[Sunhelp] SGML tools on Solaris7 or non-GNUified Solaris

[Gregory Leblanc]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wes Hofmann [mailto:whofmann at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 7:36 AM
> To: sunhelp at sunhelp.org
> Subject: RE: [Sunhelp] SGML tools on Solaris7 or non-GNUified Solaris
> 
[...]
> First is it's multiprocessor support.  Linux's is still far 
> from adequate
> because it does not scale well.  It works great on one 
> processor, but if
> there is more than one, it does not take full advantage of 
> them.  I looked
> at the data on the second Mindcraft test between NT and Linux 
> and it looked
> pretty fair to me.  I think it's sad when Windoze can beat any UNIX.

Well, my only MP box is my SS20 with Solaris7, and a dual processor P-II at
work running NT.  Consequently, I don't know all that much about MP.  I
guess I need to pick up and old dual processor Alpha, HP, and P5 to play
with it a little more.  :)  I haven't believed anything that Mindcraft has
said since they pitted NT against Netware so poorly.  (Of course, I'm a
netware fiend, so that kinda biases me)

[...]
> 
> > > like the more
> > > logical, integrated, coherant "feel" of the OS--unlike Linux,
> > > which feels
> > > "hacked together".  Aside from that, I think GNU's tools,
> >
> > Well, I will agree that Linux can feel "hacked together", but
> > it's getting
> > much better.  RedHat has made a lot of progress with their
> > latest release,
> > because of gnome.  If only GNOME wasn't completely different
> > with every new
> > release, we might be able to have linux feel like a real desktop OS.
> >
> 
> I too learned UNIX with Linux and I still use it on my 
> desktop, though I
> prefer Debian.
> 
> Personally, I really dislike what RedHat is doing to Linux.  
> I have found
> the newer releases of RedHat to be generally unstable under 
> much load, and I
> have real issues with their putting something as unstable as 
> GNOME+E in
> /usr/bin.  I feel that /usr/bin should only contain binaries 
> that are an
> integral part of the OS.  For instance, Sun put all of the 
> CDE stuff in
> /usr/dt instead of polluting /usr/bin and /usr/lib with it.  
> I also really
> dislike the "[OK] [Passed] [Failed]" thing it does upon 
> bootup.  Yeah, I
> realize they're trying to look like HPUX, but they just 
> didn't pull it off.

I guess we differ in opinions of where things should go in the filesystem.
>From reading the FSSTND and FHS, I think that they have things pretty well
layed out, and I like the way that RedHat has implemented this.  /usr is for
all the programs that came with your OS, so that they get upgraded when you
upgrade the OS, or when you apply "patches" or RPMs.  The /usr/local
filesystem is for products that either don't come packaged (with or without
the OS), and for "unstable" software.  I think this layout breaks things up
nicely, but I'm not really a veteran unix person.  I actually like that
"[OK] [Passed] [Failed]" thing, because it's just a summary of what services
have started/failed.  If I want more detail, I head to the logs.  Never seen
much of HP-UX, except that it wouldn't accept basic shell commands when I
tried.  :)

> 
> Aside from that, I am quite frankly appalled by the general 
> attitude of
> "let's dumb UNIX down enough that any bozo who can point and 
> click can be
> fully proficient with it.", and further "Linux will conquer 
> Microsoft and
> take over the world!".  I see UNIX as it is--an esoteric and powerful
> operating system for the *serious* computer user or 
> developer--not as a
> platform for some 8-year-old to play Sesame Street games, or 
> a secretary to
> do word-processing.  Unfortunately it seems that RedHat, 
> SuSe, Corel, and
> many others have jumped on this bandwagon.

Unix is great as an esoteric and powerful OS.  It has better scalability and
reliability than any other OS available, and has flavors to suit any whim.
But what's wrong with some flavors that run on "cheap intel hardware" and
come with a default setup that's easy to use?  Unix cannot, and will not, be
dumbed down so that any point and click bozo can run a unix server for
Cisco's e-commerce site (the biggest in the world I think).  But why not
make it so that the people who are fed up with Windows can run it as a
desktop OS, and not have to worry about any of the config details?  I think
tools like linuxconf etc are stupid, and should be abolished.  They only
need to get basic things running, and linuxconf is supposed to be for
admins.  Admins want the text file, or they're not real admins (don't mean
to insult anybody).  So I agree that unix shouldn't be dumbed down so that
you can point and click everything, but you should be able to point and
click SOME things, the basics for using the system as a user.  

> 
> > > being newer and
> > > including functionality that the origninal tools did not, are
> > > in many ways
> > > superior to Solaris' standard, posix4, and ucb tools. :)
> >
> > How?  I'm a power user on Linux, but barely a normal user on
> > Solaris right
> > now.  But I still don't see big differences in those tools,
> > except that I
> > can't build SGMLTools with the versions that shipped with 
> Solaris.  :)
> > 	Greg
> 
> I personally feel that GNU has been one of the best things to gain
> popularity from the Linux movement.  I find there are certain features
> included in GNU's utilities that I use all the time--for 
> instance, the -Z
> and -z options in GNU tar.  I also like the enhanced features 
> of GNU's gawk,
> sed, grep, etc.  While some GNU tools probably aren't fully 
> Posix compliant
> and probably aren't as fast or efficient as Solaris', I find 
> I rely on them
> nonetheless. :)

Well the -z option was nice until I discovered bzip2, which I haven't made
it work with yet.  I just wish people would at least warn me before hand if
their software requires the GNU tools, so that I can rip my system apart,
and install them all.  Hmm, looks like I'm up on the soap box too.  :)  I do
so love this discussions when they're with somebody intelligent, thanks
guys.  Greg