Driver to drive?

[George Neuner]

On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 22:46:08 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 10/8/2013 10:25 PM, George Neuner wrote:

I have tried many distros over the years and I have yet to find one
that *doesn't* muck up the partition table even when you install on
(and boot load from) already existing partitions. Often, after
installation, non-Linux based partitioning software will no longer
work on the disk.

I haven't done it for awhile, but old Fedoras didn't do that.

I think you're probably correct that really old versions (circa 1.x
kernels) didn't have the problem. But more recent fdisk, parted, etc.
allow creating partitions and logical drives that are not cylinder
aligned. A lot of non-Linux partitioning software expects cylinder
alignment and won't edit - or worse, won't even read - tables that
have "illegal" sizes.

I have found that the "easy" GUI installs - which you can count on
most people using - very often create non-aligned partitions even when
the entire disk is given to Linux. And they all seem to rewrite the
partition table even when you tell them to use (and install grub on)
already existing partitions. Getting multiple distros - or even
multiple versions of the same distro - to coexist on the same disk can
be a vexing problem. Getting any distro to coexist with another OS
can be extremely difficult if you don't want to use grub to do the
boot selection.

Fortunately VMware (at least since v6) seems to be able to run most
versions of Linux without difficulty, so I no longer have any pressing
need for multi-booting. I mention the problem simply because others
may yet want to do it.

YMMV,
George

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 10/9/2013 1:21 AM, George Neuner wrote:

On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 22:46:08 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 10/8/2013 10:25 PM, George Neuner wrote:

I have tried many distros over the years and I have yet to find one
that *doesn't* muck up the partition table even when you install on
(and boot load from) already existing partitions. Often, after
installation, non-Linux based partitioning software will no longer
work on the disk.

I haven't done it for awhile, but old Fedoras didn't do that.

I think you're probably correct that really old versions (circa 1.x
kernels) didn't have the problem. But more recent fdisk, parted, etc.
allow creating partitions and logical drives that are not cylinder
aligned. A lot of non-Linux partitioning software expects cylinder
alignment and won't edit - or worse, won't even read - tables that
have "illegal" sizes.

Linux has *allowed* that for awhile, but earlier versions of the tools
didn't _force_ partition boundaries to be unaligned. The Fedoras I was
thinking about would have been about V7, i.e. 2.6ish kernels.

I have found that the "easy" GUI installs - which you can count on
most people using - very often create non-aligned partitions even when
the entire disk is given to Linux. And they all seem to rewrite the
partition table even when you tell them to use (and install grub on)
already existing partitions. Getting multiple distros - or even
multiple versions of the same distro - to coexist on the same disk can
be a vexing problem. Getting any distro to coexist with another OS
can be extremely difficult if you don't want to use grub to do the
boot selection.

Fortunately VMware (at least since v6) seems to be able to run most
versions of Linux without difficulty, so I no longer have any pressing
need for multi-booting. I mention the problem simply because others
may yet want to do it.

That's assuming that semi-sane versions of Windows continue to be
available to host it. Microsoft seems to be hell-bent on killing off
Windows, so I think some future-proofing is in order. I've been buying
Win7 and XP licenses recently so that I can continue to run my old S/W
past next April.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 10/8/2013 10:25 PM, George Neuner wrote:

On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:41:15 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

I have an old P4 box that's running Kubuntu. The main thing I disliked
about Ubuntu when I used it last is that it doesn't play nicely with
the other children--if I set up disk partitions on cylinder boundaries
for other OSes, and tell it to use the existing partitions, it
nevertheless insists on futzing with the partition table to save a
quarter of a cylinder. I like computers that do as they're bloody well
told.

I have tried many distros over the years and I have yet to find one
that *doesn't* muck up the partition table even when you install on
(and boot load from) already existing partitions. Often, after
installation, non-Linux based partitioning software will no longer
work on the disk.

George

I haven't done it for awhile, but old Fedoras didn't do that.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[asdf]

On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 18:49:33 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:

Any time you end up wanting to use software that's not available as part
of the basic distro, I've found that maintining rpm/deb based systems
tends to balloon into a large, frustrating job.

