From: bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) Subject: Re: Installation: SLS vs SCO Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 23:51:41 GMT
In article <C4roLw.CL9@crdnns.crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
> I guess it depends on your definition of "better." SCO allows you to
>specify many things, like network card type, ints, and addresses. SLS
>looks for the network card in the "standard place," and either uses it
>or tells you it can't find it. If you can't install it's catch-22, the
>docs are online. SLS gives you no clue where it looks and no way to
>change it.
Give SLS a break, Bill. The network card's address is hardcoded in the
Ethernet driver, and the only way to change it is to edit and recompile the
kernel. And I don't think a working gcc will fit on the a2 floppy.... this is
a problem with the Ethernet driver, just as the hardcoded IRQs are problems
with the busmouse drivers, etc.
Suggestion to kernel types (if I ever manage to get upgraded, I may do this
one myself): have the kernel read a parameter file as soon as it can mount
the root filesystem. There should be a utility to display and change settings
in that file, and a kernel interface so drivers can retrieve parameters and
only use defaults if the parameters they need aren't in the file. It should
also be possible to specify the parameter file name to load on the LILO boot
"command line" like you can specify the video mode, etc.
As for the documentation: it's in the same place as the SLS distribution
itself is, and you get it the same way. You might as well complain about
someone not being able to install SCO or Dell without the manuals.
> SLS is a great package, but it's a hacker package. The documentation
>is mostly in the source code, and it looks like the only way to change
>the assumptions is to find the source and recompile, or read where the
>driver for the net card is "supposed" to be and move it.
SLS is an attempt to make hacker-written components into a user-installable
system. When the components stop being quite so hacker-oriented, then SLS
(and TAMU, the various CD-ROMs, etc.) will be able to ask those questions.
My point is that neither SLS nor any other Linux distribution can get around
the problems you're pointing out; they're more fundamental than just
installation packaging. Linux *itself* needs to mature before any of the
packages out there will have a chance against the commercial ones.
And another point that needs to be stated: Linux is still evolving rapidly to
fix bugs and add features that are expected in working systems (most
especially including the commercial ones). At the moment that has priority
over making it easy to install --- which is as it should be, as otherwise the
bugfixes can get more complicated and the new features end up "spaghetti"'ed
into the framework. This, again, is an indication that the basic foundation
is still maturing and there's no point in expecting it to be pretty at the
present time.
++Brandon
-- Brandon S. Allbery bsa@kf8nh.wariat.orgIt's not too late to turn back from the "Gates" of Hell... Linux: the FREE 32-bit operating system, available NOW. Why waaaaaait for NT?