| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Comments:
<0> so we have this going on... on one hand, we have /usr/X11R7 on the other we could change the way Xorg has been installed since the beginning of time and add even more crap to /usr/lib
<1> with X as big as it is, and getting bigger, I don't think it's real intelligent to push X into the same directory space as the rest of the system
<0> X should only be getting bigger for the source trees...due to hardware / feature support. The binaries should only have the **** you need installed. Nothing more and nothing less.
<0> that's the pkg maintainers job to make that happen.
<1> how many years have we had separate directory space set aside for X? Might as well park the car in the middle of the living room.
<0> sure splitting the drivers up into individual pkgs isn't the way to go, but a single pkg with all the drivers can be downloaded, but only the ones needed installed to the system
<0> this kind of mess is why more and more people who are very familiar with linux are moving to /opt
<1> so you've really seen no other excuse on the lists other than complaints about it being too hard to maintain?
<2> X usually was in /usr/X11R6 and IMO it should have stayed there.
<1> /opt has uses but, eventually, systems will stabilize with one or the other (R6 or R7), and then there'll be no need for X to reside in opt.
<0> PATHS and variables can be set, transparant to the user and programs and pkgs can be installed outside of the base system ...so that they dont contact it.
<1> as far as I know, /opt is really only practical if you really truly want to play with multiple versions of the same thing... it's not something you want to standardize in.
<0> /opt can be used for everything not just X.. but just about all of the various pkgs you install after a base system install
<1> Lion-O: I don't see any problem with using X11R7 either... sure, there'd be some fudging while migrations took place... but that's the nature of a migration.
<2> *nod*
<2> roasted0at: besides; /usr/X11 (symlink) also existed for a good reason.
<1> safemode: indeed. multiple versions of GNOME, KDE, E, GCC, whatever... but if you're just a desktop user, which the distros are trying to appeal to (at least in part) then there's no reason to standardize on /opt
<0> it's especially nice for large projects. stick gnome/kde/X/transcode/ xfce4/E/gtk/qt etc in there. That would clean up /usr SOOo much
<2> iirc from mind we had /usr/X11R6 and /usr/X11
<0> not talking about multiple versions, even if you only have one version... those projects dump **** everywhere across /usr
<3> /opt was usually for optional stuff in SunOS or whatnot.
<3> /usr/local for local files... etc...
<2> cappicard: optional, yeah. Not just SunOS but Unix as a whole, same for /usr/local (which by standard got moved to /opt/local).
<3> I usually put my mp3 collection into /srv/music or /opt/music
<3> Lion-O, yeah
<1> safemode: maybe that's what prompted moving X libs to /usr/lib... every other project dumped libs in /lib, /usr/lib, /usr/X11R6/lib... nobody could standardize on anything.
<2> cappicard: say, I trust the hurricane you spoke of yesterday didn't do too much damage?
<3> not I could see
<0> /usr/local for anything compiled locally, /usr for system ****... /opt for anything you install that isn't a server/daemon and isn't required by the system to run
<3> The tornado touched down north of me
<2> roasted0at: well, Debian also is a different chapter in this issue IMO.
<3> I could see the funnel coming down. It touched down at the Kansas Speedway
<3> but it caused little if any damage
<3> it freaked out my 8 and 3 year-old nephews though
<1> Lion-O: I've seen it not just in Debian. When building from source, even careful with the --prefix, many of the larger projects ended up putting libs here, there, and everywhere... and it was a crapshoot if anything ended up in a standardized location.
<0> the problem with distros ...especially like debian is that if you use /usr for things like "system programs" and you define system as anything from Debian, then /usr is for EVERYTHING ... which isn't the intended use for /usr
<3> but this is the 2nd tornado warning we've had this year.
<0> since /usr was created back when OS's had a set list of programs that you got with the OS...everything else was extra
<2> roasted0at: true, but IMO you should never trust a default location of a random software package. Some honour the Unix hierarchy, some don't.
<2> safemode: *nod*
<3> Last night was abit frightening... first time I've seen a tornado form in person.. I've lived in Kansas my whole life and last night was a first. lol
<2> cappicard: I bet it was one awesome but scary sight.
