On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 22:58, Chad Perrin wrote:
> Understood. I agree that enshrining misconceptions as commonly accepted
> "facts" is an unfortunate reality, but it's not something you can
> effectively combat by jumping all over the cases of people that are
> discussing the various knowledge (right or wrong) that they've come by.
> Only if someone maliciously propagates lies should he or she be
> personally attacked on the matter. Otherwise, the proper approach is
> simply to calmly explain where the misconceptions are incorrect.
Most FUD is unintentional, be it because of a honest mistake or, more
often, "aggressive marketing."
Just because Linux advocates typically don't sell products doesn't mean
they don't use "aggressive marketing" techniques regularly.
IMHO, I thought the community exists so it would be _free_ of marketing
BS? ;->
> You seem to suffer a strange misconception of your own here.
> "Questioned" is not the same as "dismissed".
Okay, I'll see you there.
> To be perfectly fair, I saw no discussion of how SuSE or Mandrake recent
> offerings compared to FC2 as regards the major complaints, though I did
> see a great many people discuss having no such problems with Gentoo,
> Slackware, or Debian.
Because most are either still using kernel 2.4, or are using installers
not built around the new parted for kernel 2.6.
Mandrake Linux 10 and SuSE 9.1, like Fedora, have installers using
parted and kernel 2.6. The combination causes people with buggy BIOSes
to have their partition table wiped out.
The ultimate problem is because NT4SP4+/NT5SP1+ simply "assumes" an LBA
geometry, even if the BIOS doesn't support it. The buggy BIOS claims to
be an Extended Int10h compliant BIOS, but is not. The result is that it
returns a number of heads of 240, instead of 16 or 255.
Long story short, old Int10h supports only 5-bit (commonly as 16 heads,
10000) whereas the post-1997 Extended uses 8-bit (commonly 255 heads,
1111111). If 8-bit is read, when there is only 5-bit, then the other
3-bits are "borrowed" from the number of 6-bit sectors per cylinder
(commonly 63, 111111), hence why 111 + 10000 = 240 is returned.
Old Linux 2.4 / parted "assumed" LBA. For the full compliance with
Extended Int13h, if the BIOS says it supports it, Linux uses it by
default. Buggy BIOSes say they support the function, but don't.
> While my memory isn't entirely clear on what these issues were, I seem
> to remember that one very big problem involved GRUB and dual-booting.
That's _exactly_ it. It's not GRUB, but the combination of kernel 2.6
and the new GNU parted. It's a very involved issue.
The "workaround" I've suggested is to adopt full support for "dynamic
disks" (LDM disk labels aka partition tables). Because LDM stores the
_assumed_ geometry by NT5+ in the structure.
The Linux kernel has LDM support. Unfortunately, parted doesn't yet,
nor can GRUB boot from it. Once LDM support is added to these
"user-space" components, then it should be possible.
Dual-booting in inherently dangerous. You can't even dual-boot a DOS
version with NT on those buggy BIOS systems.
> Do you have some brief summation of the issue that would explain what
> exactly the problem is, and why this difficulty didn't seem to affect
> many users of leaner distributions? Is it perhaps related to KDE and/or
> GNOME being present as a default GUI environment? I don't know how it
> could be, but I figure I may as well ask, since I don't know exactly
> WHAT the problem was.
Hit Red Hat Bugzilla, I have _plenty_ of comments on there on the
_exact_ issue.
> Was the combination of Parted, the 2.6 kernel, and a buggy BIOS the
> problem, then? I don't happen to recall what Debian, Slackware, and
> Gentoo use as their installation partitioning software, off the top of
> my head, but that would make sense.
Yes, it does.
This goes to my underlying theme:
"Understand _technologies_, _not_ products."
Gentoo advocates tend to be very radical. They make it about anti-Red
Hat or anti-Debian.
In reality, Gentoo is merely a "ports" distro, largely like FreeBSD.
Red Hat and Debian are "packages" distros. "Ports" have their place,
but building with full optimizations is _not_always_ better. Especially
_not_ with "gcc -O3" on P3/P4 processors. ;->
And just because you built with optimizations doesn't mean it's faster
either. It's typically much "smaller" in footprint, but not necessarily
faster.
> In any case, I heard about as much more complaints about Fedora in this
> regard as I typically hear of Fedora discussion and use in general, as
> compared with Mandrake and SuSE. The fact that there are more Fedora
> users than Mandrake and SuSE users that I hear from probably has some
> relation to the fact that I heard a lot of complaints about Fedora's
> growing pains in regards to the 2.6 kernel, and little or nothing about
> the same problems in SuSE and Mandrake.
Exactly. Unfortunately, what is a common issue of "technology
implementation" gets demonized against Red Hat specifically.
Choice in technology is good.
Choice in marketing ... eh, um, ya gotta be careful.
That's why when I see these things and someone goes "choice is good," I
have to chuckle "when is marketing and brand names about choice?" ;->
It's the same issue we have in the commercial software world. ;->
> If there are more people using Fedora that are likely to comment on it
> in general, and Fedora suffers at least as common an incidence of
> problems as the others, there will of course be more people complaining
> about problems with Fedora. It's a basic statistical truth.
It's the common demeanor I see that I take issue with.
People assume "majority" or "numbers" = "truth."
So when some schmuck like myself comes along, my comments take 3, 4, 5,
etc... posts to finally get someone like yourself to, in essence, stop.
;->
And that's the problem right there! @-p
> Gentoo, Fedora, and Mandrake users often tend to consider Debian to be
> chronically out of date, in my experience. That's just the way it is.
Debian "Stable" tends to be back a few versions.
But so does the last RHL/FC ".2" or RHEL release as well.
I can't help it if Gentoo and Mandrake users say what they do.
And I can't even say if they use Gentoo, Mandrake, whatever
But I don't know many Fedora users saying such.
I can run "Testing" or I can run a RHL/FC ".0" release if I want
"latest." Heck, I can tap Fedora Development (fka Red Hat Rawhide) if I
_really_ want those latest packages!
And sometimes I do, and I _can_ do it via APT, YUM, UP2DATE, etc...
Just like Debian users tape other respositories/tags too.
> It's possible that your experience differs -- in fact, I'd say it's
> extremely likely -- but that makes sense since you aren't (primarily) a
> Debian user (these days). You won't hear the "my favorite distro"
> arguments in terms of what's "wrong" with your favorite distribution
> from Fedora users because your favorite distribution is, apparently, Fedora.
It's not so much Fedora, but the entire Red Hat model.
It's trusted by many for a reason: 8 of them (years that is ;-).
> Keep in mind that your experiences aren't universal. You have a narrow
> slice of perspective on issues that tend to look very different to
> different people, depending on where they stand on those issues.
But I have a tendency to differ when someone says it isn't stable. ;->
I don't pull out my resume, largely because someone's always got one
that is more impressive, but at some point, years of running the stuff
like I have tends to cause me to disagree -- with prejudice! ;->
The stuff has worked for me in some pretty harsh environments since '99
especially.
> You are in a position to hear greatly differing relative volumes of
> commentary based on various perspectives than others, who aren't
> standing in exactly the same place as you, are.
Correct. But you are talking from "outside the software" -- that's
hardly "good standing" IMHO. ;->
> Keep that in mind when you start arguing with someone who says they
> tend to hear certain things from Fedora users.
Which goes back to the 2nd/3rd hand issue.
1st hand is absolute.
> I'm just using Debian as my basis for perspective. I speak from the
> direction of that which I know. Rather than make absolutist statements
> about Fedora, I just say "This is what I've observed, relative to my
> experience with Debian. What are your thoughts?"
My thoughts are that one shouldn't comment on their experiences between
two approaches if they only have experience with one.
But in general, I _dislike_ the whole "versus" non-sense.
> Don't try to turn this into a case of me making Fedora out to be the
> "bad guy".
I'm not. But at the same time, you have shown me you know little about
Fedora.
> Go back and re-read all my careful disclaimers about how I'm not
> trying to say anything bad about Fedora.
But you need to _stop_ commenting on it. Stuff like "kitchen sink" is
clearly based on earlier Red Hat Linux exposure.
> eebus Cries, man, you just seem absolutely incapable of reading
> anything I say that mentions Fedora without perceiving it as an attack.
Really? Thanx for noticing this about me.
I gave you the advise that you should really stop commenting on it. I
tried to do it with full and intellectual reasoning. I didn't say "shut
the hell up" or anything else.
Cut me some slack in comparison to someone else who did, okay? ;->
> It's not. I have no interest in attacking Fedora. In fact, I
> referred to the Debian approach to package inclusion in terms of both
> its benefits and its detriments. I'm taking what I think to be a fairly
> objective, balanced approach to this.
It's not objective if you're views are based on 2nd/3rd hand experience.
And that's the problem, people _think_ they are being "objective," but
they are dealing out common assumptions and other beliefs, not actual,
hard facts.
> Don't pick a fight over imagined slights.
I don't think I'm picking fights. But you seem intent on commenting on
Fedora from 2nd/3rd hand knowledge, and take issue when I point out how
far off base you are.
REALITY: Don't comment on what you don't know.
> Your attitude, as stated here, makes sense. If you're trying to equate
> me with someone that says "Fedora must be poorly tested because releases
> are so quick," however, you need to reevaluate the matter. I said no
> such thing, nor implied any such thing. All I really said is that
> Debian apparently sacrifices a certain amount of cutting-edge-ness for
> greater stability.
_Every_ distro does! It's to what level, how it is tagged, etc... taht
varies.
Only those _familiar_ with the distro are in a position to evaluate.
You cannot evaluate "from afar." Experience is the savior.
> I know a fair amount of detail about the Fedora approach. Much of it
> comes from what YOU have said in this mailing list. Even as some of
> what you say might serve to underscore my respect for the Fedora
> development process, it also tends to simultaneously support my own
> taste for Debian.
I'm sure if Red Hat _could_ have found a way to leverage Debian and not
create Fedora, I'm sure they would have. Red Hat's GPL-analness fits
right into the Debian project.
But the reality is that there were issues of both legacy upgrading as
well as control. So we now have Fedora.
> You have gone on at great length about how the Fedora revision and
> versioning process works and, based on that as well as some information
> gleaned from other sources, I prefer the approach of Debian. You seem
> to assume that just because I don't use Fedora and don't know as much
> about it as you that I am incapable of knowing ANYTHING about it.
> That's simply not the case.
But you are _not_ in a position to comment on various aspects. That's
the issue. If people would concede knowledge and commentary to those
_familiar_ with something, we'd all get far more done.
If you note something about me, I continually and _only_ post on things
that I have _first_hand_ experience in -- almost _always_ in a
_production_, corporate environment (and I note when I don't).
Maybe it's too much for me to ask others to do the same. Maybe it's
arrogant of me to even assume others would. But it doesn't remove the
fact that I feel strongly that it would solve a _lot_ of the
"unintentional FUD" that goes around.
> If I really didn't know ANYTHING about how Fedora did things, I wouldn't
> have any reason to prefer Debian. The fact that I prefer Debian, and am
> not a complete friggin' moron, should indicate to you that I at least
> know enough about Fedora to be less interested in it than Debian.
No, that's not true at all. Because 90% of people tend to favor what
they are _familiar_ with and what they feel _comfortable_ with.
Change scares the heck out of people, and that's understandable.
> I don't dispute that. Like I said, I'm not claiming that Debian's
> approach is "better" (other than in particular areas, just as Fedora's
> is surely "better" in other particular areas), only that Debian's
> approach appeals to me more than Fedora's.
I'm sure my familiarity and comfort with Red Hat leans me towards Fedora
and RHEL.
I'm sure your familiarity and comfort with Debian leans you towards it.
I talk almost entirely about Fedora/RHEL. It's funny, but I probably
have more Debian experience and insider knowledge than many here, but
I'm a good "12 months out-of-date" so I don't.
But others feel compelled to talk about what they don't know. It's one
thing to question and inquire. But it's another to state absolutes or
"this is why I use this." It's really about familiarity and comfort.
I wouldn't ask a long-term Debian user to try Fedora. No sense.
Debian's got everything you need. The most I _ever_ do is comment on
Fedora.
But what I tire of is many people feeling they need to "excuse
themselves" from anything Red Hat. The ABR (Anything But Red Hat)
crowd. It's an _exact_mirror_ of the ABM (Anything But Microsoft)
crowd.
Why? Why? Why do people feel the need to justify their non-use of Red
Hat? Why? Most of the time, it's "aggressive marketing" of their
distro. Marketing is not bad, but anytime you make it about "versus,"
we _all_ lose.
If you want to make it about "versus," make it about _technology_, not
"brand name." Technology is something that is broken down into
something discrete. Brand names tend to instill some sort of alliance
that has _nothing_ to do with technology.
> My reasons for preferring Debian over Fedora, as I've mentioned many
> many times before, center around package management, installation
> process, and "kitchen sink" versus "lean" approaches to default system
> configuration.
Based 100% of your prior "trials" of Red Hat Linux.
That's _not_ Fedora, nor a comparison of Fedora.
> These are all matters of personal taste, not of technical superiority.
They are based on what you "perceive" of Fedora, but do not actually
know. That's the problem.
Why keep making the statement that "I prefer this, which is not Fedora"
when it's not Fedora? I'm not asking you to justify your preference for
Debian. I'm not!
So why make such statements when you haven't used Fedora?
> Please stop trying to pigeonhole me as a hater of Fedora.
I'm not. But you have continued to comment on Fedora, and say why you
prefer Debian over Fedora, based on _never_ using Fedora, and only
"trying" Red Hat Linux prior.
That's what I want you to _stop_ doing, because you are proliferating
things about Fedora. How can you do that if you haven't used it?
Better yet, _why_ must you do it? I'm certainly not asking.
> Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said anything like what you are
> insinuating I have said.
Dude, I just stated what the problem is. I'm neither putting words in
your mouth, nor claiming you are doing the same of me.
> I know. I'm not sure I see how that is ironic, though. Fedora and
> Debian both seem to be very solid, very respectable, very different
> approaches to Linux. Each has its strengths. It's good to have
> choices. What's so ironic about that?
How can you continue to talk about Fedora when you haven't used it?
Calling it a "kitchen sink" when someone who didn't know anything about
Debian might _also_ call it a "kitchen sink" on 14 CDs and 2 DVDs?
Choice of "technology"? That's healthy.
Choice of "brand name"? Er, um, you just showed me why that's bad right
there.
> Yes, I know you were referring to the fact that there are some on both
> sides of that fence that take potshots at those on the other side, and
> in that sense I know what you meant in your use of the term
> "ironically". I'm just expressing my own opinion on the matter, which
> is that, fundamentally, there's no reason (as far as I'm aware) the two
> groups shouldn't be mutually supportive.
Except for the fact that people comment on what Debian is or isn't, what
Fedora is or isn't, etc... based on what _they_ assume, but don't have
actual 1st hand experience.
That's the problem. Unintentional FUD based on 100% assumed
objectivity.
> I don't even know anything about Blue Curve. I prefer the KDE interface
> over the GNOME interface, but it's for purely non-technical reasons. I
> don't know enough about either to be able to make any strong technical
> judgments in a comparison of the two. I only know enough to make strong
> technical judgments in a comparison between them and the window managers
> I prefer over them both.
Blue Curve is just the most over-quoted bunch of anti-Red Hat BS.
It's a prime example of the problem.
People not stopping to understand the actual "technology," and making it
about "branding."
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:21:38 EDT