USB installation - MD5s for RHEL 5.3 Fail
QuadZe...@yahoo.com
for the installation. At this time I am unable to install from a DVD
on this Dell, XPS Gen 3 because I cannot select the DVD drive as a
bootable device from within the already updated BIOS.
I may be able to install from a USB device, never tried it with
RedHat, but it worked previously for Win 7beta. Can I just copy the
contents of the DVD to the USB _FLASH_ device and boot from it?
Any documents available for this? Nothing immediately available in
the RedHat KB stands out that I can see.
I would rather NOT download any files from anywhere other than RedHat
or a major Linux site for this...sort of defeats the purpose of a
secure installation.
I download the CD ISOs for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.3 using Mozilla
Firefox 3.5, then tested the MD5s and they ALL failed using two
different applications to verify the MD5's within Microsoft Windows XP
Pro. That is why I am where I am and am asking for some help on using
the contents of the DVD.
From the RedHat site MD5s are supposed to be:
ISO Size MD5 Checksum
Binary Disc 1 (Client Core) 634 MB 2c268f004d4c21e6c1b6ac8adeb519ab
Binary Disc 2 (Client Core) 624 MB 7754168fd28d4cfc4e82ac73dd28a3c4
Binary Disc 3 (Client Core) 616 MB 9016c6caebb496751afc72f71d2de8a3
Binary Disc 4 (Client Core) 618 MB a6dfea7b7ab42080b1e387e5e2584281
Binary Disc 5 (Client Core/Workstation/Virtualization) 630 MB
406be25cab1d023046021c48c1cb32b9
What I have:
# MD5 checksums generated by MD5summer (http://www.md5summer.org)
# Generated 7/4/2009 6:49:15 PM
2a97958f29fae433a0e578de4a7837b9 *rhel-client-5.3-i386-disc3.iso
7511459740a0e999175565b2ed0e0c68 *rhel-client-5.3-i386-disc4.iso
928313d53b23621d358c8d8abc4e1f00 *rhel-client-5.3-i386-disc5.iso
2c268f004d4c21e6c1b6ac8adeb519ab *rhel-client-5.4-i386-disc1.iso
7754168fd28d4cfc4e82ac73dd28a3c4 *rhel-client-5.4-i386-disc2.iso
# MD5 checksums generated by md5checksum_1.0
# Generated 7/4/2009
2a97958f29fae433a0e578de4a7837b9 *rhel-client-5.3-i386-disc3.iso
7511459740a0e999175565b2ed0e0c68 *rhel-client-5.3-i386-disc4.iso
928313d53b23621d358c8d8abc4e1f00 *rhel-client-5.3-i386-disc5.iso
2c268f004d4c21e6c1b6ac8adeb519ab *rhel-client-5.4-i386-disc1.iso
7754168fd28d4cfc4e82ac73dd28a3c4 *rhel-client-5.4-i386-disc2.iso
Thanks ahead of time!
David W. Hodgins
> I may be able to install from a USB device, never tried it with
Another option, if you have the space available, is to install from
the hard drive. Much faster.
Copy the dvd to a .iso file on the hd.
Use any distro that has a live cd to boot into linux, and then run
a script similar to the following, which is what I use ...
#!/bin/bash
isofile=mandriva-linux-free-alpha-cooker-i586.iso
isodir=/mnt/hd
cd "$isodir"
rm -f vmlinuz.install
rm -f initrd.install
mount -t auto -o ro,loop "$isofile" /media/cdrom
ls -l /media/cdrom/i586/isolinux/alt0/vmlinuz
ls -l /media/cdrom/i586/isolinux/alt0/all.rdz
ls -l /media/cdrom/i586/isolinux/alt0/
cp /media/cdrom/i586/isolinux/alt0/vmlinuz "$isodir"/vmlinuz.install
cp /media/cdrom/i586/isolinux/alt0/all.rdz "$isodir"/initrd.install
umount /media/cdrom
ls -l *.install
echo image=$isodir/vmlinuz.install
echo label="install"
echo root=/dev/sda3
echo initrd=$isodir/initrd.install
The above script extracts the files needed to boot from, and shows
the stanza needed for for lilo to boot from the iso image.
After running the script, you'd have to create a /etc/lilo.conf file,
and then run lilo to install the boot manager.
Feel free to contact me by email (see sig), if you'd like to try this
approach, and need some help.
Regards
--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
Thomas Scheunemann
these are the checksums for the RedHat Enterprise Linux 5.4 Client release,
which is currently in Beta status.
> What I have:
> # MD5 checksums generated by MD5summer (http://www.md5summer.org)
> # Generated 7/4/2009 6:49:15 PM
> 2a97958f29fae433a0e578de4a7837b9 *rhel-client-5.3-i386-disc3.iso
> 7511459740a0e999175565b2ed0e0c68 *rhel-client-5.3-i386-disc4.iso
> 928313d53b23621d358c8d8abc4e1f00 *rhel-client-5.3-i386-disc5.iso
> 2c268f004d4c21e6c1b6ac8adeb519ab *rhel-client-5.4-i386-disc1.iso
> 7754168fd28d4cfc4e82ac73dd28a3c4 *rhel-client-5.4-i386-disc2.iso
> # MD5 checksums generated by md5checksum_1.0
> # Generated 7/4/2009
> 2a97958f29fae433a0e578de4a7837b9 *rhel-client-5.3-i386-disc3.iso
> 7511459740a0e999175565b2ed0e0c68 *rhel-client-5.3-i386-disc4.iso
> 928313d53b23621d358c8d8abc4e1f00 *rhel-client-5.3-i386-disc5.iso
> 2c268f004d4c21e6c1b6ac8adeb519ab *rhel-client-5.4-i386-disc1.iso
> 7754168fd28d4cfc4e82ac73dd28a3c4 *rhel-client-5.4-i386-disc2.iso
And as expected the files from release 5.4 are the ones you posted, while
the files from release 5.3, not suprisingly, do not fit. But as far as I
can tell, they are the correct ones for the 5.3 release. These are:
ISO Size MD5 Checksum
Binary Disc 1 (Client Core) 631 MB 73743659f64ca3c453ac92021b98852c
Binary Disc 2 (Client Core) 613 MB fe76007ee5694ebe431d7dc23a33b72b
Binary Disc 3 (Client Core) 631 MB 2a97958f29fae433a0e578de4a7837b9
Binary Disc 4 (Client Core) 630 MB 7511459740a0e999175565b2ed0e0c68
Binary Disc 5 (Client Core/Workstation/Virtualization)
631 MB 928313d53b23621d358c8d8abc4e1f00
Binary Disc 6 (Workstation) 567 MB ee34044049a1b2b5d57fb556ae31b462
As mixing different releases won't work anyway, you should of course
download the missing files from the correct release and compare to the
correct MD5 sums and all should be well.
Thomas Scheunemann
Nico Kadel-Garcia
> I purchased the only media available from RedHat and it included a DVD
> for the installation. At this time I am unable to install from a DVD
> on this Dell, XPS Gen 3 because I cannot select the DVD drive as a
> bootable device from within the already updated BIOS.
>
> I may be able to install from a USB device, never tried it with
> RedHat, but it worked previously for Win 7beta. Can I just copy the
> contents of the DVD to the USB _FLASH_ device and boot from it?
Not typically. There are some fascinating driver issues with booting
from USB, and many published guidelines, many of which violently
disagree with each other.
However, I'm certain there is a 'netboot.iso' or similar image stashed
on that DVD, which you could burn to a CD, and possibly a USB device
imge. Look under 'images' for it. This can be used to provide a
kickstart device, that can then be pointed to a local DVD or a remote
mounted DVD on a machine with a webserver.
"Just copying the contents" is guaranteed not to work: you need
something with a boot loader set up. (You can read up on LiLO, grub,
and the mkisofs areguments for making bootable CD images if you like.)
> Any documents available for this? Nothing immediately available in
> the RedHat KB stands out that I can see.
>
> I would rather NOT download any files from anywhere other than RedHat
> or a major Linux site for this...sort of defeats the purpose of a
> secure installation.
>
> I download the CD ISOs for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.3 using Mozilla
> Firefox 3.5, then tested the MD5s and they ALL failed using two
> different applications to verify the MD5's within Microsoft Windows XP
> Pro. That is why I am where I am and am asking for some help on using
> the contents of the DVD.
*OUCH*. Were you running out of disk space or something? Did the
images wind up truncated?
As for your MD5sum issues. Let's re-order these for you. What did you
use for checksum that listed the files in the wrong order?
> 2c268f004d4c21e6c1b6ac8adeb519ab *rhel-client-5.4-i386-disc1.iso
> 7754168fd28d4cfc4e82ac73dd28a3c4 *rhel-client-5.4-i386-disc2.iso
> 2a97958f29fae433a0e578de4a7837b9 *rhel-client-5.3-i386-disc3.iso
> 7511459740a0e999175565b2ed0e0c68 *rhel-client-5.3-i386-disc4.iso
> 928313d53b23621d358c8d8abc4e1f00 *rhel-client-5.3-i386-disc5.iso
As someone else pointed out, you've got mixed media from two different
releases. That's a no-no. And whatever you used to generate that list
had re-ordered the images.
You know, if you can spare the disk space somewhere, I'm going to
recommend the "use a netboot ISO" and "run a webserver with all the
RHEL material on it from the DVD". This is becuase you can use that
for PXE network installations, *AND* you can point yum to that as a
local file repository and get much, much faster installations than the
that yum module that basically dresses up2date up in grandma's
nightgown that RedHat saddled into RHEL 5. And if you can run one
registered RHEL machine with 'reposync' to keep an update repository
loaded, you can point all your local machines to that server for yum
updates, and it will actually obey yum directives, rather than
ignoring them way that disguised up2date tool does. This makes
resolving conflicts between RHEL versions of components and RPMforge
or local repositories much, much, much easier.
QuadZeroRoute
wrote:
That is some script. I will have to do that someday. I just copied
it and emailed it to my account so I will have it in the future and
will do it once I am up and have my "sea-legs" under me.
QuadZeroRoute
wrote:
> Hello,
Yes, thank you. :-) ...I should have caught that. I must have not
gone back to the same link to download the 5.3 release! Doh.
Well, if all goes as planned there are going to be many other
opportunities for plonking me on the head.
Now that you have pointed that out, I have decided to use 5.4.
Allen Kistler
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:06:48 -0400, <QuadZe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I may be able to install from a USB device, never tried it with
>
> Another option, if you have the space available, is to install from
> the hard drive. Much faster.
>
> Copy the dvd to a .iso file on the hd.
>
> Use any distro that has a live cd to boot into linux, and then run
> a script similar to the following, which is what I use ...
>
Wasn't the heart of the OP's problem:
>> I cannot select the DVD drive as a
>> bootable device from within the already updated BIOS.
So he needs to be able to boot from something that's not his optical
drive. That would be floppy, USB, or PXE, if the machine supports PXE.
I can't think of a way to do a floppy-based or USB-based installation
for RHEL. You could probably bootstrap into RHEL by starting with
another distro that does support floppies, if you have a floppy drive
and lots of floppy disks. Install that distro first, then use the
method David mentions to boot to the RHEL iso.
PXE needs a separate machine. The separate machine need not be Linux.
It just needs to run a tftp service and one service of nfs, ftp, and
http. This option is probably the sanest inexpensive option, if you
have another machine and if your first machine supports PXE booting.
Creative alternatives:
1. Get an add-in CD/DVD controller card with its own BIOS that *does*
support booting from CD/DVD. Attach the CD/DVD to it.
2. Repartition the HD and use your favorite Windows VM software to
access the whole physical drive. It will probably take some skill
and lots of forethought to keep from turning your machine into a
doorstop, but it could be viable.
3. Give up on RHEL5. There might be a way to do a floppy-boot
installation of RHEL3. If there is, at least you'd also be able to
boot into the RH rescue environment if you ever needed. I don't know
how much time RHEL3 has before it's EOLed, but it shouldn't be too
hard to check. BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
4. Get a whole new machine that supports booting from CD/DVD.
Sidney Lambe
[delete]
> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
for Linux.
But even worse, people are _selling_ Linux.
I'd guess that RH uses closed-source proprietary software, too.
And that they have 800 numbers for paid tech support.
Add KDE and you've got Windows.
[delete]
It'll be a cold day in Hell before I'll pay for Linux software
or install closed-source software on my box. Or pay for technical
support.
Sure, I send a few bucks to various developers/maintainers now and then, but
this is a gift of appreciation, not payment. It isn'[t business. It's
amateurs supporting amateurs.
Real Linux is amateur.
When did the corruption of Linux by the corporate technocrats begin?
With user interfaces like KDE and Gnome, making it possible, with
the help of formal technical support, for ignorant appliance operators
to use the obscured Linux OS underlying the interface without knowing
anything about it. They don't learn Linux, they learn KDE.
Sid
Jean-David Beyer
> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>
> [delete]
>
>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
>> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>
> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
> for Linux.
Actually, they are not paying for Linux. Red Hat is charging for support and
maintenance. They also charge for the compiled versions of the software, but
the source is available for free.
They have no problem with others compiling their source (other than their
trademarks) and distributing and maintaining their own binaries. CentOS do
this, and Red Hat is not prosecuting them.
>
> But even worse, people are _selling_ Linux.
True. But if you are a true capitalist, note that you can get the source for
free, so those who pay vendors such as Red Hat must feel they are getting
something of value in return for their money.
>
> I'd guess that RH uses closed-source proprietary software, too.
> And that they have 800 numbers for paid tech support.
You do not have to guess: it is described on their web site. The more you
pay, the better support you get. Their Enterprise Linux distributions do not
have proprietary software in it. They also sell other packages that are
proprietary if you want them.
Note that Red Hat contribute to the Linux software effort with the donation
of paid staff to work on parts of it.
[snip]
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 18:25:01 up 17 days, 5:14, 3 users, load average: 4.18, 4.38, 4.51
B Sellers
what they must support, This is good for businesses
and perhaps government agencies. Mandriva has supported versions
that are sold with documentation though the docs are trivial next
to the big books that RHEL gets on the market.
SuSe sell supported version and offers limited time
support for versions that accompany magazines like Linux Pro
and Linux Format.
I think there are other supported versions like Xandros
as well but I don't pretend to know all versions available with
support.
It is nothing to get worked up over, IMO.
later
bliss
Sidney Lambe
Both of which are the enemies of the freedom that Linux represents.
Real Linux. Business controls government...
> Mandriva has supported versions
> that are sold with documentation though the docs are trivial next
> to the big books that RHEL gets on the market.
Okay
>
> SuSe sell supported version and offers limited time
> support for versions that accompany magazines like Linux Pro
> and Linux Format.
Didn't know that.
>
> I think there are other supported versions like Xandros
> as well but I don't pretend to know all versions available with
> support.
>
> It is nothing to get worked up over, IMO.
Oh yes it is.
They _will_ try again to use the Courts to make Linux/Gnu
software the property of one or more corporations.
And most Linux people are making it happen by supporting
these sellout distros.
Even Slackware has sold out to KDE and they'll be following
RH soon.
But I've got all the software I need from them, so cutting them
loose won't be difficult.
Sid
Sidney Lambe
So it's not quite as grim as it seemed. But the trend is downhill and
snowballing. The corporate technocrats and couch potatos and office drones
have their feet in the door.
Real Linux is for amateur hackers, not appliance
operators and office drones and technocrats.
But it won't be long before the latter try to
take it away from us, using the patent laws.
They already have, once.
Just Say No
to KDE/Gnome/Xfce/and so on.
Learn Bash.
Sid
Running Slackware 9.1 (2.4.22) 134MB on the hdd, full development environment
and X; using 13MB RAM at the moment; CPU 99.9% idle.
Johnny Rebel
> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>
> [delete]
>
>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
>> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>
> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
> for Linux.
Nothing wrong with that at all, it is all in the spirit of the GPL. The
best thing is, you don't have to pay for it, it is your choice.
>
> But even worse, people are _selling_ Linux.
Again, nothing wrong with that - it is still in the spirit of the GPL.
The best thing is, you can sell it as well, or give it away. Your call.
These are the benefits of Open Source - it is your choice to pay for
it, sell it, give it away... you have the freedom to do what you want.
>
> I'd guess that RH uses closed-source proprietary software, too.
> And that they have 800 numbers for paid tech support.
Not that I know of, but I could be mistaken. The certainly do have
support numbers.
>
> Add KDE and you've got Windows.
I disagree, but my disagreement is irrelevant.
>
> [delete]
>
> It'll be a cold day in Hell before I'll pay for Linux software
> or install closed-source software on my box. Or pay for technical
> support.
That is great! All in the spirit of the GPL. The great things is - if
you choose to pay for a support contract, you can, but you don't have to.
>
> Sure, I send a few bucks to various developers/maintainers now and then, but
> this is a gift of appreciation, not payment. It isn'[t business. It's
> amateurs supporting amateurs.
That is great as well. I think more people should do this. BTW, is the
software developer/maintainers software in Redhat per chance?
>
> Real Linux is amateur.
So are the Olympics right? I disagree with that statement. Real Linux
is community driven. That community consists of large companies giving
time, code and/or whatever else. It also consists of "Bob" in his
basement. Linux is community.
>
> When did the corruption of Linux by the corporate technocrats begin?
>
> With user interfaces like KDE and Gnome, making it possible, with
> the help of formal technical support, for ignorant appliance operators
> to use the obscured Linux OS underlying the interface without knowing
> anything about it. They don't learn Linux, they learn KDE.
Sure, but what does that have to do with corruption? This simply makes
it better (IMHO) to use, and easy for less achieved users. My wife
wouldn't know how to use the CLI efficiently (I am trying though... :) )
but has been a pretty serious end user on Linux for about 6 years now.
She loves it, and tells people just that.
JR.
>
> Sid
>
--
--> GNU/Linux is user friendly... it's just picky about its friends.
Jean-David Beyer
> So it's not quite as grim as it seemed. But the trend is downhill and
> snowballing. The corporate technocrats and couch potatos and office drones
> have their feet in the door.
I am no longer a corporate technocrat. I was never an office drone. I do not
think of myself as a couch potato.
>
> Real Linux is for amateur hackers, not appliance
> operators and office drones and technocrats.
I do not consider myself an amateur hacker: I want to get stuff done with my
computer. The only appliances I operate are my washing machine and dryer, my
diswasher, stove, and vacuum cleaner. I can tell you that both Ken Thompson
and Dennis Ritchie were technocrats (and much more), as were the other early
developers of the UNIX operating system. I think Linus Torvalds was also as
were most of the rest of the developers of the GNU/Linux system.
>
> But it won't be long before the latter try to
> take it away from us, using the patent laws.
>
> They already have, once.
Well, SCO tried it, and were the laughing stock since the beginning for trying.
>
> Just Say No
>
> to KDE/Gnome/Xfce/and so on.
It is no fun trying to run the lynx web browser with modern web sites. Nor
is mutt much fun with the html e-mails people insist on sending. And when
government agencies do it, I cannot refuse to open e-mails from them. I
detest the web sites that have embedded Active-X in them. Mostly I can
ignore those sites, unless they are from government agencies and stupid
corporations with which I must do business.
>
> Learn Bash.
I already know bash; I started with ed, then vi. It was only when they put
the X-Window system into Linux (they already had in UNIX, but the systems I
used did not have it). When I started running Linux about 11 yeas ago, I
decided to use bash, although once in a while I use vi because some things
are easier in it.
>
> Sid
>
> Running Slackware 9.1 (2.4.22) 134MB on the hdd, full development environment
> and X; using 13MB RAM at the moment; CPU 99.9% idle.
>
Sounds as though your machine is too big for what you use it for. I let
boinc run in the background and its applications use all the spare time my
processors can deliver. So my CPUs are always around 98% busy.
Why do you run X if you do not wish to use a windowing system?
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 20:15:01 up 17 days, 7:04, 3 users, load average: 4.30, 4.26, 4.26
The Natural Philosopher
No, it isn;t
Its for everybody, including those that want to pay someone to make it
work for them.
> But it won't be long before the latter try to
> take it away from us, using the patent laws.
>
Not in anybodies interest anymore.
Basically open source has broken the license fee stranglehold, but it
wont break the need for support for those that need it.
John Hasler
> Well, SCO tried it, and were the laughing stock since the beginning for
> trying.
They tried to use copyrights[1], not patents. They are in bankruptcy now
and the US Trustee has moved for liquidation.
[1] Copyrights that they turned out not to even own
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Nico Kadel-Garcia
[ ranting deleted ]
Folks, we've got a troll. He's not answering the questions raised by
the original poster, has no apparent actual knowledge to contribute,
and his entire posting history under this alias is 90% troll and 10%
useless comments that do not actually provide any information or
reflect any direct experience.
Killfile him and move on.
Sidney Lambe
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
[delete]
>> Just Say No
>>
>> to KDE/Gnome/Xfce/and so on.
>
> It is no fun trying to run the lynx web browser with modern web sites.
Now there is a remarkably ignorant statement coming from someone
who claims (in the rest of this article, deleleted) to be a
Linux expert.
I run firefox here when necessary, and bash is my user interface.
I don't run an "integrated graphical desktop environment" like
KDE or Gnome or Xfce.
You just enter "firefox &" on the commandline and firefox is
launched and the prompt is cleared.
Duh <<<<<<<<<
(I have it 'aliased' to a function
in my bashrc to "ff", so that's all I have to enter).
So are you actually this ignorant or are you a corporate shill
trying to disinform people?
It's not that I can do anything from the commandline that someone
can do with KDE. I can do _more_.
And it's easier to learn bash than it is to learn KDE, starting
from scratch.
Don't let these technocrats mislead you. They want to produce
ignorant appliance operators so that you'll be dependent on
them.
[delete]
Sid
Sidney Lambe
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>>
>> [delete]
>>
>>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
>>> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>>
>> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
>> for Linux.
>
> Nothing wrong with that at all, it is all in the spirit of the GPL. The
> best thing is, you don't have to pay for it, it is your choice.
Yes, there is something wrong with it. They are paying for avoiding
learning Linux.
They are paying to remain ignorant appliance operators.
I don't know why you call yourself "Johnny Rebel".
You are a corporate sheep.
Oh yeh. I forgot. Lies the corporations' principal tools.
[delete]
Sid
Sidney Lambe
The lying technocrats move in for the quick kill, the cheapest shot
on the internet: The person disagreeing with the party line
is a TROLL and he isn't talking sense, he's RANTING.
<yawn>
Linux, the _real_ Linux, is for, by, and about amateur hackers.
Without them it would have never come to pass. Without them
it will die.
Now, the corporations (technocrats, investors, couch potatoes,
and office drones, etc.) are trying to take it over.
Their principal tool of conquest? Windows-like user interfaces:
KDE and Gnome and the like. They provide the illusion of 'user-friendliness'
while, by design, forcing the user to rely on technical support, and
divorce him/her from the underlying OS.
These bloated and overly-complex applicatio-suites require millions of
lines of code that was/is financed by a bunch of different corporations
at enormous cost. And corporations do not spend money without expecting
to make a profit on the investment.
The fact is that it is easier to learn to run Linux from the commandline
than it is to learn KDE (etc.), starting from scratch.
You can run any application, including any Gnome/KDE apps, with just
the X-Window System. You don't need KDE/Gnome.
Sid
The Natural Philosopher
> Johnny Rebel <re...@none.com> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>>>
>>> [delete]
>>>
>>>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
>>>> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>>> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
>>> for Linux.
>> Nothing wrong with that at all, it is all in the spirit of the GPL. The
>> best thing is, you don't have to pay for it, it is your choice.
>
> Yes, there is something wrong with it. They are paying for avoiding
> learning Linux.
>
own cattle?
Jeez.
The Natural Philosopher
> Jean-David Beyer <jeand...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
> [delete]
>
>>> Just Say No
>>>
>>> to KDE/Gnome/Xfce/and so on.
>> It is no fun trying to run the lynx web browser with modern web sites.
>
> Now there is a remarkably ignorant statement coming from someone
> who claims (in the rest of this article, deleleted) to be a
> Linux expert.
>
> I run firefox here when necessary, and bash is my user interface.
> I don't run an "integrated graphical desktop environment" like
> KDE or Gnome or Xfce.
>
> You just enter "firefox &" on the commandline and firefox is
> launched and the prompt is cleared.
>
Golly. I remember people doing that ten years ago..
Jean-David Beyer
> Johnny Rebel <re...@none.com> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>>>
>>> [delete]
>>>
>>>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
>>>> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>>> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
>>> for Linux.
>> Nothing wrong with that at all, it is all in the spirit of the GPL. The
>> best thing is, you don't have to pay for it, it is your choice.
>
> Yes, there is something wrong with it. They are paying for avoiding
> learning Linux.
Fer cry'n' out loud. I have been running UNIX since the early 1970s, mainly
running multi-machine real-time process control stuff, and a suite of
cooperating sequential processes connected to each other by what are now
called System V messages and TCP/IP connections (for those on different
machines). In those days we had only text-only terminals (HP) and later,
some X-terminals. I believe Ken changed the UNIX kernel specifically so it
could run the memory management unit in my PDP-11/45. That was back in the
days when the UNIX kernel was 6 or 7 files of assembly code that had to be
concatenated together (because files could not exceed 65536 bytes in size in
those days) and piped through the assembler. The resulting a.out was the
UNIX kernel.
What about Linux do you think I should learn that I do not already know? I
do not claim to know everything about UNIX or Linux, but I have been running
them for a over 30 years and have picked up quite a bit. ;-)
[insults deleted]
Are you, perhaps, someone who finally learned how to use a command-line
shell (bash) and is now a show-off snob?
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 06:40:01 up 17 days, 17:29, 3 users, load average: 4.45, 4.22, 4.12
Jean-David Beyer
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>> Johnny Rebel <re...@none.com> wrote:
>>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>>> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [delete]
>>>>
>>>>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not version-specific. If
>>>>> you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>>>> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying for Linux.
>>> Nothing wrong with that at all, it is all in the spirit of the GPL.
>>> The best thing is, you don't have to pay for it, it is your choice.
>> Yes, there is something wrong with it. They are paying for avoiding
>> learning Linux.
>>
> own cattle?
>
Hey! Maybe you have stumbled upon the explanation.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 06:50:01 up 17 days, 17:39, 3 users, load average: 4.21, 4.15, 4.10
Matt Giwer
Their business model is to sell support for the Enterprise version. The free
releases are their provers. Also I have read the free releases are to get
feedback to identify all the bugs and glitches which, when fixed, go into the
Enterprise releases. If that is correct then FC9 with all the updates should
be very close to the latest Enterprise release. Going by the stock price it is
working quite well.
--
Jews make no bones about their desire for all Arabs to die.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4159
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/ a12
Mon Jul 6 06:52:51 EDT 2009
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>> Johnny Rebel <re...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>>>> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [delete]
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not version-specific. If
>>>>>> you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>>>>> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying for Linux.
>>>> Nothing wrong with that at all, it is all in the spirit of the GPL.
>>>> The best thing is, you don't have to pay for it, it is your choice.
>>> Yes, there is something wrong with it. They are paying for avoiding
>>> learning Linux.
>>>
>> Do you service your own car? _Perform your own lobotomies_? Slaughter
>> your
>> own cattle?
>>
> Hey! Maybe you have stumbled upon the explanation.
>
>
Point is, I have (bar the lobotomies) done all these things, yea even
unto writing an operating system for a microcomputer, and an
interepreter fr a language.
I am happy to pay others to do these things now.
Jean-David Beyer
Come to think of that, I wrote the OS for a minicomputer (a DDP-224) that
controlled a real-time TV camera as an input device and a real-time TV
monitor as an output device. In the late 1960s. This required running two
DMA devices (called Fully Buffered Channels by the manufacturer) in parallel
with the computation. Keeping up with a TV camera that produced 2 bytes per
microsecond by a computer that had a 1.9 microsecond cycle time and required
2 cycles for most instructions was no mean feat. The computer was only a
part of the entire system that included a 1024 track magnetic drum, some
magnetostrictive delay line memories, and such. We had to synchronize the
drum to the TV camera that was, in turn synchronized to the power line
frequency. That was a trick, too, because the drum had an induction motor,
so we had to build a "61 cycle" power supply to drive it so the slip in the
motor would come out with exactly 3600 rpm of the drum.
>
> I am happy to pay others to do these things now.
>
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 09:15:01 up 17 days, 20:04, 3 users, load average: 4.46, 4.32, 4.44
Sidney Lambe
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>> Johnny Rebel <re...@none.com> wrote:
>>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>>> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [delete]
>>>>
>>>>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
>>>>> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>>>> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
>>>> for Linux.
>>> Nothing wrong with that at all, it is all in the spirit of the GPL. The
>>> best thing is, you don't have to pay for it, it is your choice.
>>
>> Yes, there is something wrong with it. They are paying for avoiding
>> learning Linux.
>>
> Do you service your won car? Perform your own lobotomies? Salughter your
> own cattle?
>
> Jeez.
Says a man who can't tell the difference between sitting at a computer
and typing and reading and doing the above tasks.
Not too long ago a person this stupid would not have been able to
run Linux.