<3> it was indeed
<3> even though it was just an F1 twister, but just seeing that was awesome in a way
<1> Lion-O: but even being careful to set --prefix, some packages make use of the --with-lib-prefix, or --with-etc-prefix, and if you didn't know about it beforehand... and just used --prefix=, then the install was screwed. It would work, but the files would be everywhere.
<0> it's not hard for modular Xorg to be installed in any user given location. it doesn't need to be dumped into system dirs to work with system X programs (**** that was compiled against previous Xorg releases) without modification to them
<2> cappicard: I can only imagine.. Hmm, natures power always manages to impress me. It makes you feel so, well, small :P
<0> and Xorg does follow the --prefix directive correctly
<3> I've seen the F5 that flattened Hesston in 91... that ****er was a mile and a half wide!
<4> and that's why i hate linux.
<3> Lion-O, quite
<4> lacking any meaningful organization.
<1> safemode: good that Xorg does... so many other things don't. Perhaps DanielS was at the point saying,"Fine, if nobody else is going to bother cleaning up their installation paths then we'll just dump everything in /usr and have done with it."
<4> way too many interchangeable components.
<1> I'm not saying that's what actually happened... but it's a potentially logical conclusion to the haphazard mess that I've seen.
<3> least I put anything I compile into /usr/local
<2> NineVolt: well, this is not a mere "Linux" but a distribution based thing, but I do tend to agree to some extend.
<4> well yea i have no beef with the kernel...
<0> I compiled modular Xorg, told it to install into /usr/X11R7 and it did and all i had to do was update my modules path in my XF86Config file and add the path to the pkg-config files to PKG_CONFIG_PATH ...everything worked fine
<4> but like why is there 99999 distros?
<3> (no mattre if i'm running solaris, linux, or freebsd)
<4> do we really need 99999 distros? :P
<3> NineVolt, because they can (tm)
<0> If i can do it then DanielS should be able to do it. and there wouldn't be any discussion about Debian changing the way it does Xorg installations
<4> if you're working on making a new distro, do you really think you're not hurting linux's acceptance by adding to the mess of 'choices' that people have now? :P
<3> I tend to stick with a few distributions.
<4> why is there more than 3 window managers?
<2> NineVolt: hmm, interesting point.
<1> and I still don't think that it's the proper approach. If DanielS was truly frustrated over everyone else being lazy about their install paths he should've made the effort to continue to set the example: standardize on a long-term view which will help organize the system.
<4> are peoples' preferences really that varied?
<0> because there are more than 3 people who can program and they dont agree on what a window manager should do
<4> i mean, windows got away with a single look-n-feel for quite some time. and it saw great acceptance on the desktop.
<0> then there is mac OSX a different look and feel
<1> 9V: Because KDE is slow, GNOME is huge, they're both taking on a registry approach... and people still haven't accepted E as their savior
<0> and then there is still people who prefer other ones
<3> NineVolt, yeah. It's the damn registry that's rather haphazard in terms of standards
<0> as long as you have people who can code, they'll create what they want ..and some people will agree and use their ****
<3> software packages install crap all over that place
<4> yea, but that's virtually transparent to the user.
<0> if people didn't agree with what a window manager did, they wouldn't use it and we wouldn't have so many different ones
<3> as far as the GUI's concerned, least it is consistent
<0> so obviously, they are varied in their preferences
<2> hmm, I don't think there's much wrong with choice. Actually, thats what I think is the beauty of all this; you can do whatever you want based on certain standards.
<0> you can refuse to offer more than one...then of course you'll have something consistant, but you'll have something nobody truly is happy with
<4> my point is that they're hurting linux more than they're helping it.
<3> Lion-O, I see no problems with so many distributions, window managers... etc.
<1> I don't think that the multiple WMs is hurting Linux much.
<4> safemode : that's what ms did and it seemed to work damn well.
<3> I try multiple ones and stick to what works
<2> cappicard: idem.
<0> even Windows had their Shells that came out...the reason it never got prelavent was the hidden API's that **** in windows uses that would break on the homebrew ****
<0> WindowBlinds and others
<4> thank god. that's probably what kept windows in the running then :P
<1> what's going to hurt Linux is when all the prominent WMs become MS clones.
<2> safemode: and you can go back further than that; DOS. 4dos, ndos, etc. All different shells to make life easy.
<3> it's just the number of choices that can get overwhelming if you throw all of them at the user at once...
<4> now you even have a choice of X's, wtf :P
<3> Lion-O, or multiple OSs for the trash80
<0> having a huge number of choices leaves survival of the fittest to work, and not survival of whatever someone else wants to push on the userbase
<4> i mean, it's not that bad for the type of people that use linux today.
<4> but if they're still trying to get linux on the desktop, i dunno.
<3> I owned around three OSs for my model III
<4> safe : lots of businesses have no interest in helping with the selection process that will weed out the crappy choices.
<0> the real problem is that there isnt' a "linux OS" there is no defined set of utilities and base programs to tell someone "This is Linux" there is just the kernel and a loosely accepted set of GNU utilities that defines what "linux" is
<4> exactly.
<0> you can't be "Linux Certified" and not get laughed at by anyone with half abrain
<0> that has nothing to do with choices though
<0> you can still have 165 window managers
<4> as long as the default one is standardized, i'd have no problem with that.
<0> not all of them need be included ..indeed, none of them really should be when you say "this is This and that is that"
<3> just the fact I can work with Linux made my boss drool when he hired me two years ago. LOL
<0> if you make one the standard one, then the whole OS is based on how that standard one is... and it becomes feature bloated instantly
<2> It does indeed boil down to a little chaos. Heck, you can see as much with one of the "serious free distributions" out there; Debian. That too has standards but those shift.
<0> Make linux nothing more than a netinst base system of Debian.
<2> hmm ;)
<0> and then the Distros can decide what would define them, and have the rest labeled as optional
<4> the only two linuxes i have are old debians.
<4> and even that was too much of a pain to set up :P
<0> so the Distros are a set of defined programs on top of the Linux OS. and they can optionally include additional programs
<0> programs/set of programs
<4> right, and there's way too many of them.
<4> and aside from that, each one allows way too much choice regarding what exactly it is.
<4> those two issues combined kill me.
<0> well, as it is, when you talk about the Linux OS, you have to specify the distro because there is no Linux OS. if you make Linux a defined set of base utilities, then there is no confusion.. either you're talking about Linux, or you're talking about a Distro
<1> only if you start playing with some smaller distros. stick with the major players and, more or less, it's all the same.
<4> even debian.
<4> way more 'configurable' than any windows i've seen. and it's not like you have the option to change the configuration. you have the responsibility to determine it.
<1> once you familiarize yourself with /etc on one or two distros you can pretty much figure out any other distro
<0> Debian has no defined set of programs that make up the Debian OS as far as i've seen. It pretty much contains everything. and doesn't seem to play favorites to anything
<4> that would explain why to this day i don't know what WM i have on there :P
<0> there are major differences between debian and any other distro
<1> Debian's method of running through startx is pretty tough to follow... I just use ~/.xinitrc and xinit
<0> not just in the filesystem structure and the set of programs it offers, in it's social contract and it's politics in what gets in ... also distros patch their **** so what's running on one distro, even if it's the same version, may not be the same as the upstream and thus not the same as the next distro
<1> sure there are major differences, but it's not anything that can't be figured out with 30 minutes of browsing configs.
<4> .. 30 minutes :P
<0> if you standardize the Linux OS, then every distro should run exactly that OS when they say it's running "Version ##" of it.
<1> okay... maybe take an afternoon out. :)
<4> man, it took me over 30 days to hear a dialtone on my modem under slackware.
<4> that was a while back though.
<4> granted, linux has made some giant leaps regarding hardware support since then..
<1> I am so glad that I never had to enable my modems or ppp under linux. by the time I got to linux, I had an ethernet card
<4> i had a 3com/usr voice/fax modem. and no, it wasn't a winmodem.
<1> the biggest problem I had was with diald and chatscripts. I've resolved that, should I ever try that again, I'll just use minicom
<4> i use windows :)
<4> for my desktop stuff at least.
<1> and hope that once I establish the connection and log in with minicom, then starting ppp on the remote side and pppd on the local side will Just Work
<4> linux never Just Works for me :P
<3> if I want to use my webcam when using IM, i'm having to reboot into windows...
Return to
#linux
or
Go to some related
logs:
#london
#linuxhelp
#chatzone
aceror
clase de scan root
sirvic hacking
#AllNiteCafe
WHAT DOES A GALLOPHOBIC ENGLISHMAN FEAR
Server refused to allocate pty colinux
burn all jews
|
|