I liked the rc.d structure slackware offered. I don't like that debian has no netconfig utility, so even localhost had no route on default install. Redhat may be a worthwhile switch, as all the howtos show how to do things in redhat, there's not been published modified howtos for debian as far as I know of. At 08:26 PM 9/25/00 -0700, you wrote: >Hopefully, we can make a constructive discussion here. Please, please, >please! In fact, I must agree with Kerry that Debian seems to follow the >standards that many other distributions such as SunOS, FreeBSD, Irix follow. >However, I like the way Redhat handles initialization files. In general, I >think it was a great idea for them to create a directory for each runlevel >and prepend the script with S for start and K for kill. At least when you do >LS, you are not bombarded with tones of files (actually, you still are!) >Best, >Vic > >******* ******* ******* >have you thought of visiting Cybertsar's Internet Kingdom? It is still >alive! >Here is the URL: >http://nimbus.ocis.temple.edu/~vtsaran/ >******* ******* ******* >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Kerry Hoath" <kerry at gotss.eu.org> >To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca> >Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 1:16 AM >Subject: Re: New user encountering problems > > >> Debian put stuff in nonstandard places? >> Actually Debian is the most FSSTND complient distribution out there at the >> moment. You must remember; that the best thing about standards is that >there >> are so many to choose from. >> >> Regarding "lots of stuff doesn't compile" it usually means the person >between >> the chair and keyboard has (1) not edited the package Makefiles, >> (2) not configured a kernel source tree, >> or (3) doesn't have a clue on where the include files live. >> Many packages such as the updated network card drivers *REQUIRE* * R E Q U >> I R E * a *configured* kernel source tree on the system. The kernel >> provides many of the include files necessary for sane compilation, and you >> don't get linux/autoconf.h without running make config or equivalent. >> >> I admit that many packages scatter config files all over the file system, >> /etc, /usr/lib/ /usr/share; /usr/etc/ /usr/local/etc/ /opt/etc; /var/lib >> etc; at least Debian puts *all* config files in etc. This does make it >simpler >> when your system gets big with lots of packages on it. >> There are allways very good reasons why Debian does things the way it >does, >> for example the conf.modules generated from /etc/modutils/* and the like; >either >> take a look at the Debian policy documentation, or the docs in /usr/doc >> >> Compiling specialized software on a Linux system requires you to be on >nodding >> terms with Makefiles and at the very least; able to read the comments in >> config files and edit apropriately. Redhat may have more out of the box >rpms >> but they often don't behave as you'd expect them to out of the box without >> a bit of tweeking. Most packages use gnu autoconf so compilation is a >breeze; >> however learning about your compiler's make system; where system files are >etc >> is an excellent investment in time if you want to consider yourself a >> competant Linux admin or you must tinker with things. >> >> Regards, Kerry. >> On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 10:55:21PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote: >> > I've liked debian for awhile, but tons of stuff won't compile, because >the >> > locations of files are a little screwy. Why put stuff in non standard >> > places I don't know. How does one configure a redhat kernel when >compiling >> > anyways? I'm thinking about using it some time, suppose I need the 3c59x >> > driver support for networking, can I config it like a normal kernel or >does >> > redhat have tools to make this easier? >> > At 11:24 PM 9/22/00 -0400, you wrote: >> > >Hi >> > > It is possible to build a speakup kernel from the Red Hat source >> > >RPM. Just skip the patches that can't find their files, they don't >apply >> > >to the i386. >> > > However, the kernel will build, but unless you use a rh supplied >> > >config, your modules will have unresolved symbols all over the place. I >> > >don't think speakup agrees with some of the patches RH applied to their >> > >kernel rpm, for it is not a clean source. They've applied all sorts of >> > >stuff that are beta, or even alpha. Not wise, I believe they do it to >try >> > >to get their distro to support more hardware. >> > > Personally, I think slackware is the best, closely followed by >> > >debian. >> > > >> > >On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Kirk Wood wrote: >> > > >> > >> I believe this is a kernel problem. Once the kernel starts expanding >(you >> > >> get the loading and the dots, then the kernel quickly takes over. My >guess >> > >> is that you used the kernell source provided by RedHat. If you did, >then >> > >> you should download the kernel (possibly from kernel.org) and apply >the >> > >> patch compile, etc.) RedHat doesn't provide the complete kernel and >as a >> > >> result the built images don't work correct. Sorry I can't give you >more >> > >> complete details. Just that it is common to discover you can't build >a >> > >> working kernel with speakup from the RedHat source package. >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >_______________________________________________ >> > >Speakup mailing list >> > >Speakup at braille.uwo.ca >> > >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Speakup mailing list >> > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca >> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup >> > >> >> -- >> -- >> Kerry Hoath: kerry at gotss.eu.org >> Alternates: kerry at emusys.com.au kerry at gotss.spice.net.au or >khoath at lis.net.au >> ICQ UIN: 62823451 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Speakup mailing list >> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca >> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > >_______________________________________________ >Speakup mailing list >Speakup at braille.uwo.ca >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > >
