Slashdot Mirror

Clearly there is only one other option ;-)

Other options I would choose:

Gentoo
Slackware

I think a lot of people here are overlooking the purposes of a hacker logo. Apparently a lot of those who posted didn't even bother to read ESR's 2 short pages about the emblem. Here are a few points on some of the goals:

1. Internet users (hackers included) seem to have a hard time sorting each other into easily-handled categories without plenty of superficial indicators. This logo could be one more indicator. It's eventual misuse wouldn't be as bad as some people think. Besides, there are always poseurs, with or without an emblem.
2. If hackers ever hope to gain ground in the PR war against the press and 1337 H4xz0|2 script-kiddies, they're going to need to present some image of cohesion, a sort of united front. It doesn't even matter if the image is shallow when where talking about PR.
3. Note that ESR explicitly states that the point of displaying the logo is not to say, "I am a hacker" but to say that you associate yourself with hacker culture. Kinda like how you can wear a pink triangle T-shirt with the word "Ally" on it if your not gay but like to show support.
4. As for non-conforming non-joiners being able to agree to have one logo or one anything, it's not hard at all. Just take a look at the Church of the SubGenius. You don't have to take my word for it, ask the creator of Slackware, Patrick Volkerding.

All in all, I like the idea and the logo. I suggest to those who don't like it that they simply not use it and not make a fuss about it, so that they won't ruin it for the guys like ESR who are trying to accomplish some great (seemingly quixotic to many) goals for hackerdom.

Microsoft Windows(TM) might be able to run on intel emulation, that will allow Microsoft Windows to run on it, but frankly, who cares except Microsoft, Intel, AMD and maybe a few others?

If windows doesn't port to this processor, I am sure some other OS will take over, and everything will be rewritten for that OS. Alternately, you might go with an existing OS easier to port, like Mac OS, NetBSD or GNU/Linux. (URLs in the of this post)

A silly OS and its platform dependence isn't gonna stop development that much.

Kind regards,

/Spam .

URL's for possible alternatives goes here, I am sure I miss a lot of them:

Mac OS:

Mac OSX

GNU/Darwin

NetBSD:

NetBSD

GNU/Linux:

Red Hat GNU/Linux

Debian supports several platforms.

SuSE GNU/Linux

Mandrake GNU/Linux is a distribution from France.

Slackware GNU/Linux is a classic.

Some will charge you for GNU/Linux, and give you support or written manuals, silver-CDs or something in return. I probably missed a lot of links, but to mention some of the commercial distributions I missed, here is a comparison on price.

Do you mean Patrick Volkerding?

I won't argue against the fact that given two products of equal functionality most people would choose the more aesthetically pleasing one.

However, I'm rather disturbed by the "let's make it pretty by adding useless adornments to it" trend. Marketing needs to understand that simplicity can be aesthetic too. Take Slackware for example. While probably not aesthetic in the typical sense, it *is* beautiful in it its minimalism.

I've always been impressed with my Slackware distro releases, for 7 or so years now...

The latest fired right up into X and KDE with no manual configuration at all, and includes MySQL and PHP now...

I installed Slackware on my Dell laptop, and I didn't have any problems at all with PCMCIA support.

>Besides, I'd love to see three sets of hardware (all totally different) run the *same* software. Without any modification.

If you insist...

Slackware for iBook
Slackware for Sparc
Slackware for PC

But you may still be able to save your computer yet!

Apply this Patch Disk.

google and slackware.

Whatever happened to choice in this debate?

We can choose between various window managers, various linux flavors, and even office suites. Why don't we have a choice with our window system?

Why would it be any different for a fork of X for a choice between client/server and direct rendering, if backwards compatability was kept?
Would that not help the the people who only use Linux on their desktop, while allowing people with networks to use the tool, as it is now, that works for them?

Doh! And all this time I thought it was SLAC K.

Slackware has the answer to most of life's problems.

...you could also try Debian or Gentoo.

Slackware has 9.0 in preview.
Just download the current tree at slackware.org
Just installed slack 8.1 last night. Runs great on a p133 for a small server/

Though the oldest of them all, Slackware has (as far as I'm aware) never bothered with this...

It sounds like they are just raising the barrier to entry. If you want to download the source & build your own copy, go right ahead. But you already have to have Linux (possibly some othe *nix with a cross-compiler) installed, as well as the ability to compile all those packages. And I'd be surprised if they released tools that made it easy to build the binary installation CDs.

Of course, anyone who already has a Linux box and the ability to compile all that source probably is going to be running something else already, and won't be inclined to switch. Besides, if you want to compile all that crap, why not just run Gentoo, LFS, or *BSD?

hey dude! Slackware also uses /etc/X11 (and symlinks) - so don't tell such crap in the future about Slack, if u dunno about somthing u better shut up.. btw: Slackware rox!

As usual there is HOWTO that addresses this "ask slashdot" question. It is the Linux Accessability HOWTO sheesh

As usual there is HOWTO that addresses this "ask slashdot" question. It is the Linux Accessability HOWTO sheesh

Tired of distributions that aren't flexible? Can't do an "rpm -Uvh" without downloading oogles of other package dependency crap? Why not try "Slackware" (TM). Yes, that's right, "Slackware". It slices, it dices, it does everything you would think a bsd-type linux shoud do... and more! Just surf on down to your local mirror and check it out

I'm not sure this applies to the average person who is attempting to decide which Linux to install and use, but it's interesting to see a few of them evaluated from a dummied-down perspective. I guess a few of these may be on their way out as viable commercial alternatives, but from the response we saw on Slackware's demise (not), there seems to be no lack of friendly competition and enticements.

You're probably saying already, that doesnt make sense. Let me ellaborate.

RedHat/Mandrake are both very similar. Often, one user of one hates the other. RedHat people will say 'RedHat is more powerful and stable' and Mandrake people will say 'Mandrakes easier and less buggy'. As you can see, these statements conflict. Overall however, there very similar, and either one is fine. They're both based on RPM, and they both can be used for virtually anything.

Then there's the Slackware/Debian crowd. They tend to stick together, but they have differant views none the less. They take pride in their 'elite feeling', in that only people with 'skill' can use and know these distributions. They're typically harder for the novice, yet easier for the seasoned Linux user. Debian has arguably the best package management, and Slackware has probably the most loyal user base ever formed. These are top choices for someone experienced in Linux. Additionally, their is Progney, a commercial debian-based distribution that makes using Debian easier, and provides commercial support. This is quickly becoming a good alternative.

Finally, there's the SuSE and other crowd. They are less known and used, and usually appeal to a specific crowd. SuSE for instance, is very popular among non-US users. These are also generally good, especially if you have really specific needs.

Now, which crowd is right? None. Which is the best? None. It depends on what you want, what crowd you fit in. If you're very technical, You fall into the Slackware/Debian crowd. If you like what's popular, easy, and commercial, you'll like hanging out with the RedHat/Mandrake folks. And if you like something very specific, or a close community, you'll like SuSE or something else.

But what is right for you? That's up to you. Research all of them, Try a few, Play with them. It's like shopping for a car. Some like Chevy, Some like Ford, and some are fine with a Honda. And some just dont care.

What I use depends on the target machine. If it's a server, I'll go with either RedHat or Debian. If it's a workstation, RedHat. Firewall, I use OpenBSD or Debian. But like I said in the beginning, my opinion, or anyone else's, means nothing. Good luck.

You're probably saying already, that doesnt make sense. Let me ellaborate.

RedHat/Mandrake are both very similar. Often, one user of one hates the other. RedHat people will say 'RedHat is more powerful and stable' and Mandrake people will say 'Mandrakes easier and less buggy'. As you can see, these statements conflict. Overall however, there very similar, and either one is fine. They're both based on RPM, and they both can be used for virtually anything.

Then there's the Slackware/Debian crowd. They tend to stick together, but they have differant views none the less. They take pride in their 'elite feeling', in that only people with 'skill' can use and know these distributions. They're typically harder for the novice, yet easier for the seasoned Linux user. Debian has arguably the best package management, and Slackware has probably the most loyal user base ever formed. These are top choices for someone experienced in Linux. Additionally, their is Progney, a commercial debian-based distribution that makes using Debian easier, and provides commercial support. This is quickly becoming a good alternative.

Finally, there's the SuSE and other crowd. They are less known and used, and usually appeal to a specific crowd. SuSE for instance, is very popular among non-US users. These are also generally good, especially if you have really specific needs.

Now, which crowd is right? None. Which is the best? None. It depends on what you want, what crowd you fit in. If you're very technical, You fall into the Slackware/Debian crowd. If you like what's popular, easy, and commercial, you'll like hanging out with the RedHat/Mandrake folks. And if you like something very specific, or a close community, you'll like SuSE or something else.

But what is right for you? That's up to you. Research all of them, Try a few, Play with them. It's like shopping for a car. Some like Chevy, Some like Ford, and some are fine with a Honda. And some just dont care.

What I use depends on the target machine. If it's a server, I'll go with either RedHat or Debian. If it's a workstation, RedHat. Firewall, I use OpenBSD or Debian. But like I said in the beginning, my opinion, or anyone else's, means nothing. Good luck.

Version number inflation is a really stupid concept to those who know what they are doing. But since when did that mean anything? Very few people grasp the concept that just because something has a higher version number does not mean it is more dependable or bug-free (*COUGH*Mac OS X*cough*).

In particular, this reminds me of when Slackware decided to jump to version 7 from 4 just to keep up with certain other distros when Linux was becoming popular.

Idiocy never ceases to amaze and influence. Then again, the folks in Redmond are seemingly above numerical versioning after 3.11. First Windows 95, then 98, then 98B (ooooh), then ME/2K, and after that I guess they decided to switch to something other than the year (people may start noticing how much they are being fucked over if they are reminded of the present year by looking at their boot screen) and now we have XP. After that.... XP2? XIP? LMNOP? XYZ?

Ugh.
--

Version number inflation is a really stupid concept to those who know what they are doing. But since when did that mean anything? Very few people grasp the concept that just because something has a higher version number does not mean it is more dependable or bug-free (*COUGH*Mac OS X*cough*).

In particular, this reminds me of when Slackware decided to jump to version 7 from 4 just to keep up with certain other distros when Linux was becoming popular.

Idiocy never ceases to amaze and influence. Then again, the folks in Redmond are seemingly above numerical versioning after 3.11. First Windows 95, then 98, then 98B (ooooh), then ME/2K, and after that I guess they decided to switch to something other than the year (people may start noticing how much they are being fucked over if they are reminded of the present year by looking at their boot screen) and now we have XP. After that.... XP2? XIP? LMNOP? XYZ?

Ugh.
--

The "Slackware" distribution of Linux (http://www.slackware.org) is distributed by Walnut Creek, I believe. The Slackware CD does mention Walnut Creek, and Walnut Creek is also mentioned on Slackware.org.

Ain't no such thing as Stackware, though.