Odd concepts with Linux - Slackware

This is a discussion on Odd concepts with Linux - Slackware ; Who could tell, if you were put in front of a computer, what distro you were using just by using the computer for everyday work or surfing, word processing, etc etc. I mean, what is the difference to the average ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Odd concepts with Linux

  1. Odd concepts with Linux

    Who could tell, if you were put in front of a computer, what distro you were
    using just by using the computer for everyday work or surfing, word
    processing, etc etc.

    I mean, what is the difference to the average user between one distro and
    another as far as using the OS for 'routine' matters.

    Apparently someone thinks there is a difference. A new site is about to
    come up where people can test driver various linux distros over the net
    without the need for installing the distro....this one I gotta see.

    ken

  2. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    On 2008-02-15, No_One wrote:
    > Who could tell, if you were put in front of a computer, what distro you were
    > using just by using the computer for everyday work or surfing, word
    > processing, etc etc.
    >
    > I mean, what is the difference to the average user between one distro and
    > another as far as using the OS for 'routine' matters.


    The package management system.

    Whether it has KDE or Gnome or neither.

    Ignore the package management system and use the commandline (with or without
    X) and there really isn't any difference at all.

    I know that the major distros, other than Slackware, patch the kernel, but
    I don't think this is obvious during everyday use.

    > Apparently someone thinks there is a difference. A new site is about to
    > come up where people can test driver various linux distros over the net
    > without the need for installing the distro....this one I gotta see.


    Yes. And the makers of Coca-Cola want you to think there is huge difference
    between their product and Pepsi-Cola.

    The commecial corruption of Linux continues....

    Tom

    --
    calhobbit (at) | Artificial Intelligence:
    gmail [DOT] com | When the real thing just won't do.


  3. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:46:31 -0600, No_One wrote:

    > Who could tell, if you were put in front of a computer, what distro you
    > were using just by using the computer for everyday work or surfing, word
    > processing, etc etc.
    >
    > I mean, what is the difference to the average user between one distro
    > and another as far as using the OS for 'routine' matters.
    >
    > Apparently someone thinks there is a difference. A new site is about to
    > come up where people can test driver various linux distros over the net
    > without the need for installing the distro....this one I gotta see.
    >
    > ken


    There aren't huge differences from one distro to the next. That is one of
    the strengths, rather than a weakness. Switching from one distro to
    another, you won't be lost - much more uniform than say, switching from
    ms/xp to ms/vista. Major difference is package management and
    repositories - I've found that deb works much better for me, generally,
    than rpm.

  4. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    On 2008-02-16, Tom Newton wrote:
    >
    > Ignore the package management system and use the commandline (with or without
    > X) and there really isn't any difference at all.


    The init scripts in Slackware are significantly different, as there are
    no /etc/rc.d/rc?.d/ directories and no S??service symlinks to decide
    what to run in which runlevel. Someone with decent clue would be able
    to figure out what's going on going from a SysV-style to a BSD-style
    (which is what Slackware uses), but going the other way is less obvious.

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  5. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    Hallo, Keith,

    Du meintest am 15.02.08:

    >> Ignore the package management system and use the commandline (with
    >> or without X) and there really isn't any difference at all.


    > The init scripts in Slackware are significantly different, as there
    > are no /etc/rc.d/rc?.d/ directories and no S??service symlinks to
    > decide what to run in which runlevel.


    You can use "/etc/rc.d/rc.sysvinit".

    Viele Gruesse
    Helmut

    "Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  6. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    Keith Keller wrote:

    > to figure out what's going on going from a SysV-style to a BSD-style
    > (which is what Slackware uses), but going the other way is less obvious.


    The Sun boxes at work have a good readme file which helped out my confusion
    the first time I started messing with SysV init scripts. Still trying
    to understand why, exactly, it is considered better. I realize they ultimately
    offer more flexibility - but I've never seen a situation where such flexibility
    was needed. They really seem more like the type of init scripts that are
    better managed via some GUI interface. I do like how Slackware has evolved
    its BSD init scripts with start and stop arguments.

    - Kurt

  7. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:46:31 -0600, No_One said:
    >
    > I mean, what is the difference to the average user between one distro and
    > another as far as using the OS for 'routine' matters.


    One big difference in Slackware's favor is that it's less buggy than other
    distributions. When applications consistently work correctly, the end-user
    has a better experience. Reliability is also very important when using a
    system in a production commercial environment.

    -- TTK

  8. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    On Feb 16, 1:46 am, No_One wrote:
    > Who could tell, if you were put in front of a computer, what distro you were
    > using just by using the computer for everyday work or surfing, word
    > processing, etc etc.
    >
    > I mean, what is the difference to the average user between one distro and
    > another as far as using the OS for 'routine' matters.
    >


    that depends on user's needs.
    my needs, they are freaky, but I really need these:
    1. stable distribution with a conservative philosophy and history
    confirming that
    2. neither blading edge, nor edging blade, nor something like that,
    GNU programs are quite buggy.
    3. distribution that provides basic compilers in defaults.
    4. distribution where I decide what and how should be running and
    where I can easily stop/run/edit services from command line. BSD's
    init style, I don't like SysV init.
    5. ability to upgrade packages not installing new system.

    ---
    Bogdan

  9. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    On 2008-02-16, Helmut Hullen wrote:
    > Hallo, Keith,
    >
    > Du meintest am 15.02.08:
    >
    >> The init scripts in Slackware are significantly different, as there
    >> are no /etc/rc.d/rc?.d/ directories and no S??service symlinks to
    >> decide what to run in which runlevel.

    >
    > You can use "/etc/rc.d/rc.sysvinit".


    Yes, but that completely disregards the rest of what I wrote, which you
    snipped, which was that someone using the default Slackware BSD-style
    init might get lost trying to deal with the SysV-style init used by many
    other distros.

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  10. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    On 2008-02-16, ~kurt wrote:
    >
    > [...] SysV init scripts. Still trying
    > to understand why, exactly, it is considered better. I realize they ultimately
    > offer more flexibility - but I've never seen a situation where such flexibility
    > was needed.


    There are two situations where they could be somewhat helpful.

    One would be where one regularly switches from a ?dm-managed workstation
    to a console-based workstation. I don't know why you'd do this now, but
    I can imagine a long time ago that it might have been useful. In that
    case you'd want runlevel 3 to be different from runlevel 4. (Of course,
    Slackware and BSD-style already handles this.)

    The other is where you need the system mostly down, but still need some
    minimal services up, like networking, to do some admin tasks. In that
    case you need something like RH's runlevel 2, and that isn't handled as
    easily by BSD-style (though it can be done).

    I still prefer BSD-style, but on my SysV-style boxes, I would rather
    deal with it than convert them to BSD-style.

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  11. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    Hallo, Keith,

    Du meintest am 16.02.08:

    >>> The init scripts in Slackware are significantly different, as there
    >>> are no /etc/rc.d/rc?.d/ directories and no S??service symlinks to
    >>> decide what to run in which runlevel.

    >>
    >> You can use "/etc/rc.d/rc.sysvinit".


    > Yes, but that completely disregards the rest of what I wrote, which
    > you snipped, which was that someone using the default Slackware
    > BSD-style init might get lost trying to deal with the SysV-style init
    > used by many other distros.


    May be.
    I run Slackware nearly completely in SysV style. Works fine.

    Viele Gruesse
    Helmut

    "Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  12. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    On 2008-02-16, B.Yanchitsky@gmail.com wrote:
    > On Feb 16, 1:46 am, No_One wrote:
    >> Who could tell, if you were put in front of a computer, what distro you were
    >> using just by using the computer for everyday work or surfing, word
    >> processing, etc etc.
    >>
    >> I mean, what is the difference to the average user between one distro and
    >> another as far as using the OS for 'routine' matters.
    >>

    >
    > that depends on user's needs.
    > my needs, they are freaky, but I really need these:
    > 1. stable distribution with a conservative philosophy and history
    > confirming that
    > 2. neither blading edge, nor edging blade, nor something like that,
    > GNU programs are quite buggy.
    > 3. distribution that provides basic compilers in defaults.
    > 4. distribution where I decide what and how should be running and
    > where I can easily stop/run/edit services from command line. BSD's
    > init style, I don't like SysV init.
    > 5. ability to upgrade packages not installing new system.
    >
    > ---
    > Bogdan


    What you say is true, however, how can that possibly be translated into a web
    experience. As I mentioned, a website is coming online that claims that
    users will be able to test drive various distros without installing.

    I was just curious how this was possible....

    Normally, I'd just say it's a commerical venture to sell cd copies of
    various distros but it's a *.org site...which makes it all the more curious.

    ken

  13. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:07:32 -0600, No_One wrote:

    ....
    > it's a *.org site...which makes it all the more curious.
    >

    Link?

    Grant.
    --
    http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/

  14. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    On 2008-02-17, Grant wrote:
    > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:07:32 -0600, No_One wrote:
    >
    > ...
    >> it's a *.org site...which makes it all the more curious.
    >>

    > Link?
    >
    > Grant.


    The pr release is at linuxpr.com and the link for the site is
    linuxtestdrive.org

    ken

  15. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    Hallo, ~kurt,

    Du meintest am 17.02.08:

    > Tom Newton wrote:


    [nonsense]

    > Nothing wrong with that. What, are you a commie?


    No - it's a troll. Don't feed it.

    Viele Gruesse
    Helmut

    "Ubuntu" - an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  16. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:39:11 -0800, Keith Keller wrote:

    > On 2008-02-16, ~kurt wrote:
    >>
    >> [...] SysV init scripts. Still trying to understand why, exactly, it
    >> is considered better. I realize they ultimately offer more flexibility
    >> - but I've never seen a situation where such flexibility was needed.

    >
    > There are two situations where they could be somewhat helpful.
    >
    > One would be where one regularly switches from a ?dm-managed workstation
    > to a console-based workstation. I don't know why you'd do this now, but
    > I can imagine a long time ago that it might have been useful. In that
    > case you'd want runlevel 3 to be different from runlevel 4. (Of course,
    > Slackware and BSD-style already handles this.)
    >
    > The other is where you need the system mostly down, but still need some
    > minimal services up, like networking, to do some admin tasks. In that
    > case you need something like RH's runlevel 2, and that isn't handled as
    > easily by BSD-style (though it can be done).


    I can think of a good reason for it. If you are a computer program/script
    and you want to add yourself to a specific runlevel it is much harder in
    the BSD-style system. If you are on a Slackware system you put your file
    in rc.d to execute yourself then you need to add a call to your file from
    the end of one of the rc.0 - rc.6 files. On a sysV init system you can
    just put a your file in init.d and the link in the rc.X runlevel
    directory.

    Also there is the problem of what is executed in what order. If you need
    your script/program to run after networking starts but before apache
    starts how do you achieve that as a computer program. A human can easily
    work out where the script should be called from.

    Richard James

    --
    If you find yourself suddenly facing a GUI because you accidentally ran
    startx, don't panic. Just press the CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE key combo and
    you'll quick as a flash be back in your cosy command line where you
    belong.

  17. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:07:32 -0600, No_One wrote:

    > What you say is true, however, how can that possibly be translated into a
    > web experience. As I mentioned, a website is coming online that claims
    > that users will be able to test drive various distros without installing.
    >
    > I was just curious how this was possible....


    Perhaps the website lets you try out the system utilities, package
    managers, and applications in various distributions just to see how easy
    or difficult they are to use. Sort of like a virtual machine on the web
    you can play around with and when you're finished it gets restarted for
    the next visitor.

    --
    Chick Tower

    For e-mail: aols2 DOT sent DOT towerboy AT xoxy DOT net


  18. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    On 2008-02-17, Richard James wrote:
    >
    > I can think of a good reason for it. If you are a computer program/script


    You mean like ''Tom''? ;-)

    > and you want to add yourself to a specific runlevel it is much harder in
    > the BSD-style system. If you are on a Slackware system you put your file
    > in rc.d to execute yourself then you need to add a call to your file from
    > the end of one of the rc.0 - rc.6 files. On a sysV init system you can
    > just put a your file in init.d and the link in the rc.X runlevel
    > directory.


    I'd forgotten about this issue, thanks. One could beg the question, why
    is a script mucking about with the startup procedure? But I won'd do
    that.

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  19. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:46:00 -0800, Keith Keller wrote:

    > On 2008-02-17, Richard James wrote:
    >>
    >> I can think of a good reason for it. If you are a computer
    >> program/script

    >
    > You mean like ''Tom''? ;-)


    10 PRINT "SOMETHING INSANE"
    20 GOTO 10

    >> and you want to add yourself to a specific runlevel it is much harder
    >> in the BSD-style system. If you are on a Slackware system you put your
    >> file in rc.d to execute yourself then you need to add a call to your
    >> file from the end of one of the rc.0 - rc.6 files. On a sysV init
    >> system you can just put a your file in init.d and the link in the rc.X
    >> runlevel directory.

    >
    > I'd forgotten about this issue, thanks. One could beg the question, why
    > is a script mucking about with the startup procedure? But I won'd do
    > that.


    Because the script is an installer program for a daemon like apache or
    mysql. Actually I just made it up but I was thinking about those sort of
    programs. They only need to run once but they still need to run.

    Richard James

    --
    If you find yourself suddenly facing a GUI because you accidentally ran
    startx, don't panic. Just press the CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE key combo and
    you'll quick as a flash be back in your cosy command line where you
    belong.

  20. Re: Odd concepts with Linux

    On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:13:44 +0000, Chick Tower wrote:

    > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:07:32 -0600, No_One wrote:
    >
    >> What you say is true, however, how can that possibly be translated into
    >> a web experience. As I mentioned, a website is coming online that
    >> claims that users will be able to test drive various distros without
    >> installing.
    >>
    >> I was just curious how this was possible....

    >
    > Perhaps the website lets you try out the system utilities, package
    > managers, and applications in various distributions just to see how easy
    > or difficult they are to use. Sort of like a virtual machine on the web
    > you can play around with and when you're finished it gets restarted for
    > the next visitor.


    I suppose you could write an X server in Java and run that in the
    browser. It would connect to a X client running in a virtual machine on
    the web site. You could have a few thousand such clients but the
    performance would be a nightmare.

    Richard James

    --
    If you find yourself suddenly facing a GUI because you accidentally ran
    startx, don't panic. Just press the CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE key combo and
    you'll quick as a flash be back in your cosy command line where you
    belong.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast