The Stealth Desktop Part III

uninet writes "In the third installment of the Stealth Desktop series about Slackware Linux, Eduardo Sánchez builds upon the previous steps of Part I and Part II. Continuing where those parts left off, he introduces the subjects of user, font and printer management in Slackware using KDE."

Comments

Command line examples would be useful

[Viol8]

To be fair , slackware isn't really the first choice as a desktop system but it is among the first choices for a backend server (I use it for such myself). With that in mind I'm not sure how to configure printers via a GUI is all that much use for most slackware users. I personally would be far more interested to see how to do it via the command line so you can configure the things via a dial up at 3 in the morning when things have gone pear shaped at work. Anyway , no doubt other people will have other opinions :)

Re:Command line examples would be useful

[cs02rm0]

Why would you say Slackware isn't really the first choice as a desktop system?

I just ask because, well... you can install KDE, Gnome, OOo... every desktop app I can think of. Once swaret or similar is setup via cron then you don't need to tinker with rpm dependancy hell with GUI upgrade software.

It's not like you've said it's too advanced, which I could understand some linux newbies finding it - you say you install it for backend servers.

What am I missing in some other distro that I don't know about?!

(I'd setup cups via http://localhost:631/ for printing, myself).

Re:Command line examples would be useful

[polecat_redux]

I completely agree. I use Slackware myself (almost exclusively), and my uses for it are in fact more geared towards server-related purposes. It really does seem that Slackware, as good as it is, takes a backseat to other distro's in terms Windows-like usability. In that respect, I'd have to Mandrake or SuSe takes the lead (though there are a few I still haven't tried).

Re:Command line examples would be useful

[polecat_redux]

I may be completely wrong, but from what I can tell, Slackware doesn't have all of the bells and whistles that other distro's do. The installation process for most other distro's for example, exhibit a lot more hand-holding than Slackware, and AFAIK, they also include various utilities that make system configuration much easier. I'm sure there are more differences, but I always got the feeling that Slackware lends itself more towards the plain old vanilla, command-line incarnation of Linux.

Re:Command line examples would be useful

[anonymous cowherd (m]

I don't see how you can characterize a distro that has KDE, etc as "server oriented" vs "desktop oriented," as some of the other posts imply. The key distinction a lot of people seem to be missing, though, is "How friendly is the install procedure?"

In terms of usability, for someone coming from a Windows background, I think KDE is alright. Maybe not perfect, but definitely not terrible.

Take a look at the other distros that seem to be mentioned as "desktop oriented" or "user friendly": Mandrake, SuSe, RedHat. What do they all have in common? A nice, pretty installer.

Now, look at the so-called "server-oriented" distros: Debian, Slack, hmm, I can't really think of any others. I am not 100% certain about Slack these days, but back when I used it aeons ago, the install wasn't very user-friendly to the average computer user. I was comfortable with it as a hobbyist, but the average Joe probably would not be. (It's too bad TFA is slashdotted, otherwise I might be able to check my facts on slack 10. :( )

Gentoo, OTOH, is in a class by itself. I run it, I love it, but my mom would not touch it. Installing and setting up a decent environment is a serious commitment. I suppose as a server, it could work, as long as the PHBs are kept away from it, but one would need linux sysadmins that actually know what they're doing, rather than clicking through a pretty install program on Redhat Enterprise Edition.

Re:Command line examples would be useful

[DMadCat]

You seem to be going on assumptions rather than actual experience.

The only possibly difficult part of installing Slackware would be partitioning, which always needs a bit of explanation (Windows XP is in the same boat). The average user will always get tripped up by this but a little reading will get them through.

The rest of the Slackware install would be what you'd call point and click only its menu driven. Pretty != Ease of use. You can go through, choose all of the default options, and have a functioning Slackware system within ten minutes (I just reinstalled Slackware 10 on my laptop in just this way last night and it took 9 and a half)

As for not having all of the bells and whistles... with Slackware, the bells and whistles are not only there but also highly and easily configurable.

