Put away your ego and use your brain for a few moments.
Ditto.
Every individual knows best what is best for his person. THAT is why people use Slackware.
Idem, ibidem, s/Slackware/RedHat/.
We compile with the options WE want, put the files where WE want and configure the way WE want. Not the way someone else decided it should be done.
You do that for all the software you have on your system? Anyways, what prevents you from doing it under RedHat (or SuSE, or Debian, or Caldera etc)?
Compare this to any of several analogies:
Better performance out of a standard transmission.
Eh?
Better quality in made-from-scratch food...
Thank you, I prefer my food made from vegetables and meat, hehe...
Bare bones install, sure some people want that level of control. Others have even written their own operating systems. (How fun could that be. They must get tired of that.)
Please notice that when I suggested to the original poster that he did a bare bones installation, I was not referring to Slackware, I meant rolling your own. I find it amusing that the vast majority of Slackware users whom I talk to in RL have no idea how to go about it.
Yeah, writing your own OS must be a very rewarding pursuit. It is also somewhat more complicated than compiling somebody else's software and takes a heck of a lot more time (and people).
It all boils down to this: Slackware provides a simple framework for getting linux up and running with a standard set of utilities and apps, while avoiding thinking for the user.
It all boils down to this: Debian (or RedHat, or SuSE, etc) provides a complex, rich software environment which the user can tweak to his liking if he so wishes, without having to bother about irrelevant problems that should be solved just once. --
I gorgot to mention this: compare the quantity of software added to the whole system by RedHat and Slackware. You'll notice that Slackware's contribution is dwarfed by that of RH. No wonder it has less bugs. It would be a wonder if hello.c had more bugs than GNOME. --
I think you'll find BMW's motorcycle's reputation fares a lot different in Germany than in the US, even when compared to Harley's...
And regarding Slack vs. RedHat, my view is slightly different than yours: Slack caters to sysadmins (not power users) who are used to BSD, or came to Linux via Slack; RedHat caters to newbies and experienced users who don't like to do the same old shit repeatedly. Unlike what Slackware users think, power users like package management, that's why they use Debian;-) --
Don't take me wrong, mate, but I simply cannot relate to this notion that compiling stuff is an accomplishment. Writing code, teaking someone else's code, yeah, but simply typing./configure && make install, doesn't strike me as an intellectually challenging pursuit. --
Actually, the Linux distro that more closely resembles FreeBSD (and the other BSD derived systems) is Slackware. That is to say, Slack got all the bad (IMHO) features of BSD (initialization,/proc utilities) and none of the good ones (ports, for one).
What you've said in the first pargraph of your response is pretty much in accordance with my philosophy: install the base system using your favourite distro, install software you want to tweak, mangle or play with in/usr/local or make a custom package.
I haven't toyed with FreeBSD enough, but I suspect that make cvsup (or whatever command you use to update the ports collection) is not significantly more simple than apt-get upgrade. --
Specially when he misses a funny mispelling (i.e. "waisting") for a trivial one... --
Re:What's with all this anti-Slackware shiznit?
on
Slackware For Sparc
·
· Score: 1
I don't happen to think Linux == RedHat, I have used Slack, have used RedHat and SuSE, but my beloved distro is now Debian and it's likely to be so for eternity. Nevertheless, I think Slackware sucks. --
First you're wrong in presuming that installing things from source is a pain in RedHat (or Debian, for that matter - you know that there are package management systems other than RPM, right?;-), you just have to download the source packages, tweak them to your heart's content, recreate the binary package and install that. But that would require one to learn RPM, God forbid.
You're right in that Slackware does have package management, after all. It only happens to suck. --
Care to explain what is this purported purity of Slackware that you love so much? Please, refrain from wishy-washy, subjective, emotionally laden expressions such as "cleanliness", "pure", "inner workings" etc. Explain, in strictly objective terms what is about Slackware that makes you tick.
If in the end, it all boils down to having to work out most of the stuff by yourself, you might as well consider doing a bare bones Linux installation, i.e., no pre-packaged binaries at all, compile, create root and boot disks, repartition all by yourself. See how fun that is.
Now after having done it, ponder about this: is it so much fun that you can positively state that you'll never, ever get tired of it? Those of us who have better things to do with what scarce time we have now better. That's why other distributions thrive. --
Because when RedHat releases beta stuff that still contains bugs this is considered evil, whilst when the intrepid knights of Slackware do the same, it is 'leet.
Shouldn't you be posting comments on the "Microsoft Cracked" story and calling everybody a zealot and so on? But wait, the story is all over the news channels... --
This thread is dead and gone now, but I'll reply just in case you're tracking it, and because I think my points weren't expressed very clearly.
