USB installation - MD5s for RHEL 5.3 Fail

The Natural Philosopher · External Since: Jul 06, 2009 Posts: 10

Sidney Lambe wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp DeleteThis @invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>> Johnny Rebel <rebel DeleteThis @none.com> wrote:
>>>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>>>> Allen Kistler <ackistler DeleteThis @oohay.moc> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [delete]
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
>>>>>> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>>>>> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
>>>>> for Linux.
>>>> Nothing wrong with that at all, it is all in the spirit of the GPL. The
>>>> best thing is, you don't have to pay for it, it is your choice.
>>> Yes, there is something wrong with it. They are paying for avoiding
>>> learning Linux.
>>>
>> Do you service your won car? Perform your own lobotomies? Salughter your
>> own cattle?
>>
>> Jeez.
>
> Says a man who can't tell the difference between sitting at a computer
> and typing and reading and doing the above tasks.
>
> Not too long ago a person this stupid would not have been able to
> run Linux.
>
> Then along came KDE and the like, and ignorant and lazy couch
> potatos like him can now pretend that they are.
>
> No, fool. I don't do any of those things.

Why not?

Do you pay someone else to do them for you?

But like scores of
> thousands of people around the world, I run Linux without KDE
> or anything like it. I run Linux from the commandline.
>

So do I on occasion.

Gien that two machines I manage dont even have screens..

> All one needs to learn are the basics of how Linux works
> and the basics of Bash.
>

Oh purlease. I knew bash before there was Linux.

I was paid to support Unix systems. Install them Code up using them.
Network them.Turn them into routers and firewalls.

Your are really Naif you know. You think that peolacharite DeleteThis @alice.itle
who disagree with you know less than you. They know far far more.

One of the biggest users of Linux that I know, is using it on extremely
large powerful servers running multiple VMware servers for hosting
clients. Not because its free, but because it works extremely well. I am
sure they have a very expensive support contract with someone to look
after it. They are too busy managing a customer base and multiple
hosting cecenters.

> Yes, I know. You are too busy running around the Internet
> and posting stupid articles like this to do a little studying.
>

you really don't know who you are talking to do you?

Johnny Rebel · External Since: Jul 05, 2009 Posts: 3

Sidney Lambe wrote:
> Johnny Rebel <rebel DeleteThis @none.com> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>>> Allen Kistler <ackistler DeleteThis @oohay.moc> wrote:
>>>
>>> [delete]
>>>
>>>> BTW, Red Hat's subscription fees are not
>>>> version-specific. If you paid for RHEL5, you can switch to RHEL3.
>>> The world is indeed coming to an end. People are paying
>>> for Linux.
>> Nothing wrong with that at all, it is all in the spirit of the GPL. The
>> best thing is, you don't have to pay for it, it is your choice.
>
> Yes, there is something wrong with it. They are paying for avoiding
> learning Linux.

I don't see anything wrong with it whatsoever. I don't think R.M.S has
an issue with it either - and if he doesn't, you sure don't have an excuse.

>
> They are paying to remain ignorant appliance operators.

I am actually an SA with quite a number of years of experience thanks.

>
> I don't know why you call yourself "Johnny Rebel".

<yawn>.

>
> You are a corporate sheep.

Not at all. It's just that I can read, and am not 13 years old.

>
> Oh yeh. I forgot. Lies the corporations' principal tools.

Not at all, spin is.

>
> [delete]
>
> Sid
>
>

--

--> GNU/Linux is user friendly... it's just picky about its friends.

Sidney Lambe · External Since: Jul 05, 2009 Posts: 20

Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8 DeleteThis @verizon.net> wrote:
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
>> Answer: Because you are a stinking, lying technocrat who wants Linux
>> runners to become ignorant appliance operators who are dependent
>> on you and others like you.
>>
> Almost time to invoke Godwin's Law.

Now that everyone knows how dishonest you are, it doesn't really
matter what you do.

The corporations are trying to take over Linux with the help of technocrats
like this fellow.

Their chief tools of conquest are windows-clone user interfaces like
KDE. These obscure the Linux operating system and you end up learning
KDE, not Linux, and they have you by the balls.

Don't let them do this to you. Learn the basics of how Linux works
and the shell, the command line. It isn't hard and it is very
interesting.

General:

http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html

http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2

http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.
html

http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin

----------------------------
Bash:

http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ
http://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/index.html
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1052574.html
kind of odd "shell ninja" but lots of good info:
http://www.slideshare.net/brian_dailey/nyphp-march-2009-presentation
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/classes/s243/bash.html
http://www.learnaboutlinux.net/blog/41-programming/50-bash-basics-1

Sid

Keith Keller · External Since: Jun 21, 2006 Posts: 478

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.setup.]

On 2009-07-07, Sidney Lambe <sidneylambe.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Learn the basics of how Linux works
> and the shell, the command line. It isn't hard and it is very
> interesting.

I agree.

> http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/

But don't use this document, unless you want a very general and in some
places (unintentionally) misleading or inaccurate overview. It's many
years old, claiming to talk about ''Sidney's'' hated RedHat, version 6.
Version six was likely out before ''Sidney'' was born.

> http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2

This link also seems somewhat older (the copyright date is 2002, and the
document doesn't seem to cover grub, the more common boot loader).

> http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/h.../shell.

This document claims to cover Slackware 10.0, also many years old. The
official Slackware documentation (from 2005) is probably a little better:
(though it probably covers, at best, 10.2):

http://slackbook.org/

But perhaps the best piece of advice was left implicit in ''Sidney's''
post: never trust any technical advice given by ''Sidney''. This troll
used to brag about his idiotic method of ignoring posts, ostensibly
written in bash, that was a poor imitation of what any reasonable nntp
client (e.g., slrn, trn, tin) can do trivially. Now that I'm mentioning
it we're guaranteed that he won't respond to my post, as he's claimed on
multiple occasions to have added my address to this mechanism, and won't
want to admit that even after many years it still doesn't work.

But I digress.

Be sure to check the date on any documentation you read. It's not a
guarantee that it's good, and not all old documentation is inaccurate.
But it's still better to look for recent docs by a reputable source
(e.g., not ''Sidney'').

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet.TakeThisOut@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

Sidney Lambe · External Since: Jul 05, 2009 Posts: 20

Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

[juvenile trolling deleted]

Nico here is one the technocrats who wants you to remain
ignorant of how Linux works so that you will be dependent
on him and others like him.

So they encourage the use of Windows-clone interfaces like
KDE and tell you, without ever saying it outright, that you
are too stupid to learn how to run Linux from the commandline.

They lie. Take some time to do a little studying and playing
with the commandline and you can break free of these corporate
pawns.

I run the X-Window system and can use any application that anyone
running KDE can, but I don't have KDE or anything like it.

General:

http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html

http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2

http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.
html

http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin

Bash Specific:

http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ
http://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/index.html
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1052574.html
kind of odd "shell ninja" but lots of good info:
http://www.slideshare.net/brian_dailey/nyphp-march-2009-presentation
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/classes/s243/bash.html
http://www.learnaboutlinux.net/blog/41-programming/50-bash-basics-1

Sid

Johnny Rebel · External Since: Jul 05, 2009 Posts: 3

Sidney Lambe wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [juvenile trolling deleted]
>
> Nico here is one the technocrats who wants you to remain
> ignorant of how Linux works so that you will be dependent
> on him and others like him.
>
> So they encourage the use of Windows-clone interfaces like
> KDE and tell you, without ever saying it outright, that you
> are too stupid to learn how to run Linux from the commandline.
>
> They lie. Take some time to do a little studying and playing
> with the commandline and you can break free of these corporate
> pawns.
>
> I run the X-Window system and can use any application that anyone
> running KDE can, but I don't have KDE or anything like it.
>
> General:
>
> http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
> http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html
>
> http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2
>
> http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.
> html
>
> http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
> http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
> http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
> http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
> http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
> http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin
>
> Bash Specific:
>
> http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ
> http://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/index.html
> http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
> http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1052574.html
> kind of odd "shell ninja" but lots of good info:
> http://www.slideshare.net/brian_dailey/nyphp-march-2009-presentation
> http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/classes/s243/bash.html
> http://www.learnaboutlinux.net/blog/41-programming/50-bash-basics-1
>
>
> Sid
>
>

Oh, so you have no problems using the KDE libraries then? I find that
surprising especially giving your rant about only using the CLI. Now
you are contradicting yourself.

JR.

--

--> GNU/Linux is user friendly... it's just picky about its friends.

Keith Keller · External Since: Jun 21, 2006 Posts: 478

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.setup.]

On 2009-07-07, Johnny Rebel <rebel.TakeThisOut@none.com> wrote:
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Oh, so you have no problems using the KDE libraries then? I find that
> surprising especially giving your rant about only using the CLI. Now
> you are contradicting yourself.

He is a *troll*! All he wants is for you to keep engaging him. If you
stop responding (or at least stop trying to find any sense in his posts)
perhaps he'll go away. (It is, sadly, still important to correct any
blatant misinformation he posts, so as not to mislead new readers who
may be unaware that he is a troll. This is why he posts so much
misinformation couched as verified fact.)

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet.TakeThisOut@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

dold · External Since: Mar 07, 2007 Posts: 4

In alt.os.linux.redhat Allen Kistler <ackistler.RemoveThis@oohay.moc> wrote:
> I can't think of a way to do a floppy-based or USB-based installation
> for RHEL. You could probably bootstrap into RHEL by starting with
> another distro that does support floppies, if you have a floppy drive
> and lots of floppy disks. Install that distro first, then use the
> method David mentions to boot to the RHEL iso.

RHEL 5 supports the use of the /images/bootdisk.img, copied to a bootable
USB flash drive. Instructions in the RHEL install guide.

"To boot using a USB pen drive, use the dd command to copy the diskboot.img
image file from the /images/ directory on CD-ROM 1. For example:
dd if=diskboot.img of=/dev/sda
"

Other sources on the web explain how to perform the copy if you don't
already have dd.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

Nico Kadel-Garcia · External Since: Jul 05, 2009 Posts: 7

On Jul 7, 7:41 pm, d... DeleteThis @01.usenet.us.com wrote:
> In alt.os.linux.redhat Allen Kistler <ackist... DeleteThis @oohay.moc> wrote:
>
> > I can't think of a way to do a floppy-based or USB-based installation
> > for RHEL. You could probably bootstrap into RHEL by starting with
> > another distro that does support floppies, if you have a floppy drive
> > and lots of floppy disks. Install that distro first, then use the
> > method David mentions to boot to the RHEL iso.
>
> RHEL 5 supports the use of the /images/bootdisk.img, copied to a bootable
> USB flash drive. Instructions in the RHEL install guide.

