Baslinux mailing list

[qwms-avib AT dea.spamcon.org]

Day Brown wrote:
> 
> I sponze Linux is great for network sysads, but for 
> the single user, the code bloat goes way beyond just 
> the logon/paasword/permission process. 

The problem is that there is so much good-quality free
software available for Linux that the major distributions
are inclined to include everything (even the kitchen sink).  
Most people are running systems with multi-gig HDs and 
fast CPUs, so the added baggage doesn't really matter to 
them.

> And almost every time I tried to install a download, I 
> ran into 'dependancy' problems, 

That's another reason that the major distributions are so
bloated -- they try to anticipate potential dependencies 
and include them by default (just in case).

> which I see are among the current threads here... 

BasicLinux starts small, it does not include the kitchen
sink.  Just the basics.  So, when you add outside binaries 
to BasicLinux, you will find that many of them depend on 
additional libraries or utilities (most of which can be
added from Slackware).  

> I saw the instructions to get xwin running on BASICLINUX, 
> which included downloading one set of 6 files 

The X windowing environment has many, many packages.  The 
six packages you mention are the bare minimum to get X up 
and running.  But there are several others that you can
add to provide additional functionality.


> With a dos program, that was *never* a problem. 

DOS applications are usually self-contained.  Linux is based
on a different philosophy, where common chunks of code are
shared between different executables.  This is more efficient.

> If 6 files were needed, 

The six X packages you are referring to include many, many
files.

> they were all zipped up in the same archive. The DOS ARACHNE 
> install included scores of files 

And those files are for the exclusive use of Arachne.  If you 
then install Nettamer, you get a whole new set of components 
for the exclusive use of Nettamer.  Some of those components 
are redundant.  The Linux philosophy is that common components
are best kept in shared libraries.

> I dunno why Mozilla or Opera couldna done the same thing, 
> looked at the os and hardware, and tweaked to accmodate its 
> own agenda rather than 'dependancies' that might or might 
> not be there, 

In that case, Mozilla/Opera would have to be larger.  In fact
Opera comes in two versions:  a bigger one with QT build-in
and a smaller one which is dependent on the QT libraries being
installed on the system.  For BL2 I recommend the the bigger
one (static QT) because it is simpler to install and because
I don't recommend any other applications that use QT.

> I was able to find the 6 files mentioned for xwin, but it 
> was gonzo easier to do using DOS DW.EXE to tag them for 
> copying. 

Not a problem.  One of the reasons BasicLinux boots from DOS
is so that you can use familiar DOS tools (if you wish).

> But I couldnt find xf86config on the CD.

You have probably already installed it.  It's in xbin.tgz
(which is one of the six base X packages).  Just execute
xf86config from the command-line and it should work.

> I've run DOS for 20 years, but it dont take long to get 
> a handle on DOS batch programming. 

BASH scripting is similar (but it has more commands).  
In BasicLinux, have a look at /usr/sbin/ pppsetup 
(which is just a simple BASH script).  You should 
be able to figure it out in a couple of minutes.  
For a more complicated BASH script, have a look at 
/usr/games/castle.gz

> It is routine in DOS to be able to back out of a setup 
> menu one step at a time, 

It's not routine.  I've got many DOS programs that don't 
do that.  Some DOS programs are well-designed and user-
friendly, some are not.  It's the same story in Linux.

> but if you need to go back in xf86config, you havta start 
> all over. 

Lots of people will agree that xf86config isn't particularly
user-friendly.  There are alternatives available (including
editing /etc/XF86Config by hand).  A popular alternative is
XF86Setup (/slakware/x1/xset.tgz).

> The 'esc' key in dos usually just brings you back one menu 
> screen, 

Again, this varies from program to program.  MS-Windows (ugh)
programs tended to do things in the same way.  But DOS programs 
were not standardized.  I've seen the ESC key do some pretty
weird things in DOS programs.

> but in Linux it closes the whole thing down. 

Not necessarily.  It depends on the application.  I agree
that standardization can make things easier for the user,
but if a programmer thinks he's found a better way of
doing something that's up to him.

> I think its the result of sysad mentality, 

That's way off the mark.  There is no single Linux "mentality",
there is no single source of Linux software.  Different people
contribute different things and they come from all sorts of
backgrounds.  If you think there is a better way of doing 
xf86config, for example, then you are free to modify it and 
release your own version.  Linux is still young, there is 
plenty of latitude for ordinary users to contribute.

> where users are not allowed to monkey around with the settings,

I wish my in-laws were using Linux so that I could lock them
into a user account.  They are running Windows2000  and at 
least once a week they monkey with some setting and then we 
get a phone call:  "Something's wrong.  Email doesn't work."

> Me, I'm always tweaking, which is one of the reasons I'm 
> trying BASICLINUX. I expect to have a much better idea of 
> what is setup, and why.

Have you looked in /etc/rc.d?  That's where the config.sys
and autoexec.bat files live (although there are more of 
them and the names are different).

> I've followed the advice seen online to change init 
> settings for automatic logon to the gui, 

To the GUI?  I think you'll learn more at the CLI.
The best place to understand an operating system is
at the coal-face, not in some point-and-click cocoon.

Cheers,
Steven