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

[Wes Hofmann]

> 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)

Can't blame you for not trusting them.  Their first test between linux and
nt was with a HIGHLY optimized nt box vs. an out-of-the-box linux install.
Safe to say, nt won by a large margin.  Anyway, they got flamed so badly and
lost so much credibility that they repeated the test and from what I saw,
they had people who knew what they were doing configuring and tweaking linux
and apache, so I think that test was pretty fair.  I'll probably never
believe any of their other comparisons though. :)

>
> [...]
> >
> > > > 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.  :)
>

Well, the "unstable" thing is why i think gnome and enlightenment should not
go in /usr.  They are *far* from stable.  Besides, anyone who installs
RedHat and *doesn't* compile a new version of gnome is a glutton for
punishment. :)  As far as the other things in /usr go, I really don't have a
problem. :)

> >
> > 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.
>
hehe, I think we're in agreement here.  What I get sick up are the guys up
at school who think they're "unix peopple" now because they successfully
installed RedHat and are somewhat proficient with gnome + enlightenment.  I
think that's rediculous. :)

> >
> > > > 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
>

Amen to that!  It's just so easy to address someone's comment and end up on
"the soapbox".  I'm sorry if any of my comments offended anyone, because
they really weren't intended to.  Thank for your input everyone!

Wes


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com