More nonsense about Slackware
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| bigg May 28, 2008 4:28 AM EDT |
Caitlyn is one of my favorite bloggers, but she REALLY missed the boat on this one. I'm sorry, but this is far from her best. It's posts like this that are the reason I didn't try Slackware earlier. "You can tell you're dealing with a distro for serious Linux geeks when booting into the GUI isn't even offered as an option by the installer." It wasn't that long ago that Ubuntu used a text installer. I agree that it's better to install from a live CD that won't boot because of problems with the video card. (As is true for at least four distros I've tried on my home computers.) "Heck, the installer doesn't even deal with X configuration. You start at the command line." A bunch of DE/WM options are installed unless you say otherwise. And that "otherwise" means checking or unchecking a couple of boxes. Then you take the monumental step of typing "startx" after boot. "It remains seriously user unfriendly, hence all the derivative distributions like Zenwalk, Vector Linux, Wolvix, etc... that try and fix that. They all succeed to a large degree, giving users a friendly environment with all of the speed and stability." User unfriendly for whom? I have found Slackware to be about as easy, and fast, to configure as any distro. I will concede that a Windows user with no knowledge of Linux and no willingness to read documentation will struggle with Slackware. Those distros might add GUI tools by default, but there's a big difference between being user friendly and offering GUI tools by default. "The project I'm working on is going to force me to do a lot of compiling from source in any case." And that is where Slackware shines. Once you get used to SlackBuilds it's difficult to work with anything else. I'm running the latest of all apps on top of a rock solid distro that will not break. The only thing that is comparable for cutting-edge app selection is Gentoo, for which you compile everything, or Debian Sid, for which you will experience occasional breakage. "In a fundamental way Slackware is the same as it ever was. It isn't any easier to get going now than it was all those years ago. You really do have to either know how Linux works under the hood or else you have to be willing to learn." She is saying Slackware is as difficult to install and set up now as in 1995. I hadn't even heard of Slackware in 1995, but somehow I seriously doubt this statement is accurate. I don't know a whole lot about Linux, but I can install and use Slackware without difficulty. If you want a very stable system with the availability of the latest release of pretty much any FOSS app, use Slackware. The cost is that you'll have to build a few packages using an extremely simple package building tool. If you want a system with GUI configuration tools and are documentation averse, Mandriva is probably the way to go. This post is not fair to Slackware. I would encourage anyone thinking about trying Slackware to just do it and find out for yourself if it is difficult. It's not a newbie distro, but unlike what some would have you believe, converting Windows users is not the only possible goal of a Linux distribution. |
| jdixon May 28, 2008 5:19 AM EDT |
> "It remains seriously user unfriendly..." Replace user with newbie, and you have a reasonably accurate statement. But once you know the basics, Slackware is as user friendly as any other distribution. |
| bigg May 28, 2008 5:35 AM EDT |
> Replace user with newbie, and you have a reasonably accurate statement. But to be honest, I would not recommend those other distros to newbies either. |
| rijelkentaurus May 28, 2008 5:50 AM EDT |
Yeah, Zenwalk doesn't have a GUI installer. A newbie would be completely lost trying to use fdisk or cfdisk to partition a hard drive. |
| gus3 May 28, 2008 9:16 AM EDT |
"In a fundamental way Slackware is the same as it ever was. It isn't any easier to get going now than it was all those years ago." One simple phrase puts the lie to that: X11Config ModeLines The out-of-the-box Slackware GUI almost never worked ten years ago. It almost always works now. Yes, I'll grant that isn't strictly Patrick's doing, but come on. Even comparing the Linux kernel now to what it was 10 years ago is pretty much an apples-to-plywood comparison! If she's so bent on comparing usefulness now to usefulness from 13 years ago, I suggest she try comparing Windows Vista to Windows 95. |
| caitlyn May 28, 2008 9:39 AM EDT |
I think bigg and others have missed the points I was making: How on earth can you call a distro with no GUI admin tools as friendly as other distros? For users not comfortable with the command line this is really and truly nonsense. Someone who is only comfortable with the GUI (in other words, most non-technical users) would be lost trying to configure their network, X, or pretty much anything else in Slackware. In that sense nothing at all has changed in the past 13 years which is the point I was making. Yes, Slackware (and Linux in general) is infinitely more usable than it was in 1995, but the lack of tools which are standard in every other major distro sets Slackware apart as user unfriendly. I didn't complain about a text based installer. If you've read my blogging for the past two years you know I have no objection to text based installers at all. My objection was that the complexity of the Slackware installer was a bit much for the average user and way beyond most newcomers to Linux. bigg, I'm sure you find Slackware friendly and comfortable since you are used to it. Once I configure it and add third party GUI tools I can and do make Slackware as friendly as any other distro. However, hand a Slackware disc and an Ubuntu disc to a newcomer or a non-technical user and see which one they can cope with and which one is an exercise in frustration. Clue: the majority of users are seriously non-technical. I've done two 12.1 installs and the only X settings and DE settings I found were in deciding what packages to install. Yes, that was select or unselec, but that doesn't configure your video card or monitor, does it? startx is obvious to you and me. To Joe and Jane user who are considering migrating to Linux it most certainly isn't. Having to change a symbolic link to choose the window manager or DE to use today isn't user friendly at all. The lack of kdm or gdm for login at the GUI and the lack of ability to choose the session at login is decidedly user unfriendly. I could go on and on (and will in my O'Reilly review, which I am certain you will absolutely hate) but you get the point. Gentoo was mentioned and I consider it unfriendly as well, though not to the same extent as Slackware. Vanilla Debian is better but not great as a user friendly or newbie friendly distro. What you need to realize is that you are in a different league than the average user. An experienced user like you or me will have no problems with Slackware and will enjoy the performance and stability. Slackware is also very fast at getting out security patches, another strong point. I did say that I could easily use Slack as my main distro. Obviously my O'Reilly review will be longer and more detailed. I hope at that point you will understand where I am coming from and not react defensively as you did here. |
| flufferbeer May 28, 2008 9:50 AM EDT |
@bigg You wrote > Caitlyn is one of my favorite bloggers, but she REALLY missed the boat on this one. > I'm sorry, but this is far from her best. It's posts like this that are the reason I > didn't try Slackware earlier. I'd disagree with you. Caitlyn did NOT really miss the boat on this one. Instead, she gave a reasonably balanced initial-impressions review AFTER HAVING ACTUALLY USED SLACKWARE 12.1 !! [caps super-intended] Not only that, but as you know from Caitlyn's being "one of [your] favorite bloggers", she's used previous versions of Slackware as well as Slackware offshoots (e.g., Vector). Gotta admire her stepping in the Slack water so-to-speak, given that other readers may not be as fortunate as you or her here. Those of you reading this who are dubious about Caitlyn's get-the-facts POV would do well to go re-review this initial review of Slackware 12.1 together with her past year's reviews of Vector. As I've written before, the degree of newbie-friendliness, user-friendliness, performance, upgreadeability, a host of others factors in a Linux distro is like brewing beer. 1. You've got your Beginner-level in which the process is as easy and automatic as possible but the outcome is fixed and usually less than optimal. 2. You've then got your Intermediate level in which the process is a mix of automatic and manual steps. The outcome is more variable and yet is usually closer to optimal. 3. You've then got your Advanced level in which the process is as fully under your complete control as possible. The outcome is variable and yet can be perfectly optimal (or absolutely horrible if you mess up too many manual steps..... then the bad batch of brew will deservedly get poured out!) I'd put some of the LiveCD distros in the Beginner-level or for-newbie camp. Get the ISO CD of PCLOS, Ubuntu-Live, DSL, Puppy, Knoppix or whatever, pop this into your CD-ROM drive, boot-up and you're good to go..... a no brainer. I'd put Linux from Scratch and Linux distros making heavy use of direct sources in the Advanced-level. No argument there. Slackware, Debian, their offshoots such as Vector and Zenwalk, and most other installable Linux distros -- and I've also used many of these on different HW levels -- these would all fall under the wide Intermediate-level range. Many of these Linux distro certainly CAN be installable by newbies, but even the simplest ones (thinking of Ubuntu at the moment) could easily require an outside helping hand if the initial disk-partitioning steps are confusing, package selection and X-configuration is bewildering, or Heaven-forbid a device should remain unrecognized after installation! As non-newbie-friendly Intermediate-level distro, Slackware sure remains consistent in its Setup program and the continued use of its CLI/ncurses tools. So you see, Caitlyn does have valid impressions of Slackware 12.1 in her review -- again, after her having actually used this! -fb |
| gus3 May 28, 2008 10:22 AM EDT |
"Yes, that was select or unselec, but that doesn't configure your video card or monitor, does it? startx is obvious to you and me. To Joe and Jane user who are considering migrating to Linux it most certainly isn't." It's in the root directory of the Slackware install boot disc. From /Slackware-HOWTO: Quoting:6.2 Configuring the X Window System This is available even before installation, so it really is as simple as popping it into a Windows machine and browsing the CD. Is this the time to say "RTM"? And is that such a bad idea for any OS? |
| bigg May 28, 2008 10:25 AM EDT |
Caitlyn, As indicated above, I have a great deal of respect for what you write. I've learned a lot from your writings. Where we disagree here is that you are writing the review entirely from the perspective a Linux newbie, yet it doesn't read like that. It reads as though it is a lot of work and that only gurus like gus or jdixon are able to handle it. I believe newbies should for the most part stay as far from Slackware as possible. However, Slackware is not at all difficult for someone with any amount of Linux experience. > I'm sure you find Slackware friendly and comfortable since you are used to it. Actually, it's only been a week that it's been on my hard drive, probably three weeks total that I've ever used Slackware. I like to distinguish between "newbie friendly" and "user friendly". It's not as though you have to write your xorg.conf file yourself. The thing that surprised me was just how easy it is to configure the system and build packages. I haven't actually had to do all that much from the command line to be honest. I'd have no disagreement with what you've written if it had a disclaimer that said it applies only to new Linux users. |
| caitlyn May 28, 2008 11:52 AM EDT |
@bigg: Actually, I *DID* have to write the xorg.conf file myself. After the installation typing startx produced a black screen. The usual key sequences to break out of X didn't work either. I had to do a hard reboot. Hardware recognition for video in Slackware has actually taken a huge step backwards since Slackware 11 which gave me a miniature desktop with lots of black space around it due to errors in refresh rates. I am not equating user friendly with newbie friendly. Slackware is decidedly unfriendly to the average competent user who doesn't get under the hood of the distro. Many people I know who have used Linux for years would find Slackware bewildering. For a systems administrator, developer, or just plain Linux-knowledgeable person who likes to dig into the OS the Slackware experience will be a positive one provided they have the patience to find upstream sources and install and configure what they need. For anyone else it's a nightmare. Nowadays "any amount of Linux experience" often doesn't mean knowledge of the command line or editing config files, both of which are clearly needed for vanilla Slackware. User friendly doesn't mean having to go outside the distro to find a friendly package manager. That should be installed by default. Let's say you find gslapt or netpkg and get them installed. They handle dependency checking well for the official Slackware repository but as soon as you go third party (Linuxpackages.net or Slacky.eu) it all breaks down. Worse, if you go to remove a package they don't do proper dependency checking to make sure you aren't breaking another package. That's a prescription for dependency hell, not user friendliness. The fact that there isn't one good, solid package manager (graphical and command line) built into the distro isn't user friendly by definition. If Slackware had a large extra repository slapt-get and gslapt would be outstanding, just as they are in Vector Linux and Wolvix. The same can be said of three other package managers for Slack I'm aware of. There is no such repository for Slack and third party sources are pretty well mandatory. Not friendly at all, is it? @gus: Telling someone to RTM is NEVER friendly by definition. X configuration is decidedly arcane to most non-technical users. @bigg: Do you have to be a guru to use Slackware? No, but it comes closer to that than 99% of distros out there. (LFS is a good example of something more difficult still if you even consider it a distro at all.) To use flufferbeer's scale I actually rate Slackware closer to advanced than intermediate. We may just have to agree to disagree. |
| jdixon May 28, 2008 12:17 PM EDT |
> After the installation typing startx produced a black screen. That's extremely rare. The default VESA xorg.conf works for almost everyone. I have no idea why it didn't work for you. > User friendly doesn't mean having to go outside the distro to find a friendly package manager. There we'll have to agree to disagree. Slackware has a package manager. It's just command line based and doesn't handle dependencies for you. > . There is no such repository for Slack and third party sources are pretty well mandatory. Not friendly at all, is it? I don't see that it's any less user friendly than adding third party repositories to any other distributions myself. But I'll grant that's a subjective matter. > Telling someone to RTM is NEVER friendly by definition. I've been told to RTM by an Ubuntu supporter in these very fora. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. We can agree that Slackware is not exactly newbie friendly, and is one of the more advanced user distro's out there, but even it requires considerably less experience than it used to. |
| number6x May 28, 2008 12:50 PM EDT |
Slack may not be considered 'newbie friendly' but it was the distro that I and many other Linux users started with. I was a Linux newbie and got Slackware working. Slackware has certainly changed since late 1996, and I think the idea of what a 'Linux newbie' is has changed as well. We used to have to walk both ways uphill in the snow to compile a kernel and whining about it was not allowed! I remember watching those dots crawl across the screen as the kernel image uncompressed when booting off of floppies for an install. |
| caitlyn May 28, 2008 1:15 PM EDT |
