Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Debian

Debian Reveals glibc2.1 186

Posted by CmdrTaco from the moving-on-up dept.
piman writes "Today Debian wrapped up glibc2.1 nicely into the unstable/main directory. I hade to remove timezones (not needed anymore), egcc (replaced with new gcc), and checker (don't know why), but it's working fine so far. " I don't even have a slink CD and I'm already eyeing the unstable tree. This isn't healthy. All you livin-on-the-edge types jump in there and screw your boxes up. Can't be worse than the GNOME 1.0 rpms...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Debian Reveals glibc2.1 More

Debian Reveals glibc2.1

Comments Filter:

  • new gcc??? (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In slink, the egcs C compiler is in the egcc package. The gcc package contains the older gcc.

    Because glibc2.1 requires the egcs compiler, gcc now contains the egcs version of gcc and the egcc package is no longer needed.
  • anoyne running glibc2.1 in their *stable* tree right now is a flaming moron. I also heard stampede is shipping kernel 2.2.1 as stable also... that's all i needed to here. 2.2.1 is the most unstable piece of crap I've ever used and they call it stable?! stampede is the windows95 of linux as far as stability,

  • I would rather kill myself than use redhat.

  • Sorry. (Score:1)

    by Crow- ( 35 )
    Uhh

    deb http://www.debian.org/~jules/gnome-stage-2 unstable main

    put that in your sources.list, and if you have to force anything after that then you are a MORON.

    Yes, you have to be running potato..

  • Potato. (Score:1)

    by Crow- ( 35 )
    Uhh no, I have been running unstable for months, with 2.0.36, and the 2.2.0-pre series was fine, then I installed 2.2.1 and it crashed at least 3 times on me. Somehow I dont think it's crashing cause i run the unstable tree. Btw, it's not called unstable because of stability, it's called that because it is always a moving target.
  • I have a hard time believing that "it broke apt". How about posting the exact error message here?

  • Umm, i'm a newbie cause i wont run redhat? there is some good reasoning
  • the topic says it all, anyone who says 2.2.1 is stable is just getting lucky. I know at least 5 people personally who have had it crash their machines multiple times.
  • Hey, Rob, complaining about RPMs in a Debian article doesn't fit. It causes a psychological transference of flameage. You wrote somewhere that you use Debian on your laptop, so you should know that Debian's Gnome 1.0.1 packages install and work fine (modulo the intrinsic (upstream) instability in Gnome's self proclamed ``stable'' release).

    As has Microsoft, RedHat has shown that market share is not at all related to quality.


  • Hey, nice way to win friends and influence neighbors.

    I am sure linux-hw really apreciates how you alienate potential customers.

    I hope that someday I can be as cool as you.

    [sarcasm: off]

    Can't someone ask a simple question with out getting blasted?

    Thankfully, not all Debian users are as anoying as you.
  • Slackware is notoriously easy to maintain and is known for not interfering with the system as a whole... Could I expect the same out of Debian?

    I am not sure what you mean by ``interfering'' with the system, but I guess I would say that everything in Debian is the system. [If you want to install non-Debian stuff by hand, just put it in /usr/local and Debian is happy]. And I would say that Debian is very easy to maintain. What is easier than ``apt-get upgrade'' to update my entire system? And ``apt-get install gnome-core'' to play with the latest gnome stuff?

    Any previous slack converts to debian have something to say about this? I'd really like some feedback.

    Well, I got my start with Linux from Slackware. I downloaded boat loads of Slackware floppies to an office Win3.1 machine and biked them home to my old 486. This was back in the low 1.0.x kernel numbers. And I am gratefull for it, because it was a relatively easy and painless move away from a relatively hard and painful relationship with that MS OS. After about 6 months with Slack, I moved to Debian at it's 0.93 version and haven't looked back since. I have installed one RH system on my dad's PC and worked on one other pre-installed system and while I think RH is headed in the right direction, I prefer a system which just works (even if it lacks all those GUI buttons). I feel Debian gives me this.

    Hey, give it a try and make up your own mind, it's free after all. (grin).

    -Brett.

  • Hey, its okay. It is a thin line between clueless questions (which deserve some level of backlash) and simple newbie questions (which deserve some level of hand holding). I certainly have blasted a few people when I (and the blastie) would have been better off if I just ignored it and moved on (or just gave an answer).

