[rescue] Re: G5 case
Frank Van Damme
frank.vandamme at student.kuleuven.ac.be
Wed Jun 25 14:33:07 CDT 2003
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 18:56, Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Frank Van Damme wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 June 2003 04:18, Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:
> > > There's a huge one. Linux is just a kernel; the userland comes from
> > > a few hundred different sources, and it shows.
> > Ah, trolling again a bit eh.
> I don't stoop to trolling. I try not to make comments about operating
> systems I haven't run. I've used Linux for over 7 years and think I
> have quite enough personal experience behind any comments I make about
Sorry I read over the argumentation in "the userland comes from a few hundred
different sources, and it shows." :-D
> Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they have a
> baseless opinion.
> > Most of the essential userland comes from the Gnu project, which is one
> > source. And now if you'd care to explain the "it shows" part
> Try reading the man pages for the kernel-module routines, then for some
> of the GNU shit. Oh, that's right, GNU has deprecated man pages, so
> they have info pages. And half of the installed software deposits its
> documentation in /usr/doc, using neither man pages nor info pages. At
> any rate, if it's possible to find information on two separate pieces of
> software in the same place, compare them. Totally different
> documentation style. The pages don't cross-reference correctly. The
> environment DOES NOT ACT like a single OS. It acts like a kernel with a
> bunch of third-party software stapled on.
I don't know.
I kinda like the "bricolage" approach. I even like the Gnu info system, which
has a few nice features over "man". I read them in Konqueror usually, it's
like a complete web site.
> Now, compare that to Solaris, IRIX, AIX, or one of the BSDs. The man
> pages are all written (or rewritten) with the intent of you using the
> set of tools in the distribution as an environment. Pay special
> attention to the cross-references. The vendor -knows- what software
> you'll have installed, so all the appropriate cross-references are made.
> Contrast that with GNU gFooBar or whatever. The maintainer doesn't also
> know that you might have GNU gBarBaz installed, which complement each
> other. If you don't know that, you'll have no hope of gleaning that
> from the documentation.
Hm, I never noticed something like you say...
> Oh, and how about command arguments? Since most of the tools that ship
> with a commercial unix or BSD come from the same place, most of the
> tools that take similar parameters have the same arguments. For
> example, -f almost -ALWAYS- means "file for input or output". For the
> most part, Linux distributions tend to have some amount of this
> cohesion...right up to the point of long parameters. So you have
> --input-file= for one tool, and --file= for another and --source= for
Perhaps I just got used to it, but I never had any trouble with that.
> The system just isn't very polished. It's a collection of very
> well-written tools that don't behave like a single product.
Much of this also depends on the distribution. Not that I expect them to
rewrite documentation, but generally I like the fact that it isn't 1 big
lump. It allows for very stripped-down installations.
Frank Van Damme http://www.openstandaarden.be
"Je pense, donc je suis breveti."
More information about the rescue