Re: OT: Ubuntu?

On 2009-09-16, Paul M. Cook <pmcook@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"Joe" <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrnhb0rd6.92d.joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2009-09-15, Paul M. Cook <pmcook@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"Ray" <chigaray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u7cva59esrn30m2ch6sg37utmrvlm4m9o7@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:25:33 -0700, Miss Elaine Eos
<Misc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <2si4o6-rpo.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Justin C <justin.0909@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There will be a brief "reindoctrination period", while you get the
hang

Don't call it that, you'll scare him off!

(a) Ray's a brave boy. I wrote to my audience.

(b) I call it what it is. I'm not going to fudge the facts to make them
seem more palatable. What, you think I'm some sort of lefty?! ;)


Re-indoctrination I can live with. Re-education OTOH....

Get used to CLI - long, tedious CL. Here are a few examples of what I go
through every day working with a library server:

There is almost NO case where a normal user ever needs to use the cli.
It is used by "power users" because it is more convenient when you
know what you want, and how to get it.

There are many instances where you have no GUI for wat you want to do. You
must use CLI, gedit or VI - gag.

Very few instances, and shrinking with every release. Also, they are
almost non-existent for a standard desktop user. My wife never used a
PC before a few years ago, and she uses linux on a daily basis with no
issues. What she needs is already installed, so she clicks on the
icons. That's what PC users do.

Also, for a better terminal-based editor, try nano. It doesn't have
all the stupid keystrokes of vi. What you need to know is shown on
the bottom of the terminal.




$ wget
http://mirrors.kernel.org/ubuntu/pool/universe/o/openssl097/libssl0.9.7_0.9.7g-5ubuntu1.1_i386.deb
sudo dpkg -i libssl0.9.7_0.9.7g-5ubuntu1.1_i386.deb

Why in the world would you be downloading the Ubuntu version of the
OpenSSL libraries from the kernel.org mirrors on a daily basis? It's
managed by the update manager, and will be kept up to date, being a
security update. The little update icon on the desktop flashes, you
click on it and let it do it's thing.

If you read what I wrote, I said that is an example of what I deal with.
It's something new every day. And while the update manager is handy, it is
by no means complete. I installed my LAMP server in minutes using UM, so
it's come a long way. But still.

Like I said, there is no reason for even YOU to need to do this. At
worst case:

sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get upgrade
sudo apt-get dist-upgrade

Will update the DB, upgrade all apps to the latest version in the
repo, and upgrade the kernel to the latest supported version for your
installed version of debian or Ubuntu.




Oh bear in mind all of Linux is case sensitive. It is a huge PITA to
deal
with. $ mkdir \etc\bin\MyfileFolder is not the same as $ mkdir
\etc\bin\MYFILEFOLDER. Entire scripts will be blown out of the water if
so
much as one letter is the wrong case.

That's a feature, not a problem. Case-sensitivity is one of the
things that makes *nix more powerful and flexible than Windows.

It's a curse, not a feature. It serves no purpose and just makes things a
lot more difficult. And I have worked with major OSs since 1980.


Not a curse at all. I much prefer it, and have never considered it an
issue.


Here's another doozy:

$ sudo aptitude install gzip tar unzip make lynx wget gcc daemon
libgpg-error-dev libgcrypt-dev libgdbm-dev libxml2-dev libyaz3-dev
libgd2-xpm-dev

Again, easily done through the Package manager GUI, and also not
something you do on a daily basis (once, only once).

When you manage complex servers and use OS software that is updated
continuously, you do thios kind of thing often. Too often.

When software is updated, the commands I listed above do the trick.
This would be to install new apps, and you shouldn't be doing that all
that often on a production server. I manage over 2000 servers,
Netware, Windows and *nix. The *nix servers, by far, require the
least hands-on management.


This believe it or not is ONE command:

$ sudo perl -MCPAN \
-e 'install Time::Piece;' \
-e 'install Email::Date;' \
-e 'install Mail::Sendmail;' \
-e 'install Text::Iconv;' \
-e 'install Biblio::EndnoteStyle;' \
-e 'install Algorithm::CheckDigits;' \
-e 'install SMS::Send;' \
-e 'install MIME::Lite;' \
-e 'install Class::Factory::Util;' \
-e 'install HTML::Template::Pro;' \
-e 'install Net::Z3950;' \
-e 'install Net::Z3950::ZOOM;' \
-e 'install POE;' \
-e 'install Text::CSV;' \
-e 'install Text::CSV_XS;' \
-e 'install MARC::File::XML;' \
-e 'install Unix::Syslog;' \
-e 'install GD;' \
-e 'install HTTP::OAI;' \
-e 'install JSON;'

Those examples are rather typical of installing a lot of open source
software not handled by the package manager. That would be most of them.

The perl command was the only one that you listed that wasn't handled
by the package manager. And it's also something that a desktop user
has no need for.

So? Am I wrong?

About what? That you needed to enter it (once), or that it is
"typical" (which it is not)? And, like I said, Ray would NEVER have a
need for it.


Enjoy - mwahahahahahahaha!

You trying to get a check from M$? That's a fair bit of FUD there,
Paul, even for you...

I have respect for a good GUI. I am not in love with M$. My favorite OS is
VMS, still alive under Alpha VMS.

I liked VMS, but I never loved it. It served it's purpose, but I
haven't touched a machine on it since I worked at the college in the
early 90's.


Linux is useful and has a place. But it is old and long in the tooth. You
give up a lot for something that is free.

I disagree. It is fresh (Linux has only been around since the early
90's), and it has more constant work being done on it than any other
OS. From one version to the next of Ubuntu, for instance, the
advances in what people would call "usability" are huge. In '06, you
would absolutely find yourself doing things from the CLI frequently.
By '08, that was almost gone for a normal user, and with 9.04
(Jaunty), there are very few instances where someone would find
themselves at a CLI.

Where that would be useful, though, is if someone needed help with
something.

Ray could e-mail me, and ask how to do something, and I could quickly
type up the commands he'd need, and send them off to him. All he'd
need to do would be cut and paste. Much easier (and quicker) than
typing up the instructions for bunches of GUI menu systems and
options.

If I were putting together a system for someone like Ray, who wanted
it for the Internet, maybe some word processing, grabbing photos from
their camera, and whatever else, I'd almost always recommend a Linux
system. Once installed, I'd never have to worry about them getting
some virus that screws everything up. The ONLY way I'd recommend
Windows would be for a gaming system. Anything else, I'd recommend
finding an Open Source way of handling it, if possible.


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: which linux? (not flame bait, thank you)
    ... > Portupgrade really helps with maintaining ports. ... I would like to have a little exposure to linux ... > keep my server and desktop running with the same versions, ... 'full' RH or SuSE install, but slightly behind the times, as is Debian, ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: Are there advantages of Linux over XP Pro.?
    ... Excuse my ignorance but what does KDE mean? ... dual-boot 98SE/XP PRO machine for a copy of Linux. ... small file server with RAID and Backup storage with the easy addition of ... The Mandrake 10.1 install was also painless, but the GUI would not run. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain
    ... > If you run Exchange 2003, you will need to install AD on at least on ... > use the server for Exchange. ... There would be no need to have a server at the remote ... There is a Linux box at each site ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.connectivity)
  • Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain
    ... > If you run Exchange 2003, you will need to install AD on at least on ... > use the server for Exchange. ... There would be no need to have a server at the remote ... There is a Linux box at each site ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.setup)
  • Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain
    ... > If you run Exchange 2003, you will need to install AD on at least on ... > use the server for Exchange. ... There would be no need to have a server at the remote ... There is a Linux box at each site ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)