Defragment for knoppix...

[xaviers2002]

Does knoppix come with a defragment utility like w$?
PS. Reiserfs is much faster that ext3!!!

[tearinghairout]

I believe that the answer to your question is "No!", because most filesystems you are likely to use with Linux do not need defragmenting.

[xaviers2002]

Infact after almost a month of every day use my system doesn't show any sign of fatigue!!!

I LOVE LINUX!!!

[j.drake]

I believe that the answer to your question is "No!", because most filesystems you are likely to use with Linux do not need defragmenting.

Which is why TiVOs use Linux. When's the last time you heard of anyone defragging a TiVO? In less than a year of DVR use, I bet that a Win-based DVR would be totally hosed.

jd

[mzilikazi]

When's the last time you heard of anyone defragging a TiVO?

I laughed so hard when I read that I almost cried.

xaviers2002 here's the deal.....

Linux uses Journaling file systems. If you have a crash or have to force a reboot the journal remembers where everythihng is supposed to go and on your next boot it puts everything back where it belongs unlike that other *cough* OS from Redmond that just drops things all over the place. It always amazed me that the analysys of a hard disc would show it completely fragmented and yet wimpdows would say "this drive does not need defragmenting." Is that just blind optimism or what? :)

[xaviers2002]

Is that just blind optimism or what?

Yes I agree 100%!!!

About the reset I did it once and after that knoppix was not able to boot in kde. So I went for a new installation. Was this a normal behavior? If this will happen again what I have to do to enter into KDE mode?

Also, there is a company (O-Osoftware) that has defragment software for linux formatted with ext3 partition. Do You think is worthed or, since linux doesn't need to be defragmented, it is just another useless program?

Thanks

[mzilikazi]

Also, there is a company (O-Osoftware) that has defragment software for linux formatted with ext3 partition. Do You think is worthed or, since linux doesn't need to be defragmented, it is just another useless program?

Thanks

Have a link?

[pulsar]

http://www.oo-software.com/de/products/oodlinux/index.html

[Cuddles]

xaviers2002,

The simple fact is, Linux really doesn't need a defragmenter... The term, and the use of a program, to defragment was coined by M$, and way back in the Win3.x days... Since 95% of M$'s OS's, excluding NTFS, are all based on a variation of DOS, and the archaic attempt of "fitting as much of the data at the front of the hard drive", it has lent itself "needy" of having a defragment utility.

DOS's big downfall is that, it one, was created when disk space was a premium, and two, disk space cost large sums of money. The theory was, fit files into any available space, even if they couldn't be contained completely in the space that was available. If they can't fit in the space, fit what you can, and add the rest at the end. This wasn't a big deal in a single process OS, like DOS, but when a "multi-process" OS takes this same scheme, you get major fragmentation. Why do you think that most File Servers are not running FAT, or even VFAT? Most use NTFS, or Linux now.

From what I know, Linux does not use this same "scheme", it puts files in where they fit, all of the file, completely. This is what I know:

You have a hard drive, say 10 meg... You have a file that takes up 2 meg, then a file that is 500 KB, and then another 2 meg file... You edit the 500 KB file, and make it 1 meg, when saved...

In DOS, or FAT, or VFAT, you would still have part of this file residing in the 500 KB slot, and the remained after the last 2 meg file -=- fragmented...

In Linux, you would have a 500 KB "empty space", and the saved file would be completely stored after the last 2 meg file -=- unfragmented. I "assume", that, if your hard drive was getting full, that Linux, would, drop down to the "fragmenting" scheme, so that it could still save the file, or it would "mark" the file, fragmented, and when space was made available for it to be placed in one place together, it would do the "housekeeping" of getting to moved at that time. DOS assumes that you will do this yourself.