Yeah, I'm afraid that the kernel has gotten so burdened with funky
utilities required by various hardware, and the bare installation
utilities have grown so much, that one would be very, very hard
pressed indeed to stuff it in a floppy image. I used to do that: it
was a pain in the neck, especially because the 'initrd.img' was
actually an already gzip compressed file: it should have been named
'initrd.igz'.

> "To boot using a USB pen drive, use the dd command to copy the diskboot.img
> image file from the /images/ directory on CD-ROM 1. For example:
> dd if=diskboot.img of=/dev/sda
> "
>
> Other sources on the web explain how to perform the copy if you don't
> already have dd.

Have you actually tried this? I've found booting from pen drives
problematic over the last 6 years or so, and hope it has improved.

Nico Kadel-Garcia · External Since: Jul 05, 2009 Posts: 7

On Jul 8, 12:20 am, Allen Kistler <ackist... DeleteThis @oohay.moc> wrote:
> d... DeleteThis @01.usenet.us.com wrote:
> > In alt.os.linux.redhat Allen Kistler <ackist... DeleteThis @oohay.moc> wrote:
> >> I can't think of a way to do a floppy-based or USB-based installation
> >> for RHEL. You could probably bootstrap into RHEL by starting with
> >> another distro that does support floppies, if you have a floppy drive
> >> and lots of floppy disks. Install that distro first, then use the
> >> method David mentions to boot to the RHEL iso.
>
> > RHEL 5 supports the use of the /images/bootdisk.img, copied to a bootable
> > USB flash drive. Instructions in the RHEL install guide.
>
> > "To boot using a USB pen drive, use the dd command to copy the diskboot..img
> > image file from the /images/ directory on CD-ROM 1. For example:
> > dd if=diskboot.img of=/dev/sda"
>
> > Other sources on the web explain how to perform the copy if you don't
> > already have dd.
>
> Makes sense. I think I remember diskboot.img being for a floppy long,
> long ago. Then it became too big to fit on a floppy.
>
> I also found some fedora-test-list articles that talked about having to
> copy the image to the first partition on the USB stick if the machine
> didn't support booting to a USB floppy image (varies machine BIOS to
> machine BIOS).
>
> The OP had Windows, so he'll have to find a way to write the image to
> USB via something in Windows.
>
> In any case, the OP has something else to try now.

Maybe the old 'rawrite' utility? I used to use it for floppies: will
it work for USB devices?

Sidney Lambe · External Since: Jul 05, 2009 Posts: 20

Johnny Rebel <rebel.DeleteThis@none.com> wrote:

[delete more garbage]

See what happens when you criticize the Windowsization of Linux.

The technocrats freak because they want Linux runners to be
dependent on them and the couch potatoes freak because they
want Linux to be an appliance like Windows.

Of course, most of the participants here are just your ordinary
usenet losers whose life consists of mocking and degrading people
while they hide behind fake names (usually more than one of them).

KDE and the like are "gifts", multi-million dollar "gifts", from
a group of corporations who are trying to take Linux away from
amateurs and turn it into a clone of Windows. Corporations do
not spend this kind of money unless they plan on making it
back with a big profit thrown in.

KDE is just a bunch of applications wrapped up in a pretty
package that supposedly makes it possible for the average
ignorant couch-potato to run Linux. But only with dedicated
technical support.

And it makes your Linux OS so very complicated, all of itself,
that it naturally discourages anyone from trying to learn Linux.
This is by design.

I don't run anything like KDE. Like tens of thousands of
real Linux runners, I run Linux from the commandline. KDE
is more than 10X the size of my entire OS yet I can do
anything it can do. No, I am not some kind of guru. Just
a guy who spends a little time on most days reading about
Linux and trying out what I learn on my computer.

KDE users spend that time earning money to pay for the
privelege of holding on the telephone for technical
support.

General:

http://www.comptechdoc.org/os/linux/howlinuxworks/
http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/From-PowerUp-To-Bash-Prompt-HOWTO.html

http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2

http://www.linuxpackages.net/howto/slackfiles/books/slackware-basics/html/shell.
html

http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-who-where-and-what
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-man-command
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-directory-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/5/bash-files-manipulation
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-history-in-the-making
http://www.usefuljaja.com/2007/6/bash-use-your-local-bin

Bash Specific:

http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ
http://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/index.html
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1052574.html
kind of odd "shell ninja" but lots of good info:
http://www.slideshare.net/brian_dailey/nyphp-march-2009-presentation
http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/classes/s243/bash.html
http://www.learnaboutlinux.net/blog/41-programming/50-bash-basics-1

