of a RAM guzzler, with 512MB being barely
enough. But that's not Mandriva's fault either, of course.
Still, I'm pondering what to do when Mandriva indeed becomes 100% Russian --
not that I have anything against Russian products (heck, I routinely use
Russian-made vacuum tubes and Peltier elements, among other things), but I
think I'd still prefer something more community-driven instead of something
taken over for a wad of cash. Ah well, no need to rush anyway. Let's first
see what exactly happens before deciding to switch distros or not (it would
be my first switch in many years ...).
NekosilvertaiL
> I see Sidux has the same issue that almost killed the CentOS name.
> Unfortunately for Sidux developers, they ended up losing the Sidux name
> and had to change to "aptosid" -- which I think is a name I would have
> reconsidered, but it's too late for that now.
I'm on Aptosid right now. Its not too bad, the dist-upgrade worked
without issues and its fast and "stable" - even knew its based on
unstable.
--
regards, nekosilvertail
RonB
> On 2010-09-22, Moshe Goldfarb <moshe_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:25:48 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
>><ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Tattoo Vampire posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
>>>
>>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I won't even think about making my business dependent on the whims
>>>>> of One Vendor.
>>>>
>>>> I moved all our office machines from PCLinuxOS to Mint.
>>>
>>>There's generally not a lot of difference between distros... they all
>>>include mostly the same apps, at least.
>>
>> So why are there 500+ different distributions?
>
> Your characterization of the situation is a lie.
Why not 500 different distributions? What difference does it make? But, if
Moshe really wanted to know (which is not his goal) he would would do a
little research and realize that most people use just a few distributions
-- and there are many specialized distributions written for specific
purposes. And many variants (especially Ubuntu variants) released for
specific groups. For example there is a "Christian" Ubuntu, a "Moslem"
Ubuntu, etc. This is stuff you could customize yourself using standard
Ubuntu, but it's done for you. Some distributions are just firewalls. Some
are "juke boxes." There are many reasons for many distributions, as a
little research would quickly show.
Just more FUD repeated by rote by the WinTrolls.
--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
RonB
> Still, I'm pondering what to do when Mandriva indeed becomes 100%
> Russian -- not that I have anything against Russian products (heck, I
> routinely use Russian-made vacuum tubes and Peltier elements, among
> other things), but I think I'd still prefer something more
> community-driven instead of something taken over for a wad of cash. Ah
> well, no need to rush anyway. Let's first see what exactly happens
> before deciding to switch distros or not (it would be my first switch in
> many years ...).
If Mandriva falters, it appears to (not being a current Mandriva user)
that Mageia should be able to step right in.
chrisv
> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>
>> You are wrong BTW.
>> There are major differences between some of them.
>> And some work better than others.
>> Much better in fact.
>
>Its like Debian and Ubuntu - Ubuntu may be based on Debian, but in some
>way completely different.
So some experts will need to be employed to engineer the transition.
Just like a Windows version change.
In either case, the disruption to the users can be minimal. They're
using the same apps.
RonB
I just burned the live aptosid DVD -- tried the Xfce version on Live CD
yesterday. I thought it was okay, but I like my Xfce VectorLinux better.
I'm trying the regular aptosid to see what KDE looks like now. It's been a
while since I tried KDE 4.x (not since OpenSUSE 11.0). I still think it's
a shame that the Sidux project had to change their name.
RonB
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:42:40 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:
>
>> Still, I'm pondering what to do when Mandriva indeed becomes 100%
>> Russian -- not that I have anything against Russian products (heck, I
>> routinely use Russian-made vacuum tubes and Peltier elements, among
>> other things), but I think I'd still prefer something more
>> community-driven instead of something taken over for a wad of cash. Ah
>> well, no need to rush anyway. Let's first see what exactly happens
>> before deciding to switch distros or not (it would be my first switch
>> in many years ...).
>
> If Mandriva falters, it appears to (not being a current Mandriva user)
> that Mageia should be able to step right in.
Err... "it appears *that*..."
One Shot, One Kill
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:hclk96t2fnefpc392...@4ax.com...
fsck you asshole liar stupid dog shit for brains.
Richard Rasker
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:25:48 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
> <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>
>>Tattoo Vampire posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
>>
>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>
>>>> I won't even think about making my business dependent on the whims of
>>>> One Vendor.
>>>
>>> I moved all our office machines from PCLinuxOS to Mint.
>>
>>There's generally not a lot of difference between distros... they all
>>include mostly the same apps, at least.
>
> So why are there 500+ different distributions?
Uh-oh ... here we go again. OK, we've been here before:
- Yes, there are hundreds of distributions.
- No, they're not all suitable for desktop use -- quite the contrary. Quite
a few of those 500+ distributions are specifically designed to fill a
particular niche, e.g. for very lightweight hardware, or for maximum system
performance, or for reasons of "cleanliness" (strictly FOSS), or for
maximum user control & configurability ... You name it, there's a
distribution for it.
- Yes, among those 500+ distributions are indeed all sorts of
tinkerprojects, hobbyware, play-doh-Linux, or whatever other pejoratives
one might come up with. They're created simply because the maker(s) thought
it was a fun thing to do.
- No, this does /not/ mean that Linux in general is hobbyware etcetera. Most
serious Linux distributions are rock-solid over a bewildering variety of
hardware, from embedded controllers the size of a fingernail to huge
supercomputers -- much more than Microsoft can ever hope to cover in their
wettest dreams.
> You are wrong BTW.
> There are major differences between some of them.
> And some work better than others.
> Much better in fact.
What "works better" is often a matter of personal preference. I personally
find GNOME a bit too dumbed down for my taste, and prefer KDE's wide and
sophisticated array of features. But I know several people who swear by
Gnome, and some others who like a Spartan, lightweight WM.
As others aloready mentioned, most of the major applications (OpenOffice,
Firefox, GIMP) are staples of most major desktop distributions, so the
difference is literally in the details -- most prominently in a
distribution's installation and system tools. Yes, some distributions may
have more sophisticated tools than others, but the thing is that normal
desktop users hardly ever use those tools -- quite contrary to Windows
users, who regularly need to defrag drives, clean registry's, scan HD's for
rubbish and do other tasks no user of a decent OS should have to perform.
But OK, there may be distributions which are somewhat more reliable and less
prone to hiccups than others -- with the latter often being cutting-edge
distributions such as Ubuntu, trying to support new hardware as quickly as
possible, with occasional glitches, while the former trade extensive
hardware support for a more stable system (e.g. Debian).
It's quite difficult to have both, at least as long as quite a few major
hardware manufacturers ignore Linux, and provide only Windows drivers.
But so far, I found that Mandriva offered the best balance in this respect:
even the newest hardware is usually dealt with without problems, while at
the same time the OS works like a charm: very reliable, without weird
slow-downs or bit rot like Windows, and virtually without any need for
system administration. I mainly keep checking logs to check whether updates
cause no problems (which hasn't happened to me in years), spot emerging
hardware trouble before it becomes real trouble, and to keep an eye on
server load (to prevent DoS-like problems) and security.
Richard Rasker
> On 22 Sep 2010 17:27:31 GMT, TomB <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2010-09-22, the following emerged from the brain of Moshe Goldfarb:
>>>
>>> With Linux, they run the risk of the distribution going away.
>>> Redhat and maybe SuSE are the only reasonably sure bets.
>>
>>And Debian. And Ubuntu. And Fedora. And Gentoo. And Slackware. And...
>
> Yea and a couple of years ago Xandros and TurboLinux were on that list
> as well.
>
> Slackware came close to dying when Patrick got ill.
>
> Pick the wrong distribution and you go down the drain when it tanks.
That's the whole point we're trying to make: even if a distribution goes
down, finding and installing a similar one is usually a breeze, with
minimal disruption for users, and only a moderate amount of work for
admins.
Now try to imagine what would happen if Windows would drop dead overnight,
e.g. due to a particularly nasty and contagious piece of malware. Yup: one
billion people stuck up a particular creek without a particular implement.
And a very quiet, peaceful Internet :-)
Hadron
G> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:42:40 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:
>
>> Still, I'm pondering what to do when Mandriva indeed becomes 100%
>> Russian -- not that I have anything against Russian products (heck, I
>> routinely use Russian-made vacuum tubes and Peltier elements, among
>> other things), but I think I'd still prefer something more
>> community-driven instead of something taken over for a wad of cash. Ah
>> well, no need to rush anyway. Let's first see what exactly happens
>> before deciding to switch distros or not (it would be my first switch in
>> many years ...).
>
> If Mandriva falters, it appears to (not being a current Mandriva user)
> that Mageia should be able to step right in.
Here's an idea : why dont YOU take it on? What with all your gas bag
"advocacy" and self professed Linux 1337ness.
NekosilvertaiL
> I still think it's a shame that the Sidux project had to change their
name.
--
Registered Linux User #523422
Aptosid 2010.2
DFS
> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:25:48 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
>> <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tattoo Vampire posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
>>>
>>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I won't even think about making my business dependent on the whims of
>>>>> One Vendor.
>>>>
>>>> I moved all our office machines from PCLinuxOS to Mint.
>>>
>>> There's generally not a lot of difference between distros... they all
>>> include mostly the same apps, at least.
>>
>> So why are there 500+ different distributions?
>
> Uh-oh ... here we go again. OK, we've been here before:
> - Yes, there are hundreds of distributions.
> - No, they're not all suitable for desktop use -- quite the contrary. Quite
> a few of those 500+ distributions are specifically designed to fill a
> particular niche, e.g. for very lightweight hardware, or for maximum system
> performance, or for reasons of "cleanliness" (strictly FOSS), or for
> distribution for it.
> - Yes, among those 500+ distributions are indeed all sorts of
> tinkerprojects, hobbyware, play-doh-Linux, or whatever other pejoratives
> one might come up with. They're created simply because the maker(s) thought
> it was a fun thing to do.
> - No, this does /not/ mean that Linux in general is hobbyware etcetera.
Of course that's exactly what it means. They create bogus distros for
fun and ego fulfillment on their own time for no money. ergo it's a
hobby and the result is hobbyware.
Just imagine Linux forums with 90x as many users...
> Most
> serious Linux distributions are rock-solid over a bewildering variety of
> hardware, from embedded controllers the size of a fingernail to huge
> supercomputers
Sez you.
> -- much more than Microsoft can ever hope to cover in their
> wettest dreams.
MS never once pitched or claimed one Windows version for everything. So
this is a true, bogus strawman.
>> You are wrong BTW.
>> There are major differences between some of them.
>> And some work better than others.
>> Much better in fact.
>
> What "works better" is often a matter of personal preference. I personally
> find GNOME a bit too dumbed down for my taste, and prefer KDE's wide and
> sophisticated array of features. But I know several people who swear by
> Gnome, and some others who like a Spartan, lightweight WM.
> As others aloready mentioned, most of the major applications (OpenOffice,
> Firefox, GIMP) are staples of most major desktop distributions, so the
> difference is literally in the details -- most prominently in a
> distribution's installation and system tools. Yes, some distributions may
> have more sophisticated tools than others, but the thing is that normal
> desktop users hardly ever use those tools -- quite contrary to Windows
> users, who regularly need to defrag drives, clean registry's, scan HD's for
> rubbish and do other tasks no user of a decent OS should have to perform.
Nor should users have to put up with the random freezing of Ubuntu for
the past 4 years, but they do (not that it's a decent OS).
> But OK, there may be distributions which are somewhat more reliable and less
> prone to hiccups than others -- with the latter often being cutting-edge
> distributions such as Ubuntu,
So what is Canonical doing tell us an experimental, cutting-edge distro
like Ubuntu is "reliable" and "perfect for colleges and universities"?
You guys need to get your stories straight.
> trying to support new hardware as quickly as
> possible, with occasional glitches, while the former trade extensive
> hardware support for a more stable system (e.g. Debian).
Is there one in that 500+ that comes 1/4 of the way to the Windows gold
standard for apps, games, hardware support, usability, documentation,
speed, stability, etc?
Which one is it?
> It's quite difficult to have both, at least as long as quite a few major
> hardware manufacturers ignore Linux, and provide only Windows drivers.
User X doesn't care about blaming the vendor, and neither do I. Why
should I wait months and years for Linux support for a sound
card/joystick/scanner/pen tablet/chipset/video card/printer, etc?
> But so far, I found that Mandriva offered the best balance in this respect:
> even the newest hardware is usually dealt with without problems, while at
> the same time the OS works like a charm: very reliable, without weird
> slow-downs or bit rot like Windows,
LMAO!
"Crash at startup - Mandriva 2010.1"
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/earth/thread?tid=265d61cdb5dbf5ae&hl=en
http://lists.mandriva.com/bugs/2010-01/msg02750.php
As for Lunix bit-rot:
"Lucid has become slower and slower since installation...I would not
want to show this slow boot to prospective linux converts."
#4 at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1507610
"My Lucid bootup time has also become slower after time. On my computer,
I am waiting at the Ubuntu screen with the five dots for quite some time."
#6 at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1507610
Before you say it: I know everything has been fixed in the next version,
the next kernel, the next release, etc.
> and virtually without any need for
> system administration. I mainly keep checking logs to check whether updates
> cause no problems (which hasn't happened to me in years), spot emerging
> hardware trouble before it becomes real trouble, and to keep an eye on
> server load (to prevent DoS-like problems) and security.
So you don't actually trust Linux security. Don't blame you - check out
www.linuxsecurity.com.
DFS
> Now try to imagine what would happen if Windows would drop dead overnight,
> e.g. due to a particularly nasty and contagious piece of malware
Yeah, that'll happen.
Some 900,000,000 Windows users over 15 years, and only a tiny few
meaningful/large virus outbreaks? Not a single one on Vista or Win7?
MS is doomed.
Tattoo Vampire
> Why not 500 different distributions? What difference does it make? But, if
> Moshe really wanted to know (which is not his goal) he would would do a
> little research and realize that most people use just a few distributions
> -- and there are many specialized distributions written for specific
> purposes. And many variants (especially Ubuntu variants) released for
> specific groups. For example there is a "Christian" Ubuntu, a "Moslem"
> Ubuntu, etc. This is stuff you could customize yourself using standard
> Ubuntu, but it's done for you. Some distributions are just firewalls. Some
> are "juke boxes." There are many reasons for many distributions, as a
> little research would quickly show.
I'm still waiting for Druid Linux, myself.
--
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
..."Ummm, trouble with grammar have I? Yes!" --Yoda
Lusotec
> The only thing I find a bit of a shame is that KDE4 requires quite a bit
> of RAM. I used to be able to revive old machines with as little as 256MB
> RAM with Mandriva, and 512MB used to be plenty to run pretty much
> everything at the same time, but KDE4 is more of a RAM guzzler, with 512MB
> being barely enough. But that's not Mandriva's fault either, of course.
KDE4 can run on 256MiB but the 3D compositing, akonadi, and most of the
services, especially the indexing & search service must be disabled. Even
so, I would recommend a lighter desktop environment to leave as much of the
systems resources as possible to the applications.
Regards.
Lusotec
> Is there one in that 500+
Most of the GNU/Linux distributions are *not* for desktops.
> that comes 1/4 of the way to the Windows gold
> standard for apps, games,
Windows wins in *desktop* apps.
Windows wins, by far, in games.
> hardware support,
GNU/Linux Wins. Windows looses, by far.
> usability,
Both KDE4, Gnome, Mac OSX's Aqua and Windows 7's Aero are very close in
usability. Personal preferences and experience make the difference here.
> documentation,
GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses.
> speed,
GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses.
> stability,
GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses.
> etc?
High performance computing: GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
Embedded systems: Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
Backbone Internet services: GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
Servers: GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses.
Smartphones: Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
Realtime systems: Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
Very impressive for crapware/hobbyware.
Regards.
DFS
> High performance computing: GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
> Embedded systems: Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
> Backbone Internet services: GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
> Servers: GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses.
> Smartphones: Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
> Realtime systems: Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
Windows smashes Linux in server units and $ sales.
And what each of those has in common?
* small core of developers, ie few or no amateurish devs
* small footprint
* limited functionality
* limited hardware support
* custom kernels
* dedicated corporate resources
As soon as you try to put the open source "community" slopware on the
desktop, where you're frequently logging in and out, installing and
uninstalling and running diverse apps and drivers, power mgmt, multiple
displays, tons of users, lots of hardware devices, etc ... it falls
right down.
By far the biggest thing Lunix has going for it is free of cost. It
would never have taken off in those situations if not for that one
"feature".
> Very impressive for crapware/hobbyware.
A free-for-the-taking theftware Unix workalike is not impressive.
NekosilvertaiL
> A free-for-the-taking theftware Unix workalike is not impressive.
GNU: GNU's NOT UNIX
Lusotec
> Lusotec wrote:
>> High performance computing: GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
>> Embedded systems: Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
>> Backbone Internet services: GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
>> Servers: GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses.
>> Smartphones: Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
>> Realtime systems: Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
>
> Windows smashes Linux in server units and $ sales.
Those numbers have little meaning if they don't include the large number of
servers that have GNU/Linux installed after purchase.
> And what each of those has in common?
> * small core of developers, ie few or no amateurish devs
> * small footprint
> * limited functionality
> * limited hardware support
> * custom kernels
> * dedicated corporate resources
>
> As soon as you try to put the open source "community" slopware on the
> desktop, where you're frequently logging in and out, installing and
> uninstalling and running diverse apps and drivers, power mgmt, multiple
> displays, tons of users, lots of hardware devices, etc ... it falls
> right down.
Completely delusional!
> By far the biggest thing Lunix has going for it is free of cost. It
> would never have taken off in those situations if not for that one
> "feature".
Thanks for pointing that out. Cost is certainly very import, and TCO is
another aspect where Linux (GNU/Linux) wins and Windows looses.
>> Very impressive for crapware/hobbyware.
>
> A free-for-the-taking theftware Unix workalike is not impressive.
And yet GNU/Linux still beats Windows like a rug!
Regards.
Chris Ahlstrom
> On 2010-09-22, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post o3e85ysk9hil$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
>> 9/22/10 4:31 AM:
>>
>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>
>>>> I won't even think about making my business dependent on the whims of One
>>>> Vendor.
>>>
>>> I moved all our office machines from PCLinuxOS to Mint.
>>
>> Do you use a mix of Intel and AMD chips?
>
> That's quite the lame comparison.
Not really. Out of the mouths of babes....
Snit has just shown that switching between Intel and AMD chips provides
a comparable degree of difficulty in switching distros.
--
Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.
-- Judy Garland, "Wizard of Oz"
Chris Ahlstrom
> DFS wrote:
>
>> A free-for-the-taking theftware Unix workalike is not impressive.
>
> GNU: GNU's NOT UNIX
Jesus. Just plonk the perseverating asshole. He thinks that people just
cut-and-paste code to create GNU/Linux. He's a fscking moron. He's
repellent. Shut him out.
--
brain-damaged, generalization of "Honeywell Brain Damage" (HBD), a
theoretical disease invented to explain certain utter cretinisms in
Multics, adj:
Obviously wrong; cretinous; demented. There is an implication
that the person responsible must have suffered brain damage,
because he/she should have known better. Calling something
brain-damaged is bad; it also implies it is unusable.
Snit
9/22/10 7:23 PM:
> TomB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
>
>> On 2010-09-22, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post o3e85ysk9hil$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
>>> 9/22/10 4:31 AM:
>>>
>>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I won't even think about making my business dependent on the whims of One
>>>>> Vendor.
>>>>
>>>> I moved all our office machines from PCLinuxOS to Mint.
>>>
>>> Do you use a mix of Intel and AMD chips?
>>
>> That's quite the lame comparison.
>
> Not really. Out of the mouths of babes....
>
> Snit has just shown that switching between Intel and AMD chips provides
> a comparable degree of difficulty in switching distros.
It is, in some ways, easier to change distros / OSs... in that you can do so
from your office or home without even having to unplug anything. Of course,
there is more of a learning curve / different user experience in different
software than there is with AMD/Intel. The concern here, though, was not
ease of use or even user experience but being tied to one vender.
Still would love to see the open source hardware designs - including chip
designs.
--
"Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words. Therefore they ARE
identical when presented in that order." -- Tim Adams
Homer
> NekosilvertaiL posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> A free-for-the-taking theftware Unix workalike is not impressive.