Most of what MS does is a "Band-Aide" approach to things, like this defragmenting, and with the "constant" need to keep adding "patches" and "updates" to there OS... Stand back sometime, and watch... You'll see what I mean... One week its OS "security" patches, the next week its Internet Explorer patches, and the week after that, your back to "security" patches, etc, etc, etc... ( and this doesn't even include all the "bug" fixes they have )

MS, has, in its history, a common thread - saving the bathwater after bathing the baby... Whereas, in the thoughts of Linux, they threw out the whole thing - baby, bathwater, and even the tub -=- and wrote the whole thing from scratch... MS, if you could examine the source for any of there OS's, has, probably, code that dates back to the Win3.x days, they are still using the technology that "made them famous", so to speak... Unfortunately, that "technology" has grown way past the days of Win3.x

Even MS's XP has "threads" of code that date back to the days of Win3.x, and thus, even though I have never run XP, ( I have seen it though ), I would guess, that WinXP has a defragmenter in its "Utility Arsenal" ( am I right? )... If I remember right, even NTFS, or WinNT had a defragmenter in it, and many times, you needed to use it... So, why would you need a defragmenter, unless the OS, or the File System, couldn't maintain the disk data without making "pot-holes" all over your disk drive? Hence, M$'s OS's come with a "defragmenter", and Linux OS's, don't need one.

In the days when you had only 32 meg hard drives, this "pot-hole technology" was a problem, but not that bad. Now-a-days, in the era of "pushing" close to TERRA hard drives, this type of "old technology" just won't cut it anymore. ( imagine the problems of a fragmented 200 MB hard drive, multiplied by 100, or 1000, or even hundreds of thousand times )

MS is a Goliath, but it never forgets its roots, and always seems to include its "past" roots in anything "new" it comes out with. ( i.e. keeping the bathwater ). Even with its new File System, New Technology File System, it still has kept its roots in the "old" technology of making "pot-holes" on your hard drive ( again, keeping the bathwater ).

Linux, on the other hand, tossed the whole thing out... In support of M$ and its "old technology" though, it has always kept its "backward" compatability -=- Even though, in many new Operating Systems they have released, they can not be simply "upgraded", but, require complete "gut-n-installs".

In my last statement here, I can only say... If an OS can be installed, and run, in DOS, it is then, still hampered by the "old technology" of that operating system and its file structure -=- DOS. If, on the other hand, that OS requires a "new" file system, one that could never run in DOS, or on a DOS partitioned hard drive, it has made the "leap" to breaking the comfines of that old technology. And, before I get flamed for this "open-ended" generalization, I will clarify... Even though Knoppix can run, and save data, on a DOS partition, when you go and install it to the hard drive, it requires the use of its own File System, one, I might add, that is not "based" or "related" to, DOS.

This is just my two cents worth...
Ms. Cuddles
PS - we now return you to your previously scheduled bandwidth, already in progress...

[Cuddles]

http://www.oo-software.com/de/products/oodlinux/index.html

Pulsar,

Following the link you provided, did, get me to a web site that "advertised" for a "Defragmentor for Penguins", but, upon further investigation, the version they are selling is version 6.5, I think, and clicking on that "version information" link, led me to a web page that only advertises for "Windows" specific OS's...

I would gather, that this company is just trying to "buy in" to Linux, from its long standing background in the Windows World...

I would be more interested in, if the warning of it being a BETA and all of its "scare tactics" of its usage didn't scare me off, would be to download it, install it, and just see, if it can even find any fragmentation... MY GUESS would be, that it simply is a nice "disk viewer", and nothing more... that it will find nothing to defragment, and thus, render it useless in a Linux installation with either a Ext2, or Ext3, file system... ( funny, it only supports these two file systems, what about reiser??? )

No diss intended, to either the company, or to you, Pulsar, for providing the link, just that, I am guessing that this program is simply something to run, that will just tell you what "most" of us have figured out already... Linux doesn't need a defragmentor, and that this kind of product is better suited for the Windows People... So, maybe, they should just "pawn off" there "snake oil" to them, instead... ( sure in heck, they know, they sure need another defragmenting program ( giggle ) )

Ms. Cuddles
Long Live The Penguin!

[xaviers2002]

[quote]:
MS, has, in its history, a common thread - saving the bathwater after bathing the baby!!!

I love that!!!

I have a question but I will put it in a new post... don't go anywhere!!! ;)

[j.drake]

MS, has, in its history, a common thread - saving the bathwater after bathing the baby... Whereas, in the thoughts of Linux, they threw out the whole thing - baby, bathwater, and even the tub -=- and wrote the whole thing from scratch...

I don't mind making that criticism of MS. To a certain extent, it's deserved. It is what people wanted, however. Just look at 64-bit processors - AMD found a way to make Athlon64 backwards-compatible with an 8088, and guess who dominates the 64-bit market? Intel tried to make a fresh break, and switched after AMD destroyed everyone else in the marketplace. Both Intel and AMD had 64-bit server chips, Sun has had one for years, IBM, Motorola. But if I buy a 64-bit processor, gues which one I'm buying. . .

But let's be fair about linux. Take a look at some of these shell commands which are "backwards-compatible" with UNIX:

1. Mount - Now, WTH is that for? Why do we need it? What good is it? Why are all kinds of distros starting to dispense with it? My understanding is that in the old mainframe days of UNIX, you had to physically mount tapes to tape drives and HD platters to drives in order to work with the data. WTH kind of bath water is that?

2. dd - Short for "disk dump", IIRC. Hardly intuitive. Worse yet, the "if" and "of" flags confuse all newbies who erroneously assume that they are the English words, and that the expression tells the computer to "dd" (whatever the heck that is) IF a certain parameter is equal to a file location OF another file location?????? Took me months to figure out we were talking about input and output files. So why do we have it? Backwards compatibility.

3. tar - an acronym for "tape archive". When's the last time any of you used a tape drive? Yeah, I thought so. Why do we still have it? Backwards compatibility with UNIX mainframe commands.

That's just a few off the top of my head. No doubt, I or others could find a lot more examples. At least DOS commands have evolved somewhat, and date back only to 1980 or so at the oldest. Linux has a lot of potential, but the biggest thing it has holding it back is an archaic command set that it will not leave behind, no matter how obsolete the technology that originally spawned it. Windows has at least outgrown the necessity of a command console, which is more than I can say for Linux.

Fair criticisms of MS are cool with me - I'll join in. But I think you may want to rethink this one, Ms. C :)

jd

[mzilikazi]

1. Mount - Now, WTH is that for? Why do we need it? What good is it? Why are all kinds of distros starting to dispense with it? My understanding is that in the old mainframe days of UNIX, you had to physically mount tapes to tape drives and HD platters to drives in order to work with the data. WTH kind of bath water is that?

What is mount for?!?! Well how else would you mount a drive? :roll: BTW what distro does not have mount? I'd love to see it.


2. dd - Short for "disk dump", IIRC. Hardly intuitive. Worse yet, the "if" and "of" flags confuse all newbies who erroneously assume that they are the English words, and that the expression tells the computer to "dd" (whatever the heck that is) IF a certain parameter is equal to a file location OF another file location?????? Took me months to figure out we were talking about input and output files. So why do we have it? Backwards compatibility.

man dd is a fast and simple way of finding out what a command does and the options it uses. What do you do when you need help w/ a DOS command?


3. tar - an acronym for "tape archive". When's the last time any of you used a tape drive? Yeah, I thought so. Why do we still have it? Backwards compatibility with UNIX mainframe commands.

Ahem......tape drives are still quite heavily used my friend.


Windows has at least outgrown the necessity of a command console, which is more than I can say for Linux.

jd

Windows didn't get away from using the command prompt they just buried it under several menus so that their users wouldn't get freaked out. Tell me this: How do you find your i.p. address in windows?

Only an end user would say that the command prompt is no longer necessary. Tell a sysadmin that he can no longer use the command prompt and see what he says. ;)

Speaking from persoanal experience, there is nothing more irritating than trying to remotely navigate someone through 10, 20 or even 30 clicks just to get to the menu that might have the option you need to change. It's alot easier to simply ask someone to type "ifconfig" for example. I would venture to say that most windows users are hosed if whatever ails their box cannot be fixed with the right combination of clicks and reboots. :)

Perhaps if you are only an end-user you may have these misconceptions about how things really work. Let's also keep in mind that it's the 'point and click' mentality that gets us things like spyware, adware, trojans and viruses. Yeah yeah I know, I know- you've never had any of those problems right?

[Cuddles]

1. Mount - Now, WTH is that for? Why do we need it? What good is it? Why are all kinds of distros starting to dispense with it? My understanding is that in the old mainframe days of UNIX, you had to physically mount tapes to tape drives and HD platters to drives in order to work with the data. WTH kind of bath water is that?

2. dd - Short for "disk dump", IIRC. Hardly intuitive. Worse yet, the "if" and "of" flags confuse all newbies who erroneously assume that they are the English words, and that the expression tells the computer to "dd" (whatever the heck that is) IF a certain parameter is equal to a file location OF another file location?????? Took me months to figure out we were talking about input and output files. So why do we have it? Backwards compatibility.