First, a huge thank you to everyone for keeping this a respectful discussion even where we sharply disagree. I wish more Linux debates were like this. @jdixon: My problem with X may be due to the fact that I run laptops exclusively nowadays. It's 50/50 whether a distro gets my configuration right or not on the Toshibas. vxconf, the automagical X configuration tool used by two Slackware derivatives (Zenwalk and AliXe) handles everything I throw at it perfectly. Ubuntu through 7.10 did as well but the new tool in 8.04, dexconf, does not. Vector Linux produces the same results Slackware 11 produced. Fedora and Mandriva get it right. So does Damn Small Linux, believe it or not. This problem isn't unique to Slackware by any means but it is one of several ways I judge a distro's ability to handle a wide variety of video hardware. I didn't claim Slackware doesn't have a package manager. I claimed it wasn't friendly. Command line only and no dependency checking isn't friendly by my standards. I suspect the majority of users would agree with me. You are absolutely correct that adding third party repositories is the same in Slackware as it is in other distros and has essentially the same issues. However, due to Slackware's relatively small repository compared to Debian or Ubuntu or Gentoo or Fedora there is more need to add third party repositories. You are less likely to find what you need. The subject of RTM was discussed to death in the early days of LinuxChix. What makes RTM unfriendly is that it makes two assumptions: the user knows where the manual lives and that the user will then understand what the manual says. You can't always make those assumptions. This is more a matter of newbie-friendliness and general courtesy than anything else. I'll also agree that in many ways Slackware is easier than it used to be largely because Linux in general is easier than it used to be. My point, perhaps not made as clearly as it should have been, is that in some ways Slackware is very old school and hasn't added niceties that other distros have added since the mid '90s. I also think that perhaps I haven't made something else clear: I'm not down on Slackware. I think it's an excellent distro for the advanced user, possibly the best one out there. The flexibility of the installer may make it a more challenging installation for less informed user but it gives me the ability to build an optimal installation without cruft. It's fast and it's reliable and it's stable. It's always easier to build up a bare bones distro than to clean out the excesses of an overbuilt mess with insane interlinking dependencies. Though I'm rarely allowed to use Slackware in the corporate world it's the distro I personally like best when building a server. The less nonsense on the server the less chance of something going wrong or some arcane vulnerability being exploited. The fact that some of the expensive "enterprise" distros force me to install X to manage them is ridiculous, IMHO. User friendliness is not the only metric for judging a distro. It is an incredibly important metric to cover when writing for a wide audience that includes everyone from kernel hackers down to people who are considering Linux for the very first time. A review, any review, needs to make clear that a distro like Slackware just isn't for everyone. |
| jdixon May 28, 2008 4:47 PM EDT |
> Command line only and no dependency checking isn't friendly by my standards. Well, as expected, we have different standards of constitutes friendly. To me friendly means relatively easy to use and does what it's supposed to do. Slackware's package manager meets those criteria. Apt-get seems to also. RPM, in my experience, doesn't. > I suspect the majority of users would agree with me. Probably. > However, due to Slackware's relatively small repository...there is more need to add third party repositories. Agreed. > The subject of RTM .... Well, I already said we disagree. As long as a pointer to the manual is given (and preferably the relevant section quoted), I don't think there's anything wrong with an RTM response. RTM doesn't have to impolite. The fact that it often is is a function of those responding, not the basic concept itself. > ...in some ways Slackware is very old school and hasn't added niceties that other distros have added since the mid '90s. Usually because Patrick feels they don't actually solve the problems they purport to or because they add too much system bloat and instability. Those are judgment calls, and the people who like Slackware (myself among them) tend to agree with his choices. Others don't, so they obviously won't like Slackware. > I think it's an excellent distro for the advanced user, possibly the best one out there. See. We agree about something. :) The three advanced user distros I could argue for would be Debian, Gentoo, and Slackware. Both Debian and Slackware are far easier for beginners than they used to be, but neither is ready for the absolute newbie. I've never used Gentoo, so I can't speak for it personally, but people I trust recommend it. > A review, any review, needs to make clear that a distro like Slackware just isn't for everyone. Which you did a fairly good job of doing. And I agree that it's not for everyone, nor possibly even for most people. And especially not for the fresh from Windows new user. |
| Steven_Rosenber May 28, 2008 5:04 PM EDT |
I like Slackware, but I run Wolvix because it's easier. It has all the apps I want, many of which are not in the default Slackware installation. Wolvix has a flexible, easy-to-understand installer and control panel. If I loved KDE and loved using Slackware's package management utilities, I'd love Slackware. And like I said, Wolvix makes it quick and easy for me to set up a Slackware box the way I like it. But for the day to day, I much prefer Debian or Ubuntu. Apt makes all the difference. In my tests, Slackware and Debian are about equal when it comes to speed (with both running Xfce, by the way). Have I ever had Slackware 12 install with X configured perfectly? Sure. But most of the time, I've had to get in there and start tweaking. On a small hard drive, Slackware without KDE takes up a whole lot more space than does Debian with Xfce. And in Debian, you even get OpenOffice. I'm not bothered by logging in with a console and typing startx to get the GUI -- hell, I do it in OpenBSD -- but it's nice to have the choice of a graphical login (and would be really nice to have the choice between LILO and GRUB in the installer, not on CD #3, but I digress). So when Debian's not screwing me with crappy OpenSSL keys, it's great ... and Slackware sure is stable, no doubt there. It's also got all those projects with which you can add GNOME. But again, Debian is all about GNOME. And while Slackware is way easier than it ever gets credit for, it's not Ubuntu easy. Again, I'm lazy. I'll work on a problem in one of my installations like a dog with a bone, but I like to start out with as few problems as possible. If Slackware ran rings around Debian when it came to speed, that'd be one thing, but it's all Linux, and the playing field is more level than some of us care to admit. And while I have used Gslapt/slapt-get in Wolvix for upgrading packages, I don't feel so confident using it to add new ones. In short, if Slackware had something as good as apt, I'd be way more inclined to use it. |
| jdixon May 28, 2008 5:16 PM EDT |
> ...but it's nice to have the choice of a graphical login... Set the default run level to 4 in /etc/inittab and Slackware will boot up in graphical login mode. Console 6 is still available with an alt-control-F6, and you can add the others if you want. > In short, if Slackware had something as good as apt, I'd be way more inclined to use it. That seems to be the attitude of most Debian users. |
| bigg May 28, 2008 5:26 PM EDT |
> We may just have to agree to disagree. Good enough. Most of the differences of opinion expressed in this thread depend on personal preferences, how we use our machines, and experiences on our own hardware. |
| Steven_Rosenber May 28, 2008 5:36 PM EDT |
What most Linux distributions need and don't have is excellent, comprehensive, current documentation. Neither Slackware nor Debian shine in this regard. Ubuntu has all those third-party books, not that I have any of them, but they're out there for those who want or need them. And I know there are a few Slackware documentation projects, but there's nothing out there for just about any Linux distro that approaches what, say, Gentoo has put together. But am I going to run Gentoo? Hell no. I'm way too impatient to compile every damn thing. Using Ports in FreeBSD made me itch. I moved to packages immediately. Ubuntu may not deserve to have a dozen or two phone-book-thick how-to manuals on the shelves of Barnes & Noble, but the fact is that they're there, and even Red Hat and SUSE are losing out to Ubuntu in this regard. I don't think it's right, but I don't own a major publishing house, either. Ubuntu stuff must sell, or they'd stop putting it out month after month. If a three-inch-thick, high-quality Slackware book came out, you bet I'd buy it, but I don't see that happening. |
| bigg May 28, 2008 5:43 PM EDT |
The BSD's have nearly all Linux distros beaten by a mile when it comes to documentation. Thus far Gentoo and perhaps Arch are the only ones I've seen that even come close. (That's documentation, not third-party books). |
| rijelkentaurus May 28, 2008 5:52 PM EDT |
Books are hard for Linux, everything in FOSS moves at the speed of light and your book is irrelevant in short order sometimes. Look at Ubuntu...if you do a book for 8.04, it is obsoleted by 8.10 in six months. Sure, it's not totally useless but most folks are moving on to the next version, meaning no one is going to buy your book anymore because it's for the old version, LOL. The various Red Hat books, while not as numerous as the Ubuntu books, are relevant for a far longer period of time. Given Red Hat's presence in the enterprise, even books on RHEL 3 are still very useful. Documentation for most FOSS projects is the same way, it moves so fast and is such a monumental PITA that it never gets updated properly. At that point you have to hope that the forums are good at answering questions. I can speak well of PCLOS and Mepis, I haven't used any others to any great extent, and I haven't had the first problem with Mandriva 2008.1, nor with Sidux before that. It's refreshing that I seldom need help, the quality of the various Linux builds has increased dramatically over the last several years. I remember installing SuSE 9.1 when I first started in Linux...I couldn't get anything to work right, LOL. Gave it up for Mepis, I think. |
| Steven_Rosenber May 28, 2008 6:29 PM EDT |
My recent experience with FreeBSD made me think worse of the huge Handbook they have. I couldn't solve most of my problems. OpenBSD's FAQ has fewer pages, but it's got more answers, at least in my experience. YMMV. |
| garymax May 28, 2008 7:41 PM EDT |
Regardless of personal opinion I find the incessant need for a distro to be "newbie friendly" kind of misguided. Sometimes, stability, security, speed and simplicity come in a package that is different from what we expect. We expect Slackware to have a graphical, easy-to-use package manager that resolves dependencies automagically. What we find is a simple package manager that works every time without the bloat and abstractional overhead found in other distributions. We expect to find an easy way to configure X. What we find with Slackware is simple, command line-based tools that do the job and allows the user to tweak until the settings are right. We expect a large repository or repositories filled to overflowing with packages--many of which we'd never use. What we get is a solid foundation upon which to build applications that are made to run on our system and that compile without error 99% of the time. Without the bloat frequently associated with dependency-resolving package managers. We are not disappointed by what we find; we are disappointed by what we expect to find. As JDixon pointed out, Pat Volkerding (The Man) makes his own choices when it comes to how he puts his distribution together. And most Slackware users agree with these choices--or, we can easily modify them since we have the source code available. We Slackware users use Slackware because it delivers on what it promises: a clean, simple system that is as secure as it is stable. Could a newbie use it? Possibly, but why should Slackware come down to a newbies level? I don't ask that to be arrogant. I ask it because coming up to Slackware's level is so enjoyable and you learn in the process. I agree that a distro that is easy to use is just that: easy to use. But those who use such distros usually never have an opportunity to learn how to do something until something goes wrong. Then what? Forums? RTM? With Slackware, you do not feed a man for a day; You feed him for a lifetime by giving him (or her) the tools to learn Linux system administration, and to tweak what is hands down the best Linux system available across the board. But, then again, I am biased. Back to the original comment: Why the incessant need for distros to come down to a "newbie" level? Yes, it would be nice for everyone to be able to pick any distro and "just use it." But then, distros would lose what differentiates them. In many cases, it is the exclusion of "newbie friendly features" that allow the distro to be faster, more secure, and more reliable. So, instead of always judging a distro by how friendly it is we need to consider how the distro measures up in the areas of speed, reliability, security, and configuration. After all, we do not "dumb down" calculus so a middle school student can use it. We continue to teach them as they work their way through algebra, geometry, trigonometry and on up to that level of knowledge. As the student gains more knowledge, they can appreciate the higher concepts and advantages of their scholastic achievements. So it is with Slackware. And, by the way, since Slackware is pure Linux and is the most Unix-like distribution out there, it does not need a book of its own. Any book on system administration is immediately applicable to Slackware. The reason why Ubuntu and other "popular" distros have their own books is two fold: A) The publishers are cashing in on the popularity and the resultant demand. B) These distributions--such as Ubuntu--have their own idiosyncrasies which require a separate treatment. |
| jdixon May 28, 2008 7:43 PM EDT |
> If a three-inch-thick, high-quality Slackware book came out, you bet I'd buy it, but I don't see that happening. http://slackbook.org/ http://store.slackware.com/cgi-bin/store/slackbook?id=DjEe65... Take your pick. Whether it's high quality or not is for you to judge. |
| gus3 May 28, 2008 8:18 PM EDT |
The Slackbook is available on the 12.1 boot disc, in the /slackbook directory, in PDF, PS, and HTML. |
| Dystopia Jun 01, 2008 7:32 AM EDT |
Hello folks. I'm new to this forum, and I'll probably never post on it again. Using forums is not something I do often. However, I wanted to get one thing off my chest, that I've never found on the internet before. It's this: "Slackware can be user-friendly for "newbies!" I know, because I am one. I am a recent Windows refugee, tired of Microsoft sapping away the power of my computer to do things I never asked it to, refusing to work the way I want it too, if it happened to disagree with the Microsoft vision, all the usual Windows complaints. After years of hacking away at the registry, trying to disable unnecessary processes, scouring annoyances.org for hacks, I decided enough was enough. After reading several reviews, Slackware seemed to be the antithesis of everything I hated about Windows, so I gave it a try. 7-8 months ago, I knew nothing about the command line, had only been using Windows for around 5 years, and prior to that only played games on my Amiga and Acorn Electron. I am not a programmer, nor an I.T. professional. I'm just a desktop user that wants my computer to do exactly what I tell it too, and nothing more. Slackware changed my life. The learning curve was tough, but managable. I printed out "Slackware Linux Essentials" prior to installing, which got me as far as a web browser, and then I could take advantage of the vast amounts of information on the internet, that tell you everything you could possibly want to know about Linux. I've learnt to compile all of the software and libraries I need from source code. The idea that this is user-unfriendly is a load of ****. I'll tell you what's user-unfriendly. Windows telling you that this programme won't work on this version, and never telling you why not. You know, deep down, that all you need is probably one .dll file to sort it, but Windows never tells you which one. They want you to give up and go out and buy their newest version. With Linux, the ./configure and make commands generally tell you what libraries you need, or you can read the INSTALL text file for detailed information. Very often, I can get away without even installing the dependencies the programme is supposed to need, and avoid bloating my system. This method of installing sure beats what I'm used to, waiting for a monolithic "service pack" to resolve my problems, which then breaks several other programmes I have installed, and never knowing why. Or just getting used to the fact that you have to reinstall the operating system from time to time because it gets bloated. In a few months, I've got used to compiling from source, editing text configuration files (with VI), learned to appreciate the beauty of Linux file permissions, and do most of my system administration from the command line. I have a desktop computer that works exactly the way I want it too, and I've learned a lot about how Linux works, all thanks to Slackware. As for the myth of Slackware not having easy GUI tools, what about KDE? It comes with a vast number of graphical tools, KSysGuard, the KDE Printer setup tool, Konqueror, Firefox, to name but a few. Just click on that "K" button in the bottom left hand corner, and you have a graphical substitute for the vast majority of shell commands and text configuration files. Slackware is the ideal distribution for a "newbie." Because if you use one of the so-called "user-friendly" distributions, you'll never learn anything, and you'll always be a "newbie." And if you're willing to get to know an operating system properly, without it holding your hand every step of the way, it's not as hard as you think. |
| jdixon Jun 01, 2008 8:59 AM EDT |
> Because if you use one of the so-called "user-friendly" distributions, you'll never learn anything, and you'll always be a "newbie." Which is, unfortunately, what many people want. They don't want to learn, they just want their machine to work. For them, Slackware won't be the best distribution. For those who want to learn, however, Slackware is ready and waiting. |
| gus3 Jun 01, 2008 5:40 PM EDT |
Dystopia: Given your relatively fresh experience in taking the plunge, would you care to write an article about it for LXer? |
| garymax Jun 01, 2008 5:56 PM EDT |
Dystopia An excellent example of one who came up to Slackware's level and learned in the process. This illustrates my point in an earlier post to a "T". |
| flufferbeer Jun 02, 2008 10:18 AM EDT |
@jdixon
Quoting:slackbook.org store.slackware.com Someone I've dealt with occasionally is a bigtime Slackware fanboi going way back. IIRC, he split of in this direction during his years struggling with Debian Potato, while those around him were all RH8'ers dual-booting with Win98ME. He also mentioned the Slackbook.org site, but he's preferred and strongly recommended these two SlackLinux-guide sites for newbies willing to get their hands wet like Dystopia: http://shilo.is-a-geek.com/ http://www.slackbasics.org/ The second one of these looks good. This Slackhead I meet has worked with computer users of varying technical backgrounds and interests. Although he's enthusiastic++ about Slack much more than Caitlyn, he also keeps it serverside when at clients, or else on home desktops as one of his non-BSD non- M$ OS's. Funny thing is, he keeps Slackware away from desktops intended for mission-critical use (reason is puzzling) or from any sort of client VIP's laptop, especially when setup time is short. He'll cautiously recommend Slackware for Linux newbies on home desktops when he knows that theyll review SlackLinux-guide sites like the above and spend some time getting really used to the basics of Slackware administration together with their pre-installed M$ OS. I think he also regularly considers Slackware as a more Intermediate distro, unless he senses that getting knee-deep in it like Dystopia and other potential power-users would work out for them w/o too much frustration. -fb |
| jdixon Jun 02, 2008 10:42 AM EDT |
> [HYPERLINK@shilo.is-a-geek.com] Alright. A new (to me) Slackware site. I'll bookmark it when I get home. :) I knew about slackbasics, but Steven asked for a book, so that's what I gave him. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 02, 2008 11:19 AM EDT |
I like Slackbasics (http://www.slackbasics.org/), and it seems pretty much up to date. Where Slackware loses me -- and many others, I suspect -- is the lack of automatic package management and dependency resolution. Even OpenBSD, which is way, way more geeky than Slackware, resolves dependencies when installing packages or ports, and its package manager -- command-line only, just like Slackware -- allows the user to upgrade all packages with a single line of code when going from one stable version to the next. What I didn't like about Slackware was going to the security site to grab the updates by ftp, and then doing updatepkg individually for each one. I know that slapt-get/Gslapt automates this a la apt/Synaptic, but I don't know how well it copes with dependencies when installing new applications. I fully and freely admit that using Slack's package tools and tracking down the dependencies yourself enables the user to learn more, but I just prefer the ease that comes with Debian. Again, If I was a KDE user, I'd be much more apt (no pun intended) to use Slackware. And if the major Slack-derived distros (ZenWalk and Vector) supported their releases longer, I'd be more inclined to use them as well, but for the latter -- and especially for ZenWalk -- they seem too hobbyist-focused, and as a result don't have a smooth upgrade path from version to version. Not that I'd be comfortable, say, upgrading Slackware 11 to 12, because I wouldn't. I just upgraded OpenBSD 4.2 to 4.3, and it was damn hard. But since Patrick V. keeps supporting older versions of Slack, if a certain kernel works well with your hardware, it's possible to stick with it, and that I wholeheartedly applaud. So ... if I could get Slack-derived Wolvix Cub to load on my 1999-era Compaq laptop, that's what I'd want to run. I'll have to try again; I couldn't get it to boot before, although I did install Slackware 12 on it. Unfortunately, the "standard" Slackware installation, minus all KDE apps, was still too large for my puny 3GB drive. ... and that left me with very few applications. That said, I will give Wovix another try on my ancient laptop. I think it'll run better than OpenBSD, if I can get it to run at all. |
| bigg Jun 02, 2008 11:46 AM EDT |
I've found Slackware security updates to be no more difficult than with Ubuntu. Just add the main Slackware repo to Gslapt and you even get a little "updates ready" icon in your tray. If you use the slacky.eu repo, dependency resolution is handled quite well. What I've learned overall is that dependency resolution is largely a non-issue on Slackware. There just aren't very many of them if you've done a full install. Debian, Fedora, or any of the others cannot compare in that regard. I'm sure dependency problems are possible on Slackware, but thus far I've installed quite a few packages, uninstalled some, and updated others, and have experienced no problems. This was the biggest obstacle to me actually trying Slackware. I'm convinced (thus far) that I was wrong. We'll have to see in six months, of course, whether I still feel that way. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 02, 2008 3:49 PM EDT |
Slackware is a lot less mysterious and forbidding (or is it foreboding?) than advertised. |
| rijelkentaurus Jun 02, 2008 3:57 PM EDT |
I am installing Slackware on my secondary laptop to see what the fuss is about. :) |
| rijelkentaurus Jun 03, 2008 3:52 AM EDT |
Well, I can see what the fuss is about...this is a nice, fast distro, and Zenwalk uses the same installer. The laptop is a P4m at 1.8ghz with 256mb RAM, and the XFCE environment runs great. I have KDE installed (I chose the option to install everything) but haven't used it yet, although I expect its speed to be on par with that of Sidux, which ran great on this laptop. I rather like coming into a CLI, and since I find writing in nano quite pleasurable, it may seldom see the light of a GUI. Slackware is sweet and was very easy to install. Printing out some documentation ahead of time should prove useful and allow you to get the system installed even if you're a n00b. We'll see how it is moving forward with updates, etc, and I want to compile some things to see how that goes. Seems that all of the hardware was recognized fine, it doesn't have wireless and I don't have a card in it so I couldn't test that, but I have turned off wireless in my home anyway since I am not there much anymore. |
| caitlyn Jun 05, 2008 10:44 AM EDT |
I think Steve Rosenberg hit the nail on the head. I do Linux for a living, I'm no newbie, and the one place Slack also loses me is the lack of dependency resolution. I just installed Abiword, the plugins, and the myriad of dependencies. It was a time consuming pain in the a** in Slackware. In most distributions it's simple, a no-brainer. It's one thing to learn how things work under the hood -- something I place very high value on, BTW -- and another to have to reinvent the wheel to do something simple. That's what I mean by user unfriendly. User friendly does not mean the same thing as newbie friendly. If you've read my reviews of Vector Linux releases over the past two years I consider it outstanding for the moderately experienced user but not easy for newcomers. I agree that most users just want their system to just work without much thought or effort. Slackware requires serious effort. I think it's important to note that in a review. Whether that is criticism or not depends on your perspective, I think. Anyway, overall it's been a good discussion. I should be posting my full review on O'Reillynet later today and it will be on LXer.com as well, of course. |
| garymax Jun 05, 2008 11:40 AM EDT |
caitlyn You and I both know that "user friendly" is a relative term that is also abstract. I use Slackware and find it easier to use than Ubuntu. But that's me... |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 05, 2008 12:03 PM EDT |
If you like KDE and the mix of apps in Slackware as it installs, then it's great. Like Caitlyn, I've also added Abiword to Slackware. I'm OK with adding the dependencies myself, because I really needed Abi at the time. But I'd rather that Slackware just had Abiword and its five or so dependencies in the standard distribution. I don't know if it's easier or not, but Abiword is part of the GNOME desktop that you can add to Slackware with Dropline GNOME and at least two other projects dedicated to easily porting GNOME to Slackware. And again, I prefer to use Wolvix, which has everything I need (Abiword and/or OpenOffice, a half-dozen non-KDE text editors) and nothing I don't (all the KDE apps). It's great to have hands-on experience with dependency resolution and applying patches, but I'm just happier these days with distros that aren't Slackware (Currently Debian Lenny and Ubuntu 8.04) As I've probably said 40 or so comments up there, even OpenBSD has over 4,000 binary packages for i386, and its console-only package management utilities (as well as its ports system) offers comprehensive dependency resolution. So for me, I balance the things I like about Slackware (long-term support, stability, conservative package choice) with those I don't like (laborious package management, lack of trust in get-slapt/Gslapt, focus on KDE). I guess what I'm saying is that the ideal situation for me would be Slackware with apt. And by the time that happens, I might as well run Debian. I've written very favorably about Slackware many times, but the reality is that Debian runs just as well with much less effort. Still ... there are few distros I like more than Slack-based Wolvix ... and when Debian's acting up, I reserve the right to throw up my hands and give Slack another try. Yep, I'm a fair-weather friend of any given Linux distribution, that's for sure. |
| rijelkentaurus Jun 05, 2008 3:01 PM EDT |
Quoting: Yep, I'm a fair-weather friend of any given Linux distribution, that's for sure. Nothing wrong with that, it gives the maintainers an incentive to get things right, and it goes a long way towards keeping the paid-for distros honest. |
| jdixon Jun 05, 2008 7:21 PM EDT |
> ...and the one place Slack also loses me is the lack of dependency resolution. That true for most people who leave Slackware. Especially those who leave for Debian or it's derivatives. It's a valid complaint, but the reasons for not including dependency resolution are equally valid. Pick your poison. > I just installed Abiword, the plugins, and the myriad of dependencies. It was a time consuming pain in the a** in Slackware. First, let's deal with that specific complaint. Yes, it is, mostly because Abiword now seems to have a number of Gnome specific requirements, and the Gnome folks refuse to support Slackware. At least that was Patrick's complaint when he dropped it from the distribution. The Abiword folks don't seem to agree. Their viewpoint is expressed here: http://www.cleardefinition.com/oss/abi/blog/index.php?s=will... The are a number of solutions to the problem. The simplest is probably to install one of the Gnome systems for Slackware. The one you would probably like best is Gnome Slackbuild (http://gnomeslackbuild.org/), since it integrates into the system with slapt-get and gslapt. It includes both Abiword and Open Office. You might want to look at it. Now let me address the general argument you derive from that example. > Slackware requires serious effort. Slackware CAN require serious effort; if you insist on installing things which require libraries from sources which disdain support of Slackware. On the other hand, there are perfectly acceptable alternatives to Abiword already installed (KWord) or readily available (Open Office) which do not require that amount of effort. I suspect that any product which includes requirements from a system which refuses to support a given distribution will be require serious effort on that distribution. And I doubt your average user would care how much trouble installing Abiword is when Kword is already installed and Open Office is readily available. So, yes, your point is valid; but the problem isn't Slackware specific (though it is more common with Slackware, since Gnome dependencies are more common than most) and I don't think it applies to your average user. > Anyway, overall it's been a good discussion. Yes, it has been. |
| jdixon Jun 05, 2008 7:29 PM EDT |
> I guess what I'm saying is that the ideal situation for me would be Slackware with apt. And by the time that happens, I might as well run Debian. Pretty much, yes. > I've written very favorably about Slackware many times, but the reality is that Debian runs just as well with much less effort. Having tried both, I don't find that to be true. While it's probably entirely subjective, for me Debian runs ALMOST as well with less effort. And for many (perhaps most) people that small loss of speed and stability will be worth it. For some, it won't. On a stable system, with relatively few and carefully controlled changes (your average server setup), there will be almost no difference. On a desktop system with few changes, Slackware's speed and stability actually give it a slight edge. On a desktop system with frequent changes, the ease of adding and removing a large variety of packages from Debian wins hands down. I think we can agree that you fall into the latter category, while I fall into the second. |
| tuxchick Jun 05, 2008 7:52 PM EDT |
Summary: the system that you like and are familiar with is the most user-friendly. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 05, 2008 8:16 PM EDT |
Quoting:Summary: the system that you like and are familiar with is the most user-friendly Exactly Quoting:The are a number of solutions to the problem. The simplest is probably to install one of the Gnome systems for Slackware. The one you would probably like best is Gnome Slackbuild ([HYPERLINK@gnomeslackbuild.org]), since it integrates into the system with slapt-get and gslapt. It includes both Abiword and Open Office. You might want to look at it. I've looked at it. I agree -- that is a very good solution. Quoting:On a desktop system with few changes, Slackware's speed and stability actually give it a slight edge. I did a not-exactingly scientific test of Slackware 12 vs. Debian Etch, both running Xfce. Just sheer load times for apps such as Firefox/Iceweasel. I fully expected Slackware to be faster. At the time, I felt I needed a really good reason to stick with Slackware. But when Debian more than held its own, I was quite surprised. I'd love to turn that Phoronix test suite loose on this to gather some better numbers. It all depends on the hardware. With slower, older hardware, these things matter more. On my "fast" 1.3GHz Celeron system, Ubuntu runs so quickly, and everything works so well that speed isn't an issue. Sure Debian is a bit faster, but I gain more from Ubuntu in ease and functionality than I give away in speed. |
| gus3 Jun 05, 2008 8:17 PM EDT |
Quoting:the Gnome folks refuse to support Slackware. At least that was Patrick's complaint when he dropped it from the distribution.No, Patrick found that: --he was maintaining a complete desktop environment --that he didn't personally use very much --at least two other "add-on" projects (Dropline and Freerock/GSB) were doing the same thing In other words, a big time investment with little return for him personally. That, and once he dropped native GNOME support for Slackware, it reduced the install CD set by 1. Quoting:> ...and the one place Slack also loses me is the lack of dependency resolution.I pick not including dependency resolution. I've seen it break Red Hat, Fedora, and Gentoo. In the case of Gentoo, a bad dependency on libffi broke GCC, which broke Portage. |
| jdixon Jun 05, 2008 9:30 PM EDT |
> I pick not including dependency resolution. As do I, for similar reasons. But then again, I use Slackware. Sort of a tautology, isn't it? I freely admit that it's almost entirely a matter of personal preference. Any Linux system can be made to do what you want. That's the beauty of open source software. Any given way of doing things will involve trade offs. As I said above, pick your poison. And, as usual, TC hits the nail on the head too: > ...the system that you like and are familiar with is the most user-friendly. I started with Slackware in 1994. I know it and I'm used to it. I know how to work around it's problems, and it's strengths meet my needs. The same can't be said for Ubuntu, for example. If I had to switch distributions, Debian would be my second choice; but I don't need apt-get to do what I want, so there's no reason to switch. |
| bigg Jun 06, 2008 5:33 AM EDT |
Just a note about installing Abiword. If you don't want all of GNOME, you can add slacky.eu to your repos on gslapt and it will handle all dependencies. As for Debian, I ran Ubuntu and then real Debian for years. Slackware is a stable release, whereas you either run Debian stable, which is outdated even before it's released, or else you are running testing/sid. They usually work, but I had one too many cases where I was educated on the meaning of a non-release of Debian. Arch is far closer to Slackware than is Debian. Pacman is at least as good as apt. That is a rolling release, and while I didn't encounter any serious issues, there were a couple of times that it showed itself to be a rolling release. I hate installing updates to anything at a low level but you have to or you end up with a broken system. It's also difficult to compare the support for building your own packages that you get with Slackware. It's not for everyone, but if you want the one-day old release of something, on top of a stable system, update the SlackBuild and run the script. For me, I'd rather use a system that is rock-solid, includes almost all low-level dependencies, and compile a handful of apps. The alternatives are IMO much less user-friendly. I guess that's why I am now a Slacker. If dependencies become a problem, I'll switch, but considering I've got everything fully configured and had no problems, I don't see that happening. All distros have some unfriendly aspects. If Debian had a stable release every nine months, and offered something like SlackBuilds.org, I'd go back. |
| gus3 Jun 06, 2008 7:54 AM EDT |
Slackware has -current, which provides a general-release testing ground for new features (or testing removal of old cruft). Slackware-current does undergo some internal testing before repos are updated, so there is a degree of stability, but once in a while something big can break. "You have been warned." |
| jdixon Jun 06, 2008 8:41 AM EDT |
> If Debian ... offered something like SlackBuilds.org... Doesn't Debian provide source .deb packages, similar to rpms packages? |
| caitlyn Jun 06, 2008 11:24 AM EDT |
I should have clarified that I wanted AbiWord but I also wanted as little of GNOME as possible. I don't care much for GNOME and I am perfectly happy with an Xfce desktop. I'm not big on installing extra cruft onto my system. The point about dependency resolution being problematic in some distributions is only true to a point. The problem usually isn't the dependency resolution system but rather errors in packaging (unnecessary or interlinking dependencies) or in repository management. In the case of Fedora and SuSe it's almost always repository management, not any flaw in rpm, yum, or any of the graphical package managers. A number of Slackware based distributions do have very good package management with automated dependency resolution. Vector Linux and Wolvix have done a great job with slapt-get and gslapt. The only reason Slackware apt (slapt-get/gslapt) isn't as good as Debian apt at this point is the inability to check dependencies when removing a package. It's all too easy to remove a dependency and break another app. If dependency checking prior to removal is ever added then there is a first class system for Slackware that's already mostly in place. I guess my point is that dependency resolution can be added to Slackware if Patrick ever decided he wanted to add it without sacrificing quality or reliability. The attention to detail already evident in Slackware would undoubtedly carry over to making certain the slack-required files are correct and that the repositories are properly maintained. For tuxchick: I've actually found that Vector Linux, which has been tweaked for performance, is a bit faster than vanilla Slack. As you say, it's most evident on older hardware. |
| garymax Jun 06, 2008 1:02 PM EDT |
Quoting:I guess my point is that dependency resolution can be added to Slackware if Patrick ever decided he wanted to add it without sacrificing quality or reliability. caitlyn, I think the issue is a little more complex than this. Slackware has a philosophy whereby it empowers the end user to satisfy their own dependencies. And removes the hassle of setting up repositories and the inclusion of meta files with dependency information. Slackware, the way it is, is straight forward and very easy to administer, in my opinion. Patrick explained why he was against auto dependency resolution in an October 2006 interview with the Linux Link Tech Show. And his points where as cogent as they were clear: auto dependency resolution is not necessarily the panacea that it claims to be. In many cases it creates problems that simply do not exist on a stock Slackware install. No doubt if Patrick V ever wanted to include a package manager with auto dependency resolution it would probably have the same hallmark quality that Slackware is known for. But, according to Pat V, this is a no-go right now as it goes against his philosophy of what a system should and shouldn't have. And he has seen too many problems with these kinds if package managers. So it isn't as simple as Pat adding it to the distro; there are issues that Pat V believes would crop up and dilute the quality and philosophy of Slackware. |
| jdixon Jun 06, 2008 1:44 PM EDT |
> I should have clarified that I wanted AbiWord but I also wanted as little of GNOME as possible. Then bigg's solution is your best bet. Use the slacky.eu repository with slapt-get. That will include the absolute minimum amount of Gnome required. |
| hkwint Jun 06, 2008 3:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:I should have clarified that I wanted AbiWord but I also wanted as little of GNOME as possible. That's not hard it seems (assuming it's easy to find out what you need). I'm running Gentoo with as little of GNOME as possible (-gnome is in the USE-flags); though I run the occasional GNOME app. If I try to get a list of GNOME-dependencies Abiword needs, I only get five gnome packages: gail, libgnomecanvas, libgnomeprint, libgnomeprintui and a gnome icon theme. You also need libglade, but for some reason that's already on my system. Quoting:Summary: the system that you like and are familiar with is the most user-friendly. Not in my case. I'd like to find something more userfriendly. In my opinion, userfriendly in the case of a Linux distro means 'containing the tools to do the work effective and quick without distraction and confusion, and being able to solve eventual problems without too much hassle'. For obvious reasons Gentoo fails. OpenBSD is another good example of a distro lacking (simple, trivial) tools to accelerate work (For example, OpenBSD doesn't have a default mirror location installed). A good example of a distro that does have those tools might be CentOS, though I only heard about it and saw a demo at FOSDEM. I'm not sure about Slackware; but from what I understand it lacks some tools to get the work done in a quick way. I should test it (duh!). I'm not sure what the drawback of automatic dependency solving is, but it is a perfect tool to speed up installing new programs. It never let me down on Gentoo (I didn't suffer from the libffi-problem mentioned before), it saves a lot of time and hassle, so I'm curious why someone doesn't want to include it. As far as I know, almost all distro's enable the user to fulfill their dependencies manual as well, so that can't be an advantage of Slackware. At this moment, I can only assume it takes too much effort of a 'distro-team', which means less time for other features. So, explanation welcome! |
| vainrveenr Jun 06, 2008 4:21 PM EDT |
Actually, have used Slackware versions going way back to 8.x and would add that current Slackware versions continue "to solve eventual problems without too much hassle".Quoting:No doubt if Patrick V ever wanted to include a package manager with auto dependency resolution it would probably have the same hallmark quality that Slackware is known for. But, according to Pat V, this is a no-go right now as it goes against his philosophy of what a system should and shouldn't have. And he has seen too many problems with these kinds if package managers.This begs the question To what extent is Pat V actually aware of the DETAILS of how other non-Slackware distros alternately implement their OWN effective solutions to key challenges, challenges such as the automatic resolution of dependencies or the rationale for distro features-choice ?? Perhaps this can help the above request for explanations. |
| garymax Jun 06, 2008 5:17 PM EDT |
Quoting:To what extent is Pat V actually aware of the DETAILS of how other non-Slackware distros alternately implement their OWN effective solutions to key challenges, challenges such as the automatic resolution of dependencies or the rationale for distro features-choice ?? Pat V is very aware of other distros and the technologies that they employ. Again, it's not a matter of whether Pat knows about what others have done or are doing; it's a matter of Pat V's personal philosophy coupled with his observations of dependency resolution that has him committed to keeping things the way they are. And let's face it: dependency resolution is for those who A) are new to Linux and need an easy and convenient way to set up their system B) want an easy and convenient way to install and remove LARGE AMOUNTS of packages because they cannot be bothered with compiling C) simply do not want to compile their own packages In most instances, it is either the lack of interest, the lack of time, and/or the lack of knowledge that causes most to prefer repositories and dependency resolution to compiling. After all, it's easy. It's fast. And works most of the time. But, there are downsides to repositories. You have to sanction an "official" repository. Then you have to gather meta data for all of the packages so that they can handle the dependencies. Then someone has to build all of the packages. You don't get to tweak the code to your liking. And third party repositories would, no doubt, spring up offering packages of questionable quality. It would take away from the "grab-the-source-and-build-it-yourself" paradigm that Slackware is known for. With Slackware's current straight-forward design, the end user knows what is in the packages because they compiled the packages themselves. Or they used a build script which adds nothing to the mix except a functional routine to build the package. I understand the convenience of dependency checking but I prefer--as most Slackware users do--to compile my own packages so I know what went into them. Plus, I can always get the freshest bits when I want--not having to depend on someone else to build the package and then upload it to a repo somewhere. And I still say that most Linux users probably use 15-20 apps on a daily basis so there is no need for them to constantly be installing and uninstalling packages. The constant need to install and uninstall packages is usually the sign of a noob, or someone who likes to test out a lot of packages or both (Nothing wrong with this). But I imagine most Slackware users are beyond this stage and use Slackware because of its stability and reliability to just get their work done. Slackers who want to play around with the latest usually install --current and experiment on a different computer. |
| jdixon Jun 07, 2008 4:29 AM EDT |
> And third party repositories would, no doubt, spring up offering packages of questionable quality. To be fair, that's a problem even with Slackware. Linuxpackages.net probably fits into that category. |
| bigg Jun 07, 2008 9:05 AM EDT |
> Linuxpackages.net probably fits into that category. I've learned to avoid that repo entirely. Those packages are a piece of crap. I doubt they are built in a clean environment. Just a note on dependencies. I've said several times now that there aren't many on Slackware. I counted them up for ALL apps that I've installed, and come up with 11. I can keep track of those on a piece of paper. No idea how representative my box is. I know I've got a whole lot more with any other distro. I will grant that Abiword is messy: you have to install as many as 14 dependencies for the slacky.eu package. |
| garymax Jun 07, 2008 9:39 AM EDT |
Quoting:To be fair, that's a problem even with Slackware. Linuxpackages.net probably fits into that category. My point exactly. And if an "official" repository were created there would be others popping up (similar to Ubuntu) with questionable bits and bytes. I'll stick with compiling my own packages... |
| caitlyn Jun 07, 2008 10:02 AM EDT |
The constant need to install and uninstall packages is usually the sign of a noob, or someone who likes to test out a lot of packages or both (Nothing wrong with this). But I imagine most Slackware users are beyond this stage and use Slackware because of its stability and reliability to just get their work done. Actually, as a professional system administrator for a large part of my professional career I find that the ability to install or remove packages at will is very important for development environments, testing environments, and even special purpose production server environments. It has nothing to do with being new. Testing out packages is something I've been paid to do many times. Just a note on dependencies. I've said several times now that there aren't many on Slackware. I counted them up for ALL apps that I've installed, and come up with 11. I don't think think that's typical. Here is a real world example that is the antithesis of your experience. Let's say I build a server using Slackware to run a back end app. The web server is on a separate box and only qualified sys admins administer the production server so there really is no need for X. In such a situation best practice is to leave X off. Now the environment changes and a new app or even a new version of the app requires using a graphical tool for management. How many dependencies does an X app have on a server where X isn't installed? How many packages make up x.org in Slackware? You get the point. |
| caitlyn Jun 07, 2008 10:04 AM EDT |
Here's the rest of mu response, which was truncated for some reason: Just a note on dependencies. I've said several times now that there aren't many on Slackware. I counted them up for ALL apps that I've installed, and come up with 11. More if you want the plugins package to work as well. AbiWord is hardly unique in this respect. But, there are downsides to repositories. You have to sanction an "official" repository. Then you have to gather meta data for all of the packages so that they can handle the dependencies. That isn't a downside. That's part of repository management. That's part and parcel of what makes a distribution repository a trusted source. Then someone has to build all of the packages. You imply this is one person. That isn't so. Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian, and even Vector Linux have packages built by large communities. There are also volunteer package testers. You do need someone to manage and maintain the repository and to insure that a package is adequately and properly tested before being moved into one of the main public facing repositories. The quality control procedures used by most of the major distributors' repository managers is the reason those repositories can be trusted. The lack of equivalent quality control is why linuxpackages.net or even slacky.eu can't be trusted. Of course, the large, corporate backed distributions (Red Hat, SuSe, even Mandriva) have most of this done professionally and in house. In theory that should result in a higher level of trust but my personl experience with SuSe argues otherwise. You don't get to tweak the code to your liking. Most users wouldn't know how to tweak code or care to do so. You are once again effectively arguing that Slackware is a hobbyist distro. You are effectively arguing that it isn't convenient of user friendly to most people. You are arguing that only the advanced user or hobbyist should matter to Slackware. Perhaps so, but that is the basis of my argument that most users wouldn't be happy with Slackware and that I can't recommend it for most people. And third party repositories would, no doubt, spring up offering packages of questionable quality. That is certainly true for Slackware now. That's also true for a lot of other distros. The distributor cannot be held accountable for what third parties do. The problem with Slackware for anyone but a deep down technical user is that they are dependent on the packages of questionable quality do to the lack of a decent sized repository for Slackware that can be trusted. You are also forgetting what is perhaps the most important role of a trusted repository: the ability to provide security patches and upgrades in a manner that is automated and simple for most users. And I still say that most Linux users probably use 15-20 apps on a daily basis so there is no need for them to constantly be installing and uninstalling packages. Yep. The problem is that for many users 75-80% of the apps they want aren't included in Slackware. No OpenOffice, for example, would be a big one. That brings us right back to packages of questionable quality from third party repositories for anyone who desn't want to compile a bunch of stuff from source. It takes days for me, an experienced user, to get my software installed an Slackware configured the way I like. Even on Slackware-based distros like Vector Linux that same process can be accomplished in hours if not minutes. That's very much part of what I mean by user unfriendly. With Slackware's current straight-forward design, the end user knows what is in the packages because they compiled the packages themselves. Once again, something the vast majority of users want absolutely no part of. This is why Slackware will always have limited popularity and why there are so many distributions that portray themselves as having Slackware reliability with a user friendly experience. I have seen both Zenwalk and Vector Linux descibred as "better Slakcware than Slackware". I agree with that sentiment. Slackware is a great base on which to build a distribution. For most people it is anything but a great distribution in and of itself. I prefer--as most Slackware users do--to compile my own packages so I know what went into them. Most users want to avoid compiling packages as much as possible. Most users just want their systems to work in a convenient and easy way. There is nothing convenient or eay about having to compile your own software. What you are effectively saying here is that Slackware suers are, for the most part, computer hobbyists. I happen to agree with that. Computer hobbyists are a very small part of the overall user community. As a computer professional I often don't have the time to compile and test everything I need. Having quality ges from a trusted source is much, much easier. When I lack a trusted source i have to compile. Taking packages for a myriad of third party sites of variable quality isn't an option in an enterprise production environment. As has already been pointed out some very popular sites like linuxpackages.net have highly variable quality. I grabbed pcmanfm from slacky,eu and found that it was a rebuilt Vector Linux package, right down to having the Vector Linux custom desktop background. It was also lacking some of the dependencies for the VL customizations. slacky.eu is also of variable quality. |
| caitlyn Jun 07, 2008 10:16 AM EDT |
Grrr. Corrections and the rest of my response: The top section of the last post should read: I will grant that Abiword is messy: you have to install as many as 14 dependencies for the slacky.eu package. More if you want the plugins package to work as well. AbiWord is hardly unique in this respect. --- The problem with Slackware for anyone but a deep down technical user is that they are dependent on the packages of questionable quality do to the lack of a decent sized repository for Slackware that can be trusted. That should read: The problem with Slackware for anyone but a deep down technical user is that they are dependent on the packages of questionable quality DUE to the lack of a decent sized repository for Slackware that can be trusted. --- Corrected paragraphs from the bottom of the previous post: As a computer professional I often don't have the time to compile and test everything I need. Having quality packages from a trusted source is much, much easier. When I lack a trusted source i have to compile. Taking packages for a myriad of third party sites of variable quality isn't an option in an enterprise production environment. As has already been pointed out some very popular sites like linuxpackages.net have highly variable quality. I grabbed pcmanfm from slacky,eu and found that it was a rebuilt Vector Linux package, right down to having the Vector Linux custom desktop background. It was also lacking some of the dependencies for the VL customizations. slacky.eu is also of variable quality. Everything beyond this point was truncated but it was just summarizing what I had said to this point. |
| jdixon Jun 07, 2008 11:40 AM EDT |
> Now the environment changes and a new app or even a new version of the app requires using a graphical tool for management. Why are you trying to reuse the same install in such a situation? If the environment has changed that much you should be looking at a new install. > AbiWord is hardly unique in this respect. Unique, no, but one of the worst. Anything which is built on Gnome packages is going to have this problem with Slackware. > You imply this is one person. With Slackware, this is one person. :) > ...for anyone but a deep down technical user is that they are dependent on the packages of questionable quality Caitlyn, your point is valid, but you're overstating it. It doesn't take that advanced a user to use slackbuild.org or to compile their own packages. > ...the ability to provide security patches and upgrades in a manner that is automated and simple for most users. Installing patches and upgrades in Slackware is simple. It can even be automated with slapt-get and gslapt. > The problem is that for many users 75-80% of the apps they want aren't included in Slackware. No OpenOffice, for example... Again, you're overstating your point. KOffice is included and OpenOffice is available at slackbuilds.org. > There is nothing convenient or eay about having to compile your own software. I, and others, disagree. > Slackware is a great base on which to build a distribution. For most people it is anything but a great distribution in and of itself. Well, it's more accurate to say it won't meet the needs of most people. Whether it's a great distribution or not isn't the same thing. A great horse still won't meet most people's needs for transportation in today's industrialized world. Slackware isn't what most users trying out Linux for the first time will expect. It won't meet the needs of most new users. However, anyone with a moderate degree of Linux experience will get by fine. It may not be their preferred system, but they will be able to make it work. You are correct not to recommend it to most people, but I think you're overstating the difficulties most people will have. |
| caitlyn Jun 07, 2008 12:49 PM EDT |
First, I apologize for the mess I made of my previous responses. That's what I get for trying to write and think with a migraine coming on. :( With Slackware, this is one person. :) I thought I had read some time back (a few years back, maybe) that Patrick had hired some people full time. I was under the impression that he had a small but professional team. Am I wrong? In any case that isn't terribly relevant. Wolvix has dependency checking working properly. It's a two person project. Why are you trying to reuse the same install in such a situation? If the environment has changed that much you should be looking at a new install. In an ideal world you are absolutely correct. However, in that case the developers had sold the idea of an in place upgrade to management and the system administrators (myself included) had the idea of a server refresh vetoed. The developers claimed we could do the upgrade very quickly with zero downtime. It turned out they were correct with everything neatly packaged into rpms (this was a RHEL server) but it was far from the ideal or even the right way of doing it. However, I made the point that this was a real world example, one I've seen with only slight variation more than once. You are correct not to recommend it to most people, but I think you're overstating the difficulties most people will have. I think you are probably overestimating the technical skill or the willingness to work of the typical computer user. Most won't even try to learn and won't even try to compile software. Look, one of the main reasons Linux doesn't capture a significant piece the consumer desktop market is because it's not preloaded on machines and once again isn't sold at Wal-Mart. (It was there briefly.) The typical user can't even install an OS -- any OS. Now, for the sake of argument let's assume I'm not writing for those people (not necessarily true but accurate more often than not on a site like O'Reilly News) and that my readership can install Linux. Look at the comments I get on my reviews (not Slackware, anything else) and you'll see the level of a lot of the people. Here I'm talking to Slackware users. That, by definition, selects for people who know what they are doing. Nobody here has difficulty with Slackware. My biggest complaint with Slackware for my own use is that it's more time consuming that I'd like when I'm busy. That isn't a big complaint, isn't it? The thing is, when I write I don't assume that I am typical of the target audience. I look at the user community at the various places I've worked over the years and I know I am anything but typical. Well, it's more accurate to say it won't meet the needs of most people. Whether it's a great distribution or not isn't the same thing. Perhaps you're right, but the argument here (if there is one) is over semantics and definitions. If you say that Slackware doesn't meet the needs of most people then our perception of Slackware is precisely the same. What you are arguing against is the way I am phrasing the description of that perception. |
| jdixon Jun 07, 2008 1:48 PM EDT |
> Am I wrong? I believe so, yes. I think he had to let those people go when Walnut Creek was bought out and the buyer (Wind River, I believe) dropped their contracts with Slackware. > If you say that Slackware doesn't meet the needs of most people then our perception of Slackware is precisely the same. I granted your point for the purpose of the argument. That doesn't mean I think it's completely correct. I agree that Slackware isn't for most people. I just think you're overstating the difficulties it poses. I'll also agree that you probably know your target audience better than I do. If I've given the impression you're even largely incorrect I apologize, > What you are arguing against is the way I am phrasing the description of that perception. Essentially, yes. I also think you're overlooking how easy it is to make Slackware exactly the type of distro most people can use, though I haven't gone into that here. That's why "there are so many distributions that portray themselves as having Slackware reliability with a user friendly experience". So yes, I'm largely arguing details, fine points, and presentation. I hope that's not wasting your time too much. :) |
| caitlyn Jun 07, 2008 2:07 PM EDT |
@jdixon: No, you're not wasting my time. Quite the contrary. You've helped me hone my final, detailed Slackware review and gotten me to use more precise language. That's a good thing. BTW, the review will appear on O'Reilly News rather than the O'Reilly Linux Dev Center blog. O'Reilly is realigning their websites and I've been moved :) That's been part of the delay in getting the review posted. The new system is a bit more work but should provide a better experience for readers. For example, this will be the first review I publish for O'Reilly with at least a few screenshots :) As I said before, good discussion. |
| garymax Jun 07, 2008 6:31 PM EDT |
Geez...where to begin. Caitlyn, like someone said earlier, you seem to make a habit of overstating your points and taking your conclusions too far. Let's see if I can bring some balance to your viewpoints, shall we?Quoting:You are arguing that only the advanced user or hobbyist should matter to Slackware. First, I would argue that Slackware is anything but a "hobbyist's" distribution. It is rather an advanced desktop/server distro that is straight forward and not really hard to administer or compile packages for. If you would have made note of an earlier post, I asked the question as to why Slackware should change in order for a "noob" to use it? That question still stands. Your arguments always seem to imply that somehow Slackware takes pride in "making things difficult." Difficult for whom? The average user?? We know Slackware has more hands-on requirements. That is a fact. Instead of railing about this, Vector is always available, right? So what's the problem? Quoting:My biggest complaint with Slackware for my own use is that it's more time consuming that I'd like when I'm busy. That isn't a big complaint, isn't it? ...For most people it is anything but a great distribution in and of itself. Again, Vector is a nice distro and Wolvix, anyone? Nobody is forcing you to use Slackware. So, what's the point? You'd like it to be easier, right? Right. Onward... Quoting:You imply this is one person. (In response to repository building). Slackware is a one-man show with a group of 12 volunteers that help with security updates so my comment stands as factual. Quoting:That isn't a downside. That's part of repository management. That's part and parcel of what makes a distribution repository a trusted source. Repositories add more overhead and are not necessary when working with Slackware. In fact, Slackware is developed with the understanding that the end user will be compiling their packages. If repositories were part of the Slackware philosophy we would have had them by now--officially sanctioned by Pat V, The Man, himself. Again, you seem to be arguing from a vantage point that wants every distro to have a repository and a fall-down easy install/removal apparatus with automatic dependency checking. Slackware does not. This is fact. I guess we'll have to get over it. :-) Quoting:Most users wouldn't know how to tweak code or care to do so. You are once again effectively arguing that Slackware is a hobbyist distro. You are effectively arguing that it isn't convenient of user friendly to most people. You are arguing that only the advanced user or hobbyist should matter to Slackware. By your repeated use of the phrase "You're effectively arguing" you are assigning to me what YOU think is my position when it does not represent my position at all. In reality, it is a strawman argument. On that point let me make it clear that I am calmly stating that Slackware is an advanced distro that may not be for everybody. That is all. No repos needed. No dependency checking required. No arguing. And no arrogance involved. :-) Quoting:...that is the basis of my argument that most users wouldn't be happy with Slackware and that I can't recommend it for most people. I don't mean to be rude but is anyone asking you to recommend it? :-) Just a thought... Quoting:Actually, as a professional system administrator for a large part of my professional career I find that the ability to install or remove packages at will is very important for development environments, testing environments, and even special purpose production server environments. It has nothing to do with being new. If you would have read my comment more carefully, you would have seen that I said that the installation/removal of a LARGE AMOUNT of packages is either due to a noob wanting to try things out or someone who wants or needs to test a lot of packages, or both. New users want to see what is available from the repositories and the "professionals" want and need to test various packages in an easy and timely manner. And if you read a little closer, I even said that...THIS IS OK!!! Go back and look. And, yes, this is tangentially related to being a noob because noobs want to try things out and see what's available--I know I did when I was a noob. By your comments, you seem to be effectively argu.... sorry, I couldn't resist. :-) Quoting:Most users want to avoid compiling packages as much as possible. Most users just want their systems to work in a convenient and easy way. There is nothing convenient or eay (sic) about having to compile your own software. What you are effectively saying here is that Slackware suers are, for the most part, computer hobbyists. I happen to agree with that. Computer hobbyists are a very small part of the overall user community. Caitlyn logic: Most users want to avoid compiling packages as much as possible (Hiding behind the strawman of "you're effectively saying") Compiling makes you a hobbyist Slackware users compile their own packages Therefore, Slackware users are hobbyists... I have never said anything at any time or at any place about a Slackware user being a hobbyist. That would be insulting to me and to all of those who use Slackware. YOU are the one who seems to equate those of us who compile packages with "hobbyists" by hiding behind the strawman of "you're effectively saying". No, this is your sentiment not mine. Let me see if I can understand your thought process here...so, if one wants to take extra time to compile their own packages--which you agree is harder for "most users" and easier for "advanced" users--then advanced users==hobbyists, while those who "just want their systems to work in a convenient and easy way" and those [system administrators] who want "the ability to install or remove packages at will" are the real professionals. I think you may have flawed, reversed logic here. So, if it's easy, it's for the professionals, and if it's harder, it's only for the "hobbyists" in our midst. Somehow, I always thought the professional knew more and could do more than a hobbyist. I never did get that memo you seem to be reading from. Sorry... Lastly, you stated that 75-80% of the apps one wants are not included with Slackware. Excuse me but from whence did you get those figures? This may be your personal experience but hardly the case with most of those who use Slackware, including myself. And please do not say that the "average user" is who you're referring to. Slackware isn't made for the average user. This should be evident by now. No amount of complaining about the fact that it doesn't have a repository, or dependency checking will change this fact. Slackware is the way it is and, rightly or wrongly, is unapologetic about it. Caitlyn, nothing personal here. I simply had to respond since this is, after all, a public forum. But you seem to want Slackware to change for you and others to be easier. That isn't about to happen so we may just be beating a dead horse here. I acknowledge Slackware isn't for everyone. But for those of us who use it everyday, we would not want to use anything else and like it just the way it is. Congrats to Patrick Volkerding (The Man) for his tireless efforts in bringing one of the most stable and reliable distributions to the masses without compromising the high standards to which it adheres. |
| rijelkentaurus Jun 07, 2008 8:18 PM EDT |
Dang, that's a lot to read. Can you summarize it for me, please? :) |
| garymax Jun 07, 2008 8:20 PM EDT |
rijelkentaurus, Print it out! It makes for great bathroom reading! :-) |
| caitlyn Jun 08, 2008 8:28 AM EDT |
@garymax: I won't rebut all your points, especially the ones that put words in my mouth or try to extrapolate things that I am not saying. Let me finish by saying where I am coming from with this thread: I wrote down my first impressions of Slackware asnd a thread was started saying that I am "way off base" and that my comments were "nonsense". You've reaffirmed most of what I said originally in that blog post. That post was NEVER intended for the Slackware community but rather for the wider world. My review on O'Reilly (which you definitely won't like) is also for the wider world, not the Slackware community. On the professional vs. hobbyist thing I would think the difference is obvious. Professionals have deadlines, budgets, and constraints on their time. That means that processes need to be efficient, not time wasters. Compiling for the sake of compiling is a waste of time. A hobbyist is someone who enjoys tinkering with their computer. Nobody is rushing to do what they love doing. Slackware, as a one man show with no commercial support, isn't terribly appropriate for the enterprise. It has minimal market share in the corporate server room for those reasons. Of course those reasons have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the distribution but they are rational reasons why distros are chosen for commercial and institutional environments. So, yes, I am clearly saying that Slackware is suitable for a hobbyists' distro and not much more. |
| caitlyn Jun 08, 2008 9:02 AM EDT |
Congrats to Patrick Volkerding (The Man) for his tireless efforts in bringing one of the most stable and reliable distributions to the masses without compromising the high standards to which it adheres. You have got to be kiddng me. Slackware is not for the masses. The masses neither want it nor understand uit. You can have equally high standards without a distro being arcane or difficult to use. Slackware absolutely fails to achieve that. Thanks for helping me clarify the conclusion to my review for O'Reilly and clarifying for me that it really and truly is more of a negative review than my usual mixed review. |
| azerthoth Jun 08, 2008 9:13 AM EDT |
caitlyn I'm sorry I cant hold with your compiling is for hobbyists logic. Gentoo is a very popular OS is the server for rent business and there are many places where to get the function you want is only going to be accomplished by the fine grained control you get by doing it yourself. While compiling may seem archaic to you because it takes too long and is not deadline friendly, I will offer the adage that it is better to do it slowly and get it right the first time than doing it wrong and then troubleshoot where and what went bad. You used spurious logic to set up a straw man. |
| caitlyn Jun 08, 2008 10:16 AM EDT |
@azeroth: I did some work at a large insurance company a few years back. Part of my job: replacing Gentoo, which is totally inappropriate for the corporate server room, with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I have a very low opinion of Gentoo, BTW. Compiling isn't archaic. It's certainly necessary if you're developing your own code or doing something highly specialized. You will never hear me say that being able to compile code is anything other than an essential skill for a professional systems administrator. It is not something that should be necessary to get ordinary, every day applications running. I think you're the one using spurious logic to make a fallacious argument. Sure, it's better to move slowly to make sure things are done right. Compiling eveyrthing from source isn't doing things right. It's doing things stupidly and slowly for the sake of getting under the hood and doing it yourself. It's fine for the hobbyist who likes that sort of thing. It certainly doesn't give you a better result than a package from a trusted source. Please tell me how I'm better off compiling a given application than I am installing a trusted package. If I am installing the Red Hat Enterprise Desktop or SLED for a client how is the copy of OpenOffice or AbiWord provided by and supported by Red Hat or Novell inferior to one I compile myself? It isn't! I cant argue with fanatics and I am beginning to see a little fanaticism creeping into the thread here. Pity. |
| azerthoth Jun 08, 2008 11:10 AM EDT |
caitlyn, not quite fanaticism, although unknowingly your Gentoo replacement referenced my least favorite distro RH. That aside, who am I to question your opinion of locking yourself in to relying upon an upstream provider to decide what is required for functionality? It's true that a compiled version of OOo vs a binary install in the end is of little relevance. However in a mixed network environment added functionality of things like Samba can make a huge difference. It could take in excess of a year for a static upstream binary provider to release a newer package, that was totally relevant on the day of it's source release. While realizing that newer is not necessarily better, it's just newer, arbitrarily lumping "compilers" into the hobbyist category as you have done is indeed disingenuous. We can sit here and set up examples of where one is better than the other under certain circumstances all day long and still not run out of examples to use. It is in my opinion the source based distro's that are more flexible and responsive to additions of features not present at the time of a binary release. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 08, 2008 11:34 AM EDT |
At the end of the day, you've got the Linux kernel, the GNU userland, and a mess of utilities, libraries and applications. It's all soup. Some like to make it from scratch, some use a prepared mix, others open a can, and still others like a friendly waitperson to plunk down a bowl and a spoon. |
| tuxchick Jun 08, 2008 11:39 AM EDT |
Quoting: still others like a friendly waitperson to plunk down a bowl and a spoon. Off topic but a true story- I'm having lunch in the local dive, which is not stylish but serves up good plain cooking. The waiter speedwalks to my table, almost drops my soup, and says "that was hot, it burned the crap out of my thumb!" Naturally I strolled back to the kitchen and asked for a fresh serving :) |
| garymax Jun 08, 2008 1:05 PM EDT |
Quoting:@garymax: I won't rebut all your points, especially the ones that put words in my mouth or try to extrapolate things that I am not saying. Yes, but by saying this aren't you effectively arguing that...sorry, but your argumentation and defense is very weak. As azerthoth said, you use "spurious logic" to set up strawmen and then knock them down. Then when someone who values Slackware comes along and calls you on this you pour it on saying we're putting words in your mouth. What were you doing when you kept saying--repeatedly mind you-- "You're effectively saying"? You are using poor argumentation to get your opinions across. I'm glad that you have chosen the honorable way and have decided not to reply to my critique of your strawmen arguments but in the future, do dialogue with what was said instead of putting your opinions in other people's mouths using strawmen tactics (You are effectively saying, arguing etc.). Quoting:You will never hear me say that being able to compile code is anything other than an essential skill for a professional systems administrator. Oh really? You just finished taking me to task stating that those who like to compile are the hobbyists. So which is it: compiling is for professionals or for hobbyists? Oh, and by the way, compiling your own bits instead of depending on a "trusted source" means you get the freshest bits when and how you want them. You are not at the mercy of an upstream provider compiling and then sending the finished binary to a repository somewhere--trusted or not. And yes, Slackware is brought to the masses, it's just that the masses choose to use something easier. Which is fine. But let those who want control have their cake and eat it too. |
| garymax Jun 08, 2008 1:14 PM EDT |
tuxchickQuoting:The waiter speedwalks to my table, almost drops my soup, and says "that was hot, it burned the crap out of my thumb!" Yes, but how do know his thumb was burned inside of the bowl instead of outside? Some may have spilled on his thumb. hmmmmmmmmmm...this requires deep thought... :-) |
| jdixon Jun 08, 2008 3:47 PM EDT |
Caitlyn: > No, you're not wasting my time. Good. Glad to be of some assistance, even if it does result in an apparently negative review of my favorite distro. Please do try to make the point that it does have a loyal following, so while you don't think it's for most people, it may be worth checking out for those who have the time and inclination to do so. > Slackware, as a one man show with no commercial support, isn't terribly appropriate for the enterprise. It has minimal market share in the corporate server room for those reasons. Well, that should be little, not no, but your point is valid. And this is a far bigger stumbling block for commercial usage than the dependency/repository issue. In fact, I suspect that if the support issue were not there, a reliable third party repository for Slackware would have arisen, with Patrick's blessing or not. Businesses are dependent on having that guaranteed support, like it or not. I also agree that the same is true for Gentoo. > > It is not something that should be necessary to get ordinary, every day applications running. Well, as already noted, this is a point on which we disagree, for reasons we've already covered (first, it's not as necessary as you insist; and second. it's easier than you're indicating). If that's the extent of our disagreement I'm not going to worry too much. I can't speak for the others. :) > If I am installing the Red Hat Enterprise Desktop or SLED for a client how is the copy of OpenOffice or AbiWord provided by and supported by Red Hat or Novell inferior to one I compile myself? Well, this is strictly personal opinion, but: If it's your personal system, then the compiled one is better. If it's a system you're responsible for supporting, the compiled version is better. If it's a system for which the business requires commercial support or a system which others must also support, then the Red Hat or Novell version is better. The reasons are obvious; third party support and documentation. Yes, I do realize that most systems fall into the latter category. See my comment above concerning commercial support for Slackware and Gentoo. |
| tuxchick Jun 08, 2008 3:48 PM EDT |
garymax, better safe than sorry :) |
| jdixon Jun 08, 2008 3:53 PM EDT |
Steven: > It's all soup. Yep. And Caitlyn's point is that for most people, off the shelf Campbell's soup is easier and better than a batch of ingredients and a recipe; even if the latter does result in better tasting soup. I can't really disagree. All I can do is point out that the latter soup really is better tasting, and that for some people, the trade offs in time and effort are well worth the result. Slackware is like your great-great-grandmother's soup recipe. There's no way it can ever become a Campbell's soup and no way that a Campbell's soup can ever compare, but it's not for everyone. And it occurs to me belatedly to note that there will always be those who think the Campbell's actually tastes better. Caitlyn, do you think that's a good analogy to use? |
| jdixon Jun 08, 2008 3:55 PM EDT |
> ...this requires deep thought... :-) Sorry, Deep Thought is already occupied working out the answer. :) |
| caitlyn Jun 08, 2008 5:22 PM EDT |
Good. Glad to be of some assistance, even if it does result in an apparently negative review of my favorite distro. Please do try to make the point that it does have a loyal following, so while you don't think it's for most people, it may be worth checking out for those who have the time and inclination to do so. Now that it's posted I'd say mixed rather than negative, but still more negative than most of mine. Yes, I clearly stated that it has a loyal following and I did clearly detail Slackware's strong points. I've posted it to lxer.com as well but it hasn't shown up just yet. The Oreilly link is: http://news.oreilly.com/2008/06/slackware-121-the-newest-ver... I always try to be fair and honest in my reviews. I call things the way I see them even if he way I see things isn't necessarily popular. And this is a far bigger stumbling block for commercial usage than the dependency/repository issue. I agree 100%. The reason Red Hat has captured over 90% of the U.S. server market is the quality of the support offerings, particularly for their larger customers. Novell/SuSe is almost as dominant in Europe for exactly the same reason. If it's a system you're responsible for supporting, the compiled version is better. I truly fail to see how. One other point: I don't want to be indispensable. I like vacations and holidays and I want other people to be able to support the servers I build. I want commercial support available. Yep. And Caitlyn's point is that for most people, off the shelf Campbell's soup is easier and better than a batch of ingredients and a recipe; even if the latter does result in better tasting soup. Oh, no! Bad analogy! I love to cook and I don't eat Campbells out of a can. Made fresh tastes very different. My argument, whether it's an apache web server or a desktop office suite is the same -- the result is precisely the same whether you use a package or compile from source. I can still tweak and configure as I see fit after it's all installed. Let's put it this way. I want to drive my car. I don't want to build cars. |
| jdixon Jun 08, 2008 6:06 PM EDT |
> Let's put it this way. I want to drive my car. I don't want to build cars. I could take that analogy apart and put it back together a few times too, but at this point we'd be arguing minutia. :) I think they both can be pretty good analogies. More comments about the review under its listing. |
| gus3 Jun 08, 2008 6:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:I like vacations and holidays and I want other people to be able to support the servers I build. I want commercial support available.The commercial support is not supposed to be a line of first resort, even when you're on vacation. And I see four US companies listed on slackware.com that support Slackware Linux: http://www.slackware.com/support/ Now, about that car analogy... If you're driving down the road, and you get a flat tire, do you know how to put on the spare? After all, someone on the assembly line did put on the tires. Does knowing how to put on the spare tire mean you know how to build a car? OTOH, people who have built kit-cars may not yet be qualified, certified mechanics, but they're certainly closer to it than the average guy who takes his Saturn in for a tune-up. |
| hkwint Jun 09, 2008 12:09 PM EDT |
Quoting:third party repositories would, no doubt, spring up offering packages of questionable quality. OK, but what's the alternative? In my opinion, no repositories leads to people installing software of questionable quality. Look at Windows to see how. If a lot of 'non-technical' persons were to use Slackware, they would install the same amount of crap as the average Windows user I'm afraid; as 'non-thrustworthy' persons would try to make them install malware. Quoting:And let's face it: dependency resolution is for those who Nonsense. Dependency resolution has nothing to do with compiling. Look at Gentoo, it has dependency resolution (not the best, but rather good) but still you compile your own packages, even more than the average Slackware user does. No, automatic dependency resolution saves time which can be spent more usefully at, for example, compiling. Quoting:Plus, I can always get the freshest bits when I want--not having to depend on someone else to build the package and then upload it to a repo somewhere. You can do that (configuring, compiling) on Ubuntu too if you want, so that doesn't make sense to me either. Quoting:Repositories add more overhead and are not necessary when working with Slackware Phew, thanks, I think that's the answer to my question at last (why 'The Man' didn't want dependency resolution). Could it be it doesn't have dependency resolution because of the focus of Slackware - reliability and robustness? Because that's what I'm thinking (and hoping). Most Linux-distro's don't have much focus, and in my opinion Slackware is an exception. In contrary to the other explanations I read in this thread, that would be a sensible explanation. So, what I'd like to be confirmed or rejected is the statement: Instead of worrying about repositories, metafiles, newbie guides or a nice GUI-installer to save their users time, the Slackware developers didn't want to fiddle with that sort of things to save developer time, to spend that time on more 'useful' things like robustness and having a secure distro with a neat building environment. If that's true, you can easily explain to the ones telling about their first Slackware 12.1 impressions why their impressions are like they are. And I think that's what they want to hear (Caitlyn, am I right?) |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 09, 2008 1:16 PM EDT |
Putting together a distro-specific repository under a package-management framework that handles dependencies is no easy task. Whether it's Slackware, Debian, Red Hat or what have you, it's easier to solve problems -- and to avoid them in the first place -- by keeping the installation as close to its initial state as possible, i.e. with nothing added. And looking for a distribution that offers more of the applications, desktop environments and other things you want is a smart thing to do. For one thing, if for some reason the whole thing falls apart, it's easy to reinstall from scratch without a) having a full, restorable backup of all the system files or b) having to remember the 5,000 tweaks you did to get things just the way you wanted them. I think we've all had an installation get away from us after we did one (or a few dozen) tweaks too many. Sure, Slackware is stable with nothing added. So are a lot of distributions. Slackware is conservative. It doesn't jump right on every new package that's out there. It changes slowly and methodically. Slackware users enjoy support in the form of security patches that extends far longer than does the support for most other distributions. And like many, if not most Linux systems, Slackware allows users to add what they want in a variety of ways: precompiled packages from various places, Slackbuilds, source code you compile yourself. And ... Slackware is the base for quite a few other distributions that can change the experience dramatically depending on what you want out of your operating system. When I started with the soup analogy, I didn't mean to imply that Slackware was a better-tasting soup. It's just soup. It's all soup, as long as there's no hole in the bottom of the bowl. Having 300 Linux distributions doesn't mean there are 300 dramatically different systems out there. There's a lot of similarity. Even the BSD projects are basically presenting Unix-like systems on top of which run the same applications that are featured in the Linux world. To me, the story is how long Slackware has been in development and how well it has kept up with the pack -- modern, dependency-resolving package management notwithstanding. When you look at the history of Linux and of distributions, not many go as far back as Slackware. It's a huge achievement. Nothing magical. Just a lot of hard, sustained work by its developers. There are a lot of time-tested tools in Slackware that I like very much. Not enough to make Slackware one of my main distros, but I very much appreciate all that goes into it. |
| rijelkentaurus Jun 09, 2008 2:23 PM EDT |
Quoting: not many go as far back as Slackware. As I recall, none go back as far. And, please, somebody kill this thread. Oy! ;) |
| garymax Jun 09, 2008 3:12 PM EDT |
hkwint I think you misunderstand my position, here. I wrote what I did as a response to what Caitlyn had written. It would make better sense when viewed within that context. Also, dependency resolution is for those who do not want to compile their packages. Think about it, if you will. When compiling your own packages, you are also responsible for tracking down the dependencies for those packages. With auto dependency resolution, you not only have the binary but its dependencies as well. If you have the binaries with auto dependency resolution why would you want to compile to begin with? The new user--which was the subject of our discussion--was in view here. These responses were written in a context of Slackware vs binary distros with repos and auto dependency checking without consideration of Gentoo. Gentoo is source based whereas my comments were in the context of binary distributions. Quoting:OK, but what's the alternative? In my opinion, no repositories leads to people installing software of questionable quality. Look at Windows to see how. If a lot of 'non-technical' persons were to use Slackware, they would install the same amount of crap as the average Windows user I'm afraid; as 'non-thrustworthy' persons would try to make them install malware. If there are no repositories then the end user would either compile their own packages straight from the developer(s) which would yield a cleaner and most likely, malware-free source. The other alternative would be for the new user to download a binary for their system that has already been built. But this would mean possibly more malware. But honestly, new users would probably quit long before a ne'er do well could trick them into installing a lot of crap on their system. |
| caitlyn Jun 09, 2008 7:32 PM EDT |
Nonsense. Dependency resolution has nothing to do with compiling. Look at Gentoo, it has dependency resolution (not the best, but rather good) but still you compile your own packages, even more than the average Slackware user does. No, automatic dependency resolution saves time which can be spent more usefully at, for example, compiling. Thank you! I agree 100%. As to the rest of your post... I think if you read my other reviews you know I value reliability and stability over a pretty GUI installer. You actually would know I don't put any value on prettiness in the installer. Newbie guides are nice but Slackware isn't targeted at newbies. I would note the lack of beginner documentation in a review but that's a statement of fact, not necessarily a criticism. Part of my review (the long one on O'Reilly News, not the first impression post from my blog that launched this thread) is to note the intended audience of the distro. Dependency resolution isn't a frill. It isn't fluff. Not having it creates tons of extra work needlessly. Large repositories of packaged software from a trusted source (usually the distro developer) are a huge advantage in any distro that has proper quality control and repository management. It only becomes a problem when either QC or management breaks down. I've seen it happen in both Fedora and OpenSuSe. It doesn't happen a lot but it has caused serious problems at times. I've never had a dependency or repository issue with Red Hat/Centos. At the other end of the spectrum I've also not had problems with Vector Linux since 5.8 was released in late 2006. They are an excellent example of a mid-sized distro (in terms of developer community and volunteers) that gets repository management and packaging right and also maintains most all of the advantages of Slackware. The lack of resources that Slackware has which forces Patrick to put his priorities elsewhere isn't a valid excuse. Rather, it points up a real problem with Slackwae. I'm sure everyone remembers Patrick's health scare a couple of years back. Thankfully he recovered. What if, G-d forbid, something had happened to him? What would be the future of Slackware without Patrick? It doesn't bear thinking about, does it? That, my friends, is a real problem. |
| gus3 Jun 09, 2008 8:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:Dependency resolution isn't a frill. It isn't fluff. Not having it creates tons of extra work needlessly.It's one more thing to break. If it botches your update mechanism (as libffi did in Gentoo, see above), then you may be impeded from installing necessary security patches. Quoting:I'm sure everyone remembers Patrick's health scare a couple of years back. Thankfully he recovered. What if, G-d forbid, something had happened to him? What would be the future of Slackware without Patrick? It doesn't bear thinking about, does it? That, my friends, is a real problem.Some members of GUS (Grupo de Usuarios Slackware Brasil) took it over, to make sure security updates got out in Patrick's absence. We were not left out in the cold. |
| garymax Jun 09, 2008 10:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:I'm sure everyone remembers Patrick's health scare a couple of years back. Thankfully he recovered. What if, G-d forbid, something had happened to him? What would be the future of Slackware without Patrick? It doesn't bear thinking about, does it? That, my friends, is a real problem. Again, if one would reference the Linux Link Tech Show #164, they would find that Patrick has a "line of succession" in place should he ever step away from the project for any reason. So, no, a "one-man" show is not that big of a deal especially considering the quality of the releases. Less overhead, better stability. A good deal all the way 'round. |
| thenixedreport Jun 10, 2008 2:15 AM EDT |
Well, I may very well give Slackware a try myself. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 10, 2008 1:58 PM EDT |
You've gotta try Slackware. You don't have to stick with it, but just do the install and play around with it for awhile. It's like jumping off that tall rock into the creek (pronounced "crick") below. Everybody should do it, and chances are you won't bust your head open. I have half a mind to do another install and try one of the GNOME projects just to see how it goes together and runs. |
| NoDough Jun 10, 2008 2:33 PM EDT |
Quoting:...and chances are you won't bust your head open.Hmm. Wonder if there's a connection. :) |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 10, 2008 2:41 PM EDT |
As a child, I was dropped on the head more than once. |
| thenixedreport Jun 10, 2008 4:05 PM EDT |
I already have a virtual machine set up for Slackware. I'll give 'er a try in a few. :) |
| thenixedreport Jun 10, 2008 4:25 PM EDT |
Trying to install it now. :) |
| thenixedreport Jun 11, 2008 12:14 AM EDT |
Okay then. Got it running, but.... I want KDM working upon bootup. I deleted all the other lines pertaining to gdm and kdm in the appropriate file: /etc/rc.d/rc.4 Now what? I reboot and it doesn't start immediately. :( |
| rijelkentaurus Jun 11, 2008 2:20 AM EDT |
Don't you edit /etc/inittab for runlevel 4? I liked Slack, but it has since been replaced...it's the test laptop, after all. :) |
| jdixon Jun 11, 2008 2:45 AM EDT |
> Don't you edit /etc/inittab for runlevel 4? Yes, you do. That should start you up with kdm as your login manager with a single console available on F6 (which I always change so I have all 6 of them). |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 11, 2008 8:58 AM EDT |
I, for one, am glad that Slackware starts with a console instead of a GUI. I've had enough problems with X on my aging boxes that it's just easier to use startx. There's a great utility in Slackware called xwmconfig that allows you to change window managers in the console prior to starting X. I did my share of criticizing Slackware on the dependency and repository issues. The reason I find it so puzzling/maddening is that Slackware has such great and easy-to-use utilities as xwmconfig, netconfig, mouseconfig ... and others I've forgotten about. That's the thing with Slackware. For everything I don't like about it, there is something else that I do like very much. Like I said in the comments for Caitlyn's O'Reilly review, all this is driving me toward a new Slackware installation with one of the GNOME projects dropped on top of it. The machine I'm going to install it on has a VIA C3 Samuel processor, and I think it's i586, not i686, and I think that means I can't use Dropline GNOME (http://www.droplinegnome.org). I didn't see a similar restriction for either GNOME Slackbuild (http://gnomeslackbuild.org) or GWARE (http://www.gware.org). Any preferences or suggestions? |
| rijelkentaurus Jun 11, 2008 9:07 AM EDT |
Quoting: Any preferences or suggestions? Just...KDE. *runs away* |
| jdixon Jun 11, 2008 10:15 AM EDT |
