Any Linux users here?

[djspinnet]

Originally Posted by peaz

Well I guess I'll just need to go back to old school and start compiling stuff as I like. LOL Oh no, i'm not complaining about compiling. Just that.. well, if linux really want to go mainstream.. . wouldn't they have already agreed on a system that's common and compatible among all distros?

Cos it's a religious war everywhere in the linux world

Originally Posted by peaz

Seriously? LOL. So much for RHEL being Oracle certified at Day-0. should have told me earlier so that I can shove this piece of info to the Red Hat guy that came over the other day. Damn arrogant man these topi merah (Red Hat in Malay.. literally) people. They thing Red Hat is the best thing in the world.. even better than oxygen.

HAhahhahahhahahhahahhahahhahahhahahahhahahhahhahah a

I once had to install Oracle on two RHEL servers and both installations drove me completely nuts. Had to symlink here, symlink there manually, edit this file, edit that, do this do that... there's no such thing as a "install without problems" on RHEL.

Originally Posted by peaz

I think G.O.O.G.L.E may sometimes be better. Just need to download the source and compile it i suppose.

Er.. actually no. If you use apt-get it'll just fetch the sources, configure them, compile them and install them for you.

[fyire]

Originally Posted by peaz

Well I guess I'll just need to go back to old school and start compiling stuff as I like. LOL Oh no, i'm not complaining about compiling. Just that.. well, if linux really want to go mainstream.. . wouldn't they have already agreed on a system that's common and compatible among all distros?

Think u didnt get what I mean. I'll use Fink on OS X as the example here lar.

Say, I wanna install something on OS X, say for example, Apache 2 (what's default with OS X is only Apache 1). I start up the Fink GUI (Fink Commander). Browse over to where Apache is. There's two columns on the display, one stating what is the current version of the Binary Package, and another column stating what is the current version of the Source Package. Often the source package is newer than the Binary.

Now, I just click on the install button (choice between the install from binary package, or install from source). And that's all there is to it. Even when compiling from source, its all an automated process that goes on in the background.

The same thing goes for the FreeBSD ports collection too.

Originally Posted by peaz

Seriously? LOL. So much for RHEL being Oracle certified at Day-0. should have told me earlier so that I can shove this piece of info to the Red Hat guy that came over the other day. Damn arrogant man these topi merah (Red Hat in Malay.. literally) people. They thing Red Hat is the best thing in the world.. even better than oxygen.

Somehow, those from RedHat itself whom I've met are pretty ok ppl. But those local reps well, u saw for yourself lar.

I take it that u ran into heaps of trouble trying to get Oracle onto RH?
Backwards compability tends to be an issue here too. Had a situation once before, the application vendor insisted on Oracle 8i. Which refuses to install on the newer RH versions. The RH that works with Oracle 8i r too old to have the drivers for the server's RAID card.

Solution? Quietly put in Oracle 9i. Even more quietly replaced the JDBC driver in the app with the one for Oracle 9i. Everything working

Oh yeah, the RPM packages for DB2 (which is hell of a lot easier to get installed compared to Oracle) went into Ubuntu without any problems too.

[peaz]

Originally Posted by fyire

Think u didnt get what I mean. I'll use Fink on OS X as the example here lar.

Say, I wanna install something on OS X, say for example, Apache 2 (what's default with OS X is only Apache 1). I start up the Fink GUI (Fink Commander). Browse over to where Apache is. There's two columns on the display, one stating what is the current version of the Binary Package, and another column stating what is the current version of the Source Package. Often the source package is newer than the Binary.

Now, I just click on the install button (choice between the install from binary package, or install from source). And that's all there is to it. Even when compiling from source, its all an automated process that goes on in the background.

The same thing goes for the FreeBSD ports collection too.

Urm.. ok i think I get wat you mean now

Originally Posted by fyire

Somehow, those from RedHat itself whom I've met are pretty ok ppl. But those local reps well, u saw for yourself lar.

Well, tech guys are usually ok. It's the sales reps that gets a little arrogant sometimes especially since this guy is the regional sales person...

Originally Posted by fyire

I take it that u ran into heaps of trouble trying to get Oracle onto RH?
Backwards compability tends to be an issue here too. Had a situation once before, the application vendor insisted on Oracle 8i. Which refuses to install on the newer RH versions. The RH that works with Oracle 8i r too old to have the drivers for the server's RAID card.

Solution? Quietly put in Oracle 9i. Even more quietly replaced the JDBC driver in the app with the one for Oracle 9i. Everything working

LOL... seriously, the DB2 guys in my office is going to love this

Originally Posted by fyire

Oh yeah, the RPM packages for DB2 (which is hell of a lot easier to get installed compared to Oracle) went into Ubuntu without any problems too.

Oh damn, they are really going to love this....

[fyire]

Originally Posted by peaz

LOL... seriously, the DB2 guys in my office is going to love this

Oh damn, they are really going to love this....

Speaking of DB2, any signs of DB2 for OS X? Strangely enough, despite the usual grumbles about DB2 being an extreme pain to manage, I kinda find it a lot easier than Oracle once I get used to it.

[peaz]

Not sure about that. I guess the reason for this is that there's just too little entreprise deployments on Macs to justify it. But then again, since OS X is essentially FreeBSD-based, it should technically be easily ported over to that platform.

Anyways... a dumb question, but thought u can explain to me better.... Gnome, KDE, Xfce... differences? and co-live together on a same install?

[fyire]

Originally Posted by peaz

Not sure about that. I guess the reason for this is that there's just too little entreprise deployments on Macs to justify it. But then again, since OS X is essentially FreeBSD-based, it should technically be easily ported over to that platform.

Anyways... a dumb question, but thought u can explain to me better.... Gnome, KDE, Xfce... differences? and co-live together on a same install?

yeah, they can. the way the GUI thingy works on unix is that at the bottom layer, u get X, which provides the ability to have a UI. Then you get the Window Managers (Gnome, KDE, and so on) which provides the actual UI on top of X. U can have multiple WMs installed, but only one running at a single time (which is set in your X config)

I tend to have the KDE core libraries installed despite spending most of my time in Gnome. Reason for this is so I can start KDE only apps from Gnome (yup, u can do that. it launches only the KDE app, instead of the entire KDE). the same goes for Gnome only apps being launched from KDE too.

[ZuePhok]

is it me? or gnome is in fact far more laggy than kde?

[fyire]

Originally Posted by ZuePhok

is it me? or gnome is in fact far more laggy than kde?

Good question. I'm seldom on X these days, cant really comment on the current versions, but initially (as in years back) Gnome was known to have higher CPU utilization, while KDE's known to have higher memory consumption.

Come to think of it, from the times that I've fiddled with KDE, I do find that its kinda more responsive than Gnome.

[djspinnet]

Originally Posted by ZuePhok

is it me? or gnome is in fact far more laggy than kde?

Yes it is. Which is why when my linux machine was my main desktop, it's always on IceWM + KDE. GNOME looks nicer, but for a main desktop use, it gets annoying after a while.

[djspinnet]

Speaking of WMs, if you want a fast, efficient usable WM, try Ion instead. I've always wanted to try Ion but lack the time to experiment with it at the moment. I know someone who only ever uses it and nothing else. Very fast, efficient, polished and neat and without all the bloat and clutter of kde or gnome.