3. tar - an acronym for "tape archive". When's the last time any of you used a tape drive? Yeah, I thought so. Why do we still have it? Backwards compatibility with UNIX mainframe commands.

Fair enough... But, you use them still - the "reason" for running them may have changed, but not what they do... I use tar, maybe not to do a tape archive, but rather, as a form of "Linux Zip"... Same is true for mount, I don't need to make a "request" for some "computer room dweller" to physically mount a tape, or a disk platter, but, I rather prefer the idea that not all of my hard drives are "available" when I don't need, or want, them to be... I don't want my floppy "mounted" all the time, sometimes it doesn't have any media, as for my "precious" WINE Win98 partition, I only mount it when I need it, for a DOS program actually... As for dd, I never knew it... don't actually use it, but I never would have guessed the if and of things - probably would have hit-up the man pages to find out, if I ever did use the command though...


Fair criticisms of MS are cool with me - I'll join in. But I think you may want to rethink this one, Ms. C :)

Nope, I stand by what I say - my word is my bond...

As a consolation though, maybe what we are getting "confused" with here is - "backward compatability" and "known commands" - if, for instance, Linux changed all of its commands to new-fangled names, it would one, loose its "mistique", and two, every "die-hard" Linux/Unix user, would die trying to "re-learn" everything from scratch... J D, can we settle on a "stalemate" here ????

Ms. Cuddles

[j.drake]

1. Mount - Now, WTH is that for? Why do we need it? What good is it? Why are all kinds of distros starting to dispense with it? My understanding is that in the old mainframe days of UNIX, you had to physically mount tapes to tape drives and HD platters to drives in order to work with the data. WTH kind of bath water is that?

What is mount for?!?! Well how else would you mount a drive? :roll: BTW what distro does not have mount? I'd love to see it.

One of the larger ones, I read. I want to say it was RH or SuSe, but don't quote me on that. No doubt the command is still available.


2. dd - Short for "disk dump", IIRC. Hardly intuitive. Worse yet, the "if" and "of" flags confuse all newbies who erroneously assume that they are the English words, and that the expression tells the computer to "dd" (whatever the heck that is) IF a certain parameter is equal to a file location OF another file location?????? Took me months to figure out we were talking about input and output files. So why do we have it? Backwards compatibility.

man dd is a fast and simple way of finding out what a command does and the options it uses. What do you do when you need help w/ a DOS command?


3. tar - an acronym for "tape archive". When's the last time any of you used a tape drive? Yeah, I thought so. Why do we still have it? Backwards compatibility with UNIX mainframe commands.

Ahem......tape drives are still quite heavily used my friend.


Windows has at least outgrown the necessity of a command console, which is more than I can say for Linux.

jd


Windows didn't get away from using the command prompt they just buried it under several menus so that their users wouldn't get freaked out. Tell me this: How do you find your i.p. address in windows?

Start -> Network Connections -> Local Area Connection -> Support

You can still use cmd and ipconfig if you want to, but there really is not much reason for it anymore.


Only an end user would say that the command prompt is no longer necessary. Tell a sysadmin that he can no longer use the command prompt and see what he says. ;)

Speaking from persoanal experience, there is nothing more irritating than trying to remotely navigate someone through 10, 20 or even 30 clicks just to get to the menu that might have the option you need to change. It's alot easier to simply ask someone to type "ifconfig" for example. I would venture to say that most windows users are hosed if whatever ails their box cannot be fixed with the right combination of clicks and reboots. :)

Perhaps if you are only an end-user you may have these misconceptions about how things really work. Let's also keep in mind that it's the 'point and click' mentality that gets us things like spyware, adware, trojans and viruses. Yeah yeah I know, I know- you've never had any of those problems right?

No, I've set up and administered Windows networks, still do, and almost everything can be done in the GUI for the local machine. Granted, if you're using Novell or some other applications, you occasionally need access to a console. I'm not frightened by consoles, BTW - I like them too. Many times they are more efficient. My point wasn't to trash consoles, but to point out that Linux has a lot of archaic baggage too. I want Linux to be more accessible to end users. All of us should. That's the achilles heel of Linux, and MS will always dominate among end uses as long as Linux is difficult for end users.

jd

[Cuddles]

How about this for archaic commands, in Windows....

dir ???

