Linux is not great code. Kernel and other parts might be OK, but when you start digging into the other components that make up a distribution....Ah, but there's the rub. You're confusing Linux per se with any distribution. Two very different animals.
I don't want to go through a zillion hoops just to do simple things.... there's always been too much bloody work involved.I don't doubt you had problems. I haven't had very many at all, and the ones I have had, I've been able to easily google my way out of in minutes.
No filesystem hierarchy standard that everybody agrees on. And even when there's a somewhat similar layout, subtle (or not so subtle!) things are handled differently. A zillion different package managers, not to mention that Perl, Python and Ruby have their own systems.This confuses me. By "filesystem hierarchy standard" do you mean a particular one, such as Ext3, RFS, ZFS, Ext4? FAT, NTFS, or the traditional filesystem structure:
But for desktops? Too much bloody work, I'd have to spend time hunting for replacement software (some of it beta and/or pretty inferior to what I have - show me a competitor to Visual Studio that isn't half-baked), and to what benefit? Sure, "freedom" - whatever that means.Which software are you trying to replace? Isn't Visual Studio a Microsoft coding product for its OSes only? If it does C, then it should work, right? (I really don't know; I'm dropdead ignorant about programming.) For myself, freedom works in my favor:
Sorry for the rant, but I get frustrated when I see people claiming it's easy and full of joy to 'switch over'. Sure, it can work for some people.... But for me it's just too much frustration to be worth it.I can understand that. At least you're honest with yourself. As for me, it's not nearly as difficult as I was told and frankly, I haven't had this much fun on a computer since the early 90s. Use what you love; love what you use. Either way, as long as you're happy.
[f0dder]:I know that "linux" is the kernel and that you should say GNU/Linux to refer to the system, and use a fully qualified distro name, and use SI-approved units like MiBiBytes etc... but I refuse to take part in that sillyness.Linux is not great code. Kernel and other parts might be OK, but when you start digging into the other components that make up a distribution....Ah, but there's the rub. You're confusing Linux per se with any distribution. Two very different animals.-zridling (October 16, 2008, 12:28 AM)
This confuses me. By "filesystem hierarchy standard" do you mean a particular one, such as Ext3, RFS, ZFS, Ext4? FAT, NTFS, or the traditional filesystem structure:Since I say hierarchy, obviously it's the layout/structure. And no, this hasn't been properly standardized. Yeah yeah, there's the FHS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard), but that doesn't stop distros for doing things slightly differently. True, there's some differences between Windows versions, but at least you can look up paths in the registry. On linux, only the distribution's own tools knows where things go.-zridling (October 16, 2008, 12:28 AM)
The mere choice of file system is great to me, and for my old data. Microsoft never got around to implementing a new FS for Vista, if you recall.And I'm glad they didn't - all that SQL junk ontop of NTFS sounded like a trainwreck to me. NTFS by itself is a pretty decent and well tested FS. Sure, some of the newer filesystems like XFS or ZFS or BTRFS could be interesting - but it's not like anything stops you from porting those to Windows. People just don't seem to have much interest in doing so.-zridling (October 16, 2008, 12:28 AM)
Linux lets you spread the file system over as many different hard drives and partitions as you want but still appear like a seamless whole.NTFS junctions...-zridling (October 16, 2008, 12:28 AM)
Which software are you trying to replace? Isn't Visual Studio a Microsoft coding product for its OSes only? If it does C, then it should work, right? (I really don't know; I'm dropdead ignorant about programming.)It's a pretty well-polished programming IDE with features that aren't useful just for windows development. I've looked at code::blocks, anjuta, kdevelop and eclipse, but many are slightly buggy or outdated, and arent't really in the same league.-zridling (October 16, 2008, 12:28 AM)
For myself, freedom works in my favor:I snipped the list. But yes, some of those points are reasons why I wouldn't mind having a working alternative to Windows. I think the unconformity of distros is a problem, though, and I don't get viruses or BSODs on Windows (except for bad hardware or drivers, but that would cause kernel panics on linux anyway :)). The registry is a good thing, btw, and it's a shame linux is stuck with a cluttered mess of config files with different formats.-zridling (October 16, 2008, 12:28 AM)
Don’t be "that guy." Mac users have been this way and the whole routine gets old by the second sentence. Enjoy Linux for what it is — great code, stable OS, fast platform — not for what it’s not (Windows).Amen :)-zriddling
Another big problem is the requirement to use the terminal to do a lot of the program installations and any advanced settings that are required to get some programs up and running. It's not as simple as Windows where it is often a double-click on an icon that opens a wizard to guide you through installation in a graphical way. Also, I think that there are too many Linux distros out there and this harms it because now a user has to figure out if a Linux program will actually run on his system or if he has to compile it from the source code!-VideoInPicture (October 19, 2008, 07:49 PM)
I think Linux could take a step forward by doing anyway with the terminal and simplifying the installation of some programs. I don't think any user short of a programmer should have to touch the terminal.