Then along came KDE and the like, and ignorant and lazy couch
potatos like him can now pretend that they are.
No, fool. I don't do any of those things. But like scores of
thousands of people around the world, I run Linux without KDE
or anything like it. I run Linux from the commandline.
All one needs to learn are the basics of how Linux works
and the basics of Bash.
Yes, I know. You are too busy running around the Internet
and posting stupid articles like this to do a little studying.
(I can't believe I bothered to read one of this obnoxious
motormouth's articles.)
[delete]
A quick google of "how linux works" brings us:
http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
Looks decent.
Here's the best aid to learning bash I know of:
Don't let the 'advanced' in the title throw you. It
starts with the basics. Lots of great examples.
Sid
Keith Keller
>
> What about Linux do you think I should learn that I do not already know?
That you shouldn't feed ''Sidney'' aka ''Alan Connor''? ;-)
> Are you, perhaps, someone who finally learned how to use a command-line
> shell (bash) and is now a show-off snob?
Nah, just a run-of-the-mill troll. AFAICT he took a bit of a break,
but seems to be back with a vengeance in the past week or so.
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
B Sellers
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>> Johnny Rebel <re...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>>>> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [delete]
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
>>>>>> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>>>>> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
>>>>> for Linux.
>>>> Nothing wrong with that at all, it is all in the spirit of the GPL. The
>>>> best thing is, you don't have to pay for it, it is your choice.
>>> Yes, there is something wrong with it. They are paying for avoiding
>>> learning Linux.
>>>
>> Do you service your won car? Perform your own lobotomies? Salughter your
>> own cattle?
>>
>> Jeez.
>
> Says a man who can't tell the difference between sitting at a computer
> and typing and reading and doing the above tasks.
>
> Not too long ago a person this stupid would not have been able to
> run Linux.
>
> Then along came KDE and the like, and ignorant and lazy couch
> potatos like him can now pretend that they are.
Are what?
They are using a computer nothing more and nothing less.
They are not finding their self-worth by indulging in
the use of obscurely named commands in virtual terminal sessions.
That you can is great. Most of the LUG I see twice a
month is more skilled than I but some of the most skilled have no idea
of the aesthetic quality available in setting up a GUI or much skill
in using it outside of their browser and old fashioned Text processors.
>
> No, fool. I don't do any of those things. But like scores of
> thousands of people around the world, I run Linux without KDE
> or anything like it. I run Linux from the commandline.
Congratulation on having learned to do something that
makes you feel so special. I used to use Amiga OS from the
CLI formatting up to 4 floppies at a time. Before that
I used a C=64 & 128 with an old fashion WP that embedded its
commands but I was younger then. I am about 20 years older
than that now. When I switched to WYSIWG WP on the Amiga
my through-put went up.
Stop trying to scare off the newbies from using
GNU/Linux. KDE 3.5.9 works fine. And it is not like Windows.
I use XP on Dual Boot with LiLo and it is harder to setup
than Mandriva Linux which found my old Farralon E-net card
right off the bat and ran with it. Friday I switched to a more
modern card from Trendnet and it found it and used it immediately
with minimal input from me. When I go out to bi-monthly
meetings of the LUG it finds my AirCard and connects automatically.
Windows is far less secure and seems to work by obfuscation between
the User and the machine.
> All one needs to learn are the basics of how Linux works
> and the basics of Bash.
Oh sure! But I am of little brain like the honorable
Pooh Bear.
>
> Yes, I know. You are too busy running around the Internet
> and posting stupid articles like this to do a little studying.
No my attention span is short and my brain is damaged
by illness. When I study I prefer historical and sociological
works.
> (I can't believe I bothered to read one of this obnoxious
> motormouth's articles.)
>
> [delete]
>
> A quick google of "how linux works" brings us:
>
> http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
>
> Looks decent.
>
> Here's the best aid to learning bash I know of:
>
> http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/
>
> Don't let the 'advanced' in the title throw you. It
> starts with the basics. Lots of great examples.
>
>
> Sid
The CLI/Terminal Only religion. Are you the
Pope of it?
later
bliss
B Sellers
> On 2009-07-06, Jean-David Beyer <jeand...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> What about Linux do you think I should learn that I do not already know?
>
> That you shouldn't feed ''Sidney'' aka ''Alan Connor''? ;-)
>
>> Are you, perhaps, someone who finally learned how to use a command-line
>> shell (bash) and is now a show-off snob?
>
> Nah, just a run-of-the-mill troll. AFAICT he took a bit of a break,
> but seems to be back with a vengeance in the past week or so.
>
> --keith
>
later
bliss
The Natural Philosopher
Why not?
Do you pay someone else to do them for you?
But like scores of
> thousands of people around the world, I run Linux without KDE
> or anything like it. I run Linux from the commandline.
>
So do I on occasion.
Gien that two machines I manage dont even have screens..
> All one needs to learn are the basics of how Linux works
> and the basics of Bash.
>
Oh purlease. I knew bash before there was Linux.
I was paid to support Unix systems. Install them Code up using them.
Network them.Turn them into routers and firewalls.
Your are really Naif you know. You think that peolac...@alice.itle
who disagree with you know less than you. They know far far more.
One of the biggest users of Linux that I know, is using it on extremely
large powerful servers running multiple VMware servers for hosting
clients. Not because its free, but because it works extremely well. I am
sure they have a very expensive support contract with someone to look
after it. They are too busy managing a customer base and multiple
hosting cecenters.
> Yes, I know. You are too busy running around the Internet
> and posting stupid articles like this to do a little studying.
>
you really don't know who you are talking to do you?
Nico Kadel-Garcia
RedHat also tests out material for the enterprise world by trying it
on us eager beavers with Fedora. It seems a workable business model,
and has paid my salary the last few years. (Getting the GNU licensing
spelled out for my work can be an adventure, but education is half the
fun.)
And I seriously predate Linux, Hell, I was beta-testing HURD and was
delighted when Linux provided a useful license.
Check "Sidneys" posting history, note the lack of any political or
technical insight, maybe even note how he discusses "Linux" and
"Magick" with the same sorts of attitude and lack of documentation and
move on.
Johnny Rebel
> Johnny Rebel <re...@none.com> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>> Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>>>
>>> [delete]
>>>
>>>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
>>>> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>>> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
>>> for Linux.
>> Nothing wrong with that at all, it is all in the spirit of the GPL. The
>> best thing is, you don't have to pay for it, it is your choice.
>
> Yes, there is something wrong with it. They are paying for avoiding
> learning Linux.
I don't see anything wrong with it whatsoever. I don't think R.M.S has
an issue with it either - and if he doesn't, you sure don't have an excuse.
>
> They are paying to remain ignorant appliance operators.
I am actually an SA with quite a number of years of experience thanks.
>
> I don't know why you call yourself "Johnny Rebel".
<yawn>.
>
> You are a corporate sheep.
Not at all. It's just that I can read, and am not 13 years old.
>
> Oh yeh. I forgot. Lies the corporations' principal tools.
Not at all, spin is.
>
> [delete]
Sidney Lambe
[delete]
>
> Check "Sidneys" posting history, note the lack of any political or
> technical insight, maybe even note how he discusses "Linux" and
> "Magick" with the same sorts of attitude and lack of documentation and
> move on.
In your last post you said to killfile me because I was a 'ranting
troll'.
Yet YOU haven't killfiled me. YOU haven't moved on. Why is that?
Answer: Because you are a stinking, lying technocrat who wants Linux
runners to become ignorant appliance operators who are dependent
on you and others like you.
And you want people to killfile me I _do_ make sense.
Here are some valuable links for people who want to break free
of the KDE/Gnome appliance operator/couch potato Windows-clone
interfaces.
To break free of lying assholes like this "Nico" character.
General:
http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html
http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.
html
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
Bash:
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ
http://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/index.html
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1052574.html
kind of odd "shell ninja" but lots of good info:
http://www.slideshare.net/brian_dailey/nyphp-march-2009-presentation
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/classes/s243/bash.html
http://www.learnaboutlinux.net/blog/41-programming/50-bash-basics-1
Sid
Jean-David Beyer
> Answer: Because you are a stinking, lying technocrat who wants Linux
> runners to become ignorant appliance operators who are dependent
> on you and others like you.
>
Almost time to invoke Godwin's Law.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 21:20:01 up 18 days, 8:09, 3 users, load average: 4.23, 4.30, 4.33
Sidney Lambe
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
>> Answer: Because you are a stinking, lying technocrat who wants Linux
>> runners to become ignorant appliance operators who are dependent
>> on you and others like you.
>>
> Almost time to invoke Godwin's Law.
Now that everyone knows how dishonest you are, it doesn't really
matter what you do.
The corporations are trying to take over Linux with the help of technocrats
like this fellow.
Their chief tools of conquest are windows-clone user interfaces like
KDE. These obscure the Linux operating system and you end up learning
KDE, not Linux, and they have you by the balls.
Don't let them do this to you. Learn the basics of how Linux works
and the shell, the command line. It isn't hard and it is very
interesting.
General:
http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html
http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.
html
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
----------------------------
Keith Keller
On 2009-07-07, Sidney Lambe <sidne...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Learn the basics of how Linux works
> and the shell, the command line. It isn't hard and it is very
> interesting.
I agree.
> http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
But don't use this document, unless you want a very general and in some
places (unintentionally) misleading or inaccurate overview. It's many
years old, claiming to talk about ''Sidney's'' hated RedHat, version 6.
Version six was likely out before ''Sidney'' was born.
> http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
This link also seems somewhat older (the copyright date is 2002, and the
document doesn't seem to cover grub, the more common boot loader).
> http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.html
This document claims to cover Slackware 10.0, also many years old. The
official Slackware documentation (from 2005) is probably a little better:
(though it probably covers, at best, 10.2):
But perhaps the best piece of advice was left implicit in ''Sidney's''
post: never trust any technical advice given by ''Sidney''. This troll
used to brag about his idiotic method of ignoring posts, ostensibly
written in bash, that was a poor imitation of what any reasonable nntp
client (e.g., slrn, trn, tin) can do trivially. Now that I'm mentioning
it we're guaranteed that he won't respond to my post, as he's claimed on
multiple occasions to have added my address to this mechanism, and won't
want to admit that even after many years it still doesn't work.
But I digress.
Be sure to check the date on any documentation you read. It's not a
guarantee that it's good, and not all old documentation is inaccurate.
But it's still better to look for recent docs by a reputable source
(e.g., not ''Sidney'').
Hans-Peter Diettrich
> Their chief tools of conquest are windows-clone user interfaces like
> KDE. These obscure the Linux operating system and you end up learning
> KDE, not Linux, and they have you by the balls.
X-Windows existed long before Microsoft Windows or Linux.
> Don't let them do this to you. Learn the basics of how Linux works
> and the shell, the command line. It isn't hard and it is very
> interesting.
And learn writing machine code, do not use those newish IDE's and
compilers and mice.
SCNR
DoDi
Jean-David Beyer
> Jean-David Beyer <jeand...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>
>>> Answer: Because you are a stinking, lying technocrat who wants Linux
>>> runners to become ignorant appliance operators who are dependent
>>> on you and others like you.
>>>
>> Almost time to invoke Godwin's Law.
>
> Now that everyone knows how dishonest you are, it doesn't really
> matter what you do.
Marry Hatter Ladle Limb
Marry hatter ladle limb
Itch fleas worse widest snore.
An ever-wear debt Marry win
Door limb worse shorter gore.
Actually, I make quite a point in being honest. This does not mean I never
make errors of fact or interpretation, but I try to correct them as soon as
they come to my attention.
>
> The corporations are trying to take over Linux with the help of technocrats
> like this fellow.
I wonder to what corporation this poster refers (but not very much). I did
work for a large regulated monopoly at one time, but my employment with them
ended at almost 20 years ago. They were responsible for the original UNIX
Operating System. They did not have to take it over: it was theirs to begin
with. And what did they do with it? They gave it away free to many
universities. Then they bungled the selling of it commercially by
misunderstanding the market and charging way to much for personal licenses.
Were they to have sold it for a little more than the media and duplication
costs, there would probably be no Microsoft today. Sigh.
>
> Their chief tools of conquest are windows-clone user interfaces like
> KDE. These obscure the Linux operating system and you end up learning
> KDE, not Linux, and they have you by the balls.
I do not care much for KDE and even though it is available for the
distribution I run, I have not installed it since somewhere back about Red
Hat Linux 6.0 (IIRC). I normally run GNOME, but have a bunch of CLI
terminals open for much of my work. I run Gnome so I can run monitoring
tools such as xosview, and Firefox and Thunderbird. My distro allows me to
install both and each user can choose which to run, and change it whenever
(s)he likes.
But actually, a windowing interface does not negate the value of the
underlying operating system, just as, at the opposite extreme, putting
Windows on top of a crappy operating system does not increase its value very
much, except to the stockholders of Microsoft Corporation -- though it has
been making slow improvements over the years.
>
> Don't let them do this to you. Learn the basics of how Linux works
> and the shell, the command line. It isn't hard and it is very
> interesting.
>
> General:
>
Depending on just what you want, I have found these helpful:
Learning GNU Emacs
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596006488/
Managing Projects with GNU Make:
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596006105/
Programming with GNU Software:
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9781565921122/
Running Linux:
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596007607/
DNS and BIND:
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596100575/
sendmail:
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596510299/
Programming in C++
C++ Programming Language
http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-3rd-Bjarne-Stroustrup/dp/0201889544
C++ Primer:
http://www.amazon.com/Primer-3rd-Stanley-B-Lippman/dp/0201824701
The C++ Standard Library: A Tutorial and Reference
http://www.amazon.com/C-Standard-Library-Tutorial-Reference/dp/0201379260
>
> ----------------------------
> Bash:
>
I always liked this one (although mine is the older second edition):
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596009656/
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 06:40:01 up 18 days, 17:29, 3 users, load average: 4.39, 4.24, 4.12
The Natural Philosopher
> Sidney Lambe schrieb:
>
>> Their chief tools of conquest are windows-clone user interfaces like
>> KDE. These obscure the Linux operating system and you end up learning
>> KDE, not Linux, and they have you by the balls.
>
> X-Windows existed long before Microsoft Windows or Linux.
>
Did it?
I cant remember it predating windows 1.0.
But you might be right. It certainly predates Linux.
>> Don't let them do this to you. Learn the basics of how Linux works
>> and the shell, the command line. It isn't hard and it is very
>> interesting.
>
> And learn writing machine code, do not use those newish IDE's and
> compilers and mice.
>
Indeed..;-)
> SCNR
>
> DoDi
Jean-David Beyer
came out. Then the Fortran Monitor System came out so you could combine SAP
(symbolic assembly program) and FORTRAN source together, though you had to
be careful because COMMON areas were addressed differently. O even wrote an
operating system in assembler for the Honeywell DDP-224.
