After Hours

General discussion

Locked

insane mutterings

By Jaqui ·
Tags: Off Topic
blog root

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

My misadventures with Fedora core 4

by LvBohemian In reply to My misadventures with Fed ...

<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times new roman" size="3">I have to disagree with the negative connotations herein with respect to Fedora Core 3 or 4; </font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times new roman" size="3">I have had zero problems installing and configuring Linux Fedora Core 3 or 4 at run-level 3?</font><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"> <?xml:namespace prefix =" o" ns =" "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"" /></font></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times new roman" size="3">Once I read the installation documentation and faq?s before I started; my first ever installation of Linux was FC3 and was a piece of cake?</font><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times new roman" size="3">Very intuitive?</font><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times new roman" size="3">As was numerous others on different boxes; further I have had no trouble in this respect with Fedora Core 4 either?</font><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"></font> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">I have also installed both in Microsoft Virtual PC and VMWARE with ease...</font></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times new roman" size="3">I am a Windows Programmer, but I have been dabbling with Linux and Mono in creating C# web apps & services and middle tier type apps that run on Linux and Windows (IIS) unchanged and have had great results?</font><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"> </font></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times new roman" size="3">As far as the negative comments on the current releases of Linux and Fedora Core 3 or 4 I have to respectfully say RTFM?</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>

Collapse -

My misadventures with Fedora core 4

by Roger In reply to My misadventures with Fed ...

<ol><li>I have used Redhat version 6.0, 6.2, 7.1, 8.0, 9.0, 9.1 Fedora 2, 3 and 4.  I did experience problems with some of my disks failing the disk test.  I learned to download, burn, test, and burn another copy if the test fails.  I use rewritable cd to reduce costs.  I found that attempting to install if the cd fails testing is usually futile, but I only have to make 1 or 2 copies of each disk before I get a good set.  I have always liked redhat and fedora's default runlevel.  Mostly because I select the correct machine type when installing.  If you select desktop or workstation, then you get runlevel 5.  other options will give runlevel 3.  It is very easy to change /etc/inittab to set the desired runlevel.  It is also possible to move X from shift-F7 to any function key 1 to 10.  I changed mine to F10 to allow more text consoles (9) I don't remember why I wanted them originally, but I do like having more than the default 6.  I had tried a couple of other distros.  Most recently Mepis which is a single cd release which while it looks nice, doesn't have all the capability of Redhat.  I purchased a Caldera linux a few years ago, and found that it was much slower than Redhat to install.  I hope that people test installs to find the one that works best for them rather than taking the word of those who may (or may not) have an axe to grind.  </li></ol>

Collapse -

My misadventures with Fedora core 4

by Rascal1981 In reply to My misadventures with Fed ...

Wow you do enough whining.  Again if you are not cool with the
software try something else or stick to whatever you are  using
now or with your God like programming skills just simply write a new
OS.  It can't be that hard right?

Collapse -

My misadventures with Fedora core 4

by ngc3132 In reply to My misadventures with Fed ...

<p>My preference is SuSE Linux which I have used for years now. However, here at work I can not run SuSE due to some manger person making a decision so it's Redhat only. I have avoided Redhat for the same reasons of difficulty during the install such as difficulty in partition creation and formating, but I am using FC3 across many workstations and servers within a lab environment. I started out with FC1 skipped FC2 due to problems with the code distribution which reminded me of Redhat-7.1 and 8, which OBTW the same problems still existed in FC4 which only installed cleanly on 2 computers out of 9 tried, and it won't recognize my dual Athlon-MP Tyan motherboards at all!!</p>
<p>So what's the answer? Do test installs and test all installed software that's critical to your operations, such as in my case a few years ago the network tools in Redhat-9, which were broken (again), when trying to use the GUI based tools. It would install fine and setup the networking, but don't try to change it after the install is finished cause the tools were broken. In my eyes that sort of distribution release is not forgivable in allowing a critical support tool to be released without thorough testing of all tool functions. Even the patches were not complete so the answer was downloading the tool package from a beta release that was further ahead of the RH9 version and it worked flawless!</p>
<p> </p>

Collapse -

My misadventures with Fedora core 4

by reiki33 In reply to My misadventures with Fed ...

I
have had such abysmal experiences with Linux up to now, starting with
RH 6, I just have not bothered.  I was never even able to get them
to run well.  And I am even a Linux bigot!  I am more UNIX
literate, and still floundering trying to administer my home Linux
machines.  <br />
I started with SuSE 10.0 on an older machine and had no problems. 
Then due to family issues, I gave away the two-year old machine to my
mother-in-law and replace it with an eMachines T6520.  That has
been a real learning experience!<br />
What a *pain* Fedora Core 4 has been, but I think I am getting it under
control.  I started it on an eMachines T6520.  SuSE 10.0 for
AMD 64 got started and went black-screen.  FC4 did the same
thing.  I tried the 32-bit SuSE 10.0 that I have running on an
older Athlon, and after complaining about loading a 32 bit O/S on a 64
bit machine, tried, and also did text for a while, and then went black
screen.  Ubuntu liveCD complained about a bad IRQ when it was
doing the USB part of the install and aborted. 

After a couple of days of cogitating and getting nowhere, I was reading
the eMachines web page, and noticed the part about the media card
reader.  Opening the machine, I noticed that the media card reader
was attached to a jumper on the motherboard, labeled, jusb2.  As a
wild guess, I disconnect the jumper cabling of 4 wires to see what
effect that might have.  Ubuntu quit complaining of IRQ problems,
but then shortly after that, went black screen.  SuSE also did
after doing text for a while.  FC4 actually installed, but would
do a maximum of 800x600 screen resolution for my 17 inch LCD.  I
did something to the setup, and then I could no longer boot the
system.  It took a couple of more days to realize that the default
vesa monitor driver would attempt to go into 1280x1024 if I configured
the monitor, and the higher resolution was first in the list of
resolutions.  Vesa could not handle that, and the screen went
black. 

More research showed I had a new ATI Radeon Xpress 200 chipset on the
motherboard, and none of the ATI drivers would work.  Some made
the X abort and let me try again; some hosed everything, and I needed
to go into recovery to restore the vesa driver, again.  I finally
retrieved a proprietary driver from the ATI web site for Linux. 
Voile'!  I next attempted to get DVD to play.  Xine worked,
after much ado.  I must have done something that I never figured
out, or the install/setup still has problems.  I installed the
workstation, and a development environment should have been
there.  The rpmbuild for some of the xine parts complained that
libstdc++ was not installed, yet the install for it with rpm claimed it
was there, as did yum info.  An rpm --force got me around that one.

Then I tried to install UniVerse, a database I have worked with (and
the company) since 1987, now owned (including me) by IBM.  And got
two sets of errors. The first complained about a missing
libstdc++.so.5, which was simple with a link to the .6 version in
FC4.  Then another error appeared about a missing piece. It was
late that night, and did not get back to that for a while.  My
people were of no help ("we do not support UniVerse on Fedora
Core").  Google is my friend.  That one was solved by
installing compat-libstdc++-33.  Beyond the errors, it actually
was more difficult to install on SuSE 10.0.  I needed to alter the
install script to handle differences in the locations of the rc
scripts.  Granted, it was tailored for RedHat, but I did not
expect that the libraries would have been that different. 

One curiosity in the various yum upgrades is that they seemed not to
work until I logged out and back in.  I would not have expected
that, either.  There must be something cached that did not get
overwritten.

Then the pain was with Java and Eclipse.  I could not debug Java
code, and hit breakpoints.  Google is still my friend. 
Apparently, you need to debug Java with gdb.  Ugh.  I also
found that Swing seems to missing some pieces that I use with the
"free" version on FC4.  I tried both Sun's 1.4 and IBM's version
from the Developer Works site.

The IBM one had me going for a while.  was getting missing class
fontmanager when I tried to open a JFrame.  That mysteriously went
away.  Possibly after a reboot.  Too much going on to
track.  Also could not get a big Java project to build.  It
kept cleaning all of the .class files and then not rebuilding anything.
I made a new project in a new workspace, and placed most of the files
in it, and it works.  Perhaps more of the files will cause the
problem.  Something for a later date. 

I have said, for a long time, "When it works, you do not learn anything."

I am still having some conflicts when trying to update some of the
packages, like alsa.  I was initially trying to get the Java
update and had a conflict.  I thought I would be bright and
uninstall the old one and install the newer version to avoid the
conflicts. As I selected, yes, to the question of whether I wanted to
uninstall dependent packages, it occurred to me that this choice might
have been sub-optimal. Among other things, it removed all of
OpenOffice, as it has a Java interface...  I was afraid that it
might end up being simpler to reinstall all of FC4 to get things back,
but I took some time, and I think I have recovered.  Some 180
packages.  I am glad I had the forsight to tee the script to an
output file.<br />
<br />
Now, after about 2 months, I can run my most recently built kernel,
since bug 163347 made the clock advance at twice a normal rate, and it
no longer does this.  That issue made data collection timings
*really* awkward.<br />
Ah, to have the time to be able to work on some of these myself. 
At some point I am going to have to build a debug source for the CD
ripper for a problem that has appeared in another guise.  At the
end of a track, the machine freezes.  No mouse movement. 
Nada.  Pushing the power button does not clear the problem in the
sense that it will not reboot.  It must be unplugged.  So
something is being set that must have power removed to allow
reset.  I am guessing it is something with the IRQ and the USB
stuff again, that the ripping program is aggravating.  But until I
can step through the program to see what it is doing, and where, I do
not have a clue.  I saw this needing-power-removed behavior during
the initial install attempts before I unplugged the media card reader
from the motherboard's jusb2 jumper.<br />
One day I will get to the point that I might just be able to manage this thing instead of responding to problems...<br />

Collapse -

Why to Use Open Source Operating Systems

by Jaqui In reply to insane mutterings

<img alt="soapbox" src="http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/z/200510/soapbox_420_2.gif" /><br />
<br />
What about Open Source?<br />
<br />
We constantly see complaints that Windows has a new exploit, that windows<br />
is crap, and we also see comments that Linux is great, but we rarely see<br />
any reasons why Linux is great.<br />
<br />
First off, all the open source operating systems have one thing that<br />
Microsoft absolutely detests, choice. There are far more options for<br />
software for open source systems than there are for Windows or Mac. [<br />
though because macosx is bsd based the open source programs can be ported<br />
to it fairly simply ]<br />
<br />
Right from the start you get to choose what the look and feel of your<br />
operating system will be, you are not forced into accepting one look only.<br />
This goes from the windows and mac look alikes of Gnome and KDE through 8<br />
other window managers that are extremely light in the system resource usage<br />
as well as with very few bells and whistles, so there is a look and feel<br />
that will fit everyone's personal taste.<br />
<br />
Which SQL server to use for your needs? There are a number of options that<br />
all integrate perfectly with the os..ranging from Oracle and Sybase through<br />
to sqllight. 3 of which are usually options included in all distributions [<br />
Postgresql, Mysql and Sqllight. ]<br />
<br />
which office suite do you want to work with?<br />
Here is a listing of *x office suites:<br />
http://www.yolinux.com/TUTORIALS/LinuxTutorialOfficeSuites.html<br />
<br />
Email services..lists accounts etc<br />
Evolution, a Gnome Office integrated tool.<br />
Kmail,<br />
mail [ console tool ]<br />
<br />
Accounting?<br />
GNUCash, completely capable of importing your quickbooks / Simply<br />
Accounting records, with support for most online banking protocols.<br />
<br />
Internet browsing...<br />
Mozilla Suite,<br />
mozilla Firefox,<br />
Netscape<br />
Opera<br />
Konqueror<br />
Lynx [ console ]<br />
Links [ console ]<br />
Galleon<br />
<br />
<br />
Instant Messaging?<br />
GAIm,<br />
Yahoo<br />
AOL<br />
ICQ [ java based ]<br />
Kopete [ will connect to ALL im services at once. ]<br />
Multiple IRC Clients, including one built into Mozilla Suite.<br />
Licq [ console icq client ]<br />
<br />
Webservers?<br />
Apache [ naturally ]<br />
Apache-tomkat<br />
boa [ lightweight webserver ]<br />
tux [ lightweight webserver ]<br />
[ the last two are not intended for enterprise usage, only for a small low<br />
traffic site / intranet ]<br />
<br />
Remote assistant / administration?<br />
Ssh<br />
x0rfb<br />
webmin<br />
...<br />
<br />
Is it easy to use an Open Source Operating System?<br />
Yes.<br />
It requires more skill* to install than Windows or Macosx, but for end user<br />
it is as simple to use as windows.<br />
Because the open source operating systems have a better implementation of<br />
the multiuser system, no user other than the system admin requires extra<br />
privileges to do their work. This improves the security of the operating<br />
system by almost 100%<br />
<br />
Why then are the open source operating systems not being adopted?<br />
1) FUD from the Commercial OS vendors<br />
2) Lack of support from Hardware Manufacturers<br />
3) Lack of support from the "Name Brand" Software Companies.<br />
<br />
<br />
* a few distributions are as simple to install, but they tend to reduce the<br />
choices available to you as well.<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em; background: #cccccc;
padding: 3px;">
Want to see who's next On the Soapbox? Find out in the Blog Roundup
newsletter. Use this link to automatically subscribe and have it
delivered directly to your Inbox every Wednesday.<br />
<a href="http://nl.com.com/MiniFormHandler?brand=techrepublic&list_id=e131">Subscribe Automatically</a>
</div>

Collapse -

Why to Use Open Source Operating Systems

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Why to Use Open Source Op ...

<font class="qdesc">Many of the choices you name are available for Windows machines; some were available for Windows OS before open source OSs. Your discussion of these choices would have been more effective if you mentioned almost all the proprietary closed source options cost money, while many of the open source apps are free.<br /><br />I must disagree with "</font><font class="qdesc">all the open source operating systems have one thing that Microsoft absolutely detests, choice.", and I'd like to add a couple of additional reasons why </font><font class="qdesc">"</font><font class="qdesc">... the open source operating systems not being adopted".<br /><br />I don't think MS detests choice as much as corporate America detests choice</font><font class="qdesc">. MS doesn't detest choice as much as not making as
much money as possible. If Marketing said there was more money in it,
they'd offer more versions of their products.</font><font class="qdesc"> Standardizing on a single OS, suite, browser, mail client, etc. makes it easier for corporate help desks to support, trainers to teach, </font><font class="qdesc">recruiters to evaluate skills, </font><font class="qdesc">and users to transfer acquired skills from one company to another. While Windows / Office may not be the greatest standard available, it is a defacto one that gives corporations a standard yardstick (meter stick for those of you in enlightened countries). At home, people want to run what they have at work.<br /><br /></font><font class="qdesc"> Your second and third reasons for non-adoption are factors, but </font><font class="qdesc">corporate avoidance is an additional reason. I think migration costs and confusion over the making the proper choices play much bigger roles than proprietary FUD. It took my company many weeks to ensure all our existing applications were compatible with a recent network OS upgrade. Imagine having to do that for multiple packages prior to an OS switch, to ensure each app was not only compatible with existing data but with each other. Five office suites, four e-mail clients, three browsers, gods know how many CAD and document management packages; will they all work and play well together, which ones come with which distros, and which ones will our business partners accept as alternatives to our existing proprietary packages?<br /><br />Another factor slowing adoption is plain old inertia, especially in the home market. Much fuss is made over which OS or distro is easiest to install, but the average home user only installs an OS once. The box came with Windows; they don't see any reason to download a different OS and burn it to a CD when there's already an OS on the system. Inertia on the corporate side is usually the result of training costs for IT staff and end users, lost productivity during client upgrades, and fear of using applications with no established vendor support structure.<br /><br /><br /></font><font class="qdesc"><br /><br /><br /></font>

Collapse -

Why to Use Open Source Operating Systems

by Jaqui In reply to Why to Use Open Source Op ...

Where are the options on what will be installed when installing windows? or macos?<br />
there are none with windows, they install what they say you need.<br />
<br />
With the multi cd distributions of the open source operating systems,
you are presented with multiple options for each tool to pick which one
you are going to use.<br />
a good example is web browsers.<br />
Mozilla suite, Galeon, Konqeror, Epiphany, Mozilla Firefox, lynx and
links are all options during the os install the only 2 that are
required are konqeror [ intergrated filesystem browser as well as web
browser for kde ] and lynx [ only if you install apache ]<br />
<br />
if you install gnome, then it wants to install galeon.<br />
<br />
but you can say no to any of them, excepting lynx if installing apache,
and not have a failed application / system install. the gui will use
whichever browser is installed as filesystem browser.<br />

Collapse -

Why to Use Open Source Operating Systems

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Why to Use Open Source Op ...

<font class="qdesc">"Where are the options on what will be installed when installing windows?"<br />I'm not claiming options are available during install, just that options for Windows ARE available, although usually at a price.  And as you noted above, the easier the distribution is to install, the fewer choices available.<br /><br /></font><p><font class="qdesc">If I really wanted to pick nits, your title is "Why to <strong><em>Use</em></strong> Open Source <strong><em>Operating Systems</em></strong>"</font><font class="v12"></font>.  You've presented arguments for why to <strong><em>install</em></strong> an open source <strong><em>distribution</em></strong>, OS plus applications.  If you simply install an operating system, you're not going to get any of the applications you mentioned above.</p>

Collapse -

Why to Use Open Source Operating Systems

by iguanasrule In reply to Why to Use Open Source Op ...

In your last line, you said that "a few distributions are simple to install, but they tend to reduce the choices available to you as well." I must disagree with that.

I've been using SuSE Linux since 8.2. In each case, the installation was a walk in the park and I got almost every piece of software listed above. Prior to switching to SuSE, I used Windows 2000. (Why I switched is a long story. Basically, I tried SuSE on a whim, loved it, and over time it became my primary OS and my need for Windows disappeared.)

Obviously, Linux installation and administration can be significantly different than Windows installation and administration (different != harder) I just booted the CD, accepted the proposed configuration, and it did its thing. With one reboot after it was done, I was ready to go. Not only did I get a full operating system, but I got most all of the programs you listed above. No need to spend hundreds of dollars on software, no need to do a seemingly endless stream of reboots, and no need to "activate" anything via an Internet connection. Bottom line: It was far easier to install and set up than Windows 2000 was. And this has held true through every release of SuSE.

(Note that, until 10.0, I've always bought the boxed sets, which made installation a much faster, easier process. In the case of OpenSuSE 10.0, after you download the open-source installation ISOs that include OpenOffice 2.0 and everything you need to get up and running, SuSE has two sites where you can get any additional software you need. This includes Flash, Java, RealPlayer 10, Acrobat Reader, etc.)

Overall, your post was good and your points are well taken.

Related Discussions

Related Forums