Linux progress

[arioch]

I've seen this happen on Windows. Could be hardware related.

I've never seen it happen on Windows, much less happen on that specific machine.

[HotWax]

Heh, that's just baffling. The only USB problems I have with Win XP is that rarely it refuses to acknowledge a new device until I restart.

[QBasicer]

If you want an example try typing rm -rf .* on both a Linux machine and on a real unix machine. This is a dumb example, but shows one huge deviation from standard behavior.

What would happen? I know Linux would delete itself.

No that is what a POSIX rm would do, GNU rm tries to save your butt by pretending .. (previous directory) dosen't match your glob.

That's a good thing....isn't it?

Well, what I was going to say before the class ended was that it does have it's strong points. But It all boils down to what you want to do. Most gamers like Windows, because Linux doesn't have the graphical system that Windows has (X is REALLY slow in comparison), also, people want not have to reboot. People sometimes don't like to learn new things either. They're just happy using whatever they learned on. I use Linux because it's stable, fast, and does everything I need and want to do faster then I can do it in Windows. I do not play any Windows games for the most part, but I *do* enjoy BZFlag. It would be icing on my cake to play ZDoom maps and not Legacy maps.

http://vectec.net/kde-screenshot-19.png

My desktop, and proud of it. (Desktop 1 that is )

Thats is about right, of all the pre-canned distros the only one I kind of like is Slackware, mostly because of the cleanliness of the install, and dosen't mind you doing whatever the hell you want to your config files. I think the userland from *BSD is much better than Slackware, but some times I am forced to use a linux kernel due to some kind of strange hardware. Although I don't like to spend much time on PC hardware I like to spend time using my SGI and NEXT machines.

I've never use any BSDs. But I like slackware better then anything else i've tried. You get used to it quickly....google is your friend.

I spend all my time on my x86 box. I dislike Macs, and have never used any other arch. I had considered getting an Alpha once, but i think for me, an x86 would be best suited to me.

[QBasicer]

You can also restart X by pressing CTRL+ALT+BACKSPACE.

1. No, that kills X. 2. I can't use it since Ctl+Alt+Bksp is caught by my BIOS to switch off the power. I hate that.

If its on X11 runlevel, and you ZAP X, it shuts down only to restart back at the login.

Ported software is never quite as good.

Well. That holds true 50% less if you are using MSYS/MINGW.

but it can't compile basically anything without installing something

Someday, you will have all -devel packages installed, making compiling a 5-second task.

Ever compile QT? Good luck with that, go grab a movie.

Well RPMs have something called "RPM Hell," which is kinds like Window's DLL files.... Ug, only those ard harder to find.

What?

The lack of proper documentation for alot of programs makes doing some things a pain in the ass. (And GNU's abomination called info dosen't count)

Try the Linux Documentation Project (TLDP) which also provides manpages for applications who have a hard-on for GNU info.

Most Linux distros think sh and bash are the same thing.

They do so because BASH is the default for them. If you change /bin/sh (symlink) to /bin/ash, well, then expect some trouble. You are safe if /etc/init.d/* have #!/bin/bash at their header, though.

Most Linux distros dynamicaly link most essential programs in /bin and /sbin so if things go wrong

Code: Select all

(suse) 12:06 io:/bin # find . -type l
./sh
./vi
./awk
./csh
./mail
./pidof
./psfstriptable
./domainname
./dnsdomainname
./lsmod.static
./lsmod.old
./psfgettable
./psfaddtable

Glibc is the thing I hate most about linux, the developers like to breake things every version,

That is why they invented versioned symbols. Like fgets@@GLIBC_2.0.

dynamically linked programs using glibc are often larger than statically linked programs using another c library

I doubt that. Linking to glibc dynamically only requires a "I want libc.so.6" entry, which is about less than 128 bytes.

My screenshot entry 2004-04-25

Heh, iceWM. I tend to use KDE because I like everything accessable. (Hense the quick launch bar in Win98 and on). Does iceWM have virtual desktops?

[Hirogen2]

If its on X11 runlevel, and you ZAP X, it shuts down only to restart back at the login.

But in effect, it kills X server ("X" commonly mistaken as graphic mode), which makes XDM restart the X server, causing a restart on Ctrl+Alt+Bksp.

Ever compile QT? Good luck with that, go grab a movie.

Well, that's an exotic example. I speak of command line applications and those compiled with things like WX or GTK.

Heh, iceWM. I tend to use KDE because I like everything accessable. (Hense the quick launch bar in Win98 and on). Does iceWM have virtual desktops?

Icewm because it is not as bloated as KDE. It also has a quick launch bar, but I have no icons in it ATM. And no, I have not seen virtual desktops yet, but for that I use ultrawide (2048x768 @ 1024x768) or big desktops (1152xbla @ 1024 x768)

[QBasicer]

If its on X11 runlevel, and you ZAP X, it shuts down only to restart back at the login.