>>
>> GNU: GNU's NOT UNIX
>
> Jesus. Just plonk the perseverating asshole. He thinks that people
> just cut-and-paste code to create GNU/Linux. He's a fscking moron.
> He's repellent. Shut him out.
Should we call Windows a locked-down theftware CP/M+VMS+Apple+KDE4
workabitlike, with assimilated and plagiarised addons from hundreds of
betrayed "partners" like i4i, but the Value Added "benefit" of viruses?
Well ... yes. Obviously.
DooFy should get those cataracts seen to. Meanwhile I recommend he sees
an optician:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/14/specsavers_open_source/
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| You can't make an omelet without building some bridges
| ... but don't count your bridges until they've hatched
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
06:08:40 up 18 days, 13:27, 0 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00
Homer
> Snit has just shown that switching between Intel and AMD chips
> provides a comparable degree of difficulty in switching distros.
How is installing a new distro that's compatible with one's CPU and
motherboard, comparable in difficulty to installing a CPU incompatible
with one's existing motherboard (and therefore having to install a new
motherboard too)?
I've seen 8 year old kids install Linux before. I doubt if any of them
could install a new motherboard and CPU (without incident). Their
biggest difficulty, of course, would be purchasing the motherboard and
CPU in the first place, something they wouldn't need to do with the
Linux distro.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| You can't make an omelet without building some bridges
| ... but don't count your bridges until they've hatched
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
06:27:17 up 18 days, 13:45, 0 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Snit
> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>
>> Snit has just shown that switching between Intel and AMD chips
>> provides a comparable degree of difficulty in switching distros.
>
> How is installing a new distro that's compatible with one's CPU and
> motherboard, comparable in difficulty to installing a CPU incompatible
> with one's existing motherboard (and therefore having to install a new
> motherboard too)?
>
> I've seen 8 year old kids install Linux before. I doubt if any of them
> could install a new motherboard and CPU (without incident). Their
> biggest difficulty, of course, would be purchasing the motherboard and
> CPU in the first place, something they wouldn't need to do with the
> Linux distro.
There are (at least) two ways of looking at this:
* doing the conversion: in this case the OS is clearly easier.
* getting used to the conversion after the fact: in this case the CPU swap
is not that big of a deal... the OS swap very much can be.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>
>> Snit has just shown that switching between Intel and AMD chips
>> provides a comparable degree of difficulty in switching distros.
>
> How is installing a new distro that's compatible with one's CPU and
> motherboard, comparable in difficulty to installing a CPU incompatible
> with one's existing motherboard (and therefore having to install a new
> motherboard too)?
I didn't read the OP; I simply saw a comment containing the words AMD and
Intel.
Snit's example is even sillier, then. There are a wide variety of
motherboards. You can get pretty much any combination of chipset and cpu,
can't you? And you can attach your Linux-hosting hard drive to them and let
Linux enumerate the hardware -- unlike the sad case of Windows.
> I've seen 8 year old kids install Linux before. I doubt if any of them
> could install a new motherboard and CPU (without incident). Their
> biggest difficulty, of course, would be purchasing the motherboard and
> CPU in the first place, something they wouldn't need to do with the
> Linux distro.
How did 8-year-old kids enter the equation? The trolls are trying to make
it to be difficult for *adults* to change distros.
That's the trouble with these Snit circuses... terms are substituted without
regard.
--
You're growing out of some of your problems, but there are others that
you're growing into.
chrisv
>Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>
>> Snit has just shown that switching between Intel and AMD chips
>> provides a comparable degree of difficulty in switching distros.
>
>How is installing a new distro that's compatible with one's CPU and
>motherboard, comparable in difficulty to installing a CPU incompatible
>with one's existing motherboard (and therefore having to install a new
>motherboard too)?
Well, to the majority, "switching CPU's" means buying a new PC.
Obviously, that costs money, but the point is that it's easy. And in
the context of a company changing distros, buying new hardware is
inevitable. Generally, that's how new/different OS's are phased-in,
with new machines having the new OS, while existing machines keep what
they have forever.
Snit
9/23/10 3:48 AM:
> Homer posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>>
>>> Snit has just shown that switching between Intel and AMD chips
>>> provides a comparable degree of difficulty in switching distros.
>>
>> How is installing a new distro that's compatible with one's CPU and
>> motherboard, comparable in difficulty to installing a CPU incompatible
>> with one's existing motherboard (and therefore having to install a new
>> motherboard too)?
>
> I didn't read the OP; I simply saw a comment containing the words AMD and
> Intel.
>
> Snit's example is even sillier, then. There are a wide variety of
> motherboards. You can get pretty much any combination of chipset and cpu,
> can't you? And you can attach your Linux-hosting hard drive to them and let
> Linux enumerate the hardware -- unlike the sad case of Windows.
So?
>> I've seen 8 year old kids install Linux before. I doubt if any of them
>> could install a new motherboard and CPU (without incident). Their
>> biggest difficulty, of course, would be purchasing the motherboard and
>> CPU in the first place, something they wouldn't need to do with the
>> Linux distro.
>
> How did 8-year-old kids enter the equation? The trolls are trying to make
> it to be difficult for *adults* to change distros.
>
> That's the trouble with these Snit circuses... terms are substituted without
> regard.
Why blame me for your actions?
--
"A non-powered hub that will only support non-powered devices. IOW,
basically useless." -- Tim Adams
RayLopez99
>
> Richard Rasker
> --http://www.linetec.nl
World Cup: Holland lost to Spain. Just like in the 1500s.
RL
One Shot, One Kill
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:kbjm969spn6l9h61j...@4ax.com...
fscking shut up you lying asshole.
One Shot, One Kill
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
you are a lying asshole you stupid piece of shit.
Homer
> Homer wrote:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>>
>>> Snit has just shown that switching between Intel and AMD chips
>>> provides a comparable degree of difficulty in switching distros.
>>
>> How is installing a new distro that's compatible with one's CPU and
>> motherboard, comparable in difficulty to installing a CPU
>> incompatible with one's existing motherboard (and therefore having
>> to install a new motherboard too)?
>
> Well, to the majority, "switching CPU's" means buying a new PC.
Yes, just like installing a new version of Windows means buying a new
PC, according to the rules laid out by Microsoft (in practical terms).
But of course that "necessity" drastically changes when using Linux.
> Obviously, that costs money, but the point is that it's easy. And in
> the context of a company changing distros, buying new hardware is
> inevitable. Generally, that's how new/different OS's are phased-in,
> with new machines having the new OS, while existing machines keep
> what they have forever.
And again, this routine is only supported by the cycle primarily
dictated by Microsoft. But Linux distro release cycles are far shorter,
so it's likely a machine will see several OS upgrades in its lifetime,
thus breaking the psychological and logistical link between software and
hardware upgrades. This might mean hardware is utilised longer, as
companies will be forced to actually plan their own hardware upgrade
schedules, rather than have them read out by Microsoft. So they'll not
only save money on software licensing, but hardware too.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| You can't make an omelet without building some bridges
| ... but don't count your bridges until they've hatched
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
15:34:07 up 18 days, 22:52, 0 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
RonB
> And again, this routine is only supported by the cycle primarily
> dictated by Microsoft. But Linux distro release cycles are far shorter,
> so it's likely a machine will see several OS upgrades in its lifetime,
> thus breaking the psychological and logistical link between software and
> hardware upgrades. This might mean hardware is utilised longer, as
> companies will be forced to actually plan their own hardware upgrade
> schedules, rather than have them read out by Microsoft. So they'll not
> only save money on software licensing, but hardware too.
Ah, but we now live in a "consumer economy," so if you don't buy a new
computer every Windows upgrade cycle, you're un-American and destroying
"free enterprise."
You wouldn't want to do that now, would you?
--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
TomB
> AM:
>
>> On 2010-09-22, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post o3e85ysk9hil$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
>>> 9/22/10 4:31 AM:
>>>
>>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I won't even think about making my business dependent on the whims of One
>>>>> Vendor.
>>>>
>>>> I moved all our office machines from PCLinuxOS to Mint.
>>>
>>> Do you use a mix of Intel and AMD chips?
>>
>> That's quite the lame comparison.
>
> hardware you need to go someplace, buy it, physically set it up, and then
> still install the software. You are even more tied to one vender with
> hardware.
Your awareness of the beauty of GNU/Linux is lacking. You can pull
the OS drive out of an Intel based box, install it in an AMD based
box, and continue where you left off.
Some disclaimer (I know this group by now):
* obviously you cannot move a 64 bit install to a 32 bit machine
* moving between different architectures also isn't possible
* there are some rare cases where this may fail
But I still fail to see the relevance of the comparison.
--
21:29:19 up 14:58, 9 users, load average: 0.19, 0.23, 0.14
I am son of Liarmutt.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all
learned.
~ Bruce Ediger
Snit
PM:
> On 2010-09-22, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 201009221...@usenet.drumscum.be on 9/22/10 10:29
>> AM:
>>
>>> On 2010-09-22, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post o3e85ysk9hil$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
>>>> 9/22/10 4:31 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I won't even think about making my business dependent on the whims of One
>>>>>> Vendor.
>>>>>
>>>>> I moved all our office machines from PCLinuxOS to Mint.
>>>>
>>>> Do you use a mix of Intel and AMD chips?
>>>
>>> That's quite the lame comparison.
>>
>> With software, you can just uninstall it and then install another... with
>> hardware you need to go someplace, buy it, physically set it up, and then
>> still install the software. You are even more tied to one vender with
>> hardware.
>
> Your awareness of the beauty of GNU/Linux is lacking. You can pull
> the OS drive out of an Intel based box, install it in an AMD based
> box, and continue where you left off.
Well, sure, you can also have Linux run from a USB drive and just plug it
in. But on the same machine, if you are moving from one OS to another, it
generally means installing... or having done so in the past and dual
booting.
> Some disclaimer (I know this group by now):
> * obviously you cannot move a 64 bit install to a 32 bit machine
> * moving between different architectures also isn't possible
> * there are some rare cases where this may fail
>
> But I still fail to see the relevance of the comparison.
The point was about vender lock... and the question was if more than one CPU
vender was being used.
And that question has never been answered.
Homer
Point taken.
I shall now donate all my money to Microsoft, like a good little consumer.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| You can't make an omelet without building some bridges
| ... but don't count your bridges until they've hatched
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
05:13:21 up 19 days, 12:31, 1 user, load average: 0.08, 0.29, 0.15
TomB
>>>>>>> whims of One Vendor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I moved all our office machines from PCLinuxOS to Mint.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you use a mix of Intel and AMD chips?
>>>>
>>>> That's quite the lame comparison.
>>>
>>> With software, you can just uninstall it and then install
>>> another... with hardware you need to go someplace, buy it,
>>> physically set it up, and then still install the software. You
>>> are even more tied to one vender with hardware.
>>
>> Your awareness of the beauty of GNU/Linux is lacking. You can pull
>> the OS drive out of an Intel based box, install it in an AMD based
>> box, and continue where you left off.
>
> Well, sure, you can also have Linux run from a USB drive and just
> plug it in. But on the same machine, if you are moving from one OS
> to another, it generally means installing... or having done so in
> the past and dual booting.
Just stating the obvious I suppose?
>> Some disclaimer (I know this group by now):
>> * obviously you cannot move a 64 bit install to a 32 bit machine
>> * moving between different architectures also isn't possible
>> * there are some rare cases where this may fail
>>
>> But I still fail to see the relevance of the comparison.
>
> The point was about vender lock... and the question was if more than one CPU
> vender was being used.
>
> And that question has never been answered.
Vendor lock-in has nothing to do with using products from just one
vendor. It refers to techniques deployed by a vendor to make sure you
cannot move to another one in the future.
Key here is open and documented formats versus closed an proprietary
formats. Or technologies.
--
00:09:25 up 3 min, 8 users, load average: 0.05, 0.10, 0.04
I am son of Liarmutt.
My new computer came with Windows 7. Windows 7 is much more user friendly than
Windows Vista. I don’t like that.
~ Sheldon Cooper
DFS
> Vendor lock-in has nothing to do with using products from just one
> vendor. It refers to techniques deployed by a vendor to make sure you
> cannot move to another one in the future.
Do you have one example? Just one will do.
Snit
AM:
> On 2010-09-23, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 201009232...@usenet.drumscum.be on 9/23/10 2:26
>> PM:
>>
>>>>>>>> I won't even think about making my business dependent on the
>>>>>>>> whims of One Vendor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I moved all our office machines from PCLinuxOS to Mint.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you use a mix of Intel and AMD chips?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's quite the lame comparison.
>>>>
>>>> With software, you can just uninstall it and then install
>>>> another... with hardware you need to go someplace, buy it,
>>>> physically set it up, and then still install the software. You
>>>> are even more tied to one vender with hardware.
>>>
>>> Your awareness of the beauty of GNU/Linux is lacking. You can pull
>>> the OS drive out of an Intel based box, install it in an AMD based
>>> box, and continue where you left off.
>>
>> Well, sure, you can also have Linux run from a USB drive and just
>> plug it in. But on the same machine, if you are moving from one OS
>> to another, it generally means installing... or having done so in
>> the past and dual booting.
>
> Just stating the obvious I suppose?
Just showing that I can point out the same "lacking" in your awareness. :)
>>> Some disclaimer (I know this group by now):
>>> * obviously you cannot move a 64 bit install to a 32 bit machine
>>> * moving between different architectures also isn't possible
>>> * there are some rare cases where this may fail
>>>
>>> But I still fail to see the relevance of the comparison.
>>
>> The point was about vender lock... and the question was if more than one CPU
>> vender was being used.
>>
>> And that question has never been answered.
>
> Vendor lock-in has nothing to do with using products from just one
> vendor.
But if you use products from just one vender, and have no plans on using any
other, then it really does not matter if there are others. Sure, if Intel
were to go out of business or something then it is good to know there is a
"backup" plan, but the chances of that happening are slim. If you use
Windows, sure, you are using just one vender, but the risk of doing so is
tiny in terms of them going out of business or otherwise not having the
product you use be available. This does not mean it is not wise to look at
other options (OS X and Ubuntu, for example), but it is not like the use of
one vender is that big of a deal.
> It refers to techniques deployed by a vendor to make sure you
> cannot move to another one in the future.
There is little if anything MS can do to prevent me from, say, using my Mac.
And we get reports in COLA on a frequent basis of how many companies and
even countries have moved to Linux. Hardly seems like people are trapped.
> Key here is open and documented formats versus closed an proprietary
> formats. Or technologies.
I would say formats. It does not matter *how* vender A makes, for example,
a video file - what matters is the end result. Is the file one you can play
and modify elsewhere? If so, you are not locked to the original tool.
You might have to use the original tool to make some modifications though...
if you want to change the source file. I do not have a problem with this.
For example, I use ScreenFlow on a regular basis - if I want to edit one of
my source "creation" files I am "locked" to ScreenFlow. So be it. I also
use Camtasia and they have their own file format as well. This allows each
of them to do things their own way and to have, get this, choice. Would it
be better if the two decided to use one file format or if there was a
converter... I suppose, but given how differently the apps work and the fact
they have different features, I suspect this would be quite a technical
challenge.
