> makes sense...the more upstream developers, the more exposure debian gets
> lets face it...when you look around and see "Linux Software" the
> first name you see is RedHat and the first package format (not
> counting tarball) is RPM...
> And thats the kind of stuff that gives them real presense
Yup! Even to the technically inclined monitor and card setups
tend to be difficult and boring, even when you can find all the
information needed.
On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > What we need here is more clout with the hardware manufac
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> I agree. If I am speaking nonsense, just tell me what part of
George> my idea is nonsense and why rather than a blanket statement
George> along the lines of "The thoughts of the user community are of
George> no importance to u
>> "SJC" == Stephen J Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SJC> makes sense...the more upstream developers, the more exposure debian gets
SJC> lets face it...when you look around and see "Linux Software" the
SJC> first name you see is RedHat and the first package format (not
SJC> counting tarbal
On 5 Aug 1998, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
>
> OTOH, three friends of mine wanted to try Linux. I gave them Debian
> and saw, that it *is* too complicated for the average Windoze user to
> set up. X setup is a pain in the ass and we know it. Still one of them
> wants to learn it, and I believe he w
On Wed, Aug 05, 1998 at 12:25:40PM +0200, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
>
> >> "GB" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> GB> Debian is, quite frankly, too small to dictate to the rest of the linux
> GB> community how things should be done. On the other hand, it is too good for
> GB> the o
>> "GB" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
GB> On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, George R wrote:
GB> locations every time it is run. Even if you run it Red Hat's UUCP package
GB> through alien, it will continue to look in /usr/lib/uucp for its configs
GB> rather than the proper /etc/uucp directory.
>> "GB" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
GB> Debian is, quite frankly, too small to dictate to the rest of the linux
GB> community how things should be done. On the other hand, it is too good for
GB> the other distributions to ignore.I think they all secretly desire to be
GB> as well
On 04-Aug-1998, Nathan E Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
> :
> : That is the point that I create a slightly modified subset of Debian that
> : does conform to the standard and sell the sucker for $100 a pop to
> : businesses needing a better Linux than
On 08/04/98 at 08:49 PM, George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Debian has things like pre-depends that Red Hat lacks the last time I
>looked. Also, Debian tends to "do the right thing" more often with
>regard to such things that should got into /etc or /usr/X11R6/lib where
>Red Hat and other st
On 08/04/98 at 05:34 PM, Mark Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Technical excellence is about doing something well, and coming up with
>a system which is highly capable. One measure of capability is how
>much software runs on the system. If RedHat runs a greater variety of
>commercial applicat
Young, Ed wrote:
>
> I may be out to lunch on the following but I believe we're zeroing in on
> something anyway. That's what lists are all about, right?
>
> One thing I've gotten out of the thread is that RH and SUSE, (etc) are not
> adhering to standards but have the market share. Therefore com
On 3 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Well, the minute Red Hat changes their version numbers and
> starts following the Linux File system standards, we shall all be in
> sync.
>
> At the moment, moving to the new Linux File Heirarchy Stnadard
> (FHS) is way more important than d
Marcus Johnson wrote:
>
> As a newbie to Linux and Debian I have to say I almost entirely agree
> with George, and had even thought about writting something on this
> subject myself. Before I understood about the numbering system it
> really threw me for a loop to hear that my ISP was using Debian
on and jill [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 10:16 AM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Was the release of Debian 2.0 put on Linux Announce?
>
> > : > progressing (deciding to leaving OS/2 took a long time). Funny
> thing,
>
Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
>
> : On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George R wrote:
> :
> : > I'm neither a sysadmin nor a kernel programmer, I'm not even a unix
> : > user, I'm just a guy that wanted something stable that was still
> : > progressing (deciding to leaving
On Tue, Aug 04, 1998 at 07:11:47AM -0700, Marcus Johnson wrote:
> As a newbie to Linux and Debian I have to say I almost entirely agree
> with George, and had even thought about writting something on this
> subject myself. Before I understood about the numbering system it
> really threw me for a lo
> : > progressing (deciding to leaving OS/2 took a long time). Funny thing,
> : > when I decided to switch my home OS silly me took a few hours and read
> : > about various OSs.
