Re: Anyone tried basiclinux?
From: Day Brown (daybrown_at_hypertech.net)
Date: 10/04/03
- Next message: Steve: "USB Problem - System frozen"
- Previous message: JamesB: "Linux just won't load on my system!"
- In reply to: Walter Mautner: "Re: Anyone tried basiclinux?"
- Next in thread: Walter Mautner: "Re: Anyone tried basiclinux?"
- Reply: Walter Mautner: "Re: Anyone tried basiclinux?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 14:38:44 -0500 To: Walter Mautner <new.10.eatallspam@spamgourmet.com>
Walter Mautner wrote:
> Day Brown wrote:
> Damn. Don't want to see the dos prompt anymore. A nice $bash gives a lot
> more to me.
Agreed, that $bash is much more powerful. but I dont use the dos prompt
to manage my file structure, but a tool like 'directory wizard',
(DW.COM) which is something like MC. I like the way that MC shows me
both the current and destination directory, but DW.COM has functionality
missing in MC. For one, you can use the mouse to scroll down to a file
of interest. Or, you can type a letter, and it jumps immediately down to
the files which begin with that letter. It also always tells me the
available drive space of both source & destination. Unlike MC, DC.COM,
DF.COM, & DW.COM all let me tag files with the gray+ key for deletion,
moving, copying, or whatever to do them all as a group.
This is not a feature, nor a problem with either the dos prompt, nor
bash, but a question of what CLI file manager tools for Linux that I
have been able to find. DW, like MC will let me look at, or edit files,
but DWCONFIG lets me stipulate what text editor I want to use for this
purpose, which therefore has the hotkey structure I am already familiar
with. Again, not a problem with the OS per se, but the tools which I
have been able to find. But comparing $bash with the dos prompt is not
really useful because of all the dos tools for doing the stuff users
need in the most efficient way.
>
>
>>I've tried lots of different distros, but found something lacking in
>>all of them. Mandrake has problems with video cards. Redhat demands
>
>
> Which version - and which video cards?
I've had MANDRAKE 7 and 9. But someone 'borrowed' my mdk 7, and the mkd 9 CD
seems to have an error on it, and wont install. I've had several video
cards on varios machines. IIRC, the DIAMOND S3 ragepro 64 didnt work
right. Redhat & Corel ran it just fine. I've also had difficulty which I
later learned was because I had a VIA C3 CPU, which again, Redhat had no
trouble with.
>
>>that I use passwords on a single user desktop, and like the others that
>>do this, complicate the shutdown process as well.
>>
>
> You are not prepared to use linux yet. Sorry.
IF someone gets to my keyboard and messes up my system, I dont have a
software problem, I have a family problem. This is not a system in a
business where I need that kind of password protection.
>
>>Most of the problems with Linux derive out of its heritage as a network
>>OS; hence user names and permission needed to shutdown. But for the
>>single user desktop, annoying. BL solves this problem by always being
>>root, but like dos, I think it knows how to lock a file or directory if
>>one is worried about sabotage software.
>>
>
> So you are eager to have someone logging on to your machine making a nice
> DDoS-box or a childporn-warez-ftp server without your knowledge?
> Linux does _NOT_ know about blocking access to files or executable files.
> YOU have to know this. By correctly using permissions and passwords. And
> BY NO MEANS use the root account to logon for doing regular work with
> (also regularly) exploitable programs. You will regret that.
Well, thanx for the tip, I'll quit looking for that functionality in Linux.
Basic linux solves it for me by letting me store my important personal
data on the dos drive. I dont need a dos box since I have a genuine dos
prompt, and there are things I do with it that dont run in a dos box
anyway. DRDOS allows me to lock a directory with a password if I am
worried about it. I am not running a server, only a client. I didnt know
that Linux automatically enabled access from the net thru a client.
>
>>But, unlike dos, getting a graphic browser running is daunting. I like
>>the speed of the CLI interface, and as a touch typist, hate dragging a
>>mouse around to get things done.
>>
>
> As a beginner, you should rather stick to a distribution like redhat or
> (better imho) mandrake with its msec (please set it to "high") and the
> control center, and, most of all advantages, urpmi - which lets you auto
> update the thing from commandline once you have added the update
> sources.
I remember liking Mandrake, but when I moved and changed to a new isp,
it would no longer logon, even thought the ppp driver would dial out and
go thru the handshake. Something to do with the isp using win xp on
their server; the install cd which they furnish, is of course, only for
windoz. I know a mac user who move here who also gave up, and bought a
new DELL w/ win xp... which is a clue to what is going on. Mickysloth is
selling servers which only work with windows, which is good for their
client deals with Dell, Gateway, et al.
Of course, the custom ppp driver software aint so swift that the distro
programmers cant hack it, so when I bought a new copy of redhat, it knew
about the win xp authentication and logged me on. So, that's more
business for the Linux distros.
>
> .....
>
>>So often I have seen an entire install trashed because of some problem
>>which could have been dealt with later. I was just appalled when the
>>first distro I looked at, Redhat 5, crashed trying to make the backup
>>boot disk, and wiped out the entire install.
> Probably you messed up your config files running as root when you
> shouldn't do that.
> man su
> man sudo
There's lot of things I should not do that I dont know about. And, there
has been some progress in the install scripts, as well as practice at
installing improving my success rate.
>
>
>>With Basiclinux, that wont be a problem. The 2meg download dont take
>>all that long to deal with. Another thing I like about it, is that
>>since it can boot from the dos prompt, if you have a serious hardware
>>problem that wont even run dos, you can quit trying to figure out the
>>software.
>>
>
> There are a lot of mini-linux distributions. But I suggest you try out a
> knoppix cd first: it will boot from almost any 586+ pc, without even
> touching the harddrive. Later when you got familiar with it, you can
> install it on the hd and update with debian apt-get.
Just got back from a Basiclinux webpage, which memtioned 'memtest86'
which appears to be a boot image just to test the ram. Its docs say that
dos is quite forgiving of bad ram, but Linux is not, which may be why
some of my installs didnt work. IIRC: http://www.memtest86.com if
anyone has an install that dont work, they might try to test the ram.
>
> You can always try a new kernel with its modules set. No need to delete
> the old working one. Well, some user modules will have to be recompiled,
> new graphic drivers and stuff. Which you will have to revert when going
> back. Therefore it's a good idea to set default runlevel to 3.
Well, yeah, I downloaded the Kernel 2.4 to try, but then find that it
needs gcc 2.95 or better, but I aint found a way to get that installed
yet. The rational thing to do, of course, would be that if something has
a dependancy, to have a link to it. Granted that Linux apps are much
more powerful, but this is a continual problem in my experience, that
when I download an app or whatever, I so routinely find out I have the
wrong distro, the wrong archive tool, the wrong gcc, or it cant find
some 'dependancy' or other. This is not intrinsic to the design of
Linux, any more than it would be of dos.
But whereas there are so few versions of dos still current, the myriad
of Linux distros is complicating life for both users and programmers.
Since dos apps were so small, they routinely included in the archive any
drivers that might be needed. Characteristically, when I discuss these
problems, the responses are defensive or aggressive, as if the responder
had written Linux and needed to defend it. I dont love dos, nor Linux,
they are just tools, just as windows is a tool I stay away from.
>
>
>>But I dunno if dealing with Basiclinux to get it to run Mozilla is so
>>complex it is best left to experts, or if I have just not found the
>>right site with adequate instructions and links that work. or one that
>>doesnt swamp me with hundreds of files and options to consider.
>
>
> Again disagree. The (almost too) simple mandrake setup now makes a
> working box included browsers, openoffice, 2 nics or ppp+nic and
> internet connection sharing ... even including a ntfs resize to fit on a
> oem-recovery-disc prepared pc ... within 30 minutes. Try to install 2K
> or XP together with office in that time.
I dont need open office. I aint running a business. I dont mind using
Linux to get online with, and using dos for my own research & writing. I
dont worry about loosing any of my work to sabotage software when it is
on a drive of an OS that is not online.
I had rather hoped that BL would let me install the new 2.4 kernel on
another drive, and that I could use the new kernel to mount the CDrom,
which will not boot, and then let me install the Mandrake apps that I
want on the Linux drive.
- Next message: Steve: "USB Problem - System frozen"
- Previous message: JamesB: "Linux just won't load on my system!"
- In reply to: Walter Mautner: "Re: Anyone tried basiclinux?"
- Next in thread: Walter Mautner: "Re: Anyone tried basiclinux?"
- Reply: Walter Mautner: "Re: Anyone tried basiclinux?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
