1 Dec
2005
1 Dec
'05
7:11 a.m.
All:
I'm thinking of ditching Windows totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded Fedora
Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
Any thoughts from the group?
Rich
1 Dec
1 Dec
7:28 a.m.
I've been using Redhat and Mandrake. Redhat has a few more
legacy/backwards compatible utils for data access that Mandrake will
have to have added on later on you own (if you needed them). Redhat
also installs a lot quicker in most cases for me.
I occassionally use BSD for a few things, but mostly I've been sticking
with Redhat. I've only installed up to 9.2 (I think...) and I know
there are a few newer distributions out there since then. Before
that, I was using TurboLinux which I really like, it was very fast and
at the time was one of the better multi-processor supporting Linux's out
there (this was like 4+ yrs ago mind you...) and I had that running my
webserver for quite a while and it ran very well and had some great
monitoring and management tools.
Curt
Cini, Richard wrote:
All:
I'm thinking of ditching Windows totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded Fedora
Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
Any thoughts from the group?
Rich
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/189 - Release Date: 11/30/2005
7:33 a.m.
Cini, Richard wrote:
All:
I'm thinking of ditching Windows totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded Fedora
Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
Any thoughts from the group?
NetBSD gets my vote.
Peace... Sridhar
7:35 a.m.
Cini, Richard wrote:
All:
I'm thinking of ditching Windows totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded Fedora
Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
Any thoughts from the group?
It depends on how often/how much futzing you want to do after you have
it loaded.
Fedora Core is essentially the "Development" branch of Red Hat Linux.
It is very current, but the frequent upgrades can be a hassle unless you
like to play with the cutting-edge stuff all of the time.
Slackware is an oldie-but-goodie distribution. It still has many
followers and one of the first distributions I used.
FreeBSD: I don't use on a desktop. The *BSDs are all top-drawer stuff
but you may have more difficulty working with them then you would Linux
-- an effect caused by the incredible press that Linux gets over BSD.
It all depends on how much of a Unix-bent you have.
Ubuntu I've just started looking at... it's slick and seems to be
getting quite a bit of press and mindshare lately. I must admit that my
first impression is "ho-hum".
Linspire -- I have no idea. That one is a subscription model only.
I've heard good things about it but have never personally used it. Its
focus appears to be for the Windows user as it makes it trivial to
update or add packages.
Personally, I use CentOS on all of my machines. It's a rebuild of Red
Hat Enterprise Linux and is very stable. I don't need to upgrade very
often. Combined with Dag Wieer's repo I find I have everything I need.
My laptop is a CentOS 4 machine and it sees heavy daily use.
Barry
7:40 a.m.
Cini, Richard wrote:
All:
I'm thinking of ditching Windows totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded Fedora
Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
Always been a Slackware fan myself (used it since the SLS days, apart from a
brief diversion to RedHat). It's less bloated than the likes of Fedora, but
still comes with the option of a lot of desktop software.
Not used Unbuntu or Linspire so can't comment. FreeBSD isn't Linux, so can't
really comment there either (although experience has been that it's brilliant
for server-side but you'll have your work cut out configuring it to be a good
desktop machine)
Personal observations about Linux over the years:
1) It's suffering from *serious* bloat, feature-creep and eye candy these
days. Presumably the 'sweet spot' was 8-9 years ago when the ratio of clueful
programmers versus muppets who contributed was a lot higher. Main problem's
people launching into projects without any proper design or planning
beforehand I think (both the popular desktop environments, Gnome and KDE, seem
to suffer badly from this).
2) In the desktop world, there still isn't a decent graphics package (Gimp is
awful to use) or audio processing app. I'm currently struggling to find any
half-decent OCR tool too.
3) Systems still suffer from rot, just like Windows does. After a while, it
gets very difficult to be able to tell what bits can be removed because you're
not using them (or that were installed in a bundle with something that you do
use, and are just using up diskspace). Linux badly needs some sort of
kernel-level package / module / library management (offerings like RPM tend to
be too coarse grain IMHO)
4) WINE is actually pretty darn good these days if you want to run Windows
apps on your Linux box.
5) The OS as a whole is one heck of a lot more stable than Windows.
Any thoughts from the group?
I'm leaning toward the "put a Mac on your desktop, put Linux on your
servers"
approach, myself. That is without having actually used a Mac since the LC days
though - but I know that a lot of things irritate me about the Linux desktop
world, whilst even more things irritate me about the Windows desktop world. :-)
I'm not convinced it's possible to produce a desktop environment with the
open-source cooperative model without it turning into a giant bloated
inconsistent mess!
HTH,
Jules
8:25 a.m.
Jules Richardson wrote:
Cini, Richard wrote:
> I'm thinking of ditching Windows totally on my desktop at
> home
> as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll
> of the
> group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded
> Fedora
> Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
I've gone MCC, SLS, Slackware, SuSE, Debian over the years. I've also
played with Redhat and Knoppix. Waiting to be tested on the new machine
is Ubuntu.
I switched to Debian because it gave the most control over the system
and left things reasonably standard. The thing to watch out with Debian
is the slow release cycle. If anyone does go with Debian is it better to
use 'testing' rather than 'stable' (IMHO). 'unstable' is normally
fine,
but does glitch occasionally. Ubuntu is derived from Debian 'unstable'
with some extra bits. (Which is why it will be tried on the new machine
-- better AMD64 support)
For those with processor cycles to burn there is also Gentoo, which is
primarily source based, ie more like FreeBSD's ports system.
My personal experience with RedHat has been bad. But that is just my
personal experience. I could never get it to do what I wanted. I had to
let it do what it wanted.
Personal observations about Linux over the years:
1) It's suffering from *serious* bloat, feature-creep and eye candy
these days.
Very true.
2) [...] I'm currently
struggling to find any half-decent OCR tool too.
I've given up on that.
3) Systems still suffer from rot, just like Windows
does. After a while,
it gets very difficult to be able to tell what bits can be removed
because you're not using them (or that were installed in a bundle with
something that you do use, and are just using up diskspace). Linux badly
needs some sort of kernel-level package / module / library management
(offerings like RPM tend to be too coarse grain IMHO)
Debian has 'deborphan' which can identify those packages which are no
longer referenced by other installed packages. You can also force the
removal of packages if you are certain that you don't need them. I
suspect that most of the distributions do. The trick is working out the
appropriate incantation.
Alistair
9:53 a.m.
Alistair MacDonald wrote:
I'm currently hacking front-end code in order to try and improve the
performance of the OCR engine itself. It's giving me a headache!
Yes, Slackware has various equivalents (run a 'man -k pkg' for a list).
Problem is, the concept of a 'package' is fairly high-level. Say you want to
be able to play x format of audio on your system. You might find there's a
multimedia library package that enables you to do this - except that what you
actually get is a bundle of umpteen billion library files which can play every
format ever devised, 99% of which you don't ever need, and which sit there on
the system doing nothing. If you go around deleting them manually, you screw
up the package system that's been layered onto the OS as an afterthought.
I just wish the concept of a package was more of a file-level thing, so that
you end of with a system just comprising the bits you really need and use -
coupled with some sort of common mechanism which can tell you when you're
trying to do something from a front-end script / GUI app for which you're
missing required modules / libraries / other apps of course. Possibly have the
ability for the system to automatically go fetch the needed bits from the 'net
too.
I seem to recall that Perl has something akin to this, and that in the Windows
world their media player can do it too - but having it built in system wide
with a common set of APIs to manage it would be nice.
cheers
J.
Jules Richardson wrote:
Actually, I forgot to mention that I've quite often had people recommend I try
Debian over Slackware before. You still get the problem of the Gnome / KDE
choice though, I suppose.
Cini, Richard wrote:
> I'm thinking of ditching Windows totally on my desktop at
> home
> as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll
> of the
> group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded
> Fedora
> Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
I've gone MCC, SLS, Slackware, SuSE, Debian over the years. My personal experience with RedHat has been bad. But
that is just my
personal experience. I could never get it to do what I wanted. I had to
let it do what it wanted.
Yes, exactly the same here. It's not very often I hear from people who say
they liked it (or Fedora).
2) [...]
I'm currently struggling to find any half-decent OCR tool too.
I've given up on that. 3) Systems
still suffer from rot, just like Windows does. After a
Debian has 'deborphan' which can identify those packages which are no
longer referenced by other installed packages. You can also force the
removal of packages if you are certain that you don't need them. I
suspect that most of the distributions do. The trick is working out the
appropriate incantation. 
1:02 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Jules Richardson once stated:
I just wish the concept of a package was more of a file-level thing, so that
you end of with a system just comprising the bits you really need and use -
coupled with some sort of common mechanism which can tell you when you're
trying to do something from a front-end script / GUI app for which you're
missing required modules / libraries / other apps of course. Possibly have the
ability for the system to automatically go fetch the needed bits from the 'net
too.
I just wish the concept of a package was more consistent and took into
account what you actually *have* installed. A month ago I configured a
server at work with MRTG [1]. It was failing form some mysterious reason
[2] and in order to figure out what was going on, I decided to hack the
source to one of the programs to provide more informative logging
information. I get the source, do the configure dance, and find I'm missing
the GD [3] development package (the GD binaries already installed).
This being a Fedora Core system, I can use 'yum'. Only I have to figure
out the magical incantation to get the GD development package installed.
Turned out to be 'yum install gd-devel'. So I do that.
And I ended up installing the X Windows Development system, which I
neither want, nor use, on this headless Linux server buried deep in our data
center.
WHY Fedora Core thought I needed the X Windows Development system for GD
is beyond me (since X isn't even *installed* on the server. Oh, and yum
"helpfully" updated a score of packages that have updated since I last ran
yum some twenty minutes before or something silly like that).
-spc (Oh, and heaven forbid you don't upgrade every hour, since (in my
opintion) both Fedora Core and Gentoo seem to move their
repositories whenever the mood strikes them [4])
[1] Multi Router Traffic Grapher. Okay program to monitor bandwith
usage in various routers, but configuration is a bitch. Cacti
is a *much* nicer program to use.
[2] It turned out that when the system was installed, the various MRTG
scripts were already installed in "/etc/cron.d/mrtg", *even though
it wasn't configured and did nothing!* Not knowing this, I added an
MRTG cronjob via "crontab -e" (which uses
/var/spool/cron/crontab/root in this case). So now I had two (2)
MRTGs running, overwriting the log files.
Sometimes these package managers are "too" helpful.
[3] Not sure what GD stands for, but it's a library that allows one to
create GIFs/JPEGs/PNGs programmically (create a canvas, draw to it,
then write the canvas to a file with the specified format). It's
used quite often by CGI programs to draw graphics. GD itself does
not use X Windows.
[4] Me, bitter? Naaaaaaahhhhh ...
1:12 p.m.
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Jules Richardson wrote:
Actually, I forgot to mention that I've quite
often had people recommend I
try Debian over Slackware before. You still get the problem of the Gnome /
KDE choice though, I suppose.
There's a lot of window managers out there that don't have the bloat
problems of Gnome and KDE. I like WindowMaker, but you can get AfterStep,
fluxbox, icewm, etc.; there's tons available out of the box on most
distros. The only way to win the "Desktop Envoronment" game is not to play
:-)
Alexey
1:36 p.m.
Alexey Toptygin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Jules Richardson wrote:
Heh, sure. :-)
I used to be a fan of both fvwm2 and Afterstep. But it is useful sometimes
when desktop apps can interact with each other, I just wish Gnome and KDE
weren't such bloated monstrosities though.
I suspect it's a case of bad design and too many people working on their own
little aspect of the system, rather than there being any grand plan for the
desktop environment as a whole - but in the open source world it's hard to do
a big project to any kind of plan.
I gave up on Gnome a long time ago because it just wouldn't work right in a
networked environment where you might have a Gnome app running from one system
but displayed on another (which of course is one of the main benefits of X) -
KDE at least didn't have the same problems, although it still suffers from the
bloat factor.
<cynical>
Of course in a few years Microsoft will 'invent' Linux. We'll get a consistent
desktop (but still a bad one), and a system that's inherently unstable. But
the Microsoft-buying public will lap it up, thinking how clever Microsoft are
for inventing something that - unbeknown to them - looks oddly like UNIX. :-)
</cynical>
cheers
Jules
Actually, I forgot to mention that I've quite
often had people
recommend I try Debian over Slackware before. You still get the
problem of the Gnome / KDE choice though, I suppose.
There's a lot of window managers out there that don't have the bloat
problems of Gnome and KDE. I like WindowMaker, but you can get
AfterStep, fluxbox, icewm, etc.; there's tons available out of the box
on most distros. The only way to win the "Desktop Envoronment" game is
not to play :-) 
3:19 p.m.
On 1/12/05 21:36, "Jules Richardson" <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
<cynical>
Of course in a few years Microsoft will 'invent' Linux. We'll get a
consistent
desktop (but still a bad one), and a system that's inherently unstable. But
the Microsoft-buying public will lap it up, thinking how clever Microsoft are
for inventing something that - unbeknown to them - looks oddly like UNIX. :-)
</cynical>
It's called Longhorn^Wvista and will be out just as soon as, er, they can
make it work.
4:13 p.m.
I'm pretty happy with Fedora Core. My old (non-SSE) FC3 machine get patched
nightly and hasn't been rebooted in months. I'm in process of installing
FC4 on an x86_64 system.
I use Gentoo on older Macs.
5:04 p.m.
Adrian Graham wrote:
>It's called Longhorn^Wvista and will be out
just as soon as, er, they can
>make it work.
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, woodelf wrote:
Well only if they move to Texas!
Runs and ducks ...
Hey! I teach at Vista College
http://merritt.edu/~fcisin
After 30 years, Vista College has just voted to change its name.
(to Berkeley Community College.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
5 Dec
5 Dec
9:03 a.m.
On 12/1/05, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
Hey! I teach at Vista College
Me, too. Taught at least. Used to do a 3 hour lecture on thursday nights.
Gave it up because I didn't have the time anymore.
http://merritt.edu/~fcisin
After 30 years, Vista College has just voted to change its name.
(to Berkeley Community College.
Eric
1 Dec
1 Dec
3:40 p.m.
Rumor has it that Jules Richardson may have mentioned these words:
<cynical>
Of course in a few years Microsoft will 'invent' Linux. We'll get a
consistent desktop (but still a bad one), and a system that's inherently
unstable. But the Microsoft-buying public will lap it up, thinking how
clever Microsoft are for inventing something that - unbeknown to them -
looks oddly like UNIX. :-)
</cynical>
Impossible. M$ only has a finite number of monkeys.
[[ Seen somewhere on the 'net aeons ago, unknown original attribution
anymore... ]]
Prost,
"Merch"
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | "Bugs of a feather flock together."
sysadmin, Iceberg Computers | Russell Nelson
zmerch at 30below.com |
4 p.m.
On 1/12/05 23:40, "Roger Merchberger" <zmerch at 30below.com> wrote:
Impossible. M$ only has a finite number of monkeys.
[[ Seen somewhere on the 'net aeons ago, unknown original attribution
anymore... ]]
I still love the sig of someone here who I'm embarassed to admit I can't
remember (dave dunfield?) who has the sig of 'a computer without a microsoft
operating system is like a dog without a pile of bricks tied to its head'
Marvellous.
Management would like to apologise for the lack of capital letters in this
post apart from the ones added by my mailer. Tonight I can't be arsed to hit
the shift key! Oops I just did.
a
3 Dec
3 Dec
2:44 a.m.
Roger Merchberger wrote:
Rumor has it that Jules Richardson may have mentioned
these words:
Or my favourite - "Actually there's a MAXINT number of monkeys, but it's
a good first-order approximation."
Gordon
<cynical>
Of course in a few years Microsoft will 'invent' Linux. We'll get a
consistent desktop (but still a bad one), and a system that's
inherently unstable. But the Microsoft-buying public will lap it up,
thinking how clever Microsoft are for inventing something that -
unbeknown to them - looks oddly like UNIX. :-)
</cynical>
Impossible. M$ only has a finite number of monkeys.
[[ Seen somewhere on the 'net aeons ago, unknown original attribution
anymore... ]] 
1 Dec
1 Dec
1:41 p.m.
At 9:12 PM +0000 12/1/05, Alexey Toptygin wrote:
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Jules Richardson wrote:
At work I actually use a pre-V1 beta of Afterstep! I started using
it, when it was current on an RS/6000 running AIX V3.x, and now I'm
using it on SUSE Enterprise Linux.
The sad thing is, that these days, even Motif and 'mwm' are fairly
light weight compared to stuff like Gnome and KDE!
Actually, I forgot to mention that I've quite
often had people
recommend I try Debian over Slackware before. You still get the
problem of the Gnome / KDE choice though, I suppose.
There's a lot of window managers out there that don't have the bloat
problems of Gnome and KDE. I like WindowMaker, but you can get
AfterStep, fluxbox, icewm, etc.; there's tons available out of the
box on most distros. The only way to win the "Desktop Envoronment"
game is not to play :-)
I like this statement, it is pretty much the best description of my
feelings on the subject that I've heard.
At work I now have a really nice fast Linux box, BUT, I need a *LOT*
of RAM for the one application that I run, plus besides that
application all I really need are *lots* of xterm's, XEmac's, and
Firefox.
At home if I'm going to run Linux I'm doing it on fairly slow
hardware these days, and all I'd be running would be SIMH or KLH10,
at which point I don't even really need X-Windows.
As a result, from my point of view, both KDE and Gnome have a hideous
amount of bloat, and I don't need any of it.
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
3:10 p.m.
Alexey Toptygin wrote:
There's a lot of window managers out there that don't have the bloat
problems of Gnome and KDE. I like WindowMaker, but you can get
AfterStep, fluxbox, icewm, etc.; there's tons available out of the box
on most distros. The only way to win the "Desktop Envoronment" game is
not to play :-)
So what does real unix use for a GUI?
Alexey
4:16 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great woodelf once stated:
Alexey Toptygin wrote:
X Windows with only three programs: xload, xclock and xterm. 8-P
-spc (That's pretty much all I've ever used X for ... well, except
for Mosaic/Netscape/Mozilla as well these past few years ... )
There's a lot of window managers out there that don't have the bloat
problems of Gnome and KDE. I like WindowMaker, but you can get
AfterStep, fluxbox, icewm, etc.; there's tons available out of the box
on most distros. The only way to win the "Desktop Envoronment" game is
not to play :-)
So what does real unix use for a GUI? 
3:23 p.m.
Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
X Windows with only three programs: xload, xclock
and xterm. 8-P
You know what a mouse is used for, right? It's used to point to the xterm you
want to type in :-)
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
3:30 p.m.
On 12/1/2005 at 7:16 PM spc at conman.org wrote:
X Windows with only three programs: xload, xclock
and xterm. 8-... )
Increasingly, there are programs that require X for no particular good
reason. For example, why does RealPlayer 10 require it? If you want to
play an audio (not video) clip, why should you be required to load X?
Cheers,
Chuck
4:13 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 12/1/2005 at 7:16 PM spc at conman.org wrote:
So you can watch a stupid dancing lights display screen ... nobody
wants just music.
Now if they wanted to usefull ... a nice transitor radio and a swimsuit
girl would display walking
on the beach instead for 60's music. :D
The stupid thing is things like real player are not open source so you
can't built it the way you want!
X Windows with only three programs: xload,
xclock and xterm. 8-... )
Increasingly, there are programs that require X for no particular good
reason. For example, why does RealPlayer 10 require it? If you want to
play an audio (not video) clip, why should you be required to load X?
3 Dec
3 Dec
2:41 a.m.
woodelf wrote:
The stupid thing is things like real player are not
open source so you
can't built it the way you want!
https://helixcommunity.org/
I think it is...
Gordon.
26 Dec
26 Dec
4:18 p.m.
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 03:30:14PM -0800, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Increasingly, there are programs that require X for no
particular good
reason. For example, why does RealPlayer 10 require it? If you want to
play an audio (not video) clip, why should you be required to load X?
Why should you when you simply want to play video? :-)
?ngel
1 Dec
1 Dec
3:48 p.m.
Rumor has it that Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner may have mentioned these words:
It was thus said that the Great woodelf once stated:
You obviously forgot the *real* Spider solitare game... a *must* on any
system I build!
And it's ontopic - the last changes made to the source code for that were
back in '90!
Alexey Toptygin wrote:
X Windows with only three programs: xload, xclock and xterm. 8-P
There's a lot of window managers out there that don't have the bloat
problems of Gnome and KDE. I like WindowMaker, but you can get
AfterStep, fluxbox, icewm, etc.; there's tons available out of the box
on most distros. The only way to win the "Desktop Envoronment" game is
not to play :-)
So what does real unix use for a GUI? -spc (That's pretty much all I've ever used
X for ... well, except
for Mosaic/Netscape/Mozilla as well these past few years ... )
I'm starting to learn PCB under linux now for a few things I've been
wanting to design for years now -- and in this month's Linux Journal (just
got it today) it outlines how to make stuff using gEDA, of which PCB is a
part of...
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | A new truth in advertising slogan
SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | for MicroSoft: "We're not the oxy...
zmerch at 30below.com | ...in oxymoron!"
8:44 p.m.
So what does
real unix use for a GUI?
X Windows with only three programs: xload, xclock and
xterm. 8-P 
2 Dec
2 Dec
6:48 a.m.
der Mouse wrote:
What? No window
manager?
Actually, while we differ on the details (I prefer my own clock and
terminal emulator, for example), I tend to agree with you: GUIs are
mostly for providing multiple shell windows. (About 90% of my screen
area is covered with terminal emulator windows, -snip-
Yes, I use CDE the same way :-) .
But I got used to multiple shell windows (not simultaneously
on the screen, but being able to switch between them) using NCSA Telnet.
Of course, on the server side there were also some other programs to do
this for users with a plain terminal (not a pc).
Carlos.
So what does real unix use for a GUI?
X Windows with only three programs: xload, xclock and xterm. 8-P
1 Dec
1 Dec
10:23 p.m.
At 7:16 PM -0500 12/1/05, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
It was thus said that the Great woodelf once stated:
If I could get 'joe' to work with the new "context coloring", I might
be down to that myself. Instead, I need XEmac's thrown into the mix.
Seriously, on Unix, or OpenVMS, what do you need a GUI for, other
than to provide more terminal windows :^)
On OpenVMS, the only GUI app I ever use is the DECwindows version of
"DEC Mail", and then only every few months. In spite of this, I do a
fair amount of "Word Processing" on VMS.
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
So what does real unix use for a GUI?
X Windows with only three programs: xload, xclock and xterm. 8-P
-spc (That's pretty much all I've ever used X for ... well, except
for Mosaic/Netscape/Mozilla as well these past few years ... ) 
5 p.m.
> There's a lot of window managers out there
that don't have the bloat
> problems of Gnome and KDE. I like WindowMaker, but you can get
> AfterStep, fluxbox, icewm, etc.; there's tons available out of the box
> on most distros. The only way to win the "Desktop Envoronment" game is
> not to play :-)
So what does real unix use for a GUI?
Aqua.
(scnr)
--
--------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ ---
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- It is the business of little minds to shrink. -- Carl Sandburg -------------
10:26 p.m.
At 5:00 PM -0800 12/1/05, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
Aqua is the single largest problem with Mac OS X, they ported the
classic Mac interface over to OPENSTEP, back in the Rhapsody days, I
for one wish they'd stuck with it.
Hmmm, on second thought, maybe the insane RAM requirements are the
worst thing about Mac OS X.
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
So what does
real unix use for a GUI?
Aqua. 
8:21 p.m.
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:10:14 -0700
woodelf <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
Alexey Toptygin wrote:
The X Window System. With the Tab Window Manager (twm) which is tiny and a stock part of
the 'base' X Window System. Nowadays Motif has been released as open source so
you can build it on anything and use mwm, which is another 'classic Unix' desktop
(sorta.)
The rest is all fluff. (but I confess that I use fvwm).
There's a lot of window managers out there that don't have the bloat
problems of Gnome and KDE. I like WindowMaker, but you can get
AfterStep, fluxbox, icewm, etc.; there's tons available out of the box
on most distros. The only way to win the "Desktop Envoronment" game is
not to play :-)
So what does real unix use for a GUI?
Alexey
8:33 p.m.
So what does
real unix use for a GUI?
The X Window System. With the Tab Window Manager (twm)
which is tiny
and a stock part of the 'base' X Window System. [...] The rest is all fluff. (but I confess that I use
fvwm).
Actually, twm has quite a bit of fluff itself. Title bars, menus,
icons, etc. And that's just from the user-interface poin of view;
since it's an Xt-using program, it's got a huge amount of fluff at the
code level. (My take on it is "title bars belong in Hollywood; menus
belong in restaurants; icons belong in shrines". My window manager has
none of them - and uses Xlib directly.)
Not that I have anything against fluff per se. Nor do I think that
someone who likes it shouldn't use such a WM. But I don't want fluff
in my day-to-day GUI.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
9:46 a.m.
I've had Linux in one form or the other since the very early release days
(0.something). I've never found it for use as a desktop system (especially
GUI) particularly compelling. I think many folks secretly hold the same
opinion, else why the rise of products like Wine? And there are some areas
where it really is deficient--multimedia for example. Specialized apps are
another area--I've never found a really good WYSIWYG musical notation
editor for Linux.
For doing real work, I like command line interfaces, so I keep a Linux
system around that I can telnet into from my Windows desktop. I might be
tempted to use a Mac as a desktop machine, but my customers in general
don't, so it's best to live where they do, so to speak.
My mail and net server is Linux and I change distros there when I change
hardware--every few years. There's no reason to do otherwise--the new
distros aren't as a rule faster and the server basically never crashes
since it's always doing the same thing day after day.
As far as distros go, I started with Slackware, but have been using RH for
some time, simply because I've been using RH for some time.. It really
doesn't matter all that much--RH does tend to be very spotty in its
releases--you can often find some very old release of a package in their
distros--and they have the RH way of doing things. Debian isn't bad but
can get to be very confusing and verbose during installation--and help in
making choices is often difficult to find. I've also tried SuSE and it's
pretty good.
But mostly, I want to install the blasted thing and be done with it.
Others have observed the bloat in Linux and I agree. I started running it
on an 8MB 386 and it was pretty snappy. I don't think that feat could be
reproduced with any of the current distros.
Cheers,
Chuck
8:25 p.m.
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:46:04 -0800
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
I've had Linux in one form or the other since the
very early release days
(0.something). I've never found it for use as a desktop system (especially
GUI) particularly compelling. I think many folks secretly hold the same
opinion, else why the rise of products like Wine? And there are some areas
where it really is deficient--multimedia for example. Specialized apps are
another area--I've never found a really good WYSIWYG musical notation
editor for Linux.
For doing real work, I like command line interfaces, so I keep a Linux
system around that I can telnet into from my Windows desktop. I might be
tempted to use a Mac as a desktop machine, but my customers in general
don't, so it's best to live where they do, so to speak.
My mail and net server is Linux and I change distros there when I change
hardware--every few years. There's no reason to do otherwise--the new
distros aren't as a rule faster and the server basically never crashes
since it's always doing the same thing day after day.
As far as distros go, I started with Slackware, but have been using RH for
some time, simply because I've been using RH for some time.. It really
doesn't matter all that much--RH does tend to be very spotty in its
releases--you can often find some very old release of a package in their
distros--and they have the RH way of doing things. Debian isn't bad but
can get to be very confusing and verbose during installation--and help in
making choices is often difficult to find. I've also tried SuSE and it's
pretty good.
But mostly, I want to install the blasted thing and be done with it.
Others have observed the bloat in Linux and I agree. I started running it
on an 8MB 386 and it was pretty snappy. I don't think that feat could be
reproduced with any of the current distros.
Most of the current distros won't even install on a '386 processor,
because the producers have compiled the binaries with the performance-boosting features of
newer chips. Some binaries won't run on less than a Pentium. And some people even
squawk about that as being good. (on-topic grumble and glance over at full-AT 80386-16
box currently not in use).
3 Dec
3 Dec
2:48 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
I've had Linux in one form or the other since the
very early release days
(0.something). I've never found it for use as a desktop system (especially
GUI) particularly compelling. I think many folks secretly hold the same
opinion, else why the rise of products like Wine? And there are some areas
where it really is deficient--multimedia for example. Specialized apps are
another area--I've never found a really good WYSIWYG musical notation
editor for Linux.
Rosegarden is pretty good. If you're serious about computer-produced
notation you'd use Lilypond though. From what I've seen of Rosegarden
(I use hardware sequencers rather than stuff on the PC) it can export
Lilypond source files.
As far as distros go, I started with Slackware, but
have been using RH for
some time, simply because I've been using RH for some time.. It really
doesn't matter all that much--RH does tend to be very spotty in its
releases--you can often find some very old release of a package in their
distros--and they have the RH way of doing things. Debian isn't bad but
can get to be very confusing and verbose during installation--and help in
making choices is often difficult to find. I've also tried SuSE and it's
pretty good.
I'm starting to get a bit - not annoyed, exactly, not disillusioned, but
something - annoyed with Slackware recently. At least it's nice and
easy to install.
But mostly, I want to install the blasted thing and be
done with it.
You want NetBSD for that.
Others have observed the bloat in Linux and I agree.
I started running it
on an 8MB 386 and it was pretty snappy. I don't think that feat could be
reproduced with any of the current distros.
You *definitely* want NetBSD for that.
Gordon.
8:12 a.m.
On 12/3/2005 at 10:48 AM Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
Rosegarden is pretty good. If you're serious about
computer-produced
notation you'd use Lilypond though. From what I've seen of Rosegarden
(I use hardware sequencers rather than stuff on the PC) it can export
Lilypond source files.
I've tried writing orchestral and brass band scores with Rosegarden and
gave up. It's just too difficult compared to the commercial Mac/Win
packages. And, in spite of the hype on Lilypond (it's an engraving
package, not an editor), when you need to do something that's unusual, it
can be a real chore--you can't get Rosegarden to make the appropriate
Lilypond file, so you're forced to go in an edit the notation file
manually.
There are other --nix based engraving tools, such as MusicTeX, but for the
"I've got to get a quintet score out in less than an hour" task, none of
the -nix tools is up to the job. And I know of no --nix package that has
an OCR tool for scanning old scores.
Indeed, one of the bastions of demonstrating what MusicTex can do, the
Werner Icking Archive, has gone to accepting scores written in just about
any notation package.
I'll look into NetBSD, thanks for the recommendation.
Cheers,
Chuck
1 Dec
1 Dec
9:59 a.m.
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 15:40:09 +0000
Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Cini, Richard wrote:
> I'm thinking of ditching Windows totally on my desktop
> at home
> as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll
> of the group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use.
First and
foremost:
Linux (Unix) is no Windows surrogate.
Linux is an alternative.
Linux is an entirely different world.
If you install Linux in the hope to get a "Windows with less X / more Y"
you will be disappointed.
If you want a "just use" non-M$ desktop machine get a Mac and run OSX.
There is no best Linux distribution. There may be one that fits your
needs best out of the available choices.
If I have to use Linux (i.e. at work) I use Debian. It suffers a bit
from FSF/GNU ideology, but it is less brain dead then
e.g. Suse. It is
easy to update / maintain and as stable and consistent as Linux can
be.
Not used Unbuntu or Linspire so can't comment.
FreeBSD isn't Linux, so
can't really comment there either (although experience has been that
it's brilliant for server-side but you'll have your work cut out
configuring it to be a good desktop machine)
Seconded. I am a NetBSD person. NetBSD
is well usable as a desktop Unix.
Been there, done that for several years, got the tee-shirt. But you have
to work for it. The advantage is that you are forced to tailor the
system to exactely fit your needs. The benefit of this work is a system
thats build like _you_ need / want. One advantage of NetBSD (also Free-
and Open-) is the strict distinction between base OS and third party
software. If you mess up your KDE, GNOME, whatever installation
(somthing that likes to happen), you can just toss it and start over
with a fresh pkgsrc without touching the base OS. Base OS releases get
supported for several years.
NetBSD is the most sane implementation of the UNIX paradigm.
Personal observations about Linux over the years:
1) It's suffering from *serious* bloat,
Seconded. Seeing KDE and GNOME eating
several 100 MB of RAM and slowing
a 1 GHz CPU down to the feel of a 100 MHz machine is simply disgusting.
Fortunately Unix gives me the freedom of using somthing like fvwm2.
3) Systems still suffer from rot, just like Windows
does.
A system that gets used is "aging". That is the way live goes. It is
a
law of nature. There is no way to work around it beside not using the
system.
4) WINE is actually pretty darn good these days if you
want to run
Windows apps on your Linux box.
And there will be Windows inside of XEN in the
neare future...
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
10:49 a.m.
Rumor has it that Jochen Kunz may have mentioned these words:
I've upgraded more because I had to remain compatible with new devices out
(think USB & whatnot) than to actually improve usability of the machine itself.
[[ Oh, and the Model 100 emulator for Linux needs glibc 2.3, and my
2-year-old LFS system had glibc 2.2; so it wouldn't compile. :-/ ]]
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
_??_ zmerch at 30below.com
(?||?) If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
_)(_ disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
There is no best Linux distribution.
Yes there is.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
Build your own. Takes from a few days to a month or more, but then you can
build *just exactly what you want* with the compiler options that you want,
etc. Don't want X, don't build it. I can easily fit a non-X distro (with
all the other bells & whistles) in less than 512M, and wouldn't booting
from a cheap CF card be fun? ;-)
I've been doing LFS for 2 years now, and now I can't stand *any* other
distro for my own use; altho my technophobe wife uses SuSE and a Knoppix CD
can come in handy for a few things.
There may be one that fits your
needs best out of the available choices.
If I have to use Linux (i.e. at work) I use Debian. It suffers a bit
from FSF/GNU ideology, but it is less brain dead then e.g. Suse. It is
easy to update / maintain and as stable and consistent as Linux can be.
I've used Slackware (ancient), Caldera (1.3, 2.2, 2.3 - it was a really
good distro back in it's day), I'd had good luck with RedHat 9 (but
absolutely *nothing* later than that)...
I've not really monkeyed with Debian much at all, except the installer
sucks; and it didn't much care for my (admittedly very odd) Crusoe-based
laptop.
My wife's SuSE box is rock stable, and bog simple for her to use. It's all
ooey-GUI and happety-go-lucky so she can browse her Internut & whatnot, and
it's pretty easy to maintain (printers, etc.). If you're looking for a
desktop Linux, this will prolly fit your bill. It does, however, suffer
from bloat (as most nowadays do)...
Fortunately Unix gives me the freedom of using somthing
like fvwm2.
Whooohoooo! Someone else loves my favorite Window Manager! ;-)
3) Systems
still suffer from rot, just like Windows does.
A system that gets used is
"aging". That is the way live goes. It is a
law of nature. There is no way to work around it beside not using the
system.
11:22 a.m.
There is no
best Linux distribution.
Yes there is.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
[...]
I've been doing LFS for 2 years now, and now I can't stand *any*
other distro for my own use; altho my technophobe wife uses SuSE and
a Knoppix CD can come in handy for a few things. Build your own. Takes from a few days to a month or
more,
For some applications that is a showstopper. For others it's "merely"
an unnecessary annoyance.
There is no globally best just-about-anything. At least when a
selection exists at all.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
3:07 p.m.
Roger Merchberger wrote:
How is this different from gentoo?
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
There is no
best Linux distribution.
Yes there is.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
Build your own. Takes from a few days to a month or more, but then you
3:47 p.m.
Rumor has it that Jim Leonard may have mentioned these words:
Roger Merchberger wrote:
How is this different from gentoo?
Linux from Scratch:
Read book, learn commands, learn what your compiling & why, learn how to
set up the applications & system by hand, learn lots of other stuff along
the way, oops twice due to typoes, learn to fix it, drink lots of beer,
then have a functional, fast Linux system, and know *why* it is.
Gentoo:
Insert CD in machine with 'Net connectivity, hit "go", wait a bunch whilst
it downloads lots of stuff & patches it with insecure shiznit, compiles it,
then it says "Done," then you reboot and have a (hopefully) running Linux
that's generally not that secure tho you're not sure *why* it isn't & you
generally haven't learned much during the process.
Yea, I'm kinda cynical about the whole emerge thingy, but seeing how Gentoo
bastardizes qmail and then the poor buggers ask why they're having problems
because they know nothing about the whole deal...
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
_??_ zmerch at 30below.com
(?||?) If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
_)(_ disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
There is
no best Linux distribution.
Yes there is.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
Build your own. Takes from a few days to a month or more, but then you
6:18 p.m.
Roger Merchberger wrote:
Insert CD in machine with 'Net connectivity, hit
"go", wait a bunch
whilst it downloads lots of stuff & patches it with insecure shiznit,
Be fair now -- what makes it insecure and your stuff secure?
Yea, I'm kinda cynical about the whole emerge
thingy, but seeing how
Hopefully that doesn't extend to FreeBSD's /ports system. I loved that a
decade ago and I still do.
Gentoo bastardizes qmail and then the poor buggers ask
why they're
having problems because they know nothing about the whole deal...
Well, who in their right mind would run qmail??? Last I checked, messages in
the queue must have filenames that match their inode numbers -- excuse me? How
am I supposed to backup/restore the queue?
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
8:09 p.m.
[...]
downloads lots of stuff & patches it with insecure shiznit,
Be fair now -- what
makes it insecure and your stuff secure? Well, who in their right mind would run qmail???
Amen. Not open source, connection-bombs recipient mailhosts by
default, nonstandard bounces that don't even have message-IDs(!)...and
now this
Last I checked, messages in the queue must have
filenames that match
their inode numbers
which I hadn't heard of before.
Yet quite a number of otherwise apparently sane people do, and appear
totally impervious to clue provision. I really don't get it. (To be
fair, there are also a number that *are* at least somewhat
clue-pervious, though there's one - a really nice guy in most respects,
both online and in person - with whom I've had several go-rounds over
the connection-bombing misbehaviour, who just can't seem to grasp the
concept of politeness as applied to other people's resources.)
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
2 Dec
2 Dec
4:42 a.m.
Am 1 Dec 2005 17:07 meinte Jim Leonard:
Roger Merchberger wrote:
>> There is no best Linux distribution.
> Yes there is.
> Build your own. Takes from a few days to a month
or more, but then you
How is this different from gentoo?
Well, I guess Roger got a quite pointed answer here, but for
a simple start, LFS means you got to do all the steps to build
a linux system on your own, while Gento prety much automated the
whole process.
Gentoo is an atempt to give you the friendlyness of a complete,
ready to use system with the flexibility of adapting everything
to your needs. Of course this is always a comprimuse. If you
just go ahead and install it according to the real good made
instructions (*1), then you'll not to far from what most big
distris give you - still the system is not as bloated.
For the installation part, ALFS (Automated LFS) is a project
to create a basic install wthat can again be automated.
When it comes to applications Gentoo is as easy as other full (*2)
distries, just emerge, whatever application you need - chances
are as good as with SuSE or Red Hat, that this app is available.
LFS in contrast requires that you start on you own an look where
to find the application, than gnaw your way thru the app docs
to learn how it has to be compiled and why, just to find some
missing flag or an obsciure library version needed to finish.
Of course, after you did this you'll be way more familiar with
that application then by just installing a binary.
Debian belivers often point out, that their apt-get is even more
powerfull than emerge, but all you get is a rather generic
binary. in no way customized.
Especialy the distribution via source code offers another level
of security, since a given app is always build on your local (*3)
machine from the sources. This you can always verify (or at least
die tryin') every detail.
I once had an argument wit an LFS-advocate who insisted that
only LFS is secue, because you have to go thru the sources to
make it work. I think that's rather theoretical if at all. If
your're installing apps from scratch, you're more concerned to
get it working than to double check its internals.
Gentoo gives you the ability to dig in as deep as you want, but
doesn't force this onto you.
Gruss
H.
*1 - I belive there's by now even a throw a CD in and let it go
version, but I never seen that, you still have to work your
way along the command line, but it's realy easy and well
explained.
*2 - Full refers here to a distribution that gives you a fill
fledged system like windows (aka SuSE, Red Hat and even
Debian), not just a minimal linux or a one configuration
fits all system.
*3 - or on some slaves if you use distcc
--
VCF Europa 7.0 am 29/30.April und 01.Mai 2006 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
1 Dec
1 Dec
8:30 p.m.
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:49:28 -0500
Roger Merchberger <zmerch at 30below.com> wrote:
Rumor has it that Jochen Kunz may have mentioned these
words:
I can just install NetBSD or OpenBSD without choosing to install the big tarballs of X11
binaries. It will install in about five minutes from prebuilt binaries and be VERY
integrated and clean. I can easily fit a non-X install on an old 80M IDE drive.
There is no best Linux distribution.
Yes there is.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
Build your own. Takes from a few days to a month or more, but then you can
build *just exactly what you want* with the compiler options that you want,
etc. Don't want X, don't build it. I can easily fit a non-X distro (with
all the other bells & whistles) in less than 512M, and wouldn't booting
from a cheap CF card be fun? ;-)
8:14 p.m.
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 15:40:09 +0000
Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Cini, Richard wrote:
I moved from Slackware to NetBSD a number of years ago, and just recently gave OpenBSD a
try. From my perspective, there's an advantage in any of the BSDs over a Linux in
that you're dealing with a more integrated OS. The three 'main' BSDs provide
an entire userland from the same source tree, not 'packages' from all over. So
you get X Window and all your standard unixy things, including the core development tools,
in a small single-install produced by one organization. Then 'packages' like word
processors, browsers, emulators and such are installed as 'packages' through a
package management system. Most 'linux' distros try to do this, but pull in
source and binaries from all over to make up the 'distribution' without the degree
of oversight that a modern BSD operating system entails.
What has me 'sold' on OpenBSD at this point is that there is a rich directory of
prebuilt binary packages from one place and mirrors that I was able to mirror onto a
DVD-ROM and now have in it's entirety. Which can be done with any other 'free
UNIX' if you download enough but there often aren't centrally located
repositories. (BTW- anybody who wants a set of said stuff, holler in private email
because I'm in favor of sharing bandwidth. I will distribute CDs or DVDs- the
'downloadable' stuff only, though, for the cost of media and shipping) And being
moderately cross-platform (not as widely ported as NetBSD, of course) you can run it on a
LOT of different systems. I bought the commercial OpenBSD CDROM set a month ago before
embarking on my new OpenBSD system install, and it clearly stated right on the outside of
the CD that the set contained the binaries to run on a MicroVAX 3100. What ELSE can you
buy at a Frys Electronics that will run on the latest Pentiums, the 64 b!
it AMD processors, your Macintosh SE/30 and your MicroVAX 3100? (they didn't have
the NetBSD set at the Frys I visited)
There is also a slogan out there that sums it all up nicely and/or is obvious flamebait:
"Linux is for people who hate Microsoft. BSD is for people who love Unix."
All:
I'm thinking of ditching Windows totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded Fedora
Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
Always been a Slackware fan myself (used it since the SLS days, apart from a
brief diversion to RedHat). It's less bloated than the likes of Fedora, but
still comes with the option of a lot of desktop software.
10:40 p.m.
At 11:14 PM -0500 12/1/05, Scott Stevens wrote:
I moved from Slackware to NetBSD a number of years ago,
and just
recently gave OpenBSD a try. From my perspective, there's an
advantage in any of the BSDs
OpenBSD rocks! There is one downside to it though, and that's Theo,
he doesn't always stop to consider the damage some of his decisions
do in the short term.
Where I *really* like OpenBSD is on Sparc hardware, it will really
breath new life into old Sparc's. Unfortunately the last time I
checked, it still doesn't support multiple CPU's on Sparc Hardware.
I'd love to install it on one of my SparcStation 20/712's! Besides
the attention paid to making it secure, the other thing I really like
about it is that it tends to have very small RAM requirements.
There is also a slogan out there that sums it all up
nicely and/or
is obvious flamebait: "Linux is for people who hate Microsoft. BSD
is for people who love Unix."
I'll agree with that, sadly a lot of Linux users are blinded by their
hatred of Microsoft.
Still, my favorite Unix variants are probably Solaris, and IRIX.
Still to run some things, you simply need Linux.
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
2 Dec
2 Dec
2:08 p.m.
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 22:40:13 -0800
"Zane H. Healy" <healyzh at aracnet.com> wrote:
[OpenBSD]
Unfortunately the last time I
checked, it still doesn't support multiple CPU's on Sparc Hardware.
NetBSD
does. :-)
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
1 Dec
1 Dec
8:47 a.m.
On Thursday 01 December 2005 07:11, Cini, Richard wrote:
All:
I'm thinking of ditching Windows totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded
Fedora Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
Any thoughts from the group?
Rich
We've been recommending SuSE (now Novell) for several years to our clients for
both workstations and servers - and we (clients and ourselves) have not been
disappointed. Some of our clients have several thousand workstations - mixed
Windows and Linux - and many servers - again mixed Linux, Sun Solaris, IBM
AIX, and Windows versions of various ilk.
I personally have used a SuSE Linux workstation for years . In fact, I started
"playing" with Linux about version 0.89 (slightly post Minix)...
I've done many analysis's for clients of RH v. SuSE - and SuSE almost always
"wins". What you finally choose is application and manageability dependent -
so try both.
Cheers,
Lyle
--
Lyle Bickley
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
Mountain View, CA
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
8:47 a.m.
Am 1 Dec 2005 10:11 meinte Cini, Richard:
All:
I'm thinking of ditching Windows totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded Fedora
Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
Any thoughts from the group?
Just if you son't want to switch for a neat mac mini, I see two
possible options:
a) if it's a rather actual hardware and you don'T want to fiddle
with the OS, or installation or whatever, I strongly suggest a
SuSE with KDE.
It's probably the best match for Windows. SuSE has the a setup for
people without special knowledge (as easy as windows), while KDE
gives you any oportunity to model your desktoy as you want it -
Gnome is here eventually better for the complete computer dummy,
but I assume you're a bit above, an just don't want to do the
Linux basics.
b) If you want to have your customized system, but don't want to
go all the way to 100% DIY (aka Slackware), Gentoo would be the
choice.
All stuff will be compiled for your machine on your machine,
everything can be setup the way you want it to be. Basicly a
source based distribution with a BSD like portage system. So
you get the best of both worlds.
Except for one machine running without change since 8 years,
all my Linux boxes are Gentoo based by now.
Often you may also get Debian nominated for customizeing and
easy maintanance, but it's all binary, and often quite outdated,
so it gets often quite tricky - unless your a Linux gure, but
in that case any distri would be fine :)
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 7.0 am 29/30.April und 01.Mai 2006 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
9:03 a.m.
On Thu, 2005-12-01 10:11:56 -0500, Cini, Richard <Richard.Cini at wachovia.com>
wrote:
I'm thinking of ditching Windows totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded Fedora
Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
Debian, of course :)
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw at lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 _ O _
"Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg _ _ O
f?r einen Freien Staat voll Freier B?rger" | im Internet! | im Irak! O O O
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));
11:02 a.m.
On 1/12/05 15:11, "Cini, Richard" <Richard.Cini at wachovia.com> wrote:
I'm thinking of ditching Windows
totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded Fedora
Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
By now you'll have read the 'there's no such thing as best' replies :)
I started with Slackware and turbolinux in 98 or 99, then went for RedHat
7.1 because it seemed more manageable to me, but an online update to 7.3
broke it horribly and took ages for me to fix it so when I changed servers I
went for SuSE and I've been using that ever since. Without KDE running it
just ticks over on a 733 PIII (compaq ML350).
Desktop-wise most of the distros try to point you in the direction of Gnome
or KDE; I preferred the way Gnome looked but KDE is better if you want a
windows-r-us type desktop.
I've had a Knoppix based live CD for ages now in use as a troubleshooting
tool for misbehaving windows boxes, but with the arrival of a 512mb USB key
I rooted around for a distro that was still full featured but would install
on said key and I ended up with SLAX - www.slax.org. Slackware based and
designed to be fully modular so you can put apps in the modules directory
and they'll install at boot time, when you don't need them any more just
remove them. Nice desktop too, based on KDE 3.4 I think. With that and
OpenOffice V2 you've got a very good desktop peecee replacement.
(Jules, there's at least one wrapper for GiMP V2.x that makes it look like
Photoshop, it's called GiMPshop.....)
At home now I'm using a Mac Mini; my peecee only gets turned on these days
to watch TV :)
A
12:16 p.m.
On 01/12/05, Cini, Richard <Richard.Cini at wachovia.com> wrote:
All:
I'm thinking of ditching Windows totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded Fedora
Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
Any thoughts from the group?
Rich
I would go with some of the others and say SuSE, It does depend on
what you want it to do. But as a Windows replacement it probably is
the most flexible, It pretty much does plug and play. Although quite a
lot of of files are in different places (and different names). Give it
a go.
If you're not sure download a shit load of live-cd's and try them.
This has the advantage of knowing where you stand with device support.
If it detects your sound card, printer, usb hub etc. with the live-cd
you know you're not going to have spend ages trying to recompile the
kernel or modules and then find out it doesn't work anyway.
I have to say that I have settled on Netbsd myself.....
Dan
12:48 p.m.
On 1/12/05 20:16, "Dan Williams" <williams.dan at gmail.com> wrote:
If you're not sure download a shit load of
live-cd's and try them.
Here's a good place to start:
http://www.frozentech.com/content/livecd.php
A
12:27 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Cini, Richard once stated:
I'm thinking of ditching Windows totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded Fedora
Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
Mainly desktop usage? Server? Both? How much Unix do you know? Do you
care to know?
One thing I've found is that the distributions that come with some form of
automatic package management (like Fedora Core with yum, or Gentoo with
emerge) that unless you update every hour on the hour, you will soon be
unable to update at all since older versions (where "old" is defined as
"older than three days") are no longer supported (and even then, doing it
hourly may not be frequent enough) [1].
-spc (Who tends towards using tar balls and forgoing the whole
package crap ... )
[1] Hyperbole, but I have a few Gentoo servers that are now unable to
emerge properly since they're "too old" apparently (and I only
emerge stuff when needed, not for gratuitous upgrading. [2]
[2] Which slowly consumes disk space for the system as software packages
tend to bloat, and there's always a risk of an upgrade breaking an
existing setup.
12:29 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Cini, Richard once stated:
I'm thinking of ditching Windows totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded Fedora
Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
Oh, and if you go with Fedora Core, be wary of SELinux. Not that it's
buggy, but that it's too safe and secure and if you aren't used to it,
debugging problems becomes a real mess.
-spc (i.e. permissions look okay, but the program still doesn't open
that one file ... )
1:30 p.m.
At 10:11 AM -0500 12/1/05, Cini, Richard wrote:
I'm thinking of ditching Windows
totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded Fedora
Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
Any thoughts from the group?
How familiar are you with Unix in general?
As others have pointed out, add SUSE, and Debian to your list of OS's to try.
Personally, it sounds like you're targeting this from the correct
angle already, download several distro's and try them all. Then go
with what you like best.
I've personally used the following distro's over the years; the
original boot/root disk combo, SLS, Slackware, Red Hat, Mandrake,
SUSE, Debian. While I do still have a couple systems with Linux
installed, I don't really use Linux at home anymore (haven't had one
turned on in *months*). Mac OS X pretty much takes care of all of my
Unix needs at home.
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
2:58 p.m.
Cini, Richard wrote:
I'm thinking of ditching Windows
totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded Fedora
Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
Any thoughts from the group?
Well, my first thought is "Why did you just ask for a *nux advocacy flamewar?"
My second thought is that you didn't provide enough information on what you are
doing with your Windows desktop that you want to keep doing under Linux. I
can't properly recommend a particular distribution until I know what it is you
do with your existing OS setup. You also didn't mention what your existing
*nix competency level was at. Provide information on those last two holes and
I'd be more than happy to give you some recommendations.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
8:36 p.m.
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:58:09 -0600
Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote:
Cini, Richard wrote:
For the sake of the list, perhaps we should all pledge to let this thread die It now
contains about all the info he needs. I pledge so personally.
I'm thinking of ditching Windows
totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded Fedora
Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
Any thoughts from the group?
Well, my first thought is "Why did you just ask for a *nux advocacy flamewar?"
7 Dec
7 Dec
12:30 p.m.
Cini, Richard wrote:
I'm thinking of ditching Windows
totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded Fedora
Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
Any thoughts from the group?
Here's my thoughts...
First off,I'm a Linux/Unix newbie.
I've tinkered with NetBSD a little on a VaxStation 3100, DEC Multia,
PC, and a SparcStation LX. Easy to install and get running. Loved the
fact that it works the same on all the different hardware. Never did try
to get X windows running, except for on the Sparc. But that was easy.
Played with Red Hat 6, and Suse 9 on 2 different IBM Stinkpads. Not bad.
About 2 months ago, I made a full fledged, not looking back, jump to
Ubuntu 5.04, "Hoary Hedgehog", on my work PC. Definitely enjoying the
ease of use. Now, the only thing I need my Windows PC for is using our
Access database, and syncing my Treo 600 with the company's MeetingMaker
server. And I do that with the RDP client that came with Ubuntu.
Summed up, I'd use NetBSD for server work, and Ubuntu (Debian based)
for desktops. FWIW, the Ubuntu mailing list community does seem quite
helpful. Download the Live CD and give it a whirl...
--
--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- AIM - woyciesjes
8 Dec
8 Dec
10:36 a.m.
On 01/12/05, Cini, Richard <Richard.Cini at wachovia.com> wrote:
All:
I'm thinking of ditching Windows totally on my desktop at home
as I build my next upgraded x86-bsed PC. So, I wanted to take a poll of the
group for a recommendation on which Linux distro to use. I downloaded Fedora
Core, Slackware, FreeBSD, Unbuntu and Linspire.
Any thoughts from the group?
Time for my usual 5min instant distro summary.
I'm going to make some assumptions:
- you want a GUI desktop machine
- you want some basic productivity apps & Internet clients
- you have a reasonably modern x86 PC that would run W2K or XP happily
You have some choices to make.
Do you mind paying for it?
Do you want to play around, fiddle, try different things out, or do
you want it to just work so you can get on with using your computer?
If you don't mind paying, then:
- for a do-everything loads-of-toys distro, try Mandriva or SuSE. Both
are very complete, easy GUI-based distros with good admin tools.
- for a simple Windows-replacement, try Xandros.
If you don't want to pay, or are happy to put up with a slightly
limited free eval version, then:
- for the do-everything types, again, Mandriva or SuSE
- for a simple quick clean GUI desktop, try Ubuntu. Small, fast, does
the job. Based on Debian so you can hack around with it if you so
choose, changing desktop environments, window managers, whatever you
like.
That covers it. Other contenders:
- for all-in-one GUI solutions, there's also Mepis, which some people
really rate.
- if you don't mind running something that is essentially in eternal
beta-test and never stabilizes, Fedora Core is allegedly all right.
Only Red Hat fans tend to like it.
If you don't want a GUI desktop, but want to assemble your own OS from
the pieces, then:
- Slackware is the oldest currently-maintained distro. Nice simple
BSD-style init, fairly minimal and thus fast, but setup and package
management are a bit paleolithic. The package management is being
modernised, though, but is still based around tarballs. If you don't
know what a tarball is, you don't want Slackware.
- Debian is arguably the One True Linux. Old, stable, reliable, the
best package management around, massive library of software. You
choose the edition: stable version (mission-critical boxes: changes
very slowly, essential bugfixes only), unstable or testing (constantly
shifting, where new stuff is tried out.) Needs configuring and
building entirely by hand - expect to write lots of config files.
Learning curve like the north face of the Eiger.
- Gentoo. For the sort of person who glues a bodykit onto a small
boring hatchback. Compile everything from scratch so you have the
exact compiler optimisations for your individual machine. Can be very
fast as a result. Requires considerable knowledge to get working.
Anything else is, frankly, marginal, or costs thousands and is
intended for corporate servers.
Avoid Linspire: pretty, easy, but no security & no bundled apps;
defaults to running as 'root' at all times, all apps & extras cost
money.
--
Liam Proven ? http://livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=lproven
AOL/AIM/iChat: liamproven at aol.com ? MSN/Messenger: lproven at hotmail.com
Yahoo: liamproven at yahoo.co.uk ? Skype: liamproven ? ICQ: 73187508
Gmail/Google Talk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
6886
days inactive
6912
days old
62 comments
29 participants
participants (29)
-
a.macdonald+classiccmp＠slitesys.demon.co.uk -
alexeyt＠freeshell.org -
ama＠ugr.es -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
blkline＠attglobal.net -
cclist＠sydex.com -
chenmel＠earthlink.net -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
cmurillo＠autonoma.edu.co -
curt＠atarimuseum.com -
gordonjcp＠gjcp.net -
Hans.Franke＠siemens.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
jbglaw＠lug-owl.de -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
korpela＠ssl.berkeley.edu -
lbickley＠bickleywest.com -
lproven＠gmail.com -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
Richard.Cini＠wachovia.com -
spc＠conman.org -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org -
williams.dan＠gmail.com -
witchy＠binarydinosaurs.co.uk -
woyciesjes＠sbcglobal.net -
zmerch＠30below.com