In fact, before any of that, I wrote a self-loading program for the IBM-704
by punching self-loading cards on an IBM-024 key punch (the non-printing
model). In those days, pressing CLEAR, and LOAD CARDS on the console caused
the card reader to start and read the 9-left and then the 9-right columns of
the card into memory locations 0 and 1. It then gave control to location 0.
So those first two instructions had to be a program that read the rest of
that card in, and that card had to be enough of a loader to read the rest of
the deck. These days, on PCs anyway, the BIOS takes care of stuff like that,
but not in 1956.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:20:01 up 18 days, 18:09, 3 users, load average: 4.14, 4.35, 4.43
The Natural Philosopher
I couldn't be bothered with computers until micros came out.
Too much hassle for very limited results..
Jean-David Beyer
> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>> Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
>>> Sidney Lambe schrieb:
>>>
>>>> Their chief tools of conquest are windows-clone user interfaces like
>>>> KDE. These obscure the Linux operating system and you end up learning
>>>> KDE, not Linux, and they have you by the balls.
>>> X-Windows existed long before Microsoft Windows or Linux.
"X originated at MIT in 1984. The current protocol version, X11, appeared in
September 1987." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System . And
actually, W came out before that.
I forget when Microsoft Windows came out. I tried using an early version of
it in about 1993, but it was so big and slow that it was next to useless.
The first version I managed to use was Windows 95 in mid 1996. But it
crashed so much that it drove me crazy and I switched to Red Hat Linux 5.0
in mid 1998, IIRC.
>>>
>>>> Don't let them do this to you. Learn the basics of how Linux works and
>>>> the shell, the command line. It isn't hard and it is very interesting.
>>> And learn writing machine code, do not use those newish IDE's and
>>> compilers and mice.
>>>
>> Aww Gee! I remember doing that with NYAP1 until the first FORTRAN
>> compiler came out. Then the Fortran Monitor System came out so you could
>> combine SAP (symbolic assembly program) and FORTRAN source together,
>> though you had to be careful because COMMON areas were addressed
>> differently. O even wrote an operating system in assembler for the
>> Honeywell DDP-224.
>>
>> In fact, before any of that, I wrote a self-loading program for the
>> IBM-704 by punching self-loading cards on an IBM-024 key punch (the
>> non-printing model). In those days, pressing CLEAR, and LOAD CARDS on
>> the console caused the card reader to start and read the 9-left and then
>> the 9-right columns of the card into memory locations 0 and 1. It then
>> gave control to location 0. So those first two instructions had to be a
>> program that read the rest of that card in, and that card had to be
>> enough of a loader to read the rest of the deck. These days, on PCs
>> anyway, the BIOS takes care of stuff like that, but not in 1956.
>>
> Gosh. You go further back than I do!
>
> I couldn't be bothered with computers until micros came out.
>
> Too much hassle for very limited results..
>
You would be amazed at what you could do with a machine with 36-bit words
and a clock speed of about 0.5 Megaherz (actually, the clock was a lot
faster than that, but it could take quite a few clock cycles to do an
instruction). And a 32768-word memory.
Giampiero Rossoni did satellite orbit calculations on an IBM 704 when
Sputnik went up.
Apollo Guidance Computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
I believe the computers on the ground at Johnson Space Center were IBM
7090s, but I am not sure of that.
These days, more memory than that used in the early days is wasted. I had a
rule of thumb: the OS kernel could not take more than 25% of the RAM. If it
took less, it did not do enough for the programmers. If it took more, there
was not enough left for the programmers.
I know the Bell Labs OS for the 704, ..., 7094 systems took about 8K words
of RAM. The one I wrote for the DDP-224 fit into 4K words of RAM because we
could afford only 16384 words of ram for that machine.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:30:01 up 18 days, 18:19, 3 users, load average: 4.25, 4.78, 4.68
Nico Kadel-Garcia
> Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Check "Sidneys" posting history, note the lack of any political or
> > technical insight, maybe even note how he discusses "Linux" and
> > "Magick" with the same sorts of attitude and lack of documentation and
> > move on.
>
> In your last post you said to killfile me because I was a 'ranting
> troll'.
>
> Yet YOU haven't killfiled me. YOU haven't moved on. Why is that?
>
> Answer: Because you are a stinking, lying technocrat who wants Linux
> runners to become ignorant appliance operators who are dependent
> on you and others like you.
Nahh, because my killfile threshold is pretty high, and I'm currently
using Google Groups for portability. Killfiles don't integrate into
that services as well as a normall NNTP feed, which my ISP no longer
provides.
> And you want people to killfile me I _do_ make sense.
Wait for it....
> Here are some valuable links for people who want to break free
> of the KDE/Gnome appliance operator/couch potato Windows-clone
> interfaces.
Hey, Wait for it.....
> To break free of lying assholes like this "Nico" character.
>
> General:
Let's see. Oh, yes, a dozen or so mostly bash references, apparently
none of which "Sidney" wrote and none of which were relevant to the
original poster's USB issues nor to any topic raised here except by
Sidney's odd logic. I'm an old Bash fan, and wish most Perl
programmers would use it to learn how to actually write shell scripts,
but this is ridiculous.
I can go plow through someone's toolbox for fixing washers, dump the
tools into their car engine and say "see, see! I know how to fix cars
too!" Flooding references doesn't demonstrate knowledge, it
demonstrates an ability to select Google links. Flooding irrelevant
references isn't merely foolish, it's wasting other people's time on
purpose.
i.e., trolling.
On the off chance that Sidney is merely foolish rather than a
deliberate troll: I know Richard Stallman, and have for... oh, my god,
27 years. There's plenty of things he dislikes about RedHat and the
other Linux companies, such as their willingness to include non-GPL
software, But his comment about my switching a company from SCO
OpenServer to RedHat Linux was typical: "It's a good start."
It paid my salary for a year, too.
Nico Kadel-Garcia
wrote:
> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
[ punch card story deleted ]
> Gosh. You go further back than I do!
>
> I couldn't be bothered with computers until micros came out.
>
> Too much hassle for very limited results..
He predates me, too. I think us youngsters should be frightened.
The Natural Philosopher
Yup. I did some FOTRAN on tapes around 1967-8
But it took so long to get 'syntax error in line 2354 back' that I gave up.
Because next week it was the same error, different line..
Micros meant you could write, assemble, and get the error back in under
a minute..
It started to make sense then.
I spent a LOT of time on hardware emulators after that..good money for a
while.
Nico Kadel-Garcia
>
>
>
> > Learn the basics of how Linux works
> > and the shell, the command line. It isn't hard and it is very
> > interesting.
>
> I agree.
[ Decent analysis of poor quality URL list deleted ]
And better yet, Sidney might learn how GNU documentation is published.
prompt> man bash
prompt> info bash
There's nothing like reading the original documentation, rather than
someone's analysis. It's like studying the actual universe rather than
some prophet's books about a god's plans: you get to see what the
creators really meant first-hand.
Jean-David Beyer
Why? I do not bite.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 08:35:01 up 18 days, 19:24, 3 users, load average: 4.78, 5.09, 4.81
Florian Diesch
> Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe schrieb:
>>
>>> Their chief tools of conquest are windows-clone user interfaces like
>>> KDE. These obscure the Linux operating system and you end up learning
>>> KDE, not Linux, and they have you by the balls.
>>
>> X-Windows existed long before Microsoft Windows or Linux.
It's called "X" or "X Window System", not "X-Windows".
> Did it?
>
> I cant remember it predating windows 1.0.
First release of X was in 1984, Windows 1.0 was released in 1985.
Florian
--
<http://www.florian-diesch.de/>
Jean-David Beyer
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 7:32 am, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>> [ punch card story deleted ]
>>
>>> Gosh. You go further back than I do!
>>>
>>> I couldn't be bothered with computers until micros came out.
>>>
>>> Too much hassle for very limited results..
>> He predates me, too. I think us youngsters should be frightened.
>
> Yup. I did some FOTRAN on tapes around 1967-8
On tapes? When I was using FORTRAN (in its various incarnations), we used
punched cards that were copied onto tapes by the comp center, and then run
as batch jobs. Turnaround was a couple of hours. We were more careful in
those days, checking the programs pretty carefully before submitting them to
be punched. And we then corrected all the errors we could from any
compilation failures. You are very careful when you are paying $600/hour for
machine time.
>
> But it took so long to get 'syntax error in line 2354 back' that I gave up.
>
> Because next week it was the same error, different line..
>
> Micros meant you could write, assemble, and get the error back in under
> a minute..
You could do that by 1970 with minicomputers such as DEC's PDP-11 running
UNIX Operating System. And that may not have been the first. People were
running BASIC on dial-up GE-235 computers in about 1965 using ASR-33
Teletype terminals (10 characters per second -- UGH).
>
> It started to make sense then.
>
> I spent a LOT of time on hardware emulators after that..good money for a
> while.
That reminds me of running Honeywell's FORTRAN compiler on the DDP-224. When
I programmed a FFT program, it crashed the OS. Now it was pretty easy to
crash my OS because there was no memory management hardware, so there was no
way to stop a user overwriting the system. But this was a compiler that ran
for years, so why crash now?
I knew what the symptom was: the interrupt vectors were stored in low memory
and they were getting overwritten. And it had to be the compiler doing it.
But where?
I programmed a simulation of a computer exactly like the one I was running
on but with memory management. It ran quite fast for the interpreter that it
was. I.e., 10x to 20x slower than the hardware. I then had the compiler
compile the troublesome program. So the simulated memory management unit
stopped it just as it was about to overwrite the interrupt vectors.
It sas a STO[re] instruction whose address was a low number, but whoever
wrote the compiler forgot to specify the index register that pointed to the
memory area where the stuff related to EQUIVALENCE statements was to be
stored, so it zapped low memory instead. It seems that no one had previously
used interrupts on these machines even though it did not make sense not to
use them. Even though I got one of the last of them made, I seem to have
been first to use the data channels under interrupt control: the others just
setup the channels and did a busy loop waiting for the IO to complete.
Bizarre, but true.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
John Hasler
> X-Windows existed long before Microsoft Windows or Linux.
The Natural Philosopher writes:
> Did it?
Yes.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
The Natural Philosopher
Ah.. Neither was usable in my world, so both got ignored..
>
> Florian
Keith Keller
>
> And better yet, Sidney might learn how GNU documentation is published.
>
> prompt> man bash
> prompt> info bash
>
> There's nothing like reading the original documentation, rather than
> someone's analysis.
Well, to be fair (though not to ''Sidney''), man bash is a bit
unreadable unless you already know what's in there and are looking for a
particular point. If you're a n00b looking how to get started with
bash, man bash is a poor starting point. If you're just looking to
learn what one can do with a shell, a general linux/UNIX primer is
probably sufficient; if you're looking to write relatively complex shell
scripts a book (like the one Jean-David suggested) will be more helpful
than man bash.
(As an aside, I don't have much experience with texinfo, but if you
already know how to use it, it's probably a great way to learn bash,
since you can easily skip the parts you don't need right now. But a
typical linux neophyte won't know his way around info any more than he
would know bash.)
It *is* true that in general the man page is a good starting point for
many linux programs--thanks for pointing that out. bash is not a great
example simply because it can do so much, and the man page needs to
document that, but it's TMI for many people.
Sidney Lambe
[juvenile trolling deleted]
Nico here is one the technocrats who wants you to remain
ignorant of how Linux works so that you will be dependent
on him and others like him.
So they encourage the use of Windows-clone interfaces like
KDE and tell you, without ever saying it outright, that you
are too stupid to learn how to run Linux from the commandline.
They lie. Take some time to do a little studying and playing
with the commandline and you can break free of these corporate
pawns.
I run the X-Window system and can use any application that anyone
running KDE can, but I don't have KDE or anything like it.
General:
http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html
http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.
html
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
Bash Specific:
Johnny Rebel
Oh, so you have no problems using the KDE libraries then? I find that
surprising especially giving your rant about only using the CLI. Now
you are contradicting yourself.
JR.
Jean-David Beyer
>
> It *is* true that in general the man page is a good starting point for
> many linux programs--thanks for pointing that out. bash is not a great
> example simply because it can do so much, and the man page needs to
> document that, but it's TMI for many people.
>
were printed on paper and spiral bound (IIRC), I found them useless except
for the simplest commands. I could never get the find(1) command to work
using the manual. I had mine in a loose leaf notebook and I got so
frustrated with the find command that I threw the notebook onto the floor,
demolishing the notebook and scattering the entire UNIX manual all over the
floor. (That description of the find command has been improved over the
years: I can understand it now. And of course these days, the locate(1)
command does some of the easier things much much faster than the find
command can do.)
I found out most of this from asking the people who already knew how to use
it how to do some of the more difficult commands. Luckily, those who wrote
those programs were just a phone call away, and some people were just down
the hall.
I find that man pages are useful to remind you how to use a command that you
already know, but forgot the details, but they are definitely not a tutorial.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 17:25:01 up 19 days, 4:14, 3 users, load average: 4.18, 4.25, 4.25
Keith Keller
On 2009-07-07, Johnny Rebel <re...@none.com> wrote:
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Oh, so you have no problems using the KDE libraries then? I find that
> surprising especially giving your rant about only using the CLI. Now
> you are contradicting yourself.
He is a *troll*! All he wants is for you to keep engaging him. If you
stop responding (or at least stop trying to find any sense in his posts)
perhaps he'll go away. (It is, sadly, still important to correct any
blatant misinformation he posts, so as not to mislead new readers who
may be unaware that he is a troll. This is why he posts so much
misinformation couched as verified fact.)
The Natural Philosopher
> Keith Keller wrote:
>>
>> It *is* true that in general the man page is a good starting point for
>> many linux programs--thanks for pointing that out. bash is not a
>> great example simply because it can do so much, and the man page needs
>> to document that, but it's TMI for many people.
>>
> When I was learning UNIX in the early 1970s, I found the manual pages
> (that were printed on paper and spiral bound (IIRC), I found them
> useless except for the simplest commands. I could never get the find(1)
> command to work using the manual. I had mine in a loose leaf notebook
> and I got so frustrated with the find command that I threw the notebook
> onto the floor, demolishing the notebook and scattering the entire UNIX
> manual all over the floor. (That description of the find command has
> been improved over the years: I can understand it now. And of course
> these days, the locate(1) command does some of the easier things much
> much faster than the find command can do.)
>
> I found out most of this from asking the people who already knew how to
> use it how to do some of the more difficult commands. Luckily, those who
> wrote those programs were just a phone call away, and some people were
> just down the hall.
>
> I find that man pages are useful to remind you how to use a command that
> you already know, but forgot the details, but they are definitely not a
> tutorial.
>
I think it was the move from SUNOS 4 to Solaris that completely broke
our printers.
man lpadmin told you want the switches were, but not what you really
wanted to tell them to do.
I went into town and hot the universities main bookshop, and, buried in
the shelves was 'Solaris system administration'.
In the last paragraph of chapeter X on page 573 or something was the one
line that was the answer. its started with lpadmin, and went over two
further lines.
I bought the book, and considered that £50 was a cheapish price to pay
to solve a problem that threatened to make us a truly paperless company
forever.
These days its all cups innit?
Keith Keller
>
> These days its all cups innit?
I use LPRng. :) I hate that CUPS requires a running daemon even to be
able to print to some other remote printer. With LPRng you just need
lpr -P...@remote.printer file
with no lpd required.
Johnny Rebel
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.setup.]
>
> On 2009-07-07, Johnny Rebel <re...@none.com> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Oh, so you have no problems using the KDE libraries then? I find that
>> surprising especially giving your rant about only using the CLI. Now
>> you are contradicting yourself.
>
> He is a *troll*! All he wants is for you to keep engaging him. If you
> stop responding (or at least stop trying to find any sense in his posts)
> perhaps he'll go away. (It is, sadly, still important to correct any
> blatant misinformation he posts, so as not to mislead new readers who
> may be unaware that he is a troll. This is why he posts so much
> misinformation couched as verified fact.)
>
> --keith
>
Oh, of course he is for sure! I have some kind of morbid interest in
engaging these types - yes, my bad I know.
do...@01.usenet.us.com
> I can't think of a way to do a floppy-based or USB-based installation
> for RHEL. You could probably bootstrap into RHEL by starting with
> another distro that does support floppies, if you have a floppy drive
> and lots of floppy disks. Install that distro first, then use the
> method David mentions to boot to the RHEL iso.
RHEL 5 supports the use of the /images/bootdisk.img, copied to a bootable
USB flash drive. Instructions in the RHEL install guide.
"To boot using a USB pen drive, use the dd command to copy the diskboot.img
image file from the /images/ directory on CD-ROM 1. For example:
dd if=diskboot.img of=/dev/sda
"
Other sources on the web explain how to perform the copy if you don't
already have dd.
--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
Sidney Lambe
[delete more garbage]
See what happens when you criticize the Windowsization of Linux.
The technocrats freak because they want Linux runners to be
dependent on them and the couch potatoes freak because they
want Linux to be an appliance like Windows.
Of course, most of the participants here are just your ordinary
usenet losers whose life consists of mocking and degrading people
while they hide behind fake names (usually more than one of them).
KDE and the like are "gifts", multi-million dollar "gifts", from
a group of corporations who are trying to take Linux away from
amateurs and turn it into a clone of Windows. Corporations do
not spend this kind of money unless they plan on making it
back with a big profit thrown in.
KDE is just a bunch of applications wrapped up in a pretty
package that supposedly makes it possible for the average
ignorant couch-potato to run Linux. But only with dedicated
technical support.
And it makes your Linux OS so very complicated, all of itself,
that it naturally discourages anyone from trying to learn Linux.
This is by design.
I don't run anything like KDE. Like tens of thousands of
real Linux runners, I run Linux from the commandline. KDE
is more than 10X the size of my entire OS yet I can do
anything it can do. No, I am not some kind of guru. Just
a guy who spends a little time on most days reading about
Linux and trying out what I learn on my computer.
KDE users spend that time earning money to pay for the
privelege of holding on the telephone for technical
support.
Allen Kistler
Makes sense. I think I remember diskboot.img being for a floppy long,
long ago. Then it became too big to fit on a floppy.
I also found some fedora-test-list articles that talked about having to
copy the image to the first partition on the USB stick if the machine
didn't support booting to a USB floppy image (varies machine BIOS to
machine BIOS).
The OP had Windows, so he'll have to find a way to write the image to
USB via something in Windows.
In any case, the OP has something else to try now.
Nico Kadel-Garcia
> In alt.os.linux.redhat Allen Kistler <ackist...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>
> > I can't think of a way to do a floppy-based or USB-based installation
> > for RHEL. You could probably bootstrap into RHEL by starting with
> > another distro that does support floppies, if you have a floppy drive
> > and lots of floppy disks. Install that distro first, then use the
> > method David mentions to boot to the RHEL iso.
>
> RHEL 5 supports the use of the /images/bootdisk.img, copied to a bootable
> USB flash drive. Instructions in the RHEL install guide.
Yeah, I'm afraid that the kernel has gotten so burdened with funky
utilities required by various hardware, and the bare installation
utilities have grown so much, that one would be very, very hard
pressed indeed to stuff it in a floppy image. I used to do that: it
was a pain in the neck, especially because the 'initrd.img' was
actually an already gzip compressed file: it should have been named
'initrd.igz'.
> "To boot using a USB pen drive, use the dd command to copy the diskboot.img
> image file from the /images/ directory on CD-ROM 1. For example:
> dd if=diskboot.img of=/dev/sda
> "
>
> Other sources on the web explain how to perform the copy if you don't
> already have dd.
Have you actually tried this? I've found booting from pen drives
problematic over the last 6 years or so, and hope it has improved.
Nico Kadel-Garcia
> d...@01.usenet.us.com wrote:
Maybe the old 'rawrite' utility? I used to use it for floppies: will
it work for USB devices?
Jean-David Beyer
> do...@01.usenet.us.com wrote:
>> In alt.os.linux.redhat Allen Kistler <acki...@oohay.moc> wrote:
>>> I can't think of a way to do a floppy-based or USB-based installation
>>> for RHEL. You could probably bootstrap into RHEL by starting with
>>> another distro that does support floppies, if you have a floppy drive
>>> and lots of floppy disks. Install that distro first, then use the
>>> method David mentions to boot to the RHEL iso.
>> RHEL 5 supports the use of the /images/bootdisk.img, copied to a bootable
>> USB flash drive. Instructions in the RHEL install guide.
>>
> long ago. Then it became too big to fit on a floppy.
I remember making those boot floppies a long time ago. Then they would not
fit on a floppy anymore, so I would burn them to a CD-ROM. I suppose I could
still do that. But I have not done that since 2007 sometime. I have never
been unable to boot either of my systems, and I suppose I could boot from
the install disk for RHEL5 if I needed to.
I assume if I could not boot, it would be due to hardware problems. I guess
I would just reinstall and restore from backup.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 09:55:01 up 19 days, 20:44, 3 users, load average: 4.06, 4.25, 4.47
Doug Freyburger
>
> I find that man pages are useful to remind you how to use a command that you
> already know, but forgot the details, but they are definitely not a tutorial.
That's a design goal of the original UNIX and all UNIX-like
systems following it. Really.
There are books like Software Tools that teach tool smithing,
books on how network stacks work and why the network
models are layered, books on how hardware and kernels
work, and so on. These books form the foundation on which
to build skills.
There are (or there are supposed to be) tutorial introductions
that teach you WHAT to do. Teach tutorial introductions
range from Bill Joy's "A tutorial introduction to the vi editor"
through sets of HOWTO web pages now in use for some
many Linux apps.
There are man pages that teach you HOW to do it given
that you already know what to do in general and just need
to know the details as you craft your command lines.
There are cookbooks that show many examples of how
others have used the tool already. Such cookbooks give
very good perspectives on the man pages that neither the
basic tool smithing conceptual books nor the tutorials are
able to give.
Not knowing the above and therefore not knowing in the least
how to use the documentation will put anyone who uses the
man pages at a severe disadvantage. It's very much like an
apprentice carpenter rushing for the power hammer on the
first day without even asking that today's work isn't framing.
There's no way starting with the man page can even work
for larger tasks. It's not what the man pages are FOR and
it's not what they've ever BEEN for.
By the way, I'm currently in my initial phases of using yum -
I know where I want to end up but I don't know enough about
what yum does to make sense of the man pages yet. I still
need the WHAT of yum at this point. I've been using
up2date for a while and it's time for me to move up to yum.
If anyone would point me to good tutorial introductions to
yum I would appreciate the help. An O'Reilly book on it
would be a dream for me at the moment.
I'm also at a earlier stage with IPv6. I've learned basic set
up but because I haven't read one of the basic texts on it
I'm still in a mode of using it like IPv4 just with different
config files. That's not what IPv6 is for and it misses its
improved functionality. Reading a text I'll know what to look
for and that would make a giantic difference. At the moment
with IPv6 I've been in the phase of reading man pages as a
starting point and mucking around a bit to get it running. I
know that's a losing game, and I know why it's a losing game.
It's a losing game for the exact same reason that using the
bash man page in an attempt to learn shell scripting is a
losing game. Using the bash man page for shell scripting
is for someone who already knows scripting in other languages
and just needs the details of the constructs.
Jean-David Beyer
>
> [delete more garbage]
>
> KDE users spend that time earning money to pay for the privelege of
> holding on the telephone for technical support.
>
criticism of my usual way of operating.
I am signed up for technical support from Red Hat, but I do not hold on the
telephone for it. First of all, I rarely need it, and when I do, I use their
internet support. I did this most recently on April 13, 2006, and this was
for a cosmetic problem: If I run my system long enough so that the time
consumed by the init process switches from hours to days, it gets the time
wrong. This takes many months.
The reasons I need so little interactive support are twofold:
1.) Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems are so reliable that little support is
needed.
2.) Often a brief not on one of these UseNet groups will get the answer quickly.
The reason I use RHEL is because I get all the updates automatically, which
beats groping around and selectively downloading updates (and missing many).
Also, the philosophy of the RHEL distributions is to never put enhancements
in them, and to support them for seven years. They do put security fixes and
bug fixes in, but they tend to be rare, especially as time passes.
True, I do not get the latest-and-greatest, but I get a reliable systems
that stay up until I reboot to use a newer kernel.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 12:15:01 up 19 days, 23:04, 3 users, load average: 4.16, 4.15, 4.19
do...@01.usenet.us.com
> > "To boot using a USB pen drive, use the dd command to copy the
> > diskboot.img image file from the /images/ directory on CD-ROM 1. For
> > example: dd if=diskboot.img of=/dev/sda"
> The OP had Windows, so he'll have to find a way to write the image to
> USB via something in Windows.
I used cygwin dd to write it from Windows and tested the boot.
cat /proc/partitions
# before and after USB stick insertion to see what the /dev name is
dd if=diskboot.img of=/dev/sdb
A quick sniff on the web shows several "dd" programs available.
do...@01.usenet.us.com
> Have you actually tried this? I've found booting from pen drives
> problematic over the last 6 years or so, and hope it has improved.
After I did the dd of the RHEL image yesterday, I did boot a desktop from
it. It showed RHEL 5, and looked like the normal install boot prompt from
a booted CD. I didn't try "rescue" or anything. It timed out, and went to
an install GUI, asking for the location of the install media.
Recently, in the quest to recover a damaged WinVista laptop, I tried making
bootable USB LiveCD sticks for Ubuntu and Fedora, using a combination of
dd, various programs found on the web, including some eeprom-update tools
from HP.
Eventually, I used a physical Ubuntu LiveCD (I didn't have a writer
available initially) to make an Ubuntu bootable stick. That worked, and I
recovered all of the docs I needed from the laptop, and loaded Ubuntu on
it, instead of buying the WindowsVista media for a reload...
From Windows, the Ubuntu-suggested UNetbootin did not work for me, but the
Fedora liveusb-creator.exe worked, and has the added benefit of leaving me
with a usable USB flash for normal storage.
Aragorn
wrote in /comp.os.linux.setup:/
> See what happens when you criticize the Windowsization of Linux.
First of all I would like to say that I have not been following the
entire debate into detail because of health issues, and although the
word "troll" has come up a few times in this part of the thread, I have
now chosen to - even if only for a short while - put in my two cents
worth, with respect to both parties, as I see valid points in both of
them.
Sidney, I can feel your frustration over the "Windowsization" of
GNU/Linux, and to a large degree, I even share it. However, I think
you are being so frustrated about it that you are generalizing and
polarizing your views to extents beyond reality. Allow me to
explain...
There is indeed a tendency to make GNU/Linux more Windows-like, but I do
not believe that this tendency is as fierce as you yourself are
describing it, and what bothers me the most in this is that this
tendency has arisen from the demands of GNU/Linux newbies who of course
all come from the Windows world.
I myself have once been a newbie too, albeit that I was never that
Windows-conditioned as I already knew of other operating systems long
before I had a computer of my own. I only used MS-DOS 5.0 and Windows
3.x for about five or six months on my own first computer as it came
with those pre-installed and I was awaiting the commercial and stable
release of OS/2 2.x, which I have subsequently used for over five
years. On my next machine, I have used Windows NT 4.0 Workstation for
two years, but back then I was not all that seriously into computers
yet as I have become since I installed GNU/Linux for the first time,
late 1999. I have never used anything other than GNU/Linux since, and
wouldn't want to if my life depended on it. (In fact, I think I'd
rather have my life depend on GNU/Linux than on any other operating
system. ;-))
Now, I was a newbie too back then, albeit with some minor UNIX knowledge
and free from the Windows-isms like "folders" and /sea-drives./ I have
always found the UNIX methodology far more logical and transparent.
But as a newbie, KDE - back then still at version 1.1.1 - was a very
welcome environment as it facilitated getting acquainted with all
aspects of the operating system. I did however check out many of
the /man/ and /info/ pages from the start, read the /HowTos/ and of
course, prior to even installing the operating system, the printed
manual - it was a shrinkwrapped retail version of Linux Mandrake 6.0
Powerpack, which was back then basically a copy of RedHat with KDE
added, because RedHat refused to supply KDE due to the fact that KDE
1.x was built using non-freely licensed Qt libraries. Another
difference was that Mandrake 6.0 came with kernel 2.2.9, whereas RedHat
still carried 2.2.5.
I am a big fan of KDE, and more specifically KDE 3.x. I find KDE 4.x to
be promising, yet at the same time daunting because it's obviously
still very experimental and so far I haven't heard of any distro that
has managed to iron out the problems KDE 4.x poses. KDE 3.5.10 on the
other hand, although no longer maintained by the KDE developers
themselves, is stable and fully functional.
I also don't make it look like Windows - and I hate that distro vendors
do that - because I don't find the Windows GUI all that intuitive. On
my system, it looks a bit like the GUI of a MacIntosh, but not with the
intent of duplicating it. I have not set it up to look like anything
that exists, but rather like something that I can use and that feels
good for myself, not for everyone else. But even in its default look &
feel, I don't consider KDE 3.x to be a Windows clone, especially not if
you consider LXDE (which *does* look like Windows XP) or the Vista-look
of KDE 4.x - if I ever do switch to using KDE 4.x, then that will be
the first thing I change - or even the perversions of whatever UNIX
desktop environment is used by Linspire and the likes and have been
completely converted to the look & feel of Windows, desktop wallpaper
included.
So I do use KDE, and I like it. But don't let that statement fool you,
because I keep a terminal window open at all time and launch additional
terminal emulators when needed, and I do most of the stuff from the
commandline. It's just that when handling graphical objects a lot, it
is easier if you get to see a preview, and graphical manipulation of
photos et al does require running X11 anyway, and these days, diskspace
and RAM are cheap, so there's no reason for me to run a CLI-only system
- not for a workstation anyway. But I copy, move, delete, create and
otherwise manipulate files from the commandline. My filemanager only
serves so as to get a clear overview of the thumbnails. Being autistic
however, I really do like the aesthetics of (my customized version of)
KDE 3.x.
However, there is another angle to the Windows-ism story, in which you
are partly right, i.e. commercial distributions need an income, and
that income comes from selling a distribution of GNU/Linux in a
computer market segment that is for most part occupied by Windows. And
Microsoft has gone to great lengths at hiding what a computer really is
and what it does from its users, presenting them with their own
"Microsoft logic", in which thinking for yourself is strongly
discouraged. As such, the new batch of IT professionals gets trained
on using Microsoft stuff only, and as such, a new generation of idiots
is produced.
So now there are the computer illiterates who only know Windows - and
have never even heard of anything other than Windows because of
Microsoft's monopolizing tactics of pushing a license of Windows with
every new consumergrade computer from a big name brand - and you've got
the Windiots who call themselves IT specialists but only know how to
set up Microsoft software for use by the illiterates. Treat your
customers like idiots and idiots are the customers you'll attract - the
old adage still stands. And that is why distromakers tend to cater to
their Windiot clients.
> The technocrats freak because they want Linux runners to be
> dependent on them [...
On this I do not agree. I don't think that the technocrats would want
users to be dependent of them at all. In fact, it is my experience -
at least on Usenet, and I tend to follow this tendency myself when
giving advice - that the more technically experienced among us are
trying to teach the newbie how to think for themselves and "RTFM",
instead of thinking that GNU/Linux must behave like Windows.
By the same token, I always advice everyone to ditch the entire HAL
stuff with the automounting features and stick to a traditional and
static */etc/fstab* with manual mounting. Not that I'm conservative,
but I don't like things screwing around with system data that should be
kept static and that is known to work, while the automounting stuff
often doesn't.
> ...] and the couch potatoes freak because they want Linux to be an
> appliance like Windows.
On *that* I agree.
> Of course, most of the participants here are just your ordinary
> usenet losers whose life consists of mocking and degrading people
> while they hide behind fake names (usually more than one of them).
The use of pseudonyms is not such a bad idea, provided that one stays
consistent and uses the same pseudonym continuously, or at the very
least, when adopting another one, make an announcement to that regard.
Shifting pseudonyms is rather a habit of trolls or spammers. I use a
pseudonym but I have used this one for many years already. I used to
have another one long before this one, but those who know me know that
this other "person" was me, and why I have chosen a different name -
among other things, I was being stalked by people who knew my pseudonym
and what newsgroup groups I was posting in.
> KDE and the like are "gifts", multi-million dollar "gifts", from
> a group of corporations who are trying to take Linux away from
> amateurs and turn it into a clone of Windows.
I disagree on that. KDE was an effort to build a contemporary graphical
desktop environment for all kinds of UNIX systems - not just GNU/Linux
- and its name is a parody on CDE, the Common Desktop Environment that
shipped with most commercial UNIX implementations. KDE contains
elements of CDE, NeXtSTeP, pre-OS-X MacIntoshes, OS/2 and Windows. The
first iterations of KDE even looked far more like Motif and CDE than
like Windows.
Most (but not all) of the original KDE developers did work at Trolltech,
which produces the Qt widgetset, and hence they also used Qt to build
KDE upon. Originally Qt was not released under a free license, and
this is why the FSF and certain "politically correct wannabe"
distributions like RedHat refused to support KDE, despite KDE itself
being released under a free license. Meanwhile Trolltech has - with
the advice from RMS himself - licensed Qt under a GPL-compatible
license, and so that problem has been eliminated.
I will however agree with you that KDE 4.x does look a lot like Vista in
its default trim with the black panel, and that this is probably done
so as to make life easier for the Windows-to-GNU/Linux crossover
newbie. And I will also agree with you that this was absolutely
unnecessary. Yet that does not mean that I will agree that UNIX must
be a CLI-only operating system. But then again, it should also not be
seen as a CLI-only operating system of course, as the operating system
itself is CLI-only and everything else runs on top of that.
For the record, my system is normally up 24/7, but it boots to runlevel
3 anyway, not to a GUI login screen. I consider X11/KDE an extension
to the system, not an essential component to it. By the same token, I
maintain our not-for-profit organization's servers via /ssh/ - my
colleague is a Windows user and prefers /webmin/ - so I do not need any
GUI tools. It's just that having those tools available (for local
administration) might come in handy sometimes. ;-)
> Corporations do not spend this kind of money unless they plan on
> making it back with a big profit thrown in.
That is unfortunately a trend we get to see with lots of commercial
distributions. But there still are non-commercial distributions,
albeit only a small amount. Gentoo for instance, or Debian.
> KDE is just a bunch of applications wrapped up in a pretty
> package that supposedly makes it possible for the average
> ignorant couch-potato to run Linux. But only with dedicated
> technical support.
I don't understand why you are dissing on KDE so much. As far as my own
experience goes, I find KDE to be far more customizable than Gnome, and
far better integrated with its applications than any of the smaller,
standalone desktop environments or window managers.
> And it makes your Linux OS so very complicated, all of itself,
> that it naturally discourages anyone from trying to learn Linux.
> This is by design.
This is mainly the influence of the distromakers themselves, because
they needlessly complicate things for the sake of branding them with
their own logos. For instance, Mandriva - formerly known as
MandrakeSoft - really goes out of its way in providing customized
versions of - among many others - all kinds of KDE-related things
(including /kdm/) and the fact that their customizations are left
largely undocumented seems more like a deliberate decision than a
manifestation of Occam's Razor.
> I don't run anything like KDE. Like tens of thousands of
> real Linux runners, I run Linux from the commandline.
There really is a distinct difference between realizing that the
Windows-insanity is trying to take over the GNU/Linux world out of
their inability to understand anything other than the pre-chewed
Microsoft junk, and radically opposing and hating anything GUI-related.
I can make that distinction, but I'm afraid you yourself cannot.
The tens of thousands of CLI-only users you are referring to are mainly
server admins, and for server administration you do indeed not need a
GUI, nor is it desirable to even install anything GUI-related on a
server. However, persisting at running a CLI-only system also causes
you to bypass *almost* everything multimedia-related, such as the
manipulation of graphics via The Gimp - which is one of my favorite
applications and which, despite the condescending remarks from
Photoshop addicts, is quite professional software.
I repeat...: I do our server maintenance via /ssh./ I do most of the
stuff on my own workstation computer using terminal emulators. But I
do use KDE and I do use KDE-specific applications. And I also do use a
browser - whichever works - to surf to websites that contain graphical
content.
There's nothing wrong with using a GUI, and one should not have to hate
GUIs or refuse to use them just because there is such a thing as
Microsoft Windows. I hate Windows too. Not because I've had any
problems with it - because I haven't used it for long enough nor
intensely enough to actually have had any significant problems with it
- but because of what it is, i.e. a perversion of what a computer is
and what it's supposed to do, and what it's supposed to allow the user
to do with it (as opposed to what Microsoft allows the user to do with
it). And I hate Microsoft as a company because of all their dirty
tactics and their attempts at disrupting the GNU/Linux community
through publicized FUD and Usenet shills/trolls, and because they are
clearly attempting to further dumb down the enduser so as to beat more
money out of their pockets or simply lead them into dependency.
> KDE is more than 10X the size of my entire OS yet I can do
> anything it can do.
And on today's hard disks with hundreds of GB of diskspace, in today's
computers with several GB of RAM, this matters how exactly?
> No, I am not some kind of guru. Just a guy who spends a little time on
> most days reading about Linux and trying out what I learn on my
> computer.
I enjoy learning new stuff about GNU/Linux (or UNIX in general) as well,
but I am not spending my entire days trying to learn something new
about it unless it is something of particular interest to me - e.g.
virtualization with Xen (and no, not with Windows as guests). I have
many fields of interest that I do research about, but I am not going to
go out of my way to become a real guru and/or run a system without a
GUI.
I will however agree that it is better to teach the newbie that
GNU/Linux (or any UNIX for that matter) is an entirely different
operating system from Windows and that they should abandon all they
know about Windows or all they were used to on Windows before
endeavoring into GNU/Linux.
It *is* a different operating system, but I do not buy into the "steep
learning curve" excuse. Someone who's never seen a computer in his
life and who gets to be confronted with Windows for the first time will
have an equally steep learning curve to overcome. The steepness of the
GNU/Linux learning curve is only an imaginary construct used as an
excuse by Windows addicts to adhere to their dumbed-down Windows-isms
and insist that GNU/Linux become "more userfriendly".
GNU/Linux is not user-unfriendly at all; it simply expects the user to
be a little more computerfriendly instead. It is far more logical and
transparent than any other non-UNIX operating system I've seen so far.
Hell, it even makes far more sense than DOS, and that was a
commandline-only system as well.
> KDE users spend that time earning money to pay for the privelege of
> holding on the telephone for technical support.
You only get to get technical support if you're using a commercial
distribution, even if the operating system is provided free of charge
by its vendors - e.g. the various Ubuntu-spinoffs. I used to buy
commercial distributions because I wanted to do something back to the
community, but I think I've already helped far more users here on
Usenet than that my money to the distromakers has helped the community.
At present I am still running an old Mandrake 10.0 on this machine -
purchased directly from MandrakeSoft (now Mandriva) itself through
their online store, albeit that this did not quite go as smoothly as
they were pretending - but for my other machine I am looking at Gentoo,
and since this machine here is becoming unstable hardwarewise and will
require a replacement, I will probably be installing Slackware on that
one. I don't know yet. I'll see.
One of the reasons why I won't get involved with RedHat/CentOS/Fedora is
that they refuse to let you install the system on anything other
than /ext3/ filesystems - and by now, probably /ext4/ as well - while I
have always preferred /XFS/ for large systems and /reiserfs/ on smaller
ones. Reiser's conviction for the murder of his estranged wife a while
ago has of course lessened my sympathy for his filesystem, but
technically /reiserfs/ has not given me any problems yet. /XFS/ does
have a far more elaborate toolset, however.
> General:
>
> [...]
>
> http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
This is definitely recommended reading, and so are many of the other
links you've provided, but I don't see the logic in listing all of
those links in every post you make.
However, if I may make a suggestion, take that list of links and post it
on a website somewhere, and then include a link to that website in your
Usenet signature. Saves on bandwidth and diminishes the spam content
score of your posts. ;-)
<snip>
--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
Aragorn
in /comp.os.linux.setup:/
> [...]
One thing I have forgotten to mention here but which is important for
the newbie is that I've managed to install Mandrake 6.0 - by far not as
"userfriendly" yet as today's distros - without that I had an internet
connection, and without *any* significant problems.
I did not have internet at home yet back then, and as such there was no
such thing as Usenet or helpful websites. I had simply opened the box,
read the printed manual, perused the documentation on the installation
CD as referenced in the manual, followed the on-screen instructions
while installing, and then read the HowTos, and many of the /man/ pages
and /info/ pages. And that was it.
The only I problem I had was when I finally obtained a cable internet
connection in the spring of 2000 - at that time I was already
exclusively running Mandrake 6.0 - because that was an aspect of IT
that I still knew little to nothing about and the ISP (still) only
provide(d) instructions pertaining to either Microsoft Windows or Apple
OS-X; they still do not officially support GNU/Linux. And as such, I
had to scout for the proper driver for the NIC they had installed in my
computer, and set up the proper DNS and DHCP information. Fortunately,
RedHat and its spinoffs - of which Mandrake was one - came
with /netconf,/ an /ncurses-driven/ menu interface (and a sub-program
to the more elaborate /linuxconf/ utility) that facilitated setting
things up.
> I will however agree with you that KDE 4.x does look a lot like Vista
> in its default trim with the black panel, and that this is probably
> done so as to make life easier for the Windows-to-GNU/Linux crossover
> newbie. And I will also agree with you that this was absolutely
> unnecessary. Yet that does not mean that I will agree that UNIX must
> be a CLI-only operating system. But then again, it should also not be
> seen as a CLI-only operating system of course, as the operating system
^^^^^^^^
That should have read as "GUI-only", of course. My bad. ;-)
> [...]
The Natural Philosopher
"Oh, it looks just like windows 95' she said..'without the windows bit'....
I explained that a;ll operating systems looked like that, except with
windows the screen just goes blank, and with a MAC it goes grey with a
spinning wheel.
Aragorn
Philosopher* wrote in /comp.os.linux.setup:/
And Windows 95 was a GUI that ran on top of MS-DOS 7.0 - according to an
acquaintance of mine who had test-driven Windows 95 when it was still
called Windows 4.0 "Chicago", the DOS /ver/ command outputted
"Microsoft MS-DOS 7.00" - and DOS was basically a rebranded QDOS, which
was written by Tim Patterson of Seattle Computer - he later on
transfered to Microsoft after Bill Gates had purchased QDOS from him.
And Patterson's QDOS was in turn a not-too-legal "update" to CP/M by
Gary Kildall of Digital Research - not to be confused with "Digital",
the abbreviation of Digital Equipment Corporation (or DEC). And CP/M
was written specifically for floppy-only single-user and single-tasking
machines, but based upon the look and feel of... UNIX. ;-)
So, if we add it all up, then GNU/Linux and Windows are - at least, from
the purely technical point of view; I won't be discussing licensing
etc. - both descendents of UNIX, with GNU/Linux having the most UNIX
DNA and Windows being an offspring of an offspring of an offspring that
had serious genetic flaws. :p
Well, I don't see Windows running natively - as in "on the bare metal" -
on an IBM S/390 yet. ;-) GNU/Linux on the other hand is quite capable
of that, albeit that it's typically far more practical to run it inside
a virtual machine, even if only because of the limitations of the
amount of logical (processor) partitions in the Linux kernel versus
OS/390 (which I think is now called differently - zOS or something of
the likes? - but anyway).
Keith Keller
On 2009-07-08, Aragorn <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
> First of all I would like to say that I have not been following the
> entire debate into detail because of health issues, and although the
> word "troll" has come up a few times in this part of the thread
The word "troll" has come up because ''Sidney'' aka ''Alan Connor'' aka
''Tom Newton'' is a troll. Hit Google groups for some of his history.
> Shifting pseudonyms is rather a habit of trolls or spammers.
''Sidney'' aka ''Alan Connor'' aka ''Tom Newton'' has shifted at least
twice. (I think there's another nym that I'm forgetting.)
Aragorn
wrote in /comp.os.linux.setup:/
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.setup.]
>
> On 2009-07-08, Aragorn <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>
>> First of all I would like to say that I have not been following the
>> entire debate into detail because of health issues, and although the
>> word "troll" has come up a few times in this part of the thread
>
> The word "troll" has come up because ''Sidney'' aka ''Alan Connor''
> aka ''Tom Newton'' is a troll. Hit Google groups for some of his
> history.
Without being able to confirm whether this is true, I am familiar with
the poster known as "Alan Connor" from my days in /comp.os.linux.misc/
- which I have unsubscribed from due to the incredible amount of spam
to that group - and I must also admit that "Sidney's" rejection of
anything GUI-related made me vaguely suspect that he and Alan are one
and the same person.
However, there are some differences, both in style and in stance, and
Alan has never made it a secret - quite the contrary, even - that his
name was indeed a pseudonym, so it would seem illogical that he would
be objecting to pseudonyms know. Alan has, again, to my knowledge,
never spoken out so verbally against Windows or Windows-isms, and
according to what he said back at the time, he had concocted some
"alternative GUI" which ran from the commandline - I presume that he
must have made abundant use of /ncurses/ and /dialog/ in order to do it
- and he only used X to run explicitly graphical applications like The
Gimp, but at least he did use X11 at some points. Alan also never
posted and reposted a list of links.
On the other hand, I have seen Sidney's name being mentioned before,
whether it was in someone else's posts or whether he was actually
posting something himself. Either way, the name is familiar to me
somehow.
As I understand it, the person known as Alan Connor is said to be
afflicted with a severe degree of paranoid schizophrenia - which is not
something to be made fun of, although people do - and he exhibited a
rather fanatically right-wing political bias. Like I said, I have not
been following this thread completely because of health reasons - I
have been away from my computer for a number of days and upon my
return, the amount of unread messages was quite large, so I was forced
to mark a few threads as read - but from what I had briefly skimmed in
Sidney's earlier posts in this thread, I am also under the impression
that he shows a rightwing political bias.
I don't know... There are similarities, but there are also differences.
Maybe they are one and the same person, maybe they're not. I cannot
tell for certain, but I am willing to contemplate the possibility.
Schizophrenia is an odd condition and can lead someone to become
obsessed with a given subject for a given time, which is one of the
reasons why schizophrenia is often confused with autism, although the
conditions aren't even related in the slightest. Autism is a
neurological difference in which there are literally magnitudes of the
numbers of neurons of a neurotypical brain, while schizophrenia is
basically a chemical imbalance in the brain due to dysfunctional
glands.
So it is possible that Alan has taken it upon himself to launch a
crusade against Windows-isms - and being aware of the phenomenon of
Windows-isms and of the growing cluelessness among the newer
generations of newbies, I can fully understand that - and that he is
doing it under a different pseudonym than before. I haven't "seen" or
spoken to Alan in quite a while, so it's possible.
I strongly disapprove of any namecalling or ad hominem attacks, whether
they are from "Sidney" or from those replying to him. I just felt that
he had a point (to a certain degree) and therefore I felt it justified
that I should throw in my two Eurocents of opinion.
So for Americans, that's about 2.76 Dollarcents worth of opinion at
current exchange rates. If you take that with a spoonful of salt,
it'll cost you even more... :pp
Namaste. :-)
John Hasler
> And Patterson's QDOS was in turn a not-too-legal "update" to CP/M by Gary
> Kildall of Digital Research - not to be confused with "Digital", the
> abbreviation of Digital Equipment Corporation (or DEC).
Or Digital Research of Texas.
> And CP/M was written specifically for floppy-only single-user and
> single-tasking machines, but based upon the look and feel of... UNIX. ;-)
Nope. TOPS-10.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Michael Black
> Aragorn writes:
>> And Patterson's QDOS was in turn a not-too-legal "update" to CP/M by Gary
>> Kildall of Digital Research - not to be confused with "Digital", the
>> abbreviation of Digital Equipment Corporation (or DEC).
>
> Or Digital Research of Texas.
>
That was the real confusion, two companies with the same name.
>> And CP/M was written specifically for floppy-only single-user and
>> single-tasking machines, but based upon the look and feel of... UNIX. ;-)
>
> Nope. TOPS-10.
A quarter century ago, I was running Microware OS-9, which was said
to be "unix-like". it was multi-user, multitasking, and did have some
aspects of Unix, but was more about integrating some aspects of Unix.
I was still using it in 1990, when I bought some scrap boards and put
together an 8086 machine, for the sake of trying it. It was never used
as a main computer, I never used it for any actual work. But it was
the only time I ran a Microsoft operating system (of course, it wasn't
the only time I ran Microsoft software, since my 1981 OSI Superboard II
had MS BASIC in ROM, as did the Radio Shack Color Computer that I bought
in 1984 to run OS-9). I guess it was MS-DOS 6. I remember having real
problems as I switched between the two, since one used "/" and the other
used "\" and I'd lose track after using one for a bit.
Microware OS-9 had more of "Unix" to it than MS-Dos did originally, since
when I started running OS-9 in 1984 (it had been around since at least
1981), there were subdirectories and pipes, which I gather MS-DOS did
not have at the beginning.
Michael
Daffy D.
<ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>
><snip>
If everyone is putting in their 2 cents....
Even though it's a very wel put argument, I think that it just doesn't
matter that much anymore...
I've been using Unix/Linux (AIX/SCO/RH5/Caldera, with or without
internet) waaaay before there was Win95 or worse, and still use Linux
for every main server I have.
While I do administer almost everything bij CLI, sometimes you just
need a GUI (like browsing.. Lynx is just a bit too much of a pain....)
or even Win (development...)
Same goes for the desktop.. If someone wants to learn how an OS works,
fine, let them read up on it, good for them.
But for the masses, they don't care about an OS, they just want to
surf, watch video's, see pictures (nude or not ;)) and do some word
processing. They don't care if it's Win/Linux/Mac as long as it
works... And your application is easy to install, works well on you
OS, and keeps on working well.
I agree, Linux if far better than Win for stability/performance/logic,
but has still too much differences across the distro's to make it easy
to install an app like it is in Win or Mac..
Linux is getting better, but still needs more end-user consistency and
that isn't necessary Win like....
For the new bunch of techie's, the just should try to learn how an OS
really works instead of just knowing where to click MS style. But
basically, that's their problem, when everything goes down the tubes
they'll need a real expert to fix things, (that's where we come in...)
and having to explain why they cannot fix things... and try to learn
then....
Just my opinion...
D.
Unix/Linux/Win admin/developer, RHCE
Sidney Lambe
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:24:54 +0200, Aragorn
><ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>
>><snip>
>
> If everyone is putting in their 2 cents....
>
> Even though it's a very wel put argument, I think that it just doesn't
> matter that much anymore...
>
> I've been using Unix/Linux (AIX/SCO/RH5/Caldera, with or without
> internet) waaaay before there was Win95 or worse, and still use Linux
> for every main server I have.
> While I do administer almost everything bij CLI, sometimes you just
> need a GUI (like browsing.. Lynx is just a bit too much of a pain....)
> or even Win (development...)
I have a GUI. I don't have anything like KDE. I run Linux from
the commandline and can run any application someone using KDE
or the like can, much faster, because my system resources are not being
used up by a massive suite of apps providing nothing but eye-candy
and the illusion of 'user-friendliness'. My OS is much more stable
more secure, too. Complexity leads to instability and insecurity.
It's also easier to maintain and modify.
> Same goes for the desktop.. If someone wants to learn how an OS works,
> fine, let them read up on it, good for them.
> But for the masses, they don't care about an OS, they just want to
> surf, watch video's, see pictures (nude or not ;)) and do some word
> processing.
It takes as long to learn an artificial interface like KDE as it does
to learn the commandline, the basics of the shell and how the Linux
OS works.
And people who only know KDE or the like are dependent on people who
know the shell and the OS.
You are offering the same erroneous arguments that have been stated
already on this thread in a dozen different guises.
Technocratic propaganda.
General:
http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html
http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.html
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ
http://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/index.html
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1052574.html
kind of odd "shell ninja" but lots of good info:
http://www.slideshare.net/brian_dailey/nyphp-march-2009-presentation
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/classes/s243/bash.html
http://www.learnaboutlinux.net/blog/41-programming/50-bash-basics-1
[delete]
Sid
Daffy D.
<sidne...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Daffy D <x66...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:24:54 +0200, Aragorn
>><ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>
>
>I have a GUI. I don't have anything like KDE. I run Linux from
>the commandline and can run any application someone using KDE
>or the like can, much faster, because my system resources are not being
>used up by a massive suite of apps providing nothing but eye-candy
>and the illusion of 'user-friendliness'. My OS is much more stable
>more secure, too. Complexity leads to instability and insecurity.
>
>It's also easier to maintain and modify.
Modifying any working thing also leads to insecurity
>
>> Same goes for the desktop.. If someone wants to learn how an OS works,
>> fine, let them read up on it, good for them.
>> But for the masses, they don't care about an OS, they just want to
>> surf, watch video's, see pictures (nude or not ;)) and do some word
>> processing.
>
>It takes as long to learn an artificial interface like KDE as it does
>to learn the commandline, the basics of the shell and how the Linux
>OS works.
CLI is also an artificial interface, a computer is artificial
>
>And people who only know KDE or the like are dependent on people who
>know the shell and the OS.
>
>You are offering the same erroneous arguments that have been stated
>already on this thread in a dozen different guises.
Analogy: You just ride your car of do you always strip away everything
that is not necesary to make it drive? Or fix everything that breaks
or let an "expert" fix it?
>
>Technocratic propaganda.
Neanderthale view of life
>
>General:
>
>http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
>http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html
>http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
>http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.html
>http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
>http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
>http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
>http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
>http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
>http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
>http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ
>http://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/index.html
>http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
>http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1052574.html
>kind of odd "shell ninja" but lots of good info:
>http://www.slideshare.net/brian_dailey/nyphp-march-2009-presentation
>http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/classes/s243/bash.html
>http://www.learnaboutlinux.net/blog/41-programming/50-bash-basics-1
>
>
>[delete]
>
>Sid
Ans please, skip the ad's
D.
Jean-David Beyer
> I have a GUI.
Does your GUI run on top of the X Window System? Or do you provide something
equivalent to it to support your GUI? On my system, X is using about 36
MBytes of virtual memory; actually, most of that is paged out and it is
really using only about 7.5 meg of RAM. Some people might consider that
massive. On my machine, though, that is only about 0.2% of the virtual memory.
> I don't have anything like KDE. I run Linux from
> the commandline and can run any application someone using KDE
> or the like can, much faster, because my system resources are not being
> used up by a massive suite of apps providing nothing but eye-candy
> and the illusion of 'user-friendliness'. My OS is much more stable
> more secure, too. Complexity leads to instability and insecurity.
GNOME and all the little eye candy (panel, icons, etc., are only taking 2.7%
of my virtual address space.
>
> It's also easier to maintain and modify.
I have never even felt the need to maintain or modify GNOME and its related
programs.
>
> It takes as long to learn an artificial interface like KDE as it does
> to learn the commandline, the basics of the shell and how the Linux
> OS works.
I had to learn the UNIX OS without any GUI stuff, because there was none in
the early 1970s. I did not actively use a GUI until I got my first PC in
1996 that hat Windows 95 on it. The basics of that were kind-of trivial to
learn, and I never managed to learn much of the rest. I abandoned that
because of several factors:
1.) It crashed too much both Microsoft applications (such as the printer
spooler) and about three blue screens of death per week on a machine I
always turned off when I did not use it.
2.) Even though I had been working with relational databases since the mid
1970s, I could not get Microsoft Access to accept the definition of a
relatively simple database, it complaining about invalid relationships among
tables. All they were were foreign keys to one of the tables from most of
the others.
3.) Microsoft's program suites conflicted with one another. Microsoft Office
needed one set of libraries. Microsoft's C++ development suite (I forget
what it was called) required another set. But some of them overlapped, and
each required different versions, so I had to install whichever suite I
wanted to use each time I wanted to use it. This was seriously unsatisfactory.
4.) It was just not practical to develop C++ programs in that environment
because they provided the basic main program that you could not even see.
All you did was write subroutines to that basic main program. Since the main
program was so heavily oriented to a single user getting his input from a
mouse and keyboard, and getting his output on the monitor, it was next to
impossible to write any other type of program. For a multi-user suite of
programs, each waiting for input on a message queue as well as waiting for
input on the terminal, you could get deadlocks all the time. A different
program model was required that is trivial to write in C or C++, but since
you could not get at the Microsoft main program, you could not do anything
about this.
So I dropped all that and switched to Red Hat Linux 5. That kind of setup,
even with its FVWM desktop that I did not like at all, took very little time
to learn.Well under a month to get pretty proficient at it. I did like their
later desktops better, especially Enlightenment. The windowing stuff did
crash once in a while, but by the time Red Hat got up to Red Hat Linux 7.3,
I never had a crash that was not a hardware problem since then.
>
> And people who only know KDE or the like are dependent on people who
> know the shell and the OS.
There are lots of shells. I like bash, but I have used others in the past.
Some are a little better than others, but the differences are minimal to me.
While I do not really know KDE, it seems to me that the best of worlds is to
know both a shell and a GUI-desktop system and use each for what it is best
suited for. I _never_ use the GUI that comes with my backup system, for
example: too confusing. And some shell scripts go "infinitely" faster than
pointing and clicking.
>
> You are offering the same erroneous arguments that have been stated
> already on this thread in a dozen different guises.
>
It seems to me that all interfaces are actually artificial, even /bin/sh (if
it is still around -- anyway, the one Ken Thompson originally provided in
the late 1960s or very early 1970s). If it is GUI desktops you object to,
have you considered using emacs as your GUI? It can do windowing and stuff.
I tried it a few times when I was learning emacs and it works. But I do not
care for it all that much as a desktop, but it is the editor I mostly use.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:15:01 up 20 days, 18:04, 3 users, load average: 4.25, 4.24, 4.13
Doug Freyburger
> Aragorn writes:
>
> > And CP/M was written specifically for floppy-only single-user and
> > single-tasking machines, but based upon the look and feel of... UNIX. ;-)
>
> Nope. TOPS-10.
