1237cede0d95
tech



Hello Roy - 

--8<--cut 

RJT>> And because there aren't packages out there (that I know
RJT>> of) that go to the great extent you suggest to hide
RJT>> things from the users, to take away the ability to
RJT>> configure things. 

CA>> "Take away"? Maybe not but Linux is becoming more
CA>> Plug-n-Pray all the time. 

RJT> I was of the impression that phrase referred mostly to a
RJT> particular kind of hardware configuration. 

The line blurrs. Auto-installs often won't work if the hardware
wasn't designed for PnP. It's both (to me). 

RJT> That aside, if you mean that some distros are making it
RJT> easier for folks that don't want to find the right config
RJT> file and figure out the right stuff to put in it, yeah, I
RJT> have no argument there. But that ease-of-use comes with a
RJT> price, though. 

I wasn't attempting to determine which is better. I'm only
saying Linux is following in Microsoft's footsteps while
claiming to be different/better. Eventually that line will
blurr too. 

RJT>> If there were, I wouldn't likely want such stuff, and a
RJT>> whole lot of other people I know of also wouldn't want
RJT>> such stuff. It sort of takes away the whole point of
RJT>> linux, from my perspective. 

CA>> Depends. Some people just want to use their machines. 

RJT> True. 

RJT>> OTOH, there's Lindows. This is headed toward the sort of
RJT>> an arrangement that you're talking about, where they do
RJT>> it all for  you, and kinda limit your options. I've never
RJT>> really had any desire to run that, either. 

CA>> There is also KNOPPIX and clones of KNOPPIX plus
CA>> distributions using automated installs from a GUI and
CA>> automated 'updates'. It's all there as I said you just
CA>> refuse to acknowledge it. 

RJT> I've never refused to acknowledge any of that. I just
RJT> don't happen to _use_ that stuff here, nor do I choose to. 

I realize what you have done with Linux. I also can see that
the majority of Linux users are, in fact, GUI users who rely on
the auto-detection, auto-installs, and auto-updates much the
same way that Windows users do. 

There are a small minority of Windows users who tweak, edit the
registry, and other things but that's not the majority. As
Linux distributions chase the business users it becomes even
more like Microsoft with fewer who 'tweak' and more who only
use what is automated and GUI. 

RJT> And in some cases I can't -- try to install one of those
RJT> bloated GUI-install packages on to a 386 and see how far
RJT> you get, for example. 

I raised this point in the Linux echo some time ago - right
about the time you came to the echo trying to decide if you
even wanted to use Linux. I had been searching the Internet for
how-tos describing a minimal install to an i386 because, at
that time, I had one with 4 meg of memory. 

People in the Linux echo were recommending their favorite
'distro' to newbies who asked if Linux would install on i386s
with 4 meg of memory. None who claimed to have done this
miraculous feat could respond when I asked them how they had
done it. The typical response was that it was long ago and they
no longer had that 'box' or that it had been lost when their
hard drive crashed. Many websites had similar 'stories' btw. 

It was David Drummond who finally put the rubber to the road,
found an i386 with 8 meg (not 4 meg) of memory and installed
the ZipSlack install from SlackWare after some difficulty
uncompressing the files for the install. This was the one and
only person who actually _did_ do a minimal install onto an
i386 that I know of. The others had no comment btw. 

A year or more after that I discovered BasicLinux (SlackWare
v3.5 hack) for 4 meg of memory installs and GreyCat Linux (also
v3.5 hack based on BasicLinux) and a few special purpose
mini-installs. Since that time mini-installs of SlackWare v7.1
and even v8.1 have been created with the proper how-tos to make
it work. 

I have a webpage listing all the mini-installs that I could
find that are still available but have not tested all of them.
I did test BasicLinux and two versions of GreyCat. They do work
on my i486 with 16 meg of memory. I no longer have a working
i386 to use to test them for that type of an install. :-) 

RJT> Even my primary linux box, a K6-200 w/64M of ram, won't
RJT> suffice for some fairly mainstream versions, like RH 7.1
RJT> for example. It told me that the (then) 16M in my test
RJT> fixture was not enough ram to run the install! I've found
RJT> since then that 64M might be enough, if you use the
RJT> textmode install but not enough for the GUI. No thanks... 

This was the point I had tried to make long ago. I suspect that
if any of the people in the Linux echo had _ever_ had a working
i386 install it had more than 4 meg of memory and the install
was done on another machine with that hard drive then that hard
drive was _moved_ into an i386 box after removing those parts
that wouldn't work in an i386 machine and making necessary
changes to the config files before transplanting the hard drive. 

Even though Linux users waive the banners and talk the talk
they really don't want to be "the fringe". They want to meet
Windows headon and really don't care if users of legacy
hardware can join in the 'fun' or not. Distributions could do a
'mini-install' with as little as 4 meg of memory then use that
to build the remainder of the install under user control to
stop at any point along the way to accomodate the available
hardware and memory. They don't do it that way because that's
not their goal. They aren't going to be in the trenches with
the legacy users if they can avoid it. 

In short, they are not really "your people" they just need to
pretend that they are to justify some of Linux shortcomings
right now. As they progress they will eventually stop even that
pretense and be as aloof as bleeding edge Windows XP users. 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>       __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

___ * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/

--- Maximus/2 3.01