That is almost true. I had only minor problems installing pure source
packages, provided all dependencies were met. The main problem usually is
the shortsighted programmer who distributes his/her masterpiece that
depends on the very latest, or worse, beta version of everything, which
sometimes forces the user to break a package based system.

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/3/2013 11:35 PM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 04/10/2013 01:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 4 October 2013 09:28:50 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/3/2013 9:30 AM, John Devereux wrote:
Jamie M<jmorken@shaw.ca> writes:
On 10/3/2013 7:37 AM, John Devereux wrote:
krw@attt.bizz writes:
On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:35:22 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/10/2013 03:50, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:01:14 -0700, Jamie M<jmorken@shaw.ca
wrote:
On 9/30/2013 4:14 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:14:08 -0700, Jamie M<jmorken@shaw.ca
wrote:
On 9/26/2013 5:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

snip

Don't forget the guy who got a Nobel Prize for discovering
the AIDS virus said it can be prevented with proper nutrition.

He shared that Nobel Prize.

I imagine what he really said was that good nutrition improves the
immune system in general

This is the sort of distortion / nonsense that has killed hundreds of
thousands in South Africa and elsewhere.

Actually Dr. Luc Montagnier (Nobel prize) apparently said:

"AIDS can be reversed. Nutrition is the answer. Hear it straight from
the co-discoverer of HIV."

http://searchingforanswersblog.blogspot.ca/2012/10/dr-luc-montagnier-hiv-and-aids-truth.html


He's still nuts.

There might be a correlation, people with poor nutrition and no access
to AV drugs probably do succumb to HIV much faster than anyone else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier

Also believes in homeopathy.

Oh dear - a complete charlatan then

Semiconductor processing would not work if their irrational beliefs were
actually correct. There is some of Nelson's piss in all of us.

Nobel prize winner Linus Pauling thought that excess vitamin C would
help prevent catching the common cold. I was involved in that experiment
and the main effect was to make urinating dilute ascorbic acid an
unpleasant experience. The body excreted it just as fast as it was given
which ISTR was a dose of about 1-2g per day. Benefits in normal people
were not detectable. Super fit military in the Arctic apparently did
show some positive benefits but they were an exception.

The corporations educate Doctors and Nurses in private medical schools
and it is all about money and Doctors don't learn anything about
nutrition, (and actually unlearn common sense nutrition in their
education of drugs etc)

Doctors do learn about basic nutrition, vitamins and trace elements
but it's not a big part of their course work. "Common sense" isn't
always correct.

Anyone who studies biology at school gets most of the basics but that
doesn't stop cranks and the likes of the Henry Doublespeak organisation
creating a market and trademark for over wrapped and over priced
Organic(TM) produce certification to rip off the worried well.

Great work if you can get it but minimum inputs farming is the only
rational solution. Organic(TM) peanut butter is probably one of the most
dangerous products on sale to the public if it is preservative free
since fungi producing aflotoxins on peanuts are very very nasty.

but that is starting to change since its so
obvious that nutrition is more important than corporate artificial
money "solutions" for health.

Getting enough food to eat, water to drink and air to inhale is
obviously of first importance if you want to stay alive. Making sure
that it is all "free range" and "additive-free" is well down the list.
Your ideas about "good nutrition" are just another corporate
money-spinner, but you haven't noticed it yet.

Sometimes with additives is much safer than the additive free version.

US still has a problem with people - usually the worried well failing to
buffer home canned and home bottled vegetables to the right pH and dying
of botulism as a result. Happens in other countries where home canning
is popular too but the US cases are better documented.

Nature is red in tooth and claw. There are plenty of nasty pathogens
waiting for their chance to get you. Luckily the human immune response
is generally pretty good in a healthy individual - although the modern
tendency to near sterile hyper cleanliness and traces of peanut in
everything does seem to be generating a situation where auto immune
diseases and allergies are becoming ever more common in the population.

Hi,

Vitamin C is produced by most animals as it is essential, humans have
a genetic defect in one of the four genes that are required to
synthesize vitamin C, so the only source is through diet. Animals under
stress or illness apparently greatly increase the rate of synthesis of
vitamin C, up to hundreds of grams per day in some cases I have heard,
ie goats.

It makes sense that this could be beneficial when given to people in
large doses during illness, and to prevent chronic low grade scurvy
like symptoms, ie vitamin C is required for collagen connective tissue
to form, and low grade lack of vitamin C can cause undiagnosed scurvy
symptoms, such as improperly formed connective tissue. Also taking
vitamin C supplements can strengthen and thicken blood vessel tissue,
in one study medical scans showed thickening of blood vessel walls in
the neck after taking vitamin C supplementation, which some would
interpret as bad, but is actually a good thing in this case as it is
the wall and not arterial plaques causing the thickening.

Vitamin C is one of the most active compounds in the body involved in
many reactions. If humans could synthesize it and produced in the
amounts as required we would be much healthier I think!

cheers,
Jamie

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/3/2013 5:34 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Getting enough food to eat, water to drink and air to inhale is obviously of first importance if you want to stay alive. Making sure that it is all

"free range" and "additive-free" is well down the list. Your ideas about
"good nutrition" are just another corporate money-spinner, but you haven't

noticed it yet.

Hi,

Hopefully your definition of food bifurcates a couple times - right now
it is lumping together nutritious food and processed food together.

cheers,
Jamie

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 09 Oct 2013 00:05:13 +0200) it happened David Brown
<david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote in
<ktCdnb3UmYAEHMnPnZ2dnUVZ8mednZ2d@lyse.net>:

On 08/10/13 23:28, Roberto Waltman wrote:
Randy Yates wrote:
Do not be afraid to be root, just think before you hit enter....

Again, right-on. I get so tired of the "community" pushing sudo. Just
"su -" and git 'er done.

What's wrong with sudo -i -H ?
(after modifying /etc/sudoers to *not* ask for passwords)

Or "sudo su -", which is my personal favourite sudo command.

On the Raspberry Pies I simply changed the /etc/passwd entry for 'pi'
so 'pi' has root permissions and shell in /root
Never sudo again...

Usually I ssh -Y pi@IP_ADDRESS to those,
the default password is still 'raspberry' in there...
I develop a lot of stuff compiling and assembling on the Raspberry.
It is small, powerful, low power... and very stable.
As JTAG programmer:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/raspberry_pi/
As PIC programmer:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/raspberry_pi_noppp/
As DVB-S transmitter:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/raspberry_pi_dvb-s_transmitter/
As satellite tracker:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/raspberry_pi_satellite_tracker/


That is for the 'techies' ;-)

 

[David Brown]

On 09/10/13 07:21, George Neuner wrote:

On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 22:46:08 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 10/8/2013 10:25 PM, George Neuner wrote:

I have tried many distros over the years and I have yet to find one
that *doesn't* muck up the partition table even when you install on
(and boot load from) already existing partitions. Often, after
installation, non-Linux based partitioning software will no longer
work on the disk.

I haven't done it for awhile, but old Fedoras didn't do that.

I think you're probably correct that really old versions (circa 1.x
kernels) didn't have the problem. But more recent fdisk, parted, etc.
allow creating partitions and logical drives that are not cylinder
aligned. A lot of non-Linux partitioning software expects cylinder
alignment and won't edit - or worse, won't even read - tables that
have "illegal" sizes.

I have found that the "easy" GUI installs - which you can count on
most people using - very often create non-aligned partitions even when
the entire disk is given to Linux. And they all seem to rewrite the
partition table even when you tell them to use (and install grub on)
already existing partitions. Getting multiple distros - or even
multiple versions of the same distro - to coexist on the same disk can
be a vexing problem. Getting any distro to coexist with another OS
can be extremely difficult if you don't want to use grub to do the
boot selection.

I can't say I have used any non-Linux partitioning software, other than
a plain Windows installer. (I thought most partitioning tools these
days, except Windows own tools, used Linux.) But whenever I want to do
something complicated with a disk setup, such as raids or LVM, I usually
use System Rescue CD to set up the partitions and then boot the distro
installation. I haven't had any problems getting the installer to use
the existing partitions.

If I want to have several different systems on the same machine, other
than a dual-boot Windows/Linux, I usually use either VirtualBox for
desktops or openvz for servers. That avoids all partitioning issues.
(With openvz I typically have LVM and logical partitions per virtual
machine.)

Fortunately VMware (at least since v6) seems to be able to run most
versions of Linux without difficulty, so I no longer have any pressing
need for multi-booting. I mention the problem simply because others
may yet want to do it.

YMMV,
George

 

[Grant Edwards]

On 2013-10-08, David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 08/10/13 20:49, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2013-10-08, asdf <asdf@nospam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 14:09:06 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:

On 2013-10-08, Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> wrote:
Cross posting to sci.electronics.design

What linux distros do techies like?

Genoo.

Gentoo?
IT techies maybe, but the average user (which could well be an
electronics guru but not an IT one) would find annoying spending
too much time tweaking it.

Perhaps. I've find that in the long run, maintaining Gentoo systems
requires less time/effort than maintining RPM or .deb based distros.
It does, however, require a little more knowlege.

But, it probably depends on what you want to do with the computer. If
all you want to do is stuff that the distribution bundler's have
already thought of and included software for, then I'd probably go
with Debian or Xubuntu.

Any time you end up wanting to use software that's not available as
part of the basic distro, I've found that maintining rpm/deb based
systems tends to balloon into a large, frustrating job.


I used Gentoo a number of years ago. It was a fun experience, and
certainly an educational one - I learned a lot about Linux from
installing and tweaking it. But it was not an efficient experience - I
spent much longer installing and compiling programs than using them.
Perhaps I lack the self-discipline needed to use Gentoo properly - it
was too much fun tweaking and re-emerging with different flags instead
of just /using/ the system. The Gentoo project is also a source of
excellent general Linux information and documentation (like Arch Linux).

I can't quite see how using non-distro software would be easier with
Gentoo, however.

I didn't phrase my posting well. I've found that Gentoo has ebuilds
for pretty much all the software I need to use. When I was using
RedHat/Mandriva/Debian, there were a _lot_ of things for which
packages weren't available from the distributor. Sometimes you could
find them from third-parties, but then you ended up in a hellish maze
of circular library dependancies. So the only resort was to to go the
tar/configure/make/install route, which resulted in a constant series
of breakages as libraries got upgraded.

When you are dealing with source that is not in the repos, you
download a tarball and give it the "./configure && make && make
install" treatment.

True, but I pretty much never have to do that with Gentoo while I had
to do that constantly with Redhat et al. Since the stuff installed
manually from tarballs wasn't hooked into the package management
system, things were continually being broken by upgrades.

And don't get me started on the disaster recovery efforts that always
accompanied major revision upgrades -- I eventually gave up trying to
upgrade across major revisions and just did a clean install whenever I
got to that point. And it wasn't for lack of experience or trying: I
ran multiple RedHat systems starting back when they didn't even have
version numbers: I think I started with either Mothers Day or
Holloween releases (before that I ran Yggdrasil and Slackware). I ran
RH up until 8.00 came out in 2002. 8.00 was such a disaster I
switched to Mandriva for a couple years before switching to Gentoo.
I've been running Gentoo for almost 10 years now, and since I switched
I spend a lot less time maintaining systems. Some of my Gentoo
installations are almost 10 years old, and I've been able to keep them
up-to-date without the periodic clean reinstalls that were always
required when I ran HR/Mandriva. The oldest one doesn't have any of
the same hardware it started with except for the case.

Maybe things in binary-distribution land have improved, but my recent
brief expeditions into Ubuntu and RH/CentOS territory haven't given
any indication that's the case.

If all you want to do is browse the web, listen to mp3 files, and
spend the rest of your time trying to learn the desktop du jour, then
any of the binary distributions are probably fine. If I had to use
one it would probably be either plain Debian or Xubuntu.

--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Eisenhower!! Your
at mimeograph machine upsets
gmail.com my stomach!!

 

[mike]

That's assuming that semi-sane versions of Windows continue to be
available to host it. Microsoft seems to be hell-bent on killing off
Windows, so I think some future-proofing is in order. I've been buying
Win7 and XP licenses recently so that I can continue to run my old S/W
past next April.

How far do you predict MS will go to kill off XP?

I started hedging my bets years ago by buying DELL computers.
That's mostly what's available in the "free or almost free" box
at
garage sales. The whole system is WAY cheaper than buying a license.

They self-activate, as do many OEM's.
I'm hoping they'll be immune to MS turning off the activation server.

 

[David Brown]

On 09/10/13 17:30, Grant Edwards wrote:

On 2013-10-08, David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 08/10/13 20:49, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2013-10-08, asdf <asdf@nospam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 14:09:06 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:

On 2013-10-08, Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> wrote:
Cross posting to sci.electronics.design

What linux distros do techies like?

Genoo.

Gentoo?
IT techies maybe, but the average user (which could well be an
electronics guru but not an IT one) would find annoying spending
too much time tweaking it.

Perhaps. I've find that in the long run, maintaining Gentoo systems
requires less time/effort than maintining RPM or .deb based distros.
It does, however, require a little more knowlege.

But, it probably depends on what you want to do with the computer. If
all you want to do is stuff that the distribution bundler's have
already thought of and included software for, then I'd probably go
with Debian or Xubuntu.

Any time you end up wanting to use software that's not available as
part of the basic distro, I've found that maintining rpm/deb based
systems tends to balloon into a large, frustrating job.


I used Gentoo a number of years ago. It was a fun experience, and
certainly an educational one - I learned a lot about Linux from
installing and tweaking it. But it was not an efficient experience - I
spent much longer installing and compiling programs than using them.
Perhaps I lack the self-discipline needed to use Gentoo properly - it
was too much fun tweaking and re-emerging with different flags instead
of just /using/ the system. The Gentoo project is also a source of
excellent general Linux information and documentation (like Arch Linux).

I can't quite see how using non-distro software would be easier with
Gentoo, however.

I didn't phrase my posting well. I've found that Gentoo has ebuilds
for pretty much all the software I need to use. When I was using
RedHat/Mandriva/Debian, there were a _lot_ of things for which
packages weren't available from the distributor. Sometimes you could
find them from third-parties, but then you ended up in a hellish maze
of circular library dependancies. So the only resort was to to go the
tar/configure/make/install route, which resulted in a constant series
of breakages as libraries got upgraded.

OK, that makes a lot more sense. I am not sure I believe that Gentoo
has more ebuilds than there are Debian packages, especially when you
include additional repositories (like Ubuntu PPA's) which usually work
fine, but I am not going to argue without researching for statistics.

There are, of course, other ways in which Gentoo might suit better -
such as the more "bleeding edge" versions of software. Debian stable
and Redhat (as distinct from Fedora) are often slow at getting updated
packages.

When you are dealing with source that is not in the repos, you
download a tarball and give it the "./configure && make && make
install" treatment.

True, but I pretty much never have to do that with Gentoo while I had
to do that constantly with Redhat et al. Since the stuff installed
manually from tarballs wasn't hooked into the package management
system, things were continually being broken by upgrades.

And don't get me started on the disaster recovery efforts that always
accompanied major revision upgrades -- I eventually gave up trying to
upgrade across major revisions and just did a clean install whenever I
got to that point. And it wasn't for lack of experience or trying: I
ran multiple RedHat systems starting back when they didn't even have
version numbers: I think I started with either Mothers Day or
Holloween releases (before that I ran Yggdrasil and Slackware). I ran
RH up until 8.00 came out in 2002. 8.00 was such a disaster I
switched to Mandriva for a couple years before switching to Gentoo.
I've been running Gentoo for almost 10 years now, and since I switched
I spend a lot less time maintaining systems. Some of my Gentoo
installations are almost 10 years old, and I've been able to keep them
up-to-date without the periodic clean reinstalls that were always
required when I ran HR/Mandriva. The oldest one doesn't have any of
the same hardware it started with except for the case.

Maybe things in binary-distribution land have improved, but my recent
brief expeditions into Ubuntu and RH/CentOS territory haven't given
any indication that's the case.

If all you want to do is browse the web, listen to mp3 files, and
spend the rest of your time trying to learn the desktop du jour, then
any of the binary distributions are probably fine. If I had to use
one it would probably be either plain Debian or Xubuntu.

 

[Don Y]

Hi Mike,

On 10/9/2013 8:14 AM, mike wrote:

That's assuming that semi-sane versions of Windows continue to be
available to host it. Microsoft seems to be hell-bent on killing off
Windows, so I think some future-proofing is in order. I've been buying
Win7 and XP licenses recently so that I can continue to run my old S/W
past next April.

