[Odyssey]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Actually, I wonder why non of the open source groups are going back to that old style of development, using a DOS-like setup for the OS and a shell for the GUI....

[color=cc9900]Err... They are. GUI shells are for example KDE, Gnome, IceWM, etc.[/color]

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Admiral LSD


This.

Bah. Use a decent motherboard. We've already had that discussion though. I fully understand your reasoning.


GreyWolf2009, Microsoft and Apple style fully-integreated OS/GUI setups have been long deprecated in the *nix world. You'll only find them in embedded projects. The way things are setup in the *nix world is like this:

Layer 0: Operating System -- Linux-flavor, BSD-flavor, or commercial Unix
Layer 1: Shell -- kinda like command.com in DOS/Win. tcsh, sh, bash, ksh, csh, zsh, ash, and a million others.
Layer 2: Windowing System -- Usually XFree86, which is based on X11R6 IIRC. It just does windows. It doesn't do anything but windows. It doesn't even have controls to move windows or resize them or anything. It just does windows.
Layer 3: Window manager -- This is where you get window controls for opening and closing stuff, menus, moving windows, etc. I'm fond of OLVWM, but lots of people use things like mwm, twm, blackbox, Enlightenment, etc.
Layer3 (another path): some people opt for full desktop environments rather than just window managers. a DE includes a window manager (and can use others) but also provides richer interaction between windows, theming/skinning capabilities, session management, etc. Gnome and KDE or the best known open source DEs. You can think of these as being roughly like Microsoft Windows (in terms of consistency of look and feel and applicatons and cross application communication)

The very idea of lumping the OS, shell, windowing system and window manager (or desktop environment) into a single monolithic OS-beast like Windows or MacOS is completely foreign to the *nix philosophy. Generally the idea is to keep things focused on a task, and limit it to that task. We like small, single purpose utilities and programs that the USER can put together to suit his needs, not what some programmer half way around the world THINKS are his needs.

[Kamikaze]

For that matter, some *nix people are going on an even less monolithic path where the kernel is very small and most tasks are handled by by things living in user land. (e.g. Mach)

mikhael: Can you recommend a specific nforce-* alternative?

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by mikhael
actively user-homicidal like the Debian installer

Not for long!

http://articles.linmagau.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=455&page=1

[kode]

the debian isn't really that hard to grasp. getting the install right, however...

and I can't wait for the next debian...

[Grey Wolf]

I didn't quite realize that the different *nix flavors worked that way. Hmm... Now if only they could use Windows drivers and programs, I would switch in a minute...

And Kami, the only other real option for Athlon processors is a VIA chipset.

[Odyssey]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Now if only they could use Windows drivers and programs, I would switch in a minute...

[color=cc9900]They're trying. You've got Wine and WineX for programs, and I heard someone was doing something about trying to emulate drivers. Thing is, drivers are such a fundamental part, emulation isn't such a good idea. It'd be easier if manufacturers just released the source to their drivers etc., then stuff gets ported instantly.[/color]

[diamondgeezer]

I had a fun error message the other day:



Draw your own conclusions as to what it means

[Descenterace]

I finally got totally sick of the Microsoft Mentality on Thursday night, around about 17:00.  I booted up using a Win98SE disk in order to format my C: drive, in preparation for installing XP.  However, C: is an NTFS partition.  Under Win98, the D: drive (the first FAT32 drive) became C:.  And D: has all my work on it.

Now, in DOS 5.0 through to 6.22, there was an UNFORMAT command.  A very useful tool.  Then Microsoft suddenly thought, 'if we don't include this by default, we can sell to other companies the idea of charging extortionate amounts of money for the service.'  To unformat my disk, with a utility which stands half a chance of working, would've required me to pay £100 for 2 gigs of disk quota on some penny-pinching company's server.

BASTARDS!

OK, so the really critical stuff is backed up on CD.  But the other gig or so of stuff will take me a WEEK to regenerate!

So, can anyone recommend a Linux distribution for a total GNUbie?  I have no idea which one the University uses.  All I know is that the interface I normally use is Gnome, but any Linux distribution will run any interface, won't it?

I'm still maintaining a WinXP install, for playing games on.  And programming in the Visual C++ 6 environment, which even the local Linux evangelist considers better than Linux's own C compiler/debugger system.  But from now on, MS Word is going down the khazi.  LaTeX is far better, and I need to learn how to use it to write reports and stuff for my CompSci course anyway...

[kode]

the unformat thing wasn't that secure. and it took some space too. I always used /u when I formatted in dos.

[Admiral LSD]

Originally posted by Kamikaze
mikhael: Can you recommend a specific nforce-* alternative?

There isn't one, not for Athlon CPUs anyway. mikhael's letting his background in Servers get in the way again. For most tasks that "normal" users do, nForce/nForce2 is just fine.

[mikhael]

For most tasks that normal users do, a non-nForce/nForce2 board is just fine too, Admiral LSD.

I can't even remember what chipset is on the board in this machine, and I'm too lazy to lay out the case and open it up. What I do know is that the chipset on the motherboard is not something I give a heck of a lot of thought to. Not using integrated sound, video or LAN stuff makes this a very easy thing to do.

[Admiral LSD]

As long as it isn't AMD, Via, SiS or ALi I don't give a heck of a lot of thought to motherboard chipsets either

[kasperl]

for a linux n00b, i'd recommend that you try Knoppix first to get used to the way it handless HD's and stuff, and then dl Redhat. both of them can be installed by a trained monkey, though setting up the Redhat boot manager takes some remembring.

note to self: do not tell the damn thing that your FAT data partition is your windows drive.

[Descenterace]

I know enough about Linux to access drives and stuff.  It just takes me rather more thought than Windoze does at the moment.  I was thinking of going for Red Hat, but which one?  There's lots of Red Hat based ones...

[kasperl]

RH9, just go to redhat.com

[kode]

or you choose something that is supported, like mandrake which is basically the same thing only easier.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Admiral LSD
As long as it isn't AMD, Via, SiS or ALi I don't give a heck of a lot of thought to motherboard chipsets either

What do you have against VIA? The KT333, KT600, and K8T800 are all decent chipsets. Just don't mention the KT400.

[Descenterace]

KT400 is OK.  I built a computer for someone with a GA-7VM400M mainboard.  It works fine, but the onboard UniChrome graphics chip is unbelievably crap, so it's a good thing he never wanted to play games on it.

I'm the proud owner of a K7 Triton GA-7VT600L mainboard.  It kicks ass.

[mikhael]

Repeat after me: On Board Peripherals Are Proof That The Universe Hates Us. There's really just no damn reason to suffer such crap in anything but an ultra-super-duper-hyper-budget box--and if you're building one of those, chances are you don't mind the performance suck you're going to get.

I think the chipset on this motherboard is a KT333 or something. Works great for pretty much anything I need.