Different flavors of Linux: A little venting
YouDontKnowWho
Why are there so many damn different implementations of Linux?! I
mean, I understand that each new version brings with it enhancements
that require a different way of doing certain things, but, jeez,
aren't we getting a little fragmented here?
The one thing I've found the most consistenly frustrating about
dealing with Linux is that there doesn't seem to be a standard way to
implement BASIC, ELEMENTARY things like the scripts that run during
init. A case in point is the trouble I'm having with the DHCP client.
I'm reading whatever I find on the subject, but most of it is useless
to me! Why? Because the examples that are offered are fragmented
between several releases (Slackware, Red Hat, Caldera, etc), each with
different scripts that do the same damn things (like starting up the
network). In my case right now, reading the HOWTO yields few answers.
All the examples and comments refer to implementations other than the
one I use (Caldera OL 2.2) and I'm spending all my time searching for
the equivalents (and not being very successful at it). Check it out
for yourself: http://www.linux-howto.com/LDP/HOWTO/mini/DHCP-3.html
Posting a question here may yield a bunch of friendly, helpful
answers, but the same problem exists: often the answers are specific
to the reponder's own Linux system, which invariably is different from
that of the person asking the question.
Even buying a book is a problem. Books have to deal with the
different implementations and often, to be practical, settle only on
the most popular ones. Everyone else is out of luck.
Please, don't get me wrong (and kiss my ass if you flame me with some
fanatical bullshit). Linux is awesome and I'm working very hard to
make it an important part of my network. But fragmentation is one of
the things that has kept UNIX so user-unfriendly and Linux is heading
in the same direction. It makes things so much harder to learn, deal
with, and fix, improve, etc. I mean, I understand that it is a
technical matter and requires some thought. But does it have to be
difficult just to pin down?
Is there a movement to consolidate things? Or am I just missing
something?
Thank you for your patience.
--
And now we return to our regularly scheduled,
uncommonly entertaining thread...
Jay Daniels
For about a $1000 a year you can get commercial support for Linux. This
seems a bit steep, but compair that to other support subscrition like MS
which pay per call by credit card or 1900 number and get very poor
service.
If you want free, then take your time. I alway fix my problems within a
day if not in a few hours. What I save on the cost of the os I spend on
books. This may seem adversive to some, but if Linux was not free I
would buy it anyway.
Slackware seems to be more documented than most distributions and is not
so quick to change the basic file structure between versions. RedHat
uses a different directory structure altogether. Caldera? Well I used
an early version of Open Linux Lite and don't have much to say about
this...
--
______________________________________________________________________
"Captain, I just uploaded a virus called Windows to the
Klingon computer system."
-Spock
Jay Daniels Pc-Technical Services
http://planttel.net/~pctech/ pct...@planttel.net
______________________________________________________________________
YouDontKnowWho
it has to be.
My issue is that some things need to be fairly standard, so learning
concentrates on what makes it tick or how to fix the problem, instead
of what are the files this release does this or that with.
If it's rc.init1, then let it be rc.init1. Don't change it to
rc.d/init.d/init.something or the other... but only for version 2.3 of
this particular release, because it changed to
rc.init.d/init_global.d/init-all/rc-0 with version 2.4!!
After almost 20 years in the systems business, I realize that mental
"elbow grease" has to be applied to everything. I just hate moving
targets.
--
And now we return to our regularly scheduled,
uncommonly entertaining thread...
Jay Daniels wrote in message <3763FC34...@planttel.net>...
George Georgakis
Also in my experience, RH is the most anti-standardised of the lot.
Naturally. The more commercialised a distribution gets, the more they're
going to modify it to suit it's own niche.
Slackware and Debian are (I've heard) the closest to "true" Unix standards,
and should in theory be the best choice. Especially Slackware, with its
great depth of documentation and carefully thought-out stability between
releases. I just installed Slackware 4.0 (that's at least 3 versions up
from my previous 3.5), and the essential structure remains unchanged. A few
extra files here and there, the extra functionality of the new kernel, but
everything still looks very familiar to me.
George
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never reply by email as a) I don't give out my real email address freely,
and b) it stops other NG users from reading the solutions to problems
If necessary, however, I can be contacted thru geegs (a) linuxstart DOT com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
YouDontKnowWho <any...@yourhouse.com> wrote in article
<5bU83.18961$Yq5.17...@news2.pompano.net>...
