[NCLUG] Fedora 6 and the RaLink rt2500 wireless card

[Chad Perrin]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 11:38:08AM -0300, jeff wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> >What GUI tools there are in distributions like Debian, Gentoo, and
> >Slackware tend to be designed to do exactly the same thing you'd do from
> >the command line, and the distribution as a whole isn't designed to rely
> >on those tools.  In other words, they're not distribution-specific
> >tools, and they're wholly optional.  Not only can you avoid using them
> >without any difficulty, but you can switch back and forth between using
> >them and doing things directly with a text editor without ill effects.
> >Further, these tools are not tied to the distribution: they're tools
> >that are available in a number of distributions, so that you can use
> >them elsewhere as well.  For the most part, like ifconfig, they're even
> >available in Fedora, Mandr(ake|iva), and SuSE.
> 
> FWIW, I use a text editor 99% of the time to configure fedora. I guess I 
> don't see how debian is standard and fedora isn't. You can go back & forth 
> in either.

That's . . . not the point.  At all.


> 
> >While the configuration file locations do vary between distributions,
> >they tend to be more accessible and discoverable for people unfamiliar
> >with the system (aka "newbies").  For instance, network configuration
> >for Debian is in /etc/network/interfaces, and for Gentoo is in
> >/etc/conf.d/net.  Fedora, meanwhile, hides it in
> >/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth*.  The first time I encountered
> >this, I found myself bypassing a scripts directory in my search for
> >network configuration files because I was looking for configuration
> >files.  When I did look in network-scripts, I discovered that there was
> >no single file, but instead a collection of separate files that all
> >needed to be edited individually.  God forbid I should need to make a
> >bunch of changes all at once -- especially with a handful of files that
> >were each a few lines long, but someone decided that twenty lines in a
> >config file was too many.
> 
> Ya, one per interface or one huge file. It's somewhat arbitrary which is 
> best... Again, fwiw, my first time on gentoo I hunted around for a bit 
> until I rtfm. I don't see how this is a fedora issue per se it's more like 
> "i've used distro X for years and I know how it's set up, when I use distro 
> Y I need to read a bit to learn it..."

One "huge" file -- small enough to fit on a single screen in a standard
80 column width TTY console -- is more convenient when you have to
directly edit it to change your configuration.  Is there a benefit, when
directly editing the file, to breaking it up into several separate
files?  That's trivial, however, in comparison to the fact that someone
without an obvious path to documentation (such as apropos) on network
configuration may have a very difficult time finding the appropriate
files when they're an extra layer or two deep in the filesystem
hierarchy, in what's labeled a "scripts" directory, with somewhat
cryptic names for the files (the "eth0" part is obvious, if you're
familiar with the term, but the "ifcfg" certainly leaves something to be
desired).


> 
> >Having docs that "are in a standard place (standard for fedora" is the
> >same as having docs that are in a nonstandard place, unless you're so
> >wedded to your distribution that you'll never have to worry about the
> >fact that nobody else does the same thing.
> 
> Where do I look? `man`, then /usr/share/doc.  It may be new to you, but 
> it's in Fedora, Debian, Gentoo, and OpenBSD (or /usr/local/share doc). This 
> /is/ the standard location for non-manpage documentation on Unix-like 
> systems--it is NOT specific to Fedora.

The requirement for finding that by somehow magically knowing where it
is, without the convenience of something like the manpage system, is the
key problem to which I referred.  I thought I made that clear.  The
"standard" to which I object is the requirement of hunting through
/usr/share/doc to figure out how to do something as basic as figure out
how to configure networking.  Why is it so difficult to use "apropos
network" to get started?


> 
> >It's not just the fact that the specific format of configuration files
> >is distasteful and that docs are "in a standard place" for the
> >distribution but not where I expected them to be.  It's that
> >discoverability of configuration format and documentation standards for
> >the distribution sucks, that things are wildly different from the way
> >other distributions do things for no apparent reason other than sheer
> >market-differentiation perversity,
> 
> Which came first RedHat or Gentoo? RedHat or Debian? So how can you say 
> they are trying to "sheerly" differentiate themselves from these other 
> distros when they set up their system /first/.

Actually . . . Debian is the second oldest currently active distribution
(a month or two younger than Slackware).  As I recall, Red Hat was a
couple years later than Debian, and the only real Linux distribution
before Slackware was Yggdrasil, now defunct.

This discussion got old about the second time I was prompted with
questions.  I just agreed with someone else, in terms of my personal
preferences, and this has turned into an interrogation by people who
seem to be feeling very defensive about their choices in Linux
distribution.  I'm getting sick of this crap.

Let's just take it as a given that I find the problems I've mentioned to
be more annoying than you do, and leave it at that.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of
others we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any
Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."