On Wed Dec 06 2000 at 19:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > There should be NO pre-requisite that a box have a working X server
> > > just to be able to configure its printers. Or anything else.
(which I originally wrote)
> Fo my part I really beg RedHat developpers to remove any kind of text
> based config tool. In our days where a low end hard disk is 10 G, 100
> megs for X are a triffle. In addition I don't even want to know how
Huh? Get real! :) One of the *classy* things about linux is that
it runs *really* well on low-end "old" legacy hardware. There is a
HUGE demand for cheap (second-hand) hardware (eg, in 3rd world
countries) BECAUSE linux is cheap, available, and it works on that
hardware.
In my position here, I'm finding that low end hardware is very
readily available. Heck, I've put together an old 486 at home as a
dialup router, samba/nis/dns/mail server out of "spares", and it
hasn't needed to be rebooted in months. Same for "converting"
business offices over to using a linux server, they want to do it
cheap and I can do that for them. A low-end p133 with 64Mb running
rh62 is doing lots of magic just down the hallway.
At the same time, put linux onto a high-end server and it can *fly*.
Aside: There are projects that have sprung up that have started
to buy/collect old hardware, put linux onto them and resell them
as cheap servers. "Third world" countries are hungry for the
hardware more "affluent" countries are throwing away. The Chinese
govt has (quite sensibly) adopted linux (over m$) as its official
operating system.
Linux is keeping old hardware alive and useful.
> a primary weapon in Microsoft's arsenal against Unix has been to point
> at those people configuring with texct based tools or a mere editor.
> And "real" Unix has been losing ground for the last ten years. It is
> time to stop playing into Microsoft's hands. And I am sorry but the
> multiwindow capabilities of X allow for far easier config than when
> at console
Unix losing ground? The tide is turning, haven't you noticed? The
*only* think m$ has going for it is its user interface, I agree.
X has it conveniences. But it should NOT be a requirement. MUST not!
> For the same reason I consider silly that the 'server' install does
> not include X. It makes sense to run X only for configuration and
> stop it for production but it makes for a far easier configuration, it
> only takes two dollars of disk space and it does not give an antiLinux
> argument to the NT guy
It is easy to install extra packages.
Who cares what the NT guy thinks? It is irrelevant. Let him cope
with his own problems, he's got plenty to worry about as it is and
if that keeps him happy then fine. We are dealing with a *real*
operating system here :)
But the point is that X is not always available and should not be a
*requirement*.
> I don't doubt there will be many more people flaming me that approving
> me. Howver let's remember that those allergic to text based tools are
> something like 95% of the market but they are not represented here
> since they fled to NT or to other distribs.
>
> --
> Jean Francois Martinez
Ahh Jean, we *do* have a lot of common ground here... :-)
Anyway, off my soapbox.
Cheers
Tony
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