--
"YOU were the person claiming that the ~ told people to go to
HardDrive/users/username/ while I stated the ~ indicated the name of the
hard drive only." -- Tim Adams
sctvguy1
> DFS wrote:
>> Is there one in that 500+
>
> Most of the GNU/Linux distributions are *not* for desktops.
>
>> that comes 1/4 of the way to the Windows gold
>> standard for apps, games,
>
> Windows wins in *desktop* apps.
> Windows wins, by far, in games.
>
>> hardware support,
>
> GNU/Linux Wins. Windows looses, by far.
>
>> usability,
>
> Both KDE4, Gnome, Mac OSX's Aqua and Windows 7's Aero are very close in
> usability. Personal preferences and experience make the difference here.
>
>> documentation,
>
> GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses.
>
>> speed,
>
> GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses.
>
>> stability,
>
> GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses.
>
>> etc?
>
> High performance computing: GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
> Embedded systems: Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
> Backbone Internet services: GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
> Servers: GNU/Linux wins. Windows looses.
> Smartphones: Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
> Realtime systems: Linux wins. Windows looses, by far.
>
> Very impressive for crapware/hobbyware.
Another minority heard from.
sctvguy1
You and chrisv have a serious love/hate relationship. Couldn't get the
marriage license and had to settle for "domestic partners"?
Homer
> Lusotec wrote:
>> Very impressive for crapware/hobbyware.
>
> Another minority heard from.
So what minority do /you/ represent.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| You can't make an omelet without building some bridges
| ... but don't count your bridges until they've hatched
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
07:55:21 up 20 days, 15:13, 0 users, load average: 0.01, 0.04, 0.05
sctvguy1
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:39:22 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
> <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Heh. When I first read $MILLIONS, I thought it was an environment
>>variable.
>
> idiot.
Hey, Moishe, I think I have one of your relatives as a lampshade.
Gregory Shearman
> Verily I say unto thee, that sctvguy1 spake thusly:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>
>>> Very impressive for crapware/hobbyware.
>>
>> Another minority heard from.
>
> So what minority do /you/ represent.
Linux isn't a minority in the embedded and in the server/supercomputing
areas.
Desktops? What are they? My last desktop died a month ago. It won't be
replaced.
ARM are in the process of releasing a new 3 core CPU especially aimed at
low power usage.... It can do 3D graphics and can shut down its 2 high
power cores and run off a low power core when idling. I can see these
beauties in the next generation of tablet computers.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Chris Ahlstrom
> One Shot, One Kill wrote:
>
>> "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:3lfk96h87hr3t6pff...@4ax.com...
>>
>> <snipped>
>
> You and chrisv have a serious love/hate relationship.
No, it is all one way for One Shot. He's obsessed with
chrisv, but his attentions are unrequited, which hurts
One Shot to his seamy little core.
--
Alas, I am dying beyond my means.
-- Oscar Wilde [as he sipped champagne on his deathbed]
Tattoo Vampire
> So what minority do /you/ represent.
The retarded one.
--
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
...How do they get Teflon to stick to the pans?
Gregory Shearman
> sctvguy1 posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
>
>> One Shot, One Kill wrote:
>>
>>> "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:3lfk96h87hr3t6pff...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> <snipped>
>>
>> You and chrisv have a serious love/hate relationship.
>
> No, it is all one way for One Shot. He's obsessed with
> chrisv, but his attentions are unrequited, which hurts
> One Shot to his seamy little core.
One Shot is a Bot.... bots can't be hurt.
TomB
Ok, I am going to rephase that:
It refers to techniques deployed by a vendor to make moving to a
different vendor as hard as possible.
For examples please refer to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
--
17:53:34 up 3:50, 2 users, load average: 0.07, 0.16, 0.15
I am son of Liarmutt.
I'll be Bach.
~ Johann Sebastian Schwarzenegger
Homer
> On 2010-09-24, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:
>> On 9/24/2010 8:28 AM, TomB wrote:
>>
>>> Vendor lock-in has nothing to do with using products from just
>>> one vendor. It refers to techniques deployed by a vendor to make
>>> sure you cannot move to another one in the future.
>>
>> Do you have one example? Just one will do.
>
> Ok, I am going to rephase that:
>
> It refers to techniques deployed by a vendor to make moving to a
> different vendor as hard as possible.
>
> For examples please refer to
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
I suppose DooFy is trying to claim "there is no vendor lock in", along
with idiocy like "there is no monopoly".
Presumably he's never heard of Internet Explorer, DirectX or any of the
other proprietary, single-platform technologies Microsoft has abused to
lock customers into their platform. DirectX in particular is probably
the single biggest reason most commercial PC games are only available
for Windows, for example. If a games developer writes his game engine
using the DirectX API, he has to either rewrite it in OpenGL to support
other platforms, or simply not bother supporting other platforms at all.
Is there anyone except DooFy who doesn't understand how that equates to
vendor lock-in?
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| You can't make an omelet without building some bridges
| ... but don't count your bridges until they've hatched
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
18:13:50 up 21 days, 1:32, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.03, 0.01
Snit
9/25/10 5:00 AM:
> Homer wrote:
>
>> So what minority do /you/ represent.
>
> The retarded one.
Interesting admission.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]