If by bells and whistles you mean it doesn't automatically boot to a pretty login screen, no it doesn't by default, but altering the default run level in /etc/inittab (which is well commented) can quickly change that (as it did when I wanted my Mandrake install to boot to a command prompt).

If by bells and whistles you mean it doesn't have all the programs the other distributions have, wrong again. I've been 99% successful at installing nearly everything I want (I'm a Sys Admin and so I tend to want a lot!) whether it be by the default Slack packages or (my preferred method) from source. I usually compile from source and install it to the /usr/local/ directory, create a symbolic link to the binary in /usr/local/bin and away it goes. I never have to worry about where the hell did it install and why can't I find a shortcut to it?

Because it's not hellbent on giving the end-user a flashy graphical experience designed to grip the heart and burn the retinas, Slackware has been far and away the easiest distro I've come across to customize.

Sorry, but for me Slackware = warm fuzzies

I'm glad someone wrote about Slackware

[mind21_98]

Slackware was my first and still favorite Linux distro (back from the a.out days). At one point I uninstalled both Redhat and Debian in favor of Slackware. Eduardo should be commended on making Slackware more accessable to those who want to try Linux.

Re:I'm glad someone wrote about Slackware

[polecat_redux]

If you ever feel especially masochistic, check out Linux From Scratch. It's essentially a walkthrough that takes you step-by-step through the process of compiling a fresh toolchain which you then use to compile all of the necessary applications needed to construct a basic Linux system. Once you're done, you will likely find the process rather fulfilling (in addition to all that new knowledge rattling around in your head).

Printers are a horror !!

[Gopal.V]

Printers in Linux have been a horrible experience for me (winmodems win for being the MOST horrible). Especially if it's a remote printer , one of those which runs SMB printing services (as in office).

This CUPS Horror fairly describes why a Gooey interface to printers are not enough.

Looks like the article was slashdotted ... it stopped half way without images.

Re:Printers are a horror !!

[IamTheRealMike]

Yeah, it can be a pain, but to be fair Windows shares part of the blame for this as well. Last time I tried to use a Windows shared printer, it wouldn't appear in the Fedora "select your printer" dialog ... a bit of poking around revealed that it didn't appear in another Windows machine as well despite being shared and there being apparently nothing wrong. Windows file and printer sharing has always been awful, I've wasted many hours trying to get Windows 98 machines to talk to XP and vice-versa - given that it doesn't even work reliably between Windows machines it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that Linux has issues as well.

The good news is that ZeroConf is being integrated into Linux quite rapidly now that Apples sucky code has been abandoned and Howl became available. Apparently quite a few modern printers support it natively so now maybe Windows printer sharing can be at least partially bypassed in some larger networks.

Call This A troll. I Don't Care.

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of all the distros, I really wish Slackware would just go away.

Blah,blah,blah open source is all about choice...

But every damn time some person is looking to dump Windows and migrate to Linux and needs some realistic advice on which distro to go for, some clown pipes in to 'put his props in for Slackware'

Just stop it. Please. You can't possibly be doing any more damage to Windows people looking for a clear and easy migration path.

Re:Call This A troll. I Don't Care.

[pe1rxq]

Eight years ago I was recommended Slackware by a friend.
The only damage it did was that I got hooked.
I never regretted that for a moment (did try out some other distros since then but always ran back to slackware, it just feels right).
Just remember that not every windows user that wants to try linux is an icon clicking zombie.

Jeroen

Re:Call This A troll. I Don't Care.

[Lumpy]

Um ... no.

slackware is nither simple or clean, although it does put things in the filesystem where they belong unlike debian,redhat,mandrake and suse.. so reading that man file on apache makes sense. but simple?? no it forces you you actually learn how to config a linux system.

It's most desireable trait is that it is ungodly faster than all the above Distros. A simple install no a underpowered Duron 1.4ghz processor and only 512 meg of ram a Slackware install is snappy feeling and Java + games run on it nicely.

