linux?

[ManuAizen]

i would say Ubuntu........... mandriva is beautiful but programming tasks are a bit hard to do.

[moorecm]

I wouldn't recommend LFS to someone who has never used Linux before.

Neither would I. I've used Linux at school, at home, and at work constantly for about 5 years now. When I tried LFS, I still failed. :P

[chrisname]

Really? I tried LFS a few weeks ago and succeeded (I booted my already existing userland from a kernel I build, that is). I've never tried it with my own userland, though; I'm planning to do so some time soon. Edit: Maybe now :D

[S6k9GNh0]

Making an LFS is simply the concept of reading and actually following instructions. But during the process, you have something that is produced from actually following instructions. After your first time, they usually organize the information in a way that allows you to make an LFS by yourself without documentation afterward. Gentoo is the same way except not as educational since there's a LOT of abstraction and not enough explanation.

[chrisname]

I want to figure it out myself.
I know how to build kernels, initrds and custom initrds, but I don't know how to get past the ramdisk stage.

Building the kernel is simply make mrproper {/menu/x/g}config bzImage modules modules_install for me.
As for the initrd, mkinitramfs or mkinitcpio does the trick.

I also decided I'm better than Canonical because their initrds broke when I unzipped and then zipped them with the wrong compression tool and mine still work.

[Albatross]

As I said, how well you do with LFS depends on your level of skill.

If you are really good, you can custom-make every detail of your GNU/Linux OS to fit your exact needs. <3

However, if you haven't used Linux even once, I'd recommend Ubuntu 10.04 once it stabilizes (though even now, it's pretty good).

However if you are either very patient or pretty good with Linux, LFS. <3 <3 <3

-Flamingo

[chrisname]

Flamingo

I saw what you did there.

[S6k9GNh0]

He was there. He knows.

On a topical note, I'm not kidding. Linux has almost nothing to do with skill lol. Skill in this case is simply memorizing everything about Linux, including structure, commands, functions, abilities, etc. which take time to memorize. On the other hand, you can reference EVERYTHING via documentation. They have entire books based on making your own LFS to make it your very own.

I'm honestly thinking about making my own for a series of reasons. I can't seem to get anyone to carry up to date packages of shit I need, one especially being Intel linux drivers (FUCK YOU fedora, goddamnit...)

[Albatross]

Eh, I meant skill regarding coding in Assembly and C, and maybe using bash, sh, zsh, or tcsh for modifying the files closer to the core of the kernel/packages.

However in reference to the skill I think you meant, you're perfectly right. If you aren't going to be messing around with the individual and core files all that much, then all you need is a fat book for referencing structures, functions, commands, and shells. That and something to calculate your dependencies just in case.

As for Fedora... ARGH!!!!!!!!!

-Albatross Corpse

[1yR4jE8b]

i would say Ubuntu........... mandriva is beautiful but programming tasks are a bit hard to do.

That doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever...the IDEs, Text Editors, and software libraries are exactly the same. The only difference is how they are packaged (rpm and deb) but both Mandriva and Ubuntu provide very similar GUI Software management utilities that make installing things extremely simple and the packaging irrelevant.

[Disch]

Here I begin what might sound like a flamebait post, but that is not my intent. Just giving my two cents and personal experience with Ubuntu.

Mandriva and Ubuntu provide very similar GUI Software management utilities that make installing things extremely simple

I've been on Ubuntu for about a year now. I can say from experience that nothing about anything is simple.

The package system is simple in theory, but it has frequent problems that require busywork, experience, knowledge to solve. I can't tell you how many times I've had to force downgrade a package in order to get some other package to install. What's more... the problematic package is like a dependency of a dependency of a dependency, so I have to try installing like 6 different packages before I actually find the culprit.

I mean I can count on two hands the number of executables I had problems installing in over a decade of Windows use. And most of those were due to corrupt downloads or missing dll files. I've had over twice as many problems in my one year of Ubuntu use.

And let's not forget that you can't even get binaries for many programs on Linux -- that they expect you to compile it from the source (which I still insist is completely retarded).

I had an experience with this recently where I spent an hour dicking around trying to get the source for a program to compile before giving up.

Then it took me all of 3 minutes to get the Windows binary and run it in Wine.


I know I probably shouldn't be bringing up Windows in a thread about Linux. I'm sorry about that. My point here is not to say that Windows is better than Linux (that's not what I'm saying!).

My point here is to say that the phrases "Linux" and "extremely simple" don't belong together.

[helios]

Then it took me all of 3 minutes to get the Windows binary and run it in Wine.

That's absolutely hilarious. The fact that it's easier to run a binary for a different platform through a compatibility layer than to install the native one is so funny it's sad. And then it's funny again.

The main problem with Linux, as I see it, is that there's really no definition of what "Linux" is. The closest you get is "an OS that uses Linux as its kernel". The problem with all the crap that has to sit on top of that to get something useful, and all the different flavors of it. Variety is Linux's both strength and curse. There's no telling what, for lack of a better word, services the host is providing, so binary compatibility across different distributions, or even across different versions of the same distribution, except at the most basic of levels, is impossible. The killer is that the computer (i.e. both software and hardware) industry, particularly in the x86 genealogy, has been providing more or less consistent binary compatibility for what, 20, 25 years? The reason why we're all using such an old architecture is nothing but backwards compatibility! So the average person pretty much takes binary compatibility for granted. When you show them Linux they're far less likely to exclaim "oh, cool, I can touch up the kernel!" than "what do you mean, I can't put X program on a flash drive and take it work? We use Linux there, too!"