But in effect, it kills X server ("X" commonly mistaken as graphic mode), which makes XDM restart the X server, causing a restart on Ctrl+Alt+Bksp.

Exactly. I tend to log into a vterm and use startx though.

Ever compile QT? Good luck with that, go grab a movie.

Well, that's an exotic example. I speak of command line applications and those compiled with things like WX or GTK.

Well, things usually don't take long to compile, but BZFlag takes a bit.

Heh, iceWM. I tend to use KDE because I like everything accessable. (Hense the quick launch bar in Win98 and on). Does iceWM have virtual desktops?

Icewm because it is not as bloated as KDE. It also has a quick launch bar, but I have no icons in it ATM. And no, I have not seen virtual desktops yet, but for that I use ultrawide (2048x768 @ 1024x768) or big desktops (1152xbla @ 1024 x768)

That's true, but i still like it. I don't like clutter. I used OPenbox forwhile. Ah well, it really doesn't make a difference about what programs that get run.

[Enjay]

I have to confess, I'm with HotWax on the whole Linux thing. I don't dislike it. In fact, I have limited experience with it. Although, I wasn't that impressed with what I saw. It certainly didn't give me the impression it was the answer to the entire world's computing woes that many of its users seem to claim it is.

What I don't like is the attitude of many Linux users who parade their "I don't kiss Bill's ass" morals and automatically state that anything Micro$oft (or Microshaft of any other "clever" name they can come up with) produces is teh sh1t and teh evil. Worse, they berate me for using a product that I like and question my morals for doing so. Unfortunately this sort of attitude seems to be prevalent amongst Linux users. Understandable, I suppose, seeing as how most people who use Linux have made a decision to not go with the flow, and therefore presumably feel more strongly about their OS than other people. But come on guys, it's just an OS. It is something that allows you to move files around and run programs. If you were arguing about the merits of kidney transplant systems, or systems of World government or something...

Anyway, that was all by the way, and the criticism of Linux users was most certainly not aimed at anyone I have seen posting here. All I really wanted to say was that I have often seen articles trying to shake off the Linux techy/geeky image and trying to imply that it is easily accessible to all. However, the above discussion, and indeed every other discussion I have read/ experienced, with its talk of different distro's, keystrokes, conventions and "trendy-techy" names for various components, and pieces of software simply serve to underline the fact that it is without question a techy, geeky thing. Fine if you like it. Get into it! However it is still about as impenetrable as a cast iron chastity belt and understandably off limits for most of the World’s computer users for these and other reasons.

[akimmet]

What would happen? I know Linux would delete itself.

No that is what a POSIX rm would do, GNU rm tries to save your butt by pretending .. (previous directory) dosen't match your glob.

That's a good thing....isn't it?

It sounds that way at first, but I can't tell you how many times I've seen Linux users type rm -rf .* because they want to clean out all their config files, but not realizing on that UNIX machine they just wiped everything they have permission to delete, or worse they were root and cleared not only the whole root (/) partition but the /usr and any other RW media that was mounted at the time.

Well, what I was going to say before the class ended was that it does have it's strong points. But It all boils down to what you want to do. Most gamers like Windows, because Linux doesn't have the graphical system that Windows has (X is REALLY slow in comparison), also, people want not have to reboot. People sometimes don't like to learn new things either. They're just happy using whatever they learned on. I use Linux because it's stable, fast, and does everything I need and want to do faster then I can do it in Windows. I do not play any Windows games for the most part, but I *do* enjoy BZFlag. It would be icing on my cake to play ZDoom maps and not Legacy maps.

http://vectec.net/kde-screenshot-19.png

My desktop, and proud of it. (Desktop 1 that is :D)

That is about right, of all the pre-canned distros the only one I kind of like is Slackware, mostly because of the cleanliness of the install, and dosen't mind you doing whatever the hell you want to your config files. I think the userland from *BSD is much better than Slackware, but some times I am forced to use a linux kernel due to some kind of strange hardware. Although I don't like to spend much time on PC hardware I like to spend time using my SGI and NEXT machines.

I've never use any BSDs. But I like slackware better then anything else i've tried. You get used to it quickly....google is your friend.

I spend all my time on my x86 box. I dislike Macs, and have never used any other arch. I had considered getting an Alpha once, but i think for me, an x86 would be best suited to me.

Right; of course google is your friend, but things should have been documented properly in the first place. The authors telling you to search HOWTOS and forum/usenet posts is just a piss-poor excuse for them to avoid making any documentation. Check out the BSDs that actually got that one right with complete man pages and the well-written handbook (not to mention the EXCELLENT book called The Complete FreeBSD).

OSX isn't that bad, compared to "Classic"(should I be calling something awful classic?) MacOS is much better. However, I can't use OSX due to the excessive eye-candy. Those lines in the background of every window hurts my eyes more than staring at a monitor with a refresh rate of 40Hz interlaced (yes I have used a monitor with that low of a refresh rate). What ever happened to a solid colored window...