EXACT same machine running mandrake, fedora,suse or debian is over 2 times slower to the point that popcap java games are all herky-jerky, you no longer can play DVD's and there is no way in hell you can play Unreal Tournament on it (yet it plays wunderfully in slackware on the same machine.

Slackware is raw speed, and many members of the LUG turn to it when they want to use gnome or KDE on an older machine.

Re:Call This A troll. I Don't Care.

[TractorBarry]

Well speaking as "Joe Sixpack" myself (actually more like "Joe Gallon" as I'm in the UK) I found Slackware to be the easiest Linux distro to get my head round.

Most of my computing experience has been with mainframes (running ICL, now Fujitsus, VME) but I'd been using Winders at home for years (to run audio software)

So getting heartily sick of Windows about two years ago I thought I'd try out Linux and before settling on Slackware I tried Suse & Red Hat and I simply found their GUIS confusing and hard to figure out - especially when something went wrong.

In comparison Slackware is a treat. Need to change a setting ? look to the relevant config file. Need to know what's going on ? Look at the logs.

So this beer swilling eejit found Slackware to be the easiest of the lot to start learning Linux with !

In fact after having about a year playing with Slackware I've put SuSE on a box I acquired and I now realise that it is actually a very good distro. But I need the knowledge gained from using Slackware to realise this !

Oh well time to open another beer... pffft...

Re:Call This A troll. I Don't Care.

[WankersRevenge]

Nah ... you're not joe. I've met Joe. He works down at local assembly plant, machining parts. Joe's a good guy. Kind of got a beer gut. His hands are oiled, not to mentioned caloused from working with heavy equipment all day. Joe has a wife who works as at dentist's office. After his shift his over, he stops by the watering hole with buds. Talks about football. Tells his buds the Red Sox will go all the way this year. At home, he watches sitcoms with his family. And after he tucks his kids to bed, he takes a look at his fantasy sports score. Maybe he sends a supportive email to his kid sister who is getting a divorce. He types with one finger. When someone mentions the word Slackware to Joe, he is reminded of his nephew failing high school.

That's Joe.

What to compare?

[pedestrian crossing]

I think the main issues of feature comparison between distributions, in the context of widespread desktop adoption, are (in order of importance):

1. Ability to easily add and remove peripherals.
2. Ability to easily add/remove/update software.
3. Ability to easily install and consistantly get a good working state.

slackware

[techefnet]

Nice to see someone actually written something about Slackware. Slackwares always been my favorite distro .. I used to be a control freak i guess, thats why i like it. Im thinking of changing now tho, prolly because im getting too lazy for all this slackin :)

What is needed

[AaronGTurner]

To actually convince people to swap to Linux on the desktop it needs to be easy enough to use. Basically this means familiar enough - i.e. uses similar enough paradigms to Windows for users to get the hang of general use instantly. Whilst things like some management is going to be different, it should take only one article, if that, to get end users up and running with desktop Linux doing basic things such as surfing the web, using email, word processing. If it takes more, then Linux isn't there yet.

Having been using Unix for 15 years it is hard for me to tell if Linux is there yet as I am not a naieve user, but the likes of Lindows and Lycoris seem to be very usable, as do distributions with slightly less of a naieve user focus such as SuSe and Mandrake (and RedHat was going in that direction to before the Enterprise/Fedora split). So things are going in the right direction at least.

What would be interesting is to see a proper survey of users of a variety of levels who have never previously used Linux and see how they react to the latest distros on the desktop.

Try Ubuntu, GNOME 2.8 powered plug and play Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

It has recently been released and it has caused quite a stir for its ease of use despite being based on Debian. For me its the first GNOME since 1.4 that is better than KDE. I suggest you try it and you will see why Slackware is a minority and why thousands of user are switching to Ubuntu!

Ubuntu Linux
Wikipedia article.

Desktop OS?