> :
> : Missing the point again as all seem to be in this discussion. I think I
> : have seen maybe one post that "go
Netiquette aside, I agree with most of Mark's comments;
especially his points about contininuing to strive for technical
excellence, but putting a higher priority on marketing.
> Technical excellence is about doing something well, and coming up with a
> system which is highly capable. One meas
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
: On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George R wrote:
:
: > I'm neither a sysadmin nor a kernel programmer, I'm not even a unix
: > user, I'm just a guy that wanted something stable that was still
: > progressing (deciding to leaving OS/2 took a long time). Funny thing,
As a newbie to Linux and Debian I have to say I almost entirely agree
with George, and had even thought about writting something on this
subject myself. Before I understood about the numbering system it
really threw me for a loop to hear that my ISP was using Debian 1.1
(he's very conservative), bu
[back to the original thread]
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-announce-98/msg00015.html
[now to the version number thread]
George, you never replied to:
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-user-9808/msg00242.html
Did I miss the point again?
[now to the new user hostility thr
Mark Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hmm. I started this thread, but it moved to a different topic very
| quickly! Getting back to the original point: there have been a couple of
| responses from people who have said that they did see the release of
| Debian 2.0 on Linux Announce, yet I d
Dear all,
> Forgetting the version numbers matter (that was showed to be somehow silly
> after George remembered LSB in his *second* posting), what I really could not
> understand and neither expect was the hostility to newbies.
>
> Oh, yes, I agree with that community staff. This is one of the
> The responses to George's suggestion were . . . interesting. I wonder
> if the majority of developers share this hostility towards new users.
^^^
George Bonser wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George R wrote:
>
> > I'm neither a sysadmin nor a kernel programmer, I'm not even a unix
> > user, I'm just a guy that wanted something stable that was still
> > progressing (deciding to leaving OS/2 took a long time). Funny thing,
> > when I decided
Hmm. I started this thread, but it moved to a different topic very
quickly! Getting back to the original point: there have been a couple of
responses from people who have said that they did see the release of
Debian 2.0 on Linux Announce, yet I don't think I ever received it ---
I am subscribe
On 08/03/98 at 11:53 AM, George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Well, it is obvious that some people here are just being hard headed. I
>really do not think there are that many dummies here. Look at it like
>this. A person wants Linux and decides to spend about 30 minutes to
>choose which one t
On 08/03/98 at 02:27 AM, George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Manoj, I find that remark disturbing. That is who you are writing the
>software for. The luser community produces the developers over time.
>Without a stong and vital user base, you will not attract a good
>developer community. If s
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
> Well, it is obvious that some people here are just being hard headed. I
> really do not think there are that many dummies here. Look at it like
> this. A person wants Linux and decides to spend about 30 minutes to choose
> which one they are going to buy
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> The bottom line is this:
George> If the Linux distributions do not share a common filesystem
George> layout and to some basic degree a common set of libraries,
George> software vendors will simply pick one distribution as the
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> Well, it is obvious that some people here are just being hard
George> headed. I really do not think there are that many dummies
George> here. Look at it like this. A person wants Linux and decides
George> to spend about 30 mi
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
> Look at it like this. A person wants Linux and decides to spend about 30
> minutes to choose which one they are going to buy. These are sysadmins,
> not kernel programmers. They take a quick glance, note that Red Hat is
> 5.2, Debian is 2.0 and all the co
George Bonser wrote:
> I explain to them that it is like SVR4. There are SEVERAL different
> versions of SVR4 put out by several companies each with their own version
> numbering but they are all SVR4. Once I do that, they question how
> protable applications are from one distribution to another an
On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 06:22:00PM +0200, Peter Gervai wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 11:39:26AM -0400, Stephen J. Carpenter wrote:
>
> > good point...and who even says version numbers have to work in that way
> > anyway?