What I meant by English "presenting more difficulty, spelling-wise" is that in English there are a number of spelling inconsistencies (which are historically explainable) that you won't find (in the same degree and in a comparable number) in other languages. To wit: count the ways that the combination "ough" is pronounced in English. Now imagine that you come upon the word 'trough' (not through) in written form, and suppose this word is new to you: would you have any clue as to how it is pronounced? Conversely, had you heard it in casual conversation (unlikely, but...), would you bet how it is spelled? In German and in Spanish, either way would be pretty much straight-forward. "Ei" and "eu" are always pronounced the same way in German (as far as I recall, mein Deutsch ist ein wenig rostig), ditto for "ch" and "ll" in Español. French is somewhat more picky, but it is no competition for good' ol English.
Notice I was speaking about spelling only. Grammar is a totally different animal, and you'll see speakers of all languages commiting atrocities against their mother languages (specially those of a mathematical/technical bent), more so than English speakers, which are helped by a much simpler grammatical structure.
Other than that, it's like the old saying: different strokes for different folks. Some people have a better eye for spotting spelling mistakes (embedded spell checker?) others don't. Makes for an interesting subject on the study of the workings of the human brain.
And you're right about gender in German: I used to make a complete fool of myself trying to get around it, so I'd just give up and happily mangle declensions as I saw fit:-)
--
You're actually glossing over a point that makes your argumentation not 100% kosher, Uwe: English presents much more difficulty, spelling-wise, than German, Spanish or any other European language I'm familiar with. Notice that I pointed out (on purpose) two languages in which spelling inconsistencies are very rare, if existent at all. That, as we all know, is not the case with English.
And in defence of Americans, I have to say that I found a great many poor spellers amongst Brits and Aussies as well. The fact is, people who learn English as a second language (as is my case, and I presume yours) tend to spell better than native speakers precisely because they learn to write English in parellel to learning to speak it. --
I think the point you (and so many others here, apparently) miss is that there is a huge difference in being able to read basic technical literature in a foreign language and being able to carry out a conversation (that is, on-th-fly, no dictionaries allowed, verbal communication) on sundry topics (most of them non-technical) in that same language.
I'll grant you most of those Japanese and Koreans can read (and perhaps even write) technical docs. Chatting about their dietary preferences is quite another thing. --
If we're talking about the brilliant, ever-howlin' lead singer of Creedence, that's John Fogerty! You're correct in everything else but this small detail... --
You're absolutely right. From a user's point of view RedHat and Debian are not that much different, heck, I'm using the same GNOME desktop I used under RH with all the same programs etc. No big deal.
The differences are mostly the packaging system (where Debian aboslutely rocks) and the easy configuration of sound, video, printers which is great under RH (for Debian, you have to roll up your sleeves).
You would feel the difference had you tried Slackware which IMHO brings the worst of both worlds: RTFM configuration and sorry ass packaging system. Add to this some incompatibility to boot, and you're pretty much SOL. --
Slashdot Mirror
By that same reasoning, what does that make FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and the BSD-du-jour?
--
Cumbersome demands like a renewable atmosphere or the ability to actually grow food?
--
Ditto.
Every individual knows best what is best for his person. THAT is why people use Slackware.
Idem, ibidem, s/Slackware/RedHat/.
We compile with the options WE want, put the files where WE want and configure the way WE want. Not the way someone else decided it should be done.
You do that for all the software you have on your system? Anyways, what prevents you from doing it under RedHat (or SuSE, or Debian, or Caldera etc)?
Compare this to any of several analogies:
Better performance out of a standard transmission.
Eh?
Better quality in made-from-scratch food...
Thank you, I prefer my food made from vegetables and meat, hehe...
Bare bones install, sure some people want that level of control. Others have even written their own operating systems. (How fun could that be. They must get tired of that.)
Please notice that when I suggested to the original poster that he did a bare bones installation, I was not referring to Slackware, I meant rolling your own. I find it amusing that the vast majority of Slackware users whom I talk to in RL have no idea how to go about it.
Yeah, writing your own OS must be a very rewarding pursuit. It is also somewhat more complicated than compiling somebody else's software and takes a heck of a lot more time (and people).
It all boils down to this: Slackware provides a simple framework for getting linux up and running with a standard set of utilities and apps, while avoiding thinking for the user.
It all boils down to this: Debian (or RedHat, or SuSE, etc) provides a complex, rich software environment which the user can tweak to his liking if he so wishes, without having to bother about irrelevant problems that should be solved just once.
--
I gorgot to mention this: compare the quantity of software added to the whole system by RedHat and Slackware. You'll notice that Slackware's contribution is dwarfed by that of RH. No wonder it has less bugs. It would be a wonder if hello.c had more bugs than GNOME.
--
And regarding Slack vs. RedHat, my view is slightly different than yours: Slack caters to sysadmins (not power users) who are used to BSD, or came to Linux via Slack; RedHat caters to newbies and experienced users who don't like to do the same old shit repeatedly. Unlike what Slackware users think, power users like package management, that's why they use Debian ;-)
--
Don't take me wrong, mate, but I simply cannot relate to this notion that compiling stuff is an accomplishment. Writing code, teaking someone else's code, yeah, but simply typing ./configure && make install, doesn't strike me as an intellectually challenging pursuit.
--
Debian has absolutely nothing to do with BSD.
--
RPM forces reliance on itself far too much.
translate to: RPM is consistent and self-contained. I deem that to be a good thing, but YMMV.
--
I haven't toyed with FreeBSD enough, but I suspect that make cvsup (or whatever command you use to update the ports collection) is not significantly more simple than apt-get upgrade.
--
Specially when he misses a funny mispelling (i.e. "waisting") for a trivial one...
--
I don't happen to think Linux == RedHat, I have used Slack, have used RedHat and SuSE, but my beloved distro is now Debian and it's likely to be so for eternity. Nevertheless, I think Slackware sucks.
--
You're right in that Slackware does have package management, after all. It only happens to suck.
--
--
If in the end, it all boils down to having to work out most of the stuff by yourself, you might as well consider doing a bare bones Linux installation, i.e., no pre-packaged binaries at all, compile, create root and boot disks, repartition all by yourself. See how fun that is.
Now after having done it, ponder about this: is it so much fun that you can positively state that you'll never, ever get tired of it? Those of us who have better things to do with what scarce time we have now better. That's why other distributions thrive.
--
When I installed, it put hundreds of binaries in usr/bin but nothing in /usr/local/bin
in all its heavy-handed lack of subtlety, exposes yourself more than a full striptease. Not very masterly that, eh?
--
Go figure...
--
Shouldn't you be posting comments on the "Microsoft Cracked" story and calling everybody a zealot and so on? But wait, the story is all over the news channels...
--
What I meant by English "presenting more difficulty, spelling-wise" is that in English there are a number of spelling inconsistencies (which are historically explainable) that you won't find (in the same degree and in a comparable number) in other languages. To wit: count the ways that the combination "ough" is pronounced in English. Now imagine that you come upon the word 'trough' (not through) in written form, and suppose this word is new to you: would you have any clue as to how it is pronounced? Conversely, had you heard it in casual conversation (unlikely, but...), would you bet how it is spelled? In German and in Spanish, either way would be pretty much straight-forward. "Ei" and "eu" are always pronounced the same way in German (as far as I recall, mein Deutsch ist ein wenig rostig), ditto for "ch" and "ll" in Español. French is somewhat more picky, but it is no competition for good' ol English.
Notice I was speaking about spelling only. Grammar is a totally different animal, and you'll see speakers of all languages commiting atrocities against their mother languages (specially those of a mathematical/technical bent), more so than English speakers, which are helped by a much simpler grammatical structure.
Other than that, it's like the old saying: different strokes for different folks. Some people have a better eye for spotting spelling mistakes (embedded spell checker?) others don't. Makes for an interesting subject on the study of the workings of the human brain.
And you're right about gender in German: I used to make a complete fool of myself trying to get around it, so I'd just give up and happily mangle declensions as I saw fit :-)
--
I don't think you too are old enough to remember, huh?
--
Talvez isso tornasse essa merda um pouco mais inteligente e interessante...
--
And in defence of Americans, I have to say that I found a great many poor spellers amongst Brits and Aussies as well. The fact is, people who learn English as a second language (as is my case, and I presume yours) tend to spell better than native speakers precisely because they learn to write English in parellel to learning to speak it.
--
I'll grant you most of those Japanese and Koreans can read (and perhaps even write) technical docs. Chatting about their dietary preferences is quite another thing.
--
If we're talking about the brilliant, ever-howlin' lead singer of Creedence, that's John Fogerty! You're correct in everything else but this small detail...
--
Too bad today's moderators haven't noticed ya, you get my vote for Signal 11 surrogate.
--
The differences are mostly the packaging system (where Debian aboslutely rocks) and the easy configuration of sound, video, printers which is great under RH (for Debian, you have to roll up your sleeves).
You would feel the difference had you tried Slackware which IMHO brings the worst of both worlds: RTFM configuration and sorry ass packaging system. Add to this some incompatibility to boot, and you're pretty much SOL.
--