Writeup on `the Slackware way' - Slackware

This is a discussion on Writeup on `the Slackware way' - Slackware ; On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:51:39 +0000, +Alan Hicks+ wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 2008-06-18, Mark Madsen wrote: >> I can't speak to the purposes of the author, although I have very >> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

  1. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:51:39 +0000, +Alan Hicks+ wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On 2008-06-18, Mark Madsen wrote:
    >> I can't speak to the purposes of the author, although I have very
    >> little respect for the purposes of people who disseminate wrong
    >> information and base artciles upon it. Especially when there is no
    >> excuse for not having the correct information.
    >>
    >> There is nothing admirable or clever about remaining deliberately
    >> ignorant.

    >
    > I think you are focusing too much on the details and not enough on the
    > meaning behind them. The author made a few partially unfactual


    "Partially unfactual" meaning "false". Let's call a spade a spade at
    least.

    False statements form a very weak premise on which to build a reasonable
    conclusion.

    > statements, but the point he is trying to make is still, at least to
    > some people, a very valid one: namely that Debian and other
    > distributions should make a more concerted effort to ship "pure"
    > packages or at least communicate their changes to upstream better.


    My point is that if one takes the time to understand what Debian is
    trying to do, one understands that quite a lot of patching is necessary
    to get a working system.

    > In the case of his OpenSSL example, there is plenty of fault on both
    > sides, but that alone does not change his point.


    Actually, it does, because he told the story as if some Debian
    "maintainer" (his sarcasm quotemarks, not mine) had simply acted as if he
    knew better than the authors of the upstream software, when in fact that
    is not what happened.

    >>> He clearly states that "The idea is to really attempt to illuminate
    >>> people on why Debian, and many other distributions may not be ideal,
    >>> and why a classic approach such as Slackware still has merit in this
    >>> world of modern feature-crazy distributions."

    >>
    >> Drop the idea of "ideal", we aren't in some perfect platonic universe
    >> here, this is Usenet.

    >
    > Of course, but the author uses that word not to mean "you should use
    > Slackware" but rather to mean "We can learn a few things from Slackware
    > and use them to make Debian better/more ideal". At least, that is what
    > I got out of it.


    Well, I'd be curious to know what Slackware methods Debian could adopt
    while achieving its goals. Dump the other architectures and languages,
    pass maintenance of several thousand packages to the community, what? If
    it acted like Slackware it would be Slackware, and what's the point of
    that? We already have a pretty good Slackware, and the word would be
    down by one Debian.

    >> Slackware does what it does very well. It does things differently from
    >> Debian. Debian does what it does very well, which is different from
    >> Slackware. In order to do those different things, different choices
    >> have to be made. Slackware supports English language (OK, KDE has
    >> i18n) Linux on a single platform, i386. Debian supports multiple
    >> architectures and a huge range of languages and provides long term
    >> support for each of those, and uses different guidelines as to freedom
    >> and target audience. Slackware is a commercial operation under the
    >> control of a single person. Debian is a charity with over a thousand
    >> volunteers.
    >>
    >> Is it your contention, along with the implicit contention of the
    >> author, that these differences are *insignificant*?

    >
    > I never heard the grand-parent say anything of the sort; you're putting
    > words in his mouth.


    No, I am challenging his basis for comparison. There is an old saw about
    not comparing apples with oranges, which is what the author of the piece
    did.

    >> comparing Slackware to
    >> Debian and criticising Debian for making different choices attains a
    >> level of naïveté verging on wilful stupidity.
    >>
    >> Would you say that the biggest flaw of OpenBSD is that it's different
    >> from Slackware? That Theo De Raadt and Marc Espie, say, are just too
    >> stupid to make good choices?

    >
    > These are two seperate things. Firstly, no one is saying that it is bad
    > to be "different". After all, a different choice is not necessarily a
    > stupid one. The author of the article sees some of Debian's choices as
    > stupid, not because they are different, but because of their negative
    > consequences. That is a key distinction. No one is saying Debian or
    > OpenBSD or for that matter Slackware is bad or stupid simply because
    > they are different.


    It's quite ironic that Slackware itself is often criticised on the basis
    that it makes choices that are out of line with the general stream of
    Linux distros, and these criticisms are often made *entirely* on the
    basis that it's different. Why use LILO and not GRUB? Why not ship
    Gnome? Where's the automated package dependency resolution? And yet
    when the argument is made that way around, no-one here has any difficulty
    seeing how flawed is the reasoning.

    Simply put, the author of the article did not understand Debian or how it
    differs from Slackware, based his premise on some incorrect anedcdotal
    information, and leapt to criticise Debian on that basis. The result was
    so bad that I feel embarrassed on his behalf.

  2. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    Dan C wrote:
    >
    > And yet, you post from Google Gropes.
    >


    Given how ISPs are dropping Usenet left and right, and how the Fed gov
    is now trying to shut it down in the name of fighting child pr0n, it doesn't
    surprise me.

    - Kurt

  3. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    Cann0n wrote:
    > I use Slackware simply because it makes me feel like man.
    >
    > To me, it's like camping. Some people prefer RV's and Campers, while
    > some prefer what fits on their back. :-)
    >

    Like your boyfriend?

    With kind regards

    Chu


  4. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:30:08 -0500, ~kurt wrote:

    > Dan C wrote:
    >>
    >> And yet, you post from Google Gropes.
    >>

    >
    > Given how ISPs are dropping Usenet left and right, and how the Fed gov
    > is now trying to shut it down in the name of fighting child pr0n, it doesn't
    > surprise me.
    >
    > - Kurt


    Ya, I've just been informed by verizon that I will no longer have access
    to the alt. hierarchy starting 6/24.


  5. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    Mark Madsen wrote:

    > ... the author of the article did not understand Debian or how it
    > differs from Slackware, based his premise on some incorrect anedcdotal
    > information, and leapt to criticise Debian on that basis. ...


    Put another way, (ie. this is how *I* interpretted the article, and of
    course everyone reading this has been on the edge of their seats waiting
    for my opinion!), the author appears to have SET OUT to write an article
    that is critical of Debian, using differences from Slackware and select (I
    have no idea about whether it's correct or not) anecdotal evidence as the
    basis. It reads (to me) almost as nothing more than a "self-published"
    (read: "fluff") "author's" response to criticism of Slackware by one or
    more other "self-published" (read: "fluff") "author(s)".

    All that should be learned from it is that indeed, anyone can "publish"
    any form of material under the guise of "information". Fifteen or so
    years ago, the World-Wide-Web was declared by "They" to be The Great
    Equalizer, with respect to publication and dissemination of information.
    The balance acheived by The Great Equalizer, of course, is that the
    average tends toward the lowest common denominator, rather than the
    other way around. Did anyone expect a different outcome?

    I don't use Debian, but that's because Slackware seems to me to be as
    close as I've seen to what I want from a Linux distribution: it has a
    "hands-off" approach with no particular signature. When I wanted to
    experiment with Linux on a Sparc SLC (many years ago, though I still
    own the system), however, Slackware wasn't a viable option, and Debian
    was certainly the best that was available. When I embarked on a (now
    stalled) project to create a port of Slackware for the Alpha processor,
    Debian was very useful as a staging system.

    I haven't looked at a "new" Debian installation in many years, though
    I've seen (and frequently use) several derivative distributions, and
    certainly would gladly recommend some of them to people looking to
    try Linux. Choice is good. Different is good.

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

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

  6. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:30:08 -0500, ~kurt wrote:

    > Given how ISPs are dropping Usenet left and right, and how the Fed gov is
    > now trying to shut it down in the name of fighting child pr0n, it doesn't
    > surprise me.
    >
    > - Kurt


    If you're referring to the recent story about someone persuading several
    large ISPs to discontinue carrying the alt.* Usenet hierarchy, I believe
    it was the New York state attorney general who did that, not any federal
    officials.

    --
    Chick Tower

    For e-mail: aols2 DOT sent DOT towerboy AT xoxy DOT net


  7. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:54:56 +0200, Mark Madsen wrote:

    > My point is that if one takes the time to understand what Debian is
    > trying to do, one understands that quite a lot of patching is necessary
    > to get a working system.


    Seriously, Mark, I would like to know why the Debian organization thinks
    so many modifications to software are necessary. I don't mean to pick on
    Debian, as many other distributions modify a lot of the programs they
    include, but you made the statement as if you understand the reasons why
    Debian believes it. I ask you to consider briefly explaining this to us,
    or to direct us to a webpage that explains it. Thank you.

    --
    Chick Tower

    For e-mail: aols2 DOT sent DOT towerboy AT xoxy DOT net


  8. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On 18 Jun 2008 15:43:20 +0200
    Mark Madsen wrote:
    ....
    > Would you say that the biggest flaw of OpenBSD is that it's different
    > from Slackware?


    Oops ... I have never heard about a Linux distro called OpenBSD.
    Is it about apples and oranges? ;-)

    --
    Mikhail


  9. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:12:38 +0400, Mikhail Zotov wrote:

    > On 18 Jun 2008 15:43:20 +0200
    > Mark Madsen wrote: ...
    >> Would you say that the biggest flaw of OpenBSD is that it's different
    >> from Slackware?

    >
    > Oops ... I have never heard about a Linux distro called OpenBSD. Is it
    > about apples and oranges? ;-)


    I see the smiley. The serious point is that if we are comparing
    operating systems with different design goals as if they are directly
    comparable, then why stick to Debian? And Andrew Tanenbaum must be a
    doofus because he didn't design Minix to be exactly like Slackware ;-)

  10. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:06:17 -0400, Chick Tower wrote:

    > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:54:56 +0200, Mark Madsen wrote:
    >
    >> My point is that if one takes the time to understand what Debian is
    >> trying to do, one understands that quite a lot of patching is necessary
    >> to get a working system.

    >
    > Seriously, Mark, I would like to know why the Debian organization thinks
    > so many modifications to software are necessary. I don't mean to pick
    > on Debian, as many other distributions modify a lot of the programs they
    > include, but you made the statement as if you understand the reasons why
    > Debian believes it. I ask you to consider briefly explaining this to
    > us, or to direct us to a webpage that explains it. Thank you.


    Short answer (and the best): http://www.debian.org

    In place of a longer answer, an example: Firefox. Debian patched FF so
    that FF's auto-update feature was disabled, because in a Debian system FF
    should only be updated by the package system. This then led Mozilla to
    call licence violation, since you can't call it Firefox if you rebuild it
    before distributing (even, apparently, in vanilla form) so Debian had to
    build branding patches that result in the installed browser being called
    Iceweasel.

    Given the situation caused by the confluence of factors involving apt
    management and licensing, Debian had to patch FF and then rebrand. Or
    not distribute FF at all.

  11. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    Mark Madsen wrote:
    > And Andrew Tanenbaum must be a doofus because he didn't
    > design Minix to be exactly like Slackware ;-)


    Biggest problem doing that was probably that Slackware didn't
    exist when Minix was initially released.
    Of course Mr. Tanenbaum could have redesigned Minix after the
    release of Slackware. ;-)


    Regards,

    Kees.

    --
    Kees Theunissen.

  12. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    Chick Tower wrote:
    >
    > If you're referring to the recent story about someone persuading several
    > large ISPs to discontinue carrying the alt.* Usenet hierarchy, I believe
    > it was the New York state attorney general who did that, not any federal
    > officials.


    Yep, you are right, the Cuomo. Whenever I see his name, I still think
    of him as the Federal HUD guy who had previously gone on the warpath
    against tobacco companies because people who chose to smoke were not
    responsible for their own decisions, and the same guy who was trying to
    blame gun manufacturers for the fact that people were getting shot with
    guns....

    - Kurt

  13. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    ~kurt wrote:

    > Yep, you are right, the Cuomo. Whenever I see his name, I still think
    > of him as the Federal HUD guy who had previously gone on the warpath
    > against tobacco companies because people who chose to smoke were not
    > responsible for their own decisions, and the same guy who was trying to
    > blame gun manufacturers for the fact that people were getting shot with
    > guns....


    Life is so simple for us libertarians. Fourteen-year-olds choose nicotine
    addiction, and TEC-9's are manufactured for deer hunting. It's all about
    personal responsibility, isn't it?

    --
    Old Man

    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. -
    John Kenneth Galbraith

  14. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:15:02 +0200, Kees Theunissen wrote:

    > Mark Madsen wrote:
    >> And Andrew Tanenbaum must be a doofus because he didn't
    > > design Minix to be exactly like Slackware ;-)

    >
    > Biggest problem doing that was probably that Slackware didn't exist when
    > Minix was initially released.


    Hence the ;-)

    > Of course Mr. Tanenbaum could have
    > redesigned Minix after the release of Slackware. ;-)


    Well, naturally!

  15. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:54:48 -0500, ~kurt wrote:

    > Chick Tower wrote:
    >>
    >> If you're referring to the recent story about someone persuading
    >> several large ISPs to discontinue carrying the alt.* Usenet hierarchy,
    >> I believe it was the New York state attorney general who did that, not
    >> any federal officials.

    >
    > Yep, you are right, the Cuomo. Whenever I see his name, I still think
    > of him as the Federal HUD guy who had previously gone on the warpath
    > against tobacco companies because people who chose to smoke were not
    > responsible for their own decisions, and the same guy who was trying to
    > blame gun manufacturers for the fact that people were getting shot with
    > guns....


    "et allez"... oh, as we're on a thread ruling on imprecision,
    circular thinking and approximate allegations, that would go
    like a breeze in a greased glove:
    curious what age can do to people, so much lucidity one day and
    next week pissing your pants, if he goes down any more he may even
    vote republikun'.
    --
    please flush before leaving and close the door,
    and don't get it mixed up.

  16. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    loki harfagr wrote:
    > On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:54:48 -0500, ~kurt wrote:
    >
    > "et allez"... oh, as we're on a thread ruling on imprecision,
    > circular thinking and approximate allegations, that would go
    > like a breeze in a greased glove:
    > curious what age can do to people, so much lucidity one day and
    > next week pissing your pants, if he goes down any more he may even
    > vote republikun'.


    Charming as ever, eh?

    *waves*. It's been a long while, init?

    --
    Ayaz Ahmed Khan

  17. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On 2008-06-19, Mark Madsen wrote:
    >
    > And Andrew Tanenbaum must be a
    > doofus because he didn't design Minix to be exactly like Slackware ;-)


    If he hadn't been such a doofus in the first place linux wouldn't even
    exist.

    --keith


    --
    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


  18. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On 19 Jun 2008 23:53:43 +0200
    Mark Madsen wrote:

    > In place of a longer answer, an example: Firefox. Debian patched FF so
    > that FF's auto-update feature was disabled, because in a Debian system FF
    > should only be updated by the package system.


    What is the logic behind this decision? AFAIU, updating of a system-wide
    installation shouldn't work anyway if attempted by a user. Root that
    chooses this way of updating a program should be punished anyway. Am I wrong?

    Cheers,
    Mikhail


  19. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    It was 21:07, sabato 21 giugno 2008, and Mikhail Zotov, in message
    <20080621230756.27d5034a@mojo.having.fun> wrote:

    > On 19 Jun 2008 23:53:43 +0200
    > Mark Madsen wrote:
    >
    >> In place of a longer answer, an example: Firefox. Debian patched FF so
    >> that FF's auto-update feature was disabled, because in a Debian system FF
    >> should only be updated by the package system.

    >
    > What is the logic behind this decision? AFAIU, updating of a system-wide
    > installation shouldn't work anyway if attempted by a user. Root that
    > chooses this way of updating a program should be punished anyway. Am I
    > wrong?


    I think that's because it breaks the packaging system log of what's
    installed, and the dependencies as a consequence.

    ilSimo
    --
    now playing:

    I said high
    High voltage rock'n'roll
    AC/DC - High Voltage


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2