    So, after 12 hours of Debian, are you a convert yet? I think it took me a whole day.

    -Brett.

  • I'm also looking forward to the GNOME front end to apt. Now if only I could locate GNOME 1.0.x .deb's, I would be a very happy person.

    As seen in the latest Debian Weekly News [debian.org] you can get the new Gnome debs from this link [debian.org], but see DWN for the link to the anouncement as this is not a stable (in Debian's conservative definition of ``stable'') set of debs nor an official release. Also, the announcement gives APT's /etc/apt/sources.list entry for even easier install.

    I have installed these 1.0.1 Gnome debs with out any probs (my systems are mostly potato with a some slink left over). Unfortunately I have found a few probs running Gnome and related apps. I am afraid I must say that the Gnome project's 1.0.x designation is a bit premature. But, I also think this criticism will be outdated in a matter of a week or so.

    -Brett

  • Why the BLEEP do you think you need a CD to install Debian 2.1?!

    I am typing this from Mozilla under Debian 2.1. I do not have a CD of it. All I did was follow the directions at the Debian web site for installing it via the web. That's right, I downloaded the indicated contents of the 'slink' install directory into the \debian directory on my WinBlows 98 partition, booted down to DOS, typed "install", and voila! Then once I had my system up and going, I set up my PPP connection, fired up dselect, and got going. All via modem (albeit at V.90 speeds, averaging about 48kbaud).

    Sure, it took 4 hours to download everything, and dselect is still going in the background as I type this. So what. Are you a hacker, or are you some kinda twirp who shouldn't be straying from Windows 98 or Red Hat in the first place? (Cause if you're not a hacker, you don't need to be messing with Debian anyhow... Debian is Slackware for hackers who think Volkerding is stuck back in the Stone Ages with his retro distribution).

    -- Eric
  • Excuse me, Mr. Coward?

    My point was this: People have been brainwashed by the major distribution vendors to believe that the only way to install Linux is off of a CD-ROM. Obviously they have a business incentive to do so, since they charge for CD-ROM's, not for FTP access. But with Debian, you don't have to buy a CD-ROM unless you want one. (Or two, rather, with 'slink'). Yes, I have burnt CD-ROM's with 'slink' on them, but I explicitly did not bring those home with me so that I could test this hypothesis (that it is possible to install Debian quite easily over a normal dialup ISP line, thank you).

    As for the stereotype of Debian users: Please note that I do not consider myself a "hacker". Rather, I am a database programmer and system administrator who happens to design hardware from time to time. Still, I AM quite knowledgable about Linux and its startup and installation processes. Without that knowledge, I'd still be fumbling around trying to get basic things set up and configured, rather than posting this message on Netscape 4.51 via Debian 2.1.
    Also note that I don't think that expert Debian users are any "better" than expert Red Hat users, or vice versa. I better not, I use Red Hat a lot more than I use Debian :-).

    As for your comments about marking my employer's web site off your bookmarks list, a) read the disclaimer at the bottom of my web page, i.e. my opinions are my own, not my employer's, and b) are you sure you don't work for one of my employer's competitors? But I guess it's easy to make slanderous remarks when you're an Anonymous Coward....

    -- Eric
  • When did "hacker" become a dirty word?

    Debian is Linux by hackers, for hackers. The people who create Debian are Debian users, people who step forward to maintain a package for the system. They're not sitting in corporate offices somewhere being paid to "do Linux".

    As such, Debian has the strengths of most hacker software: It is rock solid, ultra-reliable, up-to-date... and not released until it is as close to bug-free as possible (as vs. certain other OS vendors who release when the marketing department tells them to). As such, it is also quite useful to non-hackers who want an ultra-reliable platform. But if you're saying that this makes Debian a platform for Linux novices, all I have to say is that if you want to "do" Debian, you better be willing to put in the work to become a Linux "expert", because Debian doesn't do a whole lot of pandering to novices. Sure, the dotfile generator is there, but that's not exactly an endorsement for ease-of-use either :-(.

    Does this make Debian users better than other people? Of course not. Does this make Debian better than other distros? Well, I'm not going there :-).

    -- Eric
  • Most Debian packages include a configuration script that'll ask you a few questions (in command line dumb terminal fashion) and then configure the package. I believe there's an option of dpkg that will run that script even after the package has been installed for awhile.

    Debian also includes the "dotfile generator". This is a tool to create your .emacs, .fvwmrc, etc. files. But you must know quite a bit about Emacs or fvwm2 or etc. before it is of use to you.

    In short, the typical new user doesn't need to do a whole lot of hacking of config files, with the exception of /etc/fstab to mount any extraneous filesystems. What Debian lacks is a central vision of system administration. No 'linuxconf' or 'coas' or 'yast' appears to be in Debian's future.

    But for those willing to put in the time and effort, that's not much of a drawback. And you do get one advantage over the commercial distributions -- Debian is the most rock-solid distribution, period, no argument involved. The question of whether it's worthwhile to use it, in the end, depends on whether a) you have the time to learn it in-depth, and b) non-technical factors such as formal support, availability of commercial software in Debian-friendly format, etc. The non-technical factors in particular are one reason why Red Hat is much more popular than Debian amongst commercial interests -- they're still not accustomed to the idea of a project that they can't buy out, can't invest in, has no offices, and whose only real existence seems to be as a web site and ftp site.

    Final note: I'm not saying that Debian is "better" than Red Hat/Suse/Caldera (or vice versa), just that Debian does have its own particular set of strengths and weaknesses.

    -- Eric
  • Ah well. Someday I'll learn moderation. Or at least how to think for a few seconds before hitting the "post" button :-(.

    The odd thing is that I'm not even a Debian user, except for the past twelve hours that I've been playing with it. I usually use Red Hat.

    -- Eric

  • Bah! (Score:1)

    by cduffy ( 652 )
    An OS crash/reboot is one helluvalot different than a little bar at the bottom of the screen disappearing for a few seconds.

    I find GNOME's stability quite acceptable.
  • HINT:

    Glibc2 was introduced in HAMM... a.k.a. Debian 2.0


    --
    Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
  • As to what egcc might stand for - I am at loss...

    EGCC basically stands for "Experimental Gnu C Compiler."

    I will have to agree that egcc has been more... capable than it's pure gnu counterpart.

    --
    Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
  • I will have to agree with this individual, even if he/she is using the Anonymous Coward moniker.

    The fact is that your original post came off dripping with the acid commonly associated with the common cracker/pirate culture.

    I myself make pizza dough for a living, and so am hardly financially well-to-do enough to get my system out of the original Pentium line of processors, and certainly not stable enough to be spending $20 for any distro (quite simply the main reason I use debian -- I have a friend with a CD burner and a Road Runner connection).

    However, upon the need for a reinstall, a CD is extremely preferable to using the only phone line I possess to install Linux.

    And I'm no simpleminded hacker wannabe... I survived the Atari and Commodore Computers, and their BASIC interpreters (ugh, the memories!), Spent a lot of time on a floppy-bound PS/2 Model 60, ran Minix on a 386 for the longest time, spent some of my time on my previous 486DX2 using Slackware, and finally graduated to Debian, during Bo. (Meaning I had to upgrade to HAMM manually... I would have committed murder several times if I had only a net connection to pull THAT off!)

    So, while you are entitled to your opinions (as am I to mine), I would suggest more respectful wording, or at least less ridicule.

    --
    Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
  • GNOME has stability problems... It can't keep itself up, and is incapable of doing much of anything quickly.

    KDE is more stable, but is not quite as good when it comes to good old-fashioned WM-agnosticism.

    And my pick of the litter:

    DFM+FVWM2!

    (Okay, so I am going to get roasted over an open spit from both camps... but hey, at least I get my choice in. :-)

    --
    Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
  • Try cheapbytes [cheapbytes.com].
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • It would be nice if Red Hat included KDE 1.1 as the primary desktop for the next release, and gave the GNOME developers time to knock out a few of the remaining bugs. I know Red Hat really sticks to their guns when it comes to Open Source software, but I would think the new Qt license would be acceptable to them.

    It would be bad if the 6.0 release was delayed waiting for GNOME, or even worse if it was buggy. A few folks in the mainstream media would love to see that happen.

    TedC

  • You still assume their move was caused by KDE license concerns?

    In part, yes.

    I'm sure part of it's got to do with the fact that they're well into the project and don't want to abandon it, as a previous poster noted.

    I also think part of it has to do with internal issues at Red Hat. My perception (which is not based on any inside information) is that Bob Young would be much more open to adopting KDE now that the license is "fixed" than some of the Red Hat developers are. People really get emotionally involved with some of these issues, and it obscures their ability to make sound, unbiased decisions.