Used to be that it listed out "directories" - i.e. dir = directory listing... Windows is now changing thinking of its "users"... You "now" call them folders, and sub-folders -=- which means to get a listing of a folder, you do a directory listing...

I assume that Microsoft did this "change" because of the GUI environment, and the term "directory" is "old" thinking, from a time in DOS... But the command lives on, even though it doesn't make any sense for its name anymore...

If this is the case... this should have changed too...

"to get a directory listing of a directory, or sub-directory, do a dir"

now...

"to get a folder listing of a folder, or sub-folder, do a fol, or should it be a longer name, like folder????" Maybe it should be fl, for folder listing ????

Oh well,
Ms. Cuddles

[xaviers2002]

Well maybe knoppix is not for everybody... Lindows yes!!!

[j.drake]

How about this for archaic commands, in Windows....

dir ???

Used to be that it listed out "directories" - i.e. dir = directory listing... Windows is now changing thinking of its "users"... You "now" call them folders, and sub-folders -=- which means to get a listing of a folder, you do a directory listing...

I assume that Microsoft did this "change" because of the GUI environment, and the term "directory" is "old" thinking, from a time in DOS... But the command lives on, even though it doesn't make any sense for its name anymore...

If this is the case... this should have changed too...

"to get a directory listing of a directory, or sub-directory, do a dir"

now...

"to get a folder listing of a folder, or sub-folder, do a fol, or should it be a longer name, like folder????" Maybe it should be fl, for folder listing ????

Oh well,
Ms. Cuddles

Well, yeah, but then again, you generally don't have to use text-based commands in Windows because it's unnecessary. In fact, I'm typing this from a Windows network that PROHIBITS user access to command lines (along with certain window GUI commands and registry editing). So tell me, are you brave enough to man the call center for a linux network in which experienced users are prohibited from using text commands? Boy, THAT would be job security!

But it does strike me that BASH is due for an overhaul. Sometimes that happens. When I first started messing with computers, the only choices I had were BASIC on a teletype or FORTRAN on punchcards. A lot has changed since then, and I had to learn new OSes, new languages, new commands. Heck, I'm doing it now with Linux! Sure, it's hard, but we could handle it. The idea of modernizing BASH is no more difficult for experienced Linux users than it is for newbies to learn BASH in the first place. In fact, it would be easier for the experienced users because of their experience, and at least a modernized shell would (presumably) not have counter-intuitive commands. From what I've read, BASH is only one of the more recent shells, and they've evolved over time.

Put yourselves in the shoes of newbies trying to learn this and accept Linux as a viable alternative. Imagine copying files from one hd to another. In Windows, you open Windows explorer, click D:, highlight the files and folders, and drag copies into C: .

Now think about a newbie in linux. Assuming you get past the idea of hdb2 and hda3 being the names of the drives, but you can't use hdb7 because it's a swap, and you can't copy to hda2 because it's NTFS - oh, did you run captive NTFS? - well then that's OK, unless you're copying system files, in which they can't be installed there anyway - yeah (ahem), anyway, let's say you get past that, and you get past the issues of 'read only' on the drives by default for live CD, and you open the shell, and you learn that it's 'cp', and you learn about 'man', so you try it, and you get an error that the drive isn't 'mounted', and you scurry around trying to find out WTH that means, and you learn how to do it, then you get an error that says only ROOT can do that, so you scratch your head wondering WTH 'root' is, and you find out about 'su', and you learn how to use it, and read all the warnings about how the Earth will explode if you run commands as root, and build your courage, and you try it, and you get asked for a root password. Then you go digging around trying to find it and learn that you didn't need it in the first place, and a bunch of people give you abuse about what a stupid noob you are, but finally someone tells you to type 'sudo passwd' (not PWD, because that's something else, now), and you set the password, and maybe about now it dawns on you that you could have used sudo without setting the password in the first place, so now you're root and you mount the drive, and you go to copy, but you have a whole bunch of files on the disk, and you deal with the weird syntax already mentioned about 'dd' , or maybe 'cat', and maybe, just maybe if you are really lucky, and really persistent, and really thick-skinned, you can actually copy those files from one drive to another, and you think back about how much you learned in that two months that you were messing with it. Folks, this has to change. We get the same questions from newbies over and over, and the truth is that it's not because they're lazy, and it's not because they are stupid, it's because it's f***ing hard!!! And it doesn't need to be. Newbies trying linux reminds me of salmon swimming upstream to spawn - most die or get eaten by bears before they reach their destination.

