Corporate creep in Linux? (mini-rantette)
in [Slackware]
|
From: Dan C on 11 Sep 2009 14:59 On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:24:42 +0000, Mike Jones wrote: > Responding to Glyn Millington: > >> Mike Jones <Not(a)Arizona.Bay> writes: >> >>> Responding to Glyn Millington: >>>> >>>> Well has that happened yet? The major tool is a text editor - we >>>> have lots on the dvd. There seem to be lots of .*rc files around and >>>> /etc/rc.d seems to be the sunny playground it always was :-) All that >>>> has happened is that the KDE version has taken a major bump up. >>>> >>>>> The prosecution rests at this time. >>>> >>>> And you have a *good* case - I just don't think it helps if it is >>>> overstated :-) The sky isn't about to fall down. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Wellllllll.... >>> >>> Back to that /dev/??? thing. Back on Slack 9 I had a dir full of devs. >>> Now I don't, and have udev\HAL to deal with. Sure I can nuke HAL and >>> even udev, but then what? >>> >>> See how those bridged get burned behind you while you're not watching? >> >> >> Well its a long time since I did it, but I think I recall that if you >> switch off udev then the /dev/ gets populated in the good old fashoined >> way. >> >> Damn - then I remember this from the Slackware RELEASENOTES >> >> >> I would not suggest trying to run without udev. Consider it the >> userspace portion of the kernel. It *is* possible, but if you must >> do that you'll have to tweak a couple things here and there. The >> specifics are left as an exercise for the advanced user. Wait, an >> advanced user would just use udev. Really, it works and makes >> things a lot easier. >> >> > > Once again, the case for the prosecution rests. Does that mean you're going to stop talking about it now? -- "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". "Bother!" said Pooh, as he garotted another passing Liberal. Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
From: Glyn Millington on 11 Sep 2009 14:48 Mike Jones <Not(a)Arizona.Bay> writes: > Once again, the case for the prosecution rests. and with good reason :-) atb Glyn -- RTFM http://www.tldp.org/index.html GAFC http://slackbook.org/ The Official Source :-) STFW http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=alt.os.linux.slackware JFGI http://jfgi.us/
From: Mike Jones on 11 Sep 2009 17:21 Responding to Jim Diamond: > On 2009-09-11 at 12:42 ADT, Mike Jones <Not(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: >> Responding to Jim Diamond: >> >>> On 2009-09-11 at 05:57 ADT, Mike Jones <Not(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: >>>> Responding to dae3: >>>> >>>>> Mike Jones <Not(a)Arizona.Bay> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Whats wrong with RXVT? >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want extended function, MRXVT? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For that matter, I wonder what's wrong with xterm... >>>> >>>> >>>> A good point, seeing as RXVT's key strength is that is it lighter >>>> than xterm, and these days thats not even going to cause a ripple on >>>> today's hardware. >>>> >>>> MRXVT does do multiple tabs though, and all the fancy stuff if you >>>> want it. >>> >>> I think it is still lacking utf8 support, which is a bit of a nuisance >>> in some circumstances. Also, it doesn't use X resources, which IMHO >>> is a Bad Thing. Other than that, it's not a bad terminal emulator. > >> A console that doesn't require X resources? Isn't that a /good/ thing? > > At the risk of being pedantic, this sub-thread concerns terminal > emulators, not consoles. Since these terminal emulators run under the X > window system, they have functionality which could be controlled via X > window resources, rather than via config files. > > I don't get why you think not requiring X resources would be a good > thing. Do tell. > > Jim This is all in the loose "we're actually just talking bollocks here" sense here, you understand? And its "At the risk of /becoming/ pedantic". Thank you. ;) -- *===( http://www.400monkeys.com/God/ *===( http://principiadiscordia.com/ *===( http://www.slackware.com/
From: Keith Keller on 11 Sep 2009 17:29 On 2009-09-11, Michael Black <et472(a)ncf.ca> wrote: > > What's a serial port? > > This about 2001 computer has only one, which I find a problem at > times. But I assume later computers have even less in the way of > serial ports. Every server I've bought, including two earlier this year, has at least one serial port. Some have one on the front and one on the back. They are still quite handy for pulling up a remote console, and serial port aggregators are still significantly cheaper than the equivalent IP KVM. --keith -- kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information
From: Peter Chant on 11 Sep 2009 18:23
Glyn Millington wrote: > advanced user would just use udev. Really, it works and makes things > a lot easier. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ....and we certainly don't want that happening around here... Half joshing / half sarcasm. :-/ Really, except for embedded why would you want to play around with /dev. OK I have failed when trying to make udev call things what I wanted but how is mknod any easier - I suppose it is if you have spent a lifetime memorising the mystic numbers it demands to be fed with! -- http://www.petezilla.co.uk |