Only four major distros? Which one of those would you say gentoo derives from, then? ;)
Terminal
Only four major distros? Which one of those would you say gentoo derives from, then? ;)
As for building from source, yeah those are the basic steps. But you forgot the whole hunting-down-dependency-hell and uninstall/upgrade bother.-f0dder (October 19, 2008, 10:59 PM)
Zing! :P
I think that puts it to 6. Puppy, Slackware, Debian, Suse, Gentoo and...I'm not really sure Redhat counts. Technically it is but I think just based on user needs Ubuntu even though it's based on Debian is more of a major distro nowadays.-Paul Keith (October 19, 2008, 11:39 PM)
I'm downloading the 8.10 Ubuntu beta right now (Intrepid Ibex) and I plan to install it as a Windows application and run it from within Windows (never done it before, but I want to be able to use my X-Fi while running Ubuntu, along with some other things that Ubuntu still has iffy support for (*cough* 3D GAMES *cough*). I've heard this is the best way for Windows -> Ubuntu users to give it a shot, but I am not sure if it needs to have a separate partition or not. Even if it does, the "real" install does too, so its not any more work.
I can have my Ubuntu and eat it too! Er.. how does that go again? :P-wreckedcarzz (October 19, 2008, 11:52 PM)
I found out that there is no official user support for the installation of Mono onto Ubuntu-VideoInPicture (October 19, 2008, 07:49 PM)
Terminal
I think this is just a misunderstanding between two parties. Usually when I hear people say "no to terminal", I think what they mean is for it to function more like a Mac than for the terminal to be get rid of all together.-Paul Keith (October 19, 2008, 11:39 PM)
I don't think any user short of a programmer should have to touch the terminal.-VideoInPicture (October 19, 2008, 07:49 PM)
I wouldn't say that gentoo is based on BSD, since it's a linux distro - but it's pretty evident where it got the "portage" idea from...-f0dder (October 20, 2008, 01:56 AM)
What is Gentoo?
Gentoo is a free operating system based on either Linux or FreeBSD that can be automatically optimized and customized for just about any application or need. Extreme configurability, performance and a top-notch user and developer community are all hallmarks of the Gentoo experience.
http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml
Btw, gentoo isn't made superfluous by advances in hardware, it's just as much about having configurability options.
With other distros, I've found that oftentimes I get a lot of features I don't need from standard packages (including dragging in a crapload of dependencies),
but a feature I need isn't enabled - and I end up having to do those messy from-source installs after all.
