I did a temporary setup of Ubuntu and started playing with it. I signed up for their technical list and have talked with some very smart people. Right now I am getting my little tv camera working with Skype. I just talked to another Ham in GA on PSK31.
These guys are not IT people for a company, they are Ubuntu users. We get along just fine. I think the entire Fedora setup is bad. You must like to fix your operating system to fit in. Change is the name of the game.
Well Ubuntu has arrived. It works in ways Fedora will never understand. Good Bye.
Karl
Ok everybody. Please DO NOT reply to Karl. Please DO NOT.. Thanks
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Karl Larsen Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 11:15 AM To: For users of Fedora Core releases Subject: Good bye
I did a temporary setup of Ubuntu and started playing with it. I signed up for their technical list and have talked with some very smart people. Right now I am getting my little tv camera working with Skype. I just talked to another Ham in GA on PSK31.
These guys are not IT people for a company, they are Ubuntu users. We get along just fine. I think the entire Fedora setup is bad. You must like to fix your operating system to fit in. Change is the name of the game.
Well Ubuntu has arrived. It works in ways Fedora will never understand. Good Bye.
Karl
2008/1/30, Ferguson, Michael ferguson@brvmlaw.com:
Ok everybody. Please DO NOT reply to Karl. Please DO NOT.. Thanks
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Karl Larsen Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 11:15 AM To: For users of Fedora Core releases Subject: Good bye
I did a temporary setup of Ubuntu and started playing with it. I
signed up for their technical list and have talked with some very smart people. Right now I am getting my little tv camera working with Skype. I just talked to another Ham in GA on PSK31.
These guys are not IT people for a company, they are Ubuntu users.
We get along just fine. I think the entire Fedora setup is bad. You must like to fix your operating system to fit in. Change is the name of the game.
Well Ubuntu has arrived. It works in ways Fedora will never
understand. Good Bye.
Karl
--
Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI Linux User #450462 http://counter.li.org.
PGP 4208 4D6E 595F 22B9 FF1C ECB6 4A3C 2C54 FE23 53A7
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Sorry Michael, to late.
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 10:19:08 am Ferguson, Michael wrote:
Ok everybody. Please DO NOT reply to Karl. Please DO NOT.. Thanks
To the OP: Sincerely I hope that *you* have improved your learn methodology and your behavior.
In the meantime:
Hasta la Vista. (sry Ubuntu list)
best regards
Teo Fonrouge
On Jan 30, 2008 10:34 AM, Teo Fonrouge fedora-list@windtelsoft.com wrote:
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 10:19:08 am Ferguson, Michael wrote:
Ok everybody. Please DO NOT reply to Karl. Please DO NOT.. Thanks
To the OP: Sincerely I hope that *you* have improved your learn methodology and your behavior.
In the meantime:
Hasta la Vista. (sry Ubuntu list)
THIS is why i love Ubuntu so much. Ubuntu is to Fedora what Super massive plans are to the inner solar system.
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 12:40:59 pm Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 10:34 AM, Teo Fonrouge fedora-list@windtelsoft.com wrote:
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 10:19:08 am Ferguson, Michael wrote:
Ok everybody. Please DO NOT reply to Karl. Please DO NOT.. Thanks
To the OP: Sincerely I hope that *you* have improved your learn methodology and your behavior.
In the meantime:
Hasta la Vista. (sry Ubuntu list)
THIS is why i love Ubuntu so much. Ubuntu is to Fedora what Super massive plans are to the inner solar system.
You are talking here about presence of intelligent life ? :)
best regards
Teo Fonrouge
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 10:34 AM, Teo Fonrouge fedora-list@windtelsoft.com wrote:
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 10:19:08 am Ferguson, Michael wrote:
Ok everybody. Please DO NOT reply to Karl. Please DO NOT.. Thanks
To the OP: Sincerely I hope that *you* have improved your learn methodology and your behavior.
In the meantime:
Hasta la Vista. (sry Ubuntu list)
THIS is why i love Ubuntu so much. Ubuntu is to Fedora what Super massive plans are to the inner solar system.
I like Ubuntu because they have the balls to put naked people in their distro.
I like Ubuntu because they have the balls to put naked people in their distro.
--
It does not show much :(, it is there just to get attention. This is due to the humanity theme.
http://proyectos.pixelamigo.com/software/Ubuntu/CoolUbuntuWallpapers/ubuntug... is an example, more can be found
http://proyectos.pixelamigo.com/software/Ubuntu/CoolUbuntuWallpapers/
You can download them and put them in as your background. You do not need to have Ubuntu to have their wallpapers on your desktop. I'm sure you can put them into Debian, Slackware, CentOS, RHEL, Knoppix, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, whichever one you choose. A background should not have an adverse effect on how a distro works.
The balls to do things is one thing, the politics behind the distros controls what they put in or out.
The putting in of the picture made their distro rise to the top of Distrowatch unseating Mandrake/Mandriva. It is interesting that a background can have a tremendous effect on people choosing a linux distro.
If the background showed a little more, then it could unseat Windows from the 90% of the worlds computers. It should get more to the Linux Side :)
Regards,
Antonio
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Antonio Olivares olivares14031@yahoo.com wrote: It is interesting that a background can have a tremendous effect on people choosing a linux distro.
I'd say it speaks volumes towards the bandwidth level of the intended audience.
--------------------------------- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Antonio Olivares wrote:
The putting in of the picture made their distro rise to the top of Distrowatch unseating Mandrake/Mandriva. It is interesting that a background can have a tremendous effect on people choosing a linux distro.
Some people will believe anything. I was testing and my wife using Ubuntu Warty when it first topped distrowatch, and it didn't need those pictures.
--- John Summerfield debian@herakles.homelinux.org wrote:
Antonio Olivares wrote:
The putting in of the picture made their distro
rise
to the top of Distrowatch unseating
Mandrake/Mandriva.
It is interesting that a background can have a tremendous effect on people choosing a linux
distro.
Some people will believe anything. I was testing and my wife using Ubuntu Warty when it first topped distrowatch, and it didn't need those pictures.
Not that I believe it, what I meant to say is that it got attention :), comments right and left from people everywhere. It (the background) did come out in Distrowatch Weekly and it got a bunch of hits. It rose to the top dethroning Mandrake/Mandriva.
It might have not needed the pictures, but it definitely was getting attention :)
--
Cheers John
-- spambait 1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu -- Advice http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Cheers,
Antonio
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 07:45 -0800, Antonio Olivares wrote:
The balls to do things is one thing, the politics behind the distros controls what they put in or out.
While that may increase the number of young males getting the distro, it can also have adverse effects. There's plenty of places where that sort of thing is quite taboo (whether societal, business policy, or any other reason), no matter how much the interesting bits may get obscured. Causing it to get shunned, or get people in trouble.
Doing that sort of thing's, very much, a double-edged sword. There are other ways to generate interest in something.
And I'm sure ;-) that there's plenty of sources that you can get files like that to add to your computer, no matter what OS you use.
Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 07:45 -0800, Antonio Olivares wrote:
The balls to do things is one thing, the politics behind the distros controls what they put in or out.
While that may increase the number of young males getting the distro, it can also have adverse effects. There's plenty of places where that sort of thing is quite taboo (whether societal, business policy, or any other reason), no matter how much the interesting bits may get obscured. Causing it to get shunned, or get people in trouble.
Doing that sort of thing's, very much, a double-edged sword. There are other ways to generate interest in something.
There was quite a heated debate about the composition of the original grouping of people, which was mixed (race and gender) and naked.
On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 22:59 +0900, John Summerfield wrote:
There was quite a heated debate about the composition of the original grouping of people, which was mixed (race and gender) and naked.
Hmm, hadn't seen that, so I went looking just for curiosity's sake. I found one that is kind of amusing, in the "trying to work out what they're thinking" manner. It's just ripe for some thought bubbles:
http://people.ubuntulinux.org/~mako/4.10RC-images/screenshot-gnomesplash.png
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 05:44 -0800, Michael A. Peters wrote:
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 10:34 AM, Teo Fonrouge fedora-list@windtelsoft.com wrote:
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 10:19:08 am Ferguson, Michael wrote:
Ok everybody. Please DO NOT reply to Karl. Please DO NOT.. Thanks
To the OP: Sincerely I hope that *you* have improved your learn methodology and your behavior.
In the meantime:
Hasta la Vista. (sry Ubuntu list)
THIS is why i love Ubuntu so much. Ubuntu is to Fedora what Super massive plans are to the inner solar system.
I like Ubuntu because they have the balls to put naked people in their distro.
They do?? I guess I'm gonna have to check out partitioning my drive! <grins> Ri
Yeah, Karl's gone but his legacy remains poignant. hahahah He has strong pull, quite so. Quite so.
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Eric Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:37 AM To: For users of Fedora Subject: RE: Good bye
At 11:19 AM 1/30/2008, Ferguson, Michael wrote:
Ok everybody. Please DO NOT reply to Karl. Please DO NOT..
Yeah, good luck with that... :-\
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Everyone,
In all fairness to Karl (and others like him), we need to be fair.
(1) This is a list for beginners and users. This is not a list for developers and geeks; although they are extremely welcome to stay and answer a few questions now and then. (2) Karl is probably old enough to be many peoples grandfather on this list. (I'm making a big assumption on this; since Karl has already revealed his age) So show a bit of respect. (3) The simple FACT Karl can stir up so much of a response for his questions only means we may be missing something. (Namely not everyone is a Linux guru) (4) In all the responses and the like, everyone has tried helping him with his problems with the distro. The fact everyone got annoyed by his questions and responses and off-topic quotes and the like is only adding fuel to the already burning fire.
Some things to consider: (a) When someone asks a question, ask yourself... what are they asking for? Help, documentation, instructions, a gentile ear to listen. (b) Before you blindly respond, ask "Do I need more information to intelligently answer the question?", "Can I truly help, or may I just be adding a distraction in my response confusing others?", "Is it something I'm familiar with? Answering a question when you don't have all your facts will only frustrate a simple user." (c) Try to be KIND! CONSIDERATE!, and POLITE! Adding rude comments, gestures, or other dis-respectable responses discredits any GOOD answers you may have.
Lastly, always remember. Like everything else you can alway ignore the question if you don't have anything constructive to add.
Thanks, James
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 10:06 -0500, James Kosin wrote:
(2) Karl is probably old enough to be many peoples grandfather on this list. (I'm making a big assumption on this; since Karl has already revealed his age) So show a bit of respect.
This isn't a "Karl issue". You get respected for acting in a way that generates respect. It is not something gifted upon you simply due to age. Acting in a converse manner, which he did, earned himself his disrespect.
Courtesy is another matter. You try to be courteous to people, as part of your own good conduct, right from the start. But we're not obligated to continue to do so towards someone who's being antagonistic. Though, being courteous towards someone whilst your berating them for being a prick, can be advantageous ... and amusing for the audience.
Over the years I've encountered many people who've "demanded" respect, none of which deserved it, so they didn't get it. Those who deserved respect, got it because their conduct impressed the people around them.
On Thursday January 31 2008 10:06:04 am James Kosin wrote:
Some things to consider: (a) When someone asks a question, ask yourself... what are they asking for? Help, documentation, instructions, a gentile ear to listen. (b) Before you blindly respond, ask "Do I need more information to intelligently answer the question?", "Can I truly help, or may I just be adding a distraction in my response confusing others?", "Is it something I'm familiar with? Answering a question when you don't have all your facts will only frustrate a simple user." (c) Try to be KIND! CONSIDERATE!, and POLITE! Adding rude comments, gestures, or other dis-respectable responses discredits any GOOD answers you may have.
I agree. There will be a flurry of self-justifiying comments on your post, mostly from those who think that being boorish is a right - the you-gotta-earn-my-respect crowd - it's all so predictable; absolute kindness, consideration, and politeness in the face of whatever you encounter is not a trait you'll find in great abundance here, at least amongst some.
Make fun of boors...while your appeal may reach some, humor also has its place.
On 31/01/2008, James Kosin jkosin@beta.intcomgrp.com wrote:
Everyone,
In all fairness to Karl (and others like him), we need to be fair.
The following is all good advice, but there are a couple of points.
(1) This is a list for beginners and users. This is not a list for developers and geeks; although they are extremely welcome to stay and answer a few questions now and then.
'Developers and geeks' are users too, and some of the best sources of information on this list. I do also believe some of the people who are most critical of Fedora are also some of the people who know best what they're talking about and are very valuable members.
(2) Karl is probably old enough to be many peoples grandfather on this list. (I'm making a big assumption on this; since Karl has already revealed his age) So show a bit of respect.
Age shouldn't really come into it, I would rather say everyone is due basic civility (which you cover later).
Some things to consider:
(b) Before you blindly respond, ask "Do I need more information to intelligently answer the question?", "Can I truly help, or may I just be adding a distraction in my response confusing others?", "Is it something I'm familiar with? Answering a question when you don't have all your facts will only frustrate a simple user."
This maybe expects a bit too much if you expect "normal users" to answer other "normal users'" questions. If people are answering to the best of their ability then, unless they're experts, you will get conflicting advice. Asking for help on a mailing list you must be able to sift the responses for value and common information, because you can't make all the respondents follow this rule.
(c) Try to be KIND! CONSIDERATE!, and POLITE! Adding rude comments, gestures, or other dis-respectable responses discredits any GOOD answers you may have.
Lastly, always remember. Like everything else you can alway ignore the question if you don't have anything constructive to add.
We can live and hope.
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 10:06 -0500, James Kosin wrote:
Everyone,
In all fairness to Karl (and others like him), we need to be fair.
(1) This is a list for beginners and users.
Good God! Who told you that? I would never in my wildest dreams recommend Fedora to a beginner. Lordy no. <shudders> We've been over and over a zillion times how Fedora is a beta test platform for RH. Beginner space? I don't think so, IMHO. Surely not by design. Ric
2008/1/30, Karl Larsen k5di@zianet.com:
I did a temporary setup of Ubuntu and started playing with it. I
signed up for their technical list and have talked with some very smart people. Right now I am getting my little tv camera working with Skype. I just talked to another Ham in GA on PSK31.
These guys are not IT people for a company, they are Ubuntu users.
We get along just fine. I think the entire Fedora setup is bad. You must like to fix your operating system to fit in. Change is the name of the game.
Well Ubuntu has arrived. It works in ways Fedora will never
understand. Good Bye.
Karl
Good bye Karl, this is your personal opinion. After testing for a long time both Ubuntu and Fedora I personally stay in Fedora for the superior hardware recognition. Have you tried to change a Video Card or monitor in Ubuntu? Have you never extracted your Ubuntu HD and put in a different HW (different MoBo, different Processor, different Video Card etc)? Good luck Karl
Alessandro Brezzi wrote:
Good bye Karl, this is your personal opinion. After testing for a long time both Ubuntu and Fedora I personally stay in Fedora for the superior hardware recognition. Have you tried to change a Video Card or monitor in Ubuntu? Have you never extracted your Ubuntu HD and put in a different HW (different MoBo, different Processor, different Video Card etc)?
Moving your disk isn't going to work in fedora either without a lot of contortions if your new disk controller needs a different driver.
Well Karl is on the Ubuntu list and he's up to his old games. Strange that he's still asking about that camera that worked so well with skype ...
Hi Les,
2008/1/30, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com:
Moving your disk isn't going to work in fedora either without a lot of contortions if your new disk controller needs a different driver.
--
I say this because for a long period of time, after changing my employement, I was without internet connection, so weekly I moved a couple of SATA-I disk back to my home computer. At IPL time I have to rerun the XOrg config, but this was an automatically invoked process. I think Anaconda is making the difference here. In my personal experience, no PCLinuxOS, nor Ubuntu or others works this way: I've tried both :-)
________________________________
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:55:40 +0100 From: alessandro.brezzi@gmail.com To: fedora-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: Good bye
Hi Les,
2008/1/30, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com: Moving your disk isn't going to work in fedora either without a lot of contortions if your new disk controller needs a different driver.
--
I say this because for a long period of time, after changing my employement, I was without internet connection, so weekly I moved a couple of SATA-I disk back to my home computer. At IPL time I have to rerun the XOrg config, but this was an automatically invoked process. I think Anaconda is making the difference here. In my personal experience, no PCLinuxOS, nor Ubuntu or others works this way: I've tried both :-)
-- Alessandro Brezzi
May be a little off subject for this particular thread, but wait till he tries to run multiple x logins on one machine in Ubuntu. I nearly gave up on linux because of that and stuck solely to FreeBSD! Tv cards sent me back though... _________________________________________________________________ Your Future Starts Here. Dream it? Then be it! Find it at www.seek.com.au http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fninemsn%2Eseek%2Ecom%2Eau%2F...
Les Mikesell wrote:
Alessandro Brezzi wrote:
Good bye Karl, this is your personal opinion. After testing for a long time both Ubuntu and Fedora I personally stay in Fedora for the superior hardware recognition. Have you tried to change a Video Card or monitor in Ubuntu? Have you never extracted your Ubuntu HD and put in a different HW (different MoBo, different Processor, different Video Card etc)?
Moving your disk isn't going to work in fedora either without a lot of contortions if your new disk controller needs a different driver.
It isn't?
I've done it on RHL 7.x (and before) and Debian. I don't see why it wouldn't work with the latest Fedora or with Ubuntu.
On Jan 30, 2008 2:40 PM, John Summerfield debian@herakles.homelinux.org wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Alessandro Brezzi wrote:
Good bye Karl, this is your personal opinion. After testing for a long time both Ubuntu and Fedora I personally stay in Fedora for the superior hardware recognition. Have you tried to change a Video Card or monitor in Ubuntu? Have you never extracted your Ubuntu HD and put in a different HW (different MoBo, different Processor, different Video Card etc)?
Moving your disk isn't going to work in fedora either without a lot of contortions if your new disk controller needs a different driver.
It isn't?
I've done it on RHL 7.x (and before) and Debian. I don't see why it wouldn't work with the latest Fedora or with Ubuntu.
Not with SCSI you didn't.
John Summerfield wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Alessandro Brezzi wrote:
Good bye Karl, this is your personal opinion. After testing for a long time both Ubuntu and Fedora I personally stay in Fedora for the superior hardware recognition. Have you tried to change a Video Card or monitor in Ubuntu? Have you never extracted your Ubuntu HD and put in a different HW (different MoBo, different Processor, different Video Card etc)?
Moving your disk isn't going to work in fedora either without a lot of contortions if your new disk controller needs a different driver.
It isn't?
I've done it on RHL 7.x (and before) and Debian. I don't see why it wouldn't work with the latest Fedora or with Ubuntu.
The disk driver module has to be included in your initrd and if you have a different controller you'll need a different module before you can access the disk where it is stored. If you know as much as anaconda does about hardware you can build a new initrd either before moving or with a rescue dvd boot. I've used a brute-force approach on Centos where I do a minimal install on the new hardware, then toss everything except the contents of /boot, either copying the new /boot partition to my old disk or copying everything else from the old system to the rest of the new drive. I'd expect that to also work with fedora to get to a point where you can fix the rest of the drivers.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Moving your disk isn't going to work in fedora either without a lot of contortions if your new disk controller needs a different driver.
Some good information was passed on this list where someone used the install disc to have it setup devices again. I recently used that suggestion when I had a computer go dead on me. When the disks were moved to an industrial computer things worked properly after video, network and other minor adjustments. Before running the installer the disks would not boot. Probably not a sure fire method to moving disks to totally foreign computer but a good last ditch effort for some purposes. Mainly, my setup was too complex to do a fresh install.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Alessandro Brezzi wrote:
Good bye Karl, this is your personal opinion. After testing for a long time both Ubuntu and Fedora I personally stay in Fedora for the superior hardware recognition. Have you tried to change a Video Card or monitor in Ubuntu? Have you never extracted your Ubuntu HD and put in a different HW (different MoBo, different Processor, different Video Card etc)?
Moving your disk isn't going to work in fedora either without a lot of contortions if your new disk controller needs a different driver.
Never been a problem for me - I just have to remember to re-enable kudzu before I do it (I turn off kudzu post install)
Michael A. Peters wrote:
Good bye Karl, this is your personal opinion. After testing for a long time both Ubuntu and Fedora I personally stay in Fedora for the superior hardware recognition. Have you tried to change a Video Card or monitor in Ubuntu? Have you never extracted your Ubuntu HD and put in a different HW (different MoBo, different Processor, different Video Card etc)?
Moving your disk isn't going to work in fedora either without a lot of contortions if your new disk controller needs a different driver.
Never been a problem for me - I just have to remember to re-enable kudzu before I do it (I turn off kudzu post install)
IDE drives mostly (all?) use the same driver. Try moving a scsi drive between different controler brands or even models.
On Saturday 02 February 2008, Les Mikesell wrote:
IDE drives mostly (all?) use the same driver. Try moving a scsi drive between different controler brands or even models.
Been there, done that. Last time was between an Adaptec 29160N and an Adaptec 29320LPE about a month ago. Yes, they use different kernel drivers. Yes, I had to go through the 'boot from rescue CD, rebuild initrd' process with which I'm pretty familiar. Not hard now, but it wasn't a cakewalk the first time, that's for sure.
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:22 +0100, Alessandro Brezzi wrote:
I did a temporary setup of Ubuntu and started playing with it. I signed up for their technical list and have talked with some very smart people. Right now I am getting my little tv camera working with Skype. I just talked to another Ham in GA on PSK31. These guys are not IT people for a company, they are Ubuntu users. We get along just fine. I think the entire Fedora setup is bad. You must like to fix your operating system to fit in. Change is the name of the game. Well Ubuntu has arrived. It works in ways Fedora will never understand. Good Bye. Karl
Ubuntu, linux for human beings... with "Special Abilities"!
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 11:14:36 Karl Larsen wrote:
I did a temporary setup of Ubuntu and started playing with it. I
signed up for their technical list and have talked with some very smart people. Right now I am getting my little tv camera working with Skype. I just talked to another Ham in GA on PSK31.
These guys are not IT people for a company, they are Ubuntu users.
We get along just fine. I think the entire Fedora setup is bad. You must like to fix your operating system to fit in. Change is the name of the game.
Well Ubuntu has arrived. It works in ways Fedora will never
understand. Good Bye.
IMHO Ubuntu is the distro that deserves Karl and the distro that Karl needs.
All of us on this list have wasted too much time and effort on him and his issues.
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 12:31 -0500, Terry Polzin wrote:
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 11:14:36 Karl Larsen wrote:
I did a temporary setup of Ubuntu and started playing with it. I
signed up for their technical list and have talked with some very smart people. Right now I am getting my little tv camera working with Skype. I just talked to another Ham in GA on PSK31.
These guys are not IT people for a company, they are Ubuntu users.
We get along just fine. I think the entire Fedora setup is bad. You must like to fix your operating system to fit in. Change is the name of the game.
Well Ubuntu has arrived. It works in ways Fedora will never
understand. Good Bye.
IMHO Ubuntu is the distro that deserves Karl and the distro that Karl needs.
All of us on this list have wasted too much time and effort on him and his issues.
Anyone care to wager how long before he pisses off the Ubuntu crowd...?
I know quite a few Ubuntu guys. A couple are friends and co-workers. Most are just pro-Ubuntu as opposed to anti-Fedora. Just like most people here are pro-Fedora as opposed to Anti-Ubuntu. I'd say it was more just a matter of time...
Cheers,
Chris
-- ==================================================== In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
--Yogi Berra
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
... snip ...
Anyone care to wager how long before he pisses off the Ubuntu crowd...?
I know quite a few Ubuntu guys. A couple are friends and co-workers. Most are just pro-Ubuntu as opposed to anti-Fedora. Just like most people here are pro-Fedora as opposed to Anti-Ubuntu. I'd say it was more just a matter of time...
i was going to take the high road but ... oh, what the hell. from months of observation, it would appear that karl's main gripe against fedora is that it didn't work for him for *just those things that he was working on.* ergo, karl concluded that it was a bad distro.
apparently, now karl had discovered that ubuntu does *precisely those things* very well indeed, so karl concludes that ubuntu is a better distro and karl is happy. for now.
but sooner or later, karl is going to run across something that ubuntu is *worse* at, and it will be just a matter of time before karl is complaining that something in ubuntu doesn't work, and that it's way better in fedora and why don't those ubuntu folks do it like it's done in fedora?
that's my prediction. would anyone like a piece of that action? i'll give you odds.
rday --
======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Home page: http://crashcourse.ca Fedora Cookbook: http://crashcourse.ca/wiki/index.php/Fedora_Cookbook ========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
but sooner or later, karl is going to run across something that ubuntu is *worse* at, and it will be just a matter of time before karl is complaining that something in ubuntu doesn't work, and that it's way better in fedora and why don't those ubuntu folks do it like it's done in fedora?
Anyone wanna wager on which distro he'll move to after realizing that Ubuntu, like Fedora, also has its own little quirks?
Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
but sooner or later, karl is going to run across something that ubuntu is *worse* at, and it will be just a matter of time before karl is complaining that something in ubuntu doesn't work, and that it's way better in fedora and why don't those ubuntu folks do it like it's done in fedora?
Anyone wanna wager on which distro he'll move to after realizing that Ubuntu, like Fedora, also has its own little quirks?
Windows?
Neil Cherry wrote:
Windows?
That's not a distro, it's a state of mind.
Neil Cherry wrote:
but sooner or later, karl is going to run across something that ubuntu is *worse* at, and it will be just a matter of time before karl is complaining that something in ubuntu doesn't work, and that it's way better in fedora and why don't those ubuntu folks do it like it's done in fedora?
Anyone wanna wager on which distro he'll move to after realizing that Ubuntu, like Fedora, also has its own little quirks?
Windows?
After he mentioned not worrying about money, I wondered why he wasn't using a Mac in the first place...
Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
but sooner or later, karl is going to run across something that ubuntu is *worse* at, and it will be just a matter of time before karl is complaining that something in ubuntu doesn't work, and that it's way better in fedora and why don't those ubuntu folks do it like it's done in fedora?
Anyone wanna wager on which distro he'll move to after realizing that Ubuntu, like Fedora, also has its own little quirks?
mephis. "Desktop on Steroids."
maybe the slogan will put him off.
Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
but sooner or later, karl is going to run across something that ubuntu is *worse* at, and it will be just a matter of time before karl is complaining that something in ubuntu doesn't work, and that it's way better in fedora and why don't those ubuntu folks do it like it's done in fedora?
Anyone wanna wager on which distro he'll move to after realizing that Ubuntu, like Fedora, also has its own little quirks?
Caldera. He is going to use his millions to buy out SCO ...
;)
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:29:31 -0800 "Michael A. Peters" mpeters@mac.com wrote:
Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
but sooner or later, karl is going to run across something that ubuntu is *worse* at, and it will be just a matter of time before karl is complaining that something in ubuntu doesn't work, and that it's way better in fedora and why don't those ubuntu folks do it like it's done in fedora?
Anyone wanna wager on which distro he'll move to after realizing that Ubuntu, like Fedora, also has its own little quirks?
Caldera. He is going to use his millions to buy out SCO ...
;)
Ruh Roh, the jig is up! Thia certainly has the essence of insider trading!
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 02:33 -0600, Chris wrote:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:29:31 -0800 "Michael A. Peters" mpeters@mac.com wrote:
Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
but sooner or later, karl is going to run across something that ubuntu is *worse* at, and it will be just a matter of time before karl is complaining that something in ubuntu doesn't work, and that it's way better in fedora and why don't those ubuntu folks do it like it's done in fedora?
Anyone wanna wager on which distro he'll move to after realizing that Ubuntu, like Fedora, also has its own little quirks?
Caldera. He is going to use his millions to buy out SCO ...
;)
Ruh Roh, the jig is up! Thia certainly has the essence of insider trading!
Oh God! I LOVED Caldera! Helluva distro in it's day. It cost three times what the RH offering went for, so it was a Republican type of list. I should say Reagan Republican Era type of list. :) Ric
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 13:21 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
... snip ...
Anyone care to wager how long before he pisses off the Ubuntu crowd...?
I know quite a few Ubuntu guys. A couple are friends and co-workers. Most are just pro-Ubuntu as opposed to anti-Fedora. Just like most people here are pro-Fedora as opposed to Anti-Ubuntu. I'd say it was more just a matter of time...
i was going to take the high road but ... oh, what the hell. from months of observation, it would appear that karl's main gripe against fedora is that it didn't work for him for *just those things that he was working on.* ergo, karl concluded that it was a bad distro.
apparently, now karl had discovered that ubuntu does *precisely those things* very well indeed, so karl concludes that ubuntu is a better distro and karl is happy. for now.
but sooner or later, karl is going to run across something that ubuntu is *worse* at, and it will be just a matter of time before karl is complaining that something in ubuntu doesn't work, and that it's way better in fedora and why don't those ubuntu folks do it like it's done in fedora?
that's my prediction. would anyone like a piece of that action? i'll give you odds.
---- probably should have followed your initial instincts.
Our loss is Ubuntu's gain
;-)
Craig
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 11:29 -0700, Craig White wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 13:21 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
... snip ...
Anyone care to wager how long before he pisses off the Ubuntu crowd...?
I know quite a few Ubuntu guys. A couple are friends and co-workers. Most are just pro-Ubuntu as opposed to anti-Fedora. Just like most people here are pro-Fedora as opposed to Anti-Ubuntu. I'd say it was more just a matter of time...
i was going to take the high road but ... oh, what the hell. from months of observation, it would appear that karl's main gripe against fedora is that it didn't work for him for *just those things that he was working on.* ergo, karl concluded that it was a bad distro.
apparently, now karl had discovered that ubuntu does *precisely those things* very well indeed, so karl concludes that ubuntu is a better distro and karl is happy. for now.
but sooner or later, karl is going to run across something that ubuntu is *worse* at, and it will be just a matter of time before karl is complaining that something in ubuntu doesn't work, and that it's way better in fedora and why don't those ubuntu folks do it like it's done in fedora?
that's my prediction. would anyone like a piece of that action? i'll give you odds.
probably should have followed your initial instincts.
Our loss is Ubuntu's gain
Shhhhh...! For Cris' sake, don't WARN the Ubuntu crowd. Just let Karl get all nice, warm and cozy there. Let him move in, unpack his bags, and settle into his bunker.
* LATE BREAKING NEWS *
In interviews with residents in the Ubuntu neighborhood, they said this to the Brain Police, "Well, Karl was just this guy, ya know? He seemed quiet enough and kept to himself ...at first. We had no idea. It was just like a drive-by shooting, we were caught so unaware!"
It was a four-alarm flame-war that broke out in the quiet neighborhood, that stunned residents and list-administrators alike, in this once peaceful area. According to the Jack-Boots and the Brain Police, they are just starting to search through the smoke and ashes to determine the exact cause of the blaze.
Yet many of them are already reporting difficulty thinking clearly while going through the wreckage, due to massive confusion inhalation. It is reported that CRM-114 Discriminators are being brought to the scene, by the NSA. Back to you, Chris...
<zot> Ric
On 01/31/2008 06:58:31 PM, Ric Moore wrote: <<snip>>
Shhhhh...! For Cris' sake, don't WARN the Ubuntu crowd. Just let Karl get all nice, warm and cozy there. Let him move in, unpack his bags, and settle into his bunker.
* LATE BREAKING NEWS *
In interviews with residents in the Ubuntu neighborhood, they said this to the Brain Police, "Well, Karl was just this guy, ya know? He seemed quiet enough and kept to himself ...at first. We had no idea. It was just like a drive-by shooting, we were caught so unaware!"
It was a four-alarm flame-war that broke out in the quiet neighborhood, that stunned residents and list-administrators alike, in this once peaceful area. According to the Jack-Boots and the Brain Police, they are just starting to search through the smoke and ashes to determine the exact cause of the blaze.
Yet many of them are already reporting difficulty thinking clearly while going through the wreckage, due to massive confusion inhalation. It is reported that CRM-114 Discriminators are being brought to the scene, by the NSA. Back to you, Chris...
<zot> Ric
<<snip>> Ok Ric. That was cute. Malicious. But cute.
I'll save it against later use.
Good stuff Ric;
I like where you keep your tongue parked.
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 18:58 -0500, Ric Moore wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 11:29 -0700, Craig White wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 13:21 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
... snip ...
Anyone care to wager how long before he pisses off the Ubuntu crowd...?
I know quite a few Ubuntu guys. A couple are friends and co-workers. Most are just pro-Ubuntu as opposed to anti-Fedora. Just like most people here are pro-Fedora as opposed to Anti-Ubuntu. I'd say it was more just a matter of time...
i was going to take the high road but ... oh, what the hell. from months of observation, it would appear that karl's main gripe against fedora is that it didn't work for him for *just those things that he was working on.* ergo, karl concluded that it was a bad distro.
apparently, now karl had discovered that ubuntu does *precisely those things* very well indeed, so karl concludes that ubuntu is a better distro and karl is happy. for now.
but sooner or later, karl is going to run across something that ubuntu is *worse* at, and it will be just a matter of time before karl is complaining that something in ubuntu doesn't work, and that it's way better in fedora and why don't those ubuntu folks do it like it's done in fedora?
that's my prediction. would anyone like a piece of that action? i'll give you odds.
probably should have followed your initial instincts.
Our loss is Ubuntu's gain
Shhhhh...! For Cris' sake, don't WARN the Ubuntu crowd. Just let Karl get all nice, warm and cozy there. Let him move in, unpack his bags, and settle into his bunker.
* LATE BREAKING NEWS *
In interviews with residents in the Ubuntu neighborhood, they said this to the Brain Police, "Well, Karl was just this guy, ya know? He seemed quiet enough and kept to himself ...at first. We had no idea. It was just like a drive-by shooting, we were caught so unaware!"
It was a four-alarm flame-war that broke out in the quiet neighborhood, that stunned residents and list-administrators alike, in this once peaceful area. According to the Jack-Boots and the Brain Police, they are just starting to search through the smoke and ashes to determine the exact cause of the blaze.
Yet many of them are already reporting difficulty thinking clearly while going through the wreckage, due to massive confusion inhalation. It is reported that CRM-114 Discriminators are being brought to the scene, by the NSA. Back to you, Chris...
<zot> Ric
I find this is all a sure sign that Fedora 8 has very few serious problems to fix. Perhaps we need F9 sooner than scheduled.
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
but sooner or later, karl is going to run across something that ubuntu is *worse* at, and it will be just a matter of time before karl is complaining that something in ubuntu doesn't work, and that it's way better in fedora and why don't those ubuntu folks do it like it's done in fedora?
Much of his problems had to do with 3rd party software like the Nvidia drivers, skype, etc. It's hard to imagine how ubuntu could be more hostile to 3rd parties than fedora.
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 12:53 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
but sooner or later, karl is going to run across something that ubuntu is *worse* at, and it will be just a matter of time before karl is complaining that something in ubuntu doesn't work, and that it's way better in fedora and why don't those ubuntu folks do it like it's done in fedora?
Much of his problems had to do with 3rd party software like the Nvidia drivers, skype, etc. It's hard to imagine how ubuntu could be more hostile to 3rd parties than fedora.
---- I'm glad you have such a positive assessment of Fedora.
Craig
Craig White wrote:
but sooner or later, karl is going to run across something that ubuntu is *worse* at, and it will be just a matter of time before karl is complaining that something in ubuntu doesn't work, and that it's way better in fedora and why don't those ubuntu folks do it like it's done in fedora?
Much of his problems had to do with 3rd party software like the Nvidia drivers, skype, etc. It's hard to imagine how ubuntu could be more hostile to 3rd parties than fedora.
I'm glad you have such a positive assessment of Fedora.
Feel free to point out how I'm wrong if you can find any cases where the distro goes out of its way to help enable its users to install/use any 3rd party item. The best thing I can say is that they try to be internally self-consistent most of the time. But in my opinion, an operating system should be just be a platform where you install other things. If it doesn't either provide a stable interface for those things or a mechanism to help deal with its unstable nature, there's not much point to using it.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Much of his problems had to do with 3rd party software like the Nvidia drivers, skype, etc. It's hard to imagine how ubuntu could be more hostile to 3rd parties than fedora.
I'm glad you have such a positive assessment of Fedora.
Feel free to point out how I'm wrong if you can find any cases where the distro goes out of its way to help enable its users to install/use any 3rd party item. The best thing I can say is that they try to be internally self-consistent most of the time. But in my opinion, an operating system should be just be a platform where you install other things. If it doesn't either provide a stable interface for those things or a mechanism to help deal with its unstable nature, there's not much point to using it.
Many years ago, RH used to ship CDE, maybe around RHL 4.x.
Unfortunately, CDE had a security problem. CDE is closed software. RH takes security more seriously than its supplier did. RH could not get a fix in a suitable timeframe.
RH immediately withdrew support, suggested people did not use it, and offered paying customers a credit against their next purchase.
RH was a new company then; anyone who's still around from then is likely senior management now.
Whatever their beliefs then, I'm sure that that experienced moved them a a few points towards "open source and only open source."
John Summerfield wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
Much of his problems had to do with 3rd party software like the Nvidia drivers, skype, etc. It's hard to imagine how ubuntu could be more hostile to 3rd parties than fedora.
I'm glad you have such a positive assessment of Fedora.
Feel free to point out how I'm wrong if you can find any cases where the distro goes out of its way to help enable its users to install/use any 3rd party item. The best thing I can say is that they try to be internally self-consistent most of the time. But in my opinion, an operating system should be just be a platform where you install other things. If it doesn't either provide a stable interface for those things or a mechanism to help deal with its unstable nature, there's not much point to using it.
Many years ago, RH used to ship CDE, maybe around RHL 4.x.
Unfortunately, CDE had a security problem. CDE is closed software. RH takes security more seriously than its supplier did. RH could not get a fix in a suitable timeframe.
RH immediately withdrew support, suggested people did not use it, and offered paying customers a credit against their next purchase.
RH was a new company then; anyone who's still around from then is likely senior management now.
Whatever their beliefs then, I'm sure that that experienced moved them a a few points towards "open source and only open source."
But that has nothing to do with my point about enabling the user to install additional software which is why I have an operating system in the first place.
But that has nothing to do with my point about enabling the user to install additional software which is why I have an operating system in the first place.
Everyone here knows the deal with Fedora. They don't promote non OSS software for partly legal and (in my opinion, might be wrong) partly philosophical reasons against closed source. Most people here probably also know you insist of bringing this up in one guise or another every now and then and I don't expect us to get any further this time, so please people don't bait him this time... Time you move on from this gripe (perhaps to Ubuntu yourself ;))
Chris
Chris Jones wrote:
But that has nothing to do with my point about enabling the user to install additional software which is why I have an operating system in the first place.
Everyone here knows the deal with Fedora. They don't promote non OSS software for partly legal and (in my opinion, might be wrong) partly philosophical reasons against closed source.
My point has nothing to do with promoting anything or whether the additional software meets your religious beliefs or not. It is strictly about providing a user with a platform that is not limited by design or its inability to provide stable interfaces.
Most people here probably also know you insist of bringing this up in one guise or another every now and then and I don't expect us to get any further this time, so please people don't bait him this time... Time you move on from this gripe (perhaps to Ubuntu yourself ;))
If you think I've ever suggested that fedora 'promote' some other software you aren't paying attention.
On Jan 30, 2008 6:12 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Chris Jones wrote:
But that has nothing to do with my point about enabling the user to install additional software which is why I have an operating system in the first place.
Everyone here knows the deal with Fedora. They don't promote non OSS software for partly legal and (in my opinion, might be wrong) partly philosophical reasons against closed source.
My point has nothing to do with promoting anything or whether the additional software meets your religious beliefs or not. It is strictly about providing a user with a platform that is not limited by design or its inability to provide stable interfaces.
You say limit by design, I say do not support. Limit by design would be to hard code repos into yum. Not support would be to not provide all repos in yum by default.
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 6:12 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Chris Jones wrote:
But that has nothing to do with my point about enabling the user to install additional software which is why I have an operating system in the first place.
Everyone here knows the deal with Fedora. They don't promote non OSS software for partly legal and (in my opinion, might be wrong) partly philosophical reasons against closed source.
My point has nothing to do with promoting anything or whether the additional software meets your religious beliefs or not. It is strictly about providing a user with a platform that is not limited by design or its inability to provide stable interfaces.
You say limit by design, I say do not support. Limit by design would be to hard code repos into yum. Not support would be to not provide all repos in yum by default.
OK, I'll take your "do not support" and move on to "intentionally break" in every case where something that worked in one version does not work in the next or after an update. From the perspective of a person who just wants to run some programs it's all the same when they don't work.
On Jan 30, 2008 8:09 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Jan 30, 2008 6:12 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Chris Jones wrote:
But that has nothing to do with my point about enabling the user to install additional software which is why I have an operating system in the first place.
Everyone here knows the deal with Fedora. They don't promote non OSS software for partly legal and (in my opinion, might be wrong) partly philosophical reasons against closed source.
My point has nothing to do with promoting anything or whether the additional software meets your religious beliefs or not. It is strictly about providing a user with a platform that is not limited by design or its inability to provide stable interfaces.
You say limit by design, I say do not support. Limit by design would be to hard code repos into yum. Not support would be to not provide all repos in yum by default.
OK, I'll take your "do not support" and move on to "intentionally break" in every case where something that worked in one version does not work in the next or after an update. From the perspective of a person who just wants to run some programs it's all the same when they don't work.
Got any examples of that?
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
But that has nothing to do with my point about enabling the user to install additional software which is why I have an operating system in the first place.
Everyone here knows the deal with Fedora. They don't promote non OSS software for partly legal and (in my opinion, might be wrong) partly philosophical reasons against closed source.
My point has nothing to do with promoting anything or whether the additional software meets your religious beliefs or not. It is strictly about providing a user with a platform that is not limited by design or its inability to provide stable interfaces.
You say limit by design, I say do not support. Limit by design would be to hard code repos into yum. Not support would be to not provide all repos in yum by default.
OK, I'll take your "do not support" and move on to "intentionally break" in every case where something that worked in one version does not work in the next or after an update. From the perspective of a person who just wants to run some programs it's all the same when they don't work.
Got any examples of that?
Since this is Karl's thread, his problems with Nvidia and sound should be famous by now and apply to any kernel modules. But every fedora version has required new patches to VMware that you have to track down, firewire has had about 50/50 odds of working, anything that knew device names would break from one version to the next, CIPE hasn't worked since FC1... What other OS forces you to go though these contortions continuously just to continue getting security fixes for the bugs it ships?
On Jan 31, 2008 12:37 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Got any examples of that?
Since this is Karl's thread, his problems with Nvidia and sound should be famous by now and apply to any kernel modules.
I don't receive Karl mail, sorry
But every fedora version has required new patches to VMware that you have to track down,
Wasn't aware of this. And you're saying that this is intentional by the Fedora dev team?
firewire has had about 50/50 odds of working, anything that knew device names would break from one version to the next,
While some Fedora devs may be kernel hackers, I doubt they are to blame for firewire support.
CIPE hasn't worked since
Are you referring to this CIPE? http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-mini/Cipe+Masq.html I wasn't familiar with the term.
FC1... What other OS forces you to go though these contortions continuously just to continue getting security fixes for the bugs it ships?
You lost me there. I don't see how this fits with the rest of your post. where are getting security fixes (udpates) being related to using software that isn't build for Fedora on Fedora?
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Got any examples of that?
Since this is Karl's thread, his problems with Nvidia and sound should be famous by now and apply to any kernel modules.
I don't receive Karl mail, sorry
But every fedora version has required new patches to VMware that you have to track down,
Wasn't aware of this. And you're saying that this is intentional by the Fedora dev team?
Changes don't just happen by accident - someone has to make them.
firewire has had about 50/50 odds of working, anything that knew device names would break from one version to the next,
While some Fedora devs may be kernel hackers, I doubt they are to blame for firewire support.
Some issues were with the kernel, some with the layering of device detection when the connection is made or at boot time. Regardless, fedora doesn't have to ship a broken kernel just because it exists.
CIPE hasn't worked since
Are you referring to this CIPE? http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-mini/Cipe+Masq.html I wasn't familiar with the term.
Yes, once it was a fill-in-the-form VPN in the networking setup. Next version it was gone with no options to support existing setups.
FC1... What other OS forces you to go though these contortions continuously just to continue getting security fixes for the bugs it ships?
You lost me there. I don't see how this fits with the rest of your post. where are getting security fixes (udpates) being related to using software that isn't build for Fedora on Fedora?
I don't mind doing a substantial amount of work to install things that weren't planned, but then I'd like it to keep working. You can't just keep running fedora without putting your box (and everything else on the network) at risk when the security updates stop. And then there is almost no chance that you can just repeat your steps with the next version since it will have a huge number of arbitrary changes, including things that affect hardware compatibility.
On Jan 31, 2008 1:39 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Got any examples of that?
Since this is Karl's thread, his problems with Nvidia and sound should be famous by now and apply to any kernel modules.
I don't receive Karl mail, sorry
But every fedora version has required new patches to VMware that you have to track down,
Wasn't aware of this. And you're saying that this is intentional by the Fedora dev team?
Changes don't just happen by accident - someone has to make them.
But you are implying that this is intentional. I think that's something you should at least backup if you're going to say it.
firewire has had about 50/50 odds of working, anything that knew device names would break from one version to the next,
While some Fedora devs may be kernel hackers, I doubt they are to blame for firewire support.
Some issues were with the kernel, some with the layering of device detection when the connection is made or at boot time. Regardless, fedora doesn't have to ship a broken kernel just because it exists.
Well if the vanilla kernel has this problem, blaming Fedora seems unreasonable. The general policy is to ship the kernel as vanilla as possible.
CIPE hasn't worked since
Are you referring to this CIPE? http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-mini/Cipe+Masq.html I wasn't familiar with the term.
Yes, once it was a fill-in-the-form VPN in the networking setup. Next version it was gone with no options to support existing setups.
I guess no one was interested in supporting it. I haven't heard of it before myself.
FC1... What other OS forces you to go though these contortions continuously just to continue getting security fixes for the bugs it ships?
You lost me there. I don't see how this fits with the rest of your post. where are getting security fixes (udpates) being related to using software that isn't build for Fedora on Fedora?
I don't mind doing a substantial amount of work to install things that weren't planned, but then I'd like it to keep working. You can't just keep running fedora without putting your box (and everything else on the network) at risk when the security updates stop. And then there is almost no chance that you can just repeat your steps with the next version since it will have a huge number of arbitrary changes, including things that affect hardware compatibility.
I guess your choice of software has a lot of incompatibilities inherent in it. I am normally up and running on a new Fedora install for my desktop pretty quickly. I normally spend way more time customizing the look and feel of my KDE install to my perfection.
It seems that your combination of unsupported software is making things a lot tougher for you. However, I see no evidence that this is intentional on the Fedora teams part. Nor do I see how it would benefit them from exhausting energy into blocking things.
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
But every fedora version has required new patches to VMware that you have to track down,
Wasn't aware of this. And you're saying that this is intentional by the Fedora dev team?
Changes don't just happen by accident - someone has to make them.
But you are implying that this is intentional. I think that's something you should at least backup if you're going to say it.
I can't prove that it is done for no other reason than to break other people's software, but I trust that the people making the changes are bright enough to understand how this works. And it doesn't happen in RHEL, so there are also people who understand how to keep it from happening and that it makes for a better user experience.
firewire has had about 50/50 odds of working, anything that knew device names would break from one version to the next,
While some Fedora devs may be kernel hackers, I doubt they are to blame for firewire support.
Some issues were with the kernel, some with the layering of device detection when the connection is made or at boot time. Regardless, fedora doesn't have to ship a broken kernel just because it exists.
Well if the vanilla kernel has this problem, blaming Fedora seems unreasonable. The general policy is to ship the kernel as vanilla as possible.
Why shouldn't I blame fedora if they set a policy that frequently causes broken code to be shipped? The kernel developers no longer maintain a separate test version so untested changes are obviously going to be pushed out if you do that and the user consequences are equally obvious.
CIPE hasn't worked since
Are you referring to this CIPE? http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-mini/Cipe+Masq.html I wasn't familiar with the term.
Yes, once it was a fill-in-the-form VPN in the networking setup. Next version it was gone with no options to support existing setups.
I guess no one was interested in supporting it. I haven't heard of it before myself.
OpenVPN is actually better these days, but CIPE was the preferred and supported VPN through the earlier RH versions and FC1, then poof, gone with no trace in FC2 and no transition strategy for maintaining compatibility so you could upgrade piecemeal - and no continuing security updates for FC1 so you could continue running it.
And then there is almost no chance that you can just repeat your steps with the next version since it will have a huge number of arbitrary changes, including things that affect hardware compatibility.
I guess your choice of software has a lot of incompatibilities inherent in it. I am normally up and running on a new Fedora install for my desktop pretty quickly. I normally spend way more time customizing the look and feel of my KDE install to my perfection.
It seems that your combination of unsupported software is making things a lot tougher for you.
I expect an operating system to provide a platform that other things can run on, either proving stable interfaces so things continue to work through the fast-paced updates, or some sane way to deal with the instability.
However, I see no evidence that this is intentional on the Fedora teams part. Nor do I see how it would benefit them from exhausting energy into blocking things.
Whether it is a benefit or not depends on the user experience they want to generate. Who would it harm to provide instructions for installing common and needed vendor-provide drivers, for example? Is it necessary to be hostile to both your own users and the best hardware vendors, or the company that invented java and wants to give it away?
On Jan 31, 2008 8:19 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
However, I see no evidence that this is intentional on the Fedora teams part. Nor do I see how it would benefit them from exhausting energy into blocking things.
Whether it is a benefit or not depends on the user experience they want to generate. Who would it harm to provide instructions for installing common and needed vendor-provide drivers, for example? Is it necessary to be hostile to both your own users and the best hardware vendors, or the company that invented java and wants to give it away?
Instructions from say the community since Fedora is a community based distribution? * fedorasolved.org * fedoraunity.org
I think you're way offline with considering lack of support for this that you did not pay for with being hostile.
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
However, I see no evidence that this is intentional on the Fedora teams part. Nor do I see how it would benefit them from exhausting energy into blocking things.
Whether it is a benefit or not depends on the user experience they want to generate. Who would it harm to provide instructions for installing common and needed vendor-provide drivers, for example? Is it necessary to be hostile to both your own users and the best hardware vendors, or the company that invented java and wants to give it away?
Instructions from say the community since Fedora is a community based distribution?
- fedorasolved.org
- fedoraunity.org
If some entity in the community provided a repository containing, for example, the Nvidia drivers that many users need, could said entity get their repository configuration included in this "community based distribution" to make installation automatic?
I think you're way offline with considering lack of support for this that you did not pay for with being hostile.
And I think it is reasonable to compare it to other distributions like ubuntu instead of just assuming that the hostility should push users to the for-pay version conveniently provided by a related company.
On Jan 31, 2008 11:44 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
However, I see no evidence that this is intentional on the Fedora teams part. Nor do I see how it would benefit them from exhausting energy into blocking things.
Whether it is a benefit or not depends on the user experience they want to generate. Who would it harm to provide instructions for installing common and needed vendor-provide drivers, for example? Is it necessary to be hostile to both your own users and the best hardware vendors, or the company that invented java and wants to give it away?
Instructions from say the community since Fedora is a community based distribution?
- fedorasolved.org
- fedoraunity.org
If some entity in the community provided a repository containing, for example, the Nvidia drivers that many users need, could said entity get their repository configuration included in this "community based distribution" to make installation automatic?
You do realize, that Fedora cannot do this for legal reason. And doesn't do this as it goes against the core goal of Fedora in the first place.
I think you're way offline with considering lack of support for this that you did not pay for with being hostile.
And I think it is reasonable to compare it to other distributions like ubuntu instead of just assuming that the hostility should push users to the for-pay version conveniently provided by a related company.
Right. Because redhat includes Nvidia, Skype and VMWare in their releases.
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
If some entity in the community provided a repository containing, for example, the Nvidia drivers that many users need, could said entity get their repository configuration included in this "community based distribution" to make installation automatic?
You do realize, that Fedora cannot do this for legal reason.
Beg your pardon? There is nothing illegal about the Nvidia drivers or providing the access that users need to them.
I think you're way offline with considering lack of support for this that you did not pay for with being hostile.
And I think it is reasonable to compare it to other distributions like ubuntu instead of just assuming that the hostility should push users to the for-pay version conveniently provided by a related company.
Right. Because redhat includes Nvidia, Skype and VMWare in their releases.
They don't break these with every kernel update.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
If some entity in the community provided a repository containing, for example, the Nvidia drivers that many users need, could said entity get their repository configuration included in this "community based distribution" to make installation automatic?
You do realize, that Fedora cannot do this for legal reason.
Beg your pardon? There is nothing illegal about the Nvidia drivers or providing the access that users need to them.
This is true, but part of the problem is that Livna or Freshrpms (the two major candidates for this) could not be provided as some of their packages could not be linked legally in the US.
I do suppose that Fedora still would not add them even if there was a 'clean' repository[1], but that is the audience Ubuntu is aimed at.
[1] Though has anyone looked at it? To be honest I don't really care either way; I think it's good that RH is a source of pressure for OS drivers and notice that providing them hasn't hurt Intel.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
If some entity in the community provided a repository containing, for example, the Nvidia drivers that many users need, could said entity get their repository configuration included in this "community based distribution" to make installation automatic?
You do realize, that Fedora cannot do this for legal reason.
Beg your pardon? There is nothing illegal about the Nvidia drivers or providing the access that users need to them.
They don't have to provide access because rpm.livna.org does. They shouldn't include them because the bottom line is they taint the kernel.
I'll never forget the bug report I filed with a repeatable (on my end) segmentation fault when running the grep command. Guess what was responsible? the nvidia driver. The nvidia driver was responsible for causing grep to segfault. the nvidia driver was responsible for a red hat engineer taking his time to figure out what was happening. Now - whenever I have a bug I want to report, I repeat it on a machine that does not have any tainting modules loaded. Closed source kmods sometimes do funky things.
Fedora should not ship any kernel modules that taint the kernel. They can not possibly fix issues with them because they do not have access to the source code.
Let the *user* be responsible for breaking their machine by installing the driver. Then the issue is between the user and nVidia - not the user and Fedora.
It is easy enough to get the drivers, it is very well documented on several blogs and websites. Therefore, Fedora SHOULD wash their hands of kernel tainting modules.
Michael A. Peters wrote:
I'll never forget the bug report I filed with a repeatable (on my end) segmentation fault when running the grep command. Guess what was responsible? the nvidia driver.
Ummm, OK, code has bugs. More news at 11...
Closed source kmods sometimes do funky things.
As opposed to? I've had several cases where the stock fedora kernel update would not boot at all on MPT scsi controllers.
Let the *user* be responsible for breaking their machine by installing the driver. Then the issue is between the user and nVidia - not the user and Fedora.
Let's put this discussion off until all the bugs in the rest of the system have been fixed. Firewire is my poster child for the state of the system drivers, but it doesn't make sense to point out someone else's bugs until everything in bugzilla is closed. Besides, there's a good chance that the bug you saw was really cause by an interface change on the kernel side.
It is easy enough to get the drivers, it is very well documented on several blogs and websites.
What does that mean?
Therefore, Fedora SHOULD wash their hands of kernel tainting modules.
Unless they'd like to have some users.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
I'll never forget the bug report I filed with a repeatable (on my end) segmentation fault when running the grep command. Guess what was responsible? the nvidia driver.
Ummm, OK, code has bugs. More news at 11...
Closed source kmods sometimes do funky things.
As opposed to? I've had several cases where the stock fedora kernel update would not boot at all on MPT scsi controllers.
Let the *user* be responsible for breaking their machine by installing the driver. Then the issue is between the user and nVidia
- not the user and Fedora.
Let's put this discussion off until all the bugs in the rest of the system have been fixed. Firewire is my poster child for the state of the system drivers, but it doesn't make sense to point out someone else's bugs until everything in bugzilla is closed. Besides, there's a good chance that the bug you saw was really cause by an interface change on the kernel side.
It is easy enough to get the drivers, it is very well documented on several blogs and websites.
What does that mean?
Therefore, Fedora SHOULD wash their hands of kernel tainting modules.
Unless they'd like to have some users.
Les,
What OS DO you like. I'm just curious.
~~R
Richard England rlengland@verizon.net wrote: Les Mikesell wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
I'll never forget the bug report I filed with a repeatable (on my end) segmentation fault when running the grep command. Guess what was responsible? the nvidia driver.
Ummm, OK, code has bugs. More news at 11...
Closed source kmods sometimes do funky things.
As opposed to? I've had several cases where the stock fedora kernel update would not boot at all on MPT scsi controllers.
Let the *user* be responsible for breaking their machine by installing the driver. Then the issue is between the user and nVidia
- not the user and Fedora.
Let's put this discussion off until all the bugs in the rest of the system have been fixed. Firewire is my poster child for the state of the system drivers, but it doesn't make sense to point out someone else's bugs until everything in bugzilla is closed. Besides, there's a good chance that the bug you saw was really cause by an interface change on the kernel side.
It is easy enough to get the drivers, it is very well documented on several blogs and websites.
What does that mean?
Therefore, Fedora SHOULD wash their hands of kernel tainting modules.
Unless they'd like to have some users.
Les,
What OS DO you like. I'm just curious.
~~R
Paul Shaffer wrote:
Mike made some good points effortlessly refuted by Les in rather non-specific terms (more news?), essentially illustrating for the umpteenth time, there is no viable middle ground for this discususion from a distro-philosophic standpoint.
Don't confuse two different rants. One, that code encumbered with GPL restrictions can never be distributed in useful forms where you also need the features provided by code under different terms in something that can be considered a combined work, is mostly rhetorical since it can't be changed - although it is something users need to understand.
The other and mostly-current rant is about usability issues that could be fixed. All commonly needed 3rd party components could be push-button installs; once installed they could keep working; security updates could make it reasonable to keep running older working versions until the worst bugs were fixed in the next update, etc., etc. This part becomes a value judgment on the tradeoff between development time that might be used on mechanics instead of usability and the loss of input from the users that are forced to some other OS. This part can have a middle ground and useful compromises.
Richard England wrote:
Les,
What OS DO you like. I'm just curious.
I'm not sure I 'like' any of them because they all have constraints that keep them from doing everything I want. Unix (back in the Xenix, AT&T SysVr3/4 days) was the first OS design that made sense to me and I like the fact that C code and shell and perl scripts written back then still work unchanged under Linux - and always did work across processor types.
Now I use CentOS for special-purpose servers and VMware hosts, Windows for work desktops and general purpose servers that have to be able to run an assortment of 3rd part apps, a dual boot laptop, and Macs at home.
As an OS, I'd pick OS X as the best mix of unix compatibility, user friendliness, and supplying everything you need, including patented technology and vendor written drivers. But, it is tied to certain hardware and apple likes to make you buy the same thing over again to get minor upgrades so it won't work everywhere (although the $199 price for a 5 machine home license for Leopard isn't horrible and it does run across the G4 and Intel processor lines). If you ever did an upgrade on a mac or used their included migration tool to move installed users and applications to a new machine you'd understand why I rant about the unfriendliness of fedora upgrades and updates. They even migrate powerpc processor binaries to Intel hardware seamlessly when you upgrade. So it's hard to buy the Linux claim that they can't keep an interface stable from one day to the next even on a single processor line.
Les Mikesell wrote:
As an OS, I'd pick OS X as the best mix of unix compatibility, user friendliness, and supplying everything you need, including patented technology and vendor written drivers. But, it is tied to certain hardware and apple likes to make you buy the same thing over again to get minor upgrades so it won't work everywhere (although the $199 price for a 5 machine home license for Leopard isn't horrible and it does run across the G4 and Intel processor lines). If you ever did an upgrade on a mac or used their included migration tool to move installed users and applications to a new machine you'd understand why I rant about the unfriendliness of fedora upgrades and updates. They even migrate powerpc processor binaries to Intel hardware seamlessly when you upgrade. So it's hard to buy the Linux claim that they can't keep an interface stable from one day to the next even on a single processor line.
Have fun with OS X when the only machine that has any expansion slots is their considerably overpriced pro tower. And when you buy that considerably overpriced pro tower, have fun putting your existing PCI cards into it.
Whoops! Just like they jacked users when they dropped scsi and serial ports, now they've jacked users by dropping normal pci slots.
Also have fun with your third party sound cards when the OS updates - due to their closed source nature, sometimes you have to wait months before the vendor updates their drivers - even for the expensive high end sound cards, like m-audio.
Of course, moving your expensive high end m-audio card into your new Pro Tower will be kind of difficult, due to the complete lack of pci slots. I guess with a hammer you might be able to make it fit ...
Michael A. Peters wrote:
As an OS, I'd pick OS X as the best mix of unix compatibility, user friendliness, and supplying everything you need, including patented technology and vendor written drivers.
Have fun with OS X when the only machine that has any expansion slots is their considerably overpriced pro tower. And when you buy that considerably overpriced pro tower, have fun putting your existing PCI cards into it.
Whoops! Just like they jacked users when they dropped scsi and serial ports, now they've jacked users by dropping normal pci slots.
Can't think of anything offhand that I wouldn't prefer to connect via firewire, USB, or network (with the associated portability and OS-independence of the devices).
Also have fun with your third party sound cards when the OS updates - due to their closed source nature, sometimes you have to wait months before the vendor updates their drivers - even for the expensive high end sound cards, like m-audio.
What forces you to update the OS before the drivers you need are available? And why bring up closed source here? Is there an open source driver for your card at all?
Of course, moving your expensive high end m-audio card into your new Pro Tower will be kind of difficult, due to the complete lack of pci slots. I guess with a hammer you might be able to make it fit ...
Firewire is the right answer for audio, especially if you plan to move it around. I'm too cheap for that so the only thing I've added is a USB sound adapter to have a software-selectable alternate output over copper SPDF to feed a receiver. It doesn't specifically have a Mac driver but works as a standard USB audio device anyway.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Firewire is the right answer for audio, especially if you plan to move it around. I'm too cheap for that so the only thing I've added is a USB sound adapter to have a software-selectable alternate output over copper SPDF to feed a receiver. It doesn't specifically have a Mac driver but works as a standard USB audio device anyway.
Um... Has someone missed something here? I keep an eye out on various plug and wire types, because I like that sort of electronic stuff, and last time I checked Apple has continued to change the USB and Firewire HARDWARE PORTS with every few versions of their stuff. In fact, I found multiple rants from people who want to know why Apple is trying to give themselves a leg up by using Microsoft's embrace & extend on the hardware side instead of the software side. And you complain because the drivers don't work for a specific kernel version of Linux? At least the Linux guys aren't attempting to change the physical interface to give their audio devices an advantage on the market...
Apple is a horrible example of a user-friendly company, because as of late they've been learning the Microsoft technique of wresting extra cash from users and giving themselves an advantage on system development. Every time I hear someone say Mac OSX is a "true UNIX" I snicker, because generally running "real UNIX" programs in OSX requires installing the compatibility layer, because by default OSX does not support standard UNIX stuff; instead, they support specially rigged programs designed to interface with Cocoa...
Kelly Miller wrote:
Firewire is the right answer for audio, especially if you plan to move it around. I'm too cheap for that so the only thing I've added is a USB sound adapter to have a software-selectable alternate output over copper SPDF to feed a receiver. It doesn't specifically have a Mac driver but works as a standard USB audio device anyway.
Um... Has someone missed something here? I keep an eye out on various plug and wire types, because I like that sort of electronic stuff, and last time I checked Apple has continued to change the USB and Firewire HARDWARE PORTS with every few versions of their stuff.
There have always been a bazillion variations of USB connectors. I haven't noticed any vendor-specific trends with them other than putting smaller connectors on small equipment. With firewire, the Mac's I've seen have added firewire 800 ports while retaining a 400 for compatibility and since firewire is a bus you really only need one (and they are backwards compatible with a cable adapter anyway).
In fact, I found multiple rants from people who want to know why Apple is trying to give themselves a leg up by using Microsoft's embrace & extend on the hardware side instead of the software side.
If they deviate from the IEEE standards they deserve a rant - and probably a lawsuit.
And you complain because the drivers don't work for a specific kernel version of Linux? At least the Linux guys aren't attempting to change the physical interface to give their audio devices an advantage on the market...
The hardware isn't going to change for the life of the machine. With fedora, you are forced to change to have continuing security updates.
Apple is a horrible example of a user-friendly company, because as of late they've been learning the Microsoft technique of wresting extra cash from users and giving themselves an advantage on system development.
Yes, saving money isn't their strong suit, but sometimes having something that works is more important.
Every time I hear someone say Mac OSX is a "true UNIX" I snicker, because generally running "real UNIX" programs in OSX requires installing the compatibility layer, because by default OSX does not support standard UNIX stuff; instead, they support specially rigged programs designed to interface with Cocoa...
Do you mean X? That's not a compatibility layer, it's the same thing everyone else runs for X programs - and you don't need it for command line/character mode. Cocoa is nicer but you aren't restricted to it and most open source applications are available through fink or macports. Some Mac users are fanatic enough that many programs that could run under X in their generic versions have Cocoa versions (thunderbird, mozilla, vlc, openoffice, etc.), but it doesn't matter to me. I tend to spend so much time with NX/freenx, remote desktop, and vnc connections to remote/different systems that the more similar they are the better.
Why are you guys arguing Unix vs. Mac on a Fedora users list?
Scott H.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Kelly Miller wrote:
Firewire is the right answer for audio, especially if you plan to move it around. I'm too cheap for that so the only thing I've added is a USB sound adapter to have a software-selectable alternate output over copper SPDF to feed a receiver. It doesn't specifically have a Mac driver but works as a standard USB audio device anyway.
Um... Has someone missed something here? I keep an eye out on various plug and wire types, because I like that sort of electronic stuff, and last time I checked Apple has continued to change the USB and Firewire HARDWARE PORTS with every few versions of their stuff.
There have always been a bazillion variations of USB connectors. I haven't noticed any vendor-specific trends with them other than putting smaller connectors on small equipment. With firewire, the Mac's I've seen have added firewire 800 ports while retaining a 400 for compatibility and since firewire is a bus you really only need one (and they are backwards compatible with a cable adapter anyway).
In fact, I found multiple rants from people who want to know why Apple is trying to give themselves a leg up by using Microsoft's embrace & extend on the hardware side instead of the software side.
If they deviate from the IEEE standards they deserve a rant - and probably a lawsuit.
And you complain because the drivers don't work for a specific kernel version of Linux? At least the Linux guys aren't attempting to change the physical interface to give their audio devices an advantage on the market...
The hardware isn't going to change for the life of the machine. With fedora, you are forced to change to have continuing security updates.
Apple is a horrible example of a user-friendly company, because as of late they've been learning the Microsoft technique of wresting extra cash from users and giving themselves an advantage on system development.
Yes, saving money isn't their strong suit, but sometimes having something that works is more important.
Every time I hear someone say Mac OSX is a "true UNIX" I snicker, because generally running "real UNIX" programs in OSX requires installing the compatibility layer, because by default OSX does not support standard UNIX stuff; instead, they support specially rigged programs designed to interface with Cocoa...
Do you mean X? That's not a compatibility layer, it's the same thing everyone else runs for X programs - and you don't need it for command line/character mode. Cocoa is nicer but you aren't restricted to it and most open source applications are available through fink or macports. Some Mac users are fanatic enough that many programs that could run under X in their generic versions have Cocoa versions (thunderbird, mozilla, vlc, openoffice, etc.), but it doesn't matter to me. I tend to spend so much time with NX/freenx, remote desktop, and vnc connections to remote/different systems that the more similar they are the better.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
As an OS, I'd pick OS X as the best mix of unix compatibility, user friendliness, and supplying everything you need, including patented technology and vendor written drivers.
Have fun with OS X when the only machine that has any expansion slots is their considerably overpriced pro tower. And when you buy that considerably overpriced pro tower, have fun putting your existing PCI cards into it.
Whoops! Just like they jacked users when they dropped scsi and serial ports, now they've jacked users by dropping normal pci slots.
Can't think of anything offhand that I wouldn't prefer to connect via firewire, USB, or network (with the associated portability and OS-independence of the devices).
Connecting devices via firewire that could be installed inside the machine isn't very elegant and adds to the rats nest that starts to accumulate around your PC. It also adds to the complexity of moving your PC, and adds additional points of failure (FireWire cables can and do go bad).
Also have fun with your third party sound cards when the OS updates - due to their closed source nature, sometimes you have to wait months before the vendor updates their drivers - even for the expensive high end sound cards, like m-audio.
What forces you to update the OS before the drivers you need are available? And why bring up closed source here? Is there an open source driver for your card at all?
I bring up closed source because when you embrace an OS that embraces closed source drivers, you are at the mercy of the drivers.
I can use my HollyWood+ DXR3 card in latest x86_64 linux. They never released drivers for XP or Vista (or OS X for that matter) but because open source drivers exist (though reverse engineered) I don't have to wait for the vendors to get their act together when I want to move my OS forward.
Of course, moving your expensive high end m-audio card into your new Pro Tower will be kind of difficult, due to the complete lack of pci slots. I guess with a hammer you might be able to make it fit ...
Firewire is the right answer for audio, especially if you plan to move it around. I'm too cheap for that so the only thing I've added is a USB sound adapter to have a software-selectable alternate output over copper SPDF to feed a receiver. It doesn't specifically have a Mac driver but works as a standard USB audio device anyway.
PCI cards in a PC are less likely to be stolen by someone in a busy recording environment because you either have to take the whole PC or open it up. FireWire audio devices can be disconnected and stuffed into a jacket pocket.
If you move your recording equipment around, theft most certainly is a consideration (and internal means less things to carry). If you don't move it around, having it internal is one less wire in the rats nest.
I don't mind the pro having pci express slots, but when there are NO pci slots - you either stick with your old slower computer or have to buy new hardware. ISA slots were available in PCs for a long time after PCI replaced it just for that reason - but Apple has done the same thing they did when they ditched NuBus - no backwards compatibility at all.
Another example - when they ditched the floppy drive with the introduction of the iMac, the shop I worked at made a killing. First the customers would buy a USB floppy drive. Then they would come in asking how to get those drives to read the 800k floppies (which they couldn't). There was no serial port, so they couldn't LocalTalk with their old mac - they either had to buy a NuBus nic from us for the old mac, sometimes the old mac had a nic but they needed to buy and adapter, they could do a lot of copying to get the data onto 1440k floppies, they could pay us to replace the iMac modem with a serial port (losing their modem, but they then got a serial port which did work with LocalTalk - the USB to serial adapters didn't) or pay us to transfer the 800k floppies to a cdr (usually what happened - we had a Beige G3 with a sony CD burner and an AppleScript that pretty much automated it, except of course feeding the floppies).
This lack of PCI slots in the pro tower isn't the first time Apple has done something to screw the users, it's the Apple Way. osx86 project wouldn't be so popular if Apple did things properly.
Lot of people bought FireWire iPod docks and then the new iPods came out that can only charge by FireWire, not transfer data - so they were SOL and had to replace their docks.
There are plenty more examples.
Some issues were with the kernel, some with the layering of device detection when the connection is made or at boot time. Regardless, fedora doesn't have to ship a broken kernel just because it exists.
This is what Fedora does, it tries to stay right on the edge and often tries out the newest stuff first. Sometimes it breaks thinks. So be it, things like that can happen. 'Someone' has to try things first and Fedora chooses to be one of those distros which does. If you don't like it go somewhere else, there are plenty others which don't do this, but stop complaining as your gripes are really starting to sound old now.
Chris
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 08:18 +0000, Chris Jones wrote:
Some issues were with the kernel, some with the layering of device detection when the connection is made or at boot time. Regardless, fedora doesn't have to ship a broken kernel just because it exists.
This is what Fedora does, it tries to stay right on the edge and often tries out the newest stuff first. Sometimes it breaks thinks. So be it, things like that can happen. 'Someone' has to try things first and Fedora chooses to be one of those distros which does. If you don't like it go somewhere else, there are plenty others which don't do this, but stop complaining as your gripes are really starting to sound old now.
Chris, there is some substance to what he's saying. At RedHat we used ssh and cipe for working at home away from the office. It was slick. I haven't had need to use it since, but the entire support team used it and your passwords were established when you were hired. I've noticed it's absence but it didn't directly affect me. I guess there is another defacto scheme used today. Maybe Rahul would qualify what has been chosen over cipe for internal use. Plus, Les could use that information. Having encrypted tunneling was pretty nifty. Ric
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 00:28 -0500, Ric Moore wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 08:18 +0000, Chris Jones wrote:
Some issues were with the kernel, some with the layering of device detection when the connection is made or at boot time. Regardless, fedora doesn't have to ship a broken kernel just because it exists.
This is what Fedora does, it tries to stay right on the edge and often tries out the newest stuff first. Sometimes it breaks thinks. So be it, things like that can happen. 'Someone' has to try things first and Fedora chooses to be one of those distros which does. If you don't like it go somewhere else, there are plenty others which don't do this, but stop complaining as your gripes are really starting to sound old now.
Chris, there is some substance to what he's saying. At RedHat we used ssh and cipe for working at home away from the office. It was slick. I haven't had need to use it since, but the entire support team used it and your passwords were established when you were hired. I've noticed it's absence but it didn't directly affect me. I guess there is another defacto scheme used today. Maybe Rahul would qualify what has been chosen over cipe for internal use. Plus, Les could use that information. Having encrypted tunneling was pretty nifty. Ric
---- cipe support never made it into 2.6 kernel
OpenSWAN support became the defacto standard for VPN on Linux...it's very robust but not very simple.
OpenVPN is the easier alternative and has some interesting clients for other OS's too.
Craig
Les Mikesell wrote:
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
OK, I'll take your "do not support" and move on to "intentionally break" in every case where something that worked in one version does not work in the next or after an update. From the perspective of a person who just wants to run some programs it's all the same when they don't work.
Got any examples of that?
Since this is Karl's thread, his problems with Nvidia and sound should be famous by now and apply to any kernel modules.
And, as always, he was told ages ago the way to get Nvidia working on Fedora and chose to ignore it until he stumbled onto it by trial and error. I didn't follow his sound problems closely but they appeared to be with pulseaudio, which was designed to fix a long- standing sound problem, is not a kernel issue and, in any case, can be removed and F8 run without it.
Anyway, we've heard this axe ground so often I'm surprised there's anything left of it.
Ian Malone wrote:
Since this is Karl's thread, his problems with Nvidia and sound should be famous by now and apply to any kernel modules.
And, as always, he was told ages ago the way to get Nvidia working on Fedora and chose to ignore it until he stumbled onto it by trial and error.
He was told different and conflicting ways by different people and following different sets of advice broke things. Why should an extremely common user requirement have to be satisfied by following some random other user's advice from a mail list? As we can see by example, this doesn't work that well.
I didn't follow his sound problems closely but they appeared to be with pulseaudio, which was designed to fix a long- standing sound problem, is not a kernel issue and, in any case, can be removed and F8 run without it.
He tried to remove 'pulseaudio' instead of the obscure package name that you actually do have to remove and it damaged his system.
Anyway, we've heard this axe ground so often I'm surprised there's anything left of it.
Does the truth hurt? What's the problem with repeating it? I'd like to see something resembling truth-in-advertising on the project site about the expected user experience for the very common situations where a vendor driver works better than the stock one or is needed to work at all, the user wants to run java, VMware or a number of other 3rd party programs, or the user expects to keep running without re-installing for any length of time.
On 31/01/2008, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
He was told different and conflicting ways by different people and following different sets of advice broke things. Why should an extremely common user requirement have to be satisfied by following some random other user's advice from a mail list? As we can see by example, this doesn't work that well.
Well, one could Google for the answer, look at the unofficial FAQs or read the responses on the mailing list and try to form a sensible assessment of the advice being given.
Anyway, we've heard this axe ground so often I'm surprised there's anything left of it.
Does the truth hurt? What's the problem with repeating it?
Mainly that it got boring a while back.
I'd like to see something resembling truth-in-advertising on the project site about
[...]
"Fedora is a Linux-based operating system that showcases the latest in free and open source software."
Ian Malone wrote:
I'd like to see something resembling truth-in-advertising on the project site about
[...]
"Fedora is a Linux-based operating system that showcases the latest in free and open source software."
I know enough about software development to know what that means, but I wouldn't expect an average potential new user to interpret that as "we'll ship a lot of broken stuff and pretend it's a feature". And there is nothing about the hostility to outside software.
Les Mikesell wrote, On 01/31/2008 09:56 AM:
Ian Malone wrote:
I'd like to see something resembling truth-in-advertising on the project site about
[...]
"Fedora is a Linux-based operating system that showcases the latest in free and open source software."
I know enough about software development to know what that means, but I wouldn't expect an average potential new user to interpret that as "we'll ship a lot of broken stuff and pretend it's a feature".
Actually I think it's more of a "hey for those of us who tested rawhide, this stuff was working (or at least not reported as such), red hat would like those of you who are adventuresome to let them know if some small portion of this is ready for a truly stable release of RHEL, and if it breaks we'll try to fix it quick."
And there is nothing about the hostility to outside software.
I don't think it is so much hostility as ambivalence. As you can see[1] I am one of those who has ideas and attitudes that conflict with fedora stated policy. I understand their policy, I just don't like it, and _I_ can work around the issue for _now_. And if I wanted something that was rock solid, unchanging, approved for use in ultra secure environments, with an enterprise support plan, lacking in packages and out of date for the hardware I have to work with, I would use an RHEL. The reason we have different distro's out there is because we all have different trade offs we have to make. [must _try_ debian/ubuntu and see if they will integrate something that works NOW with smart cards for ssh and encrypted file systems, even if they have a _long_ term plan of using something else to do the same thing.]
Oh and notice the ambivalence in the first part of my reply? RH and I differ on the statement 'fedora is RHEL beta'. :)
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=186469
Todd Denniston wrote:
And there is nothing about the hostility to outside software.
I don't think it is so much hostility as ambivalence.
OK, if you describe fedora as 'user ambivalent', it at least makes the need for ubuntu to exist very clear.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Todd Denniston wrote:
And there is nothing about the hostility to outside software.
I don't think it is so much hostility as ambivalence.
OK, if you describe fedora as 'user ambivalent', it at least makes the need for ubuntu to exist very clear.
I prefer the original definition which was effectively 'non-OSS, binary kernel blob and alike ambivalent' - You may disagree but many people, and I think Fedora in general, considers this to be good for the user, in the long run.
Ubuntu takes a different view point on what is good for the user, which seems to match yours better. I personally think we need both view points, and trying to suggest Fedora should become more like Ubuntu is a bad idea which will never happen.
Chris
Chris Jones wrote:
And there is nothing about the hostility to outside software.
I don't think it is so much hostility as ambivalence.
OK, if you describe fedora as 'user ambivalent', it at least makes the need for ubuntu to exist very clear.
I prefer the original definition which was effectively 'non-OSS, binary kernel blob and alike ambivalent' -
Which, once you understand the need for those items, translates pretty clearly to user-hostile.
You may disagree but many people, and I think Fedora in general, considers this to be good for the user, in the long run.
Yes, I do disagree as I do in other cases where religious beliefs are used to justify hostile actions as being 'good' for others. My own belief is that the availability of an 'affordable' system (both in price and effort to maintain) is much more important than 'free with restrictions', and 'affordable' won't happen unless all parties cooperate.
Ubuntu takes a different view point on what is good for the user, which seems to match yours better. I personally think we need both view points, and trying to suggest Fedora should become more like Ubuntu is a bad idea which will never happen.
I guess whether you think it's good or bad depends on whether you'd like more or fewer people to learn RH style administration vs. the debian/ubuntu style. I have enough time invested in learning RH style that I'd prefer not to start over.
Hi,
I prefer the original definition which was effectively 'non-OSS, binary kernel blob and alike ambivalent' -
Which, once you understand the need for those items, translates pretty clearly to user-hostile.
For you, not for me.
You may disagree but many people, and I think Fedora in general, considers this to be good for the user, in the long run.
Yes, I do disagree as I do in other cases where religious beliefs are used to justify hostile actions as being 'good' for others. My own belief is that the availability of an 'affordable' system (both in price and effort to maintain) is much more important than 'free with restrictions', and 'affordable' won't happen unless all parties cooperate.
Religion has nothing to do with this, please don't muddy the waters with that can-o-worms.
What you believe is fine, I have some sympathy for your view point. My point is Fedora has placed itself at a particular niche in the linux distro landscape that doesn't match your wishes. I applaud Fedora for the semi-radical stance they take and believe we need a distro out there like that. As much as I believe we need a distro like ubuntu.
Ubuntu takes a different view point on what is good for the user, which seems to match yours better. I personally think we need both view points, and trying to suggest Fedora should become more like Ubuntu is a bad idea which will never happen.
I guess whether you think it's good or bad depends on whether you'd like more or fewer people to learn RH style administration vs. the debian/ubuntu style. I have enough time invested in learning RH style that I'd prefer not to start over.
For me that is a non issue. I recently did the switch on one of my home machines and really, once you get over the deb v rpm, apt v yum or sudo v root differences, the differences are really cosmetic. IMHO anyone who knows there way around one distro will not take long to find there way around the other.
Chris
Chris Jones wrote:
Religion has nothing to do with this, please don't muddy the waters with that can-o-worms.
I mean that as opposed to having logical reasons or evidence to back them up.
What you believe is fine, I have some sympathy for your view point. My point is Fedora has placed itself at a particular niche in the linux distro landscape that doesn't match your wishes. I applaud Fedora for the semi-radical stance they take and believe we need a distro out there like that. As much as I believe we need a distro like ubuntu.
To whatever extent this fragments the installed base and makes it difficult for 3rd party software to run across the variations it works against the general acceptability of Linux and hurts everyone. We are just continuing the old unix flavor wars that gave Microsoft an easy monopoly and ensuring that things can't change.
Hi,
I mean that as opposed to having logical reasons or evidence to back them up.
What exactly needs 'proving' ? Fedora have decided, for better or worse, to take the path they have. They don't need to justify that choice to anyway. Whether they get (or keep) any users is justification enough.
What you believe is fine, I have some sympathy for your view point. My point is Fedora has placed itself at a particular niche in the linux distro landscape that doesn't match your wishes. I applaud Fedora for the semi-radical stance they take and believe we need a distro out there like that. As much as I believe we need a distro like ubuntu.
To whatever extent this fragments the installed base and makes it difficult for 3rd party software to run across the variations it works against the general acceptability of Linux and hurts everyone. We are just continuing the old unix flavor wars that gave Microsoft an easy monopoly and ensuring that things can't change.
Anti-septic hurts, but in the long run it helps cure problems. Fedora (I believe) are promoting what in the long term is the right way to go. Time will tell if it is the correct approach(/treatment).
Chris
Hi,
I mean that as opposed to having logical reasons or evidence to back them up.
What exactly needs 'proving' ? Fedora have decided, for better or worse, to take the path they have. They don't need to justify that choice to anyway. Whether they get (or keep) any users is justification enough.
What you believe is fine, I have some sympathy for your view point. My point is Fedora has placed itself at a particular niche in the linux distro landscape that doesn't match your wishes. I applaud Fedora for the semi-radical stance they take and believe we need a distro out there like that. As much as I believe we need a distro like ubuntu.
To whatever extent this fragments the installed base and makes it difficult for 3rd party software to run across the variations it works against the general acceptability of Linux and hurts everyone. We are just continuing the old unix flavor wars that gave Microsoft an easy monopoly and ensuring that things can't change.
Anti-septic hurts, but in the long run it helps cure problems. Fedora (I believe) are promoting what in the long term is the right way to go (IMHO). Time will tell if it is truly the correct approach(/treatment).
Chris
Chris Jones wrote:
I mean that as opposed to having logical reasons or evidence to back them up.
What exactly needs 'proving' ? Fedora have decided, for better or worse, to take the path they have. They don't need to justify that choice to anyway. Whether they get (or keep) any users is justification enough.
It doesn't 'need' proving - but without proof it's fair to call it religion or a cult and maintain an appropriate distance.
To whatever extent this fragments the installed base and makes it difficult for 3rd party software to run across the variations it works against the general acceptability of Linux and hurts everyone. We are just continuing the old unix flavor wars that gave Microsoft an easy monopoly and ensuring that things can't change.
Anti-septic hurts, but in the long run it helps cure problems.
They said that about blood-letting too.
Fedora (I believe) are promoting what in the long term is the right way to go (IMHO). Time will tell if it is truly the correct approach(/treatment).
It's been more than a decade now (if you count fedora as an extension of the earlier RH model) and it just continues to help the monopoly make more money. Doesn't someone define insanity as expecting different results from continuing to do the same thing?
100th post to this thread - I stopped reading it around 62.
On Jan 31, 2008 1:13 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Chris Jones wrote:
I mean that as opposed to having logical reasons or evidence to back them up.
What exactly needs 'proving' ? Fedora have decided, for better or worse, to take the path they have. They don't need to justify that choice to anyway. Whether they get (or keep) any users is justification enough.
It doesn't 'need' proving - but without proof it's fair to call it religion or a cult and maintain an appropriate distance.
To whatever extent this fragments the installed base and makes it difficult for 3rd party software to run across the variations it works against the general acceptability of Linux and hurts everyone. We are just continuing the old unix flavor wars that gave Microsoft an easy monopoly and ensuring that things can't change.
Anti-septic hurts, but in the long run it helps cure problems.
They said that about blood-letting too.
Fedora (I believe) are promoting what in the long term is the right way to go (IMHO). Time will tell if it is truly the correct approach(/treatment).
It's been more than a decade now (if you count fedora as an extension of the earlier RH model) and it just continues to help the monopoly make more money. Doesn't someone define insanity as expecting different results from continuing to do the same thing?
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
--
fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Yeah, it's gettin' pretty weird.
So Joe, I noticed your email address and wondered if you are any of the fastfish I might see in the Mopar circles?
Bazooka Joe fastfish@gmail.com wrote: 100th post to this thread - I stopped reading it around 62.
On Jan 31, 2008 1:13 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Chris Jones wrote:
I mean that as opposed to having logical reasons or evidence to back them up.
What exactly needs 'proving' ? Fedora have decided, for better or worse, to take the path they have. They don't need to justify that choice to anyway. Whether they get (or keep) any users is justification enough.
It doesn't 'need' proving - but without proof it's fair to call it religion or a cult and maintain an appropriate distance.
To whatever extent this fragments the installed base and makes it difficult for 3rd party software to run across the variations it works against the general acceptability of Linux and hurts everyone. We are just continuing the old unix flavor wars that gave Microsoft an easy monopoly and ensuring that things can't change.
Anti-septic hurts, but in the long run it helps cure problems.
They said that about blood-letting too.
Fedora (I believe) are promoting what in the long term is the right way to go (IMHO). Time will tell if it is truly the correct approach(/treatment).
It's been more than a decade now (if you count fedora as an extension of the earlier RH model) and it just continues to help the monopoly make more money. Doesn't someone define insanity as expecting different results from continuing to do the same thing?
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
--
fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
nope, just fastfish in linux circles
2008/1/31 Paul Shaffer ace_wizard@yahoo.com:
Yeah, it's gettin' pretty weird.
So Joe, I noticed your email address and wondered if you are any of the fastfish I might see in the Mopar circles?
Bazooka Joe fastfish@gmail.com wrote: 100th post to this thread - I stopped reading it around 62.
On Jan 31, 2008 1:13 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Chris Jones wrote:
I mean that as opposed to having logical reasons or evidence to back them up.
What exactly needs 'proving' ? Fedora have decided, for better or worse, to take the path they have. They don't need to justify that choice to anyway. Whether they get (or keep) any users is justification enough.
It doesn't 'need' proving - but without proof it's fair to call it religion or a cult and maintain an appropriate distance.
To whatever extent this fragments the installed base and makes it difficult for 3rd party software to run across the variations it works against the general acceptability of Linux and hurts everyone. We are just continuing the old unix flavor wars that gave Microsoft an easy monopoly and ensuring that things can't change.
Anti-septic hurts, but in the long run it helps cure problems.
They said that about blood-letting too.
Fedora (I believe) are promoting what in the long term is the right way to go (IMHO). Time will tell if it is truly the correct approach(/treatment).
It's been more than a decade now (if you count fedora as an extension of the earlier RH model) and it just continues to help the monopoly make more money. Doesn't someone define insanity as expecting different results from continuing to do the same thing?
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
--
fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Anti-septic hurts, but in the long run it helps cure problems.
They said that about blood-letting too.
Likewise leeches or maggots. But recently modern medicine has come back around to realise how useful these little beasties are. You point is ?
Fedora (I believe) are promoting what in the long term is the right way to go (IMHO). Time will tell if it is truly the correct approach(/treatment).
It's been more than a decade now (if you count fedora as an extension of the earlier RH model) and it just continues to help the monopoly make more money. Doesn't someone define insanity as expecting different results from continuing to do the same thing?
Or likewise dedication the willingness to continue with a cause you believe in in the face to convention.
We can continue like this all day if you want, but it doesn't get us anywhere...
Chris
Les Mikesell wrote:
Fedora (I believe) are promoting what in the long term is the right way to go (IMHO). Time will tell if it is truly the correct approach(/treatment).
It's been more than a decade now (if you count fedora as an extension of the earlier RH model) and it just continues to help the monopoly make more money. Doesn't someone define insanity as expecting different results from continuing to do the same thing?
Ahem, last time I checked, the goal of GNU/Linux was not to break the monopoly, but to create the best free software-based system that can be made. So uh, how does including non-free components help with that goal? I have to agree with RMS' statements on that respect; it isn't worth having GNU/Linux replace Windows if it turns into a closed system equivalent to Windows itself. What kind of "victory" is that?
And uh, for all your posts about the stability of the system, I have to wonder why you're not running Debian stable. AFAIK, that is the only distro line that is guaranteed to work without any bugs of any kind, mainly because it's years behind the others...
Asking why 3rd party stuff doesn't work when they're considered outside the system is a little odd, wouldn't you say? It isn't Fedora's fault that VMWare's sytem doesn't work with it; ask VMWare why, since the stuff is set up by them.
Kelly Miller wrote:
Fedora (I believe) are promoting what in the long term is the right way to go (IMHO). Time will tell if it is truly the correct approach(/treatment).
It's been more than a decade now (if you count fedora as an extension of the earlier RH model) and it just continues to help the monopoly make more money. Doesn't someone define insanity as expecting different results from continuing to do the same thing?
Ahem, last time I checked, the goal of GNU/Linux was not to break the monopoly, but to create the best free software-based system that can be made. So uh, how does including non-free components help with that goal?
Most of the contributions to open source software have come from people who use it in one way or another, or from commercial companies who have decided for their own reasons to add open licenses to the code they own. Anything that increases the user base will almost certainly increase the contributor base. And making it easy to obtain all needed software would help increase the user base.
I have to agree with RMS' statements on that respect; it isn't worth having GNU/Linux replace Windows if it turns into a closed system equivalent to Windows itself. What kind of "victory" is that?
First of all, if any virus-spewing Microsoft box can be converted to run stable, well-tested, standards-conforming software instead, it is a victory for everyone on the internet. But open source can never 'turn into' a closed system. The only scenario that might even come close to that would be if some system were so much better that everyone would choose it instead - which would also be a victory for everyone having that choice.
And uh, for all your posts about the stability of the system, I have to wonder why you're not running Debian stable. AFAIK, that is the only distro line that is guaranteed to work without any bugs of any kind, mainly because it's years behind the others...
There are 2 kinds of stability - one is unchanging and can be good for interfaces. The other is reliability. Fedora has neither.
Asking why 3rd party stuff doesn't work when they're considered outside the system is a little odd, wouldn't you say?
No, I wouldn't say that. As with any other operating systems, I expect to be able to run other programs on it.
It isn't Fedora's fault that VMWare's sytem doesn't work with it; ask VMWare why, since the stuff is set up by them.
When the same program works on one version of an operating system but not on another, there's nothing to ask. The operating system has clearly failed to provide a usable interface.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Kelly Miller wrote:
Fedora (I believe) are promoting what in the long term is the right way to go (IMHO). Time will tell if it is truly the correct approach(/treatment).
It's been more than a decade now (if you count fedora as an extension of the earlier RH model) and it just continues to help the monopoly make more money. Doesn't someone define insanity as expecting different results from continuing to do the same thing?
Ahem, last time I checked, the goal of GNU/Linux was not to break the monopoly, but to create the best free software-based system that can be made. So uh, how does including non-free components help with that goal?
Most of the contributions to open source software have come from people who use it in one way or another, or from commercial companies who have decided for their own reasons to add open licenses to the code they own. Anything that increases the user base will almost certainly increase the contributor base. And making it easy to obtain all needed software would help increase the user base.
See, this is the problem with the whole free vs. open source thing. By suggesting that open source works better, while ignoring the whole idea of being FREE behind it, you bring in users who wonder why distros simply don't include -- insert name of closed-source component du-jour here -- and then you get distros that include that particular component in the name of "making things easy for users". However, the REAL backlash from that decision is what most FLOSS programmers are seeing from Nvidia and Adobe now; "We don't need to produce open source software, you can use the closed source stuff instead. After all, isn't closed source better than nothing?"
No, it's not.
I have to agree with RMS' statements on that respect; it isn't worth having GNU/Linux replace Windows if it turns into a closed system equivalent to Windows itself. What kind of "victory" is that?
First of all, if any virus-spewing Microsoft box can be converted to run stable, well-tested, standards-conforming software instead, it is a victory for everyone on the internet. But open source can never 'turn into' a closed system. The only scenario that might even come close to that would be if some system were so much better that everyone would choose it instead - which would also be a victory for everyone having that choice.
Until you realize that such a system is actually no better than Windows itself. You're still locked in, you still can't see what's really going on, and since it's closed, there will likely be hidden hooks designed to make it hard to use anything else. This is the sort of thing that occurs when you use non-free software.
And uh, for all your posts about the stability of the system, I have to wonder why you're not running Debian stable. AFAIK, that is the only distro line that is guaranteed to work without any bugs of any kind, mainly because it's years behind the others...
There are 2 kinds of stability - one is unchanging and can be good for interfaces. The other is reliability. Fedora has neither.
You know, I do find it interesting that for a supposedly unreliable distro, I haven't changed my install procedure on Fedora in 4 versions. Are you sure it's not just because you're hitting stuff that most people don't run into that's causing this supposed unreliability?
Asking why 3rd party stuff doesn't work when they're considered outside the system is a little odd, wouldn't you say?
No, I wouldn't say that. As with any other operating systems, I expect to be able to run other programs on it.
So do I. I note that I have no problems running 3rd party programs on Fedora. I generally just choose not to. However, things like VMWare work.
It isn't Fedora's fault that VMWare's sytem doesn't work with it; ask VMWare why, since the stuff is set up by them.
When the same program works on one version of an operating system but not on another, there's nothing to ask. The operating system has clearly failed to provide a usable interface.
Did you mention things like this about Windows? Every version suffers from this problem. Just ask the people trying to switch to Vista.
Kelly Miller wrote:
Most of the contributions to open source software have come from people who use it in one way or another, or from commercial companies who have decided for their own reasons to add open licenses to the code they own. Anything that increases the user base will almost certainly increase the contributor base. And making it easy to obtain all needed software would help increase the user base.
See, this is the problem with the whole free vs. open source thing. By suggesting that open source works better, while ignoring the whole idea of being FREE behind it, you bring in users who wonder why distros simply don't include -- insert name of closed-source component du-jour here -- and then you get distros that include that particular component in the name of "making things easy for users". However, the REAL backlash from that decision is what most FLOSS programmers are seeing from Nvidia and Adobe now; "We don't need to produce open source software, you can use the closed source stuff instead. After all, isn't closed source better than nothing?"
No, it's not.
