Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison - Ubuntu ; Some good reading here: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/93393/ -- "Bother!" said Pooh, as he wiped out Ubuntu and installed Slackware....

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

  1. Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    Some good reading here:

    http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/93393/


    --
    "Bother!" said Pooh, as he wiped out Ubuntu and installed Slackware.


  2. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    * Dan C wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    > Some good reading here:


    > http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/93393/


    Thanks. Just read it. I agree with some points disagree on others but I
    have never run Slack for any length of time to debate those things. It
    doesn't seem to go in depth enough, most of what is in the article has
    been covered in discussions I have been reading on Usenet for quite some
    time so no real surprises.

    Couple of issues though:

    "Nobody in their right mind needs or wants 20,000+ packages on their
    system;"

    No one HAS 20,000 packages on their system but the above says to me,
    choice is bad, I disagree.

    The author says Ubuntu is bloated but then says:

    "[Slackware has] Most every library needed to compile a program or
    application is already present."

    Sort of contradicts his above point about Ubuntu, if you aren't going to
    be doing much compiling (he mentions the use of about 15 apps by the
    user) why put every possible development lib on my
    box? Isn't that bloat?

    --
    David
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org/

    eat Depends: cook | eat-out.
    But eat-out is non-free so that's out.
    And cook Recommends: clean-pans.
    -- Seen on #Debian

  3. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:42:50 -0500, Dan C wrote:

    > Some good reading here:
    >
    > http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/93393/


    To me that is no comparison just a slagging of of Ubuntu for being such a
    noob friendly OS. The author obviously doesn't realise that 99%+ of the
    worlds population doesn't have his/her wisdom.

    I have to ask why Ubuntu is so popular where slackware isn't?

  4. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    SINNER <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid>:
    > * Dan C wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    > > Some good reading here:

    >
    > > http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/93393/

    >
    > The author says Ubuntu is bloated but then says:
    >
    > "[Slackware has] Most every library needed to compile a program or
    > application is already present."
    >
    > Sort of contradicts his above point about Ubuntu, if you aren't going to
    > be doing much compiling (he mentions the use of about 15 apps by the


    He also mentions Slackware assumes the user will be doing plenty of
    compiling. You don't fit the Slackware mold, in that way.


    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    (*) http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292
    - - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.

  5. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    * s. keeling wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    > SINNER <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid>:
    >> * Dan C wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >> > Some good reading here:


    >> > http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/93393/


    >> The author says Ubuntu is bloated but then says:


    >> "[Slackware has] Most every library needed to compile a program or
    >> application is already present."


    >> Sort of contradicts his above point about Ubuntu, if you aren't going to
    >> be doing much compiling (he mentions the use of about 15 apps by the


    > He also mentions Slackware assumes the user will be doing plenty of
    > compiling. You don't fit the Slackware mold, in that way.


    I dont? I compile as needed and install the libs required. It still
    dosent answer the questions as to why anyone would need all[most]
    available dev libs on a system when they only use 15 apps.


    --
    David
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org/

    Si jeunesse savait, si vieillesse pouvait.
    [If youth but knew, if old age but could.]
    -- Henri Estienne

  6. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    Dan C wrote:
    > Some good reading here:
    >
    > http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/93393/


    The wiki has a pretty good description of slackware
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slackware [...] one of the earliest
    distributions, and is the oldest currently being maintained. Slackware
    aims for design stability and simplicity, and aims to be the most
    UNIX-like [...] there are so few GUI tools to configure the system.
    [...] Advocates consider it flexible and transparent and like the
    experience gained from the learning process. [...] makes no attempt to
    track or manage dependencies, relying on the user to ensure that the
    system has all the supporting system libraries and programs required by
    the new package. If any of these are missing, there may be no indication
    until one attempts to use the newly installed software


    Wiki also has a writeup of Slax & its versions/editions - killbill,
    server, popcorn, frodo, boot.


    --
    Mike Easter


  7. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    SINNER <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid>:
    > * s. keeling wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    > > SINNER <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid>:
    > >> * Dan C wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    > >> > Some good reading here:

    >
    > >> > http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/93393/

    >
    > >> The author says Ubuntu is bloated but then says:

    >
    > >> "[Slackware has] Most every library needed to compile a program or
    > >> application is already present."

    >
    > >> Sort of contradicts his above point about Ubuntu, if you aren't going to
    > >> be doing much compiling (he mentions the use of about 15 apps by the

    >
    > > He also mentions Slackware assumes the user will be doing plenty of
    > > compiling. You don't fit the Slackware mold, in that way.

    >
    > I dont? I compile as needed and install the libs required. It still


    Sorry, should have said "if you aren't going to be doing too much
    compiling, then you wouldn't fit the Slackware mold." Better?

    > dosent answer the questions as to why anyone would need all[most]
    > available dev libs on a system when they only use 15 apps.


    That's the noob's box, not the Slacker's box.


    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    (*) http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292
    - - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.

  8. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    brummie :
    > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:42:50 -0500, Dan C wrote:
    > >
    > > Some good reading here:
    > >
    > > http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/93393/

    >
    > To me that is no comparison just a slagging of of Ubuntu for being such a
    > noob friendly OS. The author obviously doesn't realise that 99%+ of the


    "Noob friendly", when they recommend you don't bother trying to
    upgrade. Just re-install instead. Noob friendly? Debian, which is
    where it comes from, can do it. Why shouldn't *buntu be expected to?

    > I have to ask why Ubuntu is so popular where slackware isn't?


    A hundred billion flies ... Windows is popular too.


    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    (*) http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292
    - - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.

  9. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:49:42 +0200, s. keeling wrote:

    >> > He also mentions Slackware assumes the user will be doing plenty of
    >> > compiling. You don't fit the Slackware mold, in that way.

    >>
    >> I dont? I compile as needed and install the libs required. It still

    >
    > Sorry, should have said "if you aren't going to be doing too much
    > compiling, then you wouldn't fit the Slackware mold." Better?
    >
    >> dosent answer the questions as to why anyone would need all[most]
    >> available dev libs on a system when they only use 15 apps.

    >
    > That's the noob's box, not the Slacker's box.


    Here's the beautiful thing: Slackware is really good (and getting better
    all the time) for Slackware users. At the same time, Ubuntu is really
    good (and getting - mostly - better all the time) for Ubuntu users. And
    even better, if neither of those appeals(**) to one, then one is free to
    choose from several hundred other distros. Knocking other people's choice
    of distro because it makes them seem like a n00b or a sn0b is missing the
    point.

    Rational choice means choosing the best tool for the job. I really
    like having a range of distros to choose from. For me that means Fedora,
    Ubuntu, Mint and Mepis on the flaptops, Debian on a couple of desktops,
    and Slackware and OpenBSD on some development and testing machines.
    NB: This situation may change without warning :-)

    (**) Or works well with one's hardware, or has a convenient package for
    some software one needs to use, etc.

  10. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 20:12:05 +0200, s. keeling wrote:

    > brummie :
    >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:42:50 -0500, Dan C wrote:
    >> >
    >> > Some good reading here:
    >> >
    >> > http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/93393/

    >>
    >> To me that is no comparison just a slagging of of Ubuntu for being
    >> such a noob friendly OS. The author obviously doesn't realise that
    >> 99%+ of the

    >
    > "Noob friendly", when they recommend you don't bother trying to upgrade.
    > Just re-install instead. Noob friendly? Debian, which is where it
    > comes from, can do it. Why shouldn't *buntu be expected to?
    >
    >> I have to ask why Ubuntu is so popular where slackware isn't?

    >
    > A hundred billion flies ... Windows is popular too.


    Well i have to say you made as much sense as a chocolate fireguard!

    Ubuntu does upgrade. Pop in a newer disk and it asks you if you'd like to
    upgrade or you can do it from within the OS.