> > Many individual programs have versions like "19980420" ...or what
> >
On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 10:27:47AM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
>
> Brian, these people do not use Windows, they want to use Unix because that
> is what they know. They are just not familliar with Linux in general. They
> never touch the internet after work and in general, have lives. They are
> no
Hi,
I don't uderstand. The are Linux illiterate, and they display
all the discerning qualities of 2 year olds, they do not want to shop
around and learn about the merits of the distribution, and they do
not want to spend time because they are no hobbyists.
Why do I want them th
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> Jeez, I never said I had trouble with it, only that it is
George> confusing to people in the real unix world that have not been
George> exposed to it. Get it through your head that not everyone
George> that uses Unix has ever
On Sun, Aug 02, 1998 at 10:41:42PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
> On 3 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
>
> Some of these people are highly skilled Solaris system administrators that
> do not understand the concept of the different distributions and
> versioning until I explain it to them. Al
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Brandon Mitchell wrote:
>
> > Moral of the story, version numbers are specific to the product, don't
> > bother comparing.
>
> Jeez, I never said I had trouble with it, only that it is confusing to
> people in the real unix world tha
Mark Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I didn't ever notice an announcement of the release of Debian 2.0 on Linux
| Announce (apart from the beta announcement). Maybe I just missed it ---
| did someone see it?
|
| Just thought I'd mention it because we do want people to know about it I
| th
On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 11:39:26AM -0400, Stephen J. Carpenter wrote:
> good point...and who even says version numbers have to work in that way
> anyway?
> Many individual programs have versions like "19980420" ...or what
> if I want to start with 100 and count down ;) or increase it by powers of
Hi,
>>"Robert" == Robert Claeson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robert> If Informix was to create a Debian package of their
Robert> database, would they be prohibited from doing so?
By no means. Third party vendors are encouraged to make Debian
packages, even if the terms under which they
On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 08:55:00AM -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> : George Bonser wrote:
> : > No, LSB would not dictate Debian's version but Debian could say that
> : > Debian-2.0 is LSB-1.2 compliant and someone looking at Red Hat 5.2 might
> : > see tha
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
> Why do you expect non-geek will know what version of LSB his system complies
> with? LSB isn't something innately easier for non-geek to comprehend than
> the libc or kernel version. Remember that the concept of standards is just
> as foreign to non-geeks as
On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
: George Bonser wrote:
: > No, LSB would not dictate Debian's version but Debian could say that
: > Debian-2.0 is LSB-1.2 compliant and someone looking at Red Hat 5.2 might
: > see that it, too, is LSB-1.2 compliant and get the idea that both are
: > roughly eq
On 03-Aug-1998, Robert Claeson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe I'm wrong or too phragmatic, but I just don't see much of a
> problem with using free and non-free code in the same system. If
> Informix was to create a Debian package of their database, would they
> be prohibited from doing so?
T
*- George Bonser wrote about "Re: Was the release of Debian 2.0 put on Linux
Announce?"
|
| I have had people tell me that they are using Red Hat because it is at 5.2
| while Debian is still only at 2.0. The perception is that Red Hat is
I'm sorry but those people are ignorant
On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, George Bonser wrote:
> The problem with the current versioning system is that people look at
> Debian 2.0 and Red Hat 5.x and S.u.S.E 5.x and Slackware 3.x and figure
> Debian is seriously lagging when it is not.
There are two solutions to this problem:
1) change the next rel
> other than Red Hat, Caldera, or S.u.S.E. versions of their applications.
> Try to talk Debian to them and they dismiss it saying they just do not
> have the time.
And your solution is what?
Debian jump to 6.0 and always make sure to stay a version number ahead of
Red Hat?
