"Mark Madsen" <mark.s.madsen+news******.com> wrote in message
news:48452ee2$1_3@news.bluewin.ch...
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:07:07 -0400, jim wrote:
>
>> Then again, there are probably drivers in the Backtrack 3 distro that
>> are not included in Ubuntu (mainly the RT73 wireless adapter drivers and
>> other wireless goodies).
>
> The rt73 is now supported by the rt2x00 drivers, which have been in the
> main kernel tree since January.
>
> All the recently released distros therefore support this wireless chipset
> by default, and the D-Link DWL-G122 C1 (which uses the rt73) now comes in
> a new box with the Tux logo and "Linux Support" printed on the front.
>
> My experience is that it works under Ubuntu 8.04 and Slackware 12.1, that
> is, everything I've tried it with.

I may try Ubuntu on USB and load the packages I need individually.

It's a **** shame though. Backtrack looks to have an excellent library
preloaded.

jim

On 2008-06-03, jim <jim@home.net> wrote:
>
> Look, I'm not bashing Linux when I wonder just why the hell the Gslapt
> Package Manager can't update itself. Wow.....that seems just plain stupid.

gslapt has nothing to do with Linux. It's a GUI package manager for .tgz
files. You *shouldn't* be bashing Linux because gslapt isn't working...if it
isn't working.


>
> I was also thinking that a central package repository supported (financially
> and otherwise) by a consortium of Linux-base companies like Novell, Ubuntu,
> RedHat, Linspire, etc. could have a simple interface like the one in
> Linspire's Click-N-Run application, would be able to support all of the
> participating distros and could have awesome bandwidth to allow for faster
> downloads by all distros.

The above paragraph displays a lack of basic understanding about Linux and
the differences within each distro.

For the life of me, I can't image why you would want to use bt2....maybe I
missed the explanation.

ken

"No_One" <no_one@no_where.com> wrote in message
news:slrng4aoo2.a9p.no_one@localhost.localdomain.. .
> On 2008-06-03, jim <jim@home.net> wrote:
>>
>> Look, I'm not bashing Linux when I wonder just why the hell the Gslapt
>> Package Manager can't update itself. Wow.....that seems just plain
>> stupid.
>
> gslapt has nothing to do with Linux. It's a GUI package manager for .tgz
> files. You *shouldn't* be bashing Linux because gslapt isn't working...if
> it
> isn't working.

I understand that. But, being new to Linux, I am not sure that it isn't a
fault with bt3 that is hosing Gslapt.

>> I was also thinking that a central package repository supported
>> (financially
>> and otherwise) by a consortium of Linux-base companies like Novell,
>> Ubuntu,
>> RedHat, Linspire, etc. could have a simple interface like the one in
>> Linspire's Click-N-Run application, would be able to support all of the
>> participating distros and could have awesome bandwidth to allow for
>> faster
>> downloads by all distros.
>
> The above paragraph displays a lack of basic understanding about Linux and
> the differences within each distro.

Perhaps it does. I'm still learning here.

Although it kinda worries me that Linux distros are so different that they
may not all be able to run the same software. What if your distro ceases to
exist (as happens in the Linux community)? Are you stuck updating the OS
yourself? (I don't know many end users that really want the responsibility
of coding their entire OS and the related software packages.)

Do you have to change distros to stay safe?

What if the new distro doesn't support the packages that you used on your
old distro?

Can your data be transferred to new packages?

These are all problems created by the many many distros in the Linux
community. Fragmentation of the Linux Community, IMHO, has been one of its
weak points - from the standpoint of attracting more users, really working
out all of the kinks (from a Windows user viewpoint) and challenging
Microsoft on the desktop.

It would seem that all a Linux distro should be is a different set of
applications built on the same core Linux system. It would seem that having
all Linux distros settle on a single core (perhaps Ubuntu) would only server
to strengthen Linux.

Could you enlighten me as to why this may not be desirable?

> For the life of me, I can't image why you would want to use bt2....maybe I
> missed the explanation.

The plan is to use bt3 on a usb drive to show the weaknesses of WEP and
other Windows exploits.

Why? To get my target audience to actually DO SOMETHING about their current
security model.

