From the horse's mouth
DFS
packages and updates. Most Linux users don't.
* the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that things will
eventually start to break
* wanton package installation will clog the smooth running of Linux
* third-party packages are often flawed
* compiling new packages usually breaks the dependency database of the
package manager
* a reinstall of Linux will solve most problems (ROFL!... and f-u cola)
* few Linux users stick with the same distro for long
* all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
without the occasional purge
* most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work
This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
uncommon among Linux users.
Author: Graham Morrison, Linux Format magazine, Sep 2007 issue, pg 56
Handover Phist
> * Linux is only secure and stable if you keep to a strict diet of official
> packages and updates. Most Linux users don't.
I disagree. I use plenty of compiled code and 3rd party software safely
and stably.
> * the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that things will
> eventually start to break
Only if you're not paying attention. Even libs in Linux tend to be
pretty smooth.
> * wanton package installation will clog the smooth running of Linux
Wait, I see a running theme here.
> * third-party packages are often flawed
I think I've answered this already.
> * compiling new packages usually breaks the dependency database of the
> package manager
OK, just gonna go with 'nope' here.
> * a reinstall of Linux will solve most problems (ROFL!... and f-u cola)
Don't know where yer goin, buddy.
> * few Linux users stick with the same distro for long
I stuck with Mandrake for about three years before I discovered the
wonder that is Slackware. I've been using Linux since 1999.
> * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
> without the occasional purge
Nope.
> * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work
Nope.
> This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
> uncommon among Linux users.
>
> Author: Graham Morrison, Linux Format magazine, Sep 2007 issue, pg 56
I disagree completely, as a long time Linux user.
--
Most seminars have a happy ending. Everyone's glad when they're over.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>> * few Linux users stick with the same distro for long
> I stuck with Mandrake for about three years before I discovered the
> wonder that is Slackware. I've been using Linux since 1999.
Indeed. After a 1 day fling with redhat 5.2, I've been with SuSE since then.
Hardly say 8 years isn't "for long".
Though I am considering ubuntu.
>> * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
>> without the occasional purge
> Nope.
Indeed, but when was the last time DFS said something that WASN'T bullshit?
This machine was last re-installed due to hard disk degradation.
That was well over a year ago. Performance and stability issues?
Bull.
>> * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work
> Nope.
Indeed. Especially with the deb based package management system.
>> This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
>> uncommon among Linux users.
>>
>> Author: Graham Morrison, Linux Format magazine, Sep 2007 issue, pg 56
> I disagree completely, as a long time Linux user.
Indeed. Seems this bloke was just another troll with a few gripes.
Just like doofus in fact.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
> * Linux is only secure and stable if _______________ ct diet of official
> packages and updates. M /| /| | |
> ||__|| | Please do |
> * the net effect [of in / O O\__ | NOT | s that things will
> eventually start to br / \ | feed the |
> / \ \ troll |
> * wanton package ins / _ \ \ ______________| ng of Linux
> / |\____\ \ ||
> * third-party pack / | | | |\____/ ||
> / \|_|_|/ \ __||
> * compiling new / / \ |____| || ndency database of the
> package manager / | | /| | --|
> | | |// |____ --|
> * a rein * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/ (ROFL!... and f-u cola)
> *-- _--\ _ \ // |
> * few L / _ \\ _ // | / stro for long
> * / \_ /- | - | |
> * all m * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ and stability issues
> without the occasional purge
7
> * Linux is only secure and stable if you keep to a strict diet of official
> packages and updates. Most Linux users don't.
Which book claims that?
> * the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that things will
> eventually start to break
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!
YOU *STUPID* WINDUMMY!!!
Its just sheer windummy approaches that cause all the problems!!!!!!!!!!!!
Linux has about 20,000+ packages and they are all reasonably well built.
If you need experimental stuff, its better to do it on some other machine.
In any case, a well managed user base has reference installs and separate
home directories that don't disintegrate like windummy environments.
And once you build a new user environment, you can cleanly update
a machine without disturbing user files. No need to worry about licenses
when you do these things.
Its just one of those things where Linux's superiorioty of windopws
has Microshafties cringing and you (a windummy)
can't accept that its your own faults. You rant and rave about breaking your
systems because you a windummy running Linux labs in Micoshaft HQ try to
managesoftware installs just like a windummies do and in the process come
out with windummy perceptions about software and how it should be used.
Its more clear reasons never to use deep sh*tty windummies on heavy handed
Linux projects. They are going to bring their dirty baggage and perceptions
with them and wreck your projects.
Gregory Shearman
> * Linux is only secure and stable if you keep to a strict diet of official
> packages and updates. Most Linux users don't.
Rubbish. Install your unofficial packages to the default /usr/local/
> * the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that things will
> eventually start to break
Yes, you have to maintain the non-official packages.
That's why it's better to stick to the distro packages.
> * wanton package installation will clog the smooth running of Linux
So don't be wanton.
> * third-party packages are often flawed
Everything human-built is flawed. Nobody's perfect.
> * compiling new packages usually breaks the dependency database of the
> package manager
How? If you build in /usr/local and your package installs to /usr then
there's no confusion.
> * a reinstall of Linux will solve most problems (ROFL!... and f-u cola)
It doesn't solve any problem. It attempts to avoid problems.
My gentoo boxes have never been reinstalled.
> * few Linux users stick with the same distro for long
How does he know this? How long is "for long"?
> * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
> without the occasional purge
Purge? WTF does he mean?
WTF does he mean by "occasional purge"?
> * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work
He obviously doesn't run Gentoo.
> This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
> uncommon among Linux users.
Either his guy probably doesn't really know linux that well or you've quoted
out of context. I'll perhaps go with the latter.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
SomeBloke
<snip>
Strange, I have Linux Format September 2007 page 56 in front of me as I
write this and nothing you have claimed is true.
Lets take this one step at a time so that a slow minded twat like you will
understand.
The articles author is Mike Saunders not Graham Morrison. Graham is a staff
writer but not of this piece.
None of the comments you highlight appear in the article, and yes I have
read it unlike you.
The article takes 3 people, 2 of them LXF's employees. A publishers
assistant who has only used windows at a very basic level (Word and Outlook
mostly), the mags art editor a Mac fanboy and finally the disc editor of
LXF's sister magazine PC Answers a long time windows user. It asks them to
carry out 3 tasks, Basic usage, Administration and Installation.
The conclusion was that and I quote..
"These are good times. We were gleefully surprised that all three
participants had no major quibbles with the installation process, and that
they managed to grasp Gnome's workings with a few exploratory attempts.
Clearly there were some glitches that need ironing out.... but otherwise
Linux did not pose any huge obstacles."
Is this clear enough for you? Or shall I beat you around the head a bit more
you lying moron.
High Plains Thumper
> My gentoo boxes have never been reinstalled.
I kept my SuSE 6.4 Linux/KDE installation/partition for several
years. The downloaded patches from YaST continued just fine,
very user friendly. It even survived a crapped out Ampro PM9900
mobo and AMD 450 MHz K6-2 processor. I replaced it with a Slot-1
Pentium Celeron 333 MHz mobo. Did some minor hardware
redetecting after booting from same partition, continued another
year in that configuration, no reloading the OS.
During the same time, I ended up reinstalling Windows 98 several
times. I was lucky to get a year out of it.
So far, I have had good luck with Ubuntu on my 2.9 GHz Pentium
Celeron, 600 MHz Dell laptop and Debian on my 1.7 GHz Pentium
Celeron.
>> * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work
>
> He obviously doesn't run Gentoo.
nor SuSE Open, nor Debian, nor Ubuntu. No reinstallations
required there even with upgrade to Fiesty in Ubuntu. It worked
seamlessly.
>> This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties -
>> something *very* uncommon among Linux users.
>
> Either his guy probably doesn't really know linux that well or
> you've quoted out of context. I'll perhaps go with the latter.
--
HPT
Rick
> * Linux is only secure and stable if you keep to a strict diet of
> official packages and updates. Most Linux users don't.
Define "official". If he means getting Samab from "Bob's Samba page"
instead of from Samab or your distro, then it may well be insecure.
>
> * the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that things
> will eventually start to break
It depends on how you install these "non-official" packages. And yes,
distros I have used usually suggest you use packages built to your
distro, and/or from the distro's repository.
>
> * wanton package installation will clog the smooth running of Linux
WHat is wanton package installation?
>
> * third-party packages are often flawed
So?
>
> * compiling new packages usually breaks the dependency database of the
> package manager
I have never had this happen. Compiling packages on your system builds
them to the packages on your system.
>
> * a reinstall of Linux will solve most problems
it will? How will putting the same problem back solve the problem?
> (ROFL!... and f-u cola)
(ROFL!... and f-u DFS)
>
> * few Linux users stick with the same distro for long
That may be true. So what. I used LniuxPPC and Yellow dog on Macs, then
Mandrake (several versions) Fedora, Red Hat 9, Suse (several versions)
and I'm on my second version of PCLinuxOS.
... as opposed to DOS (how many versions?) Windows 9x, NT(2k), XP,
Vista ...
>
> * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
> without the occasional purge
I am assuming he is including WIndows and OS X ...
>
> * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work
it does?
>
>
> This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
> uncommon among Linux users.
>
> Author: Graham Morrison, Linux Format magazine, Sep 2007 issue, pg 56
No, you just have your usual case of dishonesties.
--
Rick
Rick
I think DFS is quoting a guy from Linux format. I guess I'm going to have
to go see if this is out of context, or if the guy is axe grinding.
--
Rick
Rick
Look for "Detox Your Linux Box", Graham Greene. According to the Linux
Format webiste archive. Apparently, "Linux is only secure and stable if
you keepo to a strict diet of official packages and updates. Most of us
don't" is a direct quote from the magazine.
--
Rick
William Poaster
> Handover Phist <ja...@jason.websterscafe.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>> * few Linux users stick with the same distro for long
>
>> I stuck with Mandrake for about three years before I discovered the
>> wonder that is Slackware. I've been using Linux since 1999.
>
> Indeed. After a 1 day fling with redhat 5.2, I've been with SuSE since
> then. Hardly say 8 years isn't "for long".
> Though I am considering ubuntu.
I used SuSE from 1997 to May 2006. Because I didn't like the way Novel was
going, I then used Kubuntu which I'd been testing for about 4/5 months.
Meanwhile I'd also been testing *BSD, & have now got them on my main
machines while keeping Kubuntu as a fallback OS.
>>> * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
>>> without the occasional purge
>
>> Nope.
Nope, I've had neither performance nor stability issues.
> Indeed, but when was the last time DFS said something that WASN'T
> bullshit? This machine was last re-installed due to hard disk degradation.
> That was well over a year ago. Performance and stability issues?
> Bull.
Yup, it's bull.
>>> * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work
>
>> Nope.
>
> Indeed. Especially with the deb based package management system.
I found it very easy to do, on Kubuntu & Debian installs. No problem
upgrading anything, even to a complete new version (Kubuntu 6.10 to 7.04)
>>> This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
>>> uncommon among Linux users.
>>>
>>> Author: Graham Morrison, Linux Format magazine, Sep 2007 issue, pg 56
>
>> I disagree completely, as a long time Linux user.
>
> Indeed. Seems this bloke was just another troll with a few gripes.
> Just like doofus in fact.
I read the article, & wondered if the writer was a newbie.....
If I want to clean an existing distro, I just use Kleansweep.
--
Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4,
Testing: FreeBSD 7.0
Linux systems: Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007,
(K)Ubuntu 7.04. Testing: Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" beta
AHappyCamper
Was there any mention of the warning that all network computers with
access to the internet must run behind a hardware firewall such as
IPCOP.org or one of the commercial router/firewalls?
What about the fact that all OSes today contain the option to turn on
and run, an internal firewall?
Those in the majority of users who run Mepis, Ubuntu, Fedora Core, and
other OSes that include kSynaptic automatic updating tend to not futz
with compiling or un-taring packages that are not in the repository, for
at least their first year of use.
DFS
> DFS lied:
I see they numbered the pages wrong, and there are two sets of page 56-61.
The article you reference is "The Ultimate Linux Newbie Test" and it starts
on the real page 54. The article I reference is "Detox Your Linux Box" and
goes from real page 40-45, but is labeled 56-61. Then the numbering goes
back to 46.
Apology accepted (even though a Linux loser like yourself hasn't the grace
or humility or maturity to apologize).
AHappyCamper
Microsoft built a lab with a purported 400 GNU/Linux systems, where they
attempt to break the systems. The fact that it has run for three years
non-stop, fairly well proves the troll's theories false.
The fact that all the hundreds of router/firewalls on Microsoft Corp.
networks run Linux is a testament.
The 15,000 Akamai Leased Linux servers in front of Microsoft.com,
MSN.com is another testament.
Even the attempt to discredit GNU/Linux by paid shills, trolls, and
Steve Ballmer, are all testament to the power and stability of GNU/Linux.
Rick
All true enough... but why address this to me, and not DFS?
--
Rick
Rick
> SomeBloke wrote:
>> DFS lied:
>
> I see they numbered the pages wrong, and there are two sets of page
> 56-61. The article you reference is "The Ultimate Linux Newbie Test" and
> it starts on the real page 54. The article I reference is "Detox Your
> Linux Box" and goes from real page 40-45, but is labeled 56-61. Then
> the numbering goes back to 46.
>
> Apology accepted (even though a Linux loser like yourself hasn't the
> grace or humility or maturity to apologize).
Why are you SUCH an ass? Why are you even here? Why do you care about
Linux and OSS so much?
>
>
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Strange, I have Linux Format September 2007 page 56 in front of me as I
>> write this and nothing you have claimed is true.
>>
>> Lets take this one step at a time so that a slow minded twat like you
>> will understand.
>>
>> The articles author is Mike Saunders not Graham Morrison. Graham is a
>> staff writer but not of this piece.
>>
>> None of the comments you highlight appear in the article, and yes I
>> have read it unlike you.
>>
>> The article takes 3 people, 2 of them LXF's employees. A publishers
>> assistant who has only used windows at a very basic level (Word and
>> Outlook mostly), the mags art editor a Mac fanboy and finally the disc
>> editor of LXF's sister magazine PC Answers a long time windows user. It
>> asks them to carry out 3 tasks, Basic usage, Administration and
>> Installation.
>>
>> The conclusion was that and I quote..
>>
>> "These are good times. We were gleefully surprised that all three
>> participants had no major quibbles with the installation process, and
>> that they managed to grasp Gnome's workings with a few exploratory
>> attempts. Clearly there were some glitches that need ironing out....
>> but otherwise Linux did not pose any huge obstacles."
>>
>> Is this clear enough for you? Or shall I beat you around the head a bit
>> more you lying moron.
--
Rick
William Poaster
As there are very few packages *not* in the repositories, IMO there is no
need to bother compiling or un-taring *anything* from anywhere else. At
least I've never found it necessary, whatever distro I've used.
Ryan Paige
>
> I kept my SuSE 6.4 Linux/KDE installation/partition for several
> years. The downloaded patches from YaST continued just fine,
> very user friendly. It even survived a crapped out Ampro PM9900
> mobo and AMD 450 MHz K6-2 processor. I replaced it with a Slot-1
> Pentium Celeron 333 MHz mobo. Did some minor hardware
> redetecting after booting from same partition, continued another
> year in that configuration, no reloading the OS.
>
> During the same time, I ended up reinstalling Windows 98 several
> times. I was lucky to get a year out of it.
>
> So far, I have had good luck with Ubuntu on my 2.9 GHz Pentium
> Celeron, 600 MHz Dell laptop and Debian on my 1.7 GHz Pentium
> Celeron.
>
> required there even with upgrade to Fiesty in Ubuntu. It worked
> seamlessly.
Does Windows XP work seamlessly for you Wendy?
--
[ ] Check here if you trust content from HighPlainsRafael
[x] Check here if you do not trust content from HighPlainsRafael
Kier
Agreed. I just turned to the article in the mag, and it is quite
definitely Graham Morrison who wrote it. SomeBloke is talking about a
completely different article from the one DFS is quoting. And yes, DFS
*has* quoted it correctly.
--
Kier
Rick
But has he quoted it in context?
Some of the quotes are fairly strange.
--
Rick
Kier
To a degree, yes. But of course there is much more to the article than
the comments that DFS has quoted, and by only quoting what suits his
biased view, he distorts the intent and tone of the piece.
>
> Some of the quotes are fairly strange.
The article certainly goes out of its way to state that Linux is stable,
and that the writer is not claiming otherwise. It also makes clear that
eventually, even the best Linux installation may break or begin to slow
down, mainly due to software conflicts - third party pakcages, bleeding
edge software which is sometimes unstagble, etc.
It goes on to talk about how a complete reinstallation is often the
easiest and best way to remedy many issues of this kind once they've built
up over a long period of time, and sets out the most efficient ways in
which to do so without losing all the useful configuration and
customisation users have also built up.
"All modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
without the occasional purge, we should just count ourselves lucky that we
don't need to start completely from scratch with Linux", says the writer.
It explains why "most of the time, a simple distribution upgrade fails to
work and why a hand-picked selection of config files is better than
arbitrarily copying every file you can find" (config files get out of
date, can become corrupted, or the software itself has changed so that it
no longer accesses that file, new settings conflict with old, etc) before
going on to detail why leaving your home partition untouched during an
install is possible, but not always the best method of preserving
important data and config files.
--
Kier
Erik Funkenbusch
> To a degree, yes. But of course there is much more to the article than
> the comments that DFS has quoted, and by only quoting what suits his
> biased view, he distorts the intent and tone of the piece.
Gee.. now whose [News] snippets does that remind me of?
I don't see you complaining about Roy.
Kier
I don't read the NEWS posts unless they're replied to, and yes, I have
criticised Roy on several occasions for not being more accurate and
careful in his posts. And you know it.
--
Kier
DFS
> Agreed. I just turned to the article in the mag, and it is quite
> definitely Graham Morrison who wrote it. SomeBloke is talking about a
> completely different article from the one DFS is quoting. And yes, DFS
> *has* quoted it correctly.
Are your pages misnumbered? Mine go ...38,39,56,57,58,59,60,61,46,47...
Far as I know it's the same mag in both markets.
Kier
Yes, mine are buggered up in that issue too - though to be honest it took
me a while to notice. I think they had a lot of staff off at once at LXF
Towers that month and whoever stood in for that job got things mixed up.
--
Kier
Anonymous
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:38:35 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
> > SomeBloke wrote:
> >> DFS lied:
> >
> > I see they numbered the pages wrong, and there are two sets of page
> > 56-61. The article you reference is "The Ultimate Linux Newbie
> > Test" and it starts on the real page 54. The article I reference
> > is "Detox Your Linux Box" and goes from real page 40-45, but is
> > labeled 56-61. Then the numbering goes back to 46.
> >
> > Apology accepted (even though a Linux loser like yourself hasn't the
> > grace or humility or maturity to apologize).
>
> Why are you SUCH an ass? Why are you even here? Why do you care about
> Linux and OSS so much?
Never heard of an evangelical alcoholic?
At some point in his life DooFy had to come to terms with the fact that
something about Linux was out of his reach. Maybe it was severe
wintardedness and an inherent ability to memorize new menu structures.
Or maybe to poor sot just never could figure out how to get a machine
to boot from an optical device.
<shrug>
Regardless of the cause, the effect is the same. Just like some drunk
who can't quite acknowledge the fact that he's the abnormal one and
undertakes a lifetime of bible thumping about the evils of alcohol
consumption, our village idiot DooFy has immersed himself in his own
little crusade against something he ultimately knows he can never have.
Except DuuFus is a lot weirder than any bible thumping evangelist...
Handover Phist
> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>
>> Handover Phist <ja...@jason.websterscafe.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>>> * few Linux users stick with the same distro for long
>>
>>> I stuck with Mandrake for about three years before I discovered the
>>> wonder that is Slackware. I've been using Linux since 1999.
>>
>> Indeed. After a 1 day fling with redhat 5.2, I've been with SuSE since
>> then. Hardly say 8 years isn't "for long".
>> Though I am considering ubuntu.
I've tested Ubuntu and My wife and son (NOT linux users!) have had no
problem adjusting to using it.
> I used SuSE from 1997 to May 2006. Because I didn't like the way Novel was
> going, I then used Kubuntu which I'd been testing for about 4/5 months.
> Meanwhile I'd also been testing *BSD, & have now got them on my main
> machines while keeping Kubuntu as a fallback OS.
>
>>>> * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
>>>> without the occasional purge
>>
>>> Nope.
>
> Nope, I've had neither performance nor stability issues.
>
>> Indeed, but when was the last time DFS said something that WASN'T
>> bullshit? This machine was last re-installed due to hard disk degradation.
>> That was well over a year ago. Performance and stability issues?
>> Bull.
>
> Yup, it's bull.
>
>>>> * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work
>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Indeed. Especially with the deb based package management system.
>
> I found it very easy to do, on Kubuntu & Debian installs. No problem
> upgrading anything, even to a complete new version (Kubuntu 6.10 to 7.04)
Both Debian and Ubuntu have made upgrades really simple. I still find
that I appreciate Slackware more even though upgrades are more
difficult. What really gets me here is that even with a 'difficult'
distro to upgrade, the instructions for upgrading are clearly and
concisely printed in the HOWTO and backing up my home dir means I still
have all the settings for my programs backed up too. Not such a simple
task using other, say registry based, systems. It's actually *easier* to
save a user (user being me) screw up.
>>>> This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
>>>> uncommon among Linux users.
>>>>
>>>> Author: Graham Morrison, Linux Format magazine, Sep 2007 issue, pg 56
>>
>>> I disagree completely, as a long time Linux user.
>>
>> Indeed. Seems this bloke was just another troll with a few gripes.
>> Just like doofus in fact.
>
> I read the article, & wondered if the writer was a newbie.....
> If I want to clean an existing distro, I just use Kleansweep.
Many authors out there havent used Linux to it's full potential, and
many who have used Linux to that potential aren't writers. Those who can
accoplish both tasks are exceptional indeed. I know, I'm trying.
--
YOU'RE A SEXIST
William Poaster
Yes, it is.
However in my *BSD installations, I keep my /home partition (& back it up)
but do a completely fresh install of the new version release, rather than
an upgrade.
>>>>> This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
>>>>> uncommon among Linux users.
>>>>>
>>>>> Author: Graham Morrison, Linux Format magazine, Sep 2007 issue, pg 56
>>>
>>>> I disagree completely, as a long time Linux user.
>>>
>>> Indeed. Seems this bloke was just another troll with a few gripes.
>>> Just like doofus in fact.
>>
>> I read the article, & wondered if the writer was a newbie.....
>> If I want to clean an existing distro, I just use Kleansweep.
>
> Many authors out there havent used Linux to it's full potential, and
> many who have used Linux to that potential aren't writers. Those who can
> accoplish both tasks are exceptional indeed. I know, I'm trying.
Good luck. :-)
Handover Phist
> Handover Phist wrote:
>>
>> Many authors out there havent used Linux to it's full potential, and
>> many who have used Linux to that potential aren't writers. Those who can
>> accoplish both tasks are exceptional indeed. I know, I'm trying.
>
> Good luck. :-)
Thanks, I could use it. It requires a lot of time and research, but I
think I can crank something out that's useful to people.
--
for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
Nomen Nescio
> DFS wrote:
>
> > * Linux is only secure and stable if you keep to a strict diet of
> > official packages and updates. Most Linux users don't.
>
> Rubbish. Install your unofficial packages to the default /usr/local/
Not to mention the fact that Windows doesn't even HAVE any sort of
official packages for most software, and even Microsoft's own updates
can't make/keep Windows secure or stable.
If there were any shred of truth to DooFy'S spew, it would apply to his
beloved Microslop platform.
Oh wait, it does. :)
Linonut
> * Linux is only secure and stable if you keep to a strict diet of official
> packages and updates. Most Linux users don't.
>
> * the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that things will
> eventually start to break
>
> * wanton package installation will clog the smooth running of Linux
>
> * third-party packages are often flawed
>
> * compiling new packages usually breaks the dependency database of the
> package manager
>
> * a reinstall of Linux will solve most problems (ROFL!... and f-u cola)
>
> * few Linux users stick with the same distro for long
>
> * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
> without the occasional purge
>
> * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work
>
> This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
> uncommon among Linux users.
Except for one thing. He is full of it. He sounds like one of those
trolls who boots to a live CD now and then to pick up some good FUD.
Guys such as yourself.
> Author: Graham Morrison, Linux Format magazine, Sep 2007 issue, pg 56
Whoever reads that mag should write back to disabuse this idiot of his
idiocy.
Hint, DFS: Quoting stupidity does not move your thesis forward.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> Indeed, but when was the last time DFS said something that WASN'T bullshit?
About 80% of what he says is bullshit.
Pure and simple.
> Indeed. Seems this bloke was just another troll with a few gripes.
> Just like doofus in fact.
--
Tux rox!
SomeBloke
> SomeBloke wrote:
>> DFS lied:
>
> I see they numbered the pages wrong, and there are two sets of page 56-61.
> The article you reference is "The Ultimate Linux Newbie Test" and it
> starts
> on the real page 54. The article I reference is "Detox Your Linux Box"
> and
> goes from real page 40-45, but is labeled 56-61. Then the numbering goes
> back to 46.
>
> Apology accepted (even though a Linux loser like yourself hasn't the grace
> or humility or maturity to apologize).
>
>
Oh, how wrong you are. I do apologise for quoting the wrong article. As has
been pointed out in this thread the page numbers are wrong. I am also a
dual-booter so I know the benefits and advantages of Linux over Redmond's
escapees.
Now, when are you going to apologise for misquoting, misrepresenting and
generally quoting out of context and acting like an ass for as long as you
have been frequenting this newsgroup?
DFS
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> * Linux is only secure and stable if you keep to a strict diet of
>> official packages and updates. Most Linux users don't.
>>
>> * the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that
>> things will eventually start to break
>>
>> * wanton package installation will clog the smooth running of Linux
>>
>> * third-party packages are often flawed
>>
>> * compiling new packages usually breaks the dependency database of
>> the package manager
>>
>> * a reinstall of Linux will solve most problems (ROFL!... and f-u
>> cola)
>>
>> * few Linux users stick with the same distro for long
>>
>> * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability
>> issues without the occasional purge
>>
>> * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work
>>
>> This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
>> uncommon among Linux users.
>
> Except for one thing. He is full of it. He sounds like one of those
> trolls who boots to a live CD now and then to pick up some good FUD.
> Guys such as yourself.
So he's willfully lying, eh? And the editorial team at the #1 Linux mag is
all part of the conspiracy?
>> Author: Graham Morrison, Linux Format magazine, Sep 2007 issue, pg 56
>
> Whoever reads that mag should write back to disabuse this idiot of his
> idiocy.
You should make that your pet project. While you're at it, make sure to
accuse the Editor Nick Veitch of lying as well. In his Welcome statement in
this issue, he agrees with Morrison and says "Installing apps outside of
your distro's package manager can often come back to haunt you."
> Hint, DFS: Quoting stupidity does not move your thesis forward.
I expected the usual head-in-sand denials from the cola cabal. It happens
every time someone tells the sordid truth about running Linux.
Unfortunately for cola:
* he's a staff writer for the #1 Linux mag - not a moronic blogger of the
type often quoted by Linux "advocates"
* the editors of Linux Format vetted his article and ran it, so it obviously
has merit and passed muster among a set of very experienced Linux users who
are much more trustworthy than the dregs who post here
* even in my short time using Linux, I've experienced about half the issues
he mentions
* evidence of his claims is all over the Internet
DFS
> After takin' a swig o' grog, spi...@freenet.co.uk belched out this
> bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Indeed, but when was the last time DFS said something that WASN'T
>> bullshit?
>
> About 80% of what he says is bullshit.
>
> Pure and simple.
I agree... if bullshit == painful truth about the wacky bizarro world of
Linux/OSS.
>> Indeed. Seems this bloke was just another troll with a few gripes.
uh huh. A writer for the #1 Linux mag is a troll.
>> Just like doofus in fact.
Don't take it too hard. So installing 3rd party software on Linux can make
it insecure and unstable, and break the dependency database, and distro
upgrades often fail, and a full reinstall is best, and Linux users shuffle
distros? cola knew all that long before I posted it.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>
>> SomeBloke wrote:
>>> DFS lied:
>>
>> I see they numbered the pages wrong, and there are two sets of page
>> 56-61. The article you reference is "The Ultimate Linux Newbie Test"
>> and it starts
>> on the real page 54. The article I reference is "Detox Your Linux
>> Box" and
>> goes from real page 40-45, but is labeled 56-61. Then the numbering
>> goes back to 46.
>>
>> Apology accepted (even though a Linux loser like yourself hasn't the
>> grace or humility or maturity to apologize).
>>
>>
>
> Oh, how wrong you are. I do apologise for quoting the wrong article.
That's not the apology I care about, little fella, and you damn well know
it. It's for saying:
"DFS lied"
"slow minded twat like you"
"you lying moron"
> As has been pointed out in this thread the page numbers are wrong. I
> am also a dual-booter so I know the benefits and advantages of Linux
> over Redmond's escapees.
Dual-booter? Why would you keep Windows around? cola tells me it crashes
all the time, is always infected with malware, costs a lot of time and money
to acquire and maintain, requires frequent reinstallation, OpenOffice is
better than MS Office, Linux is better, blah blah blah.
Well?
> Now, when are you going to apologise for misquoting, misrepresenting
> and generally quoting out of context
You'll have to be much more specific than that.
> and acting like an ass for as
> long as you have been frequenting this newsgroup?
I act no worse than anyone else in this pit.
Kier
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> * Linux is only secure and stable if you keep to a strict diet of official
>> packages and updates. Most Linux users don't.
>>
>> * the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that things will
>> eventually start to break
>>
>> * wanton package installation will clog the smooth running of Linux
>>
>> * third-party packages are often flawed
>>
>> * compiling new packages usually breaks the dependency database of the
>> package manager
>>
>> * a reinstall of Linux will solve most problems (ROFL!... and f-u cola)
>>
>> * few Linux users stick with the same distro for long
>>
>> * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
>> without the occasional purge
>>
>> * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work
>>
>> This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
>> uncommon among Linux users.
>
> Except for one thing. He is full of it. He sounds like one of those
> trolls who boots to a live CD now and then to pick up some good FUD.
Come on Lino, I thought you were a man of sense. The quotes are not all
teh article contains, and it's a useful guide about how to reinstall
Linux without losing data or configurations.
> Guys such as yourself.
>
>> Author: Graham Morrison, Linux Format magazine, Sep 2007 issue, pg 56
>
> Whoever reads that mag should write back to disabuse this idiot of his
> idiocy.
Maybe you'd do better to read the article before calling the man an idiot,
since all of the above quotes are perfectly true. As good as it is, Linux
can and will break sometimes, usually for some of the reasons stated above.
--
Kier
Kier
>
> Don't take it too hard. So installing 3rd party software on Linux can make
> it insecure and unstable, and break the dependency database, and distro
> upgrades often fail, and a full reinstall is best, and Linux users shuffle
> distros? cola knew all that long before I posted it.
What you missed out is that fact that none of this is a huge problem with
Linux, precisely because you can upgrade or reinstall it, often without
even needing to touch your home directory. And Linux users don't need to
worry about begging MS for permission to use their PC just because
they've done a clean reinstall
And exactly what is wrong with enjoying using various distros? SOme users
like doing that, some don't (my brother doesn't, he's always stuck to Red
Hat/Fedora/CentOS while I like a change now and then).
As always, you don't really understand what it is you're complaining about.
--
Kier
Linonut
> Linonut wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
> So he's willfully lying, eh? And the editorial team at the #1 Linux mag is
> all part of the conspiracy?
Who said anything about lying? I don't know where he gets that stuff,
but it is bullshit.
>> Whoever reads that mag should write back to disabuse this idiot of his
>> idiocy.
>
> You should make that your pet project. While you're at it, make sure to
> accuse the Editor Nick Veitch of lying as well. In his Welcome statement in
> this issue, he agrees with Morrison and says "Installing apps outside of
> your distro's package manager can often come back to haunt you."
No, it hardly /ever/ matters. And, if you think it does, at least in
Debian, you simply mark the project as "manually installed" in the
package manager's database.
Look, I don't care WHO said it, or WHY they said it, or how much
credence it is given by editors.
The statements made are simply ignorant.
Being a pundit, article author, or editor does not prevent one from
being ignorant or stupid.
>> Hint, DFS: Quoting stupidity does not move your thesis forward.
>
> I expected the usual head-in-sand denials from the cola cabal. It happens
> every time someone tells the sordid truth about running Linux.
>
> Unfortunately for cola:
>
> * he's a staff writer for the #1 Linux mag - not a moronic blogger of the
> type often quoted by Linux "advocates"
> * the editors of Linux Format vetted his article and ran it, so it obviously
> has merit and passed muster among a set of very experienced Linux users who
> are much more trustworthy than the dregs who post here
> * even in my short time using Linux, I've experienced about half the issues
> he mentions
> * evidence of his claims is all over the Internet
So what? None of that matters in the least. It is simply WRONG.
And your presentation of it is simply asinine.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
>> Except for one thing. He is full of it. He sounds like one of those
>> trolls who boots to a live CD now and then to pick up some good FUD.
>
> Come on Lino, I thought you were a man of sense. The quotes are not all
> teh article contains, and it's a useful guide about how to reinstall
> Linux without losing data or configurations.
Look, I have no access to the article. I'm simply responding to DFS's
quote.
>> Whoever reads that mag should write back to disabuse this idiot of his
>> idiocy.
>
> Maybe you'd do better to read the article before calling the man an idiot,
> since all of the above quotes are perfectly true. As good as it is, Linux
> can and will break sometimes, usually for some of the reasons stated above.
Except that most of what he said is manifestly /not/ true.
Most of the time, it takes real idiocy to break a package-managed
system.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> Don't take it too hard. So installing 3rd party software on Linux can make
> it insecure and unstable, and break the dependency database, and distro
> upgrades often fail, and a full reinstall is best, and Linux users shuffle
> distros? cola knew all that long before I posted it.
No. It is all /bullshit/, in general. Like I said, at leat 80%
/bullshit/.
Go back to the 90's dude.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:11:39 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>> Don't take it too hard. So installing 3rd party software on Linux can make
>> it insecure and unstable, and break the dependency database, and distro
>> upgrades often fail, and a full reinstall is best, and Linux users shuffle
>> distros? cola knew all that long before I posted it.
>
> What you missed out is that fact that none of this is a huge problem with
> Linux, precisely because you can upgrade or reinstall it, often without
> even needing to touch your home directory. And Linux users don't need to
> worry about begging MS for permission to use their PC just because
> they've done a clean reinstall
And, in fact, most of the bullet points DFS quoted are /rare events/.
When the magazine and DFS make it appear that they are chronic problems,
well that is simply /bullshit/.
> And exactly what is wrong with enjoying using various distros? SOme users
> like doing that, some don't (my brother doesn't, he's always stuck to Red
> Hat/Fedora/CentOS while I like a change now and then).
But but but, DFS's article writer said all users constantly switch
distros!!!!
> As always, you don't really understand what it is you're complaining about.
He's like the American dude who thinks that he, as an outsider, can
legitimately complain about a culture in which he does not live. And
then he's surprised when his statements are greeted with deserved
derision.
--
Tux rox!
SomeBloke
> SomeBloke wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> SomeBloke wrote:
>>>> DFS lied:
>>>
>>> I see they numbered the pages wrong, and there are two sets of page
>>> 56-61. The article you reference is "The Ultimate Linux Newbie Test"
>>> and it starts
>>> on the real page 54. The article I reference is "Detox Your Linux
>>> Box" and
>>> goes from real page 40-45, but is labeled 56-61. Then the numbering
>>> goes back to 46.
>>>
>>> Apology accepted (even though a Linux loser like yourself hasn't the
>>> grace or humility or maturity to apologize).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh, how wrong you are. I do apologise for quoting the wrong article.
>
> That's not the apology I care about, little fella, and you damn well know
> it. It's for saying:
>
> "DFS lied"
In this instance I apologise for saying that you lied.
I am also a 6ft 1 225lb gorilla not a 'little fella'
> "slow minded twat like you"
I stand by that!
> "you lying moron"
>
Prove me wrong.
>
>
>
>> As has been pointed out in this thread the page numbers are wrong. I
>> am also a dual-booter so I know the benefits and advantages of Linux
>> over Redmond's escapees.
>
> Dual-booter? Why would you keep Windows around? cola tells me it crashes
> all the time, is always infected with malware, costs a lot of time and
> money to acquire and maintain, requires frequent reinstallation,
> OpenOffice is better than MS Office, Linux is better, blah blah blah.
>
> Well?
>
I am an IT tech dealing mostly with Windy's problems and I do very well
financially. That's why. Other than that I use Mandriva 2007.1 for all of
my personal stuff. No anti-virus, no anti-spyware, and my firewall is built
in to my router. If you tried any distro you would know just how much
better Linux is. The last time I reinstalled Mandriva was because one of my
hard drives fritzed. I tend to reinstall Windows 4 times a year just to
clear out the crap.
>
>
>> Now, when are you going to apologise for misquoting, misrepresenting
>> and generally quoting out of context
>
> You'll have to be much more specific than that.
>
Just about everything you post.
>
>
>
>> and acting like an ass for as
>> long as you have been frequenting this newsgroup?
>
> I act no worse than anyone else in this pit.
Don't flatter yourself.
Handover Phist
>
> He's like the American dude who thinks that he, as an outsider, can
> legitimately complain about a culture in which he does not live. And
> then he's surprised when his statements are greeted with deserved
> derision.
If you can get Lewis Blacks broadway show, he has a few choice words for
those kind of people.
(You've never even been to Canada?!? Even drunk on a bet you make it to
Canada!!)
--
SHOW ME THE WAY
William Poaster
And from the incompetence that DooFu$ has shown in the past, he's the right
idiot for *that* job.
William Poaster
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:11:39 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't take it too hard. So installing 3rd party software on Linux can
>>> make it insecure and unstable, and break the dependency database, and
>>> distro upgrades often fail, and a full reinstall is best, and Linux
>>> users shuffle
>>> distros? cola knew all that long before I posted it.
>>
>> What you missed out is that fact that none of this is a huge problem with
>> Linux, precisely because you can upgrade or reinstall it, often without
>> even needing to touch your home directory. And Linux users don't need to
>> worry about begging MS for permission to use their PC just because
>> they've done a clean reinstall
>
> And, in fact, most of the bullet points DFS quoted are /rare events/.
Very rare, IMO.
> When the magazine and DFS make it appear that they are chronic problems,
> well that is simply /bullshit/.
I read the article, & quite frankly it looked like it was written by a
newbie.
>> And exactly what is wrong with enjoying using various distros? SOme users
>> like doing that, some don't (my brother doesn't, he's always stuck to Red
>> Hat/Fedora/CentOS while I like a change now and then).
>
> But but but, DFS's article writer said all users constantly switch
> distros!!!!
Which is bullshit.
Newbies may do to start with, until they find a distro they like & settle
with. But IMO the majority of "old hands" stay with a distro for years.
Of course they may (like me) have a few distros on their machines, to test
or see how they compare to their main OS.
>> As always, you don't really understand what it is you're complaining
>> about.
>
> He's like the American dude who thinks that he, as an outsider, can
> legitimately complain about a culture in which he does not live. And
> then he's surprised when his statements are greeted with deserved
> derision.
Quite.
Kier
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> Except for one thing. He is full of it. He sounds like one of those
>>> trolls who boots to a live CD now and then to pick up some good FUD.
>>
>> Come on Lino, I thought you were a man of sense. The quotes are not all
>> teh article contains, and it's a useful guide about how to reinstall
>> Linux without losing data or configurations.
>
> Look, I have no access to the article. I'm simply responding to DFS's
> quote.
Which, though accurate in themselves, are not the entirety of the article.
>
>>> Whoever reads that mag should write back to disabuse this idiot of his
>>> idiocy.
>>
>> Maybe you'd do better to read the article before calling the man an idiot,
>> since all of the above quotes are perfectly true. As good as it is, Linux
>> can and will break sometimes, usually for some of the reasons stated above.
>
> Except that most of what he said is manifestly /not/ true.
Sorry, but I don't agree. It does happen. Not to all users, but certainly
to quite a few. It's happened to me with older versions of Mandrake, and
with Mepis on two occasions. It's not that big a deal, though, because
Linux is usually very easy to reinstall if that's what you want to do -
and the article is mostly about the best and most efficient way to do that.
>
> Most of the time, it takes real idiocy to break a package-managed
> system.
Not if you go outside the regular packages and mess about with stuff,
tinker, compile, add third-party progs, etc, as many Linux users are apt
to do.
--
Kier
Kier
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:11:39 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't take it too hard. So installing 3rd party software on Linux can make
>>> it insecure and unstable, and break the dependency database, and distro
>>> upgrades often fail, and a full reinstall is best, and Linux users shuffle
>>> distros? cola knew all that long before I posted it.
>>
>> What you missed out is that fact that none of this is a huge problem with
>> Linux, precisely because you can upgrade or reinstall it, often without
>> even needing to touch your home directory. And Linux users don't need to
>> worry about begging MS for permission to use their PC just because
>> they've done a clean reinstall
>
> And, in fact, most of the bullet points DFS quoted are /rare events/.
That depends on the users in question. Some people do thier install and
don't do anything to it afterwards, don't tinker, don't stray outside the
official repositories, and some do exactly the opposite. And with the
latter group, something may eventually break. So what? Linux is much
easier to fix.
>
> When the magazine and DFS make it appear that they are chronic problems,
> well that is simply /bullshit/.
No, the *magazine* doesn't. It says they happen to a lot of us, but that's
hardly a big deal. Why are Linux advocates so frightened to admit this?
>
>> And exactly what is wrong with enjoying using various distros? Some
>> users like doing that, some don't (my brother doesn't, he's always
>> stuck to Red Hat/Fedora/CentOS while I like a change now and then).
>
> But but but, DFS's article writer said all users constantly switch
> distros!!!!
No, he didn't. That's why I said you should read the article.
<snip>
--
Kier
Linonut
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:40:00 +0000, Linonut wrote:
>>
>> Look, I have no access to the article. I'm simply responding to DFS's
>> quote.
>
> Which, though accurate in themselves, are not the entirety of the article.
Indeed.
>> Except that most of what he said is manifestly /not/ true.
>
> Sorry, but I don't agree. It does happen. Not to all users, but certainly
> to quite a few. It's happened to me with older versions of Mandrake, and
> with Mepis on two occasions. It's not that big a deal, though, because
> Linux is usually very easy to reinstall if that's what you want to do -
> and the article is mostly about the best and most efficient way to do that.
I haven't had any of that kind of trouble since Red Hat 7 and the
new-glibc two-step.
Even changing over from XFree86 to Xorg was a piece of cake (on Gentoo).
>> Most of the time, it takes real idiocy to break a package-managed
>> system.
>
> Not if you go outside the regular packages and mess about with stuff,
> tinker, compile, add third-party progs, etc, as many Linux users are apt
> to do.
I disagree. "Mess about" is one thing. Compiling and installing
third-party apps? No way.
Hint: /usr and /usr/local
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:45:46 +0000, Linonut wrote:
>>
>> And, in fact, most of the bullet points DFS quoted are /rare events/.
>
> That depends on the users in question. Some people do thier install and
> don't do anything to it afterwards, don't tinker, don't stray outside the
> official repositories, and some do exactly the opposite. And with the
> latter group, something may eventually break.
Now you get it. May... eventually... break.
In other words, rare.
> So what? Linux is much
> easier to fix.
>
>> When the magazine and DFS make it appear that they are chronic problems,
>> well that is simply /bullshit/.
>
> No, the *magazine* doesn't. It says they happen to a lot of us, but that's
> hardly a big deal. Why are Linux advocates so frightened to admit this?
Because it is /bullshit/. It doesn't happen "to a lot of us".
--
Tux rox!
cc
> Linonut wrote:
> > After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
> >> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:11:39 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
> >>> Don't take it too hard. So installing 3rd party software on Linux can
> >>> make it insecure and unstable, and break the dependency database, and
> >>> distro upgrades often fail, and a full reinstall is best, and Linux
> >>> users shuffle
> >>> distros? cola knew all that long before I posted it.
>
> >> What you missed out is that fact that none of this is a huge problem with
> >> Linux, precisely because you can upgrade or reinstall it, often without
> >> even needing to touch your home directory. And Linux users don't need to
> >> worry about begging MS for permission to use their PC just because
> >> they've done a clean reinstall
>
> > And, in fact, most of the bullet points DFS quoted are /rare events/.
>
> Very rare, IMO.
>
> > When the magazine and DFS make it appear that they are chronic problems,
> > well that is simply /bullshit/.
>
> I read the article, & quite frankly it looked like it was written by a
> newbie.
>
If it was written by a newbie then that means there is some work to do
to make Linux better for newbies. Was the author intentionally
misleading people? Ask yourself why he wrote the article. It obviously
wasn't to slag Linux because he's paid by Microsoft. It was his
experience and his perceptions. So you can sit around and call it
bullshit all you want, but some change has to be made or articles like
this will continue to be written.
DFS
> Except that most of what he said is manifestly /not/ true.
Then you're accusing him of lying, and the magazine's editorial staff of
compounding the lie.
> Most of the time, it takes real idiocy to break a package-managed
> system.
He's talking about the potential effects of installing outside the package
manager.
DFS
> What you missed out is that fact that none of this is a huge problem
> with Linux, precisely because you can upgrade or reinstall it, often
> without even needing to touch your home directory.
Tell it to Kelsey Bjarnason. His 13gb home folder was massacred by an
attempted Fedora Core install.
> And Linux users
> don't need to worry about begging MS for permission to use their PC
> just because they've done a clean reinstall
Though you do have to beg Novell for permission to get updates to the
product you already purchased:
http://support.novell.com/techcenter/articles/activation.html
> And exactly what is wrong with enjoying using various distros? SOme
> users like doing that, some don't (my brother doesn't, he's always
> stuck to Red Hat/Fedora/CentOS while I like a change now and then).