Gnome Slackbuild seems to be a more complete implementation than GWARE. It includes OpenOffice, for example, which I don't believe GWARE does. They're both about the same in terms of changes to the base system. There's also Gnome-Slacky from slacky.eu. I can't tell you much about it. |
| thenixedreport Jun 11, 2008 1:30 PM EDT |
Well, I found a page that would probably be quite helpful. :) I'll reinstall the whole shebang later in a VirtualBox machine. I did get the file edited to where KDM started up. The next problem was the fact that sound wouldn't work, because of permission issues...... Weird. |
| jdixon Jun 11, 2008 2:10 PM EDT |
> The next problem was the fact that sound wouldn't work, because of permission issues...... Weird. Did you add your user account to the audio group when creating the user? |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 11, 2008 3:41 PM EDT |
When I did my initial installation of Slackware, once I found out why the users I created had almost no permissions, I thought that Slack would be a good distro for corporate use because it installs so locked-down and creates users with as few permissions as possible. Since then, sheer laziness has made me prefer the user to have all the permissions needed, and I prefer to remove the permissions I don't wish my few users to have. Even in Debian, the users you create after the system is installed must be added to the audio group to get sound, so this isn't a Slackware "thing" by any means. |
| jdixon Jun 11, 2008 4:07 PM EDT |
> I thought that Slack would be a good distro for corporate use because it installs so locked-down and creates users with as few permissions as possible. When you're creating the account on a server, there's little reason for the account to have access to the video, audio, cdrom, etc. It's only desktop systems which require that. |
| thenixedreport Jun 11, 2008 8:22 PM EDT |
jdixon, Here's the weird thing.... sound would work as long as I was using startx instead of kdm directly. That's the oddest thing. When I set KDM to allow me to login through KDM itself, audio permission is gone. That is weird. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 11, 2008 9:28 PM EDT |
OK Slack-ers. I'm putting money and mouth together. I tried to install Slackware 12.1, but booting of both the hugesmp.s and huge.s kernels failed. The message I got said something about not having enough memory. Didn't think 256MB was too little. So I went back to Slackware 12.0, which I've installed a few times previously. It's now on the box. But this time I decided to roll in slapt-get and GNOME Slackbuild. Especially because this is 12.0 and there are a ton of updates, I'm using slapt-get to do them now. I feel like I'm cheating. The last time I used Slackware, I methodically downloaded updates from the ftp and installed them with updatepkg. This, however, is too easy. |
| garymax Jun 11, 2008 11:33 PM EDT |
Steven_Rosenber You would really like slackpkg for security and bugfix updates. It works in conjunction with pkgtools and is really easy to use. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 12, 2008 4:48 PM EDT |
I had to reinstall. I jumped on the GNOME Slackbuild packages a bit too early and got things done a bit out of order. I just did a full Slack 12.0 install. I needed more disk space; 6 GB isn't enough for the full Slackware installation and the full GNOME Slackbuild. So I installed Slackware 12.0, then slapt-get. Then configured the mirror for Slackware only. After the box is fully updated for all that is Slackware 12.0, I'll add the GNOME Slackbuild mirror to the slapt-get configuration file and install GNOME. |
| harishankar Sep 06, 2008 12:49 PM EDT |
A great debate so far... I read the views here with interest. I must say I think that dependency handling is a must have for most modern Linux distributions. Let me make a confession: I've used Debian for around 8 years now and I've tried most Linux distributions on and off with the major exception of Mandrake/Mandriva. Slackware doesn't make third party software installation any easier or simpler. It just transfers the headache of dependency handling from the developer to the end user. Dependency hell does not magically disappear. With non-automated dependency handling, imagine the headache of not only keeping the base system in sync with all the third party software installed, but also all the third party libraries you might have installed. And now imagine doing all this downloading and compiling software every time a new version of your software needs to be installed. This is all assuming that compiling always works right 100% of the time - which is far from the case as I've seen with some software. In fact, some exotic software simply fail to compile correctly for odd reasons. More than once this has happened to me. Slackware is great if you happen to agree with Patrick V's vision and his selection of software. But I personally feel that if you find yourself tweaking it too much or installing more than 10 or 15 third party software not found in the official CDs, maybe it's not for you. Using 3rd party package managers is one such thing to avoid in Slackware as I found out to my cost as a wrong upgrade can bork your system. I also wasted many days in compiling software in Slackware that I would have downloaded in a few minutes with dependencies resolved in Debian simply because the official software selection in Slackware simply doesn't have the choice that Debian has through sheer numbers. That's also understandable. But unlike what most Slackware users like to claim, dependency handling is not a matter of expertise, empowering the user or lack of it but a matter of simple convenience at a (very small, in my opinion) cost of lack of total control. I know that it's good to learn to do generic command line installation (./configure, make, make install) of software, but it can get old very fast and it's not very educational either beyond a point. Even though I consider myself a fairly advanced Linux user, I agree that Slackware does not fit everybody's needs - even for some advanced users - while it might even serve the needs of a new user very well. It's not a case of newbies vs. advanced users. Slackware is not intended for anybody in particular yet it seems to find favour with a certain section of all classes (newbies, intermediate, advanced) of users and equally it tends to find disfavour with another section of all classes of users as well. |
| jdixon Sep 06, 2008 4:35 PM EDT |
> But I personally feel that if you find yourself tweaking it too much or installing more than 10 or 15 third party software not found in the official CDs, maybe it's not for you. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. The question is: What percentage of people who are going to need 10 or 15 packages not in the official CD's? Slackware with KDE offers a fairly complete system for your average user. > Using 3rd party package managers is one such thing to avoid in Slackware as I found out to my cost as a wrong upgrade can bork your system. Like it can't with any other distribution? I've lost count of the number of times I've seen Debian users complaining that an upgrade broke their system. > But unlike what most Slackware users like to claim, dependency handling is not a matter of expertise, empowering the user or lack of it but a matter of simple convenience at a (very small, in my opinion) cost of lack of total control. I, and other Slackware users, disagree. Which is, of course, why we use Slackware and you don't. > I agree that Slackware does not fit everybody's needs - even for some advanced users... As does everyone here. :) > ...while it might even serve the needs of a new user very well. Well, that puts you ahead of Caitlyn. She doesn't seem to consider that a possibility. Personally, I think a preinstalled Slackware system makes a very good new user system. I wouldn't ask a new user to install and configure it themselves though. > It's not a case of newbies vs. advanced users. Agreed. It's more a matter of what you want and expect from your system. As you said, Slackware isn't for everyone. |
| rijelkentaurus Sep 06, 2008 8:01 PM EDT |
I thought we killed this thread........ |
| jdixon Sep 06, 2008 8:04 PM EDT |
The thread that wouldn't die. :) |
| harishankar Sep 06, 2008 10:37 PM EDT |
Thanks for your response. Yes, the discussion here has been very mature and polite. That's why I dropped in with my opinion as well. I don't dislike Slackware. I think it's very useful when you want a distribution that is totally self-contained off-line (unlike Gentoo for instance) and can be installed fairly quickly and administered with little fuss (when you know what you're doing). > Like it can't with any other distribution? I've lost count of the number of times I've seen Debian users complaining that an upgrade broke their system. I broke Debian only twice in 8 years and once it was my fault when I was tracking 'unstable' branch which is supposed to break anyway. The other time, I accidentally destroyed the Debian partition from another Linux's installer (I think it was Arch) > I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. The question is: What percentage of people who are going to need 10 or 15 packages not in the official CD's? Slackware with KDE offers a fairly complete system for your average user. The point I made is that I might not need all 18000+official packages found in Debian, but who knows which 15-20 of them I might need? Not everybody uses just the few popular software around. Debian has one of the best repositories for scientific (engineering) and mathematical software, for example, not found in most other distributions. I've always had great respect for Slackware because it's obvious that it has a certain vision and goal, but there are situations where I cannot honestly use it and others where I can use it quite well. |
| gus3 Sep 06, 2008 10:39 PM EDT |
We didn't kill the thread; we merely beat it into a bloody pulp. |
| garymax Sep 06, 2008 11:23 PM EDT |
Slackware threads never die; they just seem to get longer just like when you compile your own software and watch the text fly by... |
| techiem2 Sep 07, 2008 12:20 AM EDT |
mmm watching compile jobs.... |
| jdixon Sep 07, 2008 1:05 AM EDT |
> ...and once it was my fault when I was tracking 'unstable' branch... Almost all the cases I mentioned were where the person was running testing or unstable. However, to run current packages, you're often forced to do that with Debian. Each distro has its strengths and weaknesses. > Debian has one of the best repositories for scientific (engineering) and mathematical software, for example, AFAIK, Debian has the largest repository of software of any Linux distribution. If you want it, Debian probably has it, though (as noted above) it may be in testing or unstable. |
| harishankar Sep 07, 2008 6:36 AM EDT |
J DIxon, thanks for your mature and informative participation in this thread. Almost every time I've criticised Slackware even mildly, I've been personally insulted on some forums and sometimes in newsgroups. You're right that things do break in unstable but in "testing" it happens very rarely. But still for those seeking super stability, Slackware and/or Debian stable might be the best two distributions around. |
| bigg Sep 07, 2008 7:17 PM EDT |
> But still for those seeking super stability, Slackware and/or Debian stable might be the best two distributions around. My solution on my work machine was to go with Slackware and compile the few pieces that I need that aren't available. This gives me a stable machine that is also at the bleeding edge (for applications). Nothing else comes close at providing both. Debian Stable's wonderful if you can handle apps that are a year or more old. Arch is good if you can handle the stress of knowing that there's a small probability of breaking the machine that puts food on your table with each update. Slackbuilds.org is what makes this work, with the way it makes compiling trivial. If such a thing were available for Debian, that's what I'd use. |
| Steven_Rosenber Sep 07, 2008 9:05 PM EDT |
Triple-booting Ubuntu, Debian and Slackware -- I might just do that. |
| gus3 Sep 07, 2008 10:06 PM EDT |
Be careful you don't inadvertently cause the cold-death of the universe. |
| harishankar Sep 07, 2008 11:17 PM EDT |
> Slackbuilds.org is what makes this work, with the way it makes compiling trivial. If such a thing were available for Debian, that's what I'd use. Well, you can still get tarballs and compile from source on Debian as long as you've installed "build-essential" and the required *-dev packages and it's guaranteed to work every single time. Of course, checkinstall also creates .deb packages and of course there are source repositories so you can still install source packages on Debian, but I don't know if the equivalent of Slackbuilds exists on Debian. You people have interested me in Slackbuilds. I want to really explore Slackware again, since I never tried Slackbuilds and used only binary packages (which can be iffy sometimes when obtained from sources like linuxpackages.net). |
| bigg Sep 07, 2008 11:31 PM EDT |
I don't trust linuxpackages.net. I get my packages only from an official Slackware mirror or slacky.eu. You can try to build things on Debian, and provided that the dependencies can be met, you can get it to work. Unfortunately it is all too often more than just configure/make/make install. Then you are digging around here and there figuring out what to do. With the SlackBuild, you just type ./foo.SlackBuild and it does everything for you. When a new version comes out, you update the package version and do ./foo.SlackBuild again. I was a Debian user for about two years. I changed to Slackware with the 12.1 release. I miss the fast and complete Debian repos, I don't miss the occasional headaches. |
| jdixon Sep 07, 2008 11:33 PM EDT |
> Triple-booting Ubuntu, Debian and Slackware -- I might just do that. Remember that Slackware uses lilo by default, while the others use grub. You'll have to read up on how to get Slackware working with grub (which shouldn't be too difficult, as grub's included in extras). |
| gus3 Sep 08, 2008 12:40 AM EDT |
Slackware doesn't have "source packages" per se, but it does have the sources available on CD images or downloadable from most mirrors. Included with the sources are the scripts used to build the binary packages. SlackBuilds.org has become something of a testing ground for new packages. One could kind of say that SlackBuilds is to Slackware -current what -current is to -12.1. ------------------- I did just think of a caveat for Slackware installation: Because Slackware now has support for init ramdisks (initrd), it ships with four kernels installable: generic generic-smp huge huge-smp The "huge" has a whole bunch of IDE and SCSI drivers, as well as all the major filesystems (ext2, ext3, ReiserFS, XFS, and JFS), built directly into the booted kernel. This makes the first boot after installation almost guaranteed to work, but it is very wasteful of memory. To use the "generic" kernel, you must also install the "kernel-modules" (or "kernel-modules-smp") package, build an initrd ("man initrd" for more info), and adjust /etc/lilo.conf or /boot/grub/menu.lst to reflect the new reality. Doing this is not mandatory, but strongly suggested. Or, you can do like I do, and just build a custom kernel from the -current kernel sources. |
| garymax Sep 09, 2008 2:59 AM EDT |
If you'll check the /boot directory after installation, you'll find that all of the kernels and modules have already been installed. All that is needed is to install the mkinitrd package, make an initrd for your file system, then add the new kernel parameters to LILO and you're ready to boot into the generic kernel (after running /sbin/lilo first before reboot!). Pat V really put a lot of thought into the usability aspect of the software as of the last few releases. |
| gus3 Sep 09, 2008 3:52 AM EDT |
Okay, garymax caught me in a slip-up: I'm not really a Slackware user any more; I'm a SLAMD64 user. It's heavily based on Slackware, and a lot of the custom Slack stuff gets carried over into SLAMD64. Still, I thought only the -huge kernel was installed by default. |
| Steven_Rosenber Sep 09, 2008 7:35 PM EDT |
GRUB is easy to install with Slackware. It's on disk 3, or available over the Slackware mirrors. And Slackware makes it easier to install GRUB than even Debian ... But I now am chainloading from the MBR to EVERYTHING, so I can install LILO on the root partition and just use that. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!