Dependency-hunting isn't hard, it's just a waste of time. And for some software, you get into the iffy situation where very specific versions are needed. Installing redmine, for instance, was pretty fun smiley
I said configurability (as in --without-package or --with-feature), I didn't mean tweaking the compiler flags. For most applications, you don't really get any kind of performance increase from doing that. Heck, you could end up with slightly slower performance in some cases.Btw, gentoo isn't made superfluous by advances in hardware, it's just as much about having configurability options.-f0dder
Agree. But to what point? If you're looking to improve performance, it becomes somewhat pointless to spend dozens of hours researching what compilation flags to set in order to squeeze a 5% improvement in efficiency on a specific platform. You could just invest in more RAM or a faster processor.-40hz (October 20, 2008, 12:05 PM)
Where Gentoo really would (and does) shine is when you use it as the basis for an application appliance. But again, that is a specialized situation where there are pragmatic reasons for wringing every last ounce of performance out of your product - because if you don't, the competition in the marketplace will kill you. And there are two other good reasons. First, once you create a fully optimized Gentoo "gold master" you can just keep cloning it until you change your hardware configuration. And second, because you're going to be responsible for support, it also makes sense to get everything "just right" before you ship out 5000 boxed products.If I was to do an appliance, and especially something that'd run on a system with limited performance and storage, I'd probably go linux-from-scratch instead of using a distro - even something that can be as minimal as gentoo.-40hz (October 20, 2008, 12:05 PM)
I'm thinking enabling/disabling individual features from individual programs. But sure, I do tend to do custom kernel builds as well.but a feature I need isn't enabled - and I end up having to do those messy from-source installs after all.I don't know of any supported 'feature' for a distro that isn't found in its repositories and installable via the preferred package manager. If you're doing source compiles for a core function, I suspect you're either hacking the kernal, or getting into something that hasn't been fully tested and approved for distribution.-f0dder-40hz (October 20, 2008, 12:05 PM)
Redmine's hassles were the result of a change to the SQlite-3 database table_info pragma that was made by the SQLite development team. The change was made in response to what they thought was a request from the RubyCore team. Such was not the case, and the change that got made broke all Ruby on Rails apps that were using SQLite-3. What makes this story really tragic is the fact that the problem didn't come about through an arbitrary program change, but rather by SQLite's genuine effort to be accommodating and responsive to a request it thought was from the Ruby community.I opted for MySQL instead of SQLite for exactly that reason. But that was only part of it - you also had to make sure you got the right ruby verson, the right rails version, et cetera. Lots of manual configuration. Pretty sucky and not up-to-date documentation, etc.-40hz (October 20, 2008, 12:05 PM)
On a related note, Redmine is a web-based project management application. If you go over to SourceForge you will find there are something like 1700 packages that are tagged "project management." A cursory look at a few dozen will show several that duplicate, and in some cases exceed, the functionality of Redmine. Many are also out of beta.Haven't found any other that I like, though. Looks, usability, etc.-40hz (October 20, 2008, 12:05 PM)
It's nice that Linux has made provisions for you to compile an application from source. But unless you have a very specific reason for doing so (or you just plain want-to-do-it*), why bother?For me, it's about getting the features I want, but also not getting the features I don't want. For instance, my server doesn't run X11 and I don't print from it. I want to have as few services running as possible, since there's then less things to worry about wrt. updates, following security issues, et cetera. There's also less dependencies that can break when a stoned developer checks in a patch that messes up other things.-40hz (October 20, 2008, 12:05 PM)
If I was to do an appliance, and especially something that'd run on a system with limited performance and storage, I'd probably go linux-from-scratch instead of using a distro - even something that can be as minimal as gentoo.-f0dder (October 20, 2008, 02:44 PM)
It's nice that Linux has made provisions for you to compile an application from source. But unless you have a very specific reason for doing so (or you just plain want-to-do-it*), why bother?-40hz (October 20, 2008, 12:05 PM)
For me, it's about getting the features I want, but also not getting the features I don't want. For instance, my server doesn't run X11 and I don't print from it. I want to have as few services running as possible, since there's then less things to worry about wrt. updates, following security issues, et cetera. There's also less dependencies that can break when a stoned developer checks in a patch that messes up other things.
And the nice thing about gentoo is that you get most of the benefits from source installs, but still with the benefits of package management (uninstalls, dependency resolution, etc).-f0dder (October 20, 2008, 02:44 PM)
From the level of knowledge you've displayed in many of your forum posts, I suspect you (i.e f0dder) are part of that small cadre of people that has specific goals combined with the necessary technical background to pull them off. For folks like you, Gentoo makes sense.
Keep educating us idiots, f0dder and 40hz. :up:-Paul Keith (October 21, 2008, 07:24 AM)
[40hz]: I didn't forget the dependency issue. From my experience, the whole "hunting-down-the-dependency-hell" thing is vastly exaggerated and somewhat outdated.
[/b] for the feedback, which is far more than I know. However, for those with the patience, here's a longer, very simplistic explanation of dependency management-zridling (October 21, 2008, 01:57 PM)
Dependency management can get fiendishly complicated at times. But no worries. Like a good butler, the Linux software subsystem hides all that from you. This is one argument people use if they object to package management systems, such as that used by Ubuntu (or any other Distro). However, the counterargument is a good one: it never breaks -- unless the user does something stupid, that is.Except when bad stuff happens. Like an install that updates a dependency that somehow for unexplainable reasons break another piece of software. Or when two pieces of software are incompatible because of library conflicts. Or when package maintainers forget some dependencies.-zridling (October 21, 2008, 01:57 PM)
Oh yeah, I had plenty of fun with that kind of thing when I used slackware. And then you forget to use --prefix when doing ./configure , and you end up with software scattered all over. Yum yum.-f0dder (October 21, 2008, 06:05 PM)
GoboLinux at a glance
What is GoboLinux?
GoboLinux is a modular Linux distribution: it organizes the programs in your system in a new, logical way. Instead of having parts of a program thrown at /usr/bin, other parts at /etc and yet more parts thrown at /usr/share/something/or/another, each program gets its own directory tree, keeping them all neatly separated and allowing you to see everything that's installed in the system and which files belong to which programs in a simple and obvious way.
This is what you see in the root of a GoboLinux system:
~] cd /
/] ls
Programs
Users
System
Files
Mount
Depot
/Programs is where all programs reside. No exceptions. You can explore what is installed in the system by looking inside it:
"There is a reason why things are the way they are''
This is something I hear constantly, often followed by an explanation about the difference between /, /usr and /usr/local, and/or /bin and /sbin. I do understand the difference1. If I did away with this three-level distinction, is because I believe there are other ways to approach the problems this distinction tries to solve. In a GoboLinux system, the argument for having separate /usr and /usr/local trees in order to separate programs shipped by the distribution and compiled by the user clearly does not hold. Each program is naturally separated, and this was the prime intention of creating GoboLinux in the first place.
The historical reason why Unix systems have some of its tree directly at the root partition (/bin, /lib, /sbin) as opposed to having it under /usr, is because this way you can boot in a bare-bones single-user rescue mode using those files only, in order to fix problems in the /usr tree. This is arcane. When I need to rescue my system, I can use a fully-featured live CD that runs a complete Linux distribution with a graphical desktop, that allows me to browse the web and search for the solution to my problem, and use all of the features of a regular system to fix it. I understand the rationale for having a bare-bones rescue mode decades ago, but we have a better solution in our hands now.
The distinction between bin and sbin makes no sense, in the present context. Historical evolution led to crazy arbitrary distinctions, like ping and traceroute lying in different directories (I fail to see how can they be of distinct ``program classes'', by any measure). Unix systems have a permissions system. If one wants only the superuser to be able to run a command, then chmod 700 it. I suspect the separation could have been conceived to reduce the number of programs in the $PATH of regular users. In today's Linux systems, having 400 or 500 programs in your $PATH, does not make any difference.
GoboHide: surviving aside the legacy tree
As you might have already seen, GoboLinux adopts an alternative directory tree. As you might also be wondering, without the legacy tree a lot of common applications wouldn't work in GoboLinux. This document explains how this problem is solved by the distribution and how it's solved by other operating systems which must address the same problem. If you simply don't want to read the entire story, click here to get directly into the download section.
A long time ago, in a mailing list far, far away.... There was a discussion about how we could get rid of the legacy tree, without actually removing it. We needed to keep it, but we just didn't want to know it existed.
P.S. Sorry for resurrecting a thread.-Paul Keith (February 05, 2009, 02:04 PM)
You have good postings? ;-)P.S. Sorry for resurrecting a thread.-Paul Keith (February 05, 2009, 02:04 PM)
I'm not complaining. Some of my best postings can be found here... ;D-40hz (February 05, 2009, 03:16 PM)
Lol 40hz.
I've been meaning to switch to PC-BSD (although not Solaris, using this PC purely for desktop) but nothing I've read makes me think it's much more ready for the desktop than Linux is and unless I'm mistaken, it still has the same filesystem hierarchy as most Linux distros doesn't it?-Paul Keith (February 05, 2009, 05:26 PM)
You have good postings? ;-)P.S. Sorry for resurrecting a thread.-Paul Keith (February 05, 2009, 02:04 PM)
I'm not complaining. Some of my best postings can be found here... ;D-40hz (February 05, 2009, 03:16 PM)-Josh (February 05, 2009, 03:18 PM)
You need an app that doesn't run well under cygwin or virtual box.-e712 (February 18, 2009, 03:54 PM)