Slashdot Mirror
Interview w/Slackware Developer David Cantrell
keskoy writes: "David Cantrell is a core team member for the Slackware [?] Linux Project. In this interview you will learn how David got his start working on Slackware linux, what his role as a Slackware developer is, he will explain to us about his two new applications protopkg and autoslack, plus other various topics of interest are touched on."
grep (keyword)
-- $SIGNATURE
But that's forcing the linux newbie to skip linux-user status and go straight to linux-admin status. I think that's one reason more people don't use linux. Most people don't want to be an administrator; they want to be a user and get their work done. Should we stop using automatic transmissions so that drivers better understand how the car works? ( I know it's not a perfect analogy; just making an illustration. Let's not start a flame war )
Note that these tweaks are to make the packages work with the SuSE "layout," and may not work with other distributions...
The stable release, as typically released on CDs, takes the conservative approach of only releasing what they know already works well.
Note that none of this has anything to do with licenses, only with the respective design choices. And some of those choices are downright incompatible.
I would argue that the notion of the "best uberdistribution" is a contradiction in terms and thus an inherent impossibility.
As for the "licensing thing," one part of constructing a distribution is indeed in assessing the respective licenses of the components and how that fits with what you plan to release. If you can't cope with the legalities there, you're probably not legally prepared to release any kind of collection of this sort of thing...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
So what's the alternative? Surely not Debian, Redhat or SuSE. Using common defaults works well for the user who fits those defaults, but screws up everyone else. And throwing a flashy GUI over the adminstration doesn't make it any easier.
I have found, like the other poster, that Slackware is TRULY easier than the other distributions I have tried. The installation is a snap. Administration is easy. That's because Slackware is laid out sensibly. It does require that you be willing to learn, however.
Taking the car analogy, everyone who can drive a stick can drive an auto, but the reverse is not true. Once you know Slackware you know Linux, but once you know Redhat all you know is Redhat.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Err, How about some facts to back up your assertions?
How about reading the post you're responding to?
In which I maintain that dependencies are an integral part of any packaging system. Your link doesn't refute that. Yes, Slackware archives have some meta information, but do not meet the other requirements listed above to be classified as a package management system.
I like Slackware. There, I admitted it :)
/etc/rc.d rather than the SysV-style mess'o'symlinks. Easy to reconfigure with `vi`, and very similar to Slowlaris and FreeBSD boxen. No need for linuxconf.
AFAIK it is the only distro that uses a BSD-style
How do you define what is in a package system?
How do you define what is/should be flagged as a 'dependancy'?
I define it differently from you. That's fair enough, but my main point is that every other system which labels itself as a package management system defines it similarly to my definition, and Slackware users are generally the only persons who share the other view.
It would seem that this means Slackware's package system is at least effective enough for me to do such things as upgrade a major part of my system, no?
Just because you can upgrade a major chunk of your system with a tool does not prove that tool is a packaging system. I just upgraded some major components of a Windows 2000 machine using Windows Update [yes, I use and prefer Linux]. That doesn't mean Windows Update is a package management system.
Clearly, you would not want your package system to remove all dependancies. In this example, your system would be useless without the glibc libraries.
When you remove a package, a packaging system may prompt to remove all packages dependent on that package. Not all packages that package is dependent on. You seem a little confused about this.
My point is that there is more than one way to define a package and its uses. Slackware is slightly different,
Agreed on both points. Slackware's definition of a packaging system is a very rare and unusual one. It doesn't match the definition of `packaging systems' that AFAIK all other packaging systems use. That's Sun's, Red Hat's, Debian's, Microsoft SMS's, and others.
Finally, if packages were so simple and definable, why are there so many package systems available?
I agree. Just because soemthing is a packaging system, it doesn't mean its god. Many OSs get along fine without packaging systems. Slackware might be a great OS, it just doesn't have a packaging system but any defiition of `packaging system' other than that of Slackware users.
All three need to be recognized and applauded for their efforts and commitment to the community.
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
If you want to make an uber-distro like this, it would certainly make sense to start with Debian and add in the features from Slackware as you see fit (The .tgz packages are too easy to install [cd /;tar -zxf path/to/file.tgz])... You can use the Debian or slackware RPM package as a core for adding your redhat-supported features without a whole helluva lot of trouble.
As far as retaining a safe package base that interacts properly with most administrative programs, Debian would certainly be the best. RedHat makes many major modifications to administrative tools that makes their tools a bit sketchy. Slackware deviates from the GNU core quite a bit too, to retain the BSD-like feel.
If you're feeling lazy and brave all at once, you could look at taking VectorLinux (sorry, I'm too lazy to find their URL), which is a stripped-down and all-in-one version of Slack and use that for a base. I definitely wouldn't put this choice above going with Debian base plus outside packages, though.
