4:31 p.m.
Well I'm not sure how many of you all have seen this:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/22/207231
And this may or may not be the correct -list for this, but here goes.
I think its fair to say that a lot of the louder voices on the
internet do not like Fedora for fair and unfair reasons. My question
is what does this do to Fedora, and RedHat by association. I can't
imagine that anything good is coming of this. All the developers here
are bound by the 24hr daily limit, ie. there is a finite amount of
work that any developer can accomplish, esp. those not being paid to
work on Fedora. Making the assumption that all these negative word of
mouth is bleeding Fedora of contributors, then what's the plan?
A few loyalist bound by the laws of Physics can only accomplish so
much, and I'm even more worried that the bad karma trickles down to
RedHat, who I believe is the Cinderella of the Linux community - one
day I hope to be in the position to purchase RHEL licenses, but I'm
becoming worried that it may not be around by time I get there.
Peace
--
Fedora Core 6 and proud
5:21 p.m.
Well I'm not sure how many of you all have seen this:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/22/207231
Look, Linux has gained very large market and more importantly mind shares.
Along with this growth, has come diversity of code. This is a good
thing. There are far more developers just working on the fedora project
than there were total when I first found Linux (at least it appears that
way to me). Redhat will be fine. Fedora will be fine. I don't hear of
many businesses using Ubuntu on their servers, do you? It wouldn't bother
me one little bit if Redhat narrowed it's focus just to the server market
and left the desktop to other distros like the afore mentioned.
Now, that does not mean that Redhat/Fedora don't currently have their
problems. I agree with the criticizem about the RPM and I've had more
problems with FC6 than I have had with any release since Redhat 4.2 (I
think it was it).
Anyway, sure Fedora has lost some steam, I believe these things go in
cycles. People will step up and get things moving faster and better. We
are already seeing some of that (IMHO). Be patient, help out where you
can and everything will be fine.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
5:52 p.m.
On 2/22/07, aragonx(a)dcsnow.com <aragonx(a)dcsnow.com> wrote:
> Well I'm not sure how many of you all have seen this:
> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/22/207231
Look, Linux has gained very large market and more importantly mind shares.
Along with this growth, has come diversity of code. This is a good
thing. There are far more developers just working on the fedora project
than there were total when I first found Linux (at least it appears that
way to me). Redhat will be fine. Fedora will be fine. I don't hear of
many businesses using Ubuntu on their servers, do you? It wouldn't bother
me one little bit if Redhat narrowed it's focus just to the server market
and left the desktop to other distros like the afore mentioned.
Now, that does not mean that Redhat/Fedora don't currently have their
problems. I agree with the criticizem about the RPM and I've had more
problems with FC6 than I have had with any release since Redhat 4.2 (I
think it was it).
Anyway, sure Fedora has lost some steam, I believe these things go in
cycles. People will step up and get things moving faster and better. We
are already seeing some of that (IMHO). Be patient, help out where you
can and everything will be fine.
Ok, fair assessment.
--
Fedora Core 6 and proud
7:43 p.m.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> way to me). Redhat will be fine. Fedora will be fine. I
don't hear of
> many businesses using Ubuntu on their servers, do you? It wouldn't bother
One of Australias leading ISP's/Telco uses it, and another is trialling
it, in place of RHES.
--
Cheers
Res
"We can be Heroes, just for one day" - Davey (Jones) Bowie
7:03 p.m.
aragonx(a)dcsnow.com wrote:
> Well I'm not sure how many of you all have seen this:
> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/22/207231
>
Look, Linux has gained very large market and more importantly mind shares.
Along with this growth, has come diversity of code. This is a good
thing. There are far more developers just working on the fedora project
than there were total when I first found Linux (at least it appears that
way to me). Redhat will be fine. Fedora will be fine. I don't hear of
many businesses using Ubuntu on their servers, do you? It wouldn't bother
me one little bit if Redhat narrowed it's focus just to the server market
and left the desktop to other distros like the afore mentioned.
Now, that does not mean that Redhat/Fedora don't currently have their
problems. I agree with the criticizem about the RPM and I've had more
problems with FC6 than I have had with any release since Redhat 4.2 (I
think it was it).
Anyway, sure Fedora has lost some steam, I believe these things go in
cycles. People will step up and get things moving faster and better. We
are already seeing some of that (IMHO). Be patient, help out where you
can and everything will be fine.
Some may consider it almost sac-religious to suggest the Fedora/Redhat
have a specific out of the box desktop version. In my opinion the big
advantage of Ubuntu over Fedora is their basic install is an easy lazy
setup. While one can use command line in Ubuntu it is not set up nor
do I feel one is intended to use command line. The majority of computer
users do not want to bother with command line, they just want simple
lazy administration. I personally prefer to use Fedora but when I
recently set up a laptop for my 85 year old father (his first computer)
I went with Ubuntu. I do not live close enough that I can regularly
drop in to maintain his computer and wanted him to be able o do it
himself. While the cutting edge command line approach for geeks is
preferable for most of us on this list the reality is most computer
users want to be able to use their computers with as little technical
skills as possible. Yes technically and for performance reasons command
line is superior but if Linux is to have wide spread use the technical
level of the consumer has to be considered, in my opinion the Ubuntu
distros are an attempt to move in this direction.
1:49 p.m.
Yes technically and for performance reasons command
line is superior but if Linux is to have wide spread use the technical
level of the consumer has to be considered, in my opinion the Ubuntu
distros are an attempt to move in this direction.
Fedora/Redhat can NOT be the best distro for all applications. Perhaps it
isn't a very good desktop. I wouldn't know. I use them as servers. If
Ubuntu is a better desktop, great! When I need a desktop I will install
that. I think Redhat/Fedora make superior server distros and that is what
I use them for. There is plenty of room for a great desktop distro and a
great server distro.
In the long run, it might even be wise for Redhat to specialize on the
server sector. The number of applications that are available for Linux
has grown to the point where I don't see how one company, no matter the
size, would be able to find the 'best of breed' apps for everything.
With growth, comes change.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
11:46 p.m.
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 14:49 -0500, aragonx(a)dcsnow.com wrote:
I don't see how one company, no matter the size, would be able to
find
the 'best of breed' apps for everything.
I don't see why not. You're presuming that everybody in a company works
on just one thing.
--
(This box runs FC5, my others run FC4 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
9:12 a.m.
On 23/02/07, aragonx(a)dcsnow.com <aragonx(a)dcsnow.com> wrote:
> Yes technically and for performance reasons command
> line is superior but if Linux is to have wide spread use the technical
> level of the consumer has to be considered, in my opinion the Ubuntu
> distros are an attempt to move in this direction.
Fedora/Redhat can NOT be the best distro for all applications. Perhaps it
isn't a very good desktop. I wouldn't know. I use them as servers. If
Ubuntu is a better desktop, great! When I need a desktop I will install
that. I think Redhat/Fedora make superior server distros and that is what
I use them for. There is plenty of room for a great desktop distro and a
great server distro.
In the long run, it might even be wise for Redhat to specialize on the
server sector. The number of applications that are available for Linux
has grown to the point where I don't see how one company, no matter the
size, would be able to find the 'best of breed' apps for everything.
With growth, comes change.
I agree that one distro should not be both server AND desktop. Even M$
has a desktop version of Windows (Vista) and a server version
(Server). Well, it might be more like trashcan version and spambot
version, but you get the point.
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/fedora.html
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/617/yo-yo.html
9:43 a.m.
On 2/25/07, Dotan Cohen <dotancohen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 23/02/07, aragonx(a)dcsnow.com <aragonx(a)dcsnow.com> wrote:
> > Yes technically and for performance reasons command
> > line is superior but if Linux is to have wide spread use the technical
> > level of the consumer has to be considered, in my opinion the Ubuntu
> > distros are an attempt to move in this direction.
>
> Fedora/Redhat can NOT be the best distro for all applications. Perhaps it
> isn't a very good desktop. I wouldn't know. I use them as servers. If
> Ubuntu is a better desktop, great! When I need a desktop I will install
> that. I think Redhat/Fedora make superior server distros and that is what
> I use them for. There is plenty of room for a great desktop distro and a
> great server distro.
>
> In the long run, it might even be wise for Redhat to specialize on the
> server sector. The number of applications that are available for Linux
> has grown to the point where I don't see how one company, no matter the
> size, would be able to find the 'best of breed' apps for everything.
>
> With growth, comes change.
>
I agree that one distro should not be both server AND desktop. Even M$
has a desktop version of Windows (Vista) and a server version
(Server). Well, it might be more like trashcan version and spambot
version, but you get the point.
Dotan Cohen
Strange complaint, since Fedora will have a Desktop and a Server spin
- or are you implying that the diff. Windows "versions" are more than
spins?
--
Fedora Core 6 and proud
1:18 p.m.
On 24/02/07, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that one distro should not be both server AND desktop.
Even M$
> has a desktop version of Windows (Vista) and a server version
> (Server). Well, it might be more like trashcan version and spambot
> version, but you get the point.
>
> Dotan Cohen
Strange complaint, since Fedora will have a Desktop and a Server spin
- or are you implying that the diff. Windows "versions" are more than
spins?
That wasn't a complaint. Rather, I see the wisdom in 'spins' and think
that it should have been done a long time ago. I'm also rather hoping
that the powers that be will get it down to THREE DISKS maximum. I've
already had to install Kubuntu on peoples machines because 5 disks is
way to much to have a potential convert download.
While I'm not familiar with the Windows code base, I'd image that XP
(and possible Vista) shares quite a bit of code with Server. I think
that Server can be run as a desktop OS, in fact.
Dotan Cohen
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/lyrics/96/321/madonna/i_m_breathless.html
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/microsoft.html
1:34 p.m.
Dotan Cohen wrote:
On 24/02/07, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree that one distro should not be both server AND desktop. Even M$
> > has a desktop version of Windows (Vista) and a server version
> > (Server). Well, it might be more like trashcan version and spambot
> > version, but you get the point.
> >
> > Dotan Cohen
>
> Strange complaint, since Fedora will have a Desktop and a Server spin
> - or are you implying that the diff. Windows "versions" are more than
> spins?
>
That wasn't a complaint. Rather, I see the wisdom in 'spins' and think
that it should have been done a long time ago. I'm also rather hoping
that the powers that be will get it down to THREE DISKS maximum. I've
already had to install Kubuntu on peoples machines because 5 disks is
way to much to have a potential convert download.
The whole idea of spins is that we need to continue serving completely
conflicting requirements. What would we do with all the end users who
need to have all the packages in the media since they dont have a good
network access to pull packages off a repository? The number of CD's is
by no means the final criteria for selction. This is the reason there is
a broad range of choice provided now right from a single installable
live cd to a complete DVD set with 2 or 3 DVD's depending on the
architecture. Plus, you get the tools to produce your own live cd or
spin in a trivial fashion.
Rahul
2:13 p.m.
On 24/02/07, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
The whole idea of spins is that we need to continue serving
completely
conflicting requirements. What would we do with all the end users who
need to have all the packages in the media since they dont have a good
network access to pull packages off a repository? The number of CD's is
by no means the final criteria for selction. This is the reason there is
a broad range of choice provided now right from a single installable
live cd to a complete DVD set with 2 or 3 DVD's depending on the
architecture. Plus, you get the tools to produce your own live cd or
spin in a trivial fashion.
Rahul
In an ideal world the install medium would not be a factor in
selecting a Linux distro, I agree. However, it does have veto power
and when I've got a hour to download, my chances of getting Kubuntu
intact at the end of that hour are much better than getting Fedora.
Furthermore, I have to burn those disks, and I can do one disk in five
minutes with no babysitting, but burning five disks require that I
babysit the machine for half an hour. Not a good impression to make on
someone who I'm installing thier first Linux distro for.
Shall I continue with the amount of problems that a 5 disk
installation makes? Thats 5 disks to check before an install. That's
five times the chance that a disk will get scratching in handling.
Also, here Fedora competes with cracked versions of Windows with
Office (and probably spyware) preinstalled. Sad, but a fact. Nobody
has morals, and nobody thinks that they are stealing. Fedora has to
compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed
in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch
disk three or four times.
For my own use, I use Fedora. But there are enough hurdles to overcome
before one even thinks about installing Linux instead of Windows.
Making them download, burn, and check 5 disks is a very strong
turnoff. Not to mention all the babysitting that disk-swapping
requires.
Dotan Cohen
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/646/tesla.html
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/html_email.html
2:24 p.m.
[snip]
Fedora has to
compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed
in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch
disk three or four times.
No way. Win XP comes with NOTHING. You can't even open ZIP file. FC
includes thousands(?) of programs. Not a fair comparison.
Since FC5, I only download the first two discs and do a minimal
install. I then yum groupinstall Gnome, KDE, etc. Actual time I need
to be present is about an hour - do XP and say 100 applications and
tell me how long it takes you.
Chris
2:54 p.m.
Chris Mohler wrote:
[snip]
> Fedora has to
> compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed
> in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch
> disk three or four times.
No way. Win XP comes with NOTHING. You can't even open ZIP file. FC
includes thousands(?) of programs. Not a fair comparison.
Since FC5, I only download the first two discs and do a minimal
install. I then yum groupinstall Gnome, KDE, etc. Actual time I need
to be present is about an hour - do XP and say 100 applications and
tell me how long it takes you.
Chris
I'll second that. With Fedora, you can get a complete word-processing
suite (though why they disabled the Replacement list in AutoCorrect for
OpenOffice Writer, no one has ever explained), compilation and linking
tools for nearly every programming language of any consequence, your
choice of two database managers, and a complete set of network
diagnostic tools.
Whereas with Windows XP (I can't vouch for Vista) you're limited to one
each rich-text and plain-text editors, a very crude and non-robust
firewall, /no/ development tools (and you're lucky to get a Java Runtime
Environment), and a browser whose chief or only recommendation is that
Microsoft has convinced a lot of Web sites to "optimize" their content
for it.
Updating can be set to automatic, but it is like walking a tightrope
stretched over a bed of swords (as you can see in the Joan Crawford
motion picture /Berserk/) while wearing a blindfold. Once in fact, a
Windows XP update broke every applications' ability to save new
documents, or alter old ones. I had to /roll back/ some updates--by
/trial and error/--to correct this fault.
At least with Fedora you can use a package manager that reads repository
metadata and tells you what it wants to update, what that package does,
and what it requires.
Now I'd certainly like to see some programs that can help me do certain
things better than I can do them today. I tried for a week to set up a
decent environment for creating and burning DVD-Video disks. No joy. And
right now, an awful lot of sites, many of which are very popular, are
offering multimedia content in proprietary formats. Until YouTube, for
example, at least allows an Ogg Theora option, you still have to
go--er--elsewhere to find reverse-engineered codecs that permit you to
read more on the site than its text and still images.
Nevertheless, I do the bulk of my work on a Fedora machine, including
writing and development. And if RH gets ready to implement a 13-month
security-update support cycle for F7 and beyond, then it will definitely
become the distro of choice for building a HIPAA-compliant server of
laboratory and other medical data--which is my current project.
Temlakos
3:15 a.m.
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 15:54 -0500, Temlakos wrote:
With Fedora, you can get a complete word-processing suite (though
why
they disabled the Replacement list in AutoCorrect for OpenOffice
Writer, no one has ever explained)
I seem to recall someone mentioning search and replace being under
threat of one of those foolish patents from some other application that
first provided search and replace, according to them.
--
(This PC runs FC4, my others FC5 & FC6, in case that's important
to the thread)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
9:10 a.m.
Tim wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 15:54 -0500, Temlakos wrote:
> With Fedora, you can get a complete word-processing suite (though why
> they disabled the Replacement list in AutoCorrect for OpenOffice
> Writer, no one has ever explained)
I seem to recall someone mentioning search and replace being under
threat of one of those foolish patents from some other application that
first provided search and replace, according to them.
Interesting. I would think you could find all kinds of prier are for
search and replace. Maybe not auto-correct, but there was search &
replace, and possibly a spell checker in Word Star for CP/M. The
spell checker would have been a separate module - everything was
broken down into modules because of memory limits. (It ran in less
then 64k of RAM.)
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
11:04 a.m.
On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 09:10 -0600, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Tim wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 15:54 -0500, Temlakos wrote:
>> With Fedora, you can get a complete word-processing suite (though why
>> they disabled the Replacement list in AutoCorrect for OpenOffice
>> Writer, no one has ever explained)
>
> I seem to recall someone mentioning search and replace being under
> threat of one of those foolish patents from some other application that
> first provided search and replace, according to them.