    TedC

  • Why don't they just include both?

    Maybe they will. I've heard that KDE 1.1 is in the "rawhide" release, so hopefully it will make it into 6.0.

    The way I see it, the KDE vs. GNOME war is one that Red Hat can't win, so why fight it?

    TedC

  • This is so ridiculous. If you had been at LinuxWorld you would not say that Gnome can't win.

    I didn't say that; I said Red Hat can't win a KDE vs. GNOME war.

    There is no need for either Gnome or KDE or "lose"

    I didn't say that either. :-)

    But Red Hat could lose by unnecessarily involving themselves in a KDE vs. GNOME war by chosing to promote one over the other. This is a "no win" situation for them; there is nothing to be gained but ill will.

    There is nothing wrong with giving people a choice - that is what Linux is all about.

    I agree. I am suggesting that Red Hat include them both in their next release let people chose the one they like best.

    TedC

  • i think it would be nicer if redhat shipped enlightenment.

    I think they plan to ship E as the default window manager for GNOME, but I'm not 100 percent sure. I might have made that up. :-)

    TedC

  • Something is messed up here -- I seem to have my name attached to stuff I didn't post. If you read thru this thread, you'll even find me arguing with myself. :-)

    The Real TedC

  • One of the major problems with the current 2.2 kernels seem to occur when swap and ram get filled. Basically, take up all the ram, and all the swap, which the system will allow, and it will go swap-happy and hang whilst it swaps itself to death.

    Heavy G++ compiles are a good way to cause this.
  • We really need the GCC maintainers to get the EGCS code merged into the GCC tree, and have 2.8 and 2.7 dropped. Too many source compatibility problems have been brought around by 2.7's lack of standards conformance and tolerance of illegal constructs (read Linux 2.0). Essentially, EGCS 1.1 should be called GCC 2.9, EGCS 1.1.2 --> GCC 2.9.2 etc.
  • gnomecc fails to correctly swallow approx 2/3 of the preference windows. and yes -- gmc crashes far too much.
  • To make it blue screen... to run a GNOME applications, do (gnome-thingy || init 7) have runlevel 7 kill everything, print up the blue screen, and then halt the system. p.s. Windows is FAR more stable than GNOME -- and windows crashes a lot.

  • Yes, S.u.S.E. has upgraded to glibc 2.0 in their recent 6.0 release (which they did not see fit to send me, even though I ordered it). I installed 6.0 from a friend's CDs, and let me tell you it is frightfully unstable. I don't know if this is the fault of glibc 2, or what, but both tar and gzip are semi-broken ("Oh, you wanted to use tar?!?"), it includes an old and buggy version of Window Maker (my preferred wm), and Netscape can barely stay up.

  • There should be a description of how to do it at Debian's web page [debian.org].

    Basically, what you do is this:

    (a) Install apt. If you can't find it in dselect, you should look on Debian's site to find it. This isn't required but it'll make your life a lot easier.
    (b) Edit /etc/apt/sources.list and make sure there's a line like:
    deb http://www.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free
    (c) Run "apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade".

    Daniel
  • I'm assuming egcc is the binary name they gave egcs. Correct?

    "In true sound..." -Agents of Good Root
  • Stampede Linux has had glibc2.1 in it's 'stable'
    tree since February 8th.
  • Have you actually tried Stampede? Do you know
    anything about it's stability? Before you start
    shooting your mouth off, consider running a distro
    that actually has glibc2.1 packages.

    My machine is under a fair amount of stress, and
    has a high uptime. Nothing that worked before
    stopped working, and as for kernel 2.2.1, I have
    had no issues with that either. (I'm not on an Alpha, mind you) But nevertheless, don't talk
    about something you seem to know little about.

    (glibc2.1 was pulled because of issues with gcc 2.8.1, not for instability.)

  • Yow. (Score:1)

    by WWWWolf ( 2428 )
    Yesh. Just what I wanted. Now, if I only could get Slink first...
  • Slackware 3.6 includes glibc2, but nothing is compiled against it yet.
  • Don't get me wrong... I'm all for Gnome. I run it myself -- KDE's just not my thing. I've got to admit, though, that I've found at least 20 different ways to crash various parts of Gnome without even trying.

    A few examples off the top of my head:

    Changing the panel background bitmap
    Re-theming the clockmail applet
    Doing almost anything with gmc
  • Hopefully, this will be the only reply to this off-topic troll. Though I agree that camping out at ChumpUSA is pretty stupid, I don't think it has a helluva lot to do with glibc2.1

    Did I miss something?
  • and the light.

    Seriously. It takes some time and effort (hint: read the directions [gnome.org]), but it's more enjoyable than endlessly sorting out RPM conflicts. My build started from a modified RH 5.2 system. Used egcs 1.1.1 (building this also requires following the suggested build directions).

    Do it for your country. Do it for your cat. Ju Transfer interrupted!

  • Conflicts? I had no snafus with .deb packages.
  • The terminology is clear to a Debian user, probably not to outside people though. Debian has a stable and unstable tree, much like the linux kernel development. Since a week, the stable version is Debian 2.1, codenamed slink, and the unstable is called potato. The poster just said that glibc 2.1 is in potato (unstable) and, naturally, in the free part of it (main).
  • You should be prepared to accept future problems, when trying to upgrade, or install the missing parts; it was the case when X-windows was reorganized in slink, and it is a natural, and even healthy possibility of fast development. Having said that, I encourage you to test cutting-edge debian and help its development.

  • Hahaha. (Score:1)

    by dmaze ( 6055 )
    This could be why they're still in a special development "sandbox", and not released into even the unstable Debian distribution.
  • I rebuilt all of the RPMS from the SRPMs that were available last week... including some 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 stuff... seems a bit better already.

    (rpm --rebuild whatever.src.rpm)
  • it's a subdirectory of any standard gnome mirror.... in /redhat/SRPMS or something like that.

  • Am I the only person who actually finds Gnome 1.0 to be stable?

    It works for me too.

    I've been running it since day 1 and the worst thing I've experienced is the panel crashing and restarting itself. Even that hasn't happened more than once per day.

    Hasn't happened to me since I first tried it out before putting it in my .xsession file.

    I was even a pussy and installed from RPMs.

    I grabbed the tarballs and used the spec files to make RPMs, because I haven't been able to get Gnome's RPMs to work on my somewhat upgraded RedHat 5.1 system.

    My only problem is that I'm not using a compliant window manager, but I've grown too attached to my current setup to change...

  • This is meant as a desktop system which is supposed to be comparable to Windows.

    Now we only have to figure out how to make it turn blue on a crash... :-)

    Ben
  • Just run dselect and use the FTP mode. It should go to the stable tree by default which is now Slink. Do an update (DO clear available list), select (choose nothing), and then install. It should automatically get and install everything which has been updated since 2.0. Warning: this will be a HUGE download. I install Slink by using my 2.0 cds and choosing the Basic package then I update that.... only then do I select more debs to fill out the system.
    .
  • $ dpkg -s libc6
    Version: 2.1.1-0pre1

    I just installed it yesterday. I have already begun recompiling my packages to be linked against it.

    Now the fun begins!
  • Any previous slack converts to debian have something to say about this? I'd really like some feedback.

    I used to use Slack (last release I used was 3.4). I had a lot of fun with it, and it was a great way to learn Linux. But eventually it was time to move on to a truly powerful distribution and Debian was really the only way to go.

    I downloaded the Hamm (Debian 2.0) base packages onto my Slack disk and installed it onto a new partition. Then I got PPP up in debian and an ftp client, and manually downloaded & installed each package I wanted, never touching Dselect. It was quite a chore, really, but it was also nice in the sense that I knew exactly what was on my system because I put it there myself.

    The wonderful thing about Debian is that it gives you as much or as little control as you want. There is the Dselect/apt-get combo, which I finally took the time to learn and was well satisfied by its power. Or you can still install everything manually, compiling from sources (I compiled a lot of my Hamm packages with optimizations, including Xfree86.) .deb packages themselves are great, and most of the important ones have excellent setup scripts that automatically install a nearly optimal configuration. But of course, it's still Linux, and you can tweak .conf files to your heart's content.

    Just last month, I upgraded to slink (Debian 2.1) automagically via my 56k modem and Dselect / apt-get. I had some problems at first that were easily solved by installing the newest apt-get out of unstable. Everything was totally automatic, and I didn't even have to reboot (!!!! try that with NT) to totally upgrade my distribution. Now I'm going back through and compiling from debian source packages (also very easy: dpkg-source -x packagename.dsc ; cd packagename ; dpkg-buildpackage) for some of the critical packages.

    I have only briefly used RedHat so I can't directly compare it to Debian. FWIW, I've heard that Debian's package system especially is superior to RedHat's. I don't know all the techincal details but working with dpkg / dselect / apt has been nothing but pleasure for me.

    I'm also looking forward to the GNOME front end to apt. Now if only I could locate GNOME 1.0.x .deb's, I would be a very happy person.

  • If you're willing to put up with the machine crashing "only maybe once a day"...
    ----------------------
  • Yes.
  • It's what makes Debian ... well, Debian. As a group that only makes a distribution (and doesn't care about income from CDs), they have more of an incentive for smooth online upgrades. And what a wonderful thing apt is (most of the time). Thank you, Jason Gunthorpe and Co.
  • Some of us have marginally more reasons to live. I suggest getting out more or getting antidepressants.
  • What a wanker... The guy writes something good enough that he now works for Pixar, lets you use it for free, and even responds to newbie questions and feature requests in a timely manner, and for this you call him a weasel? Damn fine software that costs you nothing, on a free OS, and you complain. Grow up, and find something significant to complain about.
  • Bails out on me about once or twice a week. Puts me out to the console and all I can do is type startx again. Pretty bad. Time to go back to WindowMaker.
  • Jesus christ. I expected people would stop with the kde-vs-gnome thing after a month or two... or at least come up with some new arguments. Its still mainly the license/stability arguments. :)
    --
    Paranoid
  • My system still smells vaguely of a redhat 5.0 install (first, last and only time I've had to install from a CD, I'm proud to say). I've been running with the new-kernel pack since 2.2.0pre6(maybe 7, my memory sucks), compiling it with pgcc, and the only trouble I've had was installing/learning ipchains and a new version of nettools.

    Funny how the rpm database thinks I'm still running on 2.0.32... but hey, if it works, I'm all for it. :)
    --
    Paranoid
  • I seriously hope you were being sarcastic, as 3/4 of the examples you just used were the reasons I went to Linux in the first place.

    And if you weren't sarcastic, I doubt /. is the right place for you :)
    --
    Paranoid
  • Heh. I use redhat AND gnome. I'm just sick of the debate going in circles :)
    --
    Paranoid
  • 1) KDE doesn't have nifty corporate sponsorship to have it waste time at silly conventions

    2) KDE's core development is centered in Europe, so traveling to US conventions would be unlikely, anyway.

    3) "this is 1.0 after all"... The thing shouldn't have been moved to 1.0 if it weren't ready for the world to use and abuse it.
  • Kinda like when the GNOME anouncement was mailed to the KDE-devel list saying that GNOME would take parts of KDE that they found usefull and rewrite them for GNOME. That pissed off quite a few people. There was even talk of changing licenses to one that would not allow GNOME to use any KDE source code. Not like that would have actually worked, but it still shows how angry people were.
  • I agree with that. KDE underwent a LONG period of testing and pre-1.0 releases before 1.0 came out. The result was a very stable release. There's a reason that people have this "wait till .1" mentality, it's because developers release software that is NOT ready for public use as .0 and figure everyone will test it and then they'll release .1 when the debugging is done. I still don't understand why GNOME released, then very quickly deleted pre1.0. The only thing I can think of is that they wanted to get 1.0 faster than they should have.

    1.0 can be very stable. I used KDE 1.0 for a long time, and I don't remember a single crash. GNOME crashed on me after about 3 seconds of use. I clicked on the little terminal button on the panel and every GNOME app locked tight. I promptly killed X and changed my .xinitrc to start kde instead of gnome.

    And for those of you who think KWM is ugly, check out kde.themes.org. The themes are a pain to install, but KWM can look VERY nice and it doesn't have anywhere near the overhead of enlightenment.
  • Why is it that so many people associate all GNOME problems w/ "other parts" of the system. Is it too hard to admit that GNOME is buggy? I'm running redhat5.2 w/ all of the updates installed and it crashes for me in no time at all, I just click on the panel and boom it's dead.
  • No offense intended, but "Debian Reveals glibc2.1" then you talk about slink then you mention some directory.. This post makes no sense whatsoever. WTF is going on here, folks? Is glibc2.1 in slink? is it stable/unstable? Let us know these thigns, otherwise you're talking in swahilli.

    I'll agree that it took me 2 hours to get the damn gnome rpms installed (it's even harder to compile from source. I don't really like KDE, but at least they make their installation process fairly simple and straightforward. I can handle installing four or five RPMS in a specific order, but installing 20-30 of them, with know knowledge of whether i'll need the -devel- packages, is ridiculous.

    I'm a redhat user, and I can say that RPMS are pretty piss poor compared to the stuff people can do with .DEBs.
  • Were did you get a gnome-libs 1.0.2 SRPM. I wan't one, as the spec included with the tarballs won't build (just ends up telling me what gnome requires).
  • I think you can get the CVS version under the QPL 1.0. Qt is now free, all we have to worry about now is GPL/QPL mixing.
  • I just can't beleive it. Even the gnome detracter will say gnome lasted 15 minutes. Mine last all day. Something must be wrong with your system. Ive never heard of this, even on slashdot.
  • Get control-center-1.0.2, fixed that swalling thing (happens when you clicked stuff to fast). rpm -tb on the tarball worked fine. Gmc, well, they should set back it's version number, at least to 0.90.
  • > It will keep inflicting its demand on Linux users to install just the right versions of dozens of libraries (almost all of which are NOT compatible with previous versions) to have a chance of working at all.

    One thing is for sure : windows dll's and service packs often have the same problem. I hardly had to install any new versions of any library before in Linux.
    But you are right that incompatibility between (sometimes even minor) versions of libraries are real problems for an average user. Something has got to be done for that (cfr. Software for Redhat 5.1 is very unlikely to work fine for Redhat 5.0 and vice versa: I had to move to Redhat 5.1 or 5.2 from 5.0 to be able to run StarOffice 5.0: incompatiblities between glibc 2.0.5 and 2.0.7).
  • I don't know where you got your (incorrect) info, but that is just not true.

    GNOME development has most certainly not stopped. Just today Miguel released a new version of MC, and bugs are being actively fixed. If you have found a problem, use the gnome-bug script that gets installed with gnome-libs. If you have not installed GNOME try getting informed before making comments like that.
  • Most cases where library versions are incompatible, the soname of the library has been changed. This way you can have the two libraries on your system at once.

    As for requiring new libraries, how did you install GNOME. Was it from binary packages or from source? If it was from binaries, then it would have been configured for the libraries on the build system, and not necessarily yours. When GNOME requires a newer version of a library (that is not part of the project -- image libraries for instance), it is often because the interface has changed, or bugs have been found in the old one.

    On an other note, how has the work of many volunteers (myself included) offended you so much? If you don't want to use gnome, then don't. There are alternatives. GNOME adds to your choices, not subtracts from them.
  • Chances are that your tar and gunzip utilities are dynamicaly linked against the original glibc. What probably happened is that your gzip unziped your new glibc, then tar stomped on the old one, tar exited, then gzip tried to do the next file. However, the old glibc was gone, and you ended up with the linker calling the wrong glibc, and this glibc had different symbols. The moral of the story is that YOU SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO UPGRADE YOUR GLIBC without first KNOWING what you are doing. glibc is a critical piece of your linux distro. Think of glibc being second in importance to the kernel. However, You DO NOT UPGRADE glibc like you upgrade your kernel. It is much more involved and delicate than kernels are. I recommend that you wait until your favorite distro has it installed. There is a lot of recompiling that must be done when upgrading your glibc's. In theory, you should be able to have both glibc2.0, and glibc2.1 on the same system, but it requires a delicate approach to do this right. And if something goes wrong in the middle, your fscked. If you loose the original glibc, your dynamicaly linked executables won't start properly, if at all. The ones that are running should be fine, but once you re-boot, forget it. You should use statically linked tar and gunzip to handle the upgrade of libraries. during the change over, they wont get hammered, and all will be well(at least we hope). Good luck.
  • Perhaps not if it were Caldera, who keeps its mitts on NDS, but RedHat has been very good about freely releasing things they've created.

    Caldera was able to develop its Netware-compatibility software only because it obtained a license from Novell. I'm fairly sure that in order to get that license (and the secret protocol specs for the NCP and NDS protocols) they had to sign non-disclosure agreements. So unless I'm wrong, they can't release the source.

  • Cheap or fast -- choose only one. :-)

    In our defense, that $20 is for the media, replication, and shipping costs, not the cost of the free software. To create the 2 CDRs involved, someone had to stare at a SCSI burner for the better part of an hour, then apply labels by hand (Avery 5931) and pack in bubblepack mailers.

    Cheap discs of regular silver media will be available soon -- I hear cheapbytes will be able to ship next week.

    Until then you can download the discs from one of the CD Image Mirrors [debian.org], or just install via ftp. Theres nothing on any Official CD thats not already on ftp.debian.org.

  • Unfortunately yes, thats it -- unless you install glibc 2.1 and associated packages on your Slink system (libc6, libc6-dev, ncurses, slang, gcc, libstdc++2.8, etc.). I hear it doesn't break THAT many things, but I'm holding off for a few days myself. :-)
  • Of course in the opens ource/linux community haven't license and stability issues always been our drive!! We bash M$ Windoze because of its increasingly poor stability...and we want to keep our 'free' - (that's free in the open source sense) - software truly 'free'. I'm right behind RedHat for pushing GNOME, and if you want RedHat with KDE why not use Linux-Mandrake [linux-mandrake.com] and you get the nice asscii penguin at the login screen :)


    Steve
    --
    "You can have it fast.
    You can have it cheap.
    You can have it right.
    Pick two..." Or pick Linux
  • regardless of whether you think the new QT license is good enough or not, the simple fact which all the redhat conspiracy theorists ignore is that QT 2.0 is STILL not out, and so the old license is still used for KDE 1.1. Don't let your personal hatred of redhat make you spout this stupidity.
  • First off, I use glibc2 because its threadsafe. However, I recommend getting the libc5 version of netscape because it is at least an order of magnitude more stable for me. Other's results may vary, but I went from netscape crashing every third time I closed a browser window to very rarely crashing. I'm now very happy with netscape's stability, which is not something I see very often among linux users.
  • perhaps you simply did not read the post that you are replying to. the panel crashed for this person once per day, and automatically restarted itself. Quite different from the usual windows crashes.
  • I'll wait for the CDs cos I only have one phone line and people like to call me from time to time. 'Nuff said.
  • GNOME 1.0 was by far the WORST set of RPMs I've seen in a while (sorry, guys). It was like a downgrade from the whole .99 set. There's some nice stability in the applets, but gnomecc is just GONE from the menus (sorry, newbies), the help browser can't find the table of contents, and three of the packages won't even install due to all the changes (so why include them in the 1.0 directory?).

    I way prefer GNOME over KDE, even aside from the philosophical reasons, but they really should have pulled a Debian and just said,"Be PATIENT, guys. It'll be worth it."
  • Patrick included glibc2.0.6pre7 in the /contrib directory. Aside from the compile time on slower machines, glibc2.1 works fine with Slackware as long as you update your other tools that access things that have changed (utmp/wtmp access, etc...)

  • This is so ridiculous. If you had been at LinuxWorld you would not say that Gnome can't win. It is already winning in important ways, including mindshare. (There was a large Gnome presence at LinuxWorld, but very little KDE presence.) Gnome 1.0 has a lot of functionality and sexiness. Ok, it is not as stable as it should be, but this is 1.0 after all.

    There is no need for either Gnome or KDE or "lose". From all I've seen and heard, KDE is quite good, too. (At this point, probably better.) There is nothing wrong with giving people a choice - that is what Linux is all about.
  • This is interesting. I've been looking into the glibc2.1 and the Sparc support and it's been running great for quite some time now. It will be most interesting to see it in operation also on the i386.
  • At least as of 3.5 Slackware was still libc5 only. I think this is the type of thing that Pat V will probably save for 4.0 (which should not be too far away).

    At least I have a fairly decent Pentium box so I don't have to rely on precompiled binaries.
  • Can anyone who has Debian 2.1 on a CD tell me where they got it? I've looked at every single US vendor Debian points to on their page and the vast majority of them do not even acknowledge 2.1's existence. There are a couple that do, but you can only preorder it. Then there are a couple that actually have it, but they're charging $20 or more for something they got for free. Where can I get 2.1 now, at a resonable price?
  • Slackware 3.6 comes with glibc 2.06pre7. It made for a decent upgrade for me because I have a 486DX2 as well and it's a total pain trying to shift libraries. I still can't get glibc 2.1 to compile, which is obnoxious when it takes 24+ hours to find out.

    For that matter, what's the deal with the 'political issues' that keep it off most of the FTP sites?

Slashdot Top Deals

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Close