Re: Free disk space

From: root (root_at_home.com)
Date: 11/26/03 

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:50:25 +0000

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:26:33 +0000, Robert Newson wrote:

> root wrote:
>
> ...
>>>$ apropos stat
>>>
>> [[Thanks for that but still proves my point :-)
>> 14 books on linux not ONE mentions "apropos"
>
> Do any of your 14 books on Linux mention the online manual accessible via
> the "man" command? [I've just had a quick look through one of my Linux
> books (the one I really want I've leant to someone and can't check it, but I
> suspect it'd have it) and it mentions in a "List of Packages for Thin Server
> Installation": man, man-pages. So I'd expect you to know about the man
> pages and the "man" command to read them. Try looking at the man page for
> the "man" command:
>
> $ man man
> man(1) man(1)
>
> NAME
> man - format and display the on-line manual pages
> manpath - determine user's search path for man pages
>
> SYNOPSIS
> man [-acdfFhkKtwW] [-m system] [-p string] [-C con­
> fig_file] [-M path] [-P pager] [-S section_list] [section]
> name ...
> ...
> -k Equivalent to apropos.
>
> Hello, what's this -k argument: Equivalent to "apropos". What's "apropos"?
>
> $ man apropos
> apropos(1) apropos(1)
>
> NAME
> apropos - search the whatis database for strings
>
> SYNOPSIS
> apropos keyword ...
>
> DESCRIPTION
> apropos searches a set of database files containing short
> descriptions of system commands for keywords and displays
> the result on the standard output.
> ...
>
> Ok, let's try it for "apropos":
>
> $ apropos apropos
> apropos (1) - search the whatis database for strings
>
> Hmmm...ok, lets try another search...how about "directory":
>
> $ apropos directory
> ...
> alphasort [scandir] (3) - scan a directory for matching entries
> basename (1) - strip directory and suffix from filenames
> cd (n) - Change working directory
> chdir (2) - change working directory
> chroot (1) - run command or interactive shell with special
> root directory
> chroot (2) - change root directory
> closedir (3) - close a directory
> cryptdir (1) - encrypt/decrypt all files in a directory
> ...
>
> Well, reading the online manual about the manual I found out about apropos!
[[Case closed - not mentioned in my book. Yes I use man, but its not
Hypertext or properly searched so how am I supposed to just stumble on
what I need. On any modern reference I would look at the Index ....

>
> ...
> <rant>
>> But Linux as a Visual application client sucks bad - nobody except unix
>> people can find anything. As a non-unix person lots of bits of unix make
>> no sense at all. Sockets is good idea, it has a point, threads are ok,
>> process management is average at best - but device nodes, I-nodes, and
>> virtual looking - not virtual at all, stateless systems with state and all
>> the other 1/2good ideas with poor implimentation are a waste of effort.
>> Look at X, well best not .... In 2003 you have to ask why bother ? Linux
>> just clones Unix, and not all of unix was good or clever.
>
> I-nodes: well now you're down into low-level filesystem data, just like
> NTFS's Master File Table. So if I-nodes are a bad idea, I'd have to respond
> that NTFS's MFT is a bad idea (and some would agree ^_^).
[[ I-node as a disk structure is ok, but as a solution to life the
universe and everything its about as vaiable as 42. DOS didnt claim FAT
was a way of talking to devices or networking - why did unix !!!
Stateless my arse, NFS *** shudder

>
>
>> Having cloned the mess of unix+libs so nothings a standard system, X with
>> its evil mess and having creating the debian community, the best deterant
>> to new developers and users, I have to wonder what tricks linux has next.
>> Other than the hype that is.....
>
> Well, which is better a small, relatively simple kernel that does just that,
> plus libraries to do other stuff (eg command line, GUI [Windows 3.1 ^_^]),
> or an extremely complex kernel that had built-in command line, built-in GUI,
> built-in applications (web browser)? If the browser doesn't work properly,
> you don't like it, or don't even need it, it's a pig to
> remove/replace/customise if part of the kernel, but a doddle if just an app.
[[Yes and no, the linux kernel is a good thing. Even the Gnu utils are
good, the desktop however sucks .. and if the mess of libs and standards
continues it will always suck. Maybe in 10 years it will be good, when a
linux machine is something with an common API. You know - apps just
install and run without adding Freds-poinless lib 2.2.8-4 but not -6, and
remember ldconfig - oh and dont foget to edit that shell script or N wont
start ...

Its immature, its reaching to be a standard - just like most things Unix,
its not quite finished yet !! Its not its fault M/Soft spent a lot of cash
buying every small startup with ideas then pinching them. Linux might be a
viable desktop one day, but - unusally for unux, its not what the user
sees its under the hood the problems remain.