Nothing at all wrong with trying distros - it's interesting in fact and I've
tried about 10 myself - but cola claims the term "distro shuffle" was made
up by "trolls" and it's not a common thing. But it is.
> As always, you don't really understand what it is you're complaining
> about.
I understand it all perfectly well - at least as well as you - and I wasn't
complaining (matter of fact it's probably easier to reinstall Linux and
personal settings than doing the same in Windows). I just found it amusing
to see a Linux writer speaking the truth about Linux problems; that's not
something you see very often. Kudos to him, and to you for not denying it
like Linonutjob.
Rick
> Linonut wrote:
>
>
>> Except that most of what he said is manifestly /not/ true.
>
> Then you're accusing him of lying, and the magazine's editorial staff of
> compounding the lie.
Are you asking a question or making a statement?
>
>
>
>> Most of the time, it takes real idiocy to break a package-managed
>> system.
>
> He's talking about the potential effects of installing outside the
> package manager.
If you don't know what you are doing, don't install outside of the
manager.
--
Rick
DFS
> I disagree. "Mess about" is one thing. Compiling and installing
> third-party apps? No way.
>
> Hint: /usr and /usr/local
How does that help? Isn't /usr where most packages are installed in the
first place? Won't compiling and installing to /usr, without using your
package manager, possibly overwrite libraries and break dependencies already
established for versions in /usr/lib and /usr/bin?
(note: don't start screaming "You're stupid Doofus!" I'm asking, not
telling)
Peter Köhlmann
Why don't you simply write "I know absolutely nothing about linux" as first
sentence of your post? It would explain clueless stuff like this last post
of yours
--
Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Kier wrote:
>> What you missed out is that fact that none of this is a huge problem
>> with Linux, precisely because you can upgrade or reinstall it, often
>> without even needing to touch your home directory.
> Tell it to Kelsey Bjarnason. His 13gb home folder was massacred by an
> attempted Fedora Core install.
Even IF that's true, all it means is he made a rather large booboo during
partitioning.
Human error can not be blamed on a linux distro.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>> I disagree. "Mess about" is one thing. Compiling and installing
>> third-party apps? No way.
>>
>> Hint: /usr and /usr/local
> How does that help? Isn't /usr where most packages are installed in the
> first place? Won't compiling and installing to /usr, without using your
> package manager, possibly overwrite libraries and break dependencies already
> established for versions in /usr/lib and /usr/bin?
But you DON'T compile and install to /usr
That's the whole fuckin point!
Compiled programs go in /usr/local. They do not touch files installed by the
package manager unless explicitely ordered by the user whilst doing the
./configure stage.
Gonna blame the distro if the user mashes his install by using
./configure --prefix /usr
all the time?
Gregory Shearman
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> My gentoo boxes have never been reinstalled.
>
> I kept my SuSE 6.4 Linux/KDE installation/partition for several
> years. The downloaded patches from YaST continued just fine,
> very user friendly. It even survived a crapped out Ampro PM9900
> mobo and AMD 450 MHz K6-2 processor. I replaced it with a Slot-1
> Pentium Celeron 333 MHz mobo. Did some minor hardware
> redetecting after booting from same partition, continued another
> year in that configuration, no reloading the OS.
I've had to migrate to a new HD on one machine, after it started to fail.
With LVM it is easy.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
William Poaster
> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> Kier wrote:
>
>>> What you missed out is that fact that none of this is a huge problem
>>> with Linux, precisely because you can upgrade or reinstall it, often
>>> without even needing to touch your home directory.
>
>> Tell it to Kelsey Bjarnason. His 13gb home folder was massacred by an
>> attempted Fedora Core install.
>
> Even IF that's true, all it means is he made a rather large booboo during
> partitioning.
>
> Human error can not be blamed on a linux distro.
Quite. The thing is about a linux distro is that you are *supposed* to know
what you're doing. Unlike windoze, which apparently asks if you're
*sure* "you want to do something" for the umpteenth time, GNU/Linux expects
that you will have read & learnt *something* about the OS. However, human
errors can still creep in.....but that can happen in the installation of
*any* OS. Or is Doofu$ going to claim it doesn't in windows.
Gregory Shearman
>> That depends on the users in question. Some people do thier install and
>> don't do anything to it afterwards, don't tinker, don't stray outside the
>> official repositories, and some do exactly the opposite. And with the
>> latter group, something may eventually break.
>
> Now you get it. May... eventually... break.
>
> In other words, rare.
Not on Gentoo. Things break all the time during upgrades. We just know
what's going on, talk to each other and get things moving. Usually if
something is going to break your configs the gentoo will nearly always tell
you how to go about fixing things.
Gentoo isn't for newbies though. It's for tinkerers and those who like the
flexibility to build a system that exactly meets your needs.
It can be frustrating at rare times but mostly it's just a lot of fun.
The system evolves... glibc, linux system headers, binary utilities and the
rest of the toolchain all are updated piecemeal... just updated glibc from
on all my machines from 2.5 to 2.6.1. The machines continue to work as
normal throughout the compile and upgrade... no reboot required.
Can't wait for kernel 2.6.23 to to be marked as stable for x86 machines. I
want to start tinkering with the lguest module.
I love Gentoo and would NEVER give it up.
Gregory Shearman
> If it was written by a newbie then that means there is some work to do
> to make Linux better for newbies. Was the author intentionally
> misleading people? Ask yourself why he wrote the article. It obviously
> wasn't to slag Linux because he's paid by Microsoft. It was his
> experience and his perceptions. So you can sit around and call it
> bullshit all you want, but some change has to be made or articles like
> this will continue to be written.
Who cares what people like him write? I certainly don't. His experience
isn't the experience of everyone. He should have been around more than 10
years ago and tried to install and run Redhat 5.1. Things have changed a
hell of a lot in a decade.
Gregory Shearman
/usr/local is the default hierarchy when you do the ./configure; make; make
install cycle. If you have access to a linux machine sometime then have a
look under /usr and then /usr/local.
To install to your /usr hierarchy, instead of ./configure you have to do:
./configure --prefix=/usr
So, if you don't know what you are doing then why would you fiddle with a
default?
Gregory Shearman
> Look for "Detox Your Linux Box", Graham Greene. According to the Linux
> Format webiste archive. Apparently, "Linux is only secure and stable if
> you keepo to a strict diet of official packages and updates. Most of us
> don't" is a direct quote from the magazine.
When did he get the right to speak for everyone?
cc
Probably alot of people who pick up the magazine care what he writes.
His experience may not be the experience of everyone, but it is shared
by others. If Linux is perfect for you and you obviously don't care
about getting more people to use it, then perhaps you should find
another group. He wasn't around 10 years ago, and you guys are calling
him a newb. So shouldn't his experiences and perceptions be taken
seriously if we want more newbies to switch to Linux?
Peter Kai Jensen
Hash: SHA1
Rick wrote:
>> I see they numbered the pages wrong, and there are two sets of page
>> 56-61. The article you reference is "The Ultimate Linux Newbie Test"
>> and it starts on the real page 54. The article I reference is "Detox
>> Your Linux Box" and goes from real page 40-45, but is labeled 56-61.
>> Then the numbering goes back to 46.
>>
>> Apology accepted (even though a Linux loser like yourself hasn't the
>> grace or humility or maturity to apologize).
>
> Why are you SUCH an ass? Why are you even here? Why do you care about
> Linux and OSS so much?
His motivation seems to be fear. His skill-set is entirely tied up in
Windows, and he's heading for obsolescence.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHFJ1rd1ZThqotgfgRAknwAKCNqbpSVs61reBVEMbaNlTVFlog5gCfamXc
h0yOo2UEyMvpDT1mZxm0AAo=
=f/TX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
"I own my own body, but I share"
Linonut
> If it was written by a newbie then that means there is some work to do
> to make Linux better for newbies. Was the author intentionally
> misleading people? Ask yourself why he wrote the article. It obviously
> wasn't to slag Linux because he's paid by Microsoft. It was his
> experience and his perceptions. So you can sit around and call it
> bullshit all you want, but some change has to be made or articles like
> this will continue to be written.
They will continue to be written as long as they generate sales.
But, seeing as how I don't have the article in hand, I'll stop any
further comment about DFS's focus on the supposedly rampant bad stuff.
Even though the same kind of quotes can (still) be said of Windows.
But... I did just now find an application that doesn't install to
/usr/local, but to /usr (dang!) The app is only a UML diagrammer,
bouml, so I doubt it will make my system unstable, chuckle.
Time to remove the packaged version and mark it as a manual install.
Nice to see that it compiles and runs 64-bit, too. This app, bouml, is
making strides in functionality. It's getting to be on par with
umbrello. Not bad for a one-man operation.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> Probably alot of people who pick up the magazine care what he writes.
> His experience may not be the experience of everyone, but it is shared
> by others. If Linux is perfect for you and you obviously don't care
> about getting more people to use it, then perhaps you should find
> another group. He wasn't around 10 years ago, and you guys are calling
> him a newb. So shouldn't his experiences and perceptions be taken
> seriously if we want more newbies to switch to Linux?
You are correct. However, if his perceptions are penned in a fashion
that exaggerates them, that is no good, either.
DFS meant to make it sound that way, apparently, when it was not true.
I bit the bait.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> Linonut wrote:
>
>> Except that most of what he said is manifestly /not/ true.
>
> Then you're accusing him of lying, and the magazine's editorial staff of
> compounding the lie.
Looks like I was wrong, based on the testimony of others who did not
practice selective clipping-and-inference.
>> Most of the time, it takes real idiocy to break a package-managed
>> system.
>
> He's talking about the potential effects of installing outside the package
> manager.
"Potential".
I do it all the time. And prefer it for certain applications, and for
kernel upgrades.
And it must be done outside the package system for nvidia drivers and
Intel wireless, although it looks like even that is changing, based on
stuff I've seen recently in the Debian mailing lists.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
Or edit the Registry. Or do an XP-to-Vista upgrade.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> Linonut wrote:
>
>> I disagree. "Mess about" is one thing. Compiling and installing
>> third-party apps? No way.
>>
>> Hint: /usr and /usr/local
>
> How does that help? Isn't /usr where most packages are installed in the
> first place? Won't compiling and installing to /usr, without using your
> package manager, possibly overwrite libraries and break dependencies already
> established for versions in /usr/lib and /usr/bin?
Most source packages set --prefix=/usr/local by default. You are free
to change that:
./configure --prefix=/usr (or even /opt)
However, there are some projects that do not use automake, and some of
these (e.g. bouml) breach convention.
Most of the time, it doesn't matter, since you can have many versions of
a library installed, and since many projects also use pkgconfig to
control access to the shared-object modules. And often the version
doesn't really matter. Check out some of the files in
/usr/lib/pkgconfig (but edit them at your peril).
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> Not on Gentoo. Things break all the time during upgrades. We just know
> what's going on, talk to each other and get things moving. Usually if
> something is going to break your configs the gentoo will nearly always tell
> you how to go about fixing things.
>
> Gentoo isn't for newbies though. It's for tinkerers and those who like the
> flexibility to build a system that exactly meets your needs.
>
> It can be frustrating at rare times but mostly it's just a lot of fun.
> The system evolves... glibc, linux system headers, binary utilities and the
> rest of the toolchain all are updated piecemeal... just updated glibc from
> on all my machines from 2.5 to 2.6.1. The machines continue to work as
> normal throughout the compile and upgrade... no reboot required.
You still might want to reboot now voluntarily, rather than later
involuntarily, to be sure.
> Can't wait for kernel 2.6.23 to to be marked as stable for x86 machines. I
> want to start tinkering with the lguest module.
>
> I love Gentoo and would NEVER give it up.
I got tired of waiting for the compiles, though. I like Debian's mix,
meself.
--
Tux rox!
William Poaster
> cc wrote:
>
>> If it was written by a newbie then that means there is some work to do
>> to make Linux better for newbies. Was the author intentionally
>> misleading people? Ask yourself why he wrote the article. It obviously
>> wasn't to slag Linux because he's paid by Microsoft. It was his
>> experience and his perceptions. So you can sit around and call it
>> bullshit all you want, but some change has to be made or articles like
>> this will continue to be written.
>
> Who cares what people like him write? I certainly don't. His experience
> isn't the experience of everyone.
No, it isn't.
> He should have been around more than 10 years ago and tried to install and
> run Redhat 5.1. Things have changed a hell of a lot in a decade.
Damn right they have. It's *far* easier to install a Linux distro now. He
should try installing OpenBSD or FeeBSD as a comparison. Or on second
thoughts, not, as he'd need reading abilities, a lot of experience, but
most of all *intelligence*.
William Poaster
> Linonut wrote:
>
>>> That depends on the users in question. Some people do thier install and
>>> don't do anything to it afterwards, don't tinker, don't stray outside
>>> the official repositories, and some do exactly the opposite. And with
>>> the latter group, something may eventually break.
>>
>> Now you get it. May... eventually... break.
>>
>> In other words, rare.
>
> Not on Gentoo. Things break all the time during upgrades. We just know
> what's going on, talk to each other and get things moving. Usually if
> something is going to break your configs the gentoo will nearly always
> tell you how to go about fixing things.
Fair enough. Intersting to note you have things break during upgrades. It
doesn't happen in FreeBSD as filesystem data integrity is insured, mainly
with the "softupdates" option. This decreases synchronous I/O and increases
asynchronous I/O because writes to a UFS filesystem are not synced on a
sector basis but according to the filesystem structure. This ensures that
the filesystem is always coherent between two updates.
> Gentoo isn't for newbies though. It's for tinkerers and those who like the
> flexibility to build a system that exactly meets your needs.
>
> It can be frustrating at rare times but mostly it's just a lot of fun.
> The system evolves... glibc, linux system headers, binary utilities and
> the rest of the toolchain all are updated piecemeal... just updated glibc
> from on all my machines from 2.5 to 2.6.1. The machines continue to work
> as normal throughout the compile and upgrade... no reboot required.
>
> Can't wait for kernel 2.6.23 to to be marked as stable for x86 machines. I
> want to start tinkering with the lguest module.
>
> I love Gentoo and would NEVER give it up.
Now I've got to know FreeBSD, I don't think I'll be changing my main OS for
some time to come.
Johan Lindquist
William Poaster was all like, "Dude,
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>> Linonut wrote:
>> Not on Gentoo. Things break all the time during upgrades. We just
>> know what's going on, talk to each other and get things moving.
>> Usually if something is going to break your configs the gentoo will
>> nearly always tell you how to go about fixing things.
>
> Fair enough. Intersting to note you have things break during
> upgrades.
It's not my general experience that it does, but I tend to stick to
stable packages.
However, what goes for "stable" in Gentoo may sometimes be more akin
to "bleeding edge testing, don't try this at home, kids" in more
conservative distributions.
> It doesn't happen in FreeBSD as filesystem data integrity is
> insured, mainly with the "softupdates" option.
I dunno how file system integrity has any relation to compilation of
software and the handling (or not, as the case may be with unstable or
testing) of compatible software versions.
> This decreases synchronous I/O and increases asynchronous I/O
> because writes to a UFS filesystem are not synced on a sector basis
> but according to the filesystem structure. This ensures that the
> filesystem is always coherent between two updates.
Yeah.. that all sounds great, but again. Relevance?
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
14:32:20 up 48 days, 4:33, 1 user, load average: 0.20, 0.16, 0.10
Linux 2.6.22.5 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729
Gregory Shearman
> Probably alot of people who pick up the magazine care what he writes.
Maybe they do. I prefer to do my reading online, especially about Linux.
That's where I get the information to keep my systems humming along.
I believe they provide rather basic information to keep Linux running...
good on 'em, but as with all media, take it with a grain of salt.
> His experience may not be the experience of everyone, but it is shared
> by others. If Linux is perfect for you and you obviously don't care
> about getting more people to use it, then perhaps you should find
> another group. He wasn't around 10 years ago, and you guys are calling
> him a newb. So shouldn't his experiences and perceptions be taken
> seriously if we want more newbies to switch to Linux?
Nope.
We call him a newb because his _opinions_ don't appear to gel with reality.
He's just one opinion out there.
BTW, I only want people to switch to linux when they are ready and ready to
be committed to a change in attitude. If they want the assistance they used
to imagine they'd get from Microsoft, then they can pay for Redhat or SuSe
or any of the other commercial distros. If it doesn't work, and it's a free
distro then don't look around for someone to blame, roll up your sleeves
and do it yourself or contract someone to do it for you.
All distributions require maintenance, especially distros like Gentoo, where
an update can break your configuration.... or even leave your system
unbootable, requiring a livecd rescue.... Maintenance? I had to physically
remove libssl-0.9.7 and libcrypto-0.9.7 to get rid of annoying portage
messages about old libs on my systems.. they've been running for some years
now and they do collect crud and cobwebs that need a bit of elbow grease to
remove it every now and then. But I consider this to be a fun chore to do
whenever there's a free moment..
The stuff he was writing about adding non-distro packages was dead wrong. I
used Redhat for many years and used to compile programs to /usr/local all
the time (used to run postgresql from /usr/local for a while). The only
problem you have with installing non-distro stuff is that you have to take
responsibility for updates.
Linux advocacy should never be about convincing people to use it, who simply
aren't ready to use it. It's about helping those who have made the plunge
and are willing to learn, or ready to pay for the expertise.
If people are swayed by one journalist's opinions then perhaps they haven't
thought long enough about the change.
Gregory Shearman
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Gregory Shearman belched out this bit o'
> wisdom:
>
>> Not on Gentoo. Things break all the time during upgrades. We just know
>> what's going on, talk to each other and get things moving. Usually if
>> something is going to break your configs the gentoo will nearly always
>> tell you how to go about fixing things.
>>
>> Gentoo isn't for newbies though. It's for tinkerers and those who like
>> the flexibility to build a system that exactly meets your needs.
>>
>> It can be frustrating at rare times but mostly it's just a lot of fun.
>> The system evolves... glibc, linux system headers, binary utilities and
>> the rest of the toolchain all are updated piecemeal... just updated glibc
>> from on all my machines from 2.5 to 2.6.1. The machines continue to work
>> as normal throughout the compile and upgrade... no reboot required.
>
> You still might want to reboot now voluntarily, rather than later
> involuntarily, to be sure.
Yeah, maybe... except my headless pentium3 router has been up for 16 days
now (nothing special - it's been up for 70 days at the very maximum.
Reboots tend to follow the schedule of linus Torvalds). I was waiting for
kernel 2.6.23 before thinking about a reboot. I've never had any problems,
but perhaps you are right. Reboots upset my time server. It can take around
5 hours or so to get microsecond accuracy again.
>> Can't wait for kernel 2.6.23 to to be marked as stable for x86 machines.
>> I want to start tinkering with the lguest module.
>>
>> I love Gentoo and would NEVER give it up.
>
> I got tired of waiting for the compiles, though. I like Debian's mix,
> meself.
You _wait_ for compiles? You need to get out of the house more 8-)
I don't wait for them. I set them up in a "screen" then hit the Ctl-A-Ctl-D
then shut down the console. If I need to find out how things are going I
can use "genlop".
If you need a tool for a job you are doing then make sure you've got all the
tools together before you start. Compiles on a modern machine don't really
take that long.
Gregory Shearman
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> Linonut wrote:
>>
>>>> That depends on the users in question. Some people do thier install and
>>>> don't do anything to it afterwards, don't tinker, don't stray outside
>>>> the official repositories, and some do exactly the opposite. And with
>>>> the latter group, something may eventually break.
>>>
>>> Now you get it. May... eventually... break.
>>>
>>> In other words, rare.
>>
>> Not on Gentoo. Things break all the time during upgrades. We just know
>> what's going on, talk to each other and get things moving. Usually if
>> something is going to break your configs the gentoo will nearly always
>> tell you how to go about fixing things.
>
> Fair enough. Intersting to note you have things break during upgrades. It
> doesn't happen in FreeBSD as filesystem data integrity is insured, mainly
> with the "softupdates" option. This decreases synchronous I/O and
> increases asynchronous I/O because writes to a UFS filesystem are not
> synced on a sector basis but according to the filesystem structure. This
> ensures that the filesystem is always coherent between two updates.
The problem with "breaking" things is always configuration files, not
filesystem problems. Updates bring new configuration options, remove
others, etc... you have to spend time making sure your config files are
consistent with your updated package.
BTW, I've never had to do a livecd rescue. Just careful I guess.
>
>> Gentoo isn't for newbies though. It's for tinkerers and those who like
>> the flexibility to build a system that exactly meets your needs.
>>
>> It can be frustrating at rare times but mostly it's just a lot of fun.
>> The system evolves... glibc, linux system headers, binary utilities and
>> the rest of the toolchain all are updated piecemeal... just updated glibc
>> from on all my machines from 2.5 to 2.6.1. The machines continue to work
>> as normal throughout the compile and upgrade... no reboot required.
>>
>> Can't wait for kernel 2.6.23 to to be marked as stable for x86 machines.
>> I want to start tinkering with the lguest module.
>>
>> I love Gentoo and would NEVER give it up.
>
> Now I've got to know FreeBSD, I don't think I'll be changing my main OS
> for some time to come.
Good o.
JEDIDIAH
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:45:46 +0000, Linonut wrote:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:11:39 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Don't take it too hard. So installing 3rd party software on Linux can make
>>>> it insecure and unstable, and break the dependency database, and distro
>>>> upgrades often fail, and a full reinstall is best, and Linux users shuffle
>>>> distros? cola knew all that long before I posted it.
>>>
>>> What you missed out is that fact that none of this is a huge problem with
>>> Linux, precisely because you can upgrade or reinstall it, often without
>>> worry about begging MS for permission to use their PC just because
>>> they've done a clean reinstall
>>
>> And, in fact, most of the bullet points DFS quoted are /rare events/.
[deletia]
>> When the magazine and DFS make it appear that they are chronic problems,
>> well that is simply /bullshit/.
>
> No, the *magazine* doesn't. It says they happen to a lot of us, but that's
> hardly a big deal. Why are Linux advocates so frightened to admit this?
I dunno. Perhaps we object to the vague nature of the claim.
"Some things" make Linux "insecure" or "unstable".
[deletia]
You would have to go to considerable effort to achieve either
of those. That's an important detail not to be casually
overlooked.
Advocates object to such claims because many of them have
never experienced anything of the sort despite being precisely
the sort of user that should run into such problems.
Borking a Linux or MacOS install is considerably harder than
doing the same thing under Windows. Neither of those systems
automate that process to the same degree that Windows does.
--
If you need to kick-ban someone for a mildly stated |||
opposing viewpoint, you are a weenie & not a lion. / | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
JEDIDIAH
Even without LVM it is easy.
You just plug it into the new system.
JEDIDIAH
> Linonut wrote:
>
>
>> Except that most of what he said is manifestly /not/ true.
>
> Then you're accusing him of lying, and the magazine's editorial staff of
> compounding the lie.
People have been complaining about the tendency of news
media to over dramatize things since before the turn of the
previous century.
There are even Rock/Hair Metal songs complaining about this.
[deletia]
JEDIDIAH
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:00:08 +0100, SomeBloke wrote:
>
>> DFS lied:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Strange, I have Linux Format September 2007 page 56 in front of me as I
>> write this and nothing you have claimed is true.
>>
>> Lets take this one step at a time so that a slow minded twat like you
>> will understand.
>>
>> The articles author is Mike Saunders not Graham Morrison. Graham is a
>> staff writer but not of this piece.
>>
>> None of the comments you highlight appear in the article, and yes I have
>> read it unlike you.
>>
>> The article takes 3 people, 2 of them LXF's employees. A publishers
>> assistant who has only used windows at a very basic level (Word and
>> Outlook mostly), the mags art editor a Mac fanboy and finally the disc
>> editor of LXF's sister magazine PC Answers a long time windows user. It
>> asks them to carry out 3 tasks, Basic usage, Administration and
>> Installation.
>>
>> The conclusion was that and I quote..
>>
>> "These are good times. We were gleefully surprised that all three
>> participants had no major quibbles with the installation process, and
>> that they managed to grasp Gnome's workings with a few exploratory
>> attempts. Clearly there were some glitches that need ironing out.... but
>> otherwise Linux did not pose any huge obstacles."
>>
>> Is this clear enough for you? Or shall I beat you around the head a bit
>> more you lying moron.
>
> Look for "Detox Your Linux Box", Graham Greene. According to the Linux
> Format webiste archive. Apparently, "Linux is only secure and stable if
> you keepo to a strict diet of official packages and updates. Most of us
> don't" is a direct quote from the magazine.
Mostly bullshit.
If you install something manually, you have to maintain it manually.
That's the real problem.
If you install ssh manually then you have to manually build any
updates when there is an exploit found rather than just running a simple
apt or yum command.
One of the key points of something like Debian or Ubuntu is that
part of "why they exist" is to maintain official packages of any free
software that's remotely useful.
Is some random game going to cause this "problem"? No.
Will some random PHP app? Probably. That's a well known problem with
php and has nothing to do with whether or not that app is in an official
distro repository.
Can n00bs build their own KDE or libc? Yeah? What's the likelihood?
Something approaching zero.
You basically have to go out of your way to shoot yourself in the foot here.
Linonut
> You _wait_ for compiles?
Well, I want to use the app /now/! Whaaaaaa! Waaaaaa! <stomps feet>
> If you need a tool for a job you are doing then make sure you've got all the
> tools together before you start. Compiles on a modern machine don't really
> take that long.
True.
--
Tux rox!
Tim Smith
>> involuntarily, to be sure.
>
> Yeah, maybe... except my headless pentium3 router has been up for 16 days
> now (nothing special - it's been up for 70 days at the very maximum.
> Reboots tend to follow the schedule of linus Torvalds). I was waiting for
> kernel 2.6.23 before thinking about a reboot. I've never had any problems,
> but perhaps you are right. Reboots upset my time server. It can take around
> 5 hours or so to get microsecond accuracy again.
There are a couple of good arguments for a reboot.
(1) If the upgrade broke something, it is better to find out now. It
can be very hard to figure out what the hell is going on if your machine
stays up for, say, six months, and then goes down in a power failure,
and then is broken when power comes back. If you reboot now and it is
broke, you know where to look. In six months, you'll just know that it
was probably *something* in the last six months that broke it.
(2) Consistency between running processes. When a shared library is
updated, new processes get the new library, but running processes have
the old library. Usually that won't be a problem, but, depending on the
library, it could be. You don't need a reboot for this--just restarting
processes is sufficient, but it is easier usually to just reboot (thus
taking care of #1 at the same time).
Tim Smith
> isn't the experience of everyone. He should have been around more than 10
> years ago and tried to install and run Redhat 5.1. Things have changed a
> hell of a lot in a decade.
Indeed. I still recall some early Redhat asking me the following
question during the video card setup:
Does your video card have a programmable clock generator?
[yes] [no]
Note that there was no button for the correct answer:
[how the hell am I supposed to know that?]
We have indeed come a long way.
cc
> cc wrote:
> > Probably alot of people who pick up the magazine care what he writes.
>
> Maybe they do. I prefer to do my reading online, especially about Linux.
> That's where I get the information to keep my systems humming along.
>
> I believe they provide rather basic information to keep Linux running...
> good on 'em, but as with all media, take it with a grain of salt.
>
> > His experience may not be the experience of everyone, but it is shared
> > by others. If Linux is perfect for you and you obviously don't care
> > about getting more people to use it, then perhaps you should find
> > another group. He wasn't around 10 years ago, and you guys are calling
> > him a newb. So shouldn't his experiences and perceptions be taken
> > seriously if we want more newbies to switch to Linux?
>
> Nope.
>
> We call him a newb because his _opinions_ don't appear to gel with reality.
> He's just one opinion out there.
It's not opinion if it happens to him, no matter how rare it may be.
> BTW, I only want people to switch to linux when they are ready and ready to
> be committed to a change in attitude. If they want the assistance they used
> to imagine they'd get from Microsoft, then they can pay for Redhat or SuSe
> or any of the other commercial distros. If it doesn't work, and it's a free
> distro then don't look around for someone to blame, roll up your sleeves
> and do it yourself or contract someone to do it for you.
>
> All distributions require maintenance, especially distros like Gentoo, where
> an update can break your configuration.... or even leave your system
> unbootable, requiring a livecd rescue.... Maintenance? I had to physically
> remove libssl-0.9.7 and libcrypto-0.9.7 to get rid of annoying portage
> messages about old libs on my systems.. they've been running for some years
> now and they do collect crud and cobwebs that need a bit of elbow grease to
> remove it every now and then. But I consider this to be a fun chore to do
> whenever there's a free moment..
Updates don't have to break configurations, no matter what OS you're
using. What you describe is a fundamental problem with Gentoo, and it
can be fixed. It shouldn't be up to the user to worry about things
like that. Maybe it's a fun chore for you, and maybe you have plenty
of free moments, but most people want their computer to work all the
time with no trouble. It's not reasonable, but it should be a goal we
work towards instead of just blowing off the problems and blaming it
on "newbs."
> The stuff he was writing about adding non-distro packages was dead wrong. I
> used Redhat for many years and used to compile programs to /usr/local all
> the time (used to run postgresql from /usr/local for a while). The only
> problem you have with installing non-distro stuff is that you have to take
> responsibility for updates.
>
> Linux advocacy should never be about convincing people to use it, who simply
> aren't ready to use it. It's about helping those who have made the plunge
> and are willing to learn, or ready to pay for the expertise.
It should also be about making Linux as usable and good as possible.
> If people are swayed by one journalist's opinions then perhaps they haven't
> thought long enough about the change.
>
Who said people would be swayed by one opinion? He just brings up some
valid concerns that should be corrected if possible (either to the
problems themselves, or to the perception that the problem exists).
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:51:41 -0000,
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> On 2007-10-16, Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> You still might want to reboot now voluntarily, rather than later
>>> involuntarily, to be sure.
>>
>> Yeah, maybe... except my headless pentium3 router has been up for 16 days
>> now (nothing special - it's been up for 70 days at the very maximum.
>> Reboots tend to follow the schedule of linus Torvalds). I was waiting for
>> kernel 2.6.23 before thinking about a reboot. I've never had any problems,
>> but perhaps you are right. Reboots upset my time server. It can take around
>> 5 hours or so to get microsecond accuracy again.
>
> There are a couple of good arguments for a reboot.
>
> (1) If the upgrade broke something, it is better to find out now. It
> can be very hard to figure out what the hell is going on if your machine
> stays up for, say, six months, and then goes down in a power failure,
> and then is broken when power comes back. If you reboot now and it is
> broke, you know where to look. In six months, you'll just know that it
> was probably *something* in the last six months that broke it.
>
This is fine for desktop machines, and low end servers when you don't
have a test farm, but why are you shipping production code if you
haven't tested it?
For example, at work, we have 4 racks of machines in the NOC, and a full
(although scaled down) stage environment. Production machines only get
rebooted when absolutely necessary, stage machines might get bounced
several times a day for a week, then nothing for a month. Depends.
> (2) Consistency between running processes. When a shared library is
> updated, new processes get the new library, but running processes have
> the old library. Usually that won't be a problem, but, depending on the
> library, it could be. You don't need a reboot for this--just restarting
> processes is sufficient, but it is easier usually to just reboot (thus
> taking care of #1 at the same time).
As mentioned above, for a workstation/low end server etc, fine. No need
to worry about uptimes there, for clusters, you can do the same for
nodes.
Uptime isn't a contest, the important thing is that it not go down
without you telling it to :) Although prophylactic reboots are the sign
of other problems if you have to keep doing them regularly.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHFTzYd90bcYOAWPYRAjGfAJ4zg/8ru8cZFerkqv6sSsKzi6b4RwCg5Oqg
RsSdavOHTGpDA383MF7aWTk=
=43uo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Payday came and with it beer.
-- Rudyard Kipling
Gregory Shearman
> On 2007-10-16, Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>
>>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>>
>>>> My gentoo boxes have never been reinstalled.
>>>
>>> I kept my SuSE 6.4 Linux/KDE installation/partition for several
>>> years. The downloaded patches from YaST continued just fine,
>>> very user friendly. It even survived a crapped out Ampro PM9900
>>> mobo and AMD 450 MHz K6-2 processor. I replaced it with a Slot-1
>>> Pentium Celeron 333 MHz mobo. Did some minor hardware
>>> redetecting after booting from same partition, continued another
>>> year in that configuration, no reloading the OS.
>>
>> I've had to migrate to a new HD on one machine, after it started to fail.
>> With LVM it is easy.
>
> Even without LVM it is easy.
>
> You just plug it into the new system.
>
With LVM you can migrate from one disk to another while the system is still
running.
Gregory Shearman
> On Oct 16, 9:08 am, Gregory Shearman <ZekeGreg...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> cc wrote:
>> > Probably alot of people who pick up the magazine care what he writes.
>>
>> Maybe they do. I prefer to do my reading online, especially about Linux.
>> That's where I get the information to keep my systems humming along.
>>
>> I believe they provide rather basic information to keep Linux running...
>> good on 'em, but as with all media, take it with a grain of salt.
>>
>> > His experience may not be the experience of everyone, but it is shared
>> > by others. If Linux is perfect for you and you obviously don't care
>> > about getting more people to use it, then perhaps you should find
>> > another group. He wasn't around 10 years ago, and you guys are calling
>> > him a newb. So shouldn't his experiences and perceptions be taken
>> > seriously if we want more newbies to switch to Linux?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> We call him a newb because his _opinions_ don't appear to gel with
>> reality. He's just one opinion out there.
>
> It's not opinion if it happens to him, no matter how rare it may be.
It IS opinion when he says "Most linux users do this...." or "Most linux
users don't do that....".
How the FUCK would HE know? He's only a fucking journalist FFS.
>> All distributions require maintenance, especially distros like Gentoo,
>> where an update can break your configuration.... or even leave your
>> system unbootable, requiring a livecd rescue.... Maintenance? I had to
>> physically remove libssl-0.9.7 and libcrypto-0.9.7 to get rid of annoying
>> portage messages about old libs on my systems.. they've been running for
>> some years now and they do collect crud and cobwebs that need a bit of
>> elbow grease to remove it every now and then. But I consider this to be a
>> fun chore to do whenever there's a free moment..
>
> Updates don't have to break configurations, no matter what OS you're
> using. What you describe is a fundamental problem with Gentoo, and it
> can be fixed. It shouldn't be up to the user to worry about things
> like that. Maybe it's a fun chore for you, and maybe you have plenty
> of free moments, but most people want their computer to work all the
> time with no trouble. It's not reasonable, but it should be a goal we
> work towards instead of just blowing off the problems and blaming it
> on "newbs."