  11. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    In alt.os.linux.ubuntu on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:46:03 GMT, brummie
    wrote:

    > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:42:50 -0500, Dan C wrote:
    >
    >> Some good reading here:
    >>
    >> http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/93393/

    >
    > To me that is no comparison just a slagging of of Ubuntu for being such a
    > noob friendly OS. The author obviously doesn't realise that 99%+ of the
    > worlds population doesn't have his/her wisdom.
    >
    > I have to ask why Ubuntu is so popular where slackware isn't?


    Somebody will be along in a moment to ask why Windows is so popular
    while Slackware isn't. :-)

    Slackware is an excellent distribution, but so is Ubuntu, and I think
    the article is unfair to Ubuntu.

    Selectively quoting bits from the article:

    | Nobody in their right mind needs or wants 20,000+ packages on their
    | system; they couldn't use them all.

    Nobody has 20,000 plus packages installed. No BSD user installs
    everything available in ports; no LFS user installs every scrap of
    source code available on the Web. Similarly, no Ubuntu or Slackware
    user installs everything that's available during installation or
    afterwards.

    | My experience with the Ubuntu family of Linux has shown me that after
    | 4 or 5 apt-get installs, the system gets a little bloated and tends to
    | be less responsive.

    So don't install every package that Synaptic or Adept "suggests" or
    "recommends". If Ubuntu installs unnecessary packages, report it as a
    bug.

    | By contrast Slackware is built from the ground up with the expectation
    | that the end user will be building their own packages at some point.

    And this is excellent. But Ubuntu is intended for users who don't know
    how to build software from source code and aren't interested in
    learning. Computers are quite often used by non-geeks. Non-geeks are
    used to Windows or Mac OS, and distrubutions like Ubuntu offer them a
    third choice. How is this a bad thing?

    | Since most users of Ubuntu use probably 15 or less packages on a daily
    | basis,

    Utter nonsense. Loading Gnome or KDE involves using many more than 15
    packages for a start, and both desktops are available for Slackware
    too.

    In fact, you need more than 15 packages installed if you hope to reach
    a command prompt.

    | I don't know about you but give me control every time.

    I agree with this sentiment, but absolutely nothing stops me building
    new versions of software on Ubuntu if I want to.

    | But, as anecdotal evidence shows, the automatic dependency resolution
    | on Debian-based distros will, many times, download unnecessary
    | packages to satisfy the required package set.

    See above. Pay attention to "suggests" and "recommends".

    | This contributes to the bloat and system degradation that is
    | frequently associated with Debian-based distros.

    Who makes this association? I don't. FUD.

    | one thing is certain: whether Ubuntu fails or succeeds, Slackware will
    | continue to remain true to its roots and Slackware users will continue
    | to deploy this powerful, stable Linux OS for years to come.

    Good. I like Slackware, and it would be my first recommendation to
    anybody who wanted to try a non-Debian-based distribution in the hope
    of acquiring extra geek credentials. But this article is complaining
    that apples are bad because they're not oranges.


    --
    PJR :-)

  12. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    On 2007-09-30, Dan C intrigued me by typing:
    > Some good reading here:
    >
    > http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/93393/
    >
    >


    Very good *user comparison* and I didn't take the author's comparison as a knock
    on my personal choice to use Ubuntu. That is how he felt about the two distros
    and I cannot knock him for it. As for me, I've stated numerous times in this
    newsgroup that one of my goals is to learn Slackware and I think it was in this
    newsgroup that someone wrote that if you learn Slackware, you learn Linux.
    That statement alone speaks volumes to me. If Slackware is the grand daddy
    of them all, there is a possibility that it can help me appreciate Ubuntu
    and all of the other distros even more. Anyway, I enjoyed the comparison
    and thank you Dan C for sharing it with us. Take care.
    --
    Just me, D
    (Ubuntu User# 16887)
    (Linux User# 454411)

  13. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    * s. keeling wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    > SINNER <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid>:
    >> * s. keeling wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >> > SINNER <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid>:
    >> >> * Dan C wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >> >> > Some good reading here:


    >> >> > http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/93393/


    >> >> The author says Ubuntu is bloated but then says:


    >> >> "[Slackware has] Most every library needed to compile a program or
    >> >> application is already present."


    >> >> Sort of contradicts his above point about Ubuntu, if you aren't going to
    >> >> be doing much compiling (he mentions the use of about 15 apps by the


    >> > He also mentions Slackware assumes the user will be doing plenty of
    >> > compiling. You don't fit the Slackware mold, in that way.


    >> I dont? I compile as needed and install the libs required. It still


    > Sorry, should have said "if you aren't going to be doing too much
    > compiling, then you wouldn't fit the Slackware mold." Better?


    Yes.

    >> dosent answer the questions as to why anyone would need all[most]
    >> available dev libs on a system when they only use 15 apps.


    > That's the noob's box, not the Slacker's box.


    So a slackware user uses more applications than a newb running Ubuntu? I
    have to wonder how the author came up with that assumption, and if it is
    indeed true his other assumptions regarding bloat after running apt-get
    4 or 5 times don't hold water as those 15 applications are likely
    installed with the initial setup.

    Also, while slackware does not use a package manager in the strict sence
    of the word, there are indeed packages available which do not require
    compiling so again I ask why the need for all the dev libs installed by
    default.

    --
    David
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org/

    Is a person who blows up banks an econoclast?

  14. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    On 2007-09-30, SINNER <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid> wrote:
    > * s. keeling wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >> SINNER <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid>:
    >>> * Dan C wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    >>> > Some good reading here:

    >
    >>> > http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/93393/


    [...]

    >> He also mentions Slackware assumes the user will be doing plenty of
    >> compiling. You don't fit the Slackware mold, in that way.

    >
    > I dont? I compile as needed and install the libs required. It still
    > dosent answer the questions as to why anyone would need all[most]
    > available dev libs on a system when they only use 15 apps.


    Hmmm.... I could easily be corrected here as I am not a Slackware
    expert by any means (it is installed on my _other_ hdd) but the
    development libraries form one of the software sets that can be fully
    installed, partially installed or not at all.

    I downloaded the dvd slackware 12 and it did seem to have most of the
    internet on it :-)

    Andrew


    --
    'Name him not!' said Gandalf, and for a moment
    it seemed that a look of pain passed over his face,
    and he sat silent, looking old as death.

  15. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:40:03 +0000, SINNER wrote:

    >> He also mentions Slackware assumes the user will be doing plenty of
    >> compiling. You don't fit the Slackware mold, in that way.


    > I dont? I compile as needed and install the libs required. It still
    > dosent answer the questions as to why anyone would need all[most]
    > available dev libs on a system when they only use 15 apps.


    I don't know the answer to that. A guess would be that the dev libs are
    fairly small in size, and are not used except when compiling, so they
    don't really contribute to "bloat". It does make it nice, when attempting
    to compile something, to have it just work without having to fiddle around
    finding some obscure library to install. YMMV.


    --
    "Bother!" said Pooh, as he attempted to learn FORTRAN.


  16. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:46:03 +0000, brummie wrote:

    > I have to ask why Ubuntu is so popular where slackware isn't?


    Slackware is quite popular, in certain circles. I will agree that it
    appeals to a different crowd than many other distros, like Ubuntu.

    As someone else has already pointed out, Windoze is also "popular"... does
    that make it "good"?

    --
    "Bother!" said Pooh, as Christopher Robin pleaded to be spanked again.


  17. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    On 2007-09-30, Dan C wrote:

    [...]

    > I don't know the answer to that. A guess would be that the dev libs are
    > fairly small in size, and are not used except when compiling, so they
    > don't really contribute to "bloat". It does make it nice, when attempting
    > to compile something, to have it just work without having to fiddle around
    > finding some obscure library to install. YMMV.