>
Interesting. I would think you could find all kinds of prier are for
search and replace. Maybe not auto-correct, but there was search &
replace, and possibly a spell checker in Word Star for CP/M. The
spell checker would have been a separate module - everything was
broken down into modules because of memory limits. (It ran in less
then 64k of RAM.)
It was a bit of a clunker, but it worked just fine. All the CP/M
machines I had had 64k of memory, and I had darn near one of each. Ric
--
================================================
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net
================================================
12:07 p.m.
Ric Moore wrote:
It was a bit of a clunker, but it worked just fine. All the CP/M
machines I had had 64k of memory, and I had darn near one of each. Ric
I had an 8085 based one that could only use 60k because of where 2K
of ROM was mapped in. It was not designed to let you map out the ROM
after booting. I still have a Z-80 system with 64k of dynamic RAM,
and 256K of static RAM - the static RAM has battery backup. The
system uses extended addressing, and the disk controller uses the
static RAM as a RAM disk. (DMA support as well.) You would be
surprised st how much faster the system boots/runs when you use the
RAM disk as the system drive. It also help to have the WS overlay
files on it.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
2:43 a.m.
On 25/02/07, Mikkel L. Ellertson <mikkel(a)infinity-ltd.com> wrote:
Ric Moore wrote:
>
> It was a bit of a clunker, but it worked just fine. All the CP/M
> machines I had had 64k of memory, and I had darn near one of each. Ric
>
I had an 8085 based one that could only use 60k because of where 2K
of ROM was mapped in. It was not designed to let you map out the ROM
after booting. I still have a Z-80 system with 64k of dynamic RAM,
and 256K of static RAM - the static RAM has battery backup. The
system uses extended addressing, and the disk controller uses the
static RAM as a RAM disk. (DMA support as well.) You would be
surprised st how much faster the system boots/runs when you use the
RAM disk as the system drive. It also help to have the WS overlay
files on it.
Mikkel
Why can't Fedora do this? I've got 2Gb of physical RAM on this box. I
know that slax can be booted into a little as 256MB of RAM to free up
the optical drive, so I'm sure that Fedora can fit in my 2GB.
Dotan Cohen
http://technology-sleuth.com/short_answer/what_is_hdtv.html
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/webpage.html
4:28 p.m.
Dotan Cohen wrote:
On 25/02/07, Mikkel L. Ellertson <mikkel(a)infinity-ltd.com>
wrote:
> I still have a Z-80 system with 64k of dynamic RAM,
> and 256K of static RAM - the static RAM has battery backup. The
> system uses extended addressing, and the disk controller uses the
> static RAM as a RAM disk. (DMA support as well.) You would be
> surprised at how much faster the system boots/runs when you use the
> RAM disk as the system drive. It also help to have the WS overlay
> files on it.
>
> Mikkel
Why can't Fedora do this? I've got 2Gb of physical RAM on this box. I
know that slax can be booted into a little as 256MB of RAM to free up
the optical drive, so I'm sure that Fedora can fit in my 2GB.
Dotan Cohen
You can create a RAM disk, and copy files over to it. But it tends
to work out better to use the memory for buffers and disk cache
instead when you are using a reasonably fast hard drive. (Optical
drives are another story - they are MUCH slower.)
The thing to remember is that most CP/M systems were run from floppy
disks. They also had to do a lot of swapping in and out because the
processors could only directly address 64K of RAM. CP/M+ could swap
pages in and out if your hardware supported it, but you were still
limited to 64K mapped in at one time.
If you want a system that boots up fast, you have the option of
suspend to RAM or suspend to disk. There are advantages and
disadvantages to both, but if they work on your system, they can get
you to a working desktop in a short time.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
1:18 a.m.
On 27/02/07, Mikkel L. Ellertson <mikkel(a)infinity-ltd.com> wrote:
You can create a RAM disk, and copy files over to it. But it tends
to work out better to use the memory for buffers and disk cache
instead when you are using a reasonably fast hard drive. (Optical
drives are another story - they are MUCH slower.)
The thing to remember is that most CP/M systems were run from floppy
disks. They also had to do a lot of swapping in and out because the
processors could only directly address 64K of RAM. CP/M+ could swap
pages in and out if your hardware supported it, but you were still
limited to 64K mapped in at one time.
If you want a system that boots up fast, you have the option of
suspend to RAM or suspend to disk. There are advantages and
disadvantages to both, but if they work on your system, they can get
you to a working desktop in a short time.
Mikkel
I'm not looking for fast boot times, rather for snappy system
performance. Slax in RAM is _f_a_s_t_. I really could not believe how
fast the system was. Give it a shot if you're not familiar with it.
Open Office loads in about a second, slowed only by it's splash
screen. Firefox comes up instantly.
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/website.html
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/lyrics/129/108/carey_mariah/butterfly.html
8:10 a.m.
Dotan Cohen wrote:
>
> If you want a system that boots up fast, you have the option of
> suspend to RAM or suspend to disk. There are advantages and
> disadvantages to both, but if they work on your system, they can get
> you to a working desktop in a short time.
>
I'm not looking for fast boot times, rather for snappy system
performance. Slax in RAM is _f_a_s_t_. I really could not believe how
fast the system was. Give it a shot if you're not familiar with it.
Open Office loads in about a second, slowed only by it's splash
screen. Firefox comes up instantly.
That should happen the 2nd time you load something or even better as the
2nd user executing the same program someone else is running on any
machine that would have had enough memory for a ramdisk. Anything
loaded from disk to ram will normally stay there until the buffer space
is needed for something else. Maybe you just need to come up with a way
to preload a few programs.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
4:03 p.m.
On 27/02/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That should happen the 2nd time you load something or even better as
the
2nd user executing the same program someone else is running on any
machine that would have had enough memory for a ramdisk. Anything
loaded from disk to ram will normally stay there until the buffer space
is needed for something else. Maybe you just need to come up with a way
to preload a few programs.
Open Office has a preloading feature, I decided a while ago that I
didn't like it but I don't remember why. Maybe I will try using it
again. But the point I was trying to make is that the whole OS can
easily fit into less RAM than Windows Vista runs it's shell in (540 MB
on a clean install). If Fedora can run the OS in 256 RAM, it will
absolutely fly. I'd love that, and I'm sure a lot of other people
would as well.
Dotan Cohen
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/240/haddaway.html
http://uldu.com
8:54 a.m.
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> writes:
Maybe you just need to come up with a way to preload a few programs.
In a startup script:
cat /usr/lib/openoffice.org2.0/program/* > /dev/null
cat /usr/lib/firefox-$VERSION/firefox-bin > /dev/null
...
This will at least put those programs in the disk cache.
Regards
Ingemar
11:33 a.m.
At 3:54 PM +0100 3/1/07, Ingemar Nilsson wrote:
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> writes:
> Maybe you just need to come up with a way to preload a few programs.
In a startup script:
...
Readahead does this, and is probably already installed. "rpm -qil
readahead" and read its README.
I use the following command to list missing files in the readahead.later file:
while read f ; do [[ ! -a "$f" ]] && echo "'$f'" ;
done \
</etc/readahead.d/default.later
--
____________________________________________________________________
TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson@georgeanelson.com>
' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>
6:16 a.m.
On 24/02/07, Temlakos <temlakos(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'll second that. With Fedora, you can get a complete
word-processing
suite (though why they disabled the Replacement list in AutoCorrect for
OpenOffice Writer, no one has ever explained), compilation and linking
tools for nearly every programming language of any consequence, your
choice of two database managers, and a complete set of network
diagnostic tools.
Great. All these horseshoes want is IE, Office, and MediaPlayer. And
their pirated XP disks already have Office. Here's the proof: people
are receptive to Kubuntu. One disk. It doesn't look complicated.
Whereas with Windows XP (I can't vouch for Vista) you're
limited to one
each rich-text and plain-text editors, a very crude and non-robust
firewall, /no/ development tools (and you're lucky to get a Java Runtime
Environment), and a browser whose chief or only recommendation is that
Microsoft has convinced a lot of Web sites to "optimize" their content
for it.
Unfortunately, that's the whole Hebrew internet. All the major Israeli
sites are built with M$ tools and don't even work in Fx on Windows.
I've written to almost all of the sites. Why do you think I'm using a
Gmail address instead of Walla (major Israeli site)? Because they're
written with ActiveX crap for submit buttons!
Updating can be set to automatic, but it is like walking a tightrope
stretched over a bed of swords (as you can see in the Joan Crawford
motion picture /Berserk/) while wearing a blindfold. Once in fact, a
Windows XP update broke every applications' ability to save new
documents, or alter old ones. I had to /roll back/ some updates--by
/trial and error/--to correct this fault.
If you want to tell me that Fedora is any better, go ahead and make me
laugh. A recent update ruined suspend on my laptop: I can only
hibernate now. And every updagte requires that I reconfigure VMWare.
At least with Fedora you can use a package manager that reads
repository
metadata and tells you what it wants to update, what that package does,
and what it requires.
True, but that's no guarantee that it will work. And the monkeys who
are called everyday users don't read all that stuff. Few people are
going to take a CS class to operating their OS.
Now I'd certainly like to see some programs that can help me do
certain
things better than I can do them today. I tried for a week to set up a
decent environment for creating and burning DVD-Video disks. No joy. And
right now, an awful lot of sites, many of which are very popular, are
offering multimedia content in proprietary formats. Until YouTube, for
example, at least allows an Ogg Theora option, you still have to
go--er--elsewhere to find reverse-engineered codecs that permit you to
read more on the site than its text and still images.
Nevertheless, I do the bulk of my work on a Fedora machine, including
writing and development. And if RH gets ready to implement a 13-month
security-update support cycle for F7 and beyond, then it will definitely
become the distro of choice for building a HIPAA-compliant server of
laboratory and other medical data--which is my current project.
I also use Fedora, and after trying a few other distros I came back to
Fedora. Suse was polished, Kubuntu was easy to administer and use on a
day to day basis, but Fedora is to me the closest thing to a 'real'
OS. That's good for tech-heads like me, who want to learn. Not good
for bonehead 'average' computer users. Ubuntu IS designed for them.
The one-disk install is an extension of that.
Dotan Cohen
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/556/45_grave.html
http://technology-sleuth.com/short_answer/what_is_a_router.html
3:51 p.m.
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 14:24 -0600, Chris Mohler wrote:
[snip]
> Fedora has to
> compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed
> in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch
> disk three or four times.
No way. Win XP comes with NOTHING. You can't even open ZIP file. FC
includes thousands(?) of programs. Not a fair comparison.
Since FC5, I only download the first two discs and do a minimal
install. I then yum groupinstall Gnome, KDE, etc. Actual time I need
to be present is about an hour - do XP and say 100 applications and
tell me how long it takes you.
Chris
There is some truth in what you say but implies that:
1. You have semi-fast Internet connection.
2. You know the group names of the things you want to install.
3. yum update is of less use to you. It is hard to know what things your
would like to install that may be out there.
Another strange thing that the Fedora distribution has one of the lowest
number of packages in the core distribution and one the largest number
of CDs in the distributed set. At least that was true a year or so ago.
Of course, more modern computers that read DVDs are free of CD changing
problems during installation.
--
=======================================================================
"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberrys!" --
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net
3:51 p.m.
There is some truth in what you say but implies that:
1. You have semi-fast Internet connection.
Of course. But DL of the ISOs will hardly be any faster.
2. You know the group names of the things you want to install.
#yum grouplist
3. yum update is of less use to you. It is hard to know what things
your
would like to install that may be out there.
I think there are several gui frontends for yum: yumex and pirut come
to mind. Also:
#yum-search "what you want to do"
is a good first step. Granted you might not always find anything, but
many times you will. I don't use the front-ends, but assume they have
some type of search functionality also.
Anyway, I hate getting sucked into these types of discussions. I just
wanted say that FC 5 discs vs XP 1 disc is not really a valid
comparison.
Chris
6:17 a.m.
On 24/02/07, Aaron Konstam <akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> No way. Win XP comes with NOTHING. You can't even open ZIP
file. FC
> includes thousands(?) of programs. Not a fair comparison.
>
> Since FC5, I only download the first two discs and do a minimal
> install. I then yum groupinstall Gnome, KDE, etc. Actual time I need
> to be present is about an hour - do XP and say 100 applications and
> tell me how long it takes you.
>
> Chris
>
There is some truth in what you say but implies that:
1. You have semi-fast Internet connection.
2. You know the group names of the things you want to install.
3. yum update is of less use to you. It is hard to know what things your
would like to install that may be out there.
Another strange thing that the Fedora distribution has one of the lowest
number of packages in the core distribution and one the largest number
of CDs in the distributed set. At least that was true a year or so ago.
Of course, more modern computers that read DVDs are free of CD changing
problems during installation.
If you're lucky and careful then you can install on two disks. So
maybe a minimal spin is in order. Shall I post a wish-bug?
Dotan Cohen
http://technology-sleuth.com/technical_answer/what_is_a_cellphone.html
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/yahoo.html
9:14 p.m.
Chris Mohler wrote:
[snip]
> Fedora has to
> compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed
> in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch
> disk three or four times.
No way. Win XP comes with NOTHING. You can't even open ZIP file. FC
includes thousands(?) of programs. Not a fair comparison.
Since FC5, I only download the first two discs and do a minimal
install. I then yum groupinstall Gnome, KDE, etc. Actual time I need
to be present is about an hour - do XP and say 100 applications and
tell me how long it takes you.
Chris
Since when could Windows XP not open zips by default? I just installed
XP for someone and I can open zip files just fine. I also do not have
Winzip installed on a laptop and it opens zip files and can create zip
files without winzip having been downloaded or any other archive manager
for that matter. Are there version of winxp that can not zip and unzip?
=-/ Weird.
Alex White
3:39 p.m.
Since when could Windows XP not open zips by default? I just
installed
XP for someone and I can open zip files just fine. I also do not have
Winzip installed on a laptop and it opens zip files and can create zip
files without winzip having been downloaded or any other archive manager
for that matter. Are there version of winxp that can not zip and unzip?
=-/ Weird.
Alex White
Maybe I'm thinking of win2k. The point still stands: a plain ol' XP
install isn't goint to give you much joy. If it'll open a ZIP, how
about DOC? PPT? Any MS Office file? Or SVG, AI, PSD? What about a
plain old PDF?
These are things handled by 'yum -y groupinstall "GNOME Desktop
Environment"', with zero human interaction required.
Chris
6:18 p.m.
Chris Mohler wrote:
> Since when could Windows XP not open zips by default? I just
installed
> XP for someone and I can open zip files just fine. I also do not have
> Winzip installed on a laptop and it opens zip files and can create zip
> files without winzip having been downloaded or any other archive manager
> for that matter. Are there version of winxp that can not zip and unzip?
> =-/ Weird.
>
> Alex White
Maybe I'm thinking of win2k. The point still stands: a plain ol' XP
install isn't goint to give you much joy. If it'll open a ZIP, how
about DOC? PPT? Any MS Office file? Or SVG, AI, PSD? What about a
plain old PDF?
These are things handled by 'yum -y groupinstall "GNOME Desktop
Environment"', with zero human interaction required.
Chris
Oh no! I wasn't arguin' for XP. I just, was pretty sure that XP did.
2k
sure didn't. And it sure can't do anything else by default that Fedora
can. I'm a CentOS user, but I have FC6 on a laptop, and it runs well. I
don't use office though, I'm an emacs user lol. I completely understand
the point you're making.
Perhaps I should delete 'emacs' from this e-mail so there's no holy war. ;)
Sincerely,
Alex White
11:08 p.m.
On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 18:18 -0600, Alex White wrote:
I don't use office though, I'm an emacs user lol. I
completely understand
the point you're making.
Perhaps I should delete 'emacs' from this e-mail so there's no holy war. ;)
I admire the living heck outa someone that can use that beast on a
day-to-day basis. That's walking the walk and talking the talk, in my
book. Semper Fi and Booyah! to you sir. Ric
--
================================================
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net
================================================
6:07 a.m.
On 24/02/07, Chris Mohler <cr33dog(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Fedora has to
> compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed
> in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch
> disk three or four times.
No way. Win XP comes with NOTHING. You can't even open ZIP file. FC
includes thousands(?) of programs. Not a fair comparison.
Since FC5, I only download the first two discs and do a minimal
install. I then yum groupinstall Gnome, KDE, etc. Actual time I need
to be present is about an hour - do XP and say 100 applications and
tell me how long it takes you.
Chris
XP can open zips, but not rars. And even though this is supposed to be
a technical university, people don't look at the 50 disks that they
need to install XP, Office, anti-this and anti-that. They have one
(pirated) disk labeled XP, and it installs. Fedora has 5.
You can argue with me, but you'd be argueing with someone who agrees
with you. I'm telling you how the public views Fedora. Because I deal
with them, because I try to help them. Not myself, and not Fedora. I
try to explain why pirating is bad, and the dangers of XP, and the few
people who actually are receptive, are discouraged by the fact that
they need 5 install disks. It makes fedora seems complicated, a
preconception that people already have of linux in general.
Dotan Cohen
http://dotancohen.com/eng/dell.php
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/lyrics/92/321/madonna/madonna.html
6:40 a.m.
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 02:07:16PM +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
XP can open zips, but not rars. And even though this is supposed to
be
a technical university, people don't look at the 50 disks that they
Unless I'm mistaken, Fedora can't open rars without additional software
either -- it's a proprietary format.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
7:37 a.m.
On 25/02/07, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)mattdm.org> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 02:07:16PM +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> XP can open zips, but not rars. And even though this is supposed to be
> a technical university, people don't look at the 50 disks that they
Unless I'm mistaken, Fedora can't open rars without additional software
either -- it's a proprietary format.
Hey, you're right. One more argument pro-Fedora out the Windows. :)
Dotan Cohen
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/379/no_authority.html
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/voip.html
4:35 p.m.
Dotan Cohen wrote:
On 24/02/07, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
> The whole idea of spins is that we need to continue serving completely
> conflicting requirements. What would we do with all the end users who
> need to have all the packages in the media since they dont have a good
> network access to pull packages off a repository? The number of CD's is
> by no means the final criteria for selction. This is the reason there is
> a broad range of choice provided now right from a single installable
> live cd to a complete DVD set with 2 or 3 DVD's depending on the
> architecture. Plus, you get the tools to produce your own live cd or
> spin in a trivial fashion.
>
> Rahul
>
In an ideal world the install medium would not be a factor in
selecting a Linux distro, I agree. However, it does have veto power
and when I've got a hour to download, my chances of getting Kubuntu
intact at the end of that hour are much better than getting Fedora.
Furthermore, I have to burn those disks, and I can do one disk in five
minutes with no babysitting, but burning five disks require that I
babysit the machine for half an hour. Not a good impression to make on
someone who I'm installing thier first Linux distro for.
Shall I continue with the amount of problems that a 5 disk
installation makes? Thats 5 disks to check before an install. That's
five times the chance that a disk will get scratching in handling.
Also, here Fedora competes with cracked versions of Windows with
Office (and probably spyware) preinstalled. Sad, but a fact. Nobody
has morals, and nobody thinks that they are stealing. Fedora has to
compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed
in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch
disk three or four times.
For my own use, I use Fedora. But there are enough hurdles to overcome
before one even thinks about installing Linux instead of Windows.
Making them download, burn, and check 5 disks is a very strong
turnoff. Not to mention all the babysitting that disk-swapping
requires.
Dotan Cohen
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/646/tesla.html
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/html_email.html
For me the ideal Fedora distro(s)
would be a 1 live disk for both server
and a desktop version. The ability as we have now to add individual
packages we feel the need for. And the additional 3 to 5 disks we have
now could be bundled packages such as a graphics add on to either of
the of the main distros. Yes I know graphics on a server does not make
a lot of sense. Other packages could be a security bundle, sql bundle etc.
1:15 a.m.
Norm wrote:
For me the ideal Fedora distro(s) would be a 1 live disk for both
server
and a desktop version. The ability as we have now to add individual
packages we feel the need for. And the additional 3 to 5 disks we have
What I would like to see in Fedora 7 is a 2 DVD set that has
*everything*. Almost all ISPs that I can opt for here have ridiculously
low caps on download limits. So, unless I use my office network (which
is okay for my laptop, but not for my desktop), I can't do any heavy
duty yum'ing.
now could be bundled packages such as a graphics add on to either of
the of the main distros. Yes I know graphics on a server does not make
a lot of sense. Other packages could be a security bundle, sql bundle etc.
Not necessarily. AFAIK, Oracle installation has to be done thru GUI. So
whenever I am building a box for a database server I have to put in a
minimal gnome desktop. My DBA even wanted to have a remote GUI terminal
(he heard of XDMCP from somewhere). I literally had to put a gun to his
head and make him do all his work via putty.
--
Regards
Vivek J. Patankar
Registered Linux User #374218
Fedora Core release 6 (Zod)
Linux 2.6.18-1.2798.fc6 x86_64
6:38 a.m.
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 12:45:20PM +0530, Vivek J. Patankar wrote:
What I would like to see in Fedora 7 is a 2 DVD set that has
*everything*. Almost all ISPs that I can opt for here have ridiculously
low caps on download limits. So, unless I use my office network (which
is okay for my laptop, but not for my desktop), I can't do any heavy
duty yum'ing.
Better than that, you'll be able to make an N DVD or CD set containing
whatever you want. And you could include all the security updates, so you
won't have to yum those.
Not necessarily. AFAIK, Oracle installation has to be done thru GUI.
So
whenever I am building a box for a database server I have to put in a
minimal gnome desktop. My DBA even wanted to have a remote GUI terminal
(he heard of XDMCP from somewhere). I literally had to put a gun to his
head and make him do all his work via putty.
Put that gun away! Your DBA is totally right. Remote GUI is *exactly* the
way to handle this. You have a much more secure server automatically
protected from X server security flaws (setuid, runs as root, crazy memory
access required = it's gonna happen again), and yet you as an admin have the
full GUI at your disposal.
Using XDMCP is an outdate approach, of course -- instead, tunnel X over ssh.
You can even do this with Putty and a free X server for Windows, if
necessary.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
2:40 a.m.
On 2/25/07, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)mattdm.org> wrote:
> (he heard of XDMCP from somewhere). I literally had to put a gun
to his
> head and make him do all his work via putty.
Put that gun away! Your DBA is totally right. Remote GUI is *exactly* the
way to handle this. You have a much more secure server automatically
protected from X server security flaws (setuid, runs as root, crazy memory
access required = it's gonna happen again), and yet you as an admin have the
full GUI at your disposal.
He doesn't need a GUI for anything that he does. The only application
that I've seen him use is gnome-terminal!
--
Regards
Vivek
Registered Linux User #374218
Fedora Core release 6 (Zod)
Linux 2.6.18-1.2798.fc6 x86_64
10:01 a.m.
Vivek J. Patankar wrote:
Norm wrote:
> For me the ideal Fedora distro(s) would be a 1 live disk for both
> server and a desktop version. The ability as we have now to add
> individual packages we feel the need for. And the additional 3 to 5
> disks we have
What I would like to see in Fedora 7 is a 2 DVD set that has
*everything*. Almost all ISPs that I can opt for here have ridiculously
low caps on download limits. So, unless I use my office network (which
is okay for my laptop, but not for my desktop), I can't do any heavy
duty yum'ing.
> now could be bundled packages such as a graphics add on to either of
> the of the main distros. Yes I know graphics on a server does not
> make a lot of sense. Other packages could be a security bundle, sql
> bundle etc.
Not necessarily. AFAIK, Oracle installation has to be done thru GUI. So
whenever I am building a box for a database server I have to put in a
minimal gnome desktop. My DBA even wanted to have a remote GUI terminal
(he heard of XDMCP from somewhere). I literally had to put a gun to his
head and make him do all his work via putty.
Remote X with forwarding via 'ssh -Y' makes a lot more sense for servers
than having a real console and all of the desktop environment stuff
installed. If you have low bandwidth or need remote access you can run
freenx on a machine near the servers, and the free NX client (windows,
linux or mac) from the remote location(s). This gets you an X desktop
with good remote performance that you can use to host ssh sessions with
or without X forwarding to your server machines. And it gets even
better: with nx/freenx you can disconnect and suspend a session and
reconnect later, even from a different location with all the
communication done via ssh, so if you need to start some long running
programs from work and check on them later from home it is easy to do.
Make your DBA happy...
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
12:26 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Vivek J. Patankar wrote:
Norm wrote:
> For me the ideal Fedora distro(s) would be a 1 live disk for both
> server and a desktop version. The ability as we have now to add
> individual packages we feel the need for. And the additional 3 to 5
> disks we have
What I would like to see in Fedora 7 is a 2 DVD set that has
*everything*. Almost all ISPs that I can opt for here have ridiculously
low caps on download limits. So, unless I use my office network (which
is okay for my laptop, but not for my desktop), I can't do any heavy
duty yum'ing.
I see this as problematic. The day after release, many packages are
updated and must be yummed for (assuming you want the full latest install.
Anyone with a 'slow' connection is out of luck, those with a fast
connection are not inconvenienced at all either way.
Personally I usually install a majority of packages, though not nearly
all, and usually I get the DVD via BT as this takes a good strain from
the fedora servers. I have to wonder if it would be feasible or
advantageous to set up a torrent for each yum group, and have a basic cd
with just minimal setup + the Internet etc. which could then be
customized fairly quickly and has the advantage of being as small as
possible for everyone.
Scott
> now could be bundled packages such as a graphics add on to either of
> the of the main distros. Yes I know graphics on a server does not
> make a lot of sense. Other packages could be a security bundle, sql
> bundle etc.
Not necessarily. AFAIK, Oracle installation has to be done thru GUI. So
whenever I am building a box for a database server I have to put in a
minimal gnome desktop. My DBA even wanted to have a remote GUI terminal
(he heard of XDMCP from somewhere). I literally had to put a gun to his
head and make him do all his work via putty.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFF4dTK5mBKdb7VQEcRAlGXAJ0eOOVb4Ib3gD/pj9LkSH21bpxywgCfQNQz
AQ5YyB776tlqW6DsSsrnwEw=
=Mf9y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2:46 a.m.
On 25/02/07, oldman <talbotscott(a)cox.net> wrote:
I have to wonder if it would be feasible or
advantageous to set up a torrent for each yum group, and have a basic cd
with just minimal setup + the Internet etc. which could then be
customized fairly quickly and has the advantage of being as small as
possible for everyone.
Scott
I've been argueing for this since FC4. If half the disk gets updating
in a week anyway, then why force us to download it all? Something
similar to a network install, but would create a working system before
turning to the repos for packages.
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/open_source.html
http://technology-sleuth.com/technical_answer/what_are_the_advantages_of_...
3:13 a.m.
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 22:13 +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
Fedora has to compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that
can
be installed in an hour with no babysitting.
I'd argue about it not needing minding, but that's one disc of OS, not
an OS with applications. Personally, I would like to see a Fedora OS
installation that was *JUST* the OS. Let everything else be an extra.
Wnat X? Install it, additionally, now or post OS installation. You get
a quick installation, no extra baggage, and you can add your extra stuff
working inside a completely functional OS instead of the limits of a
boot CD.
--
(This PC runs FC4, my others FC5 & FC6, in case that's important
to the thread)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
6:37 a.m.
Dotan Cohen wrote:
On 24/02/07, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
> The whole idea of spins is that we need to continue serving completely
> conflicting requirements. What would we do with all the end users who
> need to have all the packages in the media since they dont have a good
> network access to pull packages off a repository? The number of CD's is
> by no means the final criteria for selction. This is the reason there is
> a broad range of choice provided now right from a single installable
> live cd to a complete DVD set with 2 or 3 DVD's depending on the
> architecture. Plus, you get the tools to produce your own live cd or
> spin in a trivial fashion.
>
> Rahul
>
In an ideal world the install medium would not be a factor in
selecting a Linux distro, I agree. However, it does have veto power
and when I've got a hour to download, my chances of getting Kubuntu
intact at the end of that hour are much better than getting Fedora.
Furthermore, I have to burn those disks, and I can do one disk in five
minutes with no babysitting, but burning five disks require that I
babysit the machine for half an hour. Not a good impression to make on
someone who I'm installing thier first Linux distro for.
Shall I continue with the amount of problems that a 5 disk
installation makes? Thats 5 disks to check before an install. That's
five times the chance that a disk will get scratching in handling.
Also, here Fedora competes with cracked versions of Windows with
Office (and probably spyware) preinstalled. Sad, but a fact. Nobody
has morals, and nobody thinks that they are stealing. Fedora has to
compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be installed
in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to switch
disk three or four times.
For my own use, I use Fedora. But there are enough hurdles to overcome
before one even thinks about installing Linux instead of Windows.
Making them download, burn, and check 5 disks is a very strong
turnoff. Not to mention all the babysitting that disk-swapping
requires.
This whole reply missed out the fact that there is much more flexibility
in the next release. Please read what I said again.
Rahul
12:22 a.m.
On 2/24/07, Dotan Cohen <dotancohen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In an ideal world the install medium would not be a factor in
selecting a Linux distro, I agree. However, it does have veto power
and when I've got a hour to download, my chances of getting Kubuntu
intact at the end of that hour are much better than getting Fedora.
Furthermore, I have to burn those disks, and I can do one disk in five
minutes with no babysitting, but burning five disks require that I
babysit the machine for half an hour. Not a good impression to make on
someone who I'm installing thier first Linux distro for.
You only have to burn them if it is your first Linux install.
Shall I continue with the amount of problems that a 5 disk
installation makes? Thats 5 disks to check before an install. That's
five times the chance that a disk will get scratching in handling.
Download the iso images to an NFS-exported directory. Burn the first
disk. Boot it with "linux askmethod" at the boot prompt. Pick nfs
image as the install method. Fill in the info for the host and path
to the nfs directory where you downloaded the images. When the
install starts, go away and come back when it is finished. No disk
swapping or babysitting needed.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
2:50 a.m.
On 26/02/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/24/07, Dotan Cohen <dotancohen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> In an ideal world the install medium would not be a factor in
> selecting a Linux distro, I agree. However, it does have veto power
> and when I've got a hour to download, my chances of getting Kubuntu
> intact at the end of that hour are much better than getting Fedora.
> Furthermore, I have to burn those disks, and I can do one disk in five
> minutes with no babysitting, but burning five disks require that I
> babysit the machine for half an hour. Not a good impression to make on
> someone who I'm installing thier first Linux distro for.
You only have to burn them if it is your first Linux install.
For converts (those who [k]ubuntu is aimed at, remember this started
because someone mentioned ubuntu) it WILL be their first install.
> Shall I continue with the amount of problems that a 5 disk
> installation makes? Thats 5 disks to check before an install. That's
> five times the chance that a disk will get scratching in handling.
Download the iso images to an NFS-exported directory. Burn the first
disk. Boot it with "linux askmethod" at the boot prompt. Pick nfs
image as the install method. Fill in the info for the host and path
to the nfs directory where you downloaded the images. When the
install starts, go away and come back when it is finished. No disk
swapping or babysitting needed.
And how am I to do that on a machine with one big NTFS partion that
will be nuked as soon as I start the install? Remember, we're talking
about installing over Windows machines in this thread, not reinstalls
or upgrades.
Dotan Cohen
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/504/weezer.html
http://song-liriks.com
3:36 a.m.
Les Mikesell
> Download the iso images to an NFS-exported directory. Burn the
first
> disk. Boot it with "linux askmethod" at the boot prompt. Pick nfs
> image as the install method. Fill in the info for the host and path
> to the nfs directory where you downloaded the images. When the
> install starts, go away and come back when it is finished. No disk
> swapping or babysitting needed.
Dotan Cohen:
And how am I to do that on a machine with one big NTFS partion that
will be nuked as soon as I start the install? Remember, we're talking
about installing over Windows machines in this thread, not reinstalls
or upgrades.
If there's no network, and you've got one machine with a big enough
drive, pre-partition it. Leave a big space that'll you'll put your ISOs
on, after installation do something else with it. Use it for storage,
change it to being your /home partition, or whatever.
--
(This box runs FC5, my others run FC4 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
7:39 a.m.
Dotan Cohen wrote:
> > In an ideal world the install medium would not be a factor
in
> > selecting a Linux distro, I agree. However, it does have veto power
> > and when I've got a hour to download, my chances of getting Kubuntu
> > intact at the end of that hour are much better than getting Fedora.
> > Furthermore, I have to burn those disks, and I can do one disk in five
> > minutes with no babysitting, but burning five disks require that I
> > babysit the machine for half an hour. Not a good impression to make on
> > someone who I'm installing thier first Linux distro for.
>
> You only have to burn them if it is your first Linux install.
For converts (those who [k]ubuntu is aimed at, remember this started
because someone mentioned ubuntu) it WILL be their first install.
If you are helping them, having the isos downloaded to a laptop which
you can connect via a crossover cable would be the easy approach.
> > Shall I continue with the amount of problems that a 5 disk
> > installation makes? Thats 5 disks to check before an install. That's
> > five times the chance that a disk will get scratching in handling.
>
> Download the iso images to an NFS-exported directory. Burn the first
> disk. Boot it with "linux askmethod" at the boot prompt. Pick nfs
> image as the install method. Fill in the info for the host and path
> to the nfs directory where you downloaded the images. When the
> install starts, go away and come back when it is finished. No disk
> swapping or babysitting needed.
>
And how am I to do that on a machine with one big NTFS partion that
will be nuked as soon as I start the install? Remember, we're talking
about installing over Windows machines in this thread, not reinstalls
or upgrades.
You can also install from a hard disk partition, so you could use one of
the run-from-CD versions to make a partition to hold the isos, download
them, then install directly from there.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
10:14 a.m.
"Dotan Cohen" <dotancohen(a)gmail.com> writes:
Furthermore, I have to burn those disks, and I can do one disk in
five
minutes with no babysitting, but burning five disks require that I
babysit the machine for half an hour.
Fedora has to compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can
be
installed in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to
switch disk three or four times.
You obviously never heard about the DVD version. One disc to burn, one disc
to install from and no switching. With it, a Fedora install becomes much
more pleasing than a Windows XP install, which asks some questions, then
processes for a few minutes, then asks some more questions, followed by
some processing, and then more questions, etc, etc.
Regards
Ingemar
11:41 a.m.
On 01 Mar 2007 17:14:55 +0100, Ingemar Nilsson <init(a)pdc.kth.se> wrote:
"Dotan Cohen" <dotancohen(a)gmail.com> writes:
> Furthermore, I have to burn those disks, and I can do one disk in five
> minutes with no babysitting, but burning five disks require that I
> babysit the machine for half an hour.
> Fedora has to compete with a one-disk install of Windows XP, that can be
> installed in an hour with no babysitting. Fedora installs require one to
> switch disk three or four times.
You obviously never heard about the DVD version. One disc to burn, one disc
to install from and no switching. With it, a Fedora install becomes much
more pleasing than a Windows XP install, which asks some questions, then
processes for a few minutes, then asks some more questions, followed by
some processing, and then more questions, etc, etc.
Regards
Ingemar
I actually do have he DVD tucked away at home, and I installed this
system from DVD. However, DVD burners are not as common on the most
common hardware that I see in the dorms at my university, but CD
birners are very common. And the DVD is over 3 GB in size, about 5
times the size of Kubuntu.
I want to remake the point that I'm not argueing for my own good: I
use and love Fedora. I'm simply stating that requiring 5 disks to
install is a turnoff for those not familiar with Fedora or Linux. No
amount of arguing will change that fact. And there is no need to
convice me that 5 disks is fine: I'm voicing the opinion of those whom
I've installed for, not my own opinion.
Dotan Cohen
http://technology-sleuth.com/technical_answer/what_is_a_cellphone.html
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/gpl.html
11:57 a.m.
Dotan Cohen wrote:
I want to remake the point that I'm not argueing for my own good:
I
use and love Fedora. I'm simply stating that requiring 5 disks to
install is a turnoff for those not familiar with Fedora or Linux. No
amount of arguing will change that fact. And there is no need to
convice me that 5 disks is fine: I'm voicing the opinion of those whom
I've installed for, not my own opinion.
1) You do not need 5 CD's. A default package selection only requires 2 CD's.
2) Fedora 7 Test versions already provide single Live CD's with the
ability to install to hard disk. The general release would have it too
3) Single CD's are not useful for the folks with limited bandwidth
connnections. They can download alternative spins like the "Prime" and
"Everything" versions.
4) Instead of arguing for what is right, participate and help do it. If
you are right, folks will use it. Look at tools like Pungi and Pilgrim
for customizations.
Rahul
12:29 p.m.
On 01/03/07, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Dotan Cohen wrote:
> I want to remake the point that I'm not argueing for my own good: I
> use and love Fedora. I'm simply stating that requiring 5 disks to
> install is a turnoff for those not familiar with Fedora or Linux. No
> amount of arguing will change that fact. And there is no need to
> convice me that 5 disks is fine: I'm voicing the opinion of those whom
> I've installed for, not my own opinion.
1) You do not need 5 CD's. A default package selection only requires 2 CD's.
Oh? And how is one to know that? Where is that mentioned in the documentation?
If I choose to install KDE, or foobar for that matter, can I be
certain that 2 disks is enough? Or will I find myself stuck in the
middle of an install, after I wiped the harddrive of a working XP
install, and have no way of downloading more disks?
2) Fedora 7 Test versions already provide single Live CD's with
the
ability to install to hard disk. The general release would have it too
Excellent. I was unaware of that. That will improve the situation dramatically.
3) Single CD's are not useful for the folks with limited
bandwidth
connnections. They can download alternative spins like the "Prime" and
"Everything" versions.
And multiple-disk downloads are not useful for those with limited disk
to waste, time to spare, and/or patience. I term those people "end
users".
4) Instead of arguing for what is right, participate and help do it.
If
you are right, folks will use it. Look at tools like Pungi and Pilgrim
for customizations.
Rahul, if I could help I would. I'm not a CS major, just a silly
Mechanical Engineering student. Many of the usability problems that I
encounter with Linux, not specifically Fedora, is that all computer
users are assumed to be software engineers. We're not. Sorry.
Dotan Cohen
http://dotancohen.com/howto/rbldnsd/index.php
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/259/house_of_pain.html
12:45 p.m.
Dotan Cohen wrote:
Oh? And how is one to know that? Where is that mentioned in the
documentation?
Many places in the wiki, installation guide, announcements, discussions
in this list etc.
If I choose to install KDE, or foobar for that matter, can I be
certain that 2 disks is enough? Or will I find myself stuck in the
middle of an install, after I wiped the harddrive of a working XP
install, and have no way of downloading more disks?
As I already indicated, if you select non-default packages you might
have to use additional disks
> 2) Fedora 7 Test versions already provide single Live CD's
with the
> ability to install to hard disk. The general release would have it too
Excellent. I was unaware of that. That will improve the situation
dramatically.
I already told you in a previous post on the same thread. Your reply on
that indicated that you hadnt read it.
> 3) Single CD's are not useful for the folks with limited
bandwidth
> connnections. They can download alternative spins like the "Prime" and
> "Everything" versions.
And multiple-disk downloads are not useful for those with limited disk
to waste, time to spare, and/or patience. I term those people "end
users".
Sure. Like I said in my earlier post, having a single CD does not fit
the requirements of many end users which is why you should not argue
that only a single CD be provided. Package size as well as numbers are
constantly increasing in the Fedora repositories. A single CD is bound
to become less and less useful over time as a result. Fedora 7 will
provide multiple variations to fit into the different needs better.
Rahul, if I could help I would. I'm not a CS major, just a silly
Mechanical Engineering student. Many of the usability problems that I
encounter with Linux, not specifically Fedora, is that all computer
users are assumed to be software engineers. We're not. Sorry.
You do not need to be a CS major to participate. You can help in
documentation, bug reports, triaging and so on very easily. Take a look
at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HelpWanted. Arguing on this list
changes nothing.
Rahul
1:15 p.m.
On 01/03/07, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Dotan Cohen wrote:
>
> Oh? And how is one to know that? Where is that mentioned in the
> documentation?
Many places in the wiki, installation guide, announcements, discussions
in this list etc.
I apologize then. My ignorance is at fault.
> If I choose to install KDE, or foobar for that matter, can I be
> certain that 2 disks is enough? Or will I find myself stuck in the
> middle of an install, after I wiped the harddrive of a working XP
> install, and have no way of downloading more disks?
As I already indicated, if you select non-default packages you might
have to use additional disks
There is a default? In every installation the user is prompted to
choose his software. I suppose that just clicking "ok" without reading
or changing anything is default. I'm not a default kind of guy :)
>> 2) Fedora 7 Test versions already provide single Live
CD's with the
>> ability to install to hard disk. The general release would have it too
>
> Excellent. I was unaware of that. That will improve the situation
> dramatically.
I already told you in a previous post on the same thread. Your reply on
that indicated that you hadnt read it.
I'm rereading the posts, I don't see where that was mentioned.
>> 3) Single CD's are not useful for the folks with limited
bandwidth
>> connnections. They can download alternative spins like the "Prime"
and
>> "Everything" versions.
>
> And multiple-disk downloads are not useful for those with limited disk
> to waste, time to spare, and/or patience. I term those people "end
> users".
Sure. Like I said in my earlier post, having a single CD does not fit
the requirements of many end users which is why you should not argue
that only a single CD be provided. Package size as well as numbers are
constantly increasing in the Fedora repositories. A single CD is bound
to become less and less useful over time as a result. Fedora 7 will
provide multiple variations to fit into the different needs better.
As it should be.
> Rahul, if I could help I would. I'm not a CS major, just a
silly
> Mechanical Engineering student. Many of the usability problems that I
> encounter with Linux, not specifically Fedora, is that all computer
> users are assumed to be software engineers. We're not. Sorry.
You do not need to be a CS major to participate. You can help in
documentation, bug reports, triaging and so on very easily. Take a look
at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HelpWanted. Arguing on this list
changes nothing.
I'm familiar with the page. I have filed bugs in the past, I'll get
myself back into the habit. Usability bugs, especially, I can comment
on.
Thanks.
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/client.html
1:57 p.m.
"Dotan Cohen" <dotancohen(a)gmail.com> writes:
I actually do have he DVD tucked away at home, and I installed this
system from DVD. However, DVD burners are not as common on the most
common hardware that I see in the dorms at my university, but CD
birners are very common. And the DVD is over 3 GB in size, about 5
times the size of Kubuntu.
I see. Nowadays DVD writers are so cheap that I almost forget that some
people don't have them :)
You might have noticed that I didn't respond to your gripe about download
size. That's because I saw it as a valid complaint (even if I have no
problems with it personally). Complaining about having to change between
five CDs was what I answered to, because there is a better solution. Of
course if you don't have a DVD writer...
Regards
Ingemar
9:54 p.m.
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 21:18 +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On 24/02/07, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree that one distro should not be both server AND desktop. Even M$
> > has a desktop version of Windows (Vista) and a server version
> > (Server). Well, it might be more like trashcan version and spambot
> > version, but you get the point.
> >
> > Dotan Cohen
>
> Strange complaint, since Fedora will have a Desktop and a Server spin
> - or are you implying that the diff. Windows "versions" are more than
> spins?
>
That wasn't a complaint. Rather, I see the wisdom in 'spins' and think
that it should have been done a long time ago. I'm also rather hoping
that the powers that be will get it down to THREE DISKS maximum. I've
already had to install Kubuntu on peoples machines because 5 disks is
way to much to have a potential convert download.
Dotan, why would three disks be "enough"? You "had to install Kubuntu
because 5 disks..." ...if you're installing, why would they gripe? How
would they even know how many disks is enough, or too much, if they
can't install their own machines? Isn't free "free" enough for these
friends?? C'mon, you gotta do better than that. They'll either dnload it
to the CD's, or dnload 1 CD and still dnload the rest, piece by piece,
so it's a wash.
Every time someone proselytizes Kubuntu on this list I keep seeing the
scene where Jack Nicholson as the Joker, is on a parade float while
Prince plays "You've Got The Look." Money is floating down out of the
sky, pizza and beer is free. Everyone is deliriously ecstatic. I'm
waiting for the other shoe to drop.
You tell me what glorious advances they have contributed to the
community, as RedHat has. Zilch, nada. Just a bunch of press, is all.
I'll dance with who brung me, even if they piss me off from time to
time. :) Ric
--
================================================
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net
================================================
10:44 p.m.
Ric Moore wrote:
You tell me what glorious advances they have contributed to the
community, as RedHat has. Zilch, nada. Just a bunch of press, is all.
I'll dance with who brung me, even if they piss me off from time to
time. :) Ric
Isn't Debian with an actual release schedule enough?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
7:47 a.m.
On 25/02/07, Ric Moore <wayward4now(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 21:18 +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> On 24/02/07, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I agree that one distro should not be both server AND desktop. Even M$
> > > has a desktop version of Windows (Vista) and a server version
> > > (Server). Well, it might be more like trashcan version and spambot
> > > version, but you get the point.
> > >
> > > Dotan Cohen
> >
> > Strange complaint, since Fedora will have a Desktop and a Server spin
> > - or are you implying that the diff. Windows "versions" are more
than
> > spins?
> >
>
> That wasn't a complaint. Rather, I see the wisdom in 'spins' and think
> that it should have been done a long time ago. I'm also rather hoping
> that the powers that be will get it down to THREE DISKS maximum. I've
> already had to install Kubuntu on peoples machines because 5 disks is
> way to much to have a potential convert download.
Dotan, why would three disks be "enough"? You "had to install Kubuntu
because 5 disks..." ...if you're installing, why would they gripe? How
would they even know how many disks is enough, or too much, if they
can't install their own machines? Isn't free "free" enough for these
friends?? C'mon, you gotta do better than that. They'll either dnload it
to the CD's, or dnload 1 CD and still dnload the rest, piece by piece,
so it's a wash.
I once talked to someone and we decided to d/l while we ate, and
install afterwards. I knew that there was no way that all five Fedora
disks would download in time. Kubuntu barely managed to download it's
700 megs over http in time (bittorrent is disabled in the university).
Three Fedora disk would still be too much, but it's at least
comprehensible. 5 is plain ridiculous.
If Fedora required 18 disks to install, would you still argue in it's
favor? I doubt it. So where is the line drawn? For me it is at 3
disks: an arbitrary number that is not _too_ high, yet possibly within
reach if Fedora devs want to do it. I doubt that Fedora has 3 times
the necessary software as does [k]Ubuntu.
Every time someone proselytizes Kubuntu on this list I keep seeing
the
scene where Jack Nicholson as the Joker, is on a parade float while
Prince plays "You've Got The Look." Money is floating down out of the
sky, pizza and beer is free. Everyone is deliriously ecstatic. I'm
waiting for the other shoe to drop.
What do you mean? Kubuntu is mentioned for some of the same reasons
that Windows is mentioned: this is a list centered around an
operating system, and Kubuntu is a competing operating system. It's
not as good as Fedora in some regards, better in others. People will
disagree which are strong points and which as weak points. But they
should be discussed, to learn from them.
You tell me what glorious advances they have contributed to the
community, as RedHat has. Zilch, nada. Just a bunch of press, is all.
I'll dance with who brung me, even if they piss me off from time to
time. :) Ric
Kubuntu is exactly what it's motto implies: Linux for humans. Not CS
majors, and not gearheads. That's why I don't use it. It's also why I
install it for others. [k]Ubuntu has brought Linux within the reach of
the average dumbass computer user. It's simple to maintain. Things
just work. It's easy to install. It addresses, one by one, all the
misconceptions surrounding Linux. Especially the "hard to use" and
"complicated" misconceptions.
Dotan Cohen
http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/372/new_order.html
http://what-is-what.com/what_is/google.html
4:24 p.m.
Dotan Cohen wrote:
I once talked to someone and we decided to d/l while we ate, and
install afterwards. I knew that there was no way that all five Fedora
disks would download in time. Kubuntu barely managed to download it's
700 megs over http in time (bittorrent is disabled in the university).
You do know that you can install from a rescue CD? It downloads all the
packages it needs (and only the packages it needs) as it installs them.
This might be a better bet for such situations.
Hope this helps,
James.
--
E-mail: james@ | As Tim switched off the engine, opened the driver's door,
aprilcottage.co.uk | undid his seat belt and fell out of the tree, he decided
| that perhaps he didn't have the makings of the best
| minicab driver. -- "I'm Sorry, I Haven't A Clue",
BBC R4
6264
days inactive
6271
days old
61 comments
20 participants
participants (20)
-
Aaron Konstam -
Alex White -
Arthur Pemberton -
Chris Mohler -
Dotan Cohen -
Ingemar Nilsson -
James Wilkinson -
Les Mikesell -
maillist＠sios.ca -
Matthew Miller -
Mikkel -
Oldman -
Rahul Sundaram -
Res -
Ric Moore -
Temlakos -
Tim -
Tony Nelson -
Vivek J. Patankar -
Will Yonker