Problem with Gentoo? Afraid not. The old libs aren't removed automatically
because there may still be dependencies associated with them and they are
essential to the operation of certain crypto packages.... including, I
think, openssh. Gentoo describes EXACTLY how to deal with the outdated libs
safely.
My computers work fine ALL THE TIME. What I described was simple
housekeeping on systems that have been installed years ago... you do it
when you get a free moment.
>> The stuff he was writing about adding non-distro packages was dead wrong.
>> I used Redhat for many years and used to compile programs to /usr/local
>> all the time (used to run postgresql from /usr/local for a while). The
>> only problem you have with installing non-distro stuff is that you have
>> to take responsibility for updates.
>>
>> Linux advocacy should never be about convincing people to use it, who
>> simply aren't ready to use it. It's about helping those who have made the
>> plunge and are willing to learn, or ready to pay for the expertise.
>
>
> It should also be about making Linux as usable and good as possible.
Linux is as usable and as good as possible, but that has nothing to do with
advocacy.
>
>> If people are swayed by one journalist's opinions then perhaps they
>> haven't thought long enough about the change.
>>
>
> Who said people would be swayed by one opinion? He just brings up some
> valid concerns that should be corrected if possible (either to the
> problems themselves, or to the perception that the problem exists).
Rubbish. He brings up basic common sense things as well as poorly thought
out opinions... typical journalist...
Gregory Shearman
I always test an update on one machine first, before applying it to others.
If everything is fine then all others get updated.
The only real drama comes with glibc or kernel...
prophylactic reboot? Never. Always reboot for a reason, either a new kernel
or new hardware. I'm not concerned with uptimes, but a reboot does upset my
time server, as explained earlier.
Kier
> cc wrote:
>
>> On Oct 16, 9:08 am, Gregory Shearman <ZekeGreg...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> cc wrote:
>>> > Probably alot of people who pick up the magazine care what he writes.
>>>
>>> Maybe they do. I prefer to do my reading online, especially about Linux.
>>> That's where I get the information to keep my systems humming along.
>>>
>>> I believe they provide rather basic information to keep Linux running...
>>> good on 'em, but as with all media, take it with a grain of salt.
>>>
>>> > His experience may not be the experience of everyone, but it is shared
>>> > by others. If Linux is perfect for you and you obviously don't care
>>> > about getting more people to use it, then perhaps you should find
>>> > another group. He wasn't around 10 years ago, and you guys are calling
>>> > him a newb. So shouldn't his experiences and perceptions be taken
>>> > seriously if we want more newbies to switch to Linux?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> We call him a newb because his _opinions_ don't appear to gel with
>>> reality. He's just one opinion out there.
>>
>> It's not opinion if it happens to him, no matter how rare it may be.
>
> It IS opinion when he says "Most linux users do this...." or "Most linux
> users don't do that....".
>
> How the FUCK would HE know? He's only a fucking journalist FFS.
A Linux-using journalist, writing for the best Linux magazine in England
By definition it can never be as good as possible, or it would never need
to be improved, and of course it is being improved all the time.
>
>>
>>> If people are swayed by one journalist's opinions then perhaps they
>>> haven't thought long enough about the change.
>>>
>>
>> Who said people would be swayed by one opinion? He just brings up some
>> valid concerns that should be corrected if possible (either to the
>> problems themselves, or to the perception that the problem exists).
>
> Rubbish. He brings up basic common sense things as well as poorly thought
> out opinions... typical journalist...
YOu seem to have no idea who Graham Morrison is. He works for Linux
Format, and uses Linux all the time.
--
Kier
Gregory Shearman
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:23:30 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>> It's not opinion if it happens to him, no matter how rare it may be.
>>
>> It IS opinion when he says "Most linux users do this...." or "Most linux
>> users don't do that....".
>>
>> How the FUCK would HE know? He's only a fucking journalist FFS.
>
> A Linux-using journalist, writing for the best Linux magazine in England
This doesn't automatically give him knowledge of MOST linux users, only of
his own experience.
>> Rubbish. He brings up basic common sense things as well as poorly thought
>> out opinions... typical journalist...
>
> YOu seem to have no idea who Graham Morrison is. He works for Linux
> Format, and uses Linux all the time.
So what? I don't read magazines.... He doesn't know me... he wouldn't know
most users, so all he's got is opinions when he pontificates that "Most
linux users do this.... or don't do that..."
William Poaster
> Kier wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:23:30 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>
>>>> It's not opinion if it happens to him, no matter how rare it may be.
>>>
>>> It IS opinion when he says "Most linux users do this...." or "Most linux
>>> users don't do that....".
>>>
>>> How the FUCK would HE know? He's only a fucking journalist FFS.
>>
>> A Linux-using journalist, writing for the best Linux magazine in England
>
> This doesn't automatically give him knowledge of MOST linux users, only of
> his own experience.
>
>>> Rubbish. He brings up basic common sense things as well as poorly
>>> thought out opinions... typical journalist...
>>
>> YOu seem to have no idea who Graham Morrison is. He works for Linux
>> Format, and uses Linux all the time.
>
> So what? I don't read magazines....
I do read that one. It's not bad, though you do wonder sometimes.
> He doesn't know me... he wouldn't know most users, so all he's got is
> opinions when he pontificates that "Most linux users do this.... or don't
> do that..."
Quite. ALL they are, are *his* opinions. In general, I find quite the
opposite of what he says.
Randy Oaks
"William Poaster" <w...@pcbsd14-mc1.eu> wrote in message
news:86h9u4-...@wp.leafnode.mc1...
Willy Boaster - Straight from the horse's ass.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
High Plains Thumper
Capt. Morgan, Captain Commando, Colonel Ichabod Conk, Cpl. Kronk,
Dr Gang Green, Dr. Disco, Dr. Fafoofnik, Dr. Feelgood,
Dr. GroundAxe, Dr. Hungwell, Dr. Hurt, Dr. Livingston,
Dr. McGillicudy, Dr. Pain, Dr. Seymour Butts, Dr. Shlongwell,
Dr. Shlongwell (aka your Boss), Dr. Smooth, Dr. Zhivago,
Gordon Glover, Lintard Luser, Lt. Stardust, Mr. X,
Ms. Polly Ester, Ofc. Michael Clayton, rafael (note the nym-thief
couldn't even leave poor Rafael alone), Sgt. Wannacker,
SgtMajor Gansevoort, Sir Michael Clayton, and Sue Romer wrote:
> William Poaster wrote:
>> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed. After a 1 day fling with redhat 5.2, I've been
>>> with SuSE since then. Hardly say 8 years isn't "for long".
>>> Though I am considering ubuntu.
>>
>> I used SuSE from 1997 to May 2006. Because I didn't like the
>> way Novel was going, I then used Kubuntu which I'd been
>> testing for about 4/5 months. Meanwhile I'd also been
>> testing *BSD, & have now got them on my main machines while
>> keeping Kubuntu as a fallback OS.
>
> Willy Boaster - Straight from the horse's ass.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics
"48. Don't let your ignorance stop you from posting. No matter
how little you understand of the issues being discussed in a
thread, post anyway. If you don't know what you are talking about
just pretend that you do."
--
HPT
cc
> cc wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 9:08 am, Gregory Shearman <ZekeGreg...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> cc wrote:
> >> > Probably alot of people who pick up the magazine care what he writes.
>
> >> Maybe they do. I prefer to do my reading online, especially about Linux.
> >> That's where I get the information to keep my systems humming along.
>
> >> I believe they provide rather basic information to keep Linux running...
> >> good on 'em, but as with all media, take it with a grain of salt.
>
> >> > His experience may not be the experience of everyone, but it is shared
> >> > by others. If Linux is perfect for you and you obviously don't care
> >> > about getting more people to use it, then perhaps you should find
> >> > another group. He wasn't around 10 years ago, and you guys are calling
> >> > him a newb. So shouldn't his experiences and perceptions be taken
> >> > seriously if we want more newbies to switch to Linux?
>
> >> Nope.
>
> >> We call him a newb because his _opinions_ don't appear to gel with
> >> reality. He's just one opinion out there.
>
> > It's not opinion if it happens to him, no matter how rare it may be.
>
> It IS opinion when he says "Most linux users do this...." or "Most linux
> users don't do that....".
>
> How the FUCK would HE know? He's only a fucking journalist FFS.
Journalists do research.
Linux can't be improved? Is it, dare I say, perfect?
>
>
> >> If people are swayed by one journalist's opinions then perhaps they
> >> haven't thought long enough about the change.
>
> > Who said people would be swayed by one opinion? He just brings up some
> > valid concerns that should be corrected if possible (either to the
> > problems themselves, or to the perception that the problem exists).
>
> Rubbish. He brings up basic common sense things as well as poorly thought
> out opinions... typical journalist...
>
He's a "typical journalist" to you because his article doesn't gel
with what you'd like to believe. If he had written "Linux is as good
and usable as possible", you would have praised him to high heaven,
even though that would have been an outright lie.
Gregory Shearman
Are you trying to be funny?
Where were you when Bush was telling the world that Iraq had WMD and the
media uncritically reported this as true?
>> > It should also be about making Linux as usable and good as possible.
>>
>> Linux is as usable and as good as possible, but that has nothing to do
>> with advocacy.
>
>
> Linux can't be improved? Is it, dare I say, perfect?
You really have to concentrate harder on what you read. Your mistakes are
rather embarrassing.
Linux is as usable and as good as possible..... there's always room for
improvement, and improvement comes gradually....
Nobody (or their works) is/are perfect...
There's always the next version...
>> Rubbish. He brings up basic common sense things as well as poorly thought
>> out opinions... typical journalist...
>>
>
> He's a "typical journalist" to you because his article doesn't gel
> with what you'd like to believe. If he had written "Linux is as good
> and usable as possible", you would have praised him to high heaven,
> even though that would have been an outright lie.
Rubbish. I support the facts, but not the opinions....
Fair enough?
Stop trying to make something out of this... when there's nothing to make.
How would a journalist know what MOST linux users do? It's simply his
uninformed opinion.
There's no way an accurate survey of Linux users can ever be taken...
DFS
> Linux is as usable and as good as possible.....
BWA!!
Then you wacks might as well pack it in.
> there's always room for improvement,
Then it's not as good as possible? I'm confused.
>> He's a "typical journalist" to you because his article doesn't gel
>> with what you'd like to believe. If he had written "Linux is as good
>> and usable as possible", you would have praised him to high heaven,
>> even though that would have been an outright lie.
>
> Rubbish. I support the facts, but not the opinions....
So is "Linux is as usable and good as possible" a fact or an opinion? Now
I'm more confused.
> How would a journalist know what MOST linux users do? It's simply his
> uninformed opinion.
>
> There's no way an accurate survey of Linux users can ever be taken...
Various statistical sampling techniques will produce a very accurate
picture.
Suse got 27,000+ responses to their desktop survey:
* 98% male (geeekkkksss!!!!)
* 70% were dual-booters w/ Windows
* 72% use KDE
* 78% download it for free
* 85% do nothing but use the software (ie no contributing or bug reporting,
etc)
the last two sound familiar: freeloading
http://files.opensuse.org/opensuse/en/6/6c/Opensuse_survey_102_data_final.pdf
linux.frea...@gmail.com
Linux is dead.
It's always been dead and the Linux community at large is doing
nothing but hurting Linux.
Freaks like Roy Schestowitz, Mark Kent, Homer, High Plains Thumper, 7
and others are an embaressment to Linux.
I'm sure glad they are not trying to advocate Windows.
Great post, along with your other posts.
I don't agree with all you say, but this one is a beaut..
> http://files.opensuse.org/opensuse/en/6/6c/Opensuse_survey_102_data_f...