It has been my experience that people are more likely to take action if you
demonstrate the problem as opposed to just talking about how "it can be
done".

In my experience, people generally aren't interested in anything but what
they see....what they experience for themselves. I want them to see WEP
broken in front of their eyes with freely available software.

jim

"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
news:AIc1k.3475$tT4.3291@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
> news:Zj81k.5593$8X4.3451@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
>> news:T641k.7123$Dm5.6042@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%BS0k.2102$UF5.1454@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>>>
>>>> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:KwP0k.1732$8X4.476@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It went MUCH, MUCH smoother than the dual boot thing. I am now
>>>>> running Backtracker 3 off a 2GB USB flash drive - and the performance
>>>>> is **** near as good as it was dual booting it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, it does not persist my changes. Any ideas on how I can get
>>>>> backtracker 3 on USB to persist my changes to the USB drive?
>>>>
>>>> It's a few hours later and I'm stuck at "mounting aufs on union
>>>> failed".
>>>>
>>>> I am attempting to follow the directions at http://maddhat.com/?p=23
>>>> and
>>>> http://n00bhacker.blogspot.com/searc...20Installation.
>>>>
>>>> The first site's directions got me to the point that I could have
>>>> backtrack 3 running from my USB, but no changes were being saved.
>>>>
>>>> The second tries to relay information to get your data to be
>>>> persistent.
>>>>
>>>> So far, mine isn't persistent. In fact, because of the "mounting aufs
>>>> on union failed" error, bt3 no longer loads from the USB drive.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I'm tired as hell and going to get some sleep now.
>>>>
>>>> Who knew penguins were so ****ed slippery?
>>>
>>> Linux zealots not withstanding, I got the ****ed thing to work!
>>>
>>> It's odd...being so pleased that the OS is just working as needed from a
>>> USB drive. A real new experience for me.
>>>
>>> But, that's why I'm here....to learn new stuff with Linux!
>>>
>>> To hell with sleep, I've got Linux apps to get working! (jk - I really
>>> hope the ****ed things "just work" -- I'll let you know...)
>>
>> Gslapt Package Manager isn't working as advertised - I was getting errors
>> when I tried to run update in Gslapt. So, after trying arcane command
>> line stuff that actually made it worse, I found a simple solution (slow -
>> but simple) to updating Gslapt.
>>
>> To update Gslapt do the following...
>> run K>BackTrack>Penetration>FastTrack
>> press 1 and enter
>> press 5 and enter
>> press 1 and enter
>>
>> The update process starts, and you go to bed or fishing. It has been 2
>> hours and it is about half way through downloading 150 mb of updates.
>> (No, it isn't my ISP or bandwidth. I am a big torrent fan and have no
>> issues dling just about anything I want -- and a few things I wish I
>> hadn't ;) ).
>>
>> Look, I'm not bashing Linux when I wonder just why the hell the Gslapt
>> Package Manager can't update itself. Wow.....that seems just plain
>> stupid.
>>
>> I was also thinking that a central package repository supported
>> (financially and otherwise) by a consortium of Linux-base companies like
>> Novell, Ubuntu, RedHat, Linspire, etc. could have a simple interface like
>> the one in Linspire's Click-N-Run application, would be able to support
>> all of the participating distros and could have awesome bandwidth to
>> allow for faster downloads by all distros.
>>
>> Wonder why they haven't done that to make the Linux community stronger?
>
> Latest - after taking a nap and letting the installs finish, Gslapt closes
> (crashes?) when I click on "Update". No error messages. It just leaves
> the scene.
>
> As usual, no simple "How to fix" can be found for this problem.
>
> Still looking.....

While I am waiting to find an answer to this issue with BT3, I installed
Ubuntu 8.04 to a USB drive. It was as easy as any Windows installation I've
ever tried. Instructions are at
http://www.pendrivelinux.com/2008/04...drive-install/
if you are interested.

The one thing that the instructions don't specify is that your USB drive
should be formatted as a single FAT32 partition. I had deleted all
partitions from my USB drive and Ubuntu don't like that.

After using Partition Magic to format my 8 GB USB flash drive to a single 32
bit partition, the install went beautifully.