.... um, i lost you after "0110100001101001".
Ditto! I started teaching myself UNIX administration on a Slackware Box. The fact that "I" had to do everything on my own taught me more than reading the man pages and HOWTO's. The Slackware approach leads you to the Linux "Do it yourself" philosophy.
A agree. To tell the truth, Slack is probably the best way to go, because the newbie distros actually make things harder. For example, Mandrake 7.2 includes an asnine set of wrapper scripts over the normal SysV scripts. Since these things are only documented in the Mandrake docs (which are fairly sparse) it makes it more confusing for the new user that is reading from a HOWTO that assumes SysV. In comparison, Slack uses the BSD scripts, which are quite well documented. I found that Slack tends to have much fewer idiocies than other distros of Linux. Rarely as I used Slack did the HOWTO I was following differ from what was going on. When I used RedHat, I could never follow the HOWTOs because RH messed around with things and put them in different places. And I recently deleted the stupid linkes that Mandrake put in the /etc directory (to the rc.d directories) and the system would't boot anymore!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I'd like to also say that I've seen very few major-distribution developers that are as personable with their users as David is, even in some less-than-fortunate circumstances. I just wanted to thank David publicly for being such a great example of a community-friendly Linux Distribution developer. It's good to see him get a well-deserved interview!
.... um, i lost you after "0110100001101001".
No, I meant the binary TGZ packages. They're never up to date. The only thing in the /tgz directory is source code.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Let me clear that up again. I'm not talking about the Slackware tgz's, but the general, distro-independent Linux i386 binaries.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
If you are a control-freak, Slackware is definitely the way to go. The administration tools are kept to a minimum. If you want to make things fancy, you need to set that up yourself. The result is that you slowly move towards gurudom.
However, if you are making money, slackware packages are fairly primitive. To the best of my knowledge, they don't support dependencies. You don't have a neat dselect type app. But you have the direct power. And that is the price of power - efficiency. I used to compile all my stuff on slackware. However, I must admit that I love apt-get and dselect. It has cut my workload severely.
That being said, I still use slackware on my production server. But my workstation is a debian woody.
Stop the brainwash
Now, Slackware is finally coming out with platform ports just as everyone else is dumping support on other platforms. I don't get the logic.
Click here or here.
Every time I see this name, I assume people are talking about British Perl Monger David Cantrell, instead of American Linux Hacker David Cantrell. Obviously the open source world needs better naming conventions... :)
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
I saw a link once which shows you how to make your own distro...
:-)
Do you mean Linux From Scratch?
This is a project on installing Linux literally from scratch. Probably no better/simpler way of forcing yourself to learn the nitty gritty details, than having to install binutils, fileutils et al yourself...
-Andy
http://www.gimbo.org.uk/
slackware packages are fairly primitive. To the best of my knowledge, they don't support dependencies.
Then in my opinion, and from poular definition, they're not packages. They're software archives. A packaging system is a set of rules for software installation, with not only the archived software, but instructions to install it, versioning information, and meta information about how packages relate to each other. These are all key elements of every other popular package management system, and though there's no dictionary definition of software package [or is there?], they form the basis for the current popular definition.
It seems Slackware is just renaming their current technology to be competitive with DEB and RPM based distributions. As more polished, easier to operate Debian versions arise, and APT for RPM grows in popularity, there's going to be a huge difference in software management techniques and installation ease between other distributions and slackware. Linux needs packages - an Open Source system is fairly compartmentalized and even regular user apps may consist of many other applications brought together. If there's no centralized management then things fall apart very quickly.
Note that the Debian folk once had the (arguably deranged!) counter-idea of doing the opposite, namely using FreeBSD as kernel for Gnu/Debian/FreeBSD.
I'd contend that neither approach is the least bit "deranged;" I'm actually quite surprised that, with all the BSD connections, Slackware has never headed to using Ports as its package management system...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
i didn't have an internet connection and would bring stuff back to my room on floppies or tapes.
sometimes it would get to the point where much of the system would not boot or things would stop compiling or things would start coring.
after a couple of hours of searching the green book, and not being able to fix the thing, with homework due in the morning...well, reinstall.
i don't think it was that terrible of an option, considering how rapidly things were changing and the woeful state of dependency checking.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
wow...1996, and having to reinstall every three or four weeks due to library drift. really brings back memories.
interesting about package management, but it appears apt/dpkg is still the best of breed.
at some point it would be nice to have keywords (something like what "apropos/man -k" is to man pages) for packaging systems. I don't like having to go on the net to find commands/packages to get when I need a program to do "whatever".
some of these news sites ("userlocal.com" in this case) are pretty cool. I prefer the articles that mix some tech background, review, and a bit of getting started all-in-one.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.