Compare that to saner platforms, such as Windows, MacOS (I assume), or FreeBSD, which have been providing binary compatibility for years. What's the link between them? They're all controlled platforms. There's a more or less clear definition of what they are a few levels above the kernel. In the case of FreeBSD, there's even a couple "distributions", and they're compatible.
What's needed is some sort of agreement between the major distro developers to define what "Linux" is, and what an OS needs to adhere to in order to be called that, just like POSIX defines what "UNIX" is (except at a higher level, obviously).

[chrisname]

@helios,
Although I didn't like the first two paragraphs or your post, the last one is completely true. What's more is that's not the first time I've read and agreed with a statement like that.

From what I read elsewhere, it seems that the plan was to give as much variety as possible in order to appeal to a wider market. But that's the mistake Hitler made -- trying to fight on too many fronts. When will they learn?

What's needed is some sort of agreement between the major distro developers to define what "Linux" is

Sort of, but I think the kernel maintainers should have the biggest say in defining "Linux" -- their opinion, and particularly that of Torvalds himself, is the most important. They do, after all, write the kernel itself.

I also think having a lot of distributions is fine, but perhaps they could have one main distribution. It should be downloadable from http://www.kernel.org (which is where the kernel source code, among other things, are hosted).

[Bazzy]

Disch wrote:

And let's not forget that you can't even get binaries for many programs on Linux -- that they expect you to compile it from the source (which I still insist is completely retarded).

I disagree with this, I have only compiled three programs from source on Linux and it was because I wanted to try some experimental features. And I never had problems with the package manager, one time I needed to install some old packages no longer maintained but they were available to download as self-installing packages

[chrisname]

Me neither. I rarely compile programs, although I've compiled more than three, and when I do, it's often by choice.

The only program I've had trouble compiling was GRUB, I couldn't even get past the configure stage. But it was OK, because I found precompiled binaries instead.

[1yR4jE8b]

I have used Ubuntu on several different machines since all the way back in 6.06 (maybe earlier) and I have NEVER had to downgrade any packages due to dependency errors. Those repositories are carefully managed and maintained, and I have never had dependency issues when staying within the defined Ubuntu ecosystem. Obviously if you venture outside of it you are going to run into problems. Ever see that episode of the Simpsons where Bart brings his pet frog to Australia? Same idea.

Most people never will need to venture out of the default repositories, only really bleeding edge users...and even then they are using the wrong distro. They should be using something like Fedora or Arch which takes care of all that stuff for them.

I have never compiled from source a single program that I personally did not write myself. It's pointless, and not worth the trouble. If you get into dependency hell because of something like this, then to put it bluntly, you deserve it.

I recently found some programs that were not in the Ubuntu repositories, but they offered precompiled .deb packages. It was a simple matter of downloading the packages, and double clicking and entering my password. The gdebi installer even downloaded any missing dependancy for me automatically. Anyone offering precompiled packages for download for a certain distro (and that have half a brain), builds against the current package set in the repositories and you still don't run into dependancy hell.

Overall though, the Ubuntu repositories have over twenty thousand packages...what else could you possibly need other than like Dropbox?

Obviously, this is with my experience using Ubuntu for the past four years. Mileage may vary.

[chrisname]

Wat?

Most people never will need to venture out of the default repositories, only really bleeding edge users...and even then they are using the wrong distro.

Awww, man, does that mean I gotta switch again?

[1yR4jE8b]

Well, if your compiling grub from source to use with Ubuntu...then maybe you should switch to Gentoo instead? Seems more up your alley ;-P

Like I said, Mileage may vary. Mine may a gross exageration, but it is based on my experience with using Linux based Operating Systems every single day for personal and production use for 4 years.

[chrisname]

No. I was compiling grub from source because I wanted to see how difficult it would or wouldn't be when I later tried a LFS.

Also, gotta love the Linux kernel:

static void happy_meal_tcvr_write(struct happy_meal *hp,
				  void __iomem *tregs, int reg,
				  unsigned short value)
{
	int tries = TCVR_WRITE_TRIES;

	ASD(("happy_meal_tcvr_write: reg=0x%02x value=%04x\n", reg, value));

	/* Welcome to Sun Microsystems, can I take your order please? */
	if (!(hp->happy_flags & HFLAG_FENABLE)) {
		happy_meal_bb_write(hp, tregs, reg, value);
		return;
	}

	/* Would you like fries with that? */
	hme_write32(hp, tregs + TCVR_FRAME,
		    (FRAME_WRITE | (hp->paddr << 23) |
		     ((reg & 0xff) << 18) | (value & 0xffff)));
	while (!(hme_read32(hp, tregs + TCVR_FRAME) & 0x10000) && --tries)
		udelay(20);

	/* Anything else? */
	if (!tries)
		printk(KERN_ERR "happy meal: Aieee, transceiver MIF write bolixed\n");

	/* Fifty-two cents is your change, have a nice day. */
}

From drivers/net/sunhme.c

[1yR4jE8b]

No. I was compiling grub from source because I wanted to see how difficult it would or wouldn't be when I later tried a LFS.

My point exactly! You don't exactly fit into the group of "most people". A typical desktop user, which Ubuntu is trying to cater to, do not compile their own bootloaders to use with a personally compiled Linux OS. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but that was just my point about the Ubuntu demographic.

Also, LMFAO at that Kernel source.