And I still don't understand why people think a translucent terminal window (or one with a background) is an essential feature, that just makes reading the text harder...

[QBasicer]

What I don't like is the attitude of many Linux users who parade their "I don't kiss Bill's ass" morals and automatically state that anything Micro$oft (or Microshaft of any other "clever" name they can come up with) produces is teh sh1t and teh evil. Worse, they berate me for using a product that I like and question my morals for doing so. Unfortunately this sort of attitude seems to be prevalent amongst Linux users. Understandable, I suppose, seeing as how most people who use Linux have made a decision to not go with the flow, and therefore presumably feel more strongly about their OS than other people. But come on guys, it's just an OS. It is something that allows you to move files around and run programs. If you were arguing about the merits of kidney transplant systems, or systems of World government or something...

Anyway, that was all by the way, and the criticism of Linux users was most certainly not aimed at anyone I have seen posting here. All I really wanted to say was that I have often seen articles trying to shake off the Linux techy/geeky image and trying to imply that it is easily accessible to all. However, the above discussion, and indeed every other discussion I have read/ experienced, with its talk of different distro's, keystrokes, conventions and "trendy-techy" names for various components, and pieces of software simply serve to underline the fact that it is without question a techy, geeky thing. Fine if you like it. Get into it! However it is still about as impenetrable as a cast iron chastity belt and understandably off limits for most of the World’s computer users for these and other reasons.

I have heard it the other way around. A lot of people that use Windows and have never used Linux thinks it's crap. I try not to hate something i've never tried before. Hense i'm going to buy an XBox 2.

But some people switched to Linux because of really bad experiances with Windows (like me!) which may be why we dislike windows. Or maybe because MS doesn't like to distribute source, therefore hating everything MS puts out.

[QBasicer]

No that is what a POSIX rm would do, GNU rm tries to save your butt by pretending .. (previous directory) dosen't match your glob.

That's a good thing....isn't it?

It sounds that way at first, but I can't tell you how many times I've seen Linux users type rm -rf .* because they want to clean out all their config files, but not realizing on that UNIX machine they just wiped everything they have permission to delete, or worse they were root and cleared not only the whole root (/) partition but the /usr and any other RW media that was mounted at the time.

I've done that...but i was able to stop it before it was able to hit /bin.

That is about right, of all the pre-canned distros the only one I kind of like is Slackware, mostly because of the cleanliness of the install, and dosen't mind you doing whatever the hell you want to your config files. I think the userland from *BSD is much better than Slackware, but some times I am forced to use a linux kernel due to some kind of strange hardware. Although I don't like to spend much time on PC hardware I like to spend time using my SGI and NEXT machines.

I've never use any BSDs. But I like slackware better then anything else i've tried. You get used to it quickly....google is your friend.

I spend all my time on my x86 box. I dislike Macs, and have never used any other arch. I had considered getting an Alpha once, but i think for me, an x86 would be best suited to me.

Right; of course google is your friend, but things should have been documented properly in the first place. The authors telling you to search HOWTOS and forum/usenet posts is just a piss-poor excuse for them to avoid making any documentation. Check out the BSDs that actually got that one right with complete man pages and the well-written handbook (not to mention the EXCELLENT book called The Complete FreeBSD).

OSX isn't that bad, compared to "Classic"(should I be calling something awful classic?) MacOS is much better. However, I can't use OSX due to the excessive eye-candy. Those lines in the background of every window hurts my eyes more than staring at a monitor with a refresh rate of 40Hz interlaced (yes I have used a monitor with that low of a refresh rate). What ever happened to a solid colored window...

And I still don't understand why people think a translucent terminal window (or one with a background) is an essential feature, that just makes reading the text harder...

I've used OSX only once, and the Mac guy said it was just like linux, so i tried a few commands but it wasn't the same.

I don't know why people like translucent things, they are cool for a bit, but after awhile they get annoying.

I used the Plastik style because it looks good, but i could easily switch to something that was simpler. It just doesn't hinder my new computer like it would my old. (Heh, even TVM ran slow)

[QBasicer]

So, Randy, hows the progress on the Linux Zdoom? Any problems you've ran into?

[Hirogen2]

I don't know why people like translucent things, they are cool for a bit, but after awhile they get annoying.

Agreed. Recently I switched back from transparency aterm to plain colored xterm (and no background pic at all).
On top, translucent stuff takes up more memory.

It just doesn't hinder my new computer like it would my old. (Heh, even TVM ran slow)

"failsafe" is just about the right windowmanager

[randi]

So, Randy, hows the progress on the Linux Zdoom? Any problems you've ran into?

It's just sitting there waiting for me to get back to it. No particular problems, just lack of interest.

[QBasicer]

Hmmmm...

I'm interested, is there a way I can get my hands on a copy of the source (Unless it's the same old one and you havn't changed it)?

[HotWax]

Yes and while you're at it, is there any way I could get my hands on a copy of the 2.0.64 Windows source?