[Outsider_99]

I used to use Redhat/mandrake on the desktop. But then I discovered Slackware and started running it on my desktop. Its very good... but you need to know a bit about the internals before you can start using it. I like it because it doesnt try do everything for you and installing other things is easy. I think its also a good distro to start learning linux.

Re:Desktop OS?

[WhiteDeath]

Agreed...

Nice easy dialogs and next buttons are good if you've never used something, and for the average user (web, email, desktop publishing etc) they are perfect - ie they don't want to know about doing wierd things that no-one else thought of, and the less choices they have about how the OS works, the better.

On the other hand, I choose Slackware because there is NO big magic button that you press to make it all work like someone else wanted, and hose all your tweaked scripts back to default, or worse completely dead, at the same time :-)
(yes, there are the standard KDE/Gnome config tools, but they are designed to be reasonably distro-neutral)

That said, once the system is configured, there is basically zero difference between distros - they all run the same window managers, and the same linux apps, and the same kernels (just different versions of each, mostly depending on release date).

Re:Slack vs Debian

[p.rican]

No matter what distro I try, I always wind up going back to Slackware.

Debian has always been difficult for me because of all the options that you're presented with during installation. That's not a negative for Debian though. Keep in mind that I have never tried Debian with the anaconda installer, but I hear it is awesome. For me, Debian's biggest plus is package management. Nothing beats apt-get. I also like that the fact that it is one of the last TRULY free distros. Debian has got to be one of the easiest distros to maintain (from what I hear from many sysadmins.)

Slackware is incredibly stable and more UNIX-like than other distros. The installer will ask you less questions than a Debian install but will give you a very stable, secure and functional system (desktop or server) with default install options. For me, I find Slackware more enjoyable because it uses a stock kernel right from Linus' tree without any distro specific "tweaks" that you would find in most other distros. I run Xandros for my wife and it is a nightmare if you want to install a package that's not in the Xandros (Debian-based) repository. I have never had a problem compiling a program from source on a Slackware box. It will even install packages using rpms via the 'rpm2tgz' command. Package management is getting better with tools such as "slapt-get" and "swaret". I believe both tools come with the Slackware isos. If you can't find them, you can look here to get any slackware packages you can dream of. If you prefer a gnome desktop, you can download the dropline gnome desktop. Lots of eye candy and GUI front-ends for Slackware specific tools etc.

I could go on for a long time about the merits of each distro, but both are excellent choices for desktop or server roles. I guess it comes down to Slackware for me because I work in a pure UNIX (AT&T 3B21D) environment at my job with the phone company. I work daily on Solaris (Netra boxes) and HP-UX as well. Slackware was designed to be the most UNIX like linux distro out there. Hope that helps

Slackware and X

[trezor]

Oh, cmon! Be a little fair will, you?

The way I learned how Linux works, as in for real, was by using Slackware. I'll admit SuSe and Debian are way ahead in the ease-of-use department, but trying to tweak those distro's is something I find truly painfull. And it hides the inner workings so well, that moving to another distro means learning everything all over.

But to your piont, if you've read the configuration manual for slackware (yes, if you're truly clueless at something, you can resort to manuals), it's right there.

So even if the installer doesn't tell you, it's not like it's a big mysterious secret how to config X. And if you know it's called X and you want to run it... You probably know about XFree86Config?

Re:Slackware and X

[Mr Guy]

I'm not usually one to pounce on the "Linux Elite" style posts, but this one I have to.

And if you know it's called X and you want to run it..

What if you don't know it's called X? My wife uses my linux computer just fine when she isn't using her Windows laptop. Why? Because to her, a GUI is a GUI. She DOESN'T know it's called X, and at her level of concern, she doesn't have to. She figured out how to get the menu to pop up by right clicking and she's fine with that. As far as she's concerned, her computer is Windows, and my computer is Linux.

I'm seriously hoping your sig is true for this one, and I just need some coffee to get my sense of humor up to speed.