Bob Martin
> Is there a movement to consolidate things? Or am I just missing
> something?
Well everyone has a better idea ;) once you get beyond the init schemes
everything is pretty much the same. But I suppose that since the actual
system startup was left to the individual ( I'm talking very early here,
like '92 ) the scripts evolved from who ever put the system together. I
initially installed linux back before the were any distros so I had my
own scripts to start thing, very simple, based on something called
simple init. As vendors started putting distros together they wrote
scripts to startup the system they had laid out. I agree it would be
nice if more standard startup was available but there is a project
starting to look at such things... check the following, the linux
standards base
YouDontKnowWho
distribution... In fact, I was at a Barnes and Nobles just a few
minutes ago and saw a reference book that came with a Caldera
OpenLinux CD. But guess which distribution the samples in the book
covered? You guessed it! Red Hat's!
--
And now we return to our regularly scheduled,
uncommonly entertaining thread...
George Georgakis wrote in message
<01beb602$ea9b7900$0101a8c0@george>...
YouDontKnowWho
it's good to know).
Seems to me an OS this new has all the opportunity in the world to
bypass the problems that plague other, older systems.
--
And now we return to our regularly scheduled,
uncommonly entertaining thread...
Bob Martin wrote in message <3764A1C9...@meta3.net>...
>> Is there a movement to consolidate things? Or am I just missing
>> something?
>
George Georgakis
great extent. Only one or two actually mention the RedHat-only rpm format.
Books do not make up the whole of the "documentation" spectrum. There are
also man pages, HOWTOs and comes-with-distribution documentation (among
others). Just about every configuration file in Slackware has hints and
tips commented in.
P.S. Erratum: Before Slack 4.0 I was actually on 3.4 , not on 3.5 - I
mistyped.
George
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never reply by email as a) I don't give out my real email address freely,
and b) it stops other NG users from reading the solutions to problems
If necessary, however, I can be contacted thru geegs (a) linuxstart DOT com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
YouDontKnowWho <any...@yourhouse.com> wrote in article
<Kx_83.19082$Yq5.17...@news2.pompano.net>...
Robert J. Sprawls
>Please allow me some ranting here...
>
>Why are there so many damn different implementations of Linux?! I
>mean, I understand that each new version brings with it enhancements
>that require a different way of doing certain things, but, jeez,
>aren't we getting a little fragmented here?
>
>The one thing I've found the most consistenly frustrating about
>dealing with Linux is that there doesn't seem to be a standard way to
>implement BASIC, ELEMENTARY things like the scripts that run during
>init. A case in point is the trouble I'm having with the DHCP client.
My best advise is find a good distro and stick with it. I started with RH,
but moved to Slackware. I like Slackware, because recompiling the kernel is
not as complicated as RH, the initscripts are more straightforward, and
installation ( for lack of a better word ) works better. Ex: the time was
never right on my system when I installed RH. Later I found out that the
Central time zone item was at fault. I should have used a city within my
time zone instead.
Regardless, Slack is $40 to RH's new $80 with support going down from 90
days to 30 days<sigh>. Oh well, what can you expect when all these major
companies get behind one distro. I think that part is a very bad thing.
Linux proper has no more support from the major corps than it did before.
YouDontKnowWho
have it working quite alright and I'm using it to learn as much as
possible.
I guess I'll switch distributions at some point in time later.
--
And now we return to our regularly scheduled,
uncommonly entertaining thread...
Robert J. Sprawls wrote in message ...
wmsg...@gs.verio.net
choice. To me this is the beauty and elegance of Linux. As you learn
more, all your concerns will seem insignificant. Just keep plugging
away.
On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 18:14:34 GMT, "YouDontKnowWho"
<any...@yourhouse.com> wrote:
>Please allow me some ranting here...
>
>Why are there so many damn different implementations of Linux?! I
>mean, I understand that each new version brings with it enhancements
>that require a different way of doing certain things, but, jeez,
>aren't we getting a little fragmented here?
>
>The one thing I've found the most consistenly frustrating about
>dealing with Linux is that there doesn't seem to be a standard way to
>implement BASIC, ELEMENTARY things like the scripts that run during
>init. A case in point is the trouble I'm having with the DHCP client.