Indirectly. CP/M was Digital RT-11 light. RT-11 was
Digital TOPS-10 light. I still have a souvenir teeshirt
with a logo "RT-11 For a Good Real Time" in my
memorabilia collection. RT-11 was the first system
I used at a user level outside of schools.
The last time I saw any CP/M software it was to run
under an emulator named MyZ80.
Early versions of DOS looked a lot like they tried to
add to CP/M to move it further towards RT-11, or maybe
a single user view of RSX-11M.
UNIX and UNIX-like systems have a parallel lineage
partially inspired by Multics (which I never used unlike
all of the ones I mentioned above) yet versions much
earlier than I ever touched seemed rather closer to
an RT-11 with those drive letters switched to a tree
of unified. The earliest UNIX I used was a lot later
than those PDP-8 systems - I posted to net.lang.c
as ihnp4!escher!doug and escher was a BSD 4.2 VAX
in the early 1980s.
I don't know how much lineage applies to learning
Linux. I think it's best to start with texts like "The UNIX
Philosophy" to have a framework then texts like
"Software Tools" to learn how to acquire skills then
texts by Frisch or others that start filling in the framework
and skills with common usages. My bias is I think
learning Linux is about learning to be a SysAdmin able
to handle large production data centers so I want new
colleagues with very broad baseline skills and thought
processes. Learning Linux as a desktop user system
it's not worth that sort of early learning curve time.
Is Linux "for" attacking the desktop market? Shrug.
Over the year I've learned that a sprinter can beat a
marthoner in a short race but not in a long one. I was
administering VAX VMS in my first job that included
SysAdmin when it sprinted past BSD and SysV. I was
administering BSD 4.3 variants like Xinu and moving
towards Ultrix and SunOS when the marathon effect of
so many grad students world wide eventually pushed
UNIX past VMS. As a result of that experience I figure
it's a matter of time before today's Microsoft follows the
same pattern as 1985's Digital and loses market share.
But unlike many I do not have religious fervor against
Microsoft. Whatever data center clients want to run
Windows and SQL-Server 7 have billable hours just like
my clients that run many flavors of UNIX and UNIX-like
systems with Oracle or MySQL or whatever.
The Natural Philosopher
> But unlike many I do not have religious fervor against
> Microsoft. Whatever data center clients want to run
> Windows and SQL-Server 7 have billable hours just like
> my clients that run many flavors of UNIX and UNIX-like
> systems with Oracle or MySQL or whatever.
I am not sure if I have a religious fervour, just years of battling
against Microsoft inconsistencies bugs, back door interrupts and lord
knows what else.
Let alone viruses..
John Hasler
> UNIX and UNIX-like systems have a parallel lineage partially inspired by
> Multics
Inspired by antipathy toward Multics.
Jean-David Beyer
> Doug writes:
>> UNIX and UNIX-like systems have a parallel lineage partially inspired by
>> Multics
>
> Inspired by antipathy toward Multics.
I do not believe so. IIRC, Ken Thompson worked on Multics. My guess is he
was disappointed by Bell Labs ending their participation in the Multics
project, and wanted to continue to explore some of the ideas that were
considered for Multics.
More here:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/hist.html
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 11:15:01 up 20 days, 22:04, 3 users, load average: 4.49, 4.61, 4.57
The Natural Philosopher
> John Hasler wrote:
>> Doug writes:
>>> UNIX and UNIX-like systems have a parallel lineage partially inspired by
>>> Multics
>>
>> Inspired by antipathy toward Multics.
>
> I do not believe so. IIRC, Ken Thompson worked on Multics. My guess is
> he was disappointed by Bell Labs ending their participation in the
> Multics project, and wanted to continue to explore some of the ideas
> that were considered for Multics.
>
> More here:
>
> http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/hist.html
>
It seems that the huge department designing by committee (MULTICS) even
then couldn't outperform three dedicated hackers simply finding out how
to do what they wanted on limited hardware!
Peter Köhlmann
It certainly looks like you know absolutely nothing about Multics
--
The probability of someone watching you is proportional to the
stupidity of your action.
Evergreen
> Sidney Lambe wrote (in part):
>
>> I have a GUI.
>
> Does your GUI run on top of the X Window System?
Where else? I have an x-server and a minimal window
manager and a mouse.
> Or do you provide something
> equivalent to it to support your GUI?
Just X.
> On my system, X is using about 36
> MBytes of virtual memory; actually, most of that is paged out and it is
> really using only about 7.5 meg of RAM. Some people might consider that
> massive. On my machine, though, that is only about 0.2% of the virtual memory.
On my system, X is only up when I need to use an X-app, and I use a
tiny-X server. The RAM usage is minimal unless the X-app needs a lot.
>> I don't have anything like KDE. I run Linux from
>> the commandline and can run any application someone using KDE
>> or the like can, much faster, because my system resources are not being
>> used up by a massive suite of apps providing nothing but eye-candy
>> and the illusion of 'user-friendliness'. My OS is much more stable
>> more secure, too. Complexity leads to instability and insecurity.
>
> GNOME and all the little eye candy (panel, icons, etc., are only taking 2.7%
> of my virtual address space.
There's a _lot_ more to it than that.
>>
>> It's also easier to maintain and modify.
>
> I have never even felt the need to maintain or modify GNOME and its related
> programs.
You haven't added or deleted applications or changed their configurations?
That would be very weird, if so.
I can't imagine being limited to only the apps that some geeks writing
a 'desktop environment' thought I should have.
>>
>> It takes as long to learn an artificial interface like KDE as it does
>> to learn the commandline, the basics of the shell and how the Linux
>> OS works.
>
> I had to learn the UNIX OS without any GUI stuff, because there was none in
> the early 1970s. I did not actively use a GUI until I got my first PC in
> 1996 that hat Windows 95 on it. The basics of that were kind-of trivial to
> learn, and I never managed to learn much of the rest. I abandoned that
> because of several factors:
Once again you are referring to a 'graphical desktop environment' as a GUI, and
that is inaccurate in the extreme.
GUIs have been around for 40 years. 'Graphical desktop environments' have
been around for about 15 and a lot less than that on Linux.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface
[delete]
I repeat: You can learn Linux, or you can learn a 'graphical desktop
environment' like KDE. Takes the same amount of time and those
who learn Linux have much more power and freedom and can use
a 'graphical desktop environment' without any problem because
they are, of necessity, dependent on the underlying operating
system.
The technocrats and the couch potatoes and office drones and
investors that support them want you to think that KDE and
the like _are_ Linux, but that isn't true at all.
Their user-friendliness is an illusion. Their purpose is
to keep you from learning Linux so that you will be dependent
on them and never know what you are missing.
http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html
http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ
http://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/index.html
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1052574.html
kind of odd "shell ninja" but lots of good info:
http://www.slideshare.net/brian_dailey/nyphp-march-2009-presentation
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/classes/s243/bash.html
http://www.learnaboutlinux.net/blog/41-programming/50-bash-basics-1
http://linux.about.com/cs/glossaries/a/aglossary.htm
http://tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Dictionary/
Sid
--
Sidney Lambe
Wiccan Priest and Apprentice Magician
http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
usenet4444 (at) gmail (dot) com
The Natural Philosopher
:-)
Accrington Stanley.
Jean-David Beyer
Reading stuff available here might help:
http://www.multicians.org/fjcc1.html
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 19:10:01 up 21 days, 5:59, 3 users, load average: 4.45, 4.62, 4.62
Sidney Lambe
> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
[delete off-topic ramblings --I think they are doing it on
purpose because they don't want these ideas to get around]
Windows-clone user interfaces, Graphical Desktop Environments (GDE)
like KDE are funded by a group of corporations in order to divorce
Linux runners from Linux. To turn us into ignorant appliance operators
who are dependent on their hired geeks and tech-support flunkies.
It takes just as long to learn to use KDE as it does to learn Linux,
and you are then limited to what the corporate geeks who maintain KDE
want you to do, and how they want you to do it.
Don't confuse a GUI with a GDE. They aren't the same thing at all.
A GDE is just a group of applications running on top of a GUI.
I run Linux and use a GUI when I need to run graphical applications,
but I don't have anything like KDE on my box. Yet I can run any
application someone using KDE can.
My OS is much simpler and easier to manage and customize, and
more stable and faster and more secure than those of people
who use GDEs.
Don't let the technocrats (and all of their sockpuppets) confuse
you or mislead you. Running Linux directly, from the commandline,
is easy and fun, and it's the path to power and freedom in this
arena.
Do a little studying and playing with the commandline,
and when you run into problems, you can find help here and
on other Linux forums.
There are a _lot_ of real Linux runners out here.
Just Say No to the corporate geeks who are trying to turn
Linux into a clone of Windows.
http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html
http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.
html
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>>>>> John Hasler wrote:
>>>>>> Doug writes:
>>>>>>> UNIX and UNIX-like systems have a parallel lineage partially
>>>>>>> inspired
>>>>>>> by Multics
>>>>>> Inspired by antipathy toward Multics.
>>>>> I do not believe so. IIRC, Ken Thompson worked on Multics. My guess is
>>>>> he was disappointed by Bell Labs ending their participation in the
>>>>> Multics project, and wanted to continue to explore some of the ideas
>>>>> that were considered for Multics.
>>>>>
>>>>> More here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/hist.html
>>>>>
>>>> Wonderful.
>>>>
>>>> It seems that the huge department designing by committee (MULTICS) even
>>>> then couldn't outperform three dedicated hackers simply finding out how
>>>> to do what they wanted on limited hardware!
>>> It certainly looks like you know absolutely nothing about Multics
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Accrington Stanley.
>
> Reading stuff available here might help:
>
> http://www.multicians.org/fjcc1.html
>
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>
> [delete off-topic ramblings --I think they are doing it on
> purpose because they don't want these ideas to get around]
>
> Windows-clone user interfaces, Graphical Desktop Environments (GDE)
> like KDE are funded by a group of corporations in order to divorce
> Linux runners from Linux. To turn us into ignorant appliance operators
> who are dependent on their hired geeks and tech-support flunkies.
>
> It takes just as long to learn to use KDE as it does to learn Linux,
> and you are then limited to what the corporate geeks who maintain KDE
> want you to do, and how they want you to do it.
>
> Don't confuse a GUI with a GDE. They aren't the same thing at all.
> A GDE is just a group of applications running on top of a GUI.
>
> I run Linux and use a GUI when I need to run graphical applications,
> but I don't have anything like KDE on my box. Yet I can run any
> application someone using KDE can.
>
So fucking what? anyone can do that.
> My OS is much simpler and easier to manage and customize, and
> more stable and faster and more secure than those of people
> who use GDEs.
>
So fucking what? Who really CARES?
> Don't let the technocrats (and all of their sockpuppets) confuse
> you or mislead you. Running Linux directly, from the commandline,
> is easy and fun, and it's the path to power and freedom in this
> arena.
Power and freedom?
Power to do what? freedom from waht?
I think you are seriously disturbed.
Your views are certainly not balanced. Is your mind?
Sidney Lambe
This is the sort of person who defends KDE and the like.
He's much too busy wandering the Internet calling people 'stupid'
(he knows a hundred synonyms for the word) to do any studying.
If it wasn't for training-wheel, kindergarten Windows-clone
interfaces like KDE he wouldn't be able to (sort of) run Linux
at all.
Sid
Jean-David Beyer
> Don't let the technocrats (and all of their sockpuppets) confuse
> you or mislead you. Running Linux directly, from the commandline,
> is easy and fun, and it's the path to power and freedom in this
> arena.
I guess "easy and fun" is fine if your main use of a computer is for
self-entertainment purposes. In which case, do you play nethack that does
not require a graphic interface (an old Lear Siegler ADM-3a terminal would
work), and not other more modern computer games?
>
> Do a little studying and playing with the commandline,
> and when you run into problems, you can find help here and
> on other Linux forums.
Are you not being a bit condescending here? I have written in assemblers
since the late 1950s, and used command-line interfaces since at least 1970
or so. So for what purpose should I now study and play with CLIs? I have
written shell scripts and makefiles that are quite serious. One shell file
is 128 lines long and executing it creates a 1262 line makefile that
compiles an entire library of C++ programs. This makefile contains all the
dependencies so that if a header file, even a system header file, changes,
the dependent programs are automatically recompiled. I actually do not know
how to do that with a windowing system.
>
> There are a _lot_ of real Linux runners out here.
No kidding. Are you implying that you are one of them? Some of us do not
merely "run it;" we actually _use_ it.
>
> Just Say No to the corporate geeks who are trying to turn
> Linux into a clone of Windows.
>
When someone was complimenting Isaac Newton on his Philosophiae Naturalis
Principia Mathematica, he accepted the compliment, but pointed out that he
stood on the shoulders of giants (Brahe and Kepler). Why should modern-day
programmers do less? Why should we all have to reinvent the wheel? Should we
all go back to hand-punching binary cards? Writing in assembler when using a
higher level language would be clearer and less error-prone? Using flat
files where a relational model database management system is more appropriate?
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 21:35:01 up 21 days, 8:24, 3 users, load average: 4.14, 4.26, 4.34
Jean-David Beyer
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Don't let the technocrats (and all of their sockpuppets) confuse you
>>> or mislead you. Running Linux directly, from the commandline, is easy
>>> and fun, and it's the path to power and freedom in this arena.
>> Power and freedom?
>>
>> Power to do what? freedom from waht?
>>
>> I think you are seriously disturbed.
>>
>> Your views are certainly not balanced. Is your mind?
>
> This is the sort of person who defends KDE and the like.
Have you actually read his posts in this thread? I have and IIRC, he has
_not even once_ defended KDE. It may be that he uses it regularly; similarly
it may be that he has never used it. But he has not defended it here.
>
> He's much too busy wandering the Internet calling people 'stupid' (he
> knows a hundred synonyms for the word) to do any studying.
"Good-bye, Susan. Paregoric is the stuff. ..."
>
> If it wasn't for training-wheel, kindergarten Windows-clone interfaces
> like KDE he wouldn't be able to (sort of) run Linux at all.
>
Why do silly ad hominem attacks? Do you actually know The Natural
Philosopher? Do you know his capabilities and responsibilities? For all I
know he may be 42x better programmer than you are. For all either of us
know, he may be Steve Bourne himself (though I think that unlikely).
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 22:05:01 up 21 days, 8:54, 3 users, load average: 4.36, 4.21, 4.18
terryc
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>
> [delete off-topic ramblings --I think they are doing it on purpose
> because they don't want these ideas to get around]
>
> Windows-clone user interfaces, Graphical Desktop Environments (GDE) like
> KDE are funded by a group of corporations in order to divorce Linux
> runners from Linux.
What about the other guis?
Daffy D.
<sidne...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
<skipping the dribble..>
Let just stop feeding the trolls, they've had enough
D.