Baslinux mailing list

[Day Brown <daybrown AT hypertech.net>]

qwms-avib AT dea.spamcon.org wrote:

> 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.

But if you got hundreds of megs of doc files for man or info to look
thru, it takes too damn long to find anything.  Likewise, I see that
some distros make a small partition apparently for the system files so
that the OS dont havta sort thru gigs of drive. But, some distros dont.
There are tradeoffs. DRDOS recommends COMSPEC, and if you put a copy of
COMMAND.COM on a ramdisk, it can really help. Although with an average
platform now running at 500+mhz, most dos users would never notice.
Hopefully, BL would also be able to respond a lot quicker than hogs like
RH 8.

> 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 dont mind that, makes sense. What dont make sense to me is why an app
dont offer to include all the dependancies it might need in the
download. I dont every recall downloading a dos app and not being able
to run it cause it couldnt find a driver or .icn file or whatever. Seems
like, if the browser is smart enough to run popups and JAVA, it oughtta
be smart enough to dialogue with the ftp server to make sure that the
platform already had all the 'dependancies' when you download. Of
course, network sysads are much more knowledgeable about their systems,
so they know how to deal with it in ways the single user is unfamiliar
with. DOS was always a single user OS from the git go, and if something
needed ANSI.SYS or whatever, it would say so in the FILE_ID.DIZ

This is not a problem with the OS per se, but the culture behind the
application distribution system.

> 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.
>

To a point; but many dos apps were hardwired assy, which is why so many
ran so fast. Linux seems to have Perl, C, C+, C++... and many other
compilers, each of which has its own devotees...

> 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.

With Arachne, Nettamer, Neopaint, et al, each of the largest of dos apps
kept all its 'dependancies' in the same directory, perhaps a few megs
each. Each Linux distro decides where to put these, and the OS may spend
a lot longer looking for them. But again, the former have a lot of
handwired assy, which is fast, but hard to craft in the first place, and
hard to modify later. I spoze that's why Arachne could not keep up with
all the Flash glitz on the net these days.


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

Yeah, I was real impressed with the little list of 'aliases'. The other
distros seem to have the attitude that the user had no other CLI habits,
and wanted everyone to sing from their hymn book.

> > 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
>

Kewl. thanx, will do.

> > 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.

Which dos programs? I aint seen any like that in years. To be sure, I
have downloaded a lotta dos crap that didnt run or crashed the system.
And to be sure, as more single users try Linux, the applications will
offer smoother & more reliable installs. It took DOS years, it'll take
Linux some.

> 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.

Yeah, lots of dos programmers had odd ideas too. But I can see where a
network sysad, who had a whole set of identical terminals, would run
xf86config once, he didnt care if it was klutzy, and then get on to all
the other setups. I have just the opposite problem, I get oddball and
used systems coming in all the time, and every one hasta be setup
differently. which is an example of what I meant with....

> > 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."

I let everyone know that I dont do windoz. I never bought it, and never
ran it on my own desktop. It saves me a lotta time. Sign on the wall:
Answers 1$. Answers which require thot, 2$. Correct answers 10$. dumb
looks are still free.

> 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.

I began with punched cards and greenbar printouts the next day. I
remember thinking how cool the original 25x 40 green 'Matrix' font
looked on a 9" monitor. But again, the Linux CLI has lots of
nomenclature and command structure for network sysads that I have to
read about and wade thru, but will never use. It steepens the learning
curve. Having to 'mount' drives is stupid to the single user. If I dont
want the drive mounted, I dont put it in the case, or turn it off in the
CMOS.  The people who understand the CLI are all sysads, and they dont
see the problem.

Partly this is the tension between the guru and the newbie told to
RTFM.  But BL looks like the best shot yet for the single user desktop,
it dont throw too much at you too fast. Its natural evolution would be
to provide what the single user needs, rather than trying to filter out
gigs of crap he'll never need. The other distros are caught up in the
synergy that windoz has with the hardware OEMs of continually adding
glitz, multimedia, cd burners etc, to maintain consumerism.

But I dont want to make movies just yet, and if I wanna watch one, I'll
turn on the tv. I am literate, do a lot of reading and writing in plain
ascii. I like text mode and the speed of the CLI. With DOS, I routinely
created small two letter batch programs to launch an ongoing project,
which is gonzo faster than dragging a mouse around. It'd be nice if BL
could 'exit' to the dos prompt, but since DRDOS boots in 20 seconds,
that aint a big deal.