How far do you predict MS will go to kill off XP?

I've started pulling down the individual "updates" so that I can
reapply them manually. And, kept track of the install log for
a typical autoupdate in case there were some prequisites in the
order by which updates need to be installed.

I started hedging my bets years ago by buying DELL computers.
That's mostly what's available in the "free or almost free" box at
garage sales. The whole system is WAY cheaper than buying a license.

A Dell machine "without OS" (i.e., COA but nothing actually *on*
the disk) is $10-20 here. Regardless of whether it's a workstation,
1 or 2U server or a real BEHEMOTH! Laptops tend to be more "precious"
(which is fine for me as I prefer to work on a full size keyboard
and often need lots of peripherals that make a laptop lose its
smallness/portability)

They self-activate, as do many OEM's.
I'm hoping they'll be immune to MS turning off the activation server.

IME, they don't need to talk to it, *ever*. I have (Dell) machines
that have never directly been on the 'net and they neither nag me
to "activate" nor "quit running" due to lack of activation.

Note that you need Dell media ("Reinstallation CD") as retail media
will nag you just like every other non-Dell.

Of course, the preponderance of (desktop) machines out there seems
to fall between IBM, Dell & HP. The "oddballs" have a much smaller
market (Acer/eMachines, etc.) including the "build your own" sorts.

 

[Don Y]

On 10/9/2013 2:44 AM, asdf wrote:

On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 18:49:33 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:

Any time you end up wanting to use software that's not available as part
of the basic distro, I've found that maintining rpm/deb based systems
tends to balloon into a large, frustrating job.

That is almost true. I had only minor problems installing pure source
packages, provided all dependencies were met.

This, however, can be a major ordeal as A requires B and C. But,
B requires P and Q while C requires M and N. And each of these
requires...

When I build a new *BSD system, I research the release histories of
the various "packages" (not always the correct term) available to
decide which "bug sets" I am willing to live with. *Then*, the
next step is to figure out which order to build each package
(including the dependencies that I probably didn't explicitly
think of when forming my initial "package list"). With a fair
bit of planning, I can eliminate the need for the build of A
to deviate into the fetch/build of B (and P and Q) and C (and M and
N). It's just easier for me to keep track of where in the process
the machine happens to be, currently in the event that I have to
SIGKILL/SIGINT it.

[the last being necessary if I notice some error/warning that needs
further clarification (inspection of sources) to appease me. folks
who create packages should be required to create patchsets that
"fix" all warnings/errors!]

The main problem usually is
the shortsighted programmer who distributes his/her masterpiece that
depends on the very latest, or worse, beta version of everything, which
sometimes forces the user to break a package based system.

Or, that requires a specific version of a .so -- perhaps not the
"most current". Helps when your system allows multiple versions
of a single .so in the "library" and uses symlinks to sort
out which is "current" (so you can build against a particular
*older* version if the newest is found to be problematic).

IME, biggest problem with "packages" is the folks who undertake
their maintenance/packaging aften don't understand the actual
app. Their criteria for success is: "Hooray! It built with
no errors (from the compiler/linkage editor)". Even packages
that have test suites available in their basic distribution
don't always get built (by the packager) *or* understood!

Of course, those that have *no* formal test suites leave you
at the mercy of the packager: "What do I know about the
quality of this binary compared to the intended quality
from its original author??"

 

[T]

In article <l3121s$nep$1@dont-email.me>,
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net says...

On 10/8/2013 9:32 AM, Roberto Waltman wrote:
Cross posting to sci.electronics.design

What linux distros do techies like?

R.


Roberto Waltman wrote:
David Brown wrote:
... I use Linux for most of my work and play.

Just curious - Which Linux distribution do you use?

I used Ubuntu for several years, but I'm not sure I want to follow
Canonical in whatever path they want to take it.

Thinking of switching to Scientific Linux (Fedora) when I get back to
"work and play." (Crunchbang Linux is also in the run.)

Being a vanilla sort of guy, I mostly use CentOS 6. I'm more of a KDE
fan, though, so there are occasional curiosities that I haven't invested
the time in fixing--for instance, clicking on a link in kmail doesn't
open it correctly in Firefox.

