Writeup on `the Slackware way' - Slackware

This is a discussion on Writeup on `the Slackware way' - Slackware ; Hi group, I have found this to be an interesting reading: http://blog.sillica.com/2008/06/11/d...h-us-anything/ Cheers, Mikhail...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

  1. Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    Hi group,

    I have found this to be an interesting reading:

    http://blog.sillica.com/2008/06/11/d...h-us-anything/

    Cheers,
    Mikhail


  2. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On 2008-06-17, Mikhail Zotov wrote:

    > I have found this to be an interesting reading:
    >
    > http://blog.sillica.com/2008/06/11/d...h-us-anything/


    Works for me.

    Slackware - simplicity through tranparency

    nb

  3. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On 2008-06-17, Mikhail Zotov wrote:
    >
    > I have found this to be an interesting reading:
    >
    > http://blog.sillica.com/2008/06/11/d...h-us-anything/


    A bit foaming in parts, but definitely worth a few minutes. I noted
    that the column cites an article by a famous troll in this newsgroup's
    history.

    In terms of actual content, I noted these comments from Casper:

    "I actually expect the packages in a distribution to be different from
    upstream. If it was exactly the same package, why bother with a
    distribution at all.

    The whole point of a distribution is to adapt software packages to
    conform to some standard."


    Why bother with a distribution at all?!? Clearly written by someone who
    has never attempted to build a working machine from bare metal and
    source code.

    The whole point of a distribution is to make it easier for people to
    install a working linux kernel with a working set of software in a
    reasonable amount of time. The definition of ''working'' and
    ''reasonable'' can vary wildly, both by user and by task the distro is
    to fulfill. But there's certainly no requirement to modify the code; if
    it works fine, why change it? Changing it just produces more work for
    the distro maintainer(s), both in maintaining versions and in dealing
    with and fixing bugs.

    --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


  4. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:10:18 +0400, Mikhail Zotov wrote:

    > I have found this to be an interesting reading:
    >
    > http://blog.sillica.com/2008/06/11/d...can-slackware-

    teach-us-anything/

    I'm always disturbed by articles that feel they have to create an
    opposition that doesn't exist. Slackware and Debian exist to fulfill
    rather different roles in the Linux world.

    More worrying is that there are major inaccuracies in the keystone
    examples. Notably, Debian does change the name of its Mozilla-forked
    code, and has for quite some time now (I went back and checked the date
    on the article when I read that accusation, and was surprised to find it
    was this year. The author can't have used Debian for some time.)

    As for the SSL example, the author's lack of research leads him to make
    statements that risk qualifying as libellous, and certainly qualify as
    uninformed, which is poor, since the entire mail exchange is available in
    the archives.

    As you can probably tell, I use both Slackware and Debian, and very much
    like and admire both of them. They are different because they have
    different goals and make different design choices. And I don't see how
    knocking one makes the other one better.

  5. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    Mark Madsen wrote:
    >
    > different goals and make different design choices. And I don't see how
    > knocking one makes the other one better.


    People are generally fans - gives their lives meaning - they will root for a
    team just because they live in the team's home state....

    - Kurt

  6. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:20:14 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:

    > A bit foaming in parts, but definitely worth a few minutes. I noted
    > that the column cites an article by a famous troll in this newsgroup's
    > history.


    Ahhhh, yes. I had missed that reference to an article by ANC. I even
    went back and read his drivel again, and was pleased to see him paraphrase
    my original signature (see below). I had forgotten about that.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  7. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On 2008-06-17, Mark Madsen wrote:
    >
    > As you can probably tell, I use both Slackware and Debian, and very much
    > like and admire both of them. They are different because they have
    > different goals and make different design choices. And I don't see how
    > knocking one makes the other one better.



    Bingo.

    -RW

  8. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On 2008-06-18, Robby Workman wrote:
    >
    > Bingo.


    I don't think there is a BingoLinux. ;-)

    --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


  9. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    In article ,
    Dan C wrote:

    > On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:20:14 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:
    >
    > > A bit foaming in parts, but definitely worth a few minutes. I noted
    > > that the column cites an article by a famous troll in this newsgroup's
    > > history.

    >
    > Ahhhh, yes. I had missed that reference to an article by ANC. I even
    > went back and read his drivel again, and was pleased to see him paraphrase
    > my original signature (see below). I had forgotten about that.


    I would have given you proper attribution but you hide behind a cloak.

    http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5206957474.html
    is the piece I did back in 2005. I still get some mail on it from time
    to time... it was one of my most quoted pieces. I get brick-bats from
    the few Slackers out there and accolades from others. Most just say that
    they too started with Slack but no longer use it and that they enjoyed
    the piece.

    Read the "talkback" comments. They are very interesting and fun to
    read... especially if you enjoy seeing me bashed every which way. (It is
    fairly easy to pick out those from here who wrote comments.)

    It is interesting that what Dan C calls "fluff" or "drivel" so many
    others find "interesting." I wonder what he has written in any of the
    Linux "mainstream" media that anyone has read and quoted and which has
    led them to write articles about? I doubt there is much.

    Has anyone here been published on any of the various Linux sites?

    Anyway, thanks for the walk down recent memory lane.

    ANC

  10. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:10:35 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:

    > On 2008-06-18, Robby Workman wrote:
    >>
    >> Bingo.

    >
    > I don't think there is a BingoLinux. ;-)


    But there could be in a few minutes if you really want one :-)

  11. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On 17 Jun 2008 22:27:01 +0200
    Mark Madsen wrote:

    > On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:10:18 +0400, Mikhail Zotov wrote:
    >
    > > I have found this to be an interesting reading:
    > >
    > > http://blog.sillica.com/2008/06/11/d...can-slackware-

    > teach-us-anything/
    >
    > I'm always disturbed by articles that feel they have to create an
    > opposition that doesn't exist.


    I don't think this was the purpose (implicit or explicit) of the author.
    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."

    Not being an expert, I do second his idea that Linux distributions
    are aimed to _distribute_ software rather than change it. IMHO,
    (a part of) fun goes away from us, users, if programs arrive modified
    already :-)

    Cheers,
    Mikhail


  12. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    I use Slackware simply because it makes me feel like man. That and I
    don't prefer fancy options and automatic whatchamacallits.

    To me, it's like camping. Some people prefer RV's and Campers, while
    some prefer what fits on their back. :-)


  13. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:03:34 -0700, ANC wrote:

    >> Ahhhh, yes. I had missed that reference to an article by ANC. I even
    >> went back and read his drivel again, and was pleased to see him
    >> paraphrase my original signature (see below). I had forgotten about
    >> that.


    > I would have given you proper attribution but you hide behind a cloak.


    You couldn't attribute it to "Dan C"? Was this plagiarism? Hmmm.....

    > is the piece I did back in 2005. I still get some mail on it from time
    > to time... it was one of my most quoted pieces. I get brick-bats from
    > the few Slackers out there and accolades from others. Most just say that
    > they too started with Slack but no longer use it and that they enjoyed
    > the piece.


    I just skimmed through the "Talkback" comments, and I didn't see too many
    "accolades" in there. Most of the respondents saw you the exact same way
    you are seen here in AOLS. A completely ignorant n00b.

    > Read the "talkback" comments. They are very interesting and fun to
    > read... especially if you enjoy seeing me bashed every which way. (It is
    > fairly easy to pick out those from here who wrote comments.)


    And this makes you happy, eh? It's just another form of trolling, I
    guess. Whatever you can do to get some attention, right Al?

    > It is interesting that what Dan C calls "fluff" or "drivel" so many
    > others find "interesting."


    Nobody found it "interesting". They found it to be an annoying troll
    piece. Don't you get that, from the comments people left?

    > I wonder what he has written in any of the Linux "mainstream" media that
    > anyone has read and quoted and which has led them to write articles
    > about? I doubt there is much.


    You are correct. I'm not a writer, especially in the "mainstream" media,
    and I don't want to be one, either.

    > Anyway, thanks for the walk down recent memory lane.


    I knew you'd bite.

    Now bugger off and go play with your Mac toys.


    --
    "Bother!" said Pooh, as his U-Boat sank another hospital ship.


  14. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:27:30 +0400, Mikhail Zotov wrote:

    > On 17 Jun 2008 22:27:01 +0200
    > Mark Madsen wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:10:18 +0400, Mikhail Zotov wrote:
    >>
    >> > I have found this to be an interesting reading:
    >> >
    >> > http://blog.sillica.com/2008/06/11/d...ing-signs-can-

    slackware-
    >> teach-us-anything/
    >>
    >> I'm always disturbed by articles that feel they have to create an
    >> opposition that doesn't exist.

    >
    > I don't think this was the purpose (implicit or explicit) of the author.


    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.

    > 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.

    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*?

    > Not being an expert, I do second his idea that Linux distributions are
    > aimed to _distribute_ software rather than change it. IMHO, (a part of)
    > fun goes away from us, users, if programs arrive modified already :-)


    You may be right, for you, and then Slackware is a better choice. I
    support you and rejoice in your happiness. But 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?

  15. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:30:14 -0700, Cann0n wrote:

    > I use Slackware simply because it makes me feel like man. That and I
    > don't prefer fancy options and automatic whatchamacallits.
    >
    > To me, it's like camping. Some people prefer RV's and Campers, while
    > some prefer what fits on their back. :-)


    And yet, you post from Google Gropes.

    Yeah. That makes sense.


    --
    "Bother!" said Pooh, as he garotted another passing Liberal.


  16. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    On 2008-06-18, Dan C wrote:

    > I knew you'd bite.


    He couldn't pass up the opportunity to stroke his own pen.

    nb

  17. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    Keith Keller wrote:

    > I don't think there is a BingoLinux. *;-)


    This is what google found, all I could read was bingo Linux!
    --
    Two Ravens
    "...hit the squirrel..."

  18. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    Keith Keller wrote:

    > I don't think there is a BingoLinux. *;-)

    This is what Google found,
    http://os.rdxx.com/Linux/2005-9/13/175429270.shtml all I can read is
    bingo Linux!
    --
    Two Ravens
    "...hit the squirrel..."

  19. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

    -----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
    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.

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

    >> 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.

    > 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.

    > comparing Slackware to
    > Debian and criticising Debian for making different choices attains a
    > level of navet 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 is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
    Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
    Ecclesiastes 7:5
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEUEARECAAYFAkhZWToACgkQrZS6hX/gvjqfaQCYio1tZdZYqzcnqapTGvR5JVCy
    VACgv+NEi62yNBWrMVIsUlfH35dos4c=
    =yQgO
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  20. Re: Writeup on `the Slackware way'

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


    Everybody drink!

    -Beej


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast