[TasLUG] Bitch fighting

David Lloyd lloy0076 at senet.com.au
Tue Aug 17 13:24:18 CST 1999


Lauchlin:

 
>  with the Release of  RH6 I have made a complete
> conversion and run noting but.  I have found that the RH6 package is
> proffesion well put together and reasonably easy to install.

I agree with this synopsis however the kernel image in virtually any RedHat
installation I've seen is extraordinarily slow. It's far too much like Windows
and tends to include obscure things which *most* users are not likely to use.
Also, in order to be safe, RH seem to build as much as they can into the actual
kernel thereby making it run slower; my experience has been that a modular
kernel runs a lot quicker than an inline kernel.

In addition, I have tweaked my own kernel (2.2.11 because I didn't like
2.2.5-15) to basically optimise on a -O6 and a host of other "not normal"
optimisations. I have also added a -march=pentium to optimise for a pentium
architecture instead of a 486 architecture.

Although my pppd daemon appears to be slightly incompatible with this, in that I
need to manually ping my server within about 30 seconds of connection to ensure
that they believe there's a real machine on the other end of the line,
everything works like a dream. I suspect it's got something to do with the fact
that my pppd daemon may be slightly out of date for the kernel I have.

Nonetheless, I feel that to me RH 6.0 was a little disappointing. I expected it
to work straight out of the box. Its installation was certainly easier than RH
5.2 but it certainly refused to work straight out of the box. Apart from being
extraordinarily slow, Netscape 4.51 decided that it would crash my system
continuously even though I had done nothing, at that time, to change it. This
entailed the downloading of Netscape 4.60 which still crashes itself every now
and then but not my whole X Server. I must say that Netscape 4.51, Java and
Junkbuster have been the only combination capable of actually causing me a hard
system crash.

I am currently a GNOME user. However, as you may be aware, GNOME is such a
different desktop environment to Windows 9X/NT and I was quite shocked by it to
be honest. At first it got a reaction which said I don't like it until I learned
a little about Enlightenment and GNOME and now, except for the bloat bar, my
system looks if not acts like Windows 95 [Redmond 95 theme].

In my opinion, KDE looks a tad more like Windows 95 from the start up and might
have been more familiar to me had I installed it as the default desktop
environment. Needless to say, GNOME or KDE ran fantastically slow without a
serious kernel tweak on my part. I can't emphasise more to anyone who uses
RedHat (any version) to at least rebuild their kernel for their own computer as
soon as they can work out how.

The only comment I can make about the system tools that come with KDE, GNOME and
RedHat is that the GUI especially can make people quite lazy. It's very
dangerous in a Unix like system to not be able to edit things with a word
processor or text editor. In addition, not being able so to do does not allow
one to become proficient or extract the greatest stability out of the system. I
have no idea whether it is just "me" because I grew up with the MS-DOS command
line and BASIC interpreters, but I'm beginning to really appreciate the CLI and
shells provided with UNIX. As the days go by, I find it easier to actually do
stuff without the GUI tools (such as netcfg, linuxconf and so forth).

Nonetheless they are there if people would like to use them.

> and only being able to use Office or Works as word processor becuse everything else is incompatible or totaly sux

Star Office isn't too bad a suite and it has now been released for Windows and
Mac (at least that's my understanding). I don't *mind* Microsoft Office provided
one remembers it's not supposed to be a highly powered, professional office
suite like the hype says.

> I AM TOTALY SICK OF MICROSOFT PRODUCTS

Are you sick of the products themselves or the operating system which makes them
appear totally unstable and slow? There is a fine difference.
 
> I know there is alot of glitches, bugs, bad code, inconsistency in Linux etc,

Provided you don't go bleeding edge, most of the bugs and bad code now should be
gone. The inconsistency is something that Unix worldwide seems to deal with
quite well.

> but at least now I have a choice between bugy software rather than having to
> go with only one,

I prefer stable software. That's why I use Linux.

>  And I can tell you know I'd rather have to re-compile a
> module <snip>  was extremly easy to get runing with the rpm distributiions),

Eventually one finds that it is actually better to compile and make from the
source. I have oodles of hard disk space and 196mB of memory and an
AMD-K6-II-366mHZ. Therefore I choose to optimise things for speed not size
because I can afford to. For my soon to come online 486 system, I shall optimise
it for size, not speed. Making and compiling one's self gives one total control
over what happens.

 > than put up with
> some of the shit that Microsoft expects you to do. (I still can't find the any
> key)

On the other hand, setting up a ppp connection for my RH was a nightmare from RH
Street. It took me about 15 hours of reading, asking questions, being told to
read manuals and getting totally bewildered. This was all because my internet
service provider forgot to tell me to use PAP authentication; because they
themselves use Linux and I believe they use PAM it is almost impossible to
determine exactly which part of the logon process didn't work out properly, so I
had to kinda guess what a cryptic error message "time-out sending
config-requests" actually meant.

In comparison, my Windows 95 setup was extraordinarily easy. Put the CD in the
drive, wait for about 1 minute for things to install, enter one's name and
password and it was working straight away. Inhabiting a number of linux chat
rooms from time to time, I've discovered that a major glitch with linux appears
to be setting up ppp connections. No matter whether people use wvdial, kppp,
netcfg, linuxconf or even write the scripts and such by hand, they seem to fall
over themselves.

I believe many people have heard that linux runs the Internet faster than
Windows. This truth can easily be shattered in a most false manner if they have
immediate troubles even getting the box to speak to the Net.
 
> As they say "Linux - A revolution of choice" .. And I
> choose Linux, that is why I subscribe to TasLUG's mailing list!!

Linux seems to be a totally different way of thinking about one's computing
system. Not just a choice, but an effective learning tool. The linux community
is like a family - a huge amount of internal squabbling and lots of people put
together not by choice but by some arbitrary decision, but a single body
nonetheless.
 
> Not so I can listen to people bitch about if NT is better than *nix or what
> flavor of *icx is better.

In some ways NT is better than Unix. NT would probably be able to run rings
around UNIX if it actually *worked* efficiently, painlessly and could be
administered remotely. Let's face it, if you could get a low paid juniour staff
member to work an NT system which was robust and efficient, or a highly paid IT
professional to work a UNIX system which was just as robust and efficient, I'd
prefer NT. That is pure business sense.
 
> Long live freedom of choice, Open Source programin etc etc

Yes, but don't let freedom of choice simply close your mind to the other
choices. Always remember the other choices are there, and one of those are a
whole suite of successful Microsoft products.

I am measuring success by sales volume, not necessarily technical success. 


DAVID LLOYD

-- 
Check out the LinuxSA web pages at http://www.linuxsa.org.au/
To unsubscribe from the LinuxSA list:
  mail linuxsa-request at linuxsa.org.au with "unsubscribe" as the subject



More information about the linuxsa mailing list