I have an old P4 box that's running Kubuntu. The main thing I disliked
about Ubuntu when I used it last is that it doesn't play nicely with
the other children--if I set up disk partitions on cylinder boundaries
for other OSes, and tell it to use the existing partitions, it
nevertheless insists on futzing with the partition table to save a
quarter of a cylinder. I like computers that do as they're bloody well
told.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

My favorites are Debian and Ubuntu in that order. The main feature I
like about the former is the package management system. It's far
superior to that used in RHeL et al.

I mean:
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade

That's all it takes to keep your system up to date.

And if you want an app:

apt-get install mysql

It gets all the dependencies necessary too.

 

[Bill Martin]

On 10/08/2013 10:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 10/9/2013 1:21 AM, George Neuner wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 22:46:08 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

<SNIPPED>

That's assuming that semi-sane versions of Windows continue to be
available to host it. Microsoft seems to be hell-bent on killing off
Windows, so I think some future-proofing is in order. I've been buying
Win7 and XP licenses recently so that I can continue to run my old S/W
past next April.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Have you found a source for legit XP "retail" licenses? I really could
use one...the OEM license is not supposed to be run in a virtual
machine. Natch, that;\'s what I need it for!

Bill M

 

[George Neuner]

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 01:40:32 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 10/9/2013 1:21 AM, George Neuner wrote:

... more recent fdisk, parted, etc.
allow creating partitions and logical drives that are not cylinder
aligned. A lot of non-Linux partitioning software expects cylinder
alignment and won't edit - or worse, won't even read - tables that
have "illegal" sizes.

Linux has *allowed* that for awhile, but earlier versions of the tools
didn't _force_ partition boundaries to be unaligned. The Fedoras I was
thinking about would have been about V7, i.e. 2.6ish kernels.

I never said Linux "forced" unaligned partitions - the simple fact
that Linux tools permit them is what made them (semi)incompatible with
non-Linux tools.

Linux tools make only minimal effort to inform a user that a partition
is not aligned and may be a problem for another OS. They do nothing
to help the user in sizing a partition so it will be aligned.

Fortunately VMware (at least since v6) seems to be able to run most
versions of Linux without difficulty, so I no longer have any pressing
need for multi-booting. I mention the problem simply because others
may yet want to do it.

That's assuming that semi-sane versions of Windows continue to be
available to host it. Microsoft seems to be hell-bent on killing off
Windows, so I think some future-proofing is in order. I've been buying
Win7 and XP licenses recently so that I can continue to run my old S/W
past next April.

VMware also runs *on* Linux hosts

VirtualBox does a good job for some guest OSes (and it gets better
every time I look at it), but so far VMware works more smoothly,
handles more devices and can run a wider selection of guests OSes
without problems.

YMMV,
George

 

[John Devereux]

T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> writes:

In article <l3121s$nep$1@dont-email.me>,
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net says...

On 10/8/2013 9:32 AM, Roberto Waltman wrote:
Cross posting to sci.electronics.design

What linux distros do techies like?

R.


Roberto Waltman wrote:
David Brown wrote:
... I use Linux for most of my work and play.

Just curious - Which Linux distribution do you use?

I used Ubuntu for several years, but I'm not sure I want to follow
Canonical in whatever path they want to take it.

Thinking of switching to Scientific Linux (Fedora) when I get back to
"work and play." (Crunchbang Linux is also in the run.)

Being a vanilla sort of guy, I mostly use CentOS 6. I'm more of a KDE
fan, though, so there are occasional curiosities that I haven't invested
the time in fixing--for instance, clicking on a link in kmail doesn't
open it correctly in Firefox.

I have an old P4 box that's running Kubuntu. The main thing I disliked
about Ubuntu when I used it last is that it doesn't play nicely with
the other children--if I set up disk partitions on cylinder boundaries
for other OSes, and tell it to use the existing partitions, it
nevertheless insists on futzing with the partition table to save a
quarter of a cylinder. I like computers that do as they're bloody well
told.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

My favorites are Debian and Ubuntu in that order. The main feature I
like about the former is the package management system. It's far
superior to that used in RHeL et al.

I mean:
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade

That's all it takes to keep your system up to date.

And if you want an app:

apt-get install mysql

It gets all the dependencies necessary too.

Don't forget

apt-get moo



--

John Devereux

 

[JW]

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 08:14:15 -0700 mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote in
Message id: <l33rrb$g8i$1@dont-email.me>:

They self-activate, as do many OEM's.

They don't "self activate" whatever that means, they just don't require
activation.

>I'm hoping they'll be immune to MS turning off the activation server.

For the record, Microsoft has already stated that they will issue a patch
when they shut down the XP activation servers.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 10/09/2013 11:04 PM, George Neuner wrote:

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 01:40:32 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 10/9/2013 1:21 AM, George Neuner wrote:

... more recent fdisk, parted, etc.
allow creating partitions and logical drives that are not cylinder
aligned. A lot of non-Linux partitioning software expects cylinder
alignment and won't edit - or worse, won't even read - tables that
have "illegal" sizes.

Linux has *allowed* that for awhile, but earlier versions of the tools
didn't _force_ partition boundaries to be unaligned. The Fedoras I was
thinking about would have been about V7, i.e. 2.6ish kernels.

I never said Linux "forced" unaligned partitions - the simple fact
that Linux tools permit them is what made them (semi)incompatible with
non-Linux tools.

I know you didn't, I did. That's what pissed me off so badly about
Ubuntu. I carefully partitioned the disc on cylinder boundaries, and
told the installer to use the existing partitions. Then it went away
and did its own thing, all to save a quarter or half of a cylinder. It
did the same thing on the text-mode install procedure.

Brain-dead, arrogant, or both.

Linux tools make only minimal effort to inform a user that a partition
is not aligned and may be a problem for another OS. They do nothing
to help the user in sizing a partition so it will be aligned.

I don't want training wheels, I want it to do as it's bloody well told,
and it doesn't.

Fortunately VMware (at least since v6) seems to be able to run most
versions of Linux without difficulty, so I no longer have any pressing
need for multi-booting. I mention the problem simply because others
may yet want to do it.

That's assuming that semi-sane versions of Windows continue to be
available to host it. Microsoft seems to be hell-bent on killing off
Windows, so I think some future-proofing is in order. I've been buying
Win7 and XP licenses recently so that I can continue to run my old S/W
past next April.

VMware also runs *on* Linux hosts

Of course. But that won't preserve an existing installation.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 10/09/2013 05:34 PM, T wrote:

In article <l3121s$nep$1@dont-email.me>,
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net says...

On 10/8/2013 9:32 AM, Roberto Waltman wrote:
Cross posting to sci.electronics.design

What linux distros do techies like?

R.


Roberto Waltman wrote:
David Brown wrote:
... I use Linux for most of my work and play.

Just curious - Which Linux distribution do you use?

I used Ubuntu for several years, but I'm not sure I want to follow
Canonical in whatever path they want to take it.

Thinking of switching to Scientific Linux (Fedora) when I get back to
"work and play." (Crunchbang Linux is also in the run.)

Being a vanilla sort of guy, I mostly use CentOS 6. I'm more of a KDE
fan, though, so there are occasional curiosities that I haven't invested
the time in fixing--for instance, clicking on a link in kmail doesn't
open it correctly in Firefox.

I have an old P4 box that's running Kubuntu. The main thing I disliked
about Ubuntu when I used it last is that it doesn't play nicely with
the other children--if I set up disk partitions on cylinder boundaries
for other OSes, and tell it to use the existing partitions, it
nevertheless insists on futzing with the partition table to save a
quarter of a cylinder. I like computers that do as they're bloody well
told.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

My favorites are Debian and Ubuntu in that order. The main feature I
like about the former is the package management system. It's far
superior to that used in RHeL et al.

I mean:
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade

That's all it takes to keep your system up to date.

And if you want an app:

apt-get install mysql

It gets all the dependencies necessary too.

That's what yum is all about, package management. I think it's
significantly better than apt-get.

You can do "sudo yum upgrade", which does the same thing as your sequence.

The thing I really like about yum is "whatprovides", i.e. "go look
through the entire package database and find which one provides the
obscure library that my poorly-packaged program needs." That's saved me
a lot of time over the years.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net