Sid

Allen Kistler · External Since: Jun 26, 2004 Posts: 367

dold DeleteThis @01.usenet.us.com wrote:
> In alt.os.linux.redhat Allen Kistler <ackistler DeleteThis @oohay.moc> wrote:
>> I can't think of a way to do a floppy-based or USB-based installation
>> for RHEL. You could probably bootstrap into RHEL by starting with
>> another distro that does support floppies, if you have a floppy drive
>> and lots of floppy disks. Install that distro first, then use the
>> method David mentions to boot to the RHEL iso.
>
> RHEL 5 supports the use of the /images/bootdisk.img, copied to a bootable
> USB flash drive. Instructions in the RHEL install guide.
>
> "To boot using a USB pen drive, use the dd command to copy the diskboot.img
> image file from the /images/ directory on CD-ROM 1. For example:
> dd if=diskboot.img of=/dev/sda"
>
> Other sources on the web explain how to perform the copy if you don't
> already have dd.

Makes sense. I think I remember diskboot.img being for a floppy long,
long ago. Then it became too big to fit on a floppy.

I also found some fedora-test-list articles that talked about having to
copy the image to the first partition on the USB stick if the machine
didn't support booting to a USB floppy image (varies machine BIOS to
machine BIOS).

The OP had Windows, so he'll have to find a way to write the image to
USB via something in Windows.

In any case, the OP has something else to try now.

dold · External Since: Mar 07, 2007 Posts: 4

In alt.os.linux.redhat Allen Kistler <ackistler.DeleteThis@oohay.moc> wrote:
> dold.DeleteThis@01.usenet.us.com wrote:
> > "To boot using a USB pen drive, use the dd command to copy the
> > diskboot.img image file from the /images/ directory on CD-ROM 1. For
> > example: dd if=diskboot.img of=/dev/sda"

> The OP had Windows, so he'll have to find a way to write the image to
> USB via something in Windows.

I used cygwin dd to write it from Windows and tested the boot.

cat /proc/partitions
# before and after USB stick insertion to see what the /dev name is
dd if=diskboot.img of=/dev/sdb

A quick sniff on the web shows several "dd" programs available.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

dold · External Since: Mar 07, 2007 Posts: 4

In alt.os.linux.redhat Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have you actually tried this? I've found booting from pen drives
> problematic over the last 6 years or so, and hope it has improved.

After I did the dd of the RHEL image yesterday, I did boot a desktop from
it. It showed RHEL 5, and looked like the normal install boot prompt from
a booted CD. I didn't try "rescue" or anything. It timed out, and went to
an install GUI, asking for the location of the install media.

Recently, in the quest to recover a damaged WinVista laptop, I tried making
bootable USB LiveCD sticks for Ubuntu and Fedora, using a combination of
dd, various programs found on the web, including some eeprom-update tools
from HP.

Eventually, I used a physical Ubuntu LiveCD (I didn't have a writer
available initially) to make an Ubuntu bootable stick. That worked, and I
recovered all of the docs I needed from the laptop, and loaded Ubuntu on
it, instead of buying the WindowsVista media for a reload...

From Windows, the Ubuntu-suggested UNetbootin did not work for me, but the
Fedora liveusb-creator.exe worked, and has the added benefit of leaving me
with a usable USB flash for normal storage.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

Aragorn · External Since: Feb 22, 2009 Posts: 13

On Wednesday 08 July 2009 03:55, someone identifying as *Sidney Lambe*
wrote in /comp.os.linux.setup:/

> See what happens when you criticize the Windowsization of Linux.

First of all I would like to say that I have not been following the
entire debate into detail because of health issues, and although the
word "troll" has come up a few times in this part of the thread, I have
now chosen to - even if only for a short while - put in my two cents
worth, with respect to both parties, as I see valid points in both of
them.

Sidney, I can feel your frustration over the "Windowsization" of
GNU/Linux, and to a large degree, I even share it. However, I think
you are being so frustrated about it that you are generalizing and
polarizing your views to extents beyond reality. Allow me to
explain...

There is indeed a tendency to make GNU/Linux more Windows-like, but I do
not believe that this tendency is as fierce as you yourself are
describing it, and what bothers me the most in this is that this
tendency has arisen from the demands of GNU/Linux newbies who of course
all come from the Windows world.

I myself have once been a newbie too, albeit that I was never that
Windows-conditioned as I already knew of other operating systems long
before I had a computer of my own. I only used MS-DOS 5.0 and Windows
3.x for about five or six months on my own first computer as it came
with those pre-installed and I was awaiting the commercial and stable
release of OS/2 2.x, which I have subsequently used for over five
years. On my next machine, I have used Windows NT 4.0 Workstation for
two years, but back then I was not all that seriously into computers
yet as I have become since I installed GNU/Linux for the first time,
late 1999. I have never used anything other than GNU/Linux since, and
wouldn't want to if my life depended on it. (In fact, I think I'd
rather have my life depend on GNU/Linux than on any other operating
system. Wink

)

Now, I was a newbie too back then, albeit with some minor UNIX knowledge
and free from the Windows-isms like "folders" and /sea-drives./ I have
always found the UNIX methodology far more logical and transparent.
But as a newbie, KDE - back then still at version 1.1.1 - was a very
welcome environment as it facilitated getting acquainted with all
aspects of the operating system. I did however check out many of
the /man/ and /info/ pages from the start, read the /HowTos/ and of
course, prior to even installing the operating system, the printed
manual - it was a shrinkwrapped retail version of Linux Mandrake 6.0
Powerpack, which was back then basically a copy of RedHat with KDE
added, because RedHat refused to supply KDE due to the fact that KDE
1.x was built using non-freely licensed Qt libraries. Another
difference was that Mandrake 6.0 came with kernel 2.2.9, whereas RedHat
still carried 2.2.5.

I am a big fan of KDE, and more specifically KDE 3.x. I find KDE 4.x to
be promising, yet at the same time daunting because it's obviously
still very experimental and so far I haven't heard of any distro that
has managed to iron out the problems KDE 4.x poses. KDE 3.5.10 on the
other hand, although no longer maintained by the KDE developers
themselves, is stable and fully functional.

I also don't make it look like Windows - and I hate that distro vendors
do that - because I don't find the Windows GUI all that intuitive. On
my system, it looks a bit like the GUI of a MacIntosh, but not with the
intent of duplicating it. I have not set it up to look like anything
that exists, but rather like something that I can use and that feels
good for myself, not for everyone else. But even in its default look &
feel, I don't consider KDE 3.x to be a Windows clone, especially not if
you consider LXDE (which *does* look like Windows XP) or the Vista-look
of KDE 4.x - if I ever do switch to using KDE 4.x, then that will be
the first thing I change - or even the perversions of whatever UNIX
desktop environment is used by Linspire and the likes and have been
completely converted to the look & feel of Windows, desktop wallpaper
included.

So I do use KDE, and I like it. But don't let that statement fool you,
because I keep a terminal window open at all time and launch additional
terminal emulators when needed, and I do most of the stuff from the
commandline. It's just that when handling graphical objects a lot, it
is easier if you get to see a preview, and graphical manipulation of
photos et al does require running X11 anyway, and these days, diskspace
and RAM are cheap, so there's no reason for me to run a CLI-only system
- not for a workstation anyway. But I copy, move, delete, create and
otherwise manipulate files from the commandline. My filemanager only
serves so as to get a clear overview of the thumbnails. Being autistic
however, I really do like the aesthetics of (my customized version of)
KDE 3.x.

However, there is another angle to the Windows-ism story, in which you
are partly right, i.e. commercial distributions need an income, and
that income comes from selling a distribution of GNU/Linux in a
computer market segment that is for most part occupied by Windows. And
Microsoft has gone to great lengths at hiding what a computer really is
and what it does from its users, presenting them with their own
"Microsoft logic", in which thinking for yourself is strongly
discouraged. As such, the new batch of IT professionals gets trained
on using Microsoft stuff only, and as such, a new generation of idiots
is produced.

So now there are the computer illiterates who only know Windows - and
have never even heard of anything other than Windows because of
Microsoft's monopolizing tactics of pushing a license of Windows with
every new consumergrade computer from a big name brand - and you've got
the Windiots who call themselves IT specialists but only know how to
set up Microsoft software for use by the illiterates. Treat your
customers like idiots and idiots are the customers you'll attract - the
old adage still stands. And that is why distromakers tend to cater to
their Windiot clients.

> The technocrats freak because they want Linux runners to be
> dependent on them [...

On this I do not agree. I don't think that the technocrats would want
users to be dependent of them at all. In fact, it is my experience -
at least on Usenet, and I tend to follow this tendency myself when
giving advice - that the more technically experienced among us are
trying to teach the newbie how to think for themselves and "RTFM",
instead of thinking that GNU/Linux must behave like Windows.

By the same token, I always advice everyone to ditch the entire HAL
stuff with the automounting features and stick to a traditional and
static */etc/fstab* with manual mounting. Not that I'm conservative,
but I don't like things screwing around with system data that should be
kept static and that is known to work, while the automounting stuff
often doesn't.

> ...] and the couch potatoes freak because they want Linux to be an
> appliance like Windows.

On *that* I agree.

> Of course, most of the participants here are just your ordinary
> usenet losers whose life consists of mocking and degrading people
> while they hide behind fake names (usually more than one of them).

The use of pseudonyms is not such a bad idea, provided that one stays
consistent and uses the same pseudonym continuously, or at the very
least, when adopting another one, make an announcement to that regard.

Shifting pseudonyms is rather a habit of trolls or spammers. I use a
pseudonym but I have used this one for many years already. I used to
have another one long before this one, but those who know me know that
this other "person" was me, and why I have chosen a different name -
among other things, I was being stalked by people who knew my pseudonym
and what newsgroup groups I was posting in.

> KDE and the like are "gifts", multi-million dollar "gifts", from
> a group of corporations who are trying to take Linux away from
> amateurs and turn it into a clone of Windows.

I disagree on that. KDE was an effort to build a contemporary graphical
desktop environment for all kinds of UNIX systems - not just GNU/Linux
- and its name is a parody on CDE, the Common Desktop Environment that
shipped with most commercial UNIX implementations. KDE contains
elements of CDE, NeXtSTeP, pre-OS-X MacIntoshes, OS/2 and Windows. The
first iterations of KDE even looked far more like Motif and CDE than
like Windows.

Most (but not all) of the original KDE developers did work at Trolltech,
which produces the Qt widgetset, and hence they also used Qt to build
KDE upon. Originally Qt was not released under a free license, and
this is why the FSF and certain "politically correct wannabe"
distributions like RedHat refused to support KDE, despite KDE itself
being released under a free license. Meanwhile Trolltech has - with
the advice from RMS himself - licensed Qt under a GPL-compatible
license, and so that problem has been eliminated.

I will however agree with you that KDE 4.x does look a lot like Vista in
its default trim with the black panel, and that this is probably done
so as to make life easier for the Windows-to-GNU/Linux crossover
newbie. And I will also agree with you that this was absolutely
unnecessary. Yet that does not mean that I will agree that UNIX must
be a CLI-only operating system. But then again, it should also not be
seen as a CLI-only operating system of course, as the operating system
itself is CLI-only and everything else runs on top of that.

For the record, my system is normally up 24/7, but it boots to runlevel
3 anyway, not to a GUI login screen. I consider X11/KDE an extension
to the system, not an essential component to it. By the same token, I
maintain our not-for-profit organization's servers via /ssh/ - my
colleague is a Windows user and prefers /webmin/ - so I do not need any
GUI tools. It's just that having those tools available (for local
administration) might come in handy sometimes. Wink

> Corporations do not spend this kind of money unless they plan on
> making it back with a big profit thrown in.

That is unfortunately a trend we get to see with lots of commercial
distributions. But there still are non-commercial distributions,
albeit only a small amount. Gentoo for instance, or Debian.

> KDE is just a bunch of applications wrapped up in a pretty
> package that supposedly makes it possible for the average
> ignorant couch-potato to run Linux. But only with dedicated
> technical support.

I don't understand why you are dissing on KDE so much. As far as my own
experience goes, I find KDE to be far more customizable than Gnome, and
far better integrated with its applications than any of the smaller,
standalone desktop environments or window managers.

> And it makes your Linux OS so very complicated, all of itself,
> that it naturally discourages anyone from trying to learn Linux.
> This is by design.

This is mainly the influence of the distromakers themselves, because
they needlessly complicate things for the sake of branding them with
their own logos. For instance, Mandriva - formerly known as
MandrakeSoft - really goes out of its way in providing customized
versions of - among many others - all kinds of KDE-related things
(including /kdm/) and the fact that their customizations are left
largely undocumented seems more like a deliberate decision than a
manifestation of Occam's Razor.

> I don't run anything like KDE. Like tens of thousands of
> real Linux runners, I run Linux from the commandline.

There really is a distinct difference between realizing that the
Windows-insanity is trying to take over the GNU/Linux world out of
their inability to understand anything other than the pre-chewed
Microsoft junk, and radically opposing and hating anything GUI-related.
I can make that distinction, but I'm afraid you yourself cannot.

The tens of thousands of CLI-only users you are referring to are mainly
server admins, and for server administration you do indeed not need a
GUI, nor is it desirable to even install anything GUI-related on a
server. However, persisting at running a CLI-only system also causes
you to bypass *almost* everything multimedia-related, such as the
manipulation of graphics via The Gimp - which is one of my favorite
applications and which, despite the condescending remarks from
Photoshop addicts, is quite professional software.

I repeat...: I do our server maintenance via /ssh./ I do most of the
stuff on my own workstation computer using terminal emulators. But I
do use KDE and I do use KDE-specific applications. And I also do use a
browser - whichever works - to surf to websites that contain graphical
content.

There's nothing wrong with using a GUI, and one should not have to hate
GUIs or refuse to use them just because there is such a thing as
Microsoft Windows. I hate Windows too. Not because I've had any
problems with it - because I haven't used it for long enough nor
intensely enough to actually have had any significant problems with it
- but because of what it is, i.e. a perversion of what a computer is
and what it's supposed to do, and what it's supposed to allow the user
to do with it (as opposed to what Microsoft allows the user to do with
it). And I hate Microsoft as a company because of all their dirty
tactics and their attempts at disrupting the GNU/Linux community
through publicized FUD and Usenet shills/trolls, and because they are
clearly attempting to further dumb down the enduser so as to beat more
money out of their pockets or simply lead them into dependency.

> KDE is more than 10X the size of my entire OS yet I can do
> anything it can do.

And on today's hard disks with hundreds of GB of diskspace, in today's
computers with several GB of RAM, this matters how exactly?

> No, I am not some kind of guru. Just a guy who spends a little time on
> most days reading about Linux and trying out what I learn on my
> computer.

I enjoy learning new stuff about GNU/Linux (or UNIX in general) as well,
but I am not spending my entire days trying to learn something new
about it unless it is something of particular interest to me - e.g.
virtualization with Xen (and no, not with Windows as guests). I have
many fields of interest that I do research about, but I am not going to
go out of my way to become a real guru and/or run a system without a
GUI.

I will however agree that it is better to teach the newbie that
GNU/Linux (or any UNIX for that matter) is an entirely different
operating system from Windows and that they should abandon all they
know about Windows or all they were used to on Windows before
endeavoring into GNU/Linux.

It *is* a different operating system, but I do not buy into the "steep
learning curve" excuse. Someone who's never seen a computer in his
life and who gets to be confronted with Windows for the first time will
have an equally steep learning curve to overcome. The steepness of the
GNU/Linux learning curve is only an imaginary construct used as an
excuse by Windows addicts to adhere to their dumbed-down Windows-isms
and insist that GNU/Linux become "more userfriendly".

GNU/Linux is not user-unfriendly at all; it simply expects the user to
be a little more computerfriendly instead. It is far more logical and
transparent than any other non-UNIX operating system I've seen so far.
Hell, it even makes far more sense than DOS, and that was a
commandline-only system as well.

> KDE users spend that time earning money to pay for the privelege of
> holding on the telephone for technical support.

You only get to get technical support if you're using a commercial
distribution, even if the operating system is provided free of charge
by its vendors - e.g. the various Ubuntu-spinoffs. I used to buy
commercial distributions because I wanted to do something back to the
community, but I think I've already helped far more users here on
Usenet than that my money to the distromakers has helped the community.

At present I am still running an old Mandrake 10.0 on this machine -
purchased directly from MandrakeSoft (now Mandriva) itself through
their online store, albeit that this did not quite go as smoothly as
they were pretending - but for my other machine I am looking at Gentoo,
and since this machine here is becoming unstable hardwarewise and will
require a replacement, I will probably be installing Slackware on that
one. I don't know yet. I'll see.

One of the reasons why I won't get involved with RedHat/CentOS/Fedora is
that they refuse to let you install the system on anything other
than /ext3/ filesystems - and by now, probably /ext4/ as well - while I
have always preferred /XFS/ for large systems and /reiserfs/ on smaller
ones. Reiser's conviction for the murder of his estranged wife a while
ago has of course lessened my sympathy for his filesystem, but
technically /reiserfs/ has not given me any problems yet. /XFS/ does
have a far more elaborate toolset, however.

> General:
>
> [...]
>
> http://rute.2038bug.com/rute.html.tar.bz2

This is definitely recommended reading, and so are many of the other
links you've provided, but I don't see the logic in listing all of
those links in every post you make.

However, if I may make a suggestion, take that list of links and post it
on a website somewhere, and then include a link to that website in your
Usenet signature. Saves on bandwidth and diminishes the spam content
score of your posts. Wink

<snip>

--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

Aragorn · External Since: Feb 22, 2009 Posts: 13

On Wednesday 08 July 2009 22:24, someone identifying as *Aragorn* wrote
in /comp.os.linux.setup:/

> [...]
> I myself have once been a newbie too, albeit that I was never that
> Windows-conditioned as I already knew of other operating systems long
> before I had a computer of my own. I only used MS-DOS 5.0 and Windows
> 3.x for about five or six months on my own first computer as it came
> with those pre-installed and I was awaiting the commercial and stable
> release of OS/2 2.x, which I have subsequently used for over five
> years. On my next machine, I have used Windows NT 4.0 Workstation for
> two years, but back then I was not all that seriously into computers
> yet as I have become since I installed GNU/Linux for the first time,
> late 1999. I have never used anything other than GNU/Linux since, and
> wouldn't want to if my life depended on it. (In fact, I think I'd
> rather have my life depend on GNU/Linux than on any other operating
> system. Wink

)
>
> Now, I was a newbie too back then, albeit with some minor UNIX
> knowledge and free from the Windows-isms like "folders"
> and /sea-drives./ I have always found the UNIX methodology far more
> logical and transparent. But as a newbie, KDE - back then still at
> version 1.1.1 - was a very welcome environment as it facilitated
> getting acquainted with all aspects of the operating system. I did
> however check out many of the /man/ and /info/ pages from the start,
> read the /HowTos/ and of course, prior to even installing the
> operating system, the printed manual - it was a shrinkwrapped retail
> version of Linux Mandrake 6.0 Powerpack, which was back then basically
> a copy of RedHat with KDE added, because RedHat refused to supply KDE
> due to the fact that KDE 1.x was built using non-freely licensed Qt
> libraries. Another difference was that Mandrake 6.0 came with kernel
> 2.2.9, whereas RedHat still carried 2.2.5.

One thing I have forgotten to mention here but which is important for
the newbie is that I've managed to install Mandrake 6.0 - by far not as
"userfriendly" yet as today's distros - without that I had an internet
connection, and without *any* significant problems.

I did not have internet at home yet back then, and as such there was no
such thing as Usenet or helpful websites. I had simply opened the box,
read the printed manual, perused the documentation on the installation
CD as referenced in the manual, followed the on-screen instructions
while installing, and then read the HowTos, and many of the /man/ pages
and /info/ pages. And that was it.

The only I problem I had was when I finally obtained a cable internet
connection in the spring of 2000 - at that time I was already
exclusively running Mandrake 6.0 - because that was an aspect of IT
that I still knew little to nothing about and the ISP (still) only
provide(d) instructions pertaining to either Microsoft Windows or Apple
OS-X; they still do not officially support GNU/Linux. And as such, I
had to scout for the proper driver for the NIC they had installed in my
computer, and set up the proper DNS and DHCP information. Fortunately,
RedHat and its spinoffs - of which Mandrake was one - came
with /netconf,/ an /ncurses-driven/ menu interface (and a sub-program
to the more elaborate /linuxconf/ utility) that facilitated setting
things up.

> I will however agree with you that KDE 4.x does look a lot like Vista
> in its default trim with the black panel, and that this is probably
> done so as to make life easier for the Windows-to-GNU/Linux crossover
> newbie. And I will also agree with you that this was absolutely
> unnecessary. Yet that does not mean that I will agree that UNIX must
> be a CLI-only operating system. But then again, it should also not be
> seen as a CLI-only operating system of course, as the operating system
^^^^^^^^
That should have read as "GUI-only", of course. My bad. Wink

> [...]

--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

The Natural Philosopher · External Since: Jul 06, 2009 Posts: 10

My wife saw me booting Linux in the command line mode today

"Oh, it looks just like windows 95' she said..'without the windows bit'....

I explained that a;ll operating systems looked like that, except with
windows the screen just goes blank, and with a MAC it goes grey with a
spinning wheel.

Keith Keller · External Since: Jun 21, 2006 Posts: 478

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.setup.]

On 2009-07-08, Aragorn <aragorn.RemoveThis@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
> First of all I would like to say that I have not been following the
> entire debate into detail because of health issues, and although the
> word "troll" has come up a few times in this part of the thread

The word "troll" has come up because ''Sidney'' aka ''Alan Connor'' aka
''Tom Newton'' is a troll. Hit Google groups for some of his history.

> Shifting pseudonyms is rather a habit of trolls or spammers.

''Sidney'' aka ''Alan Connor'' aka ''Tom Newton'' has shifted at least
twice. (I think there's another nym that I'm forgetting.)

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet.RemoveThis@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

Aragorn · External Since: Feb 22, 2009 Posts: 13

On Wednesday 08 July 2009 22:48, someone identifying as *The Natural
Philosopher* wrote in /comp.os.linux.setup:/

> My wife saw me booting Linux in the command line mode today
>
> "Oh, it looks just like windows 95' she said..'without the windows
> bit'....
>
> I explained that a;ll operating systems looked like that, except with
> windows the screen just goes blank, and with a MAC it goes grey with a
> spinning wheel.

And Windows 95 was a GUI that ran on top of MS-DOS 7.0 - according to an
acquaintance of mine who had test-driven Windows 95 when it was still
called Windows 4.0 "Chicago", the DOS /ver/ command outputted
"Microsoft MS-DOS 7.00" - and DOS was basically a rebranded QDOS, which
was written by Tim Patterson of Seattle Computer - he later on
transfered to Microsoft after Bill Gates had purchased QDOS from him.

And Patterson's QDOS was in turn a not-too-legal "update" to CP/M by
Gary Kildall of Digital Research - not to be confused with "Digital",
the abbreviation of Digital Equipment Corporation (or DEC). And CP/M
was written specifically for floppy-only single-user and single-tasking
machines, but based upon the look and feel of... UNIX. Wink

So, if we add it all up, then GNU/Linux and Windows are - at least, from
the purely technical point of view; I won't be discussing licensing
etc. - both descendents of UNIX, with GNU/Linux having the most UNIX
DNA and Windows being an offspring of an offspring of an offspring that
had serious genetic flaws. :p

Well, I don't see Windows running natively - as in "on the bare metal" -
on an IBM S/390 yet. Wink

GNU/Linux on the other hand is quite capable
of that, albeit that it's typically far more practical to run it inside
a virtual machine, even if only because of the limitations of the
amount of logical (processor) partitions in the Linux kernel versus
OS/390 (which I think is now called differently - zOS or something of
the likes? - but anyway).

--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

Daffy D. · External Since: Aug 25, 2005 Posts: 4

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:24:54 +0200, Aragorn
<aragorn.DeleteThis@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:

>
><snip>

If everyone is putting in their 2 cents....

Even though it's a very wel put argument, I think that it just doesn't
matter that much anymore...

I've been using Unix/Linux (AIX/SCO/RH5/Caldera, with or without
internet) waaaay before there was Win95 or worse, and still use Linux
for every main server I have.
While I do administer almost everything bij CLI, sometimes you just
need a GUI (like browsing.. Lynx is just a bit too much of a pain....)
or even Win (development...)

Same goes for the desktop.. If someone wants to learn how an OS works,
fine, let them read up on it, good for them.
But for the masses, they don't care about an OS, they just want to
surf, watch video's, see pictures (nude or not Wink

) and do some word
processing. They don't care if it's Win/Linux/Mac as long as it
works... And your application is easy to install, works well on you
OS, and keeps on working well.
I agree, Linux if far better than Win for stability/performance/logic,
but has still too much differences across the distro's to make it easy
to install an app like it is in Win or Mac..
Linux is getting better, but still needs more end-user consistency and
that isn't necessary Win like....
For the new bunch of techie's, the just should try to learn how an OS
really works instead of just knowing where to click MS style. But
basically, that's their problem, when everything goes down the tubes
they'll need a real expert to fix things, (that's where we come in...)
and having to explain why they cannot fix things... and try to learn
then....

Just my opinion...

D.

Unix/Linux/Win admin/developer, RHCE