IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Linux Stuff
superorc
post Dec 27 2001, 05:16
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 10-December 01
Member No.: 621



lol you must be ignorant. mandrake uses rpm, in fact mandrake is entirly based on redhat fyi.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaTTeR
post Dec 27 2001, 05:26
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 66
Joined: 20-December 01
Member No.: 701



QUOTE
Originally posted by superorc
lol you must be ignorant. mandrake uses rpm, in fact mandrake is entirly based on redhat fyi.


Haha...In fact I think almost all flavors of Linux use RPM for packages tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SNYder
post Dec 27 2001, 05:28
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 30-September 01
Member No.: 118



QUOTE
Originally posted by superorc
lol you must be ignorant. mandrake uses rpm, in fact mandrake is entirly based on redhat fyi.
I was saying the rpm format was bad tongue.gif I was saying red hat is. And since when is mandrake based off of redhat? Mandrake is just another distributor of Linux. Redhat is a bloated piece of poop.

p.s. Dibrom... Has your changes in 3.90.2 made it into the official lame source code yet? like in this guys "ftp://cedric.vabo.cz/pub/linux/apps/lame/".
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
superorc
post Dec 27 2001, 05:54
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 10-December 01
Member No.: 621



mandrake was originally based on redhat believe or not. and mandrake does still use rpm.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SNYder
post Dec 27 2001, 06:50
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 30-September 01
Member No.: 118



QUOTE
Originally posted by superorc
mandrake was originally based on redhat believe or not. and mandrake does still use rpm.
thats not really that hard to believe figuring how redhat was one of the first big distrubutes out there.

redhat still sucks, though. mandrake may have been based off it, but it definetly didn't go down that bloat road redhat did. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaTTeR
post Dec 27 2001, 07:01
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 66
Joined: 20-December 01
Member No.: 701



QUOTE
Originally posted by SNYder
thats not really that hard to believe figuring how redhat was one of the first big distrubutes out there.

redhat still sucks, though.  mandrake may have been based off it, but it definetly didn't go down that bloat road redhat did. smile.gif


Actually the last install of Mandrake I seen was 3 CD's and RH is using 2 CD's for the install. Stop while your ahead SNYder :-)

I like Mandrake more than RH also but it's more bloated than RH ever though about being. Sorry, don't mean to add fuel to the fire guys.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 27 2001, 07:17
Post #7


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



<Off Topic>

Bah.. Debian or Gentoo smile.gif That's where it's at.. biggrin.gif Gentoo especially really looks to be turning out nicely.

</Off Topic>
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TrNSZ
post Dec 27 2001, 07:28
Post #8





Group: Developer
Posts: 717
Joined: 25-September 01
From: ... The Studio
Member No.: 20



Linux as a whole sucks. It's only used by elite fascist and communist GPL supporters, aka OpenSource dorks who have no clue, no life, and serve no useful purpose. I could get more into it than name calling, but I don't want to take the time to ramble here, and instead, I'll debate anyone on a point-for-point basis.

BSD is where it's at... OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Darwin, BSDI, RTMX, or any other BSD I might have missed.

Pick one and become enlightened. =)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
superorc
post Dec 27 2001, 08:42
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 10-December 01
Member No.: 621



i have a question. why do you say its communist? the gpl says you have the freedom to do whatever you want to do, as long as you make the source available somehow. oh and i tried freebsd. not as much hardware support, no 3d support.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MODatic
post Dec 27 2001, 12:08
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 4-October 01
Member No.: 200



I've been reading a lot about linux lately and was thinking of giving it a go. Which is better? Mandrake or Suse?

They both seem pretty good to me especially Mandrake.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SNYder
post Dec 27 2001, 19:46
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 30-September 01
Member No.: 118



QUOTE
Originally posted by MaTTeR
Actually the last install of Mandrake I seen was 3 CD's and RH is using 2 CD's for the install. Stop while your ahead SNYder :-)
no no no. only the first mandrake cd is the actual installer. the rest is extra stuff which you don't half to install.

and since when is there 3 cd's? last time I downloaded it, it was two? :confused:

--------------------------------




WOOOOOO!!!!! biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Ingram
post Dec 27 2001, 20:41
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 315
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 53



QUOTE
no no no.  only the first mandrake cd is the actual installer.  the rest is extra stuff which you don't half to install.


Well, you'll need the second CD if you ever want to compile anything yourself...

And yes, there are three CDs in the latest Mandrake 8.1, the least stable and most buggy version of Mandrake yet. RedHat 7.2 is what I'm currently using. Both have excellent install systems, although both use RPM, which isn't the ideal package format.

QUOTE
fascist and communist 


Idiot.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 28 2001, 00:00
Post #13


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



QUOTE
Originally posted by Jon Ingram
Both have excellent install systems, although both use RPM, which isn't the ideal package format.


This is really why I prefer Gentoo myself, aside from the less "bloated" feeling it also offers. In addition, I just prefer the more "hands on" approach as in starting from a minimalistic setup and then building from there instead of having everything dumped onto the system all at once during install. Of course, you can slim down the installs of Redhat/Mandrake, but still. I don't really like having a bunch of stuff installed on my system that I don't specifically use and IMO it's more of a pain in the ass to go through an installer and uncheck everything than to just start from scratch and build upwards.

The downside to Gentoo though is basically the opposite of Redhat and Mandrake. The install isn't extremely user friendly, but the package management system is significantly better than RPM IMO.

QUOTE
Originally posted by MaTTeR
Haha...In fact I think almost all flavors of Linux use RPM for packages


RPM is popular, but there certainly are other (better) package management systems out there. Debian's apt (there's an apt tool for RPM also, yes, but I've never used it) is really nice, Gentoo's Portage system is great (similar to the BSD Ports), and there are some others like Stampede's SLP and then there's the basic Slackware tarballs. There's probably more out there also.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TrNSZ
post Dec 28 2001, 03:43
Post #14





Group: Developer
Posts: 717
Joined: 25-September 01
From: ... The Studio
Member No.: 20



People who respond to criticism with one word comments that mean nothing only weaken their position and show the true nature of the so-called "Linux community".

No thanks.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Dec 28 2001, 03:53
Post #15


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



I think it's a bit unfair to make such a statement when the comment it was in response to was equally devoid of meaning, other than a bit of name calling. wink.gif

I respect both BSD and Linux. OpenBSD is one of my favorite OS's as a matter of fact, but it certainly doesn't replace Linux for what I use it for. They serve different purposes in my eyes. At any rate, I don't buy into the whole license wars crap myself (or the KDE vs Gnome stuff, or this or that, or... etc, etc). I say, use what's available to you and what makes you happy, and let everyone else do the same. Arguing one way or the other in an offensive manner is kind of pointless because neither side is going to change their mind in the end anyway.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Ingram
post Dec 28 2001, 04:16
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 315
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 53



QUOTE
Originally posted by TrNSZ
People who respond to criticism with one word comments that mean nothing only weaken their position and show the true nature of the so-called "Linux community".

To expand on my one word reply:
1) Fascism and communism are from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Something cannot be 'fascist and communist'. By saying that, you show that you have no idea what either word means.
2) Neither fascism nor communism are applicable to Linux.
3) Neither fascism nor communism are necessarily an insult, despite you obviously intending them both as one.

I see you are from America, which would explain your misunderstanding of the term communism. I'm unsure how you attached the label fascist to Linux, however.

Altogether, I believe I summed up this much more concisely in my previous reply.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TrNSZ
post Dec 28 2001, 05:31
Post #17





Group: Developer
Posts: 717
Joined: 25-September 01
From: ... The Studio
Member No.: 20



I was under the impression that I knew my definitions and that I actually know better than most people what these words mean, considering I did a thesis on related subjects, however, I referenced my dictionary (Cnd. 3rd Ed. AHD) and would it defines fascism as the following:

QUOTE
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator with stringent socioeconomic controls or a system of government which practices suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship. Fascism typically enforces a policy of belligerent nationalism or fanatic racism.


It also defines communism as the following:

QUOTE
A system of government in which a controlling authority or group controls the economy, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods must be equally shared by the people.


I see my memory has not failed me, and these terms (in definition, possibly not in governmental practice) are obviously are not mutually exclusive. In the case of Linux, I can easily argue that it can fall under both definitions, and I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, but in this case [Linux], it doesn't work, and it's painfully obvious. Anyway, enough about language skills.

Also, I was born and do currently live in the United States, but I have not lived here for the majority of my life. I've spent more combined time in the many other countries in which I've lived(Western Samoa near Telefaga, American Samoa near Sinalele, Paupa New-Guinea in Port Morsby, New Zealand outside of Auckland, Fiji, Tonga, and some various islands of micronesia) but I've lived in the USA the longest time of any one country, and thats because I do prefer it here. I am still fluent in Somoan and can understand and communicate rather well in most other Polynesian languages in case I decide to leave the country for some political reason. Being an "American" (which in reality means nothing) doesn't cause me to understand or misunderstand governments in any way, and to even suggest such borders on the absurd.

I'm actually rather informed about communism in particular, because my best friend and former rommate is a long time member of the CPUSA and I commonly read their website and publications. If anyone is confused about government, it's the people in Washington DC, USA. =)

In regards to Linux, I'm not going to get into all the reasons why I think it sucks more than a 500 horsepower shop-vac in reverse, because this would turn into a book rather than a post, and because I can support my claims with literally hundreds of pages of background information on the fragmented and disorganized development of Linux in general; not to mention how the GPL makes slaves out of it's users. I'm somewhat intoxicated and don't feel like writing that much at once. =) However, I will debate intelligently on a point to point basis, as I said earlier.

I'm not Linux newbie either. I began using Linux 0.96 or something and then moved to 0.99pl12 as I migrated from a stable Minix system (and because Minix development after implementing X11R5 and page swapping stalled, but did become Minix-vmd later on, maybe in 1995, anyway, off topic again).

I think I was originally using MCC and moved to SLS, or maybe it was the other way around. Later, I manaully moved to Slackware after version 1.0.1 was released, and then again later manually converted my system from a.out to ELF. I did quite a bit of development work on the Linux kernel, including custom networking patches for distributed computing, low-level hardware drivers for the HP EtherTwist and SMC Elite ethernet NICs, a driver for a custom external DAC, some crude ARCnet and DECnet drivers, and later created a parallel distributed and highly optimized version of POVRay to take advantage of these new kernel features.

To cut this very long story short, I because completely fed up with the so called "Linux community" and the hapzardness of Linux development, and abandonded all Linux work around the time of kernel release 1.3.57. I had never released my source code (except some of the Ethernet stuff), because at the time it was all being used experimentally by myself only, but, out of spite, and to be "in conformance" with the GPL, I destroyed all my source code and development work, and I've never once looked back.

Also, I've done some development work for a few large corporations, and, when it comes to the protection of trade secrets, it makes much more business sense to pay developers salaries for hundreds of hours of work to write something from scratch than it does to use GPL software and submit to the opressiveness of the GPL license. I've seen this decision made over and over again. What the GPL really does is create a deadpool of worthless code and software that otherwise might have been able to serve a purpose.

IMHO, the best answer yet is BSD, but it's imperfect. I've tossed aside my career of software development and management of software development after I was laid off after the NASDAQ crash, and I've been much happier; even though I'm much, much poorer than I was.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Ingram
post Dec 28 2001, 05:52
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 315
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 53



So, I now have two choices.

1) get into a long drawn out, virulent flamewar.
2) walk away.

I choose (2). I thought you were just being a clueless idiot. Now I see that you're not an idiot, and have a clue, but for some reason didn't feel like using it. If you get your kicks out of trolling, then good for you. I'm sorry your experience with Linux has been so disappointing. Perhaps it's something for me to look forward to once I've been around as long as you have.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TrNSZ
post Dec 28 2001, 06:00
Post #19





Group: Developer
Posts: 717
Joined: 25-September 01
From: ... The Studio
Member No.: 20



Just to update, I've talked to Jon I on the IRC channel and I don't think there is need to continue this discussion here, at least not with him, as interesting as it may be.

smile.gif

Update: I'll confess - I do sometimes get a kick out of making a blanket statement like "Linux sucks" and then totally going off on someone at random about it. It's not deliberate though, it's subconscious, I swear! It's not just related to Linux. It happens whenever someone discusses Linux, religion, government, drugs, and science fiction. Those are my touchy subjects. =)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xmixahlx
post Jan 20 2002, 00:34
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 1394
Joined: 20-December 01
From: seattle
Member No.: 693



couple replies:

1. Mandrake has always been based off of Red Hat...it rehashed Red Hat and added a more Newbie friendly face to it...it came with all features of Red Hat in the first 5.x versions...
2. BSD? LINUX? WINDOWS? they are all for different people with different specialties...[those with intelligence use Debian/Slackware Linux and those that don't use Windows and in the middle are other Linux distros and "BSD" which by the way is lame...] he he he
3. no linux doesn't suck...what sucks is paying hundreds of dollars for software which could be free and continuosly updated for free. and the ability to choose from hundreds of linux distros to match your needs and expertise? how is that communist? fascist?...you are retarded...
4. most distros come with one installation cd and all additional cd's are packages/programs
5. trnsz...why such a hate for linux?
6. if linux is less superior...than why is it more stable?

i hope this refuels the flaming....


--------------------
RareWares/Debian :: http://www.rarewares.org/debian.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TrNSZ
post Feb 7 2002, 11:31
Post #21





Group: Developer
Posts: 717
Joined: 25-September 01
From: ... The Studio
Member No.: 20



Point 6:

I didn't want to get back into this, but I'll say that I've never seen uptimes on Linux that come close to approaching BSD uptimes. I have actually worked on BSD machines which last booted before Linux was even written. Please don't say some ridiculous blanket statement about Linux stability. I have a BSD machine up and running in my parents garage that has over 2500 days of uptime on it. I set it up back in high-school and it's been running since I moved out without a problem, with very heavy loads. It only has 8MB of RAM and runs about 200MB into swap constantly.

One of the most stable operating systems that I've seen in production has to be NetWare. I might be biased being a CNE, but there is a machine in my fathers law office running some old version, I don't know the version exactly, maybe 2.11, but it is approaching 3,000 days of uptime, and serves database applications, mail, and, gasp, lockfiles, to about 250 workstations.

My preferred OS to work with is VMS, now OpenVMS, but thats a completely different story. I think VMS holds the worlds computer uptime record, with uptimes of more than a decade -- I think it was a VMS2 VAX that ran from late 1980 until early 1991 until the machine hardware was upgraded and software updated to VAX/VMS 5.5. I think the machine was either a government installation or used at DEC, my memory fails me.

Point 5:

I'm not going to get into this right now completely. It's 5:19am, I want to sleep. But in a nutshell, it has to do with the development philosophy and the attitudes of the user community.

Point 4:

Can't really argue here, but if I was going to use Linux, I wouldn't be using RedHat or Debian; CRUX really seems the best choice ( http://crux.nu/ ). Not suprisingly, they use BSD derived initscripts, a BSD derived package system, and a BSD derived installation and distribution system.

Point 3:

If you must choose from hundreds of Linux distributions to suit your needs, something has gone drasticaly wrong somewhere along the software development chain, and a whole community should take in some reading about software management. There are too many BSD systems as it is, and I only know of six of them, and two of them are VERY special purpose (Darwin and RTMX).

Point 2:

Nice to see how you can say BSD is lame, but I bet you couldn't even tell me five features that BSD doesn't have that Linux does, and I'm also pretty sure that you couldn't tell me five features BSD has that Linux doesn't. I consider myself a person of intelligence, and I'm using Windows (and VMS) for quite a few projects that I would never in the life of the solar system consider converting to Linux or BSD, however, on the other hand, I've not found a situation where Linux was ever the best solution, all aspects considered -- including code management and license. The right answer isn't always BSD or VMS or NetWare or anything else either. I did one project, in 1997 mind you, using Microsoft Xenix.

Point 1:

At this point, I'd rather run Mandrake than RedHat if I was forced between the two, but I think it is a well known fact that Mandrake was originally a RedHat based distribution.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Delirium
post Feb 7 2002, 12:59
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 300
Joined: 3-January 02
From: Santa Cruz, CA
Member No.: 891



It's all about the Amiga and OS/2.

And BeOS.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TrNSZ
post Feb 8 2002, 02:50
Post #23





Group: Developer
Posts: 717
Joined: 25-September 01
From: ... The Studio
Member No.: 20



OS/2 wasn't a bad OS. I remember waiting in line for midnight to roll around so I could purchase OS/2 Warp 3, and I used it on my 486 to run a BBS for quite a long time. I was using a cool serial to TCP/IP interface driver too, so the BBS would answer lines as well as Telnet sessions. The best thing I remember about OS/2 was Rexx, actually.

Amiga's were cool computers, but I never got into them enough to really appreciate the operating system. I do believe that the latest version of AmigaOS (5?) has some native PowerPC support now.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xmixahlx
post Feb 19 2002, 02:43
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 1394
Joined: 20-December 01
From: seattle
Member No.: 693



trnsz, sorry for not replying sooner...i kinda forget i left that little flame fuel post...

ok...fessing up, i have never even seen a bsd system and those "he he he" chuckles were just there to get somebody talking...i have little knowledge of computers outside of Micro$oft, but would really like to learn...

when i said "more stable" i was referring to windows...

in the workstation environment, what would you use [or do use]?

can you say something more about the linux issue, sometime not at 5:19am? i would appreciate it...if you don't want to post it you could email me at xmixahlx at yahoo.com

long live communism!


--------------------
RareWares/Debian :: http://www.rarewares.org/debian.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TrNSZ
post Feb 19 2002, 14:28
Post #25





Group: Developer
Posts: 717
Joined: 25-September 01
From: ... The Studio
Member No.: 20



In a workstation environment, it really depends on two things; the type of enterprise and required applications. In all honesty, the best workstation situations that I've experienced were either Windows NT/2K/XP or MacOS.

Also, at my last job, averaged out over the period of about 400 days, the NT servers had better availability than the Linux servers, but not by much. So much for Linux stability. =)

What else do you want to know about the Linux issue? Let me know and when I'm up to it I'll post it.

-- 8:28am and I'm finally going to bed.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 10:27