Now to start finding all those neat little packages in the bt3 distro that I
need.....

jim

joeaverage@invalid.com wrote:

> Linux needs to get on the ball and create a version that anyone can
> install and use immediately.

It exists already, and is called "Ubuntu". The "average" user has never had
to install an operating system (after all, Windows came "free" when he
bought the machine), so Ubuntu makes it as easy as possible, even for the
complete beginner.

> (One question I never got answered. Is there any version of Linux
> that has the ability to run Dos programs? People of my age group
> still use some Dos apps. I dont want to have to dual boot to use a
> dos app.). Just curious.

There are various DOS compatibility programs, including Bochs, DOSbox and
several others.

C.
>
>>jim
>>

In <yze1k.3525$tT4.3213@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, on Tue, 3 Jun 2008
12:47:03 -0400, jim, jim@home.net wrote:

> Although it kinda worries me that Linux distros are so different that they
> may not all be able to run the same software.

IME, they can all run the same software... just that
some may have your software of interest packaged up all
pretty, so you just have to issue something simple like
'apt-get install pkgname' while with others you may
have to go find a source tarball and do something more
along the lines of
'tar -xzvf pkgname; cd pkgdir'
'configure; make; make install'

(or use a pointy-clicky that does either of those for
you)

> What if your distro ceases to
> exist (as happens in the Linux community)? Are you stuck updating the OS
> yourself?

What do you do when Windows 95 ceases to exist (as
happens in the closed source community)? Are you stuck
updating the OS yourself?
At least with Linux, you CAN keep your system up to
date long after support from the distributor vanishes.

>(I don't know many end users that really want the responsibility
> of coding their entire OS and the related software packages.)

I can't even parse that. What the hell does that
even mean?

> Do you have to change distros to stay safe?

Safe from what? There are so many variables that
there's no answer to that. I ran Red Hat 6.2 connected
directly to the internet for over 4 years, well beyond
it's supported "end of life" date, and then continued
using it behind a router for another couple of years.
Yes, I had to download security fixes from sendmail,
apache, etc., and patch, and compile for myself, since
RedHat no longer issued security updates in rpm format
anymore.

I guess you could have done the same thing with
Windows 2000 after it was no longer supported, right?
Oh. Probably not, huh?

> What if the new distro doesn't support the packages that you used on your
> old distro?

What if Windows XP doesn't support the software
you used on Windows 98? Guess you have to buy new.
But if there's no new version? SOL.

With Linux, (or OSS in general) you CAN get the source
and compile it for your new distro if there isn't a
package of it for your new distro.

> Can your data be transferred to new packages?

User data doesn't reside in packages. Rather it
generally resides in the user's home directory, or if
you're talking data of the sort you would access with
RDBMS, you just update the package "around" the data,
or if moving it to a different machine, you might
export it from the old version, and then import it
into the new.

> It would seem that all a Linux distro should be is a different set of
> applications built on the same core Linux system.

That's exactly what it is. Linux = kernel.
Usually people also mentally include all the GNU
utilities that come with it to make a functioning
system. (Practically speaking, there's not much you
can do with just the kernel)

> It would seem that having
> all Linux distros settle on a single core (perhaps Ubuntu)

But Ubuntu isn't a "core" distribution, but a
spin-off of Debian.

> would only server to strengthen Linux.

All Linux distributions use the Linux kernel. That
is the single core. Further, they pretty much all use
a common set of GNU tools. That's what makes one Linux
distro pretty much like any other.

> Could you enlighten me as to why this may not be desirable?

It *is* desirable that all Linux distros use Linux.
So they do. If you think about for half a second, a
Linux distribution would have to use a Linux kernel,
otherwise it would be a Hurd/GNU/Unix distribution.

Really the only "major" differences between
distributions are init sequences and package managers.
Then the minor differences are which packages are
included on the DVD/CDs/available in repositories, and
what kind of default configs are included.

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:47:03 -0400, jim wrote:

> It would seem that all a Linux distro should be is a different set of
> applications built on the same core Linux system.

They are. Linux is the kernel, not the applications you're running.

--
"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!"

