In advance I will wield my flame-resistant suit, and I feel certain that
flames will be flung, though my intentions are good. I have posted a few
other times, such unpopular ramblings. I apologize if anyone is caused pain
or distress by my innocent postings, or resents them. I am trying to get at
a larger issue. I surely don't know what I am talking about, so please
don't misread me. I have never put together a debian packages, although I
have often compiled various packages for my own systems from sources on the
net---such experiences lead me to speculate on the nature of the "linux
package" in contrast to the GNU approach of making the source code self
configuring so it can almost install itself on any unix system that meets
certain standards.
To save your time, in what follows, I intend to naively ask (in soooo many
words) whether the best approach would not be to make Debian GNU/Linux so
robust, so intelligent, and so standard that it can compile any package
intelligently, robustly, and successfully. I am surely wrong, but I
understand very little of what I am writing about. So I am asking for
feedback to help me understand, for example, the muddle in which I remain
until this day about Debian's adamant adherence to some kind of non-standard
policy of setting up headers (ie., not as established by Linus). I have had
LOTS of trouble compiling linux 2.1.X kernels---in fact I have, in the past
year and a half, only been able to successfully compile 2.1.66 and have it
do the modest things I ask of it (ppp and printing) properly. I am really
confused.
I have been using Linux for a few years, since about 1994, because of what it
can do. My introduction to emacs came by way of a copy of "demacs," an
MSDOS friendly version of emacs, and some "gnuish msdos" utilities, all of
which was donated to my research project by the FSF. The usefulness of the
utilities---mainly sort, ptx, less, and grep---led me to want more, hence I
looked for Linux as soon as I was able to. Until now, my relationship with
Linux is still based on the things it can do; I have taken a few
computer-related coursed, but my main experience in the past decade + has
been as a user. I have a bit more tolerance for grief than some, perhaps,
and I haven't given up; though most of my colleagues do not choose to follow
me, as their Mac and Wintel machines are in many ways more user friendly.
In short, I am a user, and not a hacker. But still, a bit more kludge
resistent than many, and willing to learn.
Unix, Stallman suggested, was not the best of all possible operating
systems, but it is good---good enough. As he suggested, the utilities were
modular: each one could be written by a separate programmer, and as long as
everyone adhered to that standard of release of unix utilities---including
the provision of a man page, certain source code consistencies, etc.---they
would all fit together.
I bought into this philosophy. As I learned Linux, in spite of not being a
hacker, I was able to bluff my way into such phenomenal feats as
installation of emacs 20. There remain a lot of installs I still don't have
the courage to try---ghostscript troubled me, for example, and to compile
and install TeX from sources must be a feat indeed! But notice this
fact---in spite of the complexities of emacs 20, it compiled without
complaint, and installed into standard places on a linux box. I surely
don't have everything working right. I HAVE been able to run an emacs 19.34
deb package without serious incompatibility.
This suggests to me that at least part of what the Debian developers are
doing is somehow redundant, when it comes to well written software that is
set up to compile of a number of systems. I did not claim that there are
not packages that I have balked at, or that didn't compile. In such cases I
have found debian packages HIGHLY useful. In fact, I have not been able to
set up sendmail or smail properly, even from the debian package, without
considerable work. But most debian packages, happily, drop right in. And
uninstall neatly.
I have become an addict of the Debian system. That scares me. It scares me
the more, noticing that some packages seem to have been set up according to
whim of the developer.
As I say, I am afraid this will all bring down flames on me, as has happened
in the past. I am indeed over my head. But I would still like to bring
this question out in the sunlight, that has been bothering me (especially
when I cannot compile the kernel according to Linus's instructions): would
it not be better to fight for the standard system that will enable compiling
any old package---could this be done?
Oh, well. I haven't even been able to read the debian diffs for gs. So
it's all academic. I suspect and feel that what I am getting at, is what
the FSF has done that has made the most difference in the Unix community
overall, and what makes the GNU system great. The compatibility of
unix-like systems is elegant.
Maybe some developers will be willing to reach to my level, and instruct
me.
Please forgive my probably treading on sacred cows. I use Debian GNU/Linux
almost exclusively. (I would like to give something back, but for now, my
understanding of computer programming is lacking).
Oh, yeah, and may I ask, while I'm at it, whether straight linux
compiles (of 2.1.X kernels) should be expected to go ok on Debian boxes, or
does one have to add another layer of wrappers, etc.? Can you convice me
it's necessary? (I am truly dense; I have remained in a fog for YEARS over
this issue). I'd like to resolve this issue, as I have to set up a PS/2
Model 50 (MCA and SCSI) as the first step in the estblishment of a gateway
for our school---the compile failures that have become a habit with my
debian boxes are leading me to the point of doubt.
Alan Davis
(who has luckily been on Saipan while Guam was
pummelled by Supertyphoon Paka.)
--
"I consider that the golden rule requires Alan E. Davis
that if I like a program I must share it [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with other people who like it" Marianas High School
AAA196, Box 10001
---Richard Stallman Saipan, MP 96950
Northern Mariana Islands
GMT+10
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
