[frakturfreak]

So are you going to get ostracised for advertising Exherbo or do they want more user/developers?  It's an interesting marketing strategy - everyone wants what they aren't allowed! Their installation instructions are strange though.  "We won't tell you how to do it, but please use this live CD with the alternate kernel else it wont work" - my first suggestion to them is to say what feature specifically is needed in the kernel - you can theoretically chroot from any system but does *this one* have a suitable kernel?

 
 
 
You can install it with any live CD you want. The install guide is only an example as said at the beginning. The kernel of the live CD’s Linux has to have seccomp support, more especially CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER, which is disabled in SystemRescueCD’s standard kernel, or else you’ll hit this error with the current stage.
 
 
Users/developers (in Exherbo’s philosophy there are no users only developers) are expected to join and help.

 

[suicidal_orange]

   
You can install it with any live CD you want. The install guide is only an example as said at the beginning. The kernel of the live CD’s Linux has to have seccomp support, more especially CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER, which is disabled in SystemRescueCD’s standard kernel, or else you’ll hit this error with the current stage.
 
 
Users/developers (in Exherbo’s philosophy there are no users only developers) are expected to join and help.

A live CD is the first and easiest thing to change from the install guide - all you need is a running instance of Linux with a suitable kernel...
 

Spoiler: Config check

gunzip /proc/config.gz -c | grep SECCOMP

CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER=y
CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER=y
CONFIG_SECCOMP=y

 
Seems this Arch install will do - thanks for the info

 
I still have much to read before installing.  It's not my favourite activity but if I can't get through everything before I start I'm clearly not what they're looking for, so I will have to continue my search elsewhere.  That would be my loss from where I'm sitting but without knowing how much needs improving (which is impossible to know without trying it) I can't know if I have enough spare time or ability to dedicate to the cause, if that makes sense.

 

[frakturfreak]

  I still have much to read before installing.  It's not my favourite activity but if I can't get through everything before I start I'm clearly not what they're looking for, so I will have to continue my search elsewhere.

 
 
You don’t really have to read everything on the site, some information are only relevant if you want to write your own packages and get your repository included in the unofficial repositories.
 
Make sure to read the latest entries on the mailing lists and the blog posts on planet.

If you really can’t find a solution to your problems on the site, just go to their IRC channel, as long as you provide a full build log.

 

[GL1TCH3D]

Could anyone here help me setup my centos vps? =D

 

[Hutnicks]

   
1. Obviously Berkeley University and the other arse hats that were involved in the development of Unix have no idea what usability is, I mean imagine using Mac OS X or MS Windows completely relied and based on commands, not a single GUI application to be seen. This includes the web browser.
 
2. It's a make or break type of OS, if you enter a command especially with port installations and something breaks, be sure to have a snapshot of the virtual machine or backup of the OS to revert to an earlier state, hence either commands make the particular functions work or break the whole thing together.
 
3. No add/remove program to be seen such as simple uninstallers and delete function in Mac OS X and Windows should a program installation stuff up. If you install a port with a given option to choose extra settings, make config extension sometimes doesn't even work, if you install a port that installs into the same directory as another port particularly a deprecated program or plugin, deinstalling it doesn't work and it will tell you to go erase those installation files one by one, this leads to another problem as you need to change directories for each files location that you want to modify. 
 
4. Obviously not user friendly, which is why most companies use the GUI version of Red Hat linux.

You need to really have a better grasp of the gestation of UNIX itself before going off on a bent against it's present shortcomings. At the time of inception there was nothing but command line OS's. The concept of a GUI was barely a scientists wet dream at that time. Every operating system relied on the operation having intimate knowledge of both the hardware and software to be used on the system. It was an environment almost inconceivably harsh by today's standards and I can well appreciate any current IT persons frustration with the lack of this or that feature. Add into that initial impetus endless licencing wars and ownership changes BSD, Xenix, Novell, et al. (then repeat it all over again with X Windows as a UI and more ownership and copyright litigations)and you have an operating system that went through the IT equivalent of gang wars to get where it is today. It is true comp science persons OS in the same manner that the P-51 was a true pilots aircraft, it rewards expertise and finesse greatly and punishes ignorance and sloppy implementations ruthlessly.
 
 To compare it to a current gen OS developed under radically different circumstances is misleading at the very least. Most of those "convenience features" you desire exist due to the development of UNIX and other OS's of it's generation.

 

[DefQon]

Well I can't really disagree with most of what you said but I think it's about damn time they implement an optional GUI interface for easier interactions, it's like all those years where people use to use VI for config file and text editing it was a nightmare before EE came along which made things seemingly easier. There is no reason why they shouldn't do a major interface overhaul to the OS like you said all OS's were CMD line based OS's at a point, but they have all evolved since.

 

[Hutnicks]

  Well I can't really disagree with most of what you said but I think it's about damn time they implement an optional GUI interface for easier interactions, it's like all those years where people use to use VI for config file and text editing it was a nightmare before EE came along which made things seemingly easier. There is no reason why they shouldn't do a major interface overhaul to the OS like you said all OS's were CMD line based OS's at a point, but they have all evolved since.

Most havent actually evolved (worked on any main or midrange business systems lately, some of the industry standard apps make 80's apps written in Clipper look sophisticated.
 
Much like microsloth had to kill dos to get windows into realistic shape, most older systems don't take well to GUI for deep internal works. There are pluses and minus's to this. Hotshots who have worked in that environment are akin to DaVinci in their work ethics and standards compared to current gen grads of newer systems who are crayon drawers by compare. Faster better easier has it's own price and we are losing artisans by the drove to fast food IT.
 
Preachy mode off now.

 

[DefQon]

I meant the OS's man, you got me lost on the rest of the dabble.

 

[proton007]

 
Most havent actually evolved (worked on any main or midrange business systems lately, some of the industry standard apps make 80's apps written in Clipper look sophisticated.
 
Much like microsloth had to kill dos to get windows into realistic shape, most older systems don't take well to GUI for deep internal works. There are pluses and minus's to this. Hotshots who have worked in that environment are akin to DaVinci in their work ethics and standards compared to current gen grads of newer systems who are crayon drawers by compare. Faster better easier has it's own price and we are losing artisans by the drove to fast food IT.
 
Preachy mode off now.

 
Two parts of a problem.
 
One is to view it as a problem solving tool, created by scientists for themselves. Thats how OSes started out.
 
Two is to view it as a product, for selling to others. Thats what it is today.
 
Personally I find no one way to go about this, but I do value the freedom to choose between the two, to have something that suits my needs and doesn't force the 'my way or highway' mindset.

 

[TwinQY]

  You need to really have a better grasp of the gestation of UNIX itself before going off on a bent against it's present shortcomings.
 
To compare it to a current gen OS developed under radically different circumstances is misleading at the very least. Most of those "convenience features" you desire exist due to the development of UNIX and other OS's of it's generation.

 

[DefQon]

   
Two parts of a problem.
 
One is to view it as a problem solving tool, created by scientists for themselves. Thats how OSes started out.
 
Two is to view it as a product, for selling to others. Thats what it is today.
 
Personally I find no one way to go about this, but I do value the freedom to choose between the two, to have something that suits my needs and doesn't force the 'my way or highway' mindset.

Yeah everything started out like that either research or for military purposes same thing goes for the internet when it used to be ARPANET. But Hutnick is missing one important aspect and that is in this age we live in, if simplicity isn't included in the package your product ain't going to garner any sort of attention especially with the variety of options and varieties available today, back then users and researchers were forced to use the old stuff because there was nothing else. Besides very few companies and corporations that still use some variant of Unix for server side processing, a large majority either don't know it or don't use it because it is too old fashioned and time consuming to invest cost, effort and training to get people use to Unix.

 

[proton007]

Yeah everything started out like that either research or for military purposes same thing goes for the internet when it used to be ARPANET. But Hutnick is missing one important aspect and that is in this age we live in, if simplicity isn't included in the package your product ain't going to garner any sort of attention especially with the variety of options and varieties available today, back then users and researchers were forced to use the old stuff because there was nothing else. Besides very few companies and corporations that still use some variant of Unix for server side processing, a large majority either don't know it or don't use it because it is too old fashioned and time consuming to invest cost, effort and training to get people use to Unix.

I guess that would be true for any OS.

In the world of GUIs its very easy to see the OS as something of a living entity, but most users don't know or care that beneath that glam its just a resource manager.

Honestly I don't believe the hype about modern OSs.

There hasn't been anything new in this field since the mid 80s, most if not all technologies existed decades before on mainframes.
In a way, all tech companies have done is miniaturised them and taken advantage of this technological amnesia.
Infact some of them have even made things worse. I hate my PC at work with vengeance.

So, good tools existed -> decades passed -> people forgot -> today they are sold less productive/useless 'solutions', essentially bad clones of the giants.

 

[Hutnicks]

I guess that would be true for any OS.

In the world of GUIs its very easy to see the OS as something of a living entity, but most users don't know or care that beneath that glam its just a resource manager.

Honestly I don't believe the hype about modern OSs.

There hasn't been anything new in this field since the mid 80s, most if not all technologies existed decades before on mainframes.
In a way, all tech companies have done is miniaturised them and taken advantage of this technological amnesia.
Infact some of them have even made things worse. I hate my PC at work with vengeance.

So, good tools existed -> decades passed -> people forgot -> today they are sold less productive/useless 'solutions', essentially bad clones of the giants.

It's a little worse than that. What we see now is the equivalent of (80's era no less) Reganomics "Trickle Down" theory. Android being the latest and most prime example. Take one powerhouse distributed computing OS and strip the guts and lowlevel utility out of it and you have Linux and family, Rape that a little more and you now have android where the user (for right or wrong) is so far removed from the platform that it becomes downright dangerous to let them work at the command line.
 
 It's all well and good to make a convenience OS , it just makes die hard system level tasks a much more monuments effort. Administrators and sysops pay a heavy price for the convenience of the end user.
 
 One of the true beauties of an old hardcore UNIX implementation was a well thought out X Window interface for end users, done properly it's surprising how many legitimate complaints there were.

 

[DefQon]

Honestly I don't believe the hype about modern OSs.

There hasn't been anything new in this field since the mid 80s, most if not all technologies existed decades before on mainframes.
In a way, all tech companies have done is miniaturised them and taken advantage of this technological amnesia.
Infact some of them have even made things worse. I hate my PC at work with vengeance.

So, good tools existed -> decades passed -> people forgot -> today they are sold less productive/useless 'solutions', essentially bad clones of the giants.

 
This sort of approach will give you a mixed bag of feedback and response as it depends on what type of work group profession/association/business perspective you look and ask about it. If you asked an organisation focused on the roles of data processing/network/system administration, they are going flat out tell you that the newer stuff is better by far. If you asked an SMB that have been using the old stuff for quite some time which has fulfilled the roles required for the past 2 decades or so, they will simply tell you there is no need for the newer stuff although it is a welcome addition, it comes back to the old saying if it ain't broken, don't fix it, same with OS's and programs if it's working and doing it's appointed task in the working environment, why upgrade? This leads to other factors and that is software/OS support. Open source or things under the GNU license will almost always have continuous support and rolled out updates, a different approach compared to licensed wares.
 
Apples and bananas comparison really imo.

 

[proton007]

 
Apples and bananas comparison really imo.

 
Exactly. Computing isn't as general purpose as its made out to be.