"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
news:HRe1k.3533$tT4.1633@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
> news:AIc1k.3475$tT4.3291@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
>> news:Zj81k.5593$8X4.3451@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
>>> news:T641k.7123$Dm5.6042@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>>>>
>>>> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:%BS0k.2102$UF5.1454@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:KwP0k.1732$8X4.476@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It went MUCH, MUCH smoother than the dual boot thing. I am now
>>>>>> running Backtracker 3 off a 2GB USB flash drive - and the performance
>>>>>> is **** near as good as it was dual booting it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, it does not persist my changes. Any ideas on how I can get
>>>>>> backtracker 3 on USB to persist my changes to the USB drive?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a few hours later and I'm stuck at "mounting aufs on union
>>>>> failed".
>>>>>
>>>>> I am attempting to follow the directions at http://maddhat.com/?p=23
>>>>> and
>>>>> http://n00bhacker.blogspot.com/searc...20Installation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first site's directions got me to the point that I could have
>>>>> backtrack 3 running from my USB, but no changes were being saved.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second tries to relay information to get your data to be
>>>>> persistent.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far, mine isn't persistent. In fact, because of the "mounting aufs
>>>>> on union failed" error, bt3 no longer loads from the USB drive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I'm tired as hell and going to get some sleep now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who knew penguins were so ****ed slippery?
>>>>
>>>> Linux zealots not withstanding, I got the ****ed thing to work!
>>>>
>>>> It's odd...being so pleased that the OS is just working as needed from
>>>> a USB drive. A real new experience for me.
>>>>
>>>> But, that's why I'm here....to learn new stuff with Linux!
>>>>
>>>> To hell with sleep, I've got Linux apps to get working! (jk - I really
>>>> hope the ****ed things "just work" -- I'll let you know...)
>>>
>>> Gslapt Package Manager isn't working as advertised - I was getting
>>> errors when I tried to run update in Gslapt. So, after trying arcane
>>> command line stuff that actually made it worse, I found a simple
>>> solution (slow - but simple) to updating Gslapt.
>>>
>>> To update Gslapt do the following...
>>> run K>BackTrack>Penetration>FastTrack
>>> press 1 and enter
>>> press 5 and enter
>>> press 1 and enter
>>>
>>> The update process starts, and you go to bed or fishing. It has been 2
>>> hours and it is about half way through downloading 150 mb of updates.
>>> (No, it isn't my ISP or bandwidth. I am a big torrent fan and have no
>>> issues dling just about anything I want -- and a few things I wish I
>>> hadn't ;) ).
>>>
>>> Look, I'm not bashing Linux when I wonder just why the hell the Gslapt
>>> Package Manager can't update itself. Wow.....that seems just plain
>>> stupid.
>>>
>>> I was also thinking that a central package repository supported
>>> (financially and otherwise) by a consortium of Linux-base companies like
>>> Novell, Ubuntu, RedHat, Linspire, etc. could have a simple interface
>>> like the one in Linspire's Click-N-Run application, would be able to
>>> support all of the participating distros and could have awesome
>>> bandwidth to allow for faster downloads by all distros.
>>>
>>> Wonder why they haven't done that to make the Linux community stronger?
>>
>> Latest - after taking a nap and letting the installs finish, Gslapt
>> closes (crashes?) when I click on "Update". No error messages. It just
>> leaves the scene.
>>
>> As usual, no simple "How to fix" can be found for this problem.
>>
>> Still looking.....
>
> While I am waiting to find an answer to this issue with BT3, I installed
> Ubuntu 8.04 to a USB drive. It was as easy as any Windows installation
> I've ever tried. Instructions are at
> http://www.pendrivelinux.com/2008/04...drive-install/
> if you are interested.
>
> The one thing that the instructions don't specify is that your USB drive
> should be formatted as a single FAT32 partition. I had deleted all
> partitions from my USB drive and Ubuntu don't like that.
>
> After using Partition Magic to format my 8 GB USB flash drive to a single
> 32 bit partition, the install went beautifully.
>
> Now to start finding all those neat little packages in the bt3 distro that
> I need.....

****IT!! I spoke too soon. The Ubuntu install says it can't find the
partition to load from the USB device!

I also took some advice from the bt3 forums and now bt3 won't boot at all
either. I am now getting the following error.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
xauth: creating new authority file /root/.serverauth.7434
X: error while loading shared libraries: libpixman-1.so.0: cannot open
shared object file: No such file or directory
giving up
xinit: No such file or directory (errno 2): unable to connect to X server
xinit: No such process (errno 3): Server error.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Add to that the fact that you can't simply have a conversation in the bt3
forums (a moderator has to OK every post or reply at this point - and they
are in no hurry about it) and what was simply frustrating becomes an
exercise in "what the **** have I gotten into".

I am not a patient man. It's a flaw of mine that I freely admit to having.
But even moreso than not being patient, I have not one nanoparticle of
tolerance for stupidity that keeps me from addressing the problems that tax
my very tiny reserves of patience (e.g. the moderated forums at BT3).

jim

jim

jim <jim@home.net> wrote:
>Although it kinda worries me that Linux distros are so different that they
>may not all be able to run the same software.

This is not a practical concern. If you choose a major distro, it'll
come with the same software as the other major distros. If you choose a
minor distro, it might not come with it, but people will download,
build, and share the same software as the major distros.

>What if your distro ceases to exist (as happens in the Linux
>community)? Are you stuck updating the OS yourself?

You'd take the path of least resistance to get out of the situation. If
that means supporting it all by yourself, that's the way it is. (I have
a friend who has his own distro. He doesn't share it with anyone, but
it has been updated and modified by him for years without touching an
"official" distro.)

But more likely, you'll switch to another distro if yours becomes
unsupported.

Practically, this isn't a real concern. Major distros last a long time.

>(I don't know many end users that really want the responsibility of
>coding their entire OS and the related software packages.)

And there you've answered your own question. The path of least
resistance will be to choose another distro. Just like when Win98
became unsupported.

>What if the new distro doesn't support the packages that you used on
>your old distro?

If there's demand for the package, it'll get made by someone, even if
it's not included with the official distro. Just like when Win98 became
unsupported.

>Can your data be transferred to new packages?

Usually. Depends on the package. Can your word processing document
that you made with OpenOffice under RedHat be transferred to OpenOffice
under Ubuntu? Absolutely.

>Fragmentation of the Linux Community, IMHO, has been one of its weak
>points - from the standpoint of attracting more users, really working
>out all of the kinks (from a Windows user viewpoint) and challenging
>Microsoft on the desktop.

There are three points here.

1. On attracting more users, I agree. People don't like to mess around
with setting up their computer any more than they want to mess around
with setting up their car. A very very few people will pop it open to
set it up and see how it works, but most people really REALLY don't want
to do that. Just give them something that works.

Now on that point, there are hundreds of millions of Linux users in the
world. Most of them don't even know they're using it, and don't care.
It just works, and that's as far as they want to go.

2. Really working out all the kinks--I disagee. Diversity pounds on
problems like crazy and reduces them to rubble. Take gcc/egcs for
example. This is natural selection applied to software.

3. Challenging MS on the desktop. Maybe once true, but no longer
necessarily true or relevant. The "desktop" idea is obsolete. Look at
the ASUS Eee machine. It's a utility item. It gets email and web and
writes documents and presentations. Is it an V-6 or a slant-6 under the
hood? No one cares. (Answer: Linux is a slant-6. :)

>It would seem that all a Linux distro should be is a different set of
>applications built on the same core Linux system.

This is exactly what it is right now.

Distro-specific stuff
(games, apps, admin)
=====================
GNU Utils
---------------------
Linux (kernel)

Virtually all the distros use GNU utils on top of the Linux kernel
(which is why RMS is all uppity about that GNU-slash-Linux thing.) On
top of that is the distro-specific stuff.

And most distros are similar in their distro-specific stuff, too.

