Sections: Main page Security Kernel Distributions On the Desktop Development Commerce Linux in the news Announcements Linux History Letters All in one big page See also: last week's Letters page. |
Letters to the editorLetters to the editor should be sent to letters@lwn.net. Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them. |
May 24, 2001 |
From: Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com> To: letters@lwn.net, dank@kegel.com Subject: The way of CVS vs. the way of the patch Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 00:44:41 -0700 There have long been friction between Linus and kernel subsystems developed using CVS. On the one hand, the subsystem maintainer uses CVS because it gets rid of the need for a central person to understand and merge all changes; on the other hand, Linus rightly rejects patches that contain tens or even hundreds of intertwined changes. Thus I was surprised to read LWN saying "write access to the CVS repository for the LVM project is now enabled. This step is being taken as part of an effort to open up LVM development and to better integrate it with the rest of the kernel process." Given the bad blood between CVS and the standard kernel process, that statement is almost oxymoronic. The only way I can see the two worlds (CVS-lovers and human-readable-patch-lovers) coming together is if the LVM project put aside their current tree, started over from a CVS tree that contained exactly the 2.4.4 kernel version of LVM, and set up cvs to email some lieutenant of Linus the corresponding patch whenever a change was checked in. Assuming each checkin was carefully tested and well commented, and the lieutenant did a good job of filtering the patches and providing quick feedback to the CVS-folk, this might keep the two trees in good alignment, and avoid bloodshed. Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com | ||
From: Bill Carlson <wcarlson@vh.org> To: <letters@lwn.net> Subject: Perhaps you missed... Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 12:03:43 -0500 (CDT) >From the May 17,2001 LWN: "That said, it is worth pointing out that, as far as we know, there is still not a free, top-quality large network backup and restore system available for Linux. Numerous commercial alternatives are out there, but the available free systems just do not have the same level of features and scalability. This could be a good project for somebody..." Perhaps you missed a nice package by the name of AMANDA (http://amanda.org/). You can read more about it here: http://www.backupcentral.com/amanda.html Later, Bill Carlson -- Systems Programmer bill-carlson@uiowa.edu | Opinions are mine, Virtual Hospital http://www.vh.org/ | not my employer's. University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics | | ||
From: Rob Funk <rfunk@funknet.net> To: letters@lwn.net Subject: backups and icons Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 21:16:10 -0400 I have two comments on the May 17 edition of Linux Weekly news.... First item: I greatly agree with your comments on the possible demise of the BRU backup system and the implications of using proprietary backup software, and have often argued similar things in the past. However, I must take some issue with your final paragraph: > That said, it is worth pointing out that, as far as we know, there > is still not a free, top-quality large network backup and restore > system available for Linux. Numerous commercial alternatives are out > there, but the available free systems just do not have the same > level of features and scalability. This could be a good project for > somebody... I don't think you give enough credit to the Amanda backup system (www.amanda.org), which is quite scalable. It doesn't have the pretty GUI of BRU, but if you need a GUI for your backup system you're in trouble when you lose the disk your X11 setup is on. Before suggesting that somebody start a project to replace BRU, you might suggest that someone contribute to existing projects such as Amanda to make up for whatever deficiencies those projects might have in comparison to BRU. Second item: In the "On the desktop" section, Michael J. Hammel says: > One other note for both GNOME and KDE: would someone please explain > to me how to remove those icons on the root windows for both KDE and > GNOME! Those silly things were introduced by Microsoft years ago and > are, in the humble opinion of one old timer, an abomination. I don't have an answer to the question (other than switch to something like icewm and run GNOME and KDE apps from there), but I'm surprised that this self-described "old timer" and graphic artist thinks that Microsoft introduced those desktop icons. Apple, of course, introduced them to the world with the Macintosh back in 1984, and Windows 95 adopted them (moving them from right to left and changing the trash can to a recycle bin). Not to understate Xerox PARC's role in the issue, but Xerox didn't exactly introduce such things to the world like Apple did. While I generally respect Hammel's work, like others I am beginning to question how his writing fits into LWN. It reads more like a column than a section of news, and none of the other sections read like that. I don't remember ever seeing a line like "would someone please explain to me how to do this..." in any other section of LWN -- LWN is supposed to be a source of information, which knows how to find the information it needs from other sources. I believe that desktop-oriented news is important, but the current style doesn't inspire confidence in this news source. -- ==============================| "A microscope locked in on one point Rob Funk <rfunk@funknet.net> |Never sees what kind of room that it's in" http://www.funknet.net/rfunk | -- Chris Mars, "Stuck in Rewind" | ||
From: "Floyd Sykes" <floydls@home.com> To: <letters@lwn.net> Subject: On The Desktop May 10 -- KDE Bloat Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:40:53 -0400 > "The most practical solution for most people may well be to > get a new motherboard with a 1.3 GHz CPU, install the latest KDE or > GNOME, and not worry about small differences in window system > performance. " B. S. -- most people cannot afford new equipment, so this is not very practical. Most people run about 3 to 5 years behind the latest computer systems. They do not buy the latest because of the high cost and then tend to keep the computer for a long time until it is clear that it will no longer do. A case in point: I got a Gateway P100 in Nov 1996. At the time it was on the knee of the price performance curve. I still run (horrors) win95 which does most of what I need. Last year I got two P90s and a P133 with 48 MB RAM, all running the old KDE that came with Suse 6.4. I run icewm on an old 486-66 with no problems. Yes, a faster computer would be nicer but cast is a definite issue. Also, I agree completely with Michael A. Schwarz in his email (Wrong way to look at it). The time to make a program fast and use less memory is when it is designed and implemented, not later. If you wait till later then you miss the most beneficial time to improve it. KDE and GNOME should work OK on old equipment. After all MS windows works and KDE and GNOME. They are not all that much more advanced. Floyd Sykes | ||
From: Dylan Griffiths <Inoshiro@kuro5hin.org> To: letters@lwn.net Subject: Untruth about kernel forks Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:39:54 -0600 In the 17th of May, 2001 LWN you said: "* No distributor ships a standard Linus kernel - all apply patches." This is not true. Slackware ships with a standard kernel. Only in rare cases (such as the 2.2.16 kernel in 7.0) do they ship a patched version. -- www.kuro5hin.org -- technology and culture, from the trenches. | ||
From: Eric Johansson <esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us> To: letters@lwn.net Subject: browser challenges Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 08:23:59 -0400 in the May 17th Linux weekly news, there was a discussion of the state of various browsers. For me, one of the major shortcomings is the poor quality of Java implementations. I have managed to wean my wife off of Microsoft products and the browser is the last hurdle. My wife is addicted to http://www.jigzone.com and http://www.popcap.com/psychobabble.html and both sites count heavily on Java. Unfortunately, both sites stress Java enough to cause her machine to lock up under Netscape. Mozilla Java doesn't even start running and Opera isn't shipping a Java implementation yet for Linux. Unfortunately, a good quality browser means more than just rendering pages correctly. It's also a program execution environment which can impact the rest of the machine. I hope that browser developers will improve the quality of their Java implementations and handle sites such as the ones listed above. --- eric | ||
|