Windows vs Linux, Pros and Cons

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2003-02-05 05:15pm

Speaking of symlinks, how do I create on through a command shell? I wish to create some symlinks on the Linux server I use.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-02-05 05:39pm

Have you tried downloading any winmodem drivers? These usually aren't included. Look here:

http://www.linmodems.org/

I don't like any company belonging to UnitedLinux, which includes SuSe, Caldera, Turbolinux, and Connectiva, because of licensing issues. Especially Caldera. Of course all those companies are all dying, so...

The most widely used is:

RedHat

For user friendlyness there are:

Mandrake (which is also dying)
Xandros
Lycoris
Lindows

Lycoris and Mandrake are free, the others are not. However Xandros comes with CrossOver Office, which allows you to run MS Office. Lindows is pure shit. I have only read reviews, have never used any of these except RedHat, and it sucked. I'm running LFS.

Oh for Durandal and Lord MJ, about microkernels vs monolithic kernels:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php ... ed&order=0

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-02-05 05:40pm

Lord MJ wrote:Speaking of symlinks, how do I create on through a command shell? I wish to create some symlinks on the Linux server I use.

ln -s [target] [link]

example: ln -s /bin/bash /bin/sh

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-02-05 05:42pm

Oh and Lycoris is based in Redmond and used to be called Redmond Linux... Yes, Redmond, Washington...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-05 06:33pm

Pu-239 wrote:Oh for Durandal and Lord MJ, about microkernels vs monolithic kernels:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php ... ed&order=0

Hm ... this article seemed like painfully obvious trolling to me. The author took, "Mac OS X uses the Mach microkernel," blended it with his "microkernels $UX0R$" shit, and wrote something. The majority of responses were right to flame his sorry ass for not researching exactly how OS X uses the Mach microkernel.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-05 06:35pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Crayz9000 wrote:I'll second that. Shortcuts are crappy and very dependant upon file location. Move something from one partition to another and all the shortcuts will break...
*groans*
That argument died with windows 95, or some time around that.

Don't you realize that a symlink actually exists at the filesystem level, while a "shortcut" is nothing more than a glorified batch file for the shell?

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-02-05 08:42pm

Oh another- I think easier- solution for remote X
http://www.tightvnc.com/

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-02-05 08:48pm

Pu-239 wrote:
Lord MJ wrote:Speaking of symlinks, how do I create on through a command shell? I wish to create some symlinks on the Linux server I use.
ln -s [target] [link]

example: ln -s /bin/bash /bin/sh

Bad, very bad example!. sh is statically compiled, which will enable you to actually use your machine in case something FUBARs (like libs disappearing). You do not want /bin/sh merely existing as a symlink to /bin/bash

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-02-05 08:50pm

Pu-239 wrote:Oh another- I think easier- solution for remote X
http://www.tightvnc.com/

UltraVNC is better, I think. RDP is superior to either of them.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-02-05 08:53pm

Durandal wrote:
Pu-239 wrote:Oh for Durandal and Lord MJ, about microkernels vs monolithic kernels:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php ... ed&order=0
Hm ... this article seemed like painfully obvious trolling to me. The author took, "Mac OS X uses the Mach microkernel," blended it with his "microkernels $UX0R$" shit, and wrote something. The majority of responses were right to flame his sorry ass for not researching exactly how OS X uses the Mach microkernel.

Indeed. Darwin is no more a microkernel than Windows NT 4+ is.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-02-06 02:17am

Darth Wong wrote:
His Divine Shadow wrote:
Crayz9000 wrote:I'll second that. Shortcuts are crappy and very dependant upon file location. Move something from one partition to another and all the shortcuts will break...
*groans*
That argument died with windows 95, or some time around that.
Don't you realize that a symlink actually exists at the filesystem level, while a "shortcut" is nothing more than a glorified batch file for the shell?

Yes, but what does a symlink have to do with that argument?

And crayz, I moved a file 6+ subidrectories to test, I did not get any search dialouge, said feature is probably improved in 2k/XP

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-02-06 02:55am

His Divine Shadow wrote:And crayz, I moved a file 6+ subidrectories to test, I did not get any search dialouge, said feature is probably improved in 2k/XP

This WAS 2000!

It wasn't a dialogue, anyway. It was just the little "Searching..." thing that came up for a second or so.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-02-06 03:18am

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-02-07 03:58pm

phongn wrote:
Pu-239 wrote:
Lord MJ wrote:Speaking of symlinks, how do I create on through a command shell? I wish to create some symlinks on the Linux server I use.
ln -s [target] [link]

example: ln -s /bin/bash /bin/sh
Bad, very bad example!. sh is statically compiled, which will enable you to actually use your machine in case something FUBARs (like libs disappearing). You do not want /bin/sh merely existing as a symlink to /bin/bash

Eh. That's what boot disk is for. Besides if libs started disappearing, some other programs might not work either. Of course in a secure environment, you should'nt be able to boot from removable media.

Also I think RedHat 7.2 had it as a symlink to bash, and coredistro has it as one.

From the LFS book:

sh

sh is a symlink to the bash program. When invoked as sh, bash tries to mimic the startup behavior of historical versions of sh as closely as possible, while conforming to the POSIX standard as well.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-02-07 04:39pm

Well, you can use a bootdisk, but IMHO I'd rather be able to at least attempt to get into my machine with a working shell rather than use one.