People should be free to make that decision for themselves separately for every component. That's what standard interfaces are about, to give you that freedom. There is nothing free about things that take that choice away by restrictions or refusal to provide usable interfaces for interoperability.
I have to agree with RMS' statements on that respect; it isn't worth having GNU/Linux replace Windows if it turns into a closed system equivalent to Windows itself. What kind of "victory" is that?
First of all, if any virus-spewing Microsoft box can be converted to run stable, well-tested, standards-conforming software instead, it is a victory for everyone on the internet. But open source can never 'turn into' a closed system. The only scenario that might even come close to that would be if some system were so much better that everyone would choose it instead - which would also be a victory for everyone having that choice.
Until you realize that such a system is actually no better than Windows itself. You're still locked in, you still can't see what's really going on, and since it's closed, there will likely be hidden hooks designed to make it hard to use anything else. This is the sort of thing that occurs when you use non-free software.
No, you are never locked in when components interface properly, there are choices for each, and they do not include restrictions that affect each other.
And uh, for all your posts about the stability of the system, I have to wonder why you're not running Debian stable. AFAIK, that is the only distro line that is guaranteed to work without any bugs of any kind, mainly because it's years behind the others...
There are 2 kinds of stability - one is unchanging and can be good for interfaces. The other is reliability. Fedora has neither.
You know, I do find it interesting that for a supposedly unreliable distro, I haven't changed my install procedure on Fedora in 4 versions. Are you sure it's not just because you're hitting stuff that most people don't run into that's causing this supposed unreliability?
Yes, of course I want to do different things. Why shouldn't I? Stable interfaces give you the freedom to do something different instead of being locked into what comes from a single provider that likes to make it difficult for you to change or use other components.
Asking why 3rd party stuff doesn't work when they're considered outside the system is a little odd, wouldn't you say?
No, I wouldn't say that. As with any other operating systems, I expect to be able to run other programs on it.
So do I. I note that I have no problems running 3rd party programs on Fedora. I generally just choose not to. However, things like VMWare work.
Yes, after you track down the extra patches that someone has had to write for each new fedora version. So it's just difficult, not completely impossible. How many times have you had to locate those patches so far?
It isn't Fedora's fault that VMWare's sytem doesn't work with it; ask VMWare why, since the stuff is set up by them.
When the same program works on one version of an operating system but not on another, there's nothing to ask. The operating system has clearly failed to provide a usable interface.
Did you mention things like this about Windows? Every version suffers from this problem. Just ask the people trying to switch to Vista.
Security updates are still being provided to XP so existing users aren't being forced to switch yet as they are continuously in fedora, and there's a chance they will have it mostly fixed by SP2 time. In any case I can deal with a change once a decade or so. But yes, I will complain if any of my current programs don't continue to run or else have push-button updates to fix them.
On Friday 01 February 2008 05:22:39 Les Mikesell wrote:
Kelly Miller wrote:
<lots of stuff snipped>
Asking why 3rd party stuff doesn't work when they're considered outside the system is a little odd, wouldn't you say?
No, I wouldn't say that. As with any other operating systems, I expect to be able to run other programs on it.
So do I. I note that I have no problems running 3rd party programs on Fedora. I generally just choose not to. However, things like VMWare work.
It isn't Fedora's fault that VMWare's sytem doesn't work with it; ask VMWare why, since the stuff is set up by them.
When the same program works on one version of an operating system but not on another, there's nothing to ask. The operating system has clearly failed to provide a usable interface.
No Les,
Fedora specifically says it will be a bleeding-edge distro. It specifically says it will have a short release cycle and a short EOL. You can't have a bleeding-edge distro with a short EOL and have very stable interfaces.
If you want stable interfaces then go for RHEL/CentOS or Debian stable.
Did you mention things like this about Windows? Every version suffers from this problem. Just ask the people trying to switch to Vista.
Security updates are still being provided to XP so existing users aren't being forced to switch yet as they are continuously in fedora, and there's a chance they will have it mostly fixed by SP2 time. In any case I can deal with a change once a decade or so. But yes, I will complain if any of my current programs don't continue to run or else have push-button updates to fix them.
You try to buy a PC from Dell recently with XP installed. I presume most of the major manufacturers are the same. It's Vista or bust. Now lets see we had Windows-98 Windows-nt Windows-2000 Windows-XP Windows-Vista all in the last decade. That's not counting the home versions versus the professional versions. Lots of these had incompatibilities.
A chance ;-) XP-SP2 hasn't fixed XP problems why should Vista-SP2 be expected to fix Vista problems.
Tony
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
Tony Molloy wrote:
Security updates are still being provided to XP so existing users aren't being forced to switch yet as they are continuously in fedora, and there's a chance they will have it mostly fixed by SP2 time. In any case I can deal with a change once a decade or so. But yes, I will complain if any of my current programs don't continue to run or else have push-button updates to fix them.
You try to buy a PC from Dell recently with XP installed.
I don't object so much to installing a new system on a new machine because I normally keep my old ones running to cover anything that won't work immediately. Once everything is running correctly though, there is no excuse for breaking it and it should not be necessary to reinstall an operating system for the life of the hardware.
I presume most of the major manufacturers are the same. It's Vista or bust. Now lets see we had Windows-98 Windows-nt Windows-2000 Windows-XP Windows-Vista all in the last decade. That's not counting the home versions versus the professional versions. Lots of these had incompatibilities.
You can find exceptions, but just about every third party program would run across that set because the commonly used interfaces were maintained. And if you expect a 5-year useful life for hardware, most of those lasted that span with security updates once MS recognized the need for them.
A chance ;-) XP-SP2 hasn't fixed XP problems why should Vista-SP2 be expected to fix Vista problems.
What problems do you still see in XP or 2000+? My updated post-SP2 windows machines are as stable/reliable as anything running Linux. My laptap sometimes gets into an odd state after many standby/wakeup-on-a-different-wireless network operations but I haven't been able to make that work at all under Linux for a comparison. I haven't closely tracked the size/number of updates, but I'd guess that there is more update churn in even the Centos5.x distro than a pre-vista windows. That's not a completely fair comparison because of the additional apps in the Linux distros, but a few years back I would have promoted linux as the more stable choice.
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 12:13 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: SNIP!
I don't object so much to installing a new system on a new machine because I normally keep my old ones running to cover anything that won't work immediately. Once everything is running correctly though, there is no excuse for breaking it and it should not be necessary to reinstall an operating system for the life of the hardware.
I presume most of the major manufacturers are the same. It's Vista or bust. Now lets see we had Windows-98 Windows-nt Windows-2000 Windows-XP Windows-Vista all in the last decade. That's not counting the home versions versus the professional versions. Lots of these had incompatibilities.
You can find exceptions, but just about every third party program would run across that set because the commonly used interfaces were maintained. And if you expect a 5-year useful life for hardware, most of those lasted that span with security updates once MS recognized the need for them.
A chance ;-) XP-SP2 hasn't fixed XP problems why should Vista-SP2 be expected to fix Vista problems.
What problems do you still see in XP or 2000+? My updated post-SP2 windows machines are as stable/reliable as anything running Linux. My laptap sometimes gets into an odd state after many standby/wakeup-on-a-different-wireless network operations but I haven't been able to make that work at all under Linux for a comparison. I haven't closely tracked the size/number of updates, but I'd guess that there is more update churn in even the Centos5.x distro than a pre-vista windows. That's not a completely fair comparison because of the additional apps in the Linux distros, but a few years back I would have promoted linux as the more stable choice.
Of course the churning that is going on could possibly be related to the advent of high speed DVD's, Bluetooth, USB, USB2.0, Firewire and RAID, all of which are still undergoing the kinds of development and consolidation that IDE went through in the late 80s to 90s.
Also we are asking so much more of our systems, with 3d graphics, multiple processors, threading, and processor parallel loading and stream changing on the fly.
I worked in the IC test field. ICs have gone from a 7 year cycle in the early 80's to a 18 month cycle in 2005 when I retired. I suspect that since two generations of devices have passed since then that the cycle has dropped another 10-20%. At the same time, processor, memory and system speeds have gone from about 30Mhz at top end to over 8Ghz today. Test programs up until 2002 were typically generated by one individual coding like a madman, and simultaneously designing the hardware to run the devices and code. When I left in 2004, a typical program took a team of 3 to 4 to develop, was required to run 4 devices in parallel for mixed signal, two devices in parallel for RF Asics, and be developed in about 7 months, including all correlation and other issues. One man couldn't have done it even if he were a wizard. The devices changed as well, from maybe a few thousand gates to SoC's with a full processor, memory, RF, IF, audio, and peripheral drivers on board. A cellphone was just about three chips I think, and today they are almost disposable, even with camera's on board.
All of this impacts OS software as well, as the advances require processing more and more diverse data, stranger new applications that no one could have seen coming (Second Life or Croquet anyone?) All of this churns the software, and interface requirements. Think about just video for example, there are dozens of compression formats, multiple forms of displays, and several algorithms to accomplish each part of the process. Add in stop, pause, run, fast forward, fast reverse, run reverse, and some differing audio standards of 2,3,4,5,6, and more channels, along with audio decoding and encoding to the correct reproduction standard, and it gets a bit complex, just to see a twenty second clip of some politician selling the latest snake oil.
Someone said, the only thing constant is the rate of change, which means to those of us old enough a perception that it is logarithmic.
I know that this doesn't add much, but think about this. My first computer was one printed circuit board. It had 2K or memory, an 8080 (I think), and four LED number displays with a hex keypad. I had voice output (dutycycle operations on a bit to a speaker), and tape storage using audio cassette at about 8Kbaud that I wrote myself. It ran at a whopping 2Mhz I think (I had some bits before that, but they were mostly just experiments with soldering chips together on protoboard).
I am writing this on a system with over 800G of storage, running at 2Ghz, dual processors, with 1G of memory, over a network that runs at multiple gigs at least part of the way, and all of you can see it and read it all over the world in seconds if things go well.
That is the past 30 years. What will full immersion and higher technology bring in 30 more years? Any guesses? How will the processors, operating systems, networking and hardware keep up with that? Will we be part of the next three decades of development?
Along with that, I like this quote:
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." — John Kenneth Galbraith I like to think I am on the chaning mind side of that quote...
Regards, Les H
Les wrote:
Of course the churning that is going on could possibly be related to the advent of high speed DVD's, Bluetooth, USB, USB2.0, Firewire and RAID, all of which are still undergoing the kinds of development and consolidation that IDE went through in the late 80s to 90s.
And all of which could be isolated to driver modules behind an unchanging kernel interface so the OS could do its unix-like job of presenting every device as a stream-of-bytes without having to change everything else every time a new piece of hardware is invented.
Someone said, the only thing constant is the rate of change, which means to those of us old enough a perception that it is logarithmic.
Which just emphasizes the need to stabilize the layers so they can change independently.
I know that this doesn't add much, but think about this. My first computer was one printed circuit board. It had 2K or memory, an 8080 (I think), and four LED number displays with a hex keypad. I had voice output (dutycycle operations on a bit to a speaker), and tape storage using audio cassette at about 8Kbaud that I wrote myself. It ran at a whopping 2Mhz I think (I had some bits before that, but they were mostly just experiments with soldering chips together on protoboard).
About the 2nd thing you should have learned from that 8080 system was that if you wrote something in it's native assembly language and used unique features of its OS (if it had one) you'd have to throw it all out as soon as that hardware was obsolete (well, I suppose you could have moved to a Z80 for another year when the designer moved from Intel to Zilog and kept opcodes backwards compatible...)
I am writing this on a system with over 800G of storage, running at 2Ghz, dual processors, with 1G of memory, over a network that runs at multiple gigs at least part of the way, and all of you can see it and read it all over the world in seconds if things go well.
I hope somewhere along the line you started writing in C or a similarly standardized language and using an OS that presented a standard interface so your own work was no longer obsoleted along with the platforms.
That is the past 30 years. What will full immersion and higher technology bring in 30 more years? Any guesses? How will the processors, operating systems, networking and hardware keep up with that? Will we be part of the next three decades of development?
Along with that, I like this quote:
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." — John Kenneth Galbraith I like to think I am on the chaning mind side of that quote...
The problem with change is the amount of baggage that goes along with the actual piece that needed the change. If you standardize interfaces, you can change any single piece without throwing the rest out.
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 14:08 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
If you standardize interfaces, you can change any single piece without throwing the rest out.
That goes both ways. If you don't change how your device does its tricks, then the kernel doesn't need to, either, and things should just keep on working.
Tim wrote:
If you standardize interfaces, you can change any single piece without throwing the rest out.
That goes both ways. If you don't change how your device does its tricks, then the kernel doesn't need to, either, and things should just keep on working.
Until you have to replace the kernel due to security updates, and to get the fix you drag along its changed interfaces.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Tony Molloy wrote:
Security updates are still being provided to XP so existing users aren't being forced to switch yet as they are continuously in fedora, and there's a chance they will have it mostly fixed by SP2 time. In any case I can deal with a change once a decade or so. But yes, I will complain if any of my current programs don't continue to run or else have push-button updates to fix them.
You try to buy a PC from Dell recently with XP installed.
I don't object so much to installing a new system on a new machine because I normally keep my old ones running to cover anything that won't work immediately. Once everything is running correctly though, there is no excuse for breaking it and it should not be necessary to reinstall an operating system for the life of the hardware.
Bottom line is Fedora does make it easy to use 3rd party software. The RPM system is open and well documented, any vendor that wants to can create RPM packages. Some have. Any vendor that wants to can create a YUM repository for automated updates. Some have.
If vmware/nvidia/whoever wants to have good compatibility with Fedora, the ball is in their court - it is easy for them to do so.
Adobe already runs a repo for the flash plugin, I hope they add Acrobat Reader to it. I don't care for nVidia's installer but rpm.livna.org provides a safe packaging for their drivers.
btw - speaking of nvidia - I have a src.rpm right now that fails to build in mock in x86_64 CentOS and Fedora 8 if (and only if) the nVidia driver is loaded. Without the driver loaded, it builds just fine. It builds in x86 the nvidia driver if I scale the cpu speed down but not at full speed. About ~150 other src.rpm's did not exhibit that issue, but this one does consistently.
The driver is thus broken (causes other programs to fail). RHEL/Fedora do ship some drivers that are broken, very rarely are there zaro bugs in software. But when open source and discovered, they can be patched. How would Fedora patch the closed source nVidia driver? They can't. If they shipped it, they would be shipping something they can't fix.
Les Mikesell wrote: [ cut discussion of free vs opensource etc]
People should be free to make that decision for themselves separately for every component. That's what standard interfaces are about, to give you that freedom. There is nothing free about things that take that choice away by restrictions or refusal to provide usable interfaces for interoperability.
I think you are making an argument that you will never win here.
Fedora makes no guarantee of a stable API or ABI. This would be impossible to do while trying to follow upstream - rebasing kernel versions and so on is definitely going to interfere with this.
If (for example) VMWare only works with kernel version <blah> and they don't keep up with newer releases, then it will break if you update your kernel. So don't (unless you know they have patched vmware to cope). There will be other software that falls into this category.
Vendors do not on the whole support fedora because of issues like this.
If you want ABI/API stability to be guaranteed for the lifetime of a product, then RHEL (or CENTOS or one of the other rebuilds) would provide you with this, and I am fairly sure that the 3rd-party stuff would work for them (I haven't tested).
Fedora is a moving target, which is something that its users have to accept. Most of us do.
[snip more of the same argument, more or less]
oh, as for not providing immediate access to closed-source or in some cases US-patent-infringing software, this is also part of the fedora 'mission' and is also a safety issue. Fedora receives a fair amount of backing from Red Hat, who have some money and are based in the US - they become an obvious target for money-grubbing lawsuits, which I suspect would not upset some other large software companies. If you don't like this, you are free to respin a Fedora clone of your own that does provide this access out of the box.
many people seem to understand why Fedora has this restriction. It's not likely to change.
Stuart
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 10:09 +0000, Stuart Sears wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote: [ cut discussion of free vs opensource etc]
People should be free to make that decision for themselves separately for every component. That's what standard interfaces are about, to give you that freedom. There is nothing free about things that take that choice away by restrictions or refusal to provide usable interfaces for interoperability.
I think you are making an argument that you will never win here.
Fedora makes no guarantee of a stable API or ABI. This would be impossible to do while trying to follow upstream - rebasing kernel versions and so on is definitely going to interfere with this.
The old kernel development model was much more third-party developer friendly in this sense. It used to be that even minor version numbers (2.4.x) were stable in this sense and odd minor numbers (2.5.x) were not. Then a distro could include the even ones and developers could rely on the API and ABI until the next even release came out. In the meantime, they had time to adapt to changes being made in the odd releases. The odd releases were generally made available by distros for testing by the stout of heart.
If (for example) VMWare only works with kernel version <blah> and they don't keep up with newer releases, then it will break if you update your kernel. So don't (unless you know they have patched vmware to cope). There will be other software that falls into this category.
Vendors do not on the whole support fedora because of issues like this.
Keeping up with rapid API/ABI version changes is a burden for any third-party developer, not just proprietary ones. Having to go back and continually modify older code for compatibility distracts from development of new features. It also introduces these delays where users can't move to new kernels (which might include critical security fixes) or must forgo their third-party codes until their vendors catch up.
If you want ABI/API stability to be guaranteed for the lifetime of a product, then RHEL (or CENTOS or one of the other rebuilds) would provide you with this, and I am fairly sure that the 3rd-party stuff would work for them (I haven't tested).
Les's argument here is that it's hard to get the latest application software without committing to live with the instability at the kernel level. RHEL5 is still shipping Firefox 1.1.5 AFAIK, and equally ancient versions of other applications. That may be fine for enterprise managers, but many single users and developers would like to be able to keep up with application and toolchain advances.
People talk about TCO and point out that there's lots more application software bundled with with a typical Linux distro than with Windows. That's all very good, but unbundled applications have the advantage that the user isn't tied to the bundled release of the application if they want to stay with a particular version of the system.
Fedora is a moving target, which is something that its users have to accept. Most of us do.
Some of us accept it--or even welcome it--for some things but find that it's a burden for others. There's no reason not to consider changes in policy that would address some of the disadvantages of this situation without doing too much violence to the advantages.
[snip more of the same argument, more or less]
oh, as for not providing immediate access to closed-source or in some cases US-patent-infringing software, this is also part of the fedora 'mission' and is also a safety issue. Fedora receives a fair amount of backing from Red Hat, who have some money and are based in the US - they become an obvious target for money-grubbing lawsuits, which I suspect would not upset some other large software companies. If you don't like this, you are free to respin a Fedora clone of your own that does provide this access out of the box.
many people seem to understand why Fedora has this restriction. It's not likely to change.
I don't mind dealing with the need to go get third-party software from third parties. One has to do so for Windows as well. The set of things that one needs to get from third parties in order to have a system that performs most of the common tasks a user expects is just different.
But there seems to be an attitude on the part of some people in the community that the best way to pressure vendors of proprietary software to open their code is to force users who need that software to suffer without it. I think that alienates users and is counterproductive.
Stuart
Matthew Saltzman wrote: *snip*
level. RHEL5 is still shipping Firefox 1.1.5 AFAIK, and equally ancient versions of other applications. That may be fine for enterprise managers, but many single users and developers would like to be able to keep up with application and toolchain advances.
RHEL5 has the latest 1.5 firefox - but you can easily install 2.0 if you want to. In fact, RHEL has even created a directory called /usr/local just to make it easier for you.
RHEL 5 software is not "ancient" versions. It is stable versions. I ran Fedora 8 on two different computers and experienced much instability. Running CentOS 5 on them and things were peachy and "just worked". Same tasks.
There isn't really much I can do in F8 that I can't in CentOS. I may not be able to easily get pulseaudio working, but I don't think I really want to. (I probably could if I tried ...)
People talk about TCO and point out that there's lots more application software bundled with with a typical Linux distro than with Windows. That's all very good, but unbundled applications have the advantage that the user isn't tied to the bundled release of the application if they want to stay with a particular version of the system.
You can update software if you want. Libraries can be difficult if not packaged properly, but if packaged properly, you should be able to have many different versions installed at once. Usually the only potential problem with multiple versions of the same library is conflicts in the devel package, which end users don't need.
/usr/local and /opt are good places to install newer versions of applications. For example, you can install FireFox 2 and Thunderbird 2 in /usr/local on RHEL 5. You will also need to install the RHEL provided older version of libstdc++.
Fedora is a moving target, which is something that its users have to accept. Most of us do.
Some of us accept it--or even welcome it--for some things but find that it's a burden for others. There's no reason not to consider changes in policy that would address some of the disadvantages of this situation without doing too much violence to the advantages.
Third party package repositories (ie livna) do that quite well.
I don't mind dealing with the need to go get third-party software from third parties. One has to do so for Windows as well. The set of things that one needs to get from third parties in order to have a system that performs most of the common tasks a user expects is just different.
But there seems to be an attitude on the part of some people in the community that the best way to pressure vendors of proprietary software to open their code is to force users who need that software to suffer without it. I think that alienates users and is counterproductive.
No - no one wants to force users to suffer. The user community is full of resources to help the new user out and get those things working. Usually it is only difficult because the new user thinks it needs to be and tries to do things the wrong way, counter to instructions clearly given numerous times on mail lists and newsgroup postings.
Michael A. Peters wrote:
level. RHEL5 is still shipping Firefox 1.1.5 AFAIK, and equally ancient versions of other applications. That may be fine for enterprise managers, but many single users and developers would like to be able to keep up with application and toolchain advances.
RHEL5 has the latest 1.5 firefox - but you can easily install 2.0 if you want to. In fact, RHEL has even created a directory called /usr/local just to make it easier for you.
How do you install a copy that will update itself automatically when security updates are issued?
RHEL 5 software is not "ancient" versions. It is stable versions.
That should be the upstream author's designation, shouldn't it? Does the mozilla group still even admit that firefox 1.5 exists? What about the beta dovecot that was shipped in RHEL4 and never updated to the release version? Complaints about the old bugs kept showing up in the upstream mailing list years after the stable release, confusing everyone.
I ran Fedora 8 on two different computers and experienced much instability.
Which means that's probably not the best way to get current versions of firefox, thunderbird, and OpenOffice.
People talk about TCO and point out that there's lots more application software bundled with with a typical Linux distro than with Windows. That's all very good, but unbundled applications have the advantage that the user isn't tied to the bundled release of the application if they want to stay with a particular version of the system.
You can update software if you want.
You can compile your own kernel and assemble your own distribution from scratch too. Then you have to maintain them, which most people can't afford to do. Wouldn't it make more sense to have mostly compatible repositories for unstable/testing/stable versions of programs so you could update specific programs where you need new features without having to deal with instability in all the others?
But there seems to be an attitude on the part of some people in the community that the best way to pressure vendors of proprietary software to open their code is to force users who need that software to suffer without it. I think that alienates users and is counterproductive.
No - no one wants to force users to suffer.
You aren't from around here, are you?
Les Mikesell wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
level. RHEL5 is still shipping Firefox 1.1.5 AFAIK, and equally ancient versions of other applications. That may be fine for enterprise managers, but many single users and developers would like to be able to keep up with application and toolchain advances.
RHEL5 has the latest 1.5 firefox - but you can easily install 2.0 if you want to. In fact, RHEL has even created a directory called /usr/local just to make it easier for you.
How do you install a copy that will update itself automatically when security updates are issued?
Install it in your home directory and use the FireFox update utility - just like you have to in Windows or OS X. Or use a FF2 rpm from a third party repo.
Which means that's probably not the best way to get current versions of firefox, thunderbird, and OpenOffice.
Right - but there are third parties that provide yum-able updates for all of those if you want them.
You aren't from around here, are you?
I sure am - I see questions asked and answered all the time about how to get those things to work.
Les Mikesell wrote:
That should be the upstream author's designation, shouldn't it? Does the mozilla group still even admit that firefox 1.5 exists? What about the beta dovecot that was shipped in RHEL4 and never updated to the release version? Complaints about the old bugs kept showing up in the upstream mailing list years after the stable release, confusing everyone.
Wait, wait, wait. You were complaining about Fedora being too far ahead and being unstable, and now you're knocking RHEL for being too far behind? What exactly do you want?
I'm starting to think that the guys who said you simply want a distro custom-tailored to your exact specs are right. What would satisfy you, a distro with all the latest versions that doesn't have any bugs in it or something?
Kelly Miller wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
That should be the upstream author's designation, shouldn't it? Does the mozilla group still even admit that firefox 1.5 exists? What about the beta dovecot that was shipped in RHEL4 and never updated to the release version? Complaints about the old bugs kept showing up in the upstream mailing list years after the stable release, confusing everyone.
Wait, wait, wait. You were complaining about Fedora being too far ahead and being unstable, and now you're knocking RHEL for being too far behind? What exactly do you want?
I'm starting to think that the guys who said you simply want a distro custom-tailored to your exact specs are right. What would satisfy you, a distro with all the latest versions that doesn't have any bugs in it or something?
If that's really what he wants, he can have it mow:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
;)
I've actually gone through the project a couple time (first time was actually on a PPC - using Yellow Dog as the initial OS) - I probably should again at some point, it's a great learning (and re-learning) experience, though it is too time consuming to keep it up to patch level for normal use for any length of time.
If he really wants RHEL/CentOS with FireFox/Thunderbird 2 - I'll give a shameless plug:
http://www.pennywasted.info/centos/yjl.php
I have a small repo dedicated just for FireFox/Thunderbird updates to CentOS 5.x (FireFox and Thunderbird are rebuilds of F8 src.rpm's - it also has rebuilds of the two RHEL/CentOS rpm's that break due to gecko-libs change)
Please note - FireFox 2 is a little wonky on my low memory machines (384 MB laptop and 512MB desktop) it crashes a lot - the binary tarball release from Mozilla is much more stable (but because it is built against a different libstdc++ than icedtea, the icedtea java plugin doesn't load in their release)
On my 2GB x86_64 machine I haven't experienced crashing. Me thinks the crashing on the low memory x86 is caused by a memory leak that my higher mem machine can handle better, but I haven't fully investigated.
Thunderbird 2 works great on low mem machines - other than it can't read local system mail. But that's what alpine in EPEL is for.
Kelly Miller wrote:
That should be the upstream author's designation, shouldn't it? Does the mozilla group still even admit that firefox 1.5 exists? What about the beta dovecot that was shipped in RHEL4 and never updated to the release version? Complaints about the old bugs kept showing up in the upstream mailing list years after the stable release, confusing everyone.
Wait, wait, wait. You were complaining about Fedora being too far ahead and being unstable, and now you're knocking RHEL for being too far behind? What exactly do you want?
I'd like to be able to keep running a well-tested kernel and device drivers on hardware where it already works with continuing security updates that don't break the interfaces. The system libraries and anything likely to cause the machine to crash should be equally tested and stable. Having an optional newer kernel to be used with newer hardware would be a plus but not a requirement if the version cycle is less than 2 years (RHEL/CentOS are fine in this respect). Then optionally, it should be possible to install current versions of applications into this stable OS to get up to date features without making it likely that you will crash the machine - and having installed them, they should track updates like the rest of the system.
I'm starting to think that the guys who said you simply want a distro custom-tailored to your exact specs are right. What would satisfy you, a distro with all the latest versions that doesn't have any bugs in it or something?
Having compatible stable, unstable, testing, repositories might work. I believe another distro uses that approach successfully but has the disadvantage on not following a release schedule to help users decide if they should wait for the next stable release or deal with less stable things for features they need.
Hi,
When the same program works on one version of an operating system but not on another, there's nothing to ask. The operating system has clearly failed to provide a usable interface.
We don't want stable interfaces (not quite yet, maybe in time). Windows may have more stability in this regard, but the down side is you end up stuck with bad interfaces that you cannot change due to 'compatibility' issues. Users of these interfaces then start writing there own kludgy workarounds. A mess.
Linux IMHO, has a different view. If an interface is broken don't try and live with it but fix it. If this breaks things downstream so be it, in the OSS world fixing things is not so hard. The problems are with closed sourced entities where those changing the interface cannot fix the closed source.
Lets be specifc - Most of the issues you refer to (nivida, vmware) relate to the kernel. Here developers may change some interface, but such changes are internal to the kernel, like drivers. In this case those changing the interface fix the driver so the end shot is all is still OK. They cannot do this for closed source stuff, which is why such things are disliked and distros like Fedora do not support them. A quote from Linus I recently read
"Asked by Zemlin why the Linux kernel does not have a stable device driver application binary interface, Torvalds said, "We really, really, really don't want one. The main reason most people want a stable ABI [application binary interface] is so that they can have their binary drivers and not have to give out source. They don't want to merge that source into the stable kernel or the standard kernel.""
I for one agree and do not want the kernel developers to stop changing (improving) things just to provide a more stable interface to external closed source stuff drivers etc. If those closed source providers want to support linux, they either keep up with the kernel developers (which they could if they wanted, kernel release candidates are always available before release) or they allow their drivers to be OSS'ed and placed in the kernel, where they will be maintained 'for free'.
One day kernel development might slow down, but I don't want that to happen prematurely and for us to end up with bad interfaces.
Chris
Chris Jones wrote:
When the same program works on one version of an operating system but not on another, there's nothing to ask. The operating system has clearly failed to provide a usable interface.
We don't want stable interfaces (not quite yet, maybe in time).
Freedom doesn't consist of telling other people what they want. It is about everyone having choices.
Windows may have more stability in this regard, but the down side is you end up stuck with bad interfaces that you cannot change due to 'compatibility' issues. Users of these interfaces then start writing there own kludgy workarounds. A mess.
Examples? I have reasons to dislike windows, but they mostly go back to pre-win2ksp2 days. I can't think of any particular driver-related issues that are a problem now. Likewise the binary OS X drivers work just fine for me.
Linux IMHO, has a different view. If an interface is broken don't try and live with it but fix it. If this breaks things downstream so be it, in the OSS world fixing things is not so hard. The problems are with closed sourced entities where those changing the interface cannot fix the closed source.
Lets be specifc - Most of the issues you refer to (nivida, vmware) relate to the kernel.
OK, let's be specific. Start with firewire. I can't afford to deal with firewire as it has been handled in fedora for the 1st 6 versions and haven't tried with the last 2 yet. Show me how having people who have no reason to care if a device driver works or not writing the code has worked out better than making it simple for vendors to provide drivers.
Here developers may change some interface, but such changes are internal to the kernel, like drivers. In this case those changing the interface fix the driver so the end shot is all is still OK. They cannot do this for closed source stuff, which is why such things are disliked and distros like Fedora do not support them. A quote from Linus I recently read
"Asked by Zemlin why the Linux kernel does not have a stable device driver application binary interface, Torvalds said, "We really, really, really don't want one.
Once again, I'm not particularly interested in someone telling me what I want.
The main reason most people want a stable ABI [application binary interface] is so that they can have their binary drivers and not have to give out source. They don't want to merge that source into the stable kernel or the standard kernel.""
And that part is simply self-serving refusal to cooperate with anyone else through standard interfaces.
I for one agree and do not want the kernel developers to stop changing (improving) things just to provide a more stable interface to external closed source stuff drivers etc.
I might have agreed back when I thought Linus was inexperienced at OS design and incapable of specifying an interface suitable for use over some length of time. I don't think that is the case anymore. And I might has agreed that source was important back when many companies were competing with incompatible processor designs and there was some change a device might need to be moved to a new/different system. Now I just want an interface that works for the life of the box.
If those closed source providers want to support linux, they either keep up with the kernel developers (which they could if they wanted, kernel release candidates are always available before release) or they allow their drivers to be OSS'ed and placed in the kernel, where they will be maintained 'for free'.
I can't afford to use something 'free' that doesn't work as well as something written by the vendor that knows the most about the device in question and has the most reason to care about it operating correctly. There's nothing wrong with source availability and, other things being equal, it is a good thing if everyone chooses not to place any restrictions on what others can do with it. However it is no more necessary for me to have source to a device driver for my purposes than to have all the parts to assemble a jet before I would ride in one.
One day kernel development might slow down, but I don't want that to happen prematurely and for us to end up with bad interfaces.
How old must Linus be before you'll trust him with this decision?
Freedom doesn't consist of telling other people what they want. It is about everyone having choices.
Indeed. You have the choice not to use Fedora, if you don't like the choices it has taken as a community of users. You are free to use another distro that fits your expectations of stability, such as Centros.
Why you persist in trying to suggest Fedora should turn into something it doesn't want to be, and extremely unlikely to ever be, is beyond me.
Chris
Chris Jones wrote:
Freedom doesn't consist of telling other people what they want. It is about everyone having choices.
Indeed. You have the choice not to use Fedora, if you don't like the choices it has taken as a community of users.
And I don't, other than as a curiosity.
You are free to use another distro that fits your expectations of stability, such as Centros.
I do, wherever Linux can be used at all - but Centos inherits most of the problems from fedora and thus can't be used in many situations either.
Why you persist in trying to suggest Fedora should turn into something it doesn't want to be, and extremely unlikely to ever be, is beyond me.
I guess my expectations were set badly back in the early RH days when the experimental branch of the kernel wasn't used and versions were supported and fixed with ongoing point releases. Fedora has turned out to be one of those things like someone giving you a puppy that looks cute but you can't afford the upkeep and then you find out it doesn't play well with others.
On Feb 1, 2008 12:27 PM, Chris Jones jonesc@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk wrote:
Freedom doesn't consist of telling other people what they want. It is about everyone having choices.
Indeed. You have the choice not to use Fedora, if you don't like the choices it has taken as a community of users. You are free to use another distro that fits your expectations of stability, such as Centros.
Why you persist in trying to suggest Fedora should turn into something it doesn't want to be, and extremely unlikely to ever be, is beyond me.
Chris
I think he's testing Einstein's theory that given enough attempts, anything is possible.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Chris Jones wrote:
Anti-septic hurts, but in the long run it helps cure problems.
They said that about blood-letting too.
Digressing slightly, but blood-letting is sometimes useful (though not as widely useful as some 18th C physicians thought).
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 14:40 +0000, Ian Malone wrote:
On 31/01/2008, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
He was told different and conflicting ways by different people and following different sets of advice broke things. Why should an extremely common user requirement have to be satisfied by following some random other user's advice from a mail list? As we can see by example, this doesn't work that well.
Well, one could Google for the answer, look at the unofficial FAQs or read the responses on the mailing list and try to form a sensible assessment of the advice being given.
Anyway, we've heard this axe ground so often I'm surprised there's anything left of it.
Does the truth hurt? What's the problem with repeating it?
Mainly that it got boring a while back.
I'd like to see something resembling truth-in-advertising on the project site about
[...]
"Fedora is a Linux-based operating system that showcases the latest in free and open source software."
I think you might agree that it would be more correct to state:
"Fedora is a Linux-based operating system that showcases the latest in free and open source software to be beta tested by it's advanced community of experienced users." Plus add this caveat: "It is not suggested for dweebs nor the intellectually challenged." ;)
THAT would be more honest. I would add that while some may dissent at times, including myself, that should not be confused with disloyalty. Edward R Morrow said to Senator McCarthy during the Senate hearings, when McCarthy would label anyone that disagreed with him a Communist, "Do not confuse my dissent with disloyalty, Sir."
<smiles wistfully> Ric
Ric Moore wrote:
I'd like to see something resembling truth-in-advertising on the project site about
[...]
"Fedora is a Linux-based operating system that showcases the latest in free and open source software."
I think you might agree that it would be more correct to state:
"Fedora is a Linux-based operating system that showcases the latest in free and open source software to be beta tested by it's advanced community of experienced users." Plus add this caveat: "It is not suggested for dweebs nor the intellectually challenged." ;)
And add a reminder that the pioneers are usually the people lying face down in the mud with arrows in their backs...
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 00:13 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Ric Moore wrote:
I'd like to see something resembling truth-in-advertising on the project site about
[...]
"Fedora is a Linux-based operating system that showcases the latest in free and open source software."
I think you might agree that it would be more correct to state:
"Fedora is a Linux-based operating system that showcases the latest in free and open source software to be beta tested by it's advanced community of experienced users." Plus add this caveat: "It is not suggested for dweebs nor the intellectually challenged." ;)
And add a reminder that the pioneers are usually the people lying face down in the mud with arrows in their backs...
Damn near blew iced-tea out my nose! HA! I'm stealing that one. Ric
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 07:55 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Ian Malone wrote:
Since this is Karl's thread, his problems with Nvidia and sound should be famous by now and apply to any kernel modules.
And, as always, he was told ages ago the way to get Nvidia working on Fedora and chose to ignore it until he stumbled onto it by trial and error.
He was told different and conflicting ways by different people and following different sets of advice broke things. Why should an extremely common user requirement have to be satisfied by following some random other user's advice from a mail list? As we can see by example, this doesn't work that well.
---- agreed - and he should have been around long enough to figure out that he needed to apply a filter to those giving him advice. Let's not forget, the support you get from a list such as this is worth the price you pay, hopefully a bit more but there are no guarantees.
Craig
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 07:55 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Ian Malone wrote:
Since this is Karl's thread, his problems with Nvidia and sound should be famous by now and apply to any kernel modules.
And, as always, he was told ages ago the way to get Nvidia working on Fedora and chose to ignore it until he stumbled onto it by trial and error.
He was told different and conflicting ways by different people and following different sets of advice broke things. Why should an extremely common user requirement have to be satisfied by following some random other user's advice from a mail list? As we can see by example, this doesn't work that well.
I didn't follow his sound problems closely but they appeared to be with pulseaudio, which was designed to fix a long- standing sound problem, is not a kernel issue and, in any case, can be removed and F8 run without it.
He tried to remove 'pulseaudio' instead of the obscure package name that you actually do have to remove and it damaged his system.
Anyway, we've heard this axe ground so often I'm surprised there's anything left of it.
Does the truth hurt? What's the problem with repeating it? I'd like to see something resembling truth-in-advertising on the project site about the expected user experience for the very common situations where a vendor driver works better than the stock one or is needed to work at all, the user wants to run java, VMware or a number of other 3rd party programs, or the user expects to keep running without re-installing for any length of time.
I had suggested off-list that he try the nVidia supplied driver. Then he raved about how well it worked on the list. My guess is that he dinked with it and it broke. I have no problem with it at all and I happen to prefer it, for my own uses.
I just set up an old Beta Max for my 75 year old Uncle. He had some original WWII footage on Beta and wanted to watch them. I warned him, don't fsck with it! Sure enough, two days later he'd push the damn buttons anyway. Now, it won't play at all. Think I jumped up to fix it? Hell, nah. I'm letting him sweat. Big time. Same thing.
Hopefully he'll keep his fingers out of it the next time I fix it. <smirks> Ric
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 00:37 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> But that has nothing to do with my point about enabling the user to > install additional software which is why I have an operating system in > the first place. Everyone here knows the deal with Fedora. They don't promote non OSS software for partly legal and (in my opinion, might be wrong) partly philosophical reasons against closed source.
My point has nothing to do with promoting anything or whether the additional software meets your religious beliefs or not. It is strictly about providing a user with a platform that is not limited by design or its inability to provide stable interfaces.
You say limit by design, I say do not support. Limit by design would be to hard code repos into yum. Not support would be to not provide all repos in yum by default.
OK, I'll take your "do not support" and move on to "intentionally break" in every case where something that worked in one version does not work in the next or after an update. From the perspective of a person who just wants to run some programs it's all the same when they don't work.
Got any examples of that?
Since this is Karl's thread, his problems with Nvidia and sound should be famous by now and apply to any kernel modules. But every fedora version has required new patches to VMware that you have to track down, firewire has had about 50/50 odds of working, anything that knew device names would break from one version to the next, CIPE hasn't worked since FC1... What other OS forces you to go though these contortions continuously just to continue getting security fixes for the bugs it ships?
---- IIRC, cipe hasn't worked since 2.6 kernel because 2.6 kernel dropped the extensions that cipe relied upon. Not a Fedora issue.
As for Karl's issue with pulseaudio, it stems from the his requirement of Skype which has their own timetable for releases.
As for Karl's issue with nVidia...it just took him longer than most to get the livna packages installed.
The fact that Fedora adopts some of the edge technologies that create some incompatibilities is proof that it is not the Linux distribution that suits everyone - no big deal there.
Craig
On 31/01/2008, Craig White craig@tobyhouse.com wrote:
As for Karl's issue with pulseaudio, it stems from the his requirement of Skype which has their own timetable for releases.
Not to start another pulseaudio thread, but I'm still wondering why it should work for some people and not others, provided the underlying ALSA drivers work (maybe that's a tall order). F8, Skype works fine for me with PA, both on the laptop's built-in mic/speakers and a USB handset. Rhythmbox, mplayer and xine work. But clearly they don't for others, who /are/ able to get sound if they take PA out, very odd.
(Realplayer is the one app I've found that doesn't like it, but it seems to be trying to issue some hardware command to ALSA. Hmm, just had a thought about that...)
John Summerfield wrote:
Many years ago, RH used to ship CDE, maybe around RHL 4.x.
Unfortunately, CDE had a security problem. CDE is closed software. RH takes security more seriously than its supplier did. RH could not get a fix in a suitable timeframe.
RH immediately withdrew support, suggested people did not use it, and offered paying customers a credit against their next purchase.
RH was a new company then; anyone who's still around from then is likely senior management now.
Whatever their beliefs then, I'm sure that that experienced moved them a a few points towards "open source and only open source."
I think this puts a very unwarranted spin on open vs. closed source software. In fact if you examine what was shipped in RH4.x you'd find glaring security issues in just about _every_ package and the ones that didn't have their own inherited exploitable environment overflows, etc. from the libraries. That wasn't particularly RedHat's fault, it was just that no one expected the bad guys to read the source code before RH shipped a CD that would install on anyone's PC. But fast forward to RH6.x and you'd still find exploited vulnerabilities in bind, sendmail, the ftp programs, smtpd, samba, and so on. You can't make a blanket claim that bugs are going to be fixed just because someone who could fix them has the source. As I recall, the one in smtpd got fixed just about everywhere at the same time, closed and open versions. I haven't followd CDE but I'd assume that if it is still used, its known exploitable bugs have been fixed too, RedHat's grandstanding about the issue while still shipping other bugs notwithstanding.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Le 30.01.2008 19:21, Robert P. J. Day a écrit :
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
... snip ...
Anyone care to wager how long before he pisses off the Ubuntu crowd...?
And I have just put some procmail rules to send K.L.'s mails to hell!:
:0 H *^From (.*larsen|.*k5di) $HOME/mail/spam
:0 B *.*larsen $HOME/mail/spam
Keep them! He may come back.
- -- François Patte UFR de mathématiques et informatique Université Paris Descartes 45, rue des Saints Pères F-75270 Paris Cedex 06 Tél. +33 (0)1 44 55 35 61 http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
François Patte wrote:
And I have just put some procmail rules to send K.L.'s mails to hell!:
I wouldn't want to be you when the devil comes knocking on your door for doing that ... :)
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 01:21:08PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i was going to take the high road but ... oh, what the hell.
I just have two observations; one specific to Karl, a second to Linux in general:
o Despite everything, some people are going to miss him just because he was a nucleation point for...stuff. Love or hate it, but.
o I've worked on Unix since around 1980, Linux since around 1994. Different distros, different details, but once you get used to dealing with the various Unix/Linux distros, who cares what they change; it's all variations on a theme. I don't have a problem dealing with multiple distros and platforms.
Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat President, DMINET Consulting, Inc. dihnat@dminet.com
--- "Christopher A. Williams" fedoralists@cawllc.com wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 12:31 -0500, Terry Polzin wrote:
On Wednesday 30 January 2008 11:14:36 Karl Larsen
wrote:
I did a temporary setup of Ubuntu and
started playing with it. I
signed up for their technical list and have
talked with some very smart
people. Right now I am getting my little tv
camera working with Skype. I
just talked to another Ham in GA on PSK31.
These guys are not IT people for a company,
they are Ubuntu users.
We get along just fine. I think the entire
Fedora setup is bad. You must
like to fix your operating system to fit in.
Change is the name of the
game.
Well Ubuntu has arrived. It works in ways
Fedora will never
understand. Good Bye.
IMHO Ubuntu is the distro that deserves Karl and
the distro that Karl needs.
All of us on this list have wasted too much time
and effort on him and his
issues.
Anyone care to wager how long before he pisses off the Ubuntu crowd...?
I know quite a few Ubuntu guys. A couple are friends and co-workers. Most are just pro-Ubuntu as opposed to anti-Fedora. Just like most people here are pro-Fedora as opposed to Anti-Ubuntu. I'd say it was more just a matter of time...
Cheers,
Chris
--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
--Yogi Berra
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
This will make many wonder which one/ones threw the straw that broke the camel's back
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_that_broke_the_camel%27s_back
Regards,
Antonio
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Karl Larsen wrote:
I did a temporary setup of Ubuntu and started playing with it. I signed up for their technical list and have talked with some very smart people. Right now I am getting my little tv camera working with Skype. I just talked to another Ham in GA on PSK31.
These guys are not IT people for a company, they are Ubuntu users. We get along just fine. I think the entire Fedora setup is bad. You must like to fix your operating system to fit in. Change is the name of the game.
Well Ubuntu has arrived. It works in ways Fedora will never understand. Good Bye.
Karl
You get along just fine now. And I"m sure you did while on this list early. It's less about 'getting along' and more about learning as you go. Too many times this has been demonstrated that you either won't or can't. I'm sure they'll be the same way after a while.
However, I wish you luck. Ubuntu isn't my favorite distro. But it works for non-technical people who don't want to have to learn the guts of the thing, which is why my mom uses it.
Karl Larsen wrote:
I did a temporary setup of Ubuntu and started playing with it. I signed up for their technical list and have talked with some very smart people.
The nice thing about Ubuntu is that you don't need to know a lot to use it. The problem with Ubuntu is that nothing is in the 'standard' places so you can fix things.
These guys are not IT people for a company, they are Ubuntu users. We get along just fine. I think the entire Fedora setup is bad. You must like to fix your operating system to fit in. Change is the name of the game.
Well now I get to ignore Karl on that list instead of this one.
I actually wish Karl the best of luck.
Well Ubuntu has arrived. It works in ways Fedora will never understand. Good Bye.
... Dispatch tech replace user!
The problem with the ignorant is that they never know any better.
Neil Cherry wrote:
Karl Larsen wrote:
I did a temporary setup of Ubuntu and started playing with it. I signed up for their technical list and have talked with some very smart people.
The nice thing about Ubuntu is that you don't need to know a lot to use it. The problem with Ubuntu is that nothing is in the 'standard' places so you can fix things.
I don't understand that. I think "standard" needs some definition.
Generally, configuration files are approximately where package creators envisioned and work as they describe,
When I moved to Debian from RHL some years ago, what struck me was how similar it is to RHL and its successors. Arguably more similar than *SUSE.
John Summerfield wrote:
Neil Cherry wrote:
Karl Larsen wrote:
I did a temporary setup of Ubuntu and started playing with it. I signed up for their technical list and have talked with some very smart people.
The nice thing about Ubuntu is that you don't need to know a lot to use it. The problem with Ubuntu is that nothing is in the 'standard' places so you can fix things.
I don't understand that. I think "standard" needs some definition.
That 'standard' has been some trouble but an example is ifcfg-eth0. Can't find it on Ubuntu. Using CPAN is quite a pain to do (I found I was missing one small library, then I could install). I'm more of a SYS-V guy having grown up with AT&T Unix. I like the Linux Standard Base. I know there are differences between Debian based systems and Red Hat based systems. I managed to (easily) get around the su problem.
Generally, configuration files are approximately where package creators envisioned and work as they describe,
But those that follow the LSB make things easier for folks. The one thing that makes things interesting still is whether to put things in /opt or in /usr/local. I'm an old timer so I tend to put things in /usr/local.
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 19:59 -0500, Neil Cherry wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
Neil Cherry wrote:
Karl Larsen wrote:
I did a temporary setup of Ubuntu and started playing with it. I signed up for their technical list and have talked with some very smart people.
The nice thing about Ubuntu is that you don't need to know a lot to use it. The problem with Ubuntu is that nothing is in the 'standard' places so you can fix things.
I don't understand that. I think "standard" needs some definition.
That 'standard' has been some trouble but an example is ifcfg-eth0. Can't find it on Ubuntu. Using CPAN is quite a pain to do (I found I was missing one small library, then I could install). I'm more of a SYS-V guy having grown up with AT&T Unix. I like the Linux Standard Base. I know there are differences between Debian based systems and Red Hat based systems. I managed to (easily) get around the su problem.
Generally, configuration files are approximately where package creators envisioned and work as they describe,
But those that follow the LSB make things easier for folks. The one thing that makes things interesting still is whether to put things in /opt or in /usr/local. I'm an old timer so I tend to put things in /usr/local.
I never saw the use of /opt until I switched from RedHat to Caldera, way back when. Their thinking was it was better to have two separate partitions (/usr and /opt) to reduce the likelihood of things getting mashed up during an upgrade. /usr gets written to, all over the place, while /opt would be umounted, safely out of the way. Made sense to me. Owell, just my 2 cents. Ric
Intentionally left Blank
...dex
I see someone reads Douglas Adams.
Terry Polzin wrote:
On Thursday 31 January 2008 09:44:48 Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
I see someone reads Douglas Adams.
Have you got your towel?
NICE! I can't get help with the problem that FC6,7,8 has with an ASUS board, but this stupid thread gets 200 posts. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL NICE LIST!
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 16:44 -0500, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Terry Polzin wrote:
On Thursday 31 January 2008 09:44:48 Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
I see someone reads Douglas Adams.
Have you got your towel?
NICE! I can't get help with the problem that FC6,7,8 has with an ASUS board, but this stupid thread gets 200 posts. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL NICE LIST!
I, for one, don't recall seeing your post on ASUS mobos. Perhaps I missed it.
While I haven't futzed with F6, 7 or 8 on Asus in a while, I'll try to help. What specifically is going wrong? And try to be as specific as you can...there's a lot of Asus variants out there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Principal Engineer rstevens@internap.com - - CDN Systems, Internap, Inc. http://www.internap.com - - - - If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes... - - ...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it! - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 16:44 -0500, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Terry Polzin wrote:
On Thursday 31 January 2008 09:44:48 Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
I see someone reads Douglas Adams.
Have you got your towel?
NICE! I can't get help with the problem that FC6,7,8 has with an ASUS board, but this stupid thread gets 200 posts. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL NICE LIST!
I, for one, don't recall seeing your post on ASUS mobos. Perhaps I missed it.
While I haven't futzed with F6, 7 or 8 on Asus in a while, I'll try to help. What specifically is going wrong? And try to be as specific as you can...there's a lot of Asus variants out there.
- Rick Stevens, Principal Engineer rstevens@internap.com -
- CDN Systems, Internap, Inc. http://www.internap.com -
-
If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes... -
...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it! -
Hey thanks.
I gave up on this issue after the 3rd new release wouldn't install and just use the xp disk for now . Actually, I filed the bug report that was fixed in FC5, but new release fscked this up. I posted questions after the 7,8 release I think. So my post is just a rant because I was not happy about having to stop using FC and then not getting much help here.
Thank you anyway
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 17:22 -0500, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Rick Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 16:44 -0500, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Terry Polzin wrote:
On Thursday 31 January 2008 09:44:48 Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
I see someone reads Douglas Adams.
Have you got your towel?
NICE! I can't get help with the problem that FC6,7,8 has with an ASUS board, but this stupid thread gets 200 posts. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL NICE LIST!
I, for one, don't recall seeing your post on ASUS mobos. Perhaps I missed it.
While I haven't futzed with F6, 7 or 8 on Asus in a while, I'll try to help. What specifically is going wrong? And try to be as specific as you can...there's a lot of Asus variants out there.
- Rick Stevens, Principal Engineer rstevens@internap.com -
- CDN Systems, Internap, Inc. http://www.internap.com -
-
If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes... -
...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it! -
Hey thanks.
I gave up on this issue after the 3rd new release wouldn't install and just use the xp disk for now . Actually, I filed the bug report that was fixed in FC5, but new release fscked this up. I posted questions after the 7,8 release I think. So my post is just a rant because I was not happy about having to stop using FC and then not getting much help here.
Well, like I said, I'll help if I can and you can tell me what you're seeing as going wrong. The most common problems were on Asus SMP mobos with multiple processors.
If you want to pursue this, perhaps we can do it off list or start a fresh thread as we're all hoping this one will die.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Principal Engineer rstevens@internap.com - - CDN Systems, Internap, Inc. http://www.internap.com - - - - Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
While I haven't futzed with F6, 7 or 8 on Asus in a while, I'll try to help. What specifically is going wrong? And try to be as specific as you can...there's a lot of Asus variants out there.
Can I suggest I new thread. This one is perverse enough as it is...
On Jan 31, 2008 3:59 PM, Rick Stevens rstevens@internap.com wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 16:44 -0500, Randy Ramsdell wrote:
Terry Polzin wrote:
On Thursday 31 January 2008 09:44:48 Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
I see someone reads Douglas Adams.
Have you got your towel?
NICE! I can't get help with the problem that FC6,7,8 has with an ASUS board, but this stupid thread gets 200 posts. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL NICE
LIST!
I, for one, don't recall seeing your post on ASUS mobos. Perhaps I missed it.
While I haven't futzed with F6, 7 or 8 on Asus in a while, I'll try to help. What specifically is going wrong? And try to be as specific as you can...there's a lot of Asus variants out there.
- Rick Stevens, Principal Engineer rstevens@internap.com -
- CDN Systems, Internap, Inc. http://www.internap.com -
-
If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes... -
...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it! -
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Yup, I've been running AMD ASUS boards for years now and haven't had any problems. Starting running linux with FC6 and had run fine in both F7 and 8 as well.
Richard
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 10:19 -0500, Terry Polzin wrote:
On Thursday 31 January 2008 09:44:48 Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
I see someone reads Douglas Adams.
Have you got your towel?
Wouldn't be without one. Or the salty cocktail snacks. My diabetes precludes the beer though. :( Ric
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 03:59 -0500, Ric Moore wrote:
Wouldn't be without one. Or the salty cocktail snacks. My diabetes precludes the beer though. :( Ric
Does it preclude Pan-Galactic Gargle Blasters? :-P
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 01:08 -0800, Peter Gordon wrote:
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 03:59 -0500, Ric Moore wrote:
Wouldn't be without one. Or the salty cocktail snacks. My diabetes precludes the beer though. :( Ric
Does it preclude Pan-Galactic Gargle Blasters? :-P
Ha! After the "Res has a potty mouth" thread, I could use one! In a tall frosty glass with a taller straw. Just bang my head in with a slice of lemon. I could use that. I wonder how much insulin I would have to take?? Probably ALOT! Have you seen the newer version of Hitchhikers? I wish they'd finish the trilogy. Heck, it's 12:42 and I think I'll just pop off and fix a little dram of something amber colored, so I'll go to sleep "quicker". Yeah, that's the ticket! <grins> Ric
Karl Larsen wrote:
I did a temporary setup of Ubuntu and started playing with it. I
signed up for their technical list and have talked with some very smart people. Right now I am getting my little tv camera working with Skype. I just talked to another Ham in GA on PSK31.
These guys are not IT people for a company, they are Ubuntu users.
We get along just fine. I think the entire Fedora setup is bad. You must like to fix your operating system to fit in. Change is the name of the game.
I used Kubuntu and Fedora + KDE for a time, and found there was very little difference between them, or the people using them. In fact I couldn't tell which was running without saying "uname -a" or something like that.
I settled on Fedora just because I find it easier to use the same system on all machines I own.
I'm quite sure Karl will have exactly the same kind of problems under Ubuntu that he used to have under Fedora.
Karl is already becoming disenchanted w/ ubuntu
this is from a post where he is trying to install google earth (which has always easily installed form me in ubuntu)
" I was hoping Ubuntu was different. But it seems to have the same gotcha's as all versions"
-bazooka
On Jan 30, 2008 8:14 AM, Karl Larsen k5di@zianet.com wrote:
I did a temporary setup of Ubuntu and started playing with it. I
signed up for their technical list and have talked with some very smart people. Right now I am getting my little tv camera working with Skype. I just talked to another Ham in GA on PSK31.
These guys are not IT people for a company, they are Ubuntu users.
We get along just fine. I think the entire Fedora setup is bad. You must like to fix your operating system to fit in. Change is the name of the game.
Well Ubuntu has arrived. It works in ways Fedora will never
understand. Good Bye.
Karl
--
Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI Linux User #450462 http://counter.li.org.
PGP 4208 4D6E 595F 22B9 FF1C ECB6 4A3C 2C54 FE23 53A7
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Bazooka Joe wrote:
Karl is already becoming disenchanted w/ ubuntu
this is from a post where he is trying to install google earth (which has always easily installed form me in ubuntu)
" I was hoping Ubuntu was different. But it seems to have the same gotcha's as all versions"
-bazooka
that was cruel. fair, but cruel. :-)
rday --
======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Home page: http://crashcourse.ca Fedora Cookbook: http://crashcourse.ca/wiki/index.php/Fedora_Cookbook ========================================================================
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 15:00 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Bazooka Joe wrote:
Karl is already becoming disenchanted w/ ubuntu
this is from a post where he is trying to install google earth (which has always easily installed form me in ubuntu)
" I was hoping Ubuntu was different. But it seems to have the same gotcha's as all versions"
-bazooka
that was cruel. fair, but cruel. :-)
Ha! I think that is a fair assessment of this knuckle-dragging crowd here ...hardly down from the trees! "fair, but cruel." :-) Oik! Oik! <chatters> Ric