    I know that this an argument that has done the rounds many times but
    the loss of _native_ gnome is a huge drawback with Slackware 12. The
    Dropline guys are still working at a _final_ release but even so I
    wish that Pat V. had dropped kde instead of gnome. Still learning to
    love xfce.

    Andrew

    --
    'Name him not!' said Gandalf, and for a moment
    it seemed that a look of pain passed over his face,
    and he sat silent, looking old as death.

  18. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    SINNER <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid>:
    > * s. keeling wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    > > SINNER <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid>:
    > >> * s. keeling wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    > >> > SINNER <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid>:
    > >> >> * Dan C wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    > >> >> > Some good reading here:
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/93393/
    > >> >>
    > >> >> The author says Ubuntu is bloated but then says:
    > >> >>
    > >> >> "[Slackware has] Most every library needed to compile a
    > >> >> program or application is already present."
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Sort of contradicts his above point about Ubuntu, if you
    > >> >> aren't going to be doing much compiling (he mentions the use
    > >> >> of about 15 apps by the
    > >> >
    > >> > He also mentions Slackware assumes the user will be doing
    > >> > plenty of compiling. You don't fit the Slackware mold, in that
    > >> > way.
    > >>
    > >> I dont? I compile as needed and install the libs required. It still

    >
    > > Sorry, should have said "if you aren't going to be doing too much
    > > compiling, then you wouldn't fit the Slackware mold." Better?

    >
    > Yes.
    >
    > >> dosent answer the questions as to why anyone would need all[most]
    > >> available dev libs on a system when they only use 15 apps.

    >
    > Also, while slackware does not use a package manager in the strict
    > sence of the word, there are indeed packages available which do not
    > require compiling so again I ask why the need for all the dev libs
    > installed by default.


    Slackware has netpkg. Slick pkg mgr.


    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    (*) http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292
    - - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.

  19. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:34:02 +0000, andrew wrote:

    > I know that this an argument that has done the rounds many times but
    > the loss of _native_ gnome is a huge drawback with Slackware 12. The
    > Dropline guys are still working at a _final_ release but even so I
    > wish that Pat V. had dropped kde instead of gnome. Still learning to
    > love xfce.


    I also was a long-time Gnome user with Slackware. I won't use Dropline
    (had many problems with it in the past), but was always a big fan of
    Freerock Gnome and/or Gware. The Gware project appears to be dead, but
    the Freerock has been forked due to the apparent disappearance of Freerock
    himself. The FRG/GSB Gnome project has a recent news announcement, and it
    looks good for an eventual release:

    http://gnomeslackbuild.org/news.pxml

    In the meanwhile, I have been using Xfce as well, and actually like it a
    lot. I may end up sticking with it even if an up-to-date version of Gnome
    is finally made available for Slackware.


    --
    "Bother!" said Pooh, as Christopher Robin pleaded to be spanked again.


  20. Re: Good Ubuntu/Slackware review/comparison

    On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:18:09 -0500, Dan C wrote:

    > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:40:03 +0000, SINNER wrote:
    >
    >>> He also mentions Slackware assumes the user will be doing plenty of
    >>> compiling. You don't fit the Slackware mold, in that way.

    >
    >> I dont? I compile as needed and install the libs required. It still
    >> dosent answer the questions as to why anyone would need all[most]
    >> available dev libs on a system when they only use 15 apps.

    >
    > I don't know the answer to that. A guess would be that the dev libs are
    > fairly small in size, and are not used except when compiling, so they
    > don't really contribute to "bloat". It does make it nice, when attempting
    > to compile something, to have it just work without having to fiddle around
    > finding some obscure library to install. YMMV.
    >
    >


    A proper system, should either have access to pre-compiled
    binaries/packages or have a working compiler/build system. Slackware does
    not have a huge repository of precompiled packages. So its users need a
    compiler to install things that they want to use. Compiler and build
    system is not bloat, but part of a good working nix-type system.

    stonerfish

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast