 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> Even so, the whole Unix mentallity seems a lot more set-up for this
>>> kind of thing. On Windows, there isn't even a standard place for
>>> header files to live...
>>
>> That's because Windows doesn't assume you'll only have one compiler. :-)
>>
>> It's really quite a recent thing (approximately since Red Hat) that
>> UNIX software came as executable binaries.
>
> Then again, how many machine architectures does Unix target?
I didn't say it was a good thing or a bad thing. I said it's a recent thing.
> How many machine architectures does Windows target?
Probably more than you think it does. :)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Then again, how many machine architectures does Unix target?
>
> I didn't say it was a good thing or a bad thing. I said it's a recent
> thing.
>
>> How many machine architectures does Windows target?
>
> Probably more than you think it does. :)
They dropped Alpha now, right?
But they have IA-32, AMD64 and IA64, AFAIK...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> They dropped Alpha now, right?
>
> But they have IA-32, AMD64 and IA64, AFAIK...
If you count Windows CE, at least ARM ..
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> "The Gentoo documentation was repeatedly labelled as the best online
> documentation of any distribution."
>
> Wuh? o_O
>
> Looks like I'll have to recheck their website. Last time I looked, it
> consisted only of a few dozen scrappy little wiki pages where it takes
> an age to clean anything useful. (All the pages assume you already know
> almost everything.)
Wiki? Are you sure you didn't go to gentoo-wiki.com?
Gentoo had the best documentation around (I say "had" simply because I
haven't looked at others' recently). I've often had people who use other
distros tell me that they've found the solution to their problems in
Gentoo's online docs.
--
Isn't it counterproductive to have incandescent bulbs in a fridge?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> This is obviously based on the design of Gentoo, where indeed the entire
> software management (and the even the installation of the OS itself) is
> based on source code packages which are compiled for the computer in
> question (the basic idea being that when the software is compiled for
> that computer, it's more optimized specifically for it).
> Also this is nowadays a design feature almost exclusive to Gentoo, and
> quickly losing popularity (because the advantage of a per-computer based
> optimized compilation gives nowadays less and less speed benefits over
> more generic binary distributions).
That used to be what attracted people to Gentoo. The actual Gentoo
users stopped advocating this "benefit" more or less years ago (perhaps
that's why its popularity dropped?).
I installed Gentoo in 2003. Gentoo was not even 2 years old. And even
then people were seriously questioning the speedup due to optimization.
The real benefits of Gentoo are/were:
1) Awesome package management (for its time - the best source based one
even now).
2) Because you did everything from scratch, it somewhat was good for
people who wanted some minimalism. When I installed Mandrake, the
default install put more stuff that I needed, and I wasn't knowledgeable
enough to know what to get rid of. With Gentoo, since everything was
built up from nothing, I (more or less) only had what I needed.
3) The process of step 2 teaches you a lot about Linux. Not as much as
LFS, but still a lot. I'm sure I could have used some other friendlier
distro all this time and never learned those things.
4) Great customizability - this is part of point 1. Whenever you install
a package, you can specify precisely what features you want installed.
This can reduce quite a lot of dependencies, and a lot of clutter.
5) Awesome docs (for its time).
None of these has much to do with optimization, and I'm sure all of
these are the reasons people stick to Gentoo.
Of course, I can list quite a lot of downsides. Gentoo today is simply
not as good as the Gentoo of 2003. Their repositories used to be
bleeding edge. Now they lack lots of good, stable software that's been
out for years.
--
Isn't it counterproductive to have incandescent bulbs in a fridge?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> assumed
>>
>> There's that word again. <shaking head>
>
> Well, you know what? There's a limit to how much one person can
> independently verify as fact. Particularly when it comes to assessing
There are no facts. Don't delude yourself.
--
Isn't it counterproductive to have incandescent bulbs in a fridge?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 09:22:39 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> As I recall, the "minimal text mode" install gave you the barest
>>> minimum to have a working system. It seems now there's a "text mode
>>> server" option, but it still installs a whole crapload of stuff. I was
>>> trying to set up a VM and I wanted the install that would take the
>>> least amount of time. It didn't work too well...
>>
>> That's what individual package selection is for. I tend to start with
>> the text mode server and remove the stuff I don't need.
>
> My plan was to start with the minimal text install and *add* the stuff I
> needed. Except it isn't "minimal" any more - much to my irritation.
It's not that hard to deselect everything. However, with that said,
there are some dependencies I've run into that didn't make sense to me.
> There's probably some way to select exactly what packages you want
> before you boot the intall disk, but I haven't figured that out yet.
Autoyast probably.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 09:23:59 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> PS. What the hell is it with Linux and "commands" that fill three
>>> screenfulls of a terminal console?! What's that about?
>>
>> If there's a problem, you can look back and see what the error was and
>> fix it.
>>
>> I suppose it's the theory that too much information is better than too
>> little.
>
> No, I mean... why would you need commands that freaking long in the
> first place??
Flexibility.
>> BTW, only three screens full of info? That's a pretty small program,
>> relatively speaking. Compiling Rockbox for my iPod fills more than
>> that easily. :-)
>
> Well, when you're in text-mode, it's not easy to measure how many
> screenfulls are scrolling past faster than the refresh rate of your
> monitor. :-P
tee or pipe through less, generally. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 09:25:18 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> "When you want to install new software, you have to always compile
>>> it
>>> from sources."
>>
>> I would say that this latter comes from a combination of very early
>> Slack and LFS rather than Gentoo. Gentoo is the most popular distro
>> that uses that as a package management system today, but the history of
>> "build from source" goes back farther than Gentoo.
>
> Again, this is The Unix Way(tm). That's why every Unix always comes with
> a C compiler (not to mention autoconf). It's because every Unix is
> slightly different, so while you can usually write a program that works
> on every Unix, you're going to have to recompile it for each one...
Simply not true. Even in college back in the early 90's, most of the
software that was installed on our Sun systems was precompiled binaries,
not built from source.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> They dropped Alpha now, right?
Probably. Hard to say if they still support it internally and just aren't
selling it.
> But they have IA-32, AMD64 and IA64, AFAIK...
Don't forget all the "Windows CE" if you're going to count all of MS's
operating systems they call "Windows." :-) And someone got Win98 running on
a Nokia phone, altho I don't know what chip it is.
http://wintechblog.com/nokia-n95-uzerinde-windows-98-calistirildi/
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