Yeah, I know, you could do a lot of that in KDE, and double-clicking automounts the drive, but the point is that even KDE isn't always intuitive, and sometimes you have to use the console (I used a simple example). There's not a lot that we can do about the linux shell, as individuals, but maybe as a linux community we could be a little more receptive to the idea of simplifying commands with a new shell. That doesn't mean that the old commands would have to go away, the curmudgeons could still use them and legacy apps would still run. We all adjusted when the hd install utility changed from knx-hdinstaller to knoppix-installer and then to knx2hd. Change is good. It ought to be enough to have to deal with the difficulties of an OS without installation wizards. Even with a printer installation wizard, it took nearly a month for me to find and install files just to use my printer. I dunno, maybe I'm not as bright. But I had to REALLY WANT to do this. Most people would have given up long ago.

So, although I've made some progress in the last year, I just don't buy the idea of things being new and improved in Linux compared with Windows. I like both, and I will continue to use both, and there are some definite advantages of Linux over Windows, but it's not those advantages that make it hard for newbies. We can dream and make improvements, but in getting Linux to the masses, the enemy isn't Microsoft - it's Linux itself.

jd

[Cuddles]

J.D,

I completely agree with you... ( after that, horrifying tale, who couldn't )

Its actually amazing, it has only been, just shy of a year, since I "came on-board" Linux/Knoppix/Debian/GNU -=- and since that time, I've gone through three Live CD versions, and three "complete" hard drive installations - Heck, I just got done "compiling" my 2.6.6 kernel, from source, for the very first time ( that was about the scarryest thing I have EVER done ! ).

Sometimes, even though it hasn't been that long of a time, I forget the "newbie" stuff I had problems with when I started out, and still am having these "issues", once and a while. You learn to do cp, cat, chmod, chgrp, su, and ls ( with a majority of its command line options ), and you think "Hey, I'm getting the hang of this!", until, something "new" comes along... "How do I do this now?"

Linux, to me, has been like a "rollercoater" ride... One minute your on top of the world, the next, you don't think you can get any lower... ( best thing you have to hope for is, if it really gets that bad, you can always just re-install... But that is a fate-worse-than-death, considering all the things you've done since you installed, you will have to do them all over again. YIKES!

To be completely honest, and to always tell the truth, I don't think I will ever be anything less than a newbie, when it comes to Linux. Oh, sure, I will know some things, maybe more than enough to answer some questions, but, I don't think I will honestly know Linux enough to be a Guru at it... And, who knows, the information I have attained, so far, may be useless if the next version doesn't require, or use, that information any more...

From what I read, here in the forums on this site, majority of the people here, are in varying degrees of "newbie"... If someone can come up with a answer to someones problem, they get touted as a "Guru", only to be knocked down, shortly there-after, by a problem they can't answer. Happens to me all the time... Heck, all it takes, for me, is to hit-up against a problem I have never encountered before, and best I can hope for is, that someone here has had the problem, and maybe, solved it, already.

I think the problem is that we think of a "newbie" as someone who, will sooner or later, progress, to another level. Say, newbie, to intermediate, to advanced, to the final level, Guru, or expert. I am not quite sure, but, I don't think this applies to Linux, too many variables. I am sure, thinking of myself here, that if I read all the books on Linux, or Knoppix, or Debian, or Linux Administration, etc... that, I would still, have a problem that I wouldn't have an answer for, thus, even with all that knowledge, I would still be a "newbie".

My deffinition, thus, of a "newbie", would be, someone who doesn't have the knowledge to solve there own problems / issues, and must ask for assistance on it. This reminds me of an old saying, said by someone famous, I don't remember at the moment: "I know many things, and those things I don't know, I know where to find my answers." - to paraphrase, Its not so much that I know something, but, rather, where to get the information, if I don't.

Your posting J.D, in a very large way, reminds me of my "first attempt" at doing something in Knoppix, "on my own", and may I say, I failed misserably, required a complete re-install of Knoppix from the CD, but, we don't talk about that, remind me never to say it again...

