From: u9030062@golum.riv.csu.edu.au ("Ronald Ku")
Subject: Which is better for novice??? SLS or MCC-INTERIM!!!
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 06:30:05 GMT
Dear Linus,
For a novice of linux like me, I am confused by SLS and
MCC-INTERIM versions of linux. In some of the README files in many sites
recommend to install SLS or MCC-INTERIM for the first time. But what is
the different between these two versions of linux? Are they the clones of
the "real linux"?
SLS seem to be more compete and welly organise. Is it better
than MCC-INTERIM in performance and portability? Could anyone advice me
which one should I start with and what would be the advantages?
Thanks and appreciate in advance.
--
* Ronald Ku * UNIX will use next, *
* u9030062@golum.riv.csu.edu.au OR * UNIX is YOUr next, *
* u9030062@zac.riv.csu.edu.au * So I use UNIX! *
* Charles Sturt University * And I survive for UNIX!!! *
From: vince@victrola.sea.wa.us (Vince Skahan)
Subject: Re: Which is better for novice??? SLS or MCC-INTERIM!!!
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:09:35 GMT
u9030062@golum.riv.csu.edu.au ("Ronald Ku") writes:
> For a novice of linux like me, I am confused by SLS and
>MCC-INTERIM versions of linux. In some of the README files in many sites
>recommend to install SLS or MCC-INTERIM for the first time. But what is
>the different between these two versions of linux? Are they the clones of
>the "real linux"?
> SLS seem to be more compete and welly organise. Is it better
>than MCC-INTERIM in performance and portability? Could anyone advice me
>which one should I start with and what would be the advantages?
my experience (for what little it's worth :-)) is that mcc-interim seems
more stable. However, it's basically an o/s package and doesn't have the
extras (mail, uucp, gnu, x, etc...) that SLS has.
the result is that you have to build your own SLS so to speak from mcc-interim
plus other stuff. I don't mind in most cases, but it *does* take some time.
Here's my setup:
mcc-interim 0.97pl2
0.98pl3 kernel
mailpak1.3 (elm2.3pl11 plus Taylor uucp1.03)
newspak1.0 (cnews, tin1.1pl4, trn2.2, nn6.4.16, smail3.1.28)
vixie cron
perl4.035
several communications packages (xc, minicomm, pcomm)
X-v1.1
jumptables 4.1 for the gcc2.2.2 that came with mcc-interim
ps0.98
getty_ps 2.03
as you can see, it's a lot of stuff that accumulated over the months :-)
but for me, that's part of the fun...your mileage may vary.
long term, I expect all the stuff I run to make it into either SLS or an
SLS-like kit...after you grab 'em all and install 'em all, it gets old...
(of course, my goal is to get uucp+news+mail+bbs up under linux, not
to develop linux itself (except as a tester and porter of stuff).
So, I'm not looking to really do kernel hacking at this time).
--
---------- Vince Skahan --------- vince@victrola.sea.wa.us ----------
Running Linux/C-news/trn/Elm/Smail - we don't need no steenkin' MS-DOS
From: pmacdona@sanjuan (Peter MacDonald)
Subject: Re: Which is better for novice??? SLS or MCC-INTERIM!!!
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:23:30 GMT
In article <1992Nov10.200935.507@victrola.sea.wa.us>
vince@victrola.sea.wa.us (Vince Skahan) writes:
>u9030062@golum.riv.csu.edu.au ("Ronald Ku") writes:
>> For a novice of linux like me, I am confused by SLS and
>>MCC-INTERIM versions of linux. In some of the README files in many sites
>>recommend to install SLS or MCC-INTERIM for the first time. But what is
>>the different between these two versions of linux? Are they the clones of
>>the "real linux"?
>
>> SLS seem to be more compete and welly organise. Is it better
>>than MCC-INTERIM in performance and portability? Could anyone advice me
>>which one should I start with and what would be the advantages?
>
>my experience (for what little it's worth :-)) is that mcc-interim seems
>more stable. However, it's basically an o/s package and doesn't have the
>extras (mail, uucp, gnu, x, etc...) that SLS has.
>
SLS may seem less stable because you see more posts about it, but there
could be another reason: maybe more people are using it.
From Teds posting of Mid October:
> Top 15 Most Popular Archive Sections By Bytes Transferred
> ---- Percent of ----
> Archive Section Files Sent Bytes Sent Files Sent Bytes Sent
> ------------------------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ----------
> pub/linux/packages/SLS 3408 1099775360 50.11 50.36
> pub/linux/packages 19 288390238 0.28 13.21
> pub/linux/packages/GCC 814 287096369 11.97 13.15
> pub/linux/packages/X11 384 221662483 5.65 10.15
> pub/linux/mirrors/mcc-int 71 29282074 1.04 1.34
> pub/linux/docs 139 23600002 2.04 1.08
> pub/linux/packages/TeX 53 20413127 0.78 0.93
> pub/linux/sources/usr.bin 66 20392458 0.97 0.93
> pub/linux 186 20131222 2.73 0.92
> pub/linux/images 73 19950848 1.07 0.91
> pub/linux/sources/system 85 18696914 1.25 0.86
> pub/linux/packages/lisp 27 17626303 0.40 0.81
> pub/linux/packages/emacs- 57 16671741 0.84 0.76
> pub/linux/binaries/usr.bi 107 15651344 1.57 0.72
> pub/linux/binaries/usr.bi 54 9803411 0.79 0.45
It would seem that there are 50 times more traffic on the SLS than MCC.
Not to knock MCC, its a fine package and SLS even contains some parts
from it. And of course this could mean that most people get MCC from its
source archive than tsx-11. Also SLS is bigger than MCC.
It should also be noted that SLS is also much more evolutionary. Patches
and new components appear regularly, so that people can stay current just
by downloading the new components. Unfortunately, not everyone is so
diligent about keeping up with the latest patches, so the result is that
even a month after a problem is fixed, we keep seeing posts about it.
Case in point: "shell-init" and permission denied because no-read for
non-root users on /.
Peter
pmacdona@sanjuan.uvic.ca