Slack derivative? - Slackware

This is a discussion on Slack derivative? - Slackware ; On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:58:54 +0000, Realto Margarino wrote: > In alt.os.linux.slackware ray says: >>On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:17:35 +0100, Two Ravens wrote: >>> ray wrote: > >>>> I can understand why you'd be attracted to slack, but ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 58

Thread: Slack derivative?

  1. Re: Slack derivative?

    On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:58:54 +0000, Realto Margarino wrote:

    > In alt.os.linux.slackware ray says:
    >>On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:17:35 +0100, Two Ravens wrote:
    >>> ray wrote:

    >
    >>>> I can understand why you'd be attracted to slack, but in all
    >>>> honesty, the average home user, non-geek, is probably going to
    >>>> be much happier with something like ubuntu which is a bit easier
    >>>> to keep going and get information.

    >
    >>> In what way, on either point, easier?

    >
    >>Less bothersome - easier to find help - more available software -
    >>software about as simple as possible to install and usually sets
    >>itself up working properly. Other than that, I can't think of a
    >>thing.

    >
    > Just stick with windoze. We won't tell anyone.


    That would be difficult since I haven't used ms on a regular basis for
    over five years. I'm merely trying to identify what a noob might find
    easier to cope with.

    >
    > cordially, as always,
    >
    > rm



  2. Re: Slack derivative?

    On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:54:21 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:

    > ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.slackware.]
    >
    > On 2007-08-13, ray wrote:
    >> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:17:35 +0100, Two Ravens wrote:
    >>
    >>> ray wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I can understand why you'd be attracted to slack, but in all honesty, the
    >>>> average home user, non-geek, is probably going to be much happier with
    >>>> something like ubuntu which is a bit easier to keep going and get
    >>>> information.
    >>>
    >>> In what way, on either point, easier?

    >>
    >> Less bothersome

    >
    > In what way? Ubuntu's package tools bother me to no end. Slackware's
    > never do.


    Really - my experience has been the opposite.

    >
    >> - easier to find help

    >
    > In what way? The man pages are more or less the same, and the
    > documentation on each software's web site is actually more consistent in
    > Slackware, since other distros, Debian included, modify standard file
    > locations, especially for config files in /etc.


    There is much assistance available via a web search or in the ubuntu
    forums. It is one of the most active user communities.

    >
    >> - more available software

    >
    > In what way? There is more software bundled for Ubuntu, but there's no
    > reason one couldn't compile the software oneself. Ubuntu lends itself
    > to software bloat in order to make more software available; how much of
    > that do you actually use?


    Joe Sixpack is not going to 'compile the software oneself'. He want the
    simplest easiest way to the largest number of applications.

    >
    >> - software about as simple as possible to install and usually sets itself up working
    >> properly.

    >
    > When apt-get works, software installation is usually pretty simple.
    > When it doesn't work, run for the hills.


    In the case of ubuntu, I've yet to see synaptic fail. Joe Sixpack is not
    going to fire up a terminal to use apt-get.

    >
    >> Other than that, I can't think of a thing.

    >
    > Well, so obviously our opinions differ greatly. If I were installing a
    > standard desktop distro for me and my family, I'd choose Slackware over
    > Ubuntu any day. Even in my work, I choose CentOS over Ubuntu, because
    > I've had rpm go belly-up on me less frequently than apt.


    Family yes - I can see that. What about for casual friends you see once or
    twice a month? Will they be able to manage the system more or less by
    themselves?


    >
    > --keith



  3. Re: Slack derivative?

    On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:29:22 +0000, Sylvain Robitaille wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >
    >>>> ... ubuntu which is a bit easier to keep going and get information.
    >>>
    >>> In what way, on either point, easier?

    >>
    >> Less bothersome ...

    >
    > That, of course, does not answer the question. In what way, on either
    > point, "less bothersome" then?


    more gui tools for keeping things going.

    >
    >> easier to find help ...

    >
    > Perhaps, but not necessarily so. The help on this newsgroup can be
    > rather "medicinal" at times, but it's generally quite good. I
    > understand that there are also some web-based "forums" that provide
    > information and help for Slackware users.


    ubuntu user community is one of the largest.

    >
    >> more available software ...

    >
    > On this point, I have to completely disagree. What software is
    > available for Ubuntu, but not for Slackware?
    >
    >> software about as simple as possible to install and usually sets
    >> itself up working properly.

    >
    > "tar ...; configure; make; make install" is not as simple as possible?


    Start synaptic, select package, select, install. Four clicks - yes, I'd
    say that's simpler. Joe Sixpack is not going to start a terminal window,
    learn about tar then find the text file that tells what to do and then
    type in three additional commands to install a piece of software. As
    another person pointed out, it's great if it's for the folks in your house
    - so you can do the sys admin stuff - what about casual friends who will
    be on their own most of the time?


  4. Re: Slack derivative?


    "Dan C" wrote in message
    newsan.2007.08.14.12.40.27.813279@lan.invalid...
    > Can I be your second plonk?
    >
    > Bugger off out of here, win-droid doofus.
    >


    Sure. Any more ignorant keyboard rednecks out there that want the same



  5. Re: Slack derivative?


    "tussock" wrote in message
    news:1187090717.539211.304850@q3g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
    >
    > Doesn't seem to need one. Do a full install, stick /home on a
    > third partition (if you know what that means, otherwise ignore without
    > issue), run what it tells you to run (read the messages on install, it
    > won't tell you twice, write stuff down if you're new), and you're
    > done.
    >


    Thanks. Sure I know how to partition. Does anyone know if Slack is friendly
    for wifi /g?

    I've got all the boxes running on wireless Buffalo router.
    I've used KDE in the past, and hope it's matured a bit. I'm actually glad
    Pat dropped Gnome. Not that I don't like it, but too many choices makes for
    bloatware, IMHO>



  6. Re: Slack derivative?

    ray wrote:
    > mikey coons wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >>
    >> I'm looking to learning Slackware, but alas, my friends and
    >> family cannot. Therefore, I'm wondering if there is a Slack
    >> spinoff worth using and which one?

    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    > I can understand why you'd be attracted to slack, but in all
    > honesty, the average home user, non-geek, is probably going to be
    > something like ubuntu which is a bit easier to keep going and get
    > much happier with information.


    I second the motion. Ubuntu has many surface similarities to
    windows, so the adaptation will be much easier.

    --
    Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  7. Re: Slack derivative?

    "mikey coons" (rukidding@aol.com) writes:
    > "tussock" wrote in message
    > news:1187090717.539211.304850@q3g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
    >>
    >> Doesn't seem to need one. Do a full install, stick /home on a
    >> third partition (if you know what that means, otherwise ignore without
    >> issue), run what it tells you to run (read the messages on install, it
    >> won't tell you twice, write stuff down if you're new), and you're
    >> done.
    >>

    >
    > Thanks. Sure I know how to partition. Does anyone know if Slack is friendly
    > for wifi /g?
    >
    > I've got all the boxes running on wireless Buffalo router.
    > I've used KDE in the past, and hope it's matured a bit. I'm actually glad
    > Pat dropped Gnome. Not that I don't like it, but too many choices makes for
    > bloatware, IMHO>
    >
    >

    So don't install what you don't want

    Bloat is really about programs that use excessive resources and
    have all kinds of bells and whistles added that you'll never use.

    One could argue the kernel has bloated, but that's because people
    want to use it with their hardware out of the box, and the bloat
    comes from dealing with a wide variety of hardware. But even then,
    one could custom compile to leave out the bloat that the specific
    user doesn't require.

    Having lots of alternatives is not bloat. You simply ignore
    what you don't need. Don't install it, or given many people's
    large hard drives these days, they won't even notice if everything
    is installed and the unwanted stuff is simply never used.

    And the whine that it now requires a DVD or multiple CDs doesn't
    quite cut it either. After all, one could download what they
    actually need, and then stop there.

    YOur alternative, of "no bloat" and "get rid of the choices" is
    there in Vectorlinux. A distribution that cuts down on "bloat"
    by deciding what you will want to use, and leaving out the extras.
    A distribution that decides the best way to get rid of "bloat"
    is to cut out the console programs, leaving room for gui
    equivalents.

    Michael


  8. Re: Slack derivative?

    In alt.os.linux.slackware ray says:
    >On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:58:54 +0000, Realto Margarino wrote:


    >> Just stick with windoze. We won't tell anyone.


    >That would be difficult since I haven't used ms on a regular basis
    >for over five years. I'm merely trying to identify what a noob
    >might find easier to cope with.


    Well then, go back to it. You don't know what you are missing.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  9. Re: Slack derivative?

    Michael Black says:

    >So don't install what you don't want


    >Bloat is really about programs that use excessive resources and
    >have all kinds of bells and whistles added that you'll never use.


    There is no longer any such thing as "bloat" when using modern
    hardware.

    >One could argue the kernel has bloated, but that's because people
    >want to use it with their hardware out of the box, and the bloat
    >comes from dealing with a wide variety of hardware. But even then,
    >one could custom compile to leave out the bloat that the specific
    >user doesn't require.


    Kernels are tiny compared to the amount of ram most users have
    available. No bloat there, unless you are suffering from the
    software equivalent of anorexia nervosa.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  10. Re: Slack derivative?

    ray wrote:

    > ... Joe Sixpack is not going to start a terminal window, learn about
    > tar then find the text file that tells what to do and then type in
    > three additional commands to install a piece of software.


    We're not talking about Joe Sixpack, we're talking about someone with
    experience with Slackware willing to manage systems for some family and
    friends.

    > As another person pointed out, it's great if it's for the folks in
    > your house - so you can do the sys admin stuff - what about casual
    > friends who will be on their own most of the time?


    That's why there's ssh ...

    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

    Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
    Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  11. Re: Slack derivative?

    ray wrote:

    > What about for casual friends you see once or twice a month? Will they
    > be able to manage the system more or less by themselves?


    If you know what you're doing, they won't have to ...

    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

    Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
    Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  12. Re: Slack derivative?

    mikey coons wrote:

    > Does anyone know if Slack is friendly for wifi /g?


    I've got a couple of Slackware-10.2 systems working with 802.11g, but
    in both cases with some effort (device drivers, and xsupplicant).

    If you can get Network Manager installed and running (I've not tried
    that on a Slackware system yet, and for all I know it may be included in
    Slackware-12.0), in my experience, you'll find that setting up wireless
    network with that is as simple as it gets. Don't be scared off by the
    URL, my understanding is that it does work on systems without Gnome
    installed (though I've only tested it on non-Slackware systems that
    have Gnome):

    http://www.gnome.org/projects/NetworkManager/

    I hope that helps ...

    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

    Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
    Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  13. Re: Slack derivative?

    On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:09:55 +0000, Realto Margarino wrote:

    > In alt.os.linux.slackware ray says:
    >>On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:58:54 +0000, Realto Margarino wrote:

    >
    >>> Just stick with windoze. We won't tell anyone.

    >
    >>That would be difficult since I haven't used ms on a regular basis
    >>for over five years. I'm merely trying to identify what a noob
    >>might find easier to cope with.

    >
    > Well then, go back to it. You don't know what you are missing.
    >
    > cordially, as always,
    >
    > rm


    I have no desire to return to ms, thank you. I don't know where you got
    that idea.


  14. Re: Slack derivative?

    On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:04:17 +0000, Sylvain Robitaille wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >
    >> ... Joe Sixpack is not going to start a terminal window, learn about
    >> tar then find the text file that tells what to do and then type in
    >> three additional commands to install a piece of software.

    >
    > We're not talking about Joe Sixpack, we're talking about someone with
    > experience with Slackware willing to manage systems for some family and
    > friends.
    >
    >> As another person pointed out, it's great if it's for the folks in
    >> your house - so you can do the sys admin stuff - what about casual
    >> friends who will be on their own most of the time?

    >
    > That's why there's ssh ...


    I'm talking about the friends. Different ball of wax than doing it at home.


  15. Re: Slack derivative?

    Sylvain Robitaille says:
    >ray wrote:


    >> ... Joe Sixpack is not going to start a terminal window, learn about
    >> tar then find the text file that tells what to do and then type in
    >> three additional commands to install a piece of software.


    >We're not talking about Joe Sixpack, we're talking about someone
    >with experience with Slackware willing to manage systems for some
    >family and friends.


    But Joe Sixpack has every right to use a computer and be able to
    install software without relying on Dudley Doright, who just may or
    may not be free to assist him. If we were Joe Sixpack, we would
    want independence from Dudley Dorights of the world.

    >> As another person pointed out, it's great if it's for the folks
    >> in your house - so you can do the sys admin stuff - what about
    >> casual friends who will be on their own most of the time?


    >That's why there's ssh ...


    You sound like an advertisement for Geek Squad. Most people don't
    want to be reliant on others for things like software installation.
    They resent it. We sense that you are one of those guys whose ego
    is all wrapped up in what you know about computers. Most people
    don't want clowns like you, in particular, around, ever.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  16. Re: Slack derivative?

    ray (ray@zianet.com) writes:
    > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:04:17 +0000, Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
    >
    >> ray wrote:
    >>
    >>> ... Joe Sixpack is not going to start a terminal window, learn about
    >>> tar then find the text file that tells what to do and then type in
    >>> three additional commands to install a piece of software.

    >>
    >> We're not talking about Joe Sixpack, we're talking about someone with
    >> experience with Slackware willing to manage systems for some family and
    >> friends.
    >>
    >>> As another person pointed out, it's great if it's for the folks in
    >>> your house - so you can do the sys admin stuff - what about casual
    >>> friends who will be on their own most of the time?

    >>
    >> That's why there's ssh ...

    >
    > I'm talking about the friends. Different ball of wax than doing it at home.
    >

    But he's saying that you become the system administrator.

    And virtually no system administrators are sitting right by the box.
    The servers are clustered together where they can get access to the big
    pipes, and I gather aren't particularly hospitable to people.

    The system administrator sits in their cushy office, or even their
    boudoir, and administers remotely. Only on a rare occasion do they
    need physical access to the servers.

    It's not particularly different for home machines. People running
    Linux are running systems equivalent to most servers, albeit with
    maybe smaller resources. If someone can do system administration
    at home for the company's server, then they can do system administration
    for a friend's computer without physical access.

    Michael



  17. Re: Slack derivative?

    ray wrote:

    > Joe Sixpack is not going to 'compile the software oneself'. He want the
    > simplest easiest way to the largest number of applications.


    what exactly is so difficult about a) get a ready made package from
    somewhere such as Linux packages, or, b) doing ./configure > make >
    makeinstall/make checkinstall, apart from watching it compile that is?
    --
    Two Ravens
    "...hit the squirrel..."

  18. Re: Slack derivative?

    On 2007-08-14, ray wrote:
    > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:54:21 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:
    >
    >> On 2007-08-13, ray wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Less bothersome

    >>
    >> In what way? Ubuntu's package tools bother me to no end. Slackware's
    >> never do.

    >
    > Really - my experience has been the opposite.


    Well, I'm curious what aspects of pkgtool and friends are bothersome,
    then.

    >>> - easier to find help

    >>
    >> In what way? The man pages are more or less the same, and the
    >> documentation on each software's web site is actually more consistent in
    >> Slackware, since other distros, Debian included, modify standard file
    >> locations, especially for config files in /etc.

    >
    > There is much assistance available via a web search or in the ubuntu
    > forums. It is one of the most active user communities.


    I think looking in the standard docs and man pages is a lot easier than
    searching some web forum. Though I must admit, I used the Ubuntu
    forum directions for my Broadcom wifi card on my Slackintosh
    10.2 machine (which was quite some time ago, as you might guess).

    >>> - more available software

    >>
    >> In what way? There is more software bundled for Ubuntu, but there's no
    >> reason one couldn't compile the software oneself. Ubuntu lends itself
    >> to software bloat in order to make more software available; how much of
    >> that do you actually use?

    >
    > Joe Sixpack is not going to 'compile the software oneself'. He want the
    > simplest easiest way to the largest number of applications.


    No, he wants the simplest easiest way to *his* applications. If
    Slackware encompasses a large chunk of that list, and Ubuntu comes with
    lots of unwanted packages, IMO Slackware will be easier to deal with in
    terms of available software. (And, as I comment below, the OP would be
    doing the software installs for his Joe Sixpack friends; Joe wouldn't be
    doing the compile himself; at least that's how I interpreted the OP.)

    >>> - software about as simple as possible to install and usually sets itself up working
    >>> properly.

    >>
    >> When apt-get works, software installation is usually pretty simple.
    >> When it doesn't work, run for the hills.

    >
    > In the case of ubuntu, I've yet to see synaptic fail. Joe Sixpack is not
    > going to fire up a terminal to use apt-get.


    I've seen synaptic not do what I want quite a few times. (This may be
    an issue of PEBKAC, of course.)

    >> Well, so obviously our opinions differ greatly. If I were installing a
    >> standard desktop distro for me and my family, I'd choose Slackware over
    >> Ubuntu any day.

    >
    > Family yes - I can see that. What about for casual friends you see once or
    > twice a month? Will they be able to manage the system more or less by
    > themselves?


    Not if you're managing it for them, which was the hypothetical situation
    the OP seemed to present. Granted, this assumes that the remote machine
    is on the network enough to be able to ssh in to do admin work, but even
    so, it won't be needed that frequently if your casual friends are simply
    users of the box. Note that I would not necessarily suggest Slackware
    to Joe Sixpack or Gramma Maude, who have no desire to wade into sysadmin
    issues--I think they *could* learn Slackware, but they may not wish to
    learn at all. It would depend on the Joe or Gramma as to what I'd
    suggest.

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  19. Re: Slack derivative?

    On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:20:58 -0600, ray wrote:

    >>> As another person pointed out, it's great if it's for the folks in
    >>> your house - so you can do the sys admin stuff - what about
    >>> casual friends who will be on their own most of the time?


    >> That's why there's ssh ...


    > I'm talking about the friends. Different ball of wax than doing it at
    > home.


    I've got 3 friends that are complete noobs. I set them up so they even
    boot into runlevel 3 and in rc.local I echo a message...

    ****************** Login username ******************
    ****************** Enter password *******************

    ************* Type "win" to start Windows ************

    Yes they are that dumb. But guess what? One said, "Man, this is great.
    When Windows dies I just boot another OS. Where can you buy a computer
    to do that?".

    I have never had to fix their Linux but I've reinstalled their windows
    several times.

    I used Slackware and they have zero problems. The true newbie just wants
    to surf, play a song and do email. The problems usually start when they
    wish to boldly go forward from that point.

    A little bit of intimidation is a good thing. It keeps them out of
    trouble.

    PS: Of course "win" is a script or alias but it makes them feel safe.


    --
    Linux Help: http://rsgibson.com/linux.htm
    Email - rsgibson@verizon.borg
    Replace borg with net


  20. Re: Slack derivative?

    Keith Keller says:
    >On 2007-08-14, ray wrote:
    >> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:54:21 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:
    >>> On 2007-08-13, ray wrote:


    >>>> Less bothersome


    >>> In what way? Ubuntu's package tools bother me to no end.
    >>> Slackware's never do.


    >> Really - my experience has been the opposite.


    >Well, I'm curious what aspects of pkgtool and friends are
    >bothersome, then.


    We rarely use pkgtool for anything other than deleting packages that
    were installed during installation, when it is time to upgrade those
    applications.

    >>>> - easier to find help


    >>> In what way? The man pages are more or less the same, and the
    >>> documentation on each software's web site is actually more
    >>> consistent in Slackware, since other distros, Debian included,
    >>> modify standard file locations, especially for config files in
    >>> /etc.


    Slackware modifies places as well. And it moves things around.
    Witness the contents of th /opt directory. We remember when all it
    had was KDE. Now it is the default dir for all kinds of junk.

    >> There is much assistance available via a web search or in the
    >> ubuntu forums. It is one of the most active user communities.


    >I think looking in the standard docs and man pages is a lot easier
    >than searching some web forum. Though I must admit, I used the
    >Ubuntu forum directions for my Broadcom wifi card on my Slackintosh
    >10.2 machine (which was quite some time ago, as you might guess).


    There is no difference between searching a forum or a doc, except
    with the former you have to be online.

    >>>> - more available software
    >>>
    >>> In what way? There is more software bundled for Ubuntu, but
    >>> there's no reason one couldn't compile the software oneself.
    >>> Ubuntu lends itself to software bloat in order to make more
    >>> software available; how much of that do you actually use?


    >> Joe Sixpack is not going to 'compile the software oneself'. He want the
    >> simplest easiest way to the largest number of applications.


    >No, he wants the simplest easiest way to *his* applications. If
    >Slackware encompasses a large chunk of that list, and Ubuntu comes with
    >lots of unwanted packages, IMO Slackware will be easier to deal with in
    >terms of available software. (And, as I comment below, the OP would be
    >doing the software installs for his Joe Sixpack friends; Joe wouldn't be
    >doing the compile himself; at least that's how I interpreted the OP.)


    Yes, and as we stated elsewhere, that is an appalling situation for
    Joe Sixpack. He doesn't want to have to rely on others.
    Furthermore, there is no such thing as "bloat" anymore, especially
    with linux, unless you use old hardware. But modern drives and ram
    are so cheap and so huge that so-called "bloat" is no longer
    relevant.

    You can now do full installs and still have all kinds of space left
    over. So, the more programs, the merrier, and if Ubuntu installs an
    important program for Joe Sixpack, and slackware doesn't, then Joe
    would be stupid not to go to Ubuntu, unless he has some overriding
    reason to use slackware.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast