Im the type of DIY that like to understand the "big picture>" So, a few simple (maybe) questions:

What is the main reason every distro needs it's own repository? Seems like a great deal of duplicated effort. Maybe due to the many package managers..

If the kernel is what really determines the hardware support, why do different distros (using the same kernel) don't all work equally as well in this area?

My understanding is Debian's main advantages are it's pkg managers and huge repositories. The pkg manager solves the dependency purgatory, right?

So why does Slackware insist on NOT doing it this way, hmmmmmmmm?

I'm assuming Debian uses pretty standard Unix commands. Which ones go off in left field on this and why??

thanks for any clarification







JR

Convenience, different ways of doing things. Each of us have our own needs, etc. etc.

Distros actually tend to "patch" kernels heavily to suit their needs. The one exception is Slackware which uses a stock one from www.kernel.org. Of course, because of the way they are compiled (different distros compile different configuration of kernels), there is a variation.

Ideal solution: compile your own kernel for best results if you know your hardware well and know what you're doing

Yes.

As I said in my first post different people have different views on this. Some people tend to insist on manually installing all dependencies, others prefer convenience over power. And many prefer to compile from source also.

What is the main reason every distro needs it's own repository? Seems like a great deal of duplicated effort. Maybe due to the many package managers..
Repository is generally a 'debian' word, so I'll go with that route. What Debian considers stable isn't what Ubuntu considers stable. Therefore each would want their own repository for "stable branch", "development branch", "your crazy for installing this branch". There is a lot of duplicate work, but there can also be unique features and patches that are applied in one distro's package/repository compared to another distro's.

If the kernel is what really determines the hardware support, why do different distros (using the same kernel) don't all work equally as well in this area?
There are a few exceptions, but yes the kernel is what supports your hardware. Again, distro's patch the release kernel with either proprietary or developer patches which can break things. I always keep the stable release kernel (release kernel = get it from kernel.org) on my system, and then for fun I use Andrew Morton's patch set which can have some cool features but at the expense of stability. My advice is to use the release kernel. You'll get practice compiling your own kernel from source rather than installing it from some package manager.

My understanding is Debian's main advantages are it's pkg managers and huge repositories. The pkg manager solves the dependency purgatory, right?
I can't say that for sure. Every distro claims that its package manager is the 'bomb' and their reason for slamming other distros. Debian does resolve dependancies well, so does gentoo's emerge. Slack has many tools for packages/dependacies. I really think they need to pick one. Before redhat 8, I thoroughly enjoyed RPMs, but haven't used one of those in quite a while.

So why does Slackware insist on NOT doing it this way, hmmmmmmmm? What do you mean by "NOT doing it this way". Last time I used slack there was the pb manager, swaret, and you could use rpm-tgz. These tools resolve dependancies, but that isn't Patricks focus. He was going for a simple, stable (and by stable, I mean far beyond what other distro's consider stable) and keeping his distro Unix-like. He has kept to his priorities very well. I left slack just before 10 came out, so with his illness, I don't know where the distro is headed now.

Partially managers but - there are also repositories incomartibility - Ubuntu repositries will not allways for for debian. Different FC RPMs also not allways comparable each with another.
Different distros build in different ways with different packages and priorities.

Also there some packages that can't be included in official repositories for license or other issues - for example for acroread, mplayer or w32codecs are not in official repository of Debian. Official repository of FC does not support mp3 for patent issues.

Not only. The main advantage is:

It was build with stability at very hight priority - when Ubuntu or FC are bleeding edge and less stable - debian uses some older packages but they will work well.

Sorry, I could have phrased that a bit better. I know about Slack's tools and respect the project. So much so, I'm going to install it along with a few others. (including all flavors of Deb). The question "......why <snip> NOT doing it this way" was a reference to one of my many How-To reads recently where the author did his manually.

"Why do I do it this way? Because that's the way we want it," was his reply.

I was just wondering about that. But I'm getting the drift about the reasons now. Very interesting stuff to me. And thanks for your time, everyone!

My next search on the web? "Rolling your own, and compiling for fun!"

swaret.. I've grown to quite dislike the little tool..
either way, it isn't an official tool and while one might think of it as a tool that adds functionality beyond the standard pkgtools, however.. given the way it resolves dependencies (which is actually very clever) I see it more as circumventing the omission of dependency information.

try slackpkg first, I'm pretty sure it's the only tool of its kind that's still in /extra, then try swaret and slapt-get.

Hmmmm. "official tool" huh? Verrrrry interesing.

Getting back to Debian (this "is" the forum, right..

I think I also read that Debian is, well "connected" to the GNU, like one of their projects or something. Could be wrong here, though...What is the conection, anyway?

So, in summary let's see if I have it right:

Gentoo is unique, as it compiles everything.. The founder is now working for M$.

Slackware kept it's vision, but it's founder is in ill health. Uncertain future. The most Unix like and uses only stock kernels.

Debian proper is a "community" project....whatever that means. Started by a wealthy altruistic visionary. The most passionate about freeware being kept free.

Ubuntu is a spin-off of Deb, also started by a wealthy South African and also supported by same. Mission is to give Debian (like) to the masses.

RH, Suse, Mandrivia and a bunch of specialty GNU's are trying to be Bill Jr's.

All the rest were launced with somebody's passion for what was wrong with any/all of the above. Most of the changes made were ease of installation/pkg managers/ or specialty purposes. Some are commercial, some are not.

I know this a bit simplistic......but I'm trying to figure out who does the work? All volunteers at Slack and Debian? Self-supporting? Paid by the creator?

Am I TOO off topic???

Debian proper is a "community" project....whatever that means. Started by a wealthy altruistic visionary. The most passionate about freeware being kept free.


Where did you get that from? Debian was started by Ian Murdoch. Gave half his first name half his wife's to make the name Deb-Ian.

Ubuntu was/is funded by a wealthy man, not Debian.

Take a look at this, instead of saying things you haven't checked before :

http://ianmurdock.com/?page_id=215

I KNOW it was started by Ian Murdock, and know where he got the name. My "mistake" was labeling him a "wealthy altruistic visionary", right? Maybe he's not wealthy (got my Murdocks mixed up some), but I still think he's an altruistic visionary. Am I WRONG about that??

Sorry to have offended you, btw. (wanna look up 'altruistic'?)

Not to worry, though. I'll triple check my facts from now on with Dunn and Bradstreet <tongue-in=cheek> jeeeezzzzzzzzz. I'm gonna get a beer and chill some...........

JR

debian's connection to the gnu lies in the fact that it is the only distro to be funded by the gnu, the quality of their relationship since stems from that fact. debian is also one of few to actually call itself a gnu/linux distribution.
in other news, patrick volkerding recovered, a while ago. the uncertain future many people see is just slackware going through a release cycle.
as for being volunteer work, I know of two who work full time on slackware.

while redhat suse and mandriva are commercial beasts, bill jr. is a bit harsh, redhat at the very least fills a vital commercial tech support void. many corporations wouldn't touch linux if redhat didn't exist.

All very true, and thanks for the explanation. I'm glad Slack is alive and well, and now understand the Deb/GNU connection.

Sorry for being so.............well "vocal" I guess

Time to start the many installs I have laying about the room. What? 2 full HD's of Linux distros?? Yep, and more on the way!