A Review of Slackware 13.
 

While I don't agree with everything said, overall, I thought it a a fair and well balanced review:

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?is...091005#feature

Yeah, not a bad review, especially from the perspective of someone more used to distros that do a lot more hand-holding and auto-configuration...
I've found that the usability="it just works" bit is ok when it works, but when it doesn't- such as with some older or quirky hardware(very old, or very new laptops, especially)- it's a lot easier to get Slackware working than it is with some distros which rely on auto-configuration and graphical config tools... my opinion, anyway.

Not fair my friend... Slackware is way more than desktop, and it have a nice set of the best out there.

But there is hope: ..."During my first three weeks running Slackware 13.0 I have yet to find significant bugs"... And 'out of the box' =]

Thank you Mr. Volkerding, for Slackware still being Slackware.

This was also noticed in a.o.l.s. Some remarks:

She kind of answers her own question here. She doesn't realize that "ease of use" means something else for her than it does for Slackers. I find Slack a lot easier than any other distro because wading through their nonsense and dismantling it is a lot less "easy" than building up how I want from the start. Learning a thousand different goofy little GUIs is a lot less "easy" than using my trusty $EDITOR.

I disagree with this, too. She's apparently never installed Debian or a BSD from a few years back (or doesn't recall it). Or hell, even a Gentoo. Or even an Arch until very recently. All are easy now, but were much more difficult than Slackware. And those, I'm sure, were cakewalks compared to what came before that. But Slackware's installer is a slamdunk. The only thing is that {c,}fdisk scares people.

This is wrong, too, implying Slackware *incorrectly* gave her gibberish. It "correctly" doesn't even bother. It's simple to add another stanza or so to lilo.conf.

And there's a lesson in that. X is optional. X is an addon. Your *system* is complete and operational without it. X is for displaying graphics and running lots of terminal windows.

Then she needs to review XFCE and criticize the maintainers of that project. They are the ones who decided that certain things are inessential gravy to their project and Slackware is under no obligation to go track down various extras for her. And, as is usually the case, that stuff is all available from SBo if you want it. Slack ships the XFCE the maintainers of XFCE think is the XFCE to ship.

And it never will. It never ceases to make me laugh. All these reviewers all the time saying this, like they expect it to change. "And the sun still does not rise in the west."

You couldn't write a funnier, more wrong-headed line. This precludes "dependency hell". It's the various dependency managing apps with their "wedged databases" and whatnot that give you true hell.

She's correct here but I suspect many people confused Gnome and GTK and she ought to make it clear that lots of GTK apps are included and all non-Gnome GTK apps can be easily added. (Of course, even Gnome can be added, but that's a different kettle of monkeys.)

There's also absolutely no reason to do so because those other distros have done that for themselves. If you want it, those distros are there for you to use. If you don't, welcome to Slack.

After installing Slackware, one step can be to install sbopkg. Time: about 30 seconds. Create an 'all.sqf' file. Time: varies from seconds to minutes. You don't have to start it from scratch again. Load the 'all.sqf' file, hit 'process queue', walk off and do whatever you want. Come back. Time: Real: varies from system to system; User: about 30 seconds.

***

Other than that main persistent sticking point of her wanting rpm and drakconf or whatever, yeah, a reasonable and fair article. You definitely should want to use $SHELL, $EDITOR, and read the manuals and it helps if you like to script. But, yeah, you can do a default install straight into 'startx' and seeing a shiny KDE and be as GUI as you want. And, if you want fast, stable, simple, etc., then it's hard to beat.

Oh, it's Caitlyn Martin again.

But yes, it's a very through and well thought-out review.

There's always gonna be different strokes for different folks.
I personally hope Pat never changes the Slack philosophy as it's the one and only distro I've ever ran that has been trouble free for me once it's been set up and set up to my liking.
I agree with the author that there are many, many distro's out there that not only hold ones hand, they almost change one's diapers also; however,, show me one that remains trouble free for the length of time a typical Slack install does.

I thought it was fair except for two points:

1) The reviewer repeatedly referenced the words "ease of use" in the Slackware mission statement. However, I believe that she is imposing an out-of-context and incorrect understanding of this phrase. It does not mean "easy for any dumbass who's only touched windows to use." It means "will not automatically edit my configuration files, start loading modules I don't want it to, or assume that it knows better than I do." It is ease of use for competent Linux users . . . after all, it is a Linux distribution. People who just want "easy" should stick to MS or Apple; that or Ubuntu and its out-of-box "it just works! . . . but it's really, really slow" performance. (To avoid the flames . . . yes . . .Ubuntu can be optimized to be just as fast as anything else . . . Out of the box it runs like a fat, wounded hog.)

Linux is, by definition, "UNIX-like." If editing text files to configure things or using a command-line interface is too "hard" for you, then you really have no business using anything "UNIX-like." Has anybody else here seen a UNIX system? Using one involves editing text files and using a CLI.

2) The reviewer seems very upset about there being no automated dependency checking in pkgtools . . . this is by design. It's part of the "ease of use" that she claims is not there. Slackers use packages for some stuff, but we are not babies who need rice cereal all the time. If there is not a package available, we will build from source, or decompress a .deb or .rpm package and gank the binaries, putting them where we want them. Automatic dependency checking is only desirable if you only use your package manager to install software, or if you are so inexperienced that you cannot go out and get a library for yourself. If this is the case and you do not even want to learn how to do these things on your own, you are not and will not become a competent Linux user and Slackware is not for you.

I agree, good review, but the phrase "easy to use" has a completely different meaning applied to Slackware than applied to something like Ubuntu.

It's kind of a weird catch 22, you have to be experienced in Slackware before you can realize why it's easier than other distros. At least that's how I feel. I tried Ubuntu for the first time maybe a year ago just to see it, It was pain wadding through all the gui BS, I ran it for like a day.

Deja Vu. Her conclusions are more or less the same as they were last time. I don't think I'll waste any more time reading any future reviews of Slackware written by her. Really, there's only one opinion of Slack that matters to me: my own.

Nice, couldn't agree more.;)

Argh... Caitlyn. I stopped reading her writings long time ago. Not just because she knows very well how to ruin decent article with few ridiculous facts, but also because of her attitude towards her readers who disagree with something she wrote.

This time, again, I'll skip it.

Fair enough.

However I appreciate people writing about their experience installing/using one Linux distribution especially when they define their expectations (mostly having a functional home desktop) and describe concretely what they liked and what they didn't like (comments like "it rocks" or "it's bloated" don't bring much insight into the distribution).

I think that you can only get a good idea of what a distribution looks like when you take all reviews collectively into account (of course apart from actually testing it yourself). You can outline some general topics.

I've read many Slackware reviews since mid-2005 (some balanced, some unbalanced) and the following points about Slackware are always highlighted:

- Installation requires some prelimanary manual steps (i.e. partitioning) and is not GUI-based
- Package management has no dependency checking
- Setting up a functional desktop requires a lot of file editing
- You are the system administrator and can tailor the system to your own needs.
- Once the system is set up to your liking, it just runs without any hindrance.
- The official package list is limited however community-provided packages are available (mostly SlackBuild scripts that require you to build the package).

For me, these points (it's probably an incomplete list) are characteristics of Slackware and it just happens that I'm fine with them but I fully understand that someone else would feel unconfortable about them and would prefer another Linux distribution that would guide him/her more during the installation and for adding/removing applications (i.e package management).

So it's all about choice or, would I say, informed choice.

Oh, Caitlyn
 

This name sounds familiar for me too and my feeling is that her reviews are improving.

I find this one nearly ideal for what can be done after visiting the Slackware site and using the distribution for a while. In order to improve it, she had to broaden the scope and, say, research how Slackware users comment in forums and blogs, possibly on Linux Questions as well. As far as I know, Caitlyn currently writes for money and any deep research may be not an option. Deadlines and the target audience ("is there a better Ubuntu than Ubuntu?") come to mind first.

Thus, I guess the review reflects the current PR level of Slackware. If Patrick finds it adequate then it is adequate beyond any doubt; otherwise, things like "Slackware Linux is a complete 32-bit multitasking "UNIX-like" system" must be updated ASAP and adding a "How to review" section never hurts.

Notice how in the beginning of the article she quotes fellow reviewer Chris Smart:
She goes on to say:
She then goes on to complain about the lack of graphical configuration tools, that the X-server is not setup by default, and (horror of horrors!!) no dependency management.

Well, the very things she complains about are simply not part of what Slackware "is expected to do - as claimed by the creators" [of Slackware]. She clearly is not following her own review philosophy here.

She did articulate some of the advantages of using Slackware though. What she fails to realise is that the very things she complains about are part of the advantages of using Slackware.

I noticed that too tommcd. :)

I get the feeling that she just said that as a lead-in to justify her attack on the 'easy to use' bit she'd latched onto from the Slackware description from the website.

Fair enough, that bit of the website could do with a rewrite to more clearly reflect what Slackware is about in relation to modern expectations. Like it or not, the modern expectation is for a linux distro to be just like Ubuntu, including dependency management and all those other things Slackware turns away from (for all the reasons that most of us, mostly agree with).


She's still missing the point somewhat with Slackware, but to be fair I don't think it's an easy point to grasp. Daedra put it quite well above;

I'm a Unix user (FreeBSD) which is one of the many reasons that I love Slackware. I've used FreeBSD since 5.x, but, I have recently switched completely to Slackware 13.0. I appreciate the Slackware way of system maintenance, using a text editor and the CLI feels comfortable for me.

She's writing the review for a broader audience, that is, for all people who use Linux. She's not trying to convert anyone to Slackware, but, is attempting to list the merits, deficits of Slackware for any Linux user who may wish at some point try our OS.

From the point of view of a Slacker her review doesn't make any sense, that is, we don't think that Slackware is difficult to use. We love navigating around on our hard drive using the CLI, and manually editing text files. But, she *is* writing her review for all Linux users, many of which, who greatly rely on the graphical user interface to set-up system functionality.

I think the review is generally fair. From the point of view of an average Linux user who does not feel comfortable using the CLI or editing files by hand Slackware is not an easy system to use.

I think the review adequately spells out to all Linux users the skill set they will need to be able to install and configure Slackware. An intermediate Linux user who is sufficiently motivated can easily set-up Slackware in my opinion.

From my point of view all I can say is thank you Mr. Volkerding for keeping the faith! Slackware functions perfectly for my needs. :)

Well said hitest, I agree. It is a fair review.

Ok, so...

Thank you for the kind words, sHyLoCk. :)

Well said, hitest.
Thx.
:)

here here!

hitest has expressed my thoughts on this matter too (probably more clearly that I could!)

Not fair... The lady don't messed with Slackware64 =]

Her observations on how to install, set-up Slackware generally apply to Slackware64 as well (I've installed both). :)

Caitlyn is a reviewer who has a clue. I don't always agree but I respect her opinions.

I have learned from reading her reviews that she writes from the perspective of a non-technical person. When she focuses on "ease of use" she is focusing on people who are not computer propellerheads. Although some people believe the phrase as used on the Slackware web site means easy to use for Slackers, Caitlyn is using the expression in a manner that a majority of people would use the phrase. She provided a link to underline how she was using the phrase. In that respect I agree with her conclusion that Slackware is not easy to use.

Last week I was reminded what non-technical people are like with computers. I was asked to help evaulate some Windows software. I suggested installing VirtualBox and running an isolated version of Windows to prevent security and privacy concerns. We downloaded the VirtualBox software. I emphasized that the 256MB of RAM installed was insufficient to run virtual machines. Online we found the data sheet for his P4 motherboard and I showed him what RAM to buy. He could update to 1GB very inexpensively. We were in the middle of the configuration process for the virtual machine when I stopped to investigate remaining drive space. I noticed the 60GB hard drive had only about 10GB remaining. Not to mention the entire system was slow and there was a lot of disk thashing. I mentioned that creating a minimal Windows virtual machine would consume about 5GB max, leaving about 5GB on the drive. With only 256 MB available I paused for a moment trying to decide how much RAM to allocate to the virtual machine. I mumbled as much out loud as I was thinking. At that point the user simply freaked out and told me to uninstall VirtualBox. The problem was information overload. Adding RAM. Insufficient hard drive space. A slow running machine without additional RAM. The idea of running a computer inside a computer. All too much. Although running a virtual machine would have solved problems, he could not cope with having to deal with the technical side of using his computer. He was frank with me and told me that all he wants to do is point-and-click.

Slackware is not point-and-click. Slackers admit that. Thus, from the perspective of such users, from which Caitlyn wrote her review, Slackware is not easy to use. I believe Slackers who argue otherwise do not understand the majority of people who use computers.

I see this same type of behavior with the people I work. They do not want to know why something happens on the computer. They want only to know how to point-and-click and move on with their day.

Caitlyn's review was on the level and forthright. Slackware is my primary desktop on both my office machine and HTPC. Yet I agree with her assessment with respect to non-technical people. Perhaps the Slackware web site could be updated to better define the target market for Slackware, which might then clarify the meaning of "ease of use." As several people have mentioned, ease of use means something different to most Slackers than interpreted by most non-technical people.

Like Caitlyn, I never have recommended Slackware to a non-technical person. I have noticed that even many Windows users who consider themselves power users or knowledgeable computer users haven't got a clue about operating systems, compiling software, building packages, etc. I would not recommend Slackware to them either. Slackware is for computer people who are the equivalents of Saturday motorheads. Slackware will only frustrate people who do not want to get under the hood. That was the perspective from which Caitlyn wrote her review.

As hitest mentioned, the skill sets required to use computers vary. A significant number of computer users today could care less about the operating system or what is under the hood. As Caitlyn's review is intended for a reading audience where those skill sets vary wildly, I think her review is forthright. Her conclusion is correct --- Slackware is for a unique type of person. Caveat emptor (buyer beware) was her message. The majority of people these days who test distros are basically point-and-click people. People who probably broke in with a distro that uses a package manager and dependency checking. The person I just described is unable and unwilling to resolve dependency issues that most package managers nowadays resolve. Building a package would be a horror for such a person. Partition a hard drive? Edit a bootloader configuration? Ain't going to happen with such people.

People who stick with Slackware understand what Slackware does not provide or offer. The typical person reading reviews might not. Those people need to know that information before they start testing. In that respect I believe Caitlyn did her job.

You should know it, but Italians and Latins can be very passionate some times...

This is absolutely true. Resolving package conflicts caused by unofficial repositories, and working around the package manager to install a newer (or better-built) package than what the repositories offer, are both more unpleasant than anything Slackware puts you through.

Caitlyn thinks Slackware derivatives and especially vectorlinux, a distribution she used be part of the development/packaging team, is better than Slackware for the sole reason that it tracks dependencies.
That could be a valid reason from a point of view, but only if the following were not true.

1) vector, and most Slackware derivatives, don't respect the GPL version 2 and do not distribute the sources of the applications they include in their distributions.
That probably means nothing to end users but if the license was one owned by a commercial company, there would be lawsuits coming their way. But hey, its just the GPL.
No one is gonna sue a Linux distribution for violating it.

2) They don't have any kind of security related resources, mailing lists etc, and do not have frequent releases or package upgrades for security or other reasons.
IMO they are projects which started just for fun and learning Linux, and while that's certainly great for their developers, the user needs much more than that.
Consistency and security stuff matters to users more than dependency checking, which by the way, as even Caitlyn herself says can be added to Slackware as well.
And even on distrowatch, on which she wrote her article, if we take into consideration the distribution "interest" rankings, most of the site's readers would agree with with me as Slackware has been "investigated" by the site's usually newbie Linux users more times than any of the derivatives.

3) All they do is cut down the packages already in Slackware and possibly add some other ones, packing a more desktop orientated distribution. (With the exception of Zenwalk here, which evolved quite a lot and is very different than Slackware today).

I definitely agree with one thing with her. Time matters, and when choosing an operating system i haven't got time to play games with projects i can't depend on.

That review would have been OK if it was a comparative review: Slackware 13.0 v Debian "lenny", for instance. That might have justified mentioning the lack of dependency-checking, package-management, etc. A review of Slack alone should judge it on its own merits. Mention prebuilt packages from Alien Bob, Robby Workman, slacky.eu, amongst others. Mention SlackBuilds. Mention slackpkg, sbopkg, src2pkg, and how well they do the job they're supposed to do. People choose the distro that suits them, and Slackware as it is fills a niche that no other distro does. Why criticise it for being different?

While Caitlyn's review could be seen as criticizing, I saw the review as a constructive critique. I don't think she hides from wanting to see more usability from a non-technical user's perspective. After a few years of reading her articles and reviews, I think she wants to see free software become more dominant within the general populace. The only way that happens is improving usability.

Pat one day might change his mind, but the past record is that Slackware is unlikely to provide many bells and whistles, GUI admin tools, graphical installation tools, dependency checking, etc. In that respect she perhaps upsets some Slackers because many Slackers do not want those features. Yet things change. Some apps and features now a part of Slackware were unforseen several years ago by many Slackware users. So I don't mind that Caitlyn is pushing the envelope seeking non-existent features --- Pat one day might change his mind if enough people ask for something. Constructive critiques are healthy because one way or another, in the end Slackware becomes a better tool.

Caitlyn understands that Slackware is not targeted for non-technical people. Her point in the review was that the Slackware web site advertises the system as providing "ease of use." With respect to the definition she used in her link and using the phrase as most people use the phrase, she believes that Slackware fails to satisfy the description at the web site.

Nowhere did I think she was bad-mouthing Slackware or Slackers. Throughout the review her focus was on the phrase "ease of use" as used by most people. Slackware fills a niche and most people who use Slackware are content with the design philosophy. Caitlyn's review focused on people who might want to try Slackware and she was warning them that several features that now are standard and expected by non-technical people are unavailable within Slackware. I did not read the review and feel she had attacked Slackware. She only concluded that for non-technical people Slackware is not easy to use. She even added that Slackware is a good tool for learning about an operating system --- getting under the hood.

Some Slackwers might disagree with her conclusion, but Slackers tend to be technical people. Something that tends to come easy for technical people seldom comes easy for non-technical people. As I write this response, the two people chatting right now two cubicles down from me are not technical people with respect to computers. They would look at Slackware and act like the proverbial deer in the headlights. They struggle every day with Windows and the apps used here. I suspect neither has ever seen a terminal window, let alone used one. They probably never have heard of free software, the GNU tool chain or the Linux kernel. Yet those two people are hardly stupid --- they are quite smart and intelligent. They simply are not tech savvy with respect to computers.

People who read the reviews at Distrowatch might have a desire to test different distros, but that hardly means most of those people are computer savvy. Many are point-and-click people. Slackware probably is not for them and Caitlyn said as much in her review. She did not declare Slackware unusable. She only concluded that Slackware is not easy to use with respect to how most people inteprret that phrase.

Auto dependency checking?

No thanks.
When I build something like ffmpeg I like to be right in the middle of the process so I can make sure I get all the bells an whistles.
It takes a little more time to do things tailored to my system but I wouldn't care much for some generic package that someone else "thinks" I would be happy with.
To write a proper review of Slack, I would think that the reviewer should actually use it long enough to get the "feel" of it.

I appreciate your point. However, can anyone really be considered a "Linux user" if they persist in being uncomfortable with the CLI? I would say that they cannot.

You are correct in that this seems to be the point of view from which see is writing. Nonetheless, her paradigm for the "ease of use" criticism is flawed. Could Linux really be easy to use for someone who does not know anything about how to use Linux? No. Is learning a new set of point-and-click dialog boxes "using" Linux? Perhaps it is in the strictest sense, but has a person at that point really learned anything about Linux or how to use it? Of course not. Slackware is easy to use . . . for Linux users.

Her criticism of Slackware for "failing" to meet its ease of use goal is analogous to someone criticizing a keyboard for being too hard to use for people who don't know how to type.

Thank you. From my point of view a real Linux user is not dependent on shiny point-and-click GUIs. I agree with you.

Again I return to my contention that this article is not written for us. This article is aimed at the majority of Linux users (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.). These people are using Linux, but, they in all likelihood have little idea what is happening behind the graphical user interface. Do they know anything about Linux? They don't need to know a lot to install