>
> And to preempt any registry praise - it's a single point of failure with an
> inaccessible binary format, unlike the config files of *nix which are
> [mostly] text files and easily editied with a text editor (Win 3.1 had this
> nice idea). When (not if) the registry gets corrupted, it can possibly get
> so corrupted that you can't boot the computer to be able to fix the registry
> so that you can boot the computer. Under *nix, if the config files get
> corrupted, you can still boot to a shell (instead of the standard boot
> process, if necessary) and edit the corrupted files.
[[Ever tried to fix gnome after one of its many throws of death (less
recently I admit !) - Making your registry XML doesnt solve the problem,
it just makes it slower to read !!

>
> Also, unistalling programs tend to leave zombie registry entries (amongst
> other crap). Under *nix, you can easily check which of the config files
> have been read and remove those that weren't (to a safe location in case of
> necessary replacement).
[[HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA .......... thats the best laugh i've had all week.
Linux doesn't unstall programs !!! RPM just lets you delete what you've
added, but because nix is an interwoven mess you cant undo whatever the
make / make install did to install the application in the first place.

Here is a good example. I'm using Gnome at the moment ..Why ?? Because KDE
doesn't run today. It worked fine before Synaptic/Apt updated xfree - now
I dont have ant-aliased fonts and KDE crashes solid when you login, No
clues in the logs - just freeze. This is not the first,second or even 10th
time i've had things go tits up this year - if I was using this as
business machine I would re-format it.

>
> And talking of libs, under Win, you've got Dynamic Link Libraries (.DLLs)
> with their interdependencies that cause all sorts of problems when you have
> one program that requires one version and another that requires the later
> version (which the other program can't use due to being non bug-for-bug
> compatable).
[[10 Years ago maybe, I worked as an NT sysadmin for 5 years and only
occasionaly found DLL problems, mostly with windows 9X - NT4 had a few
(mostly installers that didnt recognise NT). It was often simple to fix
by copying the DLLS from one installed machine on the LAN to another. I
dont know if XP will tolerate this, but NT4/2000 did.

In all those hours as an NT sysadmin I must have had about 10 applications
that failed to run after an install, I can goto freshmeat and download
apps I guess 7 out of 10 apps I download wont build first time on Redhat 9
and 6 out of 10 wont build after hours of prodding - Linux just like unix,
its an idea, not a standard. Posix is a standard, it just has no ideas.
Memory, disk, sockets or NOT ....

"Posix compliant - now I have thousands of applications that dont quite
build"

All that said M/Soft have lost the plot, each generation after NT4 gets
worse in my opinion. I can make a printer work on 98, fix it when it fails
on NT4, persuade it to work on 2000 - but what the hell do you do when it
doesnt work on XP. Some pop-up helper will fail to help, the instructions
say "it will just work". The more they bury the O/S and further away the
push the administrator the less chance of solving problems. M/Soft cliam
that it won't have any problems, but i've used XP - never again, for me
2000 was the peak - its a slide into them managing us and I wont stand for
that. Digital rights management ... I've dumped media player on W2K and am
using a diskless booting linux with M/Player, at least I can watch a film
without it sulking, updating and changing the liscence on me ! Or worst
still asking daddy if its allowed to play my movie - hey I spent hours
downloading that ;-)

:-)

Relevant Pages

  • >>>> INSTALL LINUX <<<<
    ... Linux Http Install Syntax ... Install Linux On Usb In Windows ...
    (comp.mail.sendmail)
  • Re: Purchasing new PC to run Fedora Core. Any known compatibility issues?
    ... > great) & plan to install some version of Fedora Core on this new system. ... Linux seems to be way ahead here ... Not a problem in your case as you are using standard ATA. ...
    (alt.os.linux.redhat)
  • [opensuse] Re: Suse 10.3 install - oh dear (rant only)
    ... when I share an opinion, I make an effort to do so in an unemotional way. ... Linux, and oftentimes suggest it to people who are willing to try ... is important to take into consideration not only the feedback that comes ... likely able to install the product on their own, ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: OpenQM vs. Everything Else
    ... people who "support" Linux really only install stock distros. ... Debian is simply not drama queen. ... Linux or that of people like Martin, Doug, or other "engineer" types ... U2, RedHat and SuSE: ...
    (comp.databases.pick)
  • Re: fedora-list Digest, Vol 54, Issue 170
    ... I've never tried to install it with a disk ... Fedora 9 asking for disc 1 on dvd install ... Re: Linux Outlaws (Armin) ... Fedora 9 asking for disc 1 on dvd install ...
    (Fedora)