I saw Knoppix as a good alternative to Windows, and all of its problems, its crashes, its upgrades, its security patches, its virus attacks, etc... Only to find, with Linux, a whole new batch of "issues" to contend with. Don't get me wrong, I won't go back, I like this OS way too much to ever do that, but, to put "Knoppix" and "Windows" into perspective, I wouldn't have put up with all of this if it was Windows. The first "access denied", or "invalid parameter specified" message I got, I'd a "shelf-wared" this puppy faster than I could say FDISK... If I'd a been running Windows, and it said something like "you need root priviledges to do this", I'd a told it exactly where it can put its root, and I'LL give it permission!

So, why still put up with it? Bull-headed, stuborn, thick-headed, dense, these words come to mind, but, for me, probably all of the above, with the inclusion of, just not wanting to have to say, this OS has beat me, I'm throwing in the towel, I give up... Again, I like this OS too much, to do that... When it runs, or I don't do something stupid, like install something, that unknowingly, I should have known, not to install, even if I do want it, its a great OS, environment, and its about as stable as I could have ever wanted in my OS.

Someday, I hope, to be able to "help" in the "Hardware forum", or the "Tips and Tricks forum", but at my current level of intelligence, a lot of the topics are way over my head, and I admit it. Maybe the word "newbie" should have a value of 1 to 10, or something? I think I'm around a 5, well, maybe a 4.5 ( ? )

I don't diss anyone who has a "level" lower than me, I prefer to give advice at a "respectful" level, always a professional... And, when I get advice, from someone with a "level" higher than me, I always show gratituide for it. What goes around, comes around, as someone once said...

These forums are like that... If you give respect, you get respect, if you ask kindly, you should get a kindly response... If you post a topic, and body text that flames everyone that would ever help you, you can only expect to get the same in return. Sometimes, you have to weigh the individual situation as its self, where someone is at the end of there rope, frustrated, heated, and God help them, or anyone else around them, if they happen to be welding any weapon at the time, they ask for help in that situation, that, at that time, may not be the best time to suggest to them in a reply, "well, why don't you just use it then?" ... I hope, that, I have never done this, to anyone.

Every time a new release comes out, it appears that, these forums get flooded with a whole bunch of "repeat" questions / posts, or they get flooded with tons of posts on specific hardware issues, or configuration issues, etc... I think its actually wonderfull, maybe, even a blessing... Why? Because, these people may not know the information, but, they do know, where they can get the information. If these topics repeat enough, hopefully, someone creates a "Sticky" on the subject, and the "community" all grows from it. I would say that, if this forum was "screen-full" of "sticky" 'ies, it would be a good thing, if it helps people. ( not saying I would post that many stickies into a forum, that is )

Given the "honor" of being a "Moderator", from what I know, I keep the peace, try and help ( as everyone else does ), and, I think, find ways of getting the information that people are asking for, repeatedly, into a form that doesn't get into "rehashing". If answers are in the FAQ, point them to the resource, if they aren't, then, maybe they need to be???

I hope, that having this "honor", in no way, makes me a "Guru", cause I'm not, I'll admit that, and I did, when I was told of this honor... I am just another "user" of Knoppix, just like anyone else, maybe with a little more knowledge about some things, and absolutely nothing, about other things... I won't suggest to anyone, that reformatting your hard drive will resolve a printer problem, or your modem, but, on this I do know, I will suggest what either I did, or someone else here did, to resolve a "like" problem...

So, J.D, all I can add is, we are both alike, we are both making this "learning" trek, as is anyone else who has taken on the task of running an OS that is MILES different than Microsoft's OS's, either as a newbie, or as a MS Guru, you have a lot of learning, and, IMHO, I don't think you'll ever learn it all... From its cryptic "Unix-like" commands, to its vastly different interfaces, to sometimes getting the "you have to recompile your own kernel", we all have a lot to learn...

In closing, I can only add, thank GOD we don't have to compile Windows from SOURCE... and, not sure here, but can't you get the source for BASH, change the commands yourself, to what you want them to be, and compile them??? ( I am serious here, can you? )

Ms. Cuddles

[j.drake]

In that last question, if you are asking about me personally, heck no!! I'm sure it's possible at some level of sophistication, but I assume that it's part of the kernel, and that the modification won't represent any more that one person's individual conceit unless or until Linus himself signs off on it. Trouble is that for folks at that kind of hyper-guru level, these commands represent less effort than breathing, and I doubt that they have any real connection anymore to what it is like being a newbie.

My best hope for Linux is that Novell will take the initiative to make Linux user-friendly. From what I am told, Novell is putting all their eggs in the Linux basket, and hoping that the sysadmins will recognize the stability and administrative advantages of Linux. But even if they get past that hurdle, if Linux is to get past the server and onto the desktop, the CIOs still need to sell management and endusers, and that just ain't gonna' happen, IMO, as long as BASH is needed, and as long as BASH is BASH. So, I see two choices, and hopefully the choice will be both: (1) eliminate the need for anyone other than a sysadmin to ever need BASH, or (2) make BASH user-freindly enough for new and casual users to accept. Given the ready ability of MSW to do the first (in fact, Mac has been doing that for nearly 20 years!!), Linux environments will HAVE to accept the first choice to remain viable desktop replacements. But, when and if (1) fails and enough end users experience the joys of BASH, Linux will be scrapped unless (2) is accomplished also. KDE is remarkable, but not there yet.

Trouble is, Novell may not be terribly motivated to pay for development of code that will wind up in the GPL anyway. My suspicion is that addressing these two issues is why Novell bought Ximian too. I don't know, off hand, whether or not Ximian is open source, but I predict that Novell will develop Ximian to do what KDE cannot. And, even if it is subject to GPL, Novell will at least be recognized as the industry leader, even if Ximian is copied. So, all the corporate types will go to Novell as the innovator for Ximian flavored Linux, even if offered by Debian, Red Hat, and the others for free, just to keep things simple. Corporate types are uncomfortable with the concept of putting Chevy seats in a Ford - if it's Chevy seats they want, they'll buy the whole Chevy package, even if Ford will give them a Chevy seat for free. Of course, if Ximian is not open source . . . then open source linux will become exclusively the stuff of hobbyists and ubergeeks only (which really won't be much of a change, now that I think about it). When bundled up with training, support and certification, along with a proven track record, Novell will be the clear choice in the corporate environment. Corporate workers will learn to use and accept Novell-flavored linux, and will download or purchase SuSe for home PCs, with Debian, RedHat and Mandrake being cheaper alternatives for the more adventurous.

So there you have it - my prediction for the most likely scenario for Linux desktop acceptance. And if the other distros and developers don't like the idea of the future of Linux being guided by a profit-centered corporation, they had best check their egos at the door and get cracking to beat them to the punch.

I, too, often feel bad about how little I know after a year of this. But then I look back at how much I CAN do now. If I were a secretary typing documents and spreadsheets, a web surfer at home, a non-technical student, I would be THOROUGHLY competent at Linux, and able to do anything I needed in those roles. It's only when I try to do other things, things that I wouldn't even have permission to do in a corporate environment, for the most part - that's when I have problems. I can't write scripts, make certain programs work, but as is, I am probably more competent at Linux than probably 80-90% or more of the Windows users are at Windows. Think about that. And I know you can do more than I can. Heck, I can use Linux to rescue a disk when Windows won't even boot - how cool is that? So, really and truly, I think you are selling yourself way short by considering yourself a newbie.

As for the REAL newbies here, I can understand why the gurus here get frustrated with them (and oftentimes me). But I have learned so much through the generosity of others here, that I guess I feel a responsibility to answer those repeating questions - kind of like the tier 1 tech support people in the Windows world - I can only vomit back easy answers to obvious questions, and I'm happy to do it. But more complex things - editing scripts, recompiling kernels and the like, I'll leave to the more advanced folks. Once I master things, I try my best to update the WIKI with what I've learned. Keeps the kharma good. :)

So, for those of you who are too advanced to help the noobs without making them feel stupid, don't bother - I'll do what I can, and help to relieve you of the burden of bothering with them. Hopefully others will share this approach, and we can all contribute meaningfully to this endeavor in a positive fashion.

jd

PS, I don't have the skillset to replace BASH, but I've at least though up some names.

SLASH - Simplified Linux Alternative SHell
CRASH - Completely Revised Alternative SHell
and my personal favorite,
TRASH - Totally Revamped Alternative SHell
:D