Here's some reading for you from the Linux Documentation Project (LDP)
that might give you a better idea of the architecture:

http://tldp.org/LDP/sag/html/overview.html

http://tldp.org/LDP/lfs/LFS-BOOK-6.1.1-HTML/index.html

-Beej

"Steve Ackman" <steve@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com> wrote in message
news:slrng4b5og.l21.steve@sorceror.wizard.dyndns.o rg...
> In <yze1k.3525$tT4.3213@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, on Tue, 3 Jun 2008
> 12:47:03 -0400, jim, jim@home.net wrote:
>
>> Although it kinda worries me that Linux distros are so different that
>> they
>> may not all be able to run the same software.
>
> IME, they can all run the same software... just that
> some may have your software of interest packaged up all
> pretty, so you just have to issue something simple like
> 'apt-get install pkgname' while with others you may
> have to go find a source tarball and do something more
> along the lines of
> 'tar -xzvf pkgname; cd pkgdir'
> 'configure; make; make install'
>
> (or use a pointy-clicky that does either of those for
> you)

OK. Maybe I misunderstood No_One's comment when he responded to me....

-- BEGIN No_One's reply to me.......
>>> I was also thinking that a central package repository supported
>>> (financially
>>> and otherwise) by a consortium of Linux-base companies like Novell,
>>> Ubuntu,
>>> RedHat, Linspire, etc. could have a simple interface like the one in
>>> Linspire's Click-N-Run application, would be able to support all of the
>>> participating distros and could have awesome bandwidth to allow for
>>> faster
>>> downloads by all distros.
>>
>>The above paragraph displays a lack of basic understanding about Linux and
>>the differences within each distro.
-- END No_One's reply to me.......

If they all run the same core, why can't they all have a simple Click-N-Run
installer that is centrally administered for the good of the Linux
community?

>> What if your distro ceases to
>> exist (as happens in the Linux community)? Are you stuck updating the OS
>> yourself?
>
> What do you do when Windows 95 ceases to exist (as
> happens in the closed source community)? Are you stuck
> updating the OS yourself?
> At least with Linux, you CAN keep your system up to
> date long after support from the distributor vanishes.

True enough.

>>(I don't know many end users that really want the responsibility
>> of coding their entire OS and the related software packages.)
>
> I can't even parse that. What the hell does that
> even mean?

* With my misunderstanding No_One's comment (I thought that he meant that
the Linux distros were all so different that you can't run software from one
distro on another.) I assummed that the demis eof a distro meant that the
user would have to jump in and take over the coding of the OS and the apps.

>> Do you have to change distros to stay safe?

(see *)

>> What if the new distro doesn't support the packages that you used on your
>> old distro?

(see *)

>> Can your data be transferred to new packages?

(see *)

>> It would seem that all a Linux distro should be is a different set of
>> applications built on the same core Linux system.
>
> That's exactly what it is. Linux = kernel.
> Usually people also mentally include all the GNU
> utilities that come with it to make a functioning
> system. (Practically speaking, there's not much you
> can do with just the kernel)

I get that now. Thanks for explaining it to me.

>> It would seem that having
>> all Linux distros settle on a single core (perhaps Ubuntu)
>
> But Ubuntu isn't a "core" distribution, but a
> spin-off of Debian.

Whatever the "core" - I meant that a single core would seem to make it easy
to move apps and data from one distro to another.

>> would only server to strengthen Linux.
>
> All Linux distributions use the Linux kernel. That
> is the single core. Further, they pretty much all use
> a common set of GNU tools. That's what makes one Linux
> distro pretty much like any other.

(see *)

>> Could you enlighten me as to why this may not be desirable?
>
> It *is* desirable that all Linux distros use Linux.
> So they do. If you think about for half a second, a
> Linux distribution would have to use a Linux kernel,
> otherwise it would be a Hurd/GNU/Unix distribution.
>
> Really the only "major" differences between
> distributions are init sequences and package managers.
> Then the minor differences are which packages are
> included on the DVD/CDs/available in repositories, and
> what kind of default configs are included.

OK. Now that I understand Linux cores VS distros better, ny question
remains the same...why not have a central Click-N-Run repository, maintained
by the big Linux backers that keeps updating and adding programs as simple
as possible?

jim

On 2008-06-03, jim <jim@home.net> wrote:
>
> I understand that. But, being new to Linux, I am not sure that it isn't a
> fault with bt3 that is hosing Gslapt.

Gslapt is just a GUI front end for slapt-get...or some such name. At
the web site for bt2 they suggest a review of a how-to at linuxpackages.net
regarding slapt-get...it might solve some problems


>
>>> I was also thinking that a central package repository supported
>>> (financially
>>> and otherwise) by a consortium of Linux-base companies like Novell,
>>> Ubuntu,
>>> RedHat, Linspire, etc. could have a simple interface like the one in
>>> Linspire's Click-N-Run application, would be able to support all of the
>>> participating distros and could have awesome bandwidth to allow for
>>> faster
>>> downloads by all distros.
>>
>> The above paragraph displays a lack of basic understanding about Linux and
>> the differences within each distro.
>
> Perhaps it does. I'm still learning here.
>
> Although it kinda worries me that Linux distros are so different that they
> may not all be able to run the same software. What if your distro ceases to

They all run the same software....openoffice on debian is the same code for
openoffice that runs on slackware.

> exist (as happens in the Linux community)? Are you stuck updating the OS
> yourself? (I don't know many end users that really want the responsibility
> of coding their entire OS and the related software packages.)
>
> Do you have to change distros to stay safe?

No, just keep up with the security updates. Most distros provide a security
newsltter about security issues.

> What if the new distro doesn't support the packages that you used on your
> old distro?

It may not support the packages, but it will support the application
software. A package system is just one of several ways to get the same
software on you machine. Again, just one of several ways.

There is a difference between packages and programs. You do not need a
package manager to install apache or mysql or php or emacs, although it is
easier. Package managers are not required for Linux. Packages are not
required for Linux.

>
> Can your data be transferred to new packages?

Always, but then again, there is a difference between packages and programs.
The user data is always available to, say mysql, regardless of how the
program got on the computer -- through package management system 1, or package
management system 2 or if you compiled the program youself.


> These are all problems created by the many many distros in the Linux
> community. Fragmentation of the Linux Community, IMHO, has been one of its
> weak points - from the standpoint of attracting more users, really working
> out all of the kinks (from a Windows user viewpoint) and challenging
> Microsoft on the desktop.

Well, in a round about way, what you say is true. However, I'm pragmatic
Linux user...I'm happy that 90% of the world doesn't use Linux. Likewise, I'm
happy that 90% of the hackers in the world are not trying to test my system.


> It would seem that all a Linux distro should be is a different set of
> applications built on the same core Linux system. It would seem that having
> all Linux distros settle on a single core (perhaps Ubuntu) would only server
> to strengthen Linux.

All distros *do* rely on a basic core, it's called the kerenel. That's what
Linux is, the kernel. Everything else is in addition to the kernel and will
vary by, minor degrees, between distro. The kernel used in debian is no
different than the one used in mandrake or slackware. (for the purist, I
assuming 2.6.11 is the same as 2.6.14 for the sake of this discussion)


> Could you enlighten me as to why this may not be desirable?

Windows is uniformity....you're bringing to Linux the MS concept of
operating systems. In the choas that you see in Linux, other see flexibilty
and security.

As far as hindering grow, maybe...businesses will eventually realize the
benefits of Linux. Eventually, more and more businesses will change over.
The home user, well home users are a different story.


>> For the life of me, I can't image why you would want to use bt2....maybe I
>> missed the explanation.
>
> The plan is to use bt3 on a usb drive to show the weaknesses of WEP and
> other Windows exploits.

Now I understand.

ken

"jim" <jim@home.net> writes:


>"Steve Ackman" <steve@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com> wrote in message
>news:slrng4b5og.l21.steve@sorceror.wizard.dyndns. org...
>> In <yze1k.3525$tT4.3213@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, on Tue, 3 Jun 2008
>> 12:47:03 -0400, jim, jim@home.net wrote:
>>
>>> Although it kinda worries me that Linux distros are so different that
>>> they
>>> may not all be able to run the same software.
>>
>> IME, they can all run the same software... just that
>> some may have your software of interest packaged up all
>> pretty, so you just have to issue something simple like
>> 'apt-get install pkgname' while with others you may
>> have to go find a source tarball and do something more
>> along the lines of
>> 'tar -xzvf pkgname; cd pkgdir'
>> 'configure; make; make install'
>>
>> (or use a pointy-clicky that does either of those for
>> you)

>OK. Maybe I misunderstood No_One's comment when he responded to me....

>-- BEGIN No_One's reply to me.......
>>>> I was also thinking that a central package repository supported
>>>> (financially
>>>> and otherwise) by a consortium of Linux-base companies like Novell,
>>>> Ubuntu,
>>>> RedHat, Linspire, etc. could have a simple interface like the one in
>>>> Linspire's Click-N-Run application, would be able to support all of the
>>>> participating distros and could have awesome bandwidth to allow for
>>>> faster
>>>> downloads by all distros.
>>>
>>>The above paragraph displays a lack of basic understanding about Linux and
>>>the differences within each distro.
>-- END No_One's reply to me.......

>If they all run the same core, why can't they all have a simple Click-N-Run
>installer that is centrally administered for the good of the Linux
>community?

Yee gads. Some peoples idea of "the good of the Linux community" is very
different from mine. What a horror that would be.

Different distros have different setup routines, use different X display
managers ( gnome and KDE being the main ones) load up different libraries,
supply different programs by default. The also use different package
management routines ( eg apt, yum, urpmi).





>Whatever the "core" - I meant that a single core would seem to make it easy
>to move apps and data from one distro to another.

But it is easy now.



>OK. Now that I understand Linux cores VS distros better, ny question
>remains the same...why not have a central Click-N-Run repository, maintained
>by the big Linux backers that keeps updating and adding programs as simple
>as possible?

They do. that is what each distro maintainers do.

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:47:03 -0400, jim wrote:

<nothing but a bunch of stupid, trolling questions>


___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do |
/ O O\__ NOT |
/ \ feed the |
/ \ \ trolls |
/ _ \ \ ______________|
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ \ __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________



--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Now filtering out all posts originating from Google Groups.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:59:39 -0500, No_One wrote:

> The kernel used in debian is no
> different than the one used in mandrake or slackware.

You might want to be a little less certain about stating that....

"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
news:NDh1k.3626$tT4.2364@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

<snip>

>> While I am waiting to find an answer to this issue with BT3, I installed
>> Ubuntu 8.04 to a USB drive. It was as easy as any Windows installation
>> I've ever tried. Instructions are at
>> http://www.pendrivelinux.com/2008/04...drive-install/
>> if you are interested.
>>
>> The one thing that the instructions don't specify is that your USB drive
>> should be formatted as a single FAT32 partition. I had deleted all
>> partitions from my USB drive and Ubuntu don't like that.
>>
>> After using Partition Magic to format my 8 GB USB flash drive to a single
>> 32 bit partition, the install went beautifully.
>>
>> Now to start finding all those neat little packages in the bt3 distro
>> that I need.....
>
> ****IT!! I spoke too soon. The Ubuntu install says it can't find the
> partition to load from the USB device!
>
> I also took some advice from the bt3 forums and now bt3 won't boot at all
> either. I am now getting the following error.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> xauth: creating new authority file /root/.serverauth.7434
> X: error while loading shared libraries: libpixman-1.so.0: cannot open
> shared object file: No such file or directory
> giving up
> xinit: No such file or directory (errno 2): unable to connect to X server
> xinit: No such process (errno 3): Server error.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Add to that the fact that you can't simply have a conversation in the bt3
> forums (a moderator has to OK every post or reply at this point - and they
> are in no hurry about it) and what was simply frustrating becomes an
> exercise in "what the **** have I gotten into".
>
> I am not a patient man. It's a flaw of mine that I freely admit to
> having. But even moreso than not being patient, I have not one
> nanoparticle of tolerance for stupidity that keeps me from addressing the
> problems that tax my very tiny reserves of patience (e.g. the moderated
> forums at BT3).

OK.....I got the gslpat thing to working. Evidentally it is a version
issue. I uninstalled gslapt, downloaded it from
http://software.jaos.org/slackpacks/...4.0-i386-l.tgz and
re-installed it.

It doesn't show any "success" messages when I run "update" (not sure if it
should since this is the first time I've used it) but it doesn't crash - and
that's an improvement.

jim