"Hey, Red Hat just
May I step in? I'm pretty new to this list.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. No. No. Let me put that foul canard to rest. I do *NOT*,
> repeat *NOT* write software for darned users. I write software
> because it pleases my muse, and becuase I feel like contributing to
> the free
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> if they call me a geek, I call them a luser
George> Manoj, I find that remark disturbing. That is who you are
George> writing the software for.
No. No. No. Let me put that foul canard to rest. I do *NOT*,
repeat *NOT* wri
On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 02:46:38AM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
> > Major versions for ONLY major changes, minors for minor, and
> > not entering the version-number-hype-marketing-bandwagon is
> > the hackers' view of version numbers.
>
> What constitutes a major change is fuzzy. I think it shoul
On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 01:53:07AM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
> True, but kernel version is not as important as libc version and
> filesystem layout. Kernel version really means very little. It simply
> provides an easy method of very basic configuration man
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
>> Why do you expect non-geek will know what version of LSB his
>> system complies with?
George> Because it would be right on the Debian Website and probably
George> on the software box.
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> On 3 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Market domination is not a goal for me.
George> No, but being able to even be IN the market should be.
We have remained alive without having to jump through hoops
for lusers
George Bonser wrote:
> Never anywhere in any posting did I even imply that. Where do you get this
> stuff? What I am saying is that they WILL likely conform to some version
> of LSB in the future. If WonderWare 54.2 is targeted for LSB-2.1 and my
> Debian-13.2 system is also LSB-2.1 compliant, I k
George Bonser wrote:
> Let me put it another way. Non-geek calls software vendor to buy
> WonderWare for Linux. He asks if it will run on his system. The guy asks
> what version of libc he is using. The non-geek says he has no idea. Vendor
> asks what the LSB version is and the non-geek says 1.2.
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> THere are still a great many Solaris, HP-UX, and Irix admins
George> who have heard the word Linux but that is about the extent of
George> their exposure. Many still laugh with Linux is mentioned.
Yes, ignorance is a
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> People that are not Unix SysAdmin's by trade or hobby are not
George> going to give a rat's pair of hips what version of libc they
George> have. People have a job to do that usually does not involve
George> spending hours of l
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
>> I have to wonder why such people bother with linux (2.0) when there are such
>> obviously numerically superior os's out there like, say, windows (95).
George> I suppose the Linux Standa
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> Some of these people are highly skilled Solaris system
George> administrators that do not understand the concept of the
George> different distributions and versioning until I explain it to
George> them. All they know at first
George Bonser wrote:
> No, LSB would not dictate Debian's version but Debian could say that
> Debian-2.0 is LSB-1.2 compliant and someone looking at Red Hat 5.2 might
> see that it, too, is LSB-1.2 compliant and get the idea that both are
> roughly equal.
Someone might today, see that both debian
George Bonser wrote:
> I suppose the Linux Standard Base will provide common versioning over
> distributions and take care of this problem. I fear that it will end up
> being Red Hat driven, though.
I would be very scared if the LSB went into such a level of detail and tried
to dictatte to much to
George Bonser wrote:
> Some of these people are highly skilled Solaris system administrators that
> do not understand the concept of the different distributions and
> versioning until I explain it to them. All they know at first glance is
> Debian is shipping 2.0 Linux while Red Hat is shipping 5.2
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think I am really grateful for not having people like that
> trying Debian; it only increases the support headaches later on. Any
> one who is, umm, challenged, enough to make any technical decision
> based on version numbering would probably find Debian is not
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
George> The problem with the current versioning system is that people
George> look at Debian 2.0 and Red Hat 5.x and S.u.S.E 5.x and
George> Slackware 3.x and figure Debian is seriously lagging when it
George> is not.I have had people
I didn't ever notice an announcement of the release of Debian 2.0 on Linux
Announce (apart from the beta announcement). Maybe I just missed it ---
did someone see it?
Just thought I'd mention it because we do want people to know about it I
think!
Cheers,
Mark.
___
68 matches
Mail list logo
