and once more....
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| nikkels Jun 23, 2009 12:35 AM EDT |
blocked.
Do you have any idea how many people don't have access to your site.
Well, most probably 15 million , as this is the amount of computer users in Thailand :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 23, 2009 12:43 AM EDT |
When one of my employer's now-former hosting companies had some trouble with spam, its "method" for fixing the problem was blocking all of Europe. That worked out great. |
| nikkels Jun 23, 2009 1:08 AM EDT |
Message removed. Nikkels |
| hkwint Jun 23, 2009 10:02 AM EDT |
Nikkels: Watch Evita or Jesus Christ Superstar instead of reading the article. It's also by Andrew Web(b)er, so I can't imagine there's much difference - except for one 'B'. |
| caitlyn Jun 23, 2009 2:50 PM EDT |
Nikkels, you aren't missing a think this time. The "top 11" distros include gOS, Zenwalk, and Ubuntu Studio (separately from Ubuntu) but doesn't include Slackware or CentOS/RHEL. It's a course based on personal preferences to start with. Who needs to take course to pick a distro anyway? The whole thing is nonsense. |
| jdixon Jun 23, 2009 4:06 PM EDT |
> Who needs to take course to pick a distro anyway? The whole thing is nonsense. Yep. Of course, being a Slackware user, I would think so. :) At least he included Zenwalk. |
| caitlyn Jun 23, 2009 4:21 PM EDT |
I still think that Slackware is more popular than any of its derivatives. The derivatives lumped together may have more users but not any single one. Also, if the DistroWatch page hit rankings mean anything (and I have my doubts about that) then VectorLinux is the most popular Slackware derivative, not Zenwalk. Vector certainly has a larger repository and is much better at getting security patches out in a timely fashion. gOS, when I tried it on a netbook, was simply horrible and doesn't seem to be popular at all. What is that doing on his list? |
| bigg Jun 23, 2009 4:31 PM EDT |
For me Zenwalk is problematic because it doesn't have complete Slackware compatibility (AFAIK, maybe I'm wrong) and unfortunately does not have as many packages/SlackBuilds available. I've really not had any troubles getting anything installed in Slackware, but have with Zenwalk. Vector, on the other hand, appears to be fully compatible with Slackware packages. |
| jdixon Jun 23, 2009 4:43 PM EDT |
> For me Zenwalk is problematic because it doesn't have complete Slackware compatibility... I have a laptop I'm trying Zenwalk on, mainly because Mint won't install on it (hard drive issues which Zenwalk can handle, but Mint can't). But I agree that in general there's no reason for someone already familiar with Slackware to prefer it. |
| caitlyn Jun 23, 2009 5:13 PM EDT |
Quoting:But I agree that in general there's no reason for someone already familiar with Slackware to prefer it. Actually, I don't agree with that. Here are a few of reasons: 1. If you like GNOME it's packaged and maintained by the distro. I've tried some of the add-on GNOME builds for Slackware and all were problematic in some way. The GNOME edition of Zenwalk works well. 2. If you are in a multilingual home or business it is much easier to change language/locale with Zenwalk. Their inclusion of GDM is a big part of that. You'd have to roll your own scripts in Slackware as editing multiple configuration files is a royal pain. 3. netpkg is a much more capable package management tool than what is provided with Slackware. In addition Zenwalk's repos are setup to handle dependency tracking and automated dependency resolution properly with either netpkg or Slackware apt (slapt-get and gslapt). I still maintain that the lack of automated dependecy checking and resolution is one of the big failings of Slackware. I know the Slackware faithful argue otherwise but nobody else agrees with them. In general, for most users on the desktop I find Zenwalk a far superior choice to vanilla Slack. |
| vainrveenr Jun 23, 2009 7:05 PM EDT |
Quoting:1. If you like GNOME it's packaged and maintained by the distro. I've tried some of the add-on GNOME builds for Slackware and all were problematic in some way. The GNOME edition of Zenwalk works well.OTOH, a more complete POV on this desktop choice (applied to Slackware here) is from 'The beginner's guide to Slackware Linux: Get serious with the original Linux distro' found at http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/the... : Quoting:Slackware's stringent focus on simplicity has led to a few software casualties in its history, most notably Gnome. In 2005, Pat decided that the work of building and integrating the vast mixture of Gnome packages and their dependencies was just too much.That last point nicely dovetails with the contention that it "is a royal pain" to "roll your own scripts in Slackware [through] editing multiple configuration files." --- Quoting:In addition Zenwalk's repos are setup to handle dependency tracking and automated dependency resolution properly with either netpkg or Slackware apt (slapt-get and gslapt). I still maintain that the lack of automated dependecy checking and resolution is one of the big failings of Slackware.OTOH, these very "failings" can easily be perceived as clear advantages, albeit, intended for the more experienced (non-newbie) Linux users who wishes to further explore their Linux software. As the above TechRadar UK piece describes it : Quoting:There's another side of package purity to consider as well. Contrary to what a lot of armchair distro-pundits may have you believe, Slackware does have a package management system. It's just based around very simple tarballs (.tgz files) rather than the dependency tangled, database-backed systems of RPMs and Debs. The upshot of this is that Slackware packages are extremely easy to pop open, fiddle around in and put back together.Note again that this quote decidedly applies to more experienced Linux users or even to those who really wish to get their "hands wet" with Linux. Zenwalk and Vector are perhaps much more designed for newbies than is Slackware. AAMOF OTCOH, Slackware is certainly Quoting:not trying to win enormous desktop market share, nor is it loaded with blinking lights, hold-your-hand graphical wizards and package managers that change with every release.(from 3rd paragraph of the same TechRadar UK piece). So perhaps Slackware may have rightly been omitted from the 'Top Linux Distro Course' piece, given that Weber specifically states the course level as intended for the "Newbie-Desktop User".......... in the first page under the Course Difficulty heading. OTOH, one can possibly question by this very criterion just WHY Debian GNU/Linux WAS included in the 11 distros presented in Weber's "Course" here in the first place (??) |
| caitlyn Jun 23, 2009 7:31 PM EDT |
vainrveenr: The contention that Slackware's lack of dependency management is an advantage is something you will NEVER convince me of. Lumping me in with newbies is insulting and, after 14 years, more than a bit silly. Among those who claim not to like "overly technical" distros is one Linus Torvalds. I will also point out that other distros aimed at advanced Linux users, including Arch, Gentoo, and CRUX, all have excellent dependency resolution built into their package management system. Slackware is unique in excluding it and, I will say this again, it is a major failing of Slackware. You can argue otherwise and many Slackware fans do. Nobody but other Slackware fans ever agree. |
| jdixon Jun 23, 2009 7:32 PM EDT |
> Here are a few of reasons: We've been through that before Caitlyn, so just consider my arguments repeated. That will save a lot of typing. :) > Slackware is unique in excluding it and, I will say this again, it is a major failing of Slackware. You can argue otherwise and many Slackware fans do. Nobody but other Slackware fans ever agree. Well, that's sort of a truism. If you want automatic dependency resolution, then you don't want Slackware. If you like Slackware, then you almost certainly consider the lack of same a good thing. So yes, nobody but other Slackware fans agree, but that's why they're Slackware fans. Or maybe it's just that the lack of dependency checking never affects most Slackware users. |
| flufferbeer Jun 23, 2009 8:42 PM EDT |
@caitlyn and once more.... > Lumping me in with newbies is insulting and, after 14 years, more than a bit silly. As Ronald Reagan said to Jimmy Carter during one of the 1980 US Presidential debates, "there you go again". Nowhere above does vv specifically lump you in with newbies. I only see vv's comment as mentioning a possible advantage of Slackware in order to counteract your own dismissing Slackware as a failure on the point in question. It seems like you're bothered to the point of being insulted even without reading vainvenre's comments more carefully ;) I also think you should re-review the TechRadar UK article as I do think it's quite well-written, even for non-newbies like you and me. IMHO, it is better than the Distro Choice Course post. Although I continue to use Slackware, am not necessarily an absolutely dedicated fan of this great distro. Just my own 2c though |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 24, 2009 12:45 AM EDT |
I apologize in advance for enflaming the passions of Slackware devotees. I'm truly conflicted about the distro: Reasons I really, really like Slackware: LONG term support for all releases with security updates being rolled out for years and years. Things tend to work. Package management isn't idea but does what it's supposed to do. Conservative choice of packages. Reason I'm not running Slackware: Adding software is just too hard when compared with other distributions. I suppose I could figure out Slackbuilds, even though actually making them work eluded me at the time I tried them (even though I had no trouble with ports in OpenBSD and FreeBSD). In non-Slack distros, I can't remember automatic dependency resolution ever not working. And one of the strong suits of FOSS operating systems is being able to easily update the entire distribution. I know this can be done with slapt-get/Gslapt, and I always install both in Slackware. But I just find it hard to give up the huge repositories I enjoy having at my disposal in Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS, Zenwalk, and the three major BSDs (Open- Free- and Net-), each of which has thousands of binary packages in their repositories. If I'm building out a server and won't be adding packages all the time like I tend to do on the desktop, Slackware is a great choice. Again, it pushes security patches quickly. But having to keep my eye on a polyglot of source and binary packages from all over the place -- I'm just too lazy for that. Despite all of this, I still really like Slackware, and I'm damn glad it's available. I'm not a KDE user. I prefer GNOME and Xfce, and at present I prefer OpenOffice to KOffice, especially since I don't run KDE. As I've said twice already, I like the way Slackware's team rolls out its updates, and I like even better using slapt-get/Gslapt to roll these updates onto my install. I know that PV doesn't want to maintain GNOME. I don't know how or why it is the case that Slackware doesn't include OpenOffice in its installation, but if Slack started to include GNOME and OO and maintained them as part of the distro, I'd be much, much more inclined to use it. As it is, I either install the full Slackware and have a whole heap of KDE apps, or I exclude the KDE sets and have to start hunting for basic packages I need/want to get my box usable in Xfce. The major Slackware offshoot projects don't tend to support releases very long at all ... However, Slackware-based Wolvix pretty much takes care of all my issues as far as applications go. It includes just about everything I want. Summing up, I wish Debian maintained releases as long as Slackware does, and I wish Slackware wasn't so KDE-centric. |
| gus3 Jun 24, 2009 1:30 AM EDT |
@Steven: I ran Gentoo some years ago. Let me tell you, when dependency resolution fails, it can really mess up your system. The worst part? When it messed up, it left me with no GCC compilers. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 24, 2009 1:44 AM EDT |
Call it a personal preference, pet peeve, or whatever you want, but I just don't enjoy sitting around while software compiles, especially complicated BSD ports with dozens of dependencies, all compiling one after the other. If ever there was a task that is ideal to be done once and then passed along, it's the production of binary packages from source and the distribution of said binaries to the unwashed masses (of which I am). |
| caitlyn Jun 24, 2009 1:54 AM EDT |
gus3: I went into a large insurance company where the admins had put Gentoo on servers against the will of management. My job was migrating to RHEL while maintaining the Gentoo servers. First, the idea of having to compile every single package upgrade is a nightmare in terms of time and resources. Sorry, for me binary distros are the way to go. In that site over the months I was there dealing with Gentoo on a daily basis I never once had a single problem with emerge and the dependency resolution either on a server or on a desktop. I hate Gentoo with a passion but dependency resolution was never a problem. The last time dependency management messed up for me was on Fedora 5. How many years ago was that? The idea of throwing out something as incredibly valuable as automated dependency management because some distros messed it up some time in the past is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. |
| garymax Jun 24, 2009 2:33 AM EDT |
Without mentioning any names some folks are simply not content to just allow Slackware to be Slackware. For those who want/need dependency resolution, use another distro. For those of us who value the control and stability that compiling your own packages gives you, we can carry on as usual. Having large repositories seems like a dream until you realize that you are allowing someone else to build your packages with the parameters that they chose...not yours. And when someone states that they can simply compile their apps the way they want to and still have their automated dependency resolution, well, I've heard it said a few times that after you configure your system, wait until apt-get gets a hold of your configurations. But that's another story. For those who want dependency resolution, have at it. But don't try to say that a lack of same is somehow a "failure." That's not a failing, it is a huge advantage if you want control over your system with great stability. Selah |
| bigg Jun 24, 2009 8:34 AM EDT |
As I'd like to avoid discussing the same issues yet again, just let me say that you can have dependency resolution on Slackware. Install Gslapt and you've got graphical package management complete with dependency resolution. It's not challenging to install Gslapt. I do updates the same way with Slackware as I do with Ubuntu. As for the points raised by Steven: > I just find it hard to give up the huge repositories I enjoy having at my disposal You don't have to. The slacky.eu repositories are very deep (slow, but deep). Robby's Slackware Packages will provide most of the rest. I've missed nothing since leaving Debian. Debian probably has more packages, it just hasn't affected me. There are also SlackBuilds - you can use sbopkg to automate all the steps if you want. > if Slack started to include GNOME and OO and maintained them as part of the distro, I'd be much, much more inclined to use it. The GNOME issue is my only complaint, and one I've expressed here before. There is currently no GNOME for Slackware 12.2. That's a weakness. The latest OOo can be downloaded from Robby Workman's site. There are not even any dependencies, just download and install. If it were on the installation CD, you'd have to download that much more, and you'd still have to install it. As for comparisons with Debian, that is really comparing apples and oranges. Slackware apps are up to date, whether you are installing from slacky.eu or Robby's Slackware packages, or building your own packages. Debian stable is extremely old (and backports are limited) whereas Debian testing/unstable is a development distro. You can build your own Debian packages. Good luck is all I will say, because you'll need it. The main point is that there are both advantages and disadvantages of the Slackware approach. Criticism of Slackware typically amounts to stating the disadvantages, and then leaving the impression that there are no advantages, that you could only possibly be interested in using Slackware if you have lots of time to waste or you like to do things of absolutely no value. That's not true. I use Slackware because it makes my life easier than Ubuntu and Debian (which I used for years before moving to Slackware) because it's the least painful way to get the latest of all my apps. YMMV. There are many reasons to use Slackware, and for most users, many more reasons to not use it. |
| caitlyn Jun 24, 2009 8:46 AM EDT |
@bigg: When I did review Slackware I stated all the advantages and Slackware certainly has many strengths: stability, reliablility, and performance top my list. However, if I did mention the shortcomings (and every distro has shortcomings) you'd think I was launching a personal attack on every Slackware user. I wasn't but that was the level of response I got. gslapt is very good but it is not an official part of Slackware. It is a third party tool. Dependency checking is not supported by the official Slackware repository. You have to go to a third party. Third party repositories vary greatly in terms of the quality and consistency of the packaging. @garymaxx: To me, and to probably 99% of Linux users who aren't Slackware fans, the lack of dependency resolution is a show stopper. Something that prevents me from using a distro properly is a failure, period. My next review of Slackware (and one is coming) will be no less strident about making this point than my last one. When I write a review I do so for the wider community, not just for Slackware fans. Most users, even sophisticated users, want this because it saves time and reduces problems WITHOUT sacrificing anything in terms of stability and reliability. That isn't an either/or. Oh, and I have yet to have a dependency problem with apt-get. Granted, I don't run Debian unstable. If there is a problem it isn't the fault of apt and there is nothing inherently flawed with a well designed package management system that handles dependency checking. The issue of "someone else building your own packages" is a red herring since Slackware is a binary distribution. You are letting Patrick V., someone who works with him, or whomever chooses to contribute to a third party repository build your packages for you with Slackware. How is this different than other distros? When you compile code it's essentially the same on any distro. Adding a package to an apt or rpm database is fairly trivial if you know how to build a package. If you don't know what you're doing, well... again, the same applies to Slackware. The plain fact is that a number of Slackware derivatives do add dependency checking and don't sacrifice any of what makes Slackware desirable. |
| bigg Jun 24, 2009 9:14 AM EDT |
> gslapt is very good but it is not an official part of Slackware. *Shrug* If it works, does it matter? > Third party repositories vary greatly in terms of the quality and consistency of the packaging. As noted, slacky.eu and Robby's Slackware packages are pretty deep. The quality is very high. You can use others, but there's not much reason to do so. Does it really matter if they do their packaging with the title 'official' or with the title 'unofficial'? > When I write a review I do so for the wider community, not just for Slackware fans. And you should expect a similar response for the wider community as well. Not everyone who disagrees with you about Slackware is launching personal attacks. |
| caitlyn Jun 24, 2009 9:21 AM EDT |
@bigg: Quoting:Not everyone who disagrees with you about Slackware is launching personal attacks Actually, on LXer.com the conversation was respectful all around and mainly stuck with the pros and cons from technical perspectives. That issue only occurred in other forums. That is one of the reasons I have such a high level of respect for the LXer regulars. Quoting:Does it really matter if they do their packaging with the title 'official' or with the title 'unofficial'? Yes, it matters. When something goes wrong someone (or some organization) has to be responsible for correcting that. Normally it's the distro developer. With Slacky.eu it's whomever contributes. That is a huge difference. The depth of the repos is good but it doesn't compare with other major distros. Quoting:If it works, does it matter? Your "if" is the key word. The dependency checking part does NOT work with the official Slackware repos. If I enable more than one third party repo (a must to get a decent selection of packages) I end up with conflicts and dependency problems. These are not issues with other major distros with a centralized repos. FWIW, I don't hold up Ubuntu or Debian as model distros. I've been pretty critical of both. You want a distro that, at least recently, has done repos the right way: Mandriva would be it. |
| jdixon Jun 24, 2009 9:43 AM EDT |
> I suppose I could figure out Slackbuilds... As bigg says, sbopkg: http://www.sbopkg.org/ Give it a try. > There is currently no GNOME for Slackware 12.2. http://www.slacky.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&... http://www.gware.org/ http://gnomeslackbuild.org/ All have versions for 12.2 now. Of course, with 13.0 due out any time... :( > My next review of Slackware (and one is coming) will be no less strident about making this point than my last one. As I recall, that wasn't your only point, and the disagreements were mostly about more nebulous terms, such as "user friendly", "ease of use", an such. > Actually, on LXer.com the conversation was respectful all around and mainly stuck with the pros and cons from technical perspectives. That issue only occurred in other forums. That is one of the reasons I have such a high level of respect for the LXer regulars. Fortunately, Bob's not a Slackware user, and Slackware conversations seldom involve gun ownership. :) Now, when you do your next Debain review, all bets are off. :) |
| bigg Jun 24, 2009 9:51 AM EDT |
> All have versions for 12.2 now. Okay, I guess I haven't checked in a while. After all that time had passed, I sort of gave up and expected them to skip 12.2. |
| caitlyn Jun 24, 2009 9:53 AM EDT |
Quoting:As I recall, that wasn't your only point, and the disagreements were mostly about more nebulous terms, such as "user friendly", "ease of use", an such. Again, that was true on LXer.com. Not necessarily on other forums. I intend to be a lot more specific in describing those terms this time around. I don't think it will stop me from being flamed. Fans or critics of distros always flame reviewers. It's par for the course :) It may, however, help smooth things over with the more reasonable Slackware fans who agree that Slackware isn't for everyone. |
| jdixon Jun 24, 2009 9:59 AM EDT |
> Again, that was true on LXer.com. Not necessarily on other forums. OK. I'd normally only read LXer, and occasionally Linux Today for specific articles. > I intend to be a lot more specific in describing those terms this time around. Assuming the definitions are considered reasonable, that should help quite a bit, at least here. Given your previous articles, I have no reason to think they won't be. |
| flufferbeer Jun 24, 2009 12:29 PM EDT |
@bigg
> Criticism of Slackware typically amounts to stating the disadvantages, and then leaving the impression that there are no advantages, that you could only possibly be interested in using Slackware if you have lots of time to waste or you like to do things of absolutely no value.< Well, one disadvantage I've found with Slackware is its irritating adherence to BSD-style file layout for its system initialization files. Never mind even, the old discussion of LILO vs grub here. (Yes, I know this has been discussed before.... just repeating this, as I couldn't find mention of this point in the posted Course article.) For those of us with some Linux experience, e.g., readers of LXer, it's less of a bigg deal :). Yet anyone past a _real_ n00B kinda sorta HAS TO spend lots of time using Pat V's documentation figuring out some of the text files with all these scripts scattered around the place. Not only user UNFRIENDLY, but also doesn't conform to other distros stndard SysV system initialization with clear runlevels. Even Ubuntu has something similar to a SysV startup. I recall having to hunt down much of PatV's documentation on setting up Slack startup as close as possible to that of Debian Sarge in dual-boot Linux-WInblow$ systems, at a time when I could spend the necessary time then to play around with both. Although I WILL say here that one advantage for Slack past and present is that finding its minimal HW reqs for installation has always been straightforward, this going way back to Slackware 7 probably close to ten years or so ago. Might have been before kudzu, do not remember clearly on this. |
| jdixon Jun 24, 2009 1:19 PM EDT |
> Well, one disadvantage I've found with Slackware is its irritating adherence to BSD-style file layout for its system initialization files. Strangely, I consider that one of its advantages. I find Slackware's startup scripts a lot easier to understand than the sysv version everyone else uses. I've heard other folks say the same. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 24, 2009 2:58 PM EDT |
I've used Robby Workman's Slackware packages in the past, and I vouch for their quality. I haven't used sbopkg, but that sounds like something that would help immensely. My feelings toward Slackbuilds (even though I had trouble getting them to work) are much more favorable then they are toward any number of 3rd-party repositories for Slackware binary packages. I understand some users wanting the choice to be theirs of exactly how a package is built from source. For me, I prefer to delegate those choices to the maintainers of that package for the given distro, be it Ubuntu, Debian, OpenBSD or what have you. That's why when seeking an OS I look for the packages I want, I prefer them to be part of the distro's own repositories, to be maintained in a timely and rational manner, and not to break my system. It's a lot to ask from something I'm getting for free. But there are plenty of choices that meet these criteria, and for that I'm thankful. Observation: Slackware pushed out Firefox 3.0.11 on June 16, 2009. I just updated my Debian Lenny install this morning, and I still have Iceweasel (aka unbranded FF) 3.0.6 http://packages.debian.org/lenny/iceweasel. I'm sure there's a good reason, or a reason at any rate, as to why Debian has such an old FF package in its Stable tree, and I await that reason. So from a security standpoint, Debian might be saying that FF 3.0.11 has to wend its way through Volatile, Sid and Squeeze to make sure the package doesn't break anything. But if there is a security problem with FF/Iceweasel 3.0.6 (or the past FIVE releases of the browser), Debian users have been seemingly left in the lurch. Slackware users, not at all. And Ubuntu is also up to date as far as FF goes (3.0.11). Debian Squeeze (Testing) is at Iceweasel 3.0.9 http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/iceweasel. Debian Sid (Unstable) has 3.0.11: http://packages.debian.org/sid/iceweasel So see, people, these things aren't at all clear-cut. And there's a big philosophical divide in how security updates are delivered to users of a stable Slackware distribution and a stable Debian distribution. Point of order: Slackware pushed out FF 3.0.6 on Feb. 5, 2009. For users of Debian Stable and Testing, we don't have it more than four months later. I've run Debian Testing, and in my experience it wasn't as "stable" as some make it out to be. That means I had a lot of problems. I'm enjoying the sheer speed of my customized Debian Lenny install (I built it up from the "standard" installation), but I wonder if I'd be better off elsewhere (even Slackware) from a security standpoint. The proper equation for me might just be: Slackware minus KDE (but + Xfce) + OO + Geany (+ Flash + Java + slapt-get + Gslapt + sbopkg) Point of further order: Here's what Mozilla has fixed in its various FF3 updates: http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefo... |
| flufferbeer Jun 24, 2009 2:58 PM EDT |
@jdixon
> I find Slackware's startup scripts a lot easier to understand than the sysv version everyone else uses. I've heard other folks say the same. I've also heard the same thing from a select group of other users, that Slack's startup scripts are easier to use than SysV's version. AFAICT, the common denominator in all these person's views on this is their hands-on experience with OS's that have text-based configuration. Most of these persons had experience going way back with M$'s 16 and 16/32-bit config files autoexec.bat, config.sys, system.ini, win.ini, system.dat and user.dat files, so these persons have a good idea of where to start looking for script files of various sorts even without prior exposure to Linux. Those who did not have extended experience with M$'s Winblow$ here, came from backgrounds that used other OSs, such as other types of Unix and Novell's NetWare. AAMOF, NetWare also required startup scripts in a DOS partition before loading the native Netware filesystem, so some basic knowledge of scripts was needed here too, easing a transition to the BSD-style. And without question ALL of these users certainly had enough experience that they'd never be considered PC n00b's. I still think that for even these computer users as well as those with even less experience, detailed knowledge of runtime scripts is much less necessary with SysV than with the BSD-style of Slackware. For SysV, just grasp the concept of the runlevel, change a line in inittab, rename or hide away some S & K scriptnames within your default runlevels and presto 1-2-3 you can start your system with less of a chance of messing things. Slightly more advanced as far as knowledge of scripts go, is to then maximize your SysV system and user bashrc and profile files. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 24, 2009 3:02 PM EDT |
I have a whole lot more mastery over the startup scripts in OpenBSD only because the average user needs to know about them in order to manage the OS. And the project's excellent FAQ and man pages make it very clear as to how things work. I'd love to be at the same level in Linux now that I'm back to using it every day. |
| bigg Jun 24, 2009 3:49 PM EDT |
If you're talking about startup scripts, I love Arch. I'm not the kind of guy who likes using them, but you do all that stuff (not just startup) in rc.conf. |
| jdixon Jun 24, 2009 3:51 PM EDT |
> ...AFAICT, the common denominator in all these person's views on this is their hands-on experience with OS's that have text-based configuration. Well, that's true for me, so I can't contradict your assessment. > I still think that for even these computer users as well as those with even less experience, detailed knowledge of runtime scripts is much less necessary with SysV than with the BSD-style of Slackware. I didn't find that to be the case, but obviously YMMV. |
| hkwint Jun 24, 2009 4:08 PM EDT |
Quoting:I have a whole lot more mastery over the startup scripts in OpenBSD only because the average user needs to know about them in order to manage the OS. Can't remember that. AFAIK you don't have to know what's going on in the scripts, you just comment out the things you don't want and put in the things you want. It's exactly the same as in Linux, though in Linux instead of commenting things out you make / delete 'softlinks', or you use a script to do so. |
| flufferbeer Jun 24, 2009 6:48 PM EDT |
@jdixon
At the same time, another thing I didn't mention above were some of my own experiences with older Slack versions. Mind you, these experiences were not just limited to Slackware, although just like you, YMMV.
But at least there WERE decent books available on past RedHat versions to get someone started with RedHat in particular.
The installation order for the Slackwares though, was and still is :
1. You had to figure out what partitioning you needed in order to use disk space wisely with a coexisting Windblow$ OS already installed just fine. IIRC, RedHat's disk druid was okay for doing all this, but not Slackware's fdisk. Together with this was the question of Yes fips or No fips on that large fat16 or fat32 Windblow$ partition.
2. You then had to figure out what level of package installation you needed to do, without the level of help as someone can regularly find today. For instance, I could never find this in the Linux Documentation Project of days gone by. Should I do a full Install, a newbie install, or a menu install ? At what level of experience could you do a manageably fast expert install ?
3. You then had to figure out what software sets A through Y you would like to have, and then eventually decide by viewing each package's short-description and space requirements what you actually should or shouldn't install.
4. AND THEN you had to go through a whole bunch of p.i.t.a. steps to choose an xserver and maybe find & edit that daunting XF86Config file for X11R6 (by using vi? using emacs?), correctly set up ppp, and _hopefully_ get your sound card recognized fine the first time around. These Slack 1-4 steps were all quite intimidating at first, and all before the helpful linuxquestions.org and user-friendly guides & tutorials became more widespread. Though again, I'll have to say that once Slackware gets running okay even in CLI text mode, PatV's documentation for his distro remains good. |
| flufferbeer Jun 26, 2009 2:56 PM EDT |
Very off-topic: Had a few problems with YouTube and other things, so I coulkdn't respond for a while. Now with the 1980's Pop King Michael Jackson death, I was seeing some related network server issues. @Steven_Rosenber Back on-topic: Slackware isnt't the only one with a confusing initial package installation issues. IIRC, old versions of Debian s8uch as Woody were a real hassle to install even more than Slack. The old Debian installer used a whole ncurses-type package install, called tasksel I think. Now THIS was a very confusing package-installation front-end. Something like six or seven CD's, a bunch of confusing lists of packages to be dependency-resolved, and little info to know what should be best left out. I was glad to have some good help using this pkg-install thing when I did, otherwise I might have just given up! Red Hat versions 6.2 - 8 were all much more convenient to install than the old Debians. The Debian Etch and Lenny installs are all so much better now, with good behind-the-scenes apt-get's to quickly get a desktop Linux OS up and running okay. Just saying.. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 26, 2009 3:53 PM EDT |
@fluffbeer: tasksel still exists and is still used in the Debian installer. It's nothing more than a coule of sets of meta packages. I.e. the "Desktop" tasks depends on Gnome, IceWeasel, OpenOffice and a bunch of other software. The "Webserver" task depends on Apache, PHP, MySQL, Perl, Python, etcetera. |
| flufferbeer Jun 26, 2009 4:21 PM EDT |
@Sander
Yes, maybe this labyrinthine old Debian front-end was called by some other name than tasksel.
I recall many categories of packages to be expanded or reduced, with a whole menu of editing and status +/-/i keys to use for the sets of meta packages. These sets of meta packages were not identified by single or double alphabet letters like Slack's.
I certainly remember that after each package with unselected dependencies was selected, I HAD to choose the bottom-listed dependent packages, which then led me to FURTHER mandatory selection of MORE dependencies, on and on, until I reached the point when the list of other Required (as opposed to Optional) packages finally disappeared. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 26, 2009 5:10 PM EDT |
Exploring the old and dusty tomes of Debian past [1] I think you're referring to the "dbootstrap" program (not to be confused with "debootstrap" which you can use to quickly install a chrooted Debian in a subdirectory). [1] http://www.debian.org/releases/3.0/i386/ch-install-system.en... |
| jdixon Jun 26, 2009 5:27 PM EDT |
> 1. You had to figure out what partitioning you needed... You still do. And with NTFS, there's not even an easy tool like fips to repartition for you. You have to get a gparted disk or some such to do it before you start. Of course, if you're using Slackware at this point, you probably don't have a Windows partition to worry about. > 2. You then had to figure out what level of package installation you needed to do... Again, still the case, though with the large hard drives available today it's simplest just to install everything and be done with it. > 3. You then had to figure out what software sets A through Y you would like to have, Again, that's still an option, but see 2 above. > 4. AND THEN you had to go through a whole bunch of p.i.t.a. steps to choose an xserver and maybe find & edit that daunting XF86Config file for X11R6 (by using vi? using emacs?), correctly set up ppp, and _hopefully_ get your sound card recognized fine the first time around. That's a lot better today. The vesa default works on most chipsets, and modern Xorg's pretty much identify everything for you, so at most you have to run one setup script. With most people having broadband, ppp isn't the problem it used to be, and most sound cards are detected and installed by the kernel. All you have to do is unmute your outputs with alsamixer. > ..old versions of Debian s8uch as Woody were a real hassle to install even more than Slack. Very old versions were. I'm not sure that was true by the time Woody came out. I'm thinking things had already improved quite a bit by then, but you know how memory is. Bob could tell us, he's a Debian person. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 26, 2009 6:40 PM EDT |
And I thought this thread was dead ... |
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!