sysinstall nigthmare - BSD

This is a discussion on sysinstall nigthmare - BSD ; "jpd" wrote in message news:4u5i3qF16oku6U1@mid.individual.net... > Begin > On 2006-12-11, Vladimir wrote: >> Well, IMHO, bloating is a way of the future. > > Only if you're looking for job security. It causes all sorts of nasty > interference and ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: sysinstall nigthmare

  1. Re: sysinstall nigthmare


    "jpd" wrote in message
    news:4u5i3qF16oku6U1@mid.individual.net...
    > Begin <2fefh.44604$_k2.819491@news2.nokia.com>
    > On 2006-12-11, Vladimir wrote:
    >> Well, IMHO, bloating is a way of the future.

    >
    > Only if you're looking for job security. It causes all sorts of nasty
    > interference and security problems. The desktop environments like kde
    > and especially gnome are known to be a pain to get to work. The ports
    > collection takes care of that but each new version it breaks in some
    > creative way requiring the maintainers to fix it again.
    >


    So... what is the problem?

    >
    >> The winner will be the one, that will appeal to the non-experienced
    >> users.

    >
    > In that market, perhaps. It isn't the only market. Otherwise unix
    > in general would have ceased to exist, succumbing to our friends in
    > redmond. But lo, it still exists. It still is widely used, and it still
    > is economically viable to use. In fact, most of the servers on the
    > internet still are largely run on unix machines.
    >


    No, I am not talking about UNIXes in general. Those guys with multi-thousand
    license fees are totally different breed. FreeBSD and Linux are the systems,
    which are targetting end-user's personal machines.

    >
    >> And the starting point is the ease of installation.

    >
    > You're looking at it only from your apparently very limited viewpoint.
    >
    > Ease of installation means something quite different for the big farm
    > admin who has to care for a thousand machines than for the home user who
    > installs a new machine maybe a couple of times a year, probably less.
    > redhat focuses on the pretty pictures. Good for them.
    >
    > FreeBSD can be very useful in either role but it doesn't have the
    > resources to care and if it had still wouldn't care for the pretty
    > pictures in the installation. What's important is what you look at every
    > day. For the home user, that's a desktop, not an installer. The admin
    > has better things to do than to click through menus and has prefab
    > configs to roll out, automatically.
    >


    I agree that admin has different needs. But, how many big farm admins there
    are? Much more then users?
    So, the system is perfect for a big farm admin to do the multi-machine
    daployment. But for many novice users it would take hours and days to make a
    single-PC installation suitable for work.

    >
    >> But again, its my IMHO. Coming from Windows background,

    >
    > Well, there you go.
    >


    What? Is "Windows" a swear word or something?

    >
    >> I am prepared to waste disk space and processor time vs. my own
    >> "clicking" time.

    >
    > I think clicking is a waste of my time. I'd much rather write a script
    > once so I can have it work unattendedly the next time.


    How can you be sure, that this script will still be working with the next
    release? What if next time you will need some different packages? And how
    long will the script be if you want to have many different ports?

    >But then, I don't need a graphical environment with a button for every
    >possible action.
    >


    Well, will the FreeBSD as a system suffer in its performance or security, if
    "sysinstall" would have an extra option in the bottom of each ports section
    to select all the ports in that section? Or, simplier: let key 'b' have a
    function: mark port if unmarked and go down one item. Will it impact one's
    ability to have a scripted installation process? - No.

    B.R.
    Vladimir.



  2. Re: sysinstall nigthmare


    "jpd" wrote in message
    news:4u5jf2F16kjt4U1@mid.individual.net...
    > Begin
    > On 2006-12-11, Vladimir wrote:
    >> Yes, I've read the manual. As far as I was able to understand, setup
    >> command
    >> for every package has to be added to the script. So, unless such a script
    >> is
    >> already written somewhere, its not a solution atm.

    >
    > $ ftp -a ftp.nl.freebsd.org
    > [successful anon login elided]
    > ftp> cd /pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6.2-release/All
    > 250 Directory successfully changed.
    > ftp> ls . porstlist
    > output to local-file: portslist [anpqy?]? y
    > 229 Entering Extended Passive Mode (|||55764|)
    > 150 Here comes the directory listing.
    > 1152 KB 125.82 KB/s
    > 226 Directory send OK.
    > ftp> quit
    > 221 Goodbye.
    > $ cut -c 57- portslist | grep ^p5-
    >[list of all p5- packages elided]
    > $
    >
    > That took me about, oh, a minute or two minutes to work out, not the two
    > hours you so dreaded. You now have enough information to fetch them all
    > then feed them to pkg_add or, for another minute or so of work, figure
    > out the right format to add them to the config list for sysinstall.
    >
    > You could have had such an answer ten postings back if you'd deigned
    > yourself worthy of asking for help instead of lamenting that FreeBSD
    > wasn't down to your standards. I'd like getting paid again but just
    > maybe I'll not ask for a job like what nokia apparently pays you do to,
    > as actually achieving something now and then does have its upsides.
    >
    >
    > --
    > j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    > This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    > Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    > consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.


    Ok, thanks for the help, this should work.
    I think, I'll skip on the personal remarks.


    B.R.
    Vladimir.



  3. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    Vladimir wrote:
    >
    > Well, will the FreeBSD as a system suffer in its performance or security, if
    > "sysinstall" would have an extra option in the bottom of each ports section
    > to select all the ports in that section? Or, simplier: let key 'b' have a
    > function: mark port if unmarked and go down one item. Will it impact one's
    > ability to have a scripted installation process? - No.
    >


    Guy, i am presently writing a python script whose aim is to create a
    http server on say, port 8080, which displays exactly the same thing
    that the README.html show, when you have built them, without the hassle
    of having to maintain them. Adding the features you require (outputting
    a list of ports you want to install, that you have chosen conveniently)
    will be a 5 lines addition.


    > B.R.
    > Vladimir.
    >
    >


  4. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:32:57 GMT
    "Vladimir" wrote:

    > IMHO, there are much more people, who dont want to care, that perl
    > consists of 1.5k packages and not just one item - "perl".


    But it doesn't. You get the standard set of packages by installing
    Perl - the rest of the Perl packages represent a sizable proportion of
    what's available from CPAN. If any of it is needed for another package it
    will be installed automatically as a dependency when that other package is
    installed. Other than that the only reason for wanting any of it is if you
    are writing your own Perl code in which case you probably know when you
    want something from CPAN that isn't a stock part of the Perl distribution.

    --
    C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
    The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
    You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
    | http://www.sohara.org/

  5. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    Begin <7Ngfh.44608$_k2.819668@news2.nokia.com>
    On 2006-12-11, Vladimir wrote:
    > "jpd" wrote in message
    > news:4u5gnsF1633eaU1@mid.individual.net...
    >> Your definition of usability apparently matches redhat's better than
    >> FreeBSD's. The conclusion should be obvious and has already been
    >> mentioned. Instead you insist on making veiled insults. I'll be hard
    >> pressed to call that mature.
    >>

    >
    > I don't remember making personal remarks or insults.


    I didn't say _personal_. You did imply or outright said so, time and
    again, that you considered FreeBSD wanting because it didn't match your
    expectations exactly. Well, too bad. Deal with it.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  6. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    Begin
    On 2006-12-11, Vladimir wrote:
    > "jpd" wrote in message
    > news:4u5i3qF16oku6U1@mid.individual.net...

    [snippety]
    > So... what is the problem?


    I'd say you are, but you'll then complain that's a personal insult.


    > No, I am not talking about UNIXes in general. Those guys with multi-thousand
    > license fees are totally different breed. FreeBSD and Linux are the systems,
    > which are targetting end-user's personal machines.


    Now you're just reiterating again what has been refuted before.
    It's not true. 'Nuff said.


    [snip]
    > I agree that admin has different needs. But, how many big farm admins there
    > are? Much more then users?


    That's not relevant. It's like saying nobody should cater for doctors'
    special needs because there are more patients. Still, there's a large
    market in medical equipment. I think you'd be unhappy if that market
    would collapse, even if you aren't a doctor.


    > So, the system is perfect for a big farm admin to do the multi-machine
    > daployment. But for many novice users it would take hours and days to make a
    > single-PC installation suitable for work.


    About... an hour I think. That's about what it took me way back when
    for my first FreeBSD install. I did get the subtle hint of READ THE
    DOCUMENTATION BEFORE STARTING that was all over the distribution so to
    prevent you from missing it. So I did. Saved oodles of time, too.


    >>> But again, its my IMHO. Coming from Windows background,

    >>
    >> Well, there you go.

    >
    > What? Is "Windows" a swear word or something?


    No, it's a reference back to my earlier comment that you're looking at
    it from your own very limited point of view. You apparently still have
    the ``one user, one desktop, and everything must be EASY!! DAMMIT!! I
    DEMAND IT BE SO!!! YOU FIX IT!1! NOW1!1!'' mindset that helpdesks love
    so much.

    Whether telling you this is an insult is up to you. It's up to you to
    move away from that mindset, too. I can't do that for you. I can only
    tell you you're stuck and get a move on already. I'm not the only one to
    have tried in this group, mind.


    [snip]
    > How can you be sure, that this script will still be working with the next
    > release? What if next time you will need some different packages? And how
    > long will the script be if you want to have many different ports?


    Experience and skills. Incidentally, those also give me the ability to
    fix problems that might pop up after all. And I have much more power to
    do so on unix in general and free unices in particular than I have on
    commercial closed source user encapsulating platforms.


    > Well, will the FreeBSD as a system suffer in its performance or security, if
    > "sysinstall" would have an extra option in the bottom of each ports section
    > to select all the ports in that section? Or, simplier: let key 'b' have a
    > function: mark port if unmarked and go down one item. Will it impact one's
    > ability to have a scripted installation process? - No.


    Who is going to add it? You? - Same answer.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  7. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    Begin <6Thfh.44611$_k2.819669@news2.nokia.com>
    On 2006-12-11, Vladimir wrote:
    >
    > Ok, thanks for the help, this should work.
    > I think, I'll skip on the personal remarks.


    It would be better if you'd work on your asking for help technique,
    because frankly, it sucks. If you don't, it'll be still harder to get
    useful help in the future.


    --
    j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
    This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
    Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
    consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

  8. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    jpd wrote:
    >On 2006-12-11, Vladimir wrote:
    >> "jpd" wrote in message
    >>> Your definition of usability apparently matches redhat's better than
    >>> FreeBSD's. The conclusion should be obvious and has already been
    >>> mentioned. Instead you insist on making veiled insults. I'll be hard
    >>> pressed to call that mature.

    >> I don't remember making personal remarks or insults.


    You implicitly insult those who have made the software and those who
    sacrifice their time to answer your questions while expecting their help.
    Or do you think we should just be glad that you give us the opportunity
    to test our patience?

    >You did imply or outright said so, time and again, that you considered
    >FreeBSD wanting because it didn't match your expectations exactly.


    And you make crystal clear that you haven't the faintest notion what
    'usability' means. This doen't bode well for future Nokia designs.

    >Well, too bad. Deal with it.


    Read and _learn by heart_ E. S. Raymond's
    "How to ask questions the smart way"


    scs

  9. Re: sysinstall nigthmare

    On 2006-12-11, Vladimir wrote:
    > "jpd" wrote in message
    > news:4u5i3qF16oku6U1@mid.individual.net...
    >> Begin <2fefh.44604$_k2.819491@news2.nokia.com>
    >> On 2006-12-11, Vladimir wrote:
    >>
    >>> The winner will be the one, that will appeal to the non-experienced
    >>> users.

    >>
    >> In that market, perhaps. It isn't the only market. Otherwise unix
    >> in general would have ceased to exist, succumbing to our friends in
    >> redmond. But lo, it still exists. It still is widely used, and it still
    >> is economically viable to use. In fact, most of the servers on the
    >> internet still are largely run on unix machines.

    >
    > No, I am not talking about UNIXes in general. Those guys with
    > multi-thousand license fees are totally different breed. FreeBSD and
    > Linux are the systems, which are targetting end-user's personal
    > machines.


    Workstations are only part of FreeBSD and Linux's target
    audience. At present, both operating systems have a bigger share
    of the server market than of the workstation market.

    --
    André Majorel
    (Counterfeit: atez@darn.com himagipur@bridget.com)
    Religion: a magic device for turning unanswerable questions into
    unquestionable answers. -- Art Gecko

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2