1245+/- victims explain how Linux can't cut it - Linux

This is a discussion on 1245+/- victims explain how Linux can't cut it - Linux ; http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/...Fedora+freezes...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: 1245+/- victims explain how Linux can't cut it

  1. 1245+/- victims explain how Linux can't cut it


  2. Re: DFS shows his stupidity again.

    On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:33:58 -0400, DFS wrote:

    > http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?

    s=e0949b7de3f62493e2cf89fc20ce19ec&t=54240&page=83&pp=15&highlight=Fedora
    +freezes

    Fedora != Linux != Fedora

    --
    Rick

  3. Re: DFS shows his stupidity again.

    On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:16:30 -0500, Rick wrote:

    > On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:33:58 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?

    > s=e0949b7de3f62493e2cf89fc20ce19ec&t=54240&page=83&pp=15&highlight=Fedora
    > +freezes
    >
    > Fedora != Linux != Fedora


    What is Linux?
    I've been asking that question for 15+ years and still have not gotten a
    straight answer.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  4. Re: DFS shows his stupidity again.

    On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:07:42 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:16:30 -0500, Rick wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:33:58 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?

    >>

    s=e0949b7de3f62493e2cf89fc20ce19ec&t=54240&page=83&pp=15&highlight=Fedora
    >> +freezes
    >>
    >> Fedora != Linux != Fedora

    >
    > What is Linux?
    > I've been asking that question for 15+ years and still have not gotten a
    > straight answer.


    yes, you have. Repeatedly.

    --
    Rick

  5. Re: DFS shows his stupidity again.

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick

    wrote
    on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:20:14 -0500
    :
    > On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:07:42 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:16:30 -0500, Rick wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:33:58 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?
    >>>

    > s=e0949b7de3f62493e2cf89fc20ce19ec&t=54240&page=83&pp=15&highlight=Fedora
    >>> +freezes
    >>>
    >>> Fedora != Linux != Fedora

    >>
    >> What is Linux?
    >> I've been asking that question for 15+ years and still have not gotten a
    >> straight answer.

    >
    > yes, you have. Repeatedly.
    >


    No, he hasn't. He just said so. ;-)
    I for one can usually deduce it from context, however.

    [1] Linux the kernel, uncompiled form (as distributed by
    www.kernel.org). Doesn't do much, even after
    unpacking; one has to compile it, usually with gcc
    (though icc is reported to work, if one's on an
    Intel box). Of course one can look at the source
    code and documentation.

    [2] Linux the kernel, compiled. Doesn't do much here
    either, though the ARCH=um variant can be executed,
    and the native variant installed using a boot
    loader/utility. (For LILO, that's /sbin/lilo.
    For GRUB, that's /sbin/grub or /sbin/grub-install.
    LOADLIN might still be around, though it was designed
    for DOS or Win95-era systems.)

    One can also cross-compile kernels in theory, though
    I don't know the details.

    [3] Linux, installed. Won't do much without its modules,
    unless one compiled it with no modules at all. (Hence,
    make modules-install.) Will panic either way.

    [4] Linux, installed, with modules. Will still panic.

    [5] Linux, installed, with modules and ramdisk. The
    ramdisk is optional but should be populated with some
    basic, useful stuff such as busybox. Most distros go
    this route.

    [6] Linux, installed, with modules and basic libraries
    and utilities (including /bin/bash, /sbin/init,
    and /lib/libc.so). Won't do much but at least one
    has a chance to get it up and running. The upside:
    very very light footprint -- around 3M or so, if that.
    The modules are *not* loaded unless one gets additional
    utilities. Most distros set up a basic RAMDISK system,
    then pivot() to the real system once they've done
    some prep.

    [7] +X. One gets a stipple screen.

    [8] +X+wm+utilities. Primitive functionality.

    [9] +X+KDE or +X+Gnome. Basic functionality; the
    user can now edit and do a calculator and some
    simple games. With KDE one also has the
    konqueror browser; Gnome provides a built-in
    help system.

    [10] +X+(KDE/Gnome)+additional. Full-fledged system,
    heavy on memory (though not nearly as heavy as some
    others), may bog down if user doesn't have enough RAM.

    *Any one of these* may be a valid answer for "What is
    Linux?", and that's just on the external technical side;
    I've not gotten into the sociopolitical or economical
    ramifications, which I don't know a lot about anyway.
    Nor am I up on the Linux internals, beyond the modules
    and a little poking around in the filesystem code (it's
    an interesting design; among other things Linux uses
    structures with function pointers, mimicking a C++
    vtable but with more control).

    In any event, Fedora is a Linux distro; always has been.
    It may have some problems, as does Linux; the main one
    coming to mind might be issues with ATi, though one
    might ask as to whether that's Linux's responsibilities,
    or the DRI group who's writing the freeware ATi drivers.
    I'm frankly not sure what to make of audio; it appears to
    be mutating (again) with the introduction of PulseAudio.
    However, it works well enough, apart from the microphone
    issue, which I don't really need right now anyway.

    Linmodems are even wierder, but fortunately everyone will
    probably jump onto the NIC/WiFi wagon fairly soon anyway.
    I hope they use open-source drivers.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
    elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  6. Re: DFS shows his stupidity again.

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
    >
    > wrote
    > on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:20:14 -0500
    > :
    >> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:07:42 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:16:30 -0500, Rick wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:33:58 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?
    >>>>

    >> s=e0949b7de3f62493e2cf89fc20ce19ec&t=54240&page=83&pp=15&highlight=Fedora
    >>>> +freezes
    >>>>
    >>>> Fedora != Linux != Fedora
    >>>
    >>> What is Linux?
    >>> I've been asking that question for 15+ years and still have not
    >>> gotten a straight answer.

    >>
    >> yes, you have. Repeatedly.



    (p)Rick himself said:

    "Ubuntu isn't Linux"
    "Fedora is Linux"
    "A problem in Fedora may be a Linux problem, or it may be a Fedora problem."
    Linux "is my main operating system."
    There's a "difference between Linux and a Linux based distribution."



    > No, he hasn't. He just said so. ;-)
    > I for one can usually deduce it from context, however.
    >
    > [1] Linux the kernel, uncompiled form (as distributed by
    > www.kernel.org). Doesn't do much, even after
    > unpacking; one has to compile it, usually with gcc
    > (though icc is reported to work, if one's on an
    > Intel box). Of course one can look at the source
    > code and documentation.
    >
    > [2] Linux the kernel, compiled. Doesn't do much here
    > either, though the ARCH=um variant can be executed,
    > and the native variant installed using a boot
    > loader/utility. (For LILO, that's /sbin/lilo.
    > For GRUB, that's /sbin/grub or /sbin/grub-install.
    > LOADLIN might still be around, though it was designed
    > for DOS or Win95-era systems.)
    >
    > One can also cross-compile kernels in theory, though
    > I don't know the details.
    >
    > [3] Linux, installed. Won't do much without its modules,
    > unless one compiled it with no modules at all. (Hence,
    > make modules-install.) Will panic either way.
    >
    > [4] Linux, installed, with modules. Will still panic.
    >
    > [5] Linux, installed, with modules and ramdisk. The
    > ramdisk is optional but should be populated with some
    > basic, useful stuff such as busybox. Most distros go
    > this route.
    >
    > [6] Linux, installed, with modules and basic libraries
    > and utilities (including /bin/bash, /sbin/init,
    > and /lib/libc.so). Won't do much but at least one
    > has a chance to get it up and running. The upside:
    > very very light footprint -- around 3M or so, if that.
    > The modules are *not* loaded unless one gets additional
    > utilities. Most distros set up a basic RAMDISK system,
    > then pivot() to the real system once they've done
    > some prep.
    >
    > [7] +X. One gets a stipple screen.
    >
    > [8] +X+wm+utilities. Primitive functionality.
    >
    > [9] +X+KDE or +X+Gnome. Basic functionality; the
    > user can now edit and do a calculator and some
    > simple games. With KDE one also has the
    > konqueror browser; Gnome provides a built-in
    > help system.
    >
    > [10] +X+(KDE/Gnome)+additional. Full-fledged system,
    > heavy on memory (though not nearly as heavy as some
    > others), may bog down if user doesn't have enough RAM.
    >
    > *Any one of these* may be a valid answer for "What is
    > Linux?",


    How convenient. 10 "definitions" of Linux lets you wackjobs hem and haw and
    sidestep and lie.




  7. Re: DFS shows his stupidity again.

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS

    wrote
    on Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:39:25 -0400
    :
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:20:14 -0500
    >> :
    >>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:07:42 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:16:30 -0500, Rick wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:33:58 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?
    >>>>>
    >>> s=e0949b7de3f62493e2cf89fc20ce19ec&t=54240&page=83&pp=15&highlight=Fedora
    >>>>> +freezes
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Fedora != Linux != Fedora
    >>>>
    >>>> What is Linux?
    >>>> I've been asking that question for 15+ years and still have not
    >>>> gotten a straight answer.
    >>>
    >>> yes, you have. Repeatedly.

    >
    >
    > (p)Rick himself said:
    >
    > "Ubuntu isn't Linux"
    > "Fedora is Linux"
    > "A problem in Fedora may be a Linux problem, or it may be a Fedora problem."
    > Linux "is my main operating system."
    > There's a "difference between Linux and a Linux based distribution."
    >
    >
    >
    >> No, he hasn't. He just said so. ;-)
    >> I for one can usually deduce it from context, however.
    >>
    >> [1] Linux the kernel, uncompiled form (as distributed by
    >> www.kernel.org). Doesn't do much, even after
    >> unpacking; one has to compile it, usually with gcc
    >> (though icc is reported to work, if one's on an
    >> Intel box). Of course one can look at the source
    >> code and documentation.
    >>
    >> [2] Linux the kernel, compiled. Doesn't do much here
    >> either, though the ARCH=um variant can be executed,
    >> and the native variant installed using a boot
    >> loader/utility. (For LILO, that's /sbin/lilo.
    >> For GRUB, that's /sbin/grub or /sbin/grub-install.
    >> LOADLIN might still be around, though it was designed
    >> for DOS or Win95-era systems.)
    >>
    >> One can also cross-compile kernels in theory, though
    >> I don't know the details.
    >>
    >> [3] Linux, installed. Won't do much without its modules,
    >> unless one compiled it with no modules at all. (Hence,
    >> make modules-install.) Will panic either way.
    >>
    >> [4] Linux, installed, with modules. Will still panic.
    >>
    >> [5] Linux, installed, with modules and ramdisk. The
    >> ramdisk is optional but should be populated with some
    >> basic, useful stuff such as busybox. Most distros go
    >> this route.
    >>
    >> [6] Linux, installed, with modules and basic libraries
    >> and utilities (including /bin/bash, /sbin/init,
    >> and /lib/libc.so). Won't do much but at least one
    >> has a chance to get it up and running. The upside:
    >> very very light footprint -- around 3M or so, if that.
    >> The modules are *not* loaded unless one gets additional
    >> utilities. Most distros set up a basic RAMDISK system,
    >> then pivot() to the real system once they've done
    >> some prep.
    >>
    >> [7] +X. One gets a stipple screen.
    >>
    >> [8] +X+wm+utilities. Primitive functionality.
    >>
    >> [9] +X+KDE or +X+Gnome. Basic functionality; the
    >> user can now edit and do a calculator and some
    >> simple games. With KDE one also has the
    >> konqueror browser; Gnome provides a built-in
    >> help system.
    >>
    >> [10] +X+(KDE/Gnome)+additional. Full-fledged system,
    >> heavy on memory (though not nearly as heavy as some
    >> others), may bog down if user doesn't have enough RAM.
    >>
    >> *Any one of these* may be a valid answer for "What is
    >> Linux?",

    >
    > How convenient. 10 "definitions" of Linux lets you wackjobs
    > hem and haw and sidestep and lie.
    >


    If you prefer, you can define Linux, and show us what the
    problem is. Be advised that *any* problem with a Linux
    distro, no matter how minor, is construable as a problem
    with Linux, given the above -- and this is as it should be,
    since any problem with Windows applications are defined as
    a problem with Windows, encompassing the entire enchilada.
    But Windows has a huge perceptual advantage -- and a bit
    of a drawback.

    Say I had a problem with PCLinuxOS, and report a bug.
    If I'm lucky, PCLinuxOS does a local patch, rebuilds the
    afflicted package(s), and releases an update, which I can
    pick up somehow (I don't know PCLinuxOS's delivery system
    offhand; Gentoo has 'emerge --sync' for the tree/versioning
    and 'emerge --fetchonly' for the source files/patches).

    If I'm unlucky, the powers that be deem the bug unfixable
    by them, and punt upstream. The upstream maintainers
    (if they're still there; Gentoo has a number of "dead"
    packages) shake their heads and might wait 3 or more months
    until next release for a minor problem, though most are
    far faster than that if the bug poses a moderate security
    threat. Once fixed, the bug then percolates downstream
    back to the PCLinuxOS maintainers/developers, who have to
    get an updated version of the source code, rebuild, and
    then ensure all of their users somehow get the update --
    not an easy task since most distros do not have "push"
    capability, though RedHat probably has a "poll" connected
    to its magic red button.

    For its part Microsoft apparently schedules Patch Tuesdays
    every month, and the OS has a polling capability that can
    pull down patches transparently -- even rebooting the system
    if necessary.

    That's the advantage, though there's the problem that the
    reboot can disrupt critical processes if the user is,
    say, running a big job.

    The drawback, of course, is that Microsoft gets hit with
    every bug, though one suspects they have an internal
    routing system. Word bugs might get routed to their
    Word development group, IE bugs to their browser group,
    Excel bugs to their spreadsheet development, etc.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #7878218:
    class C { private: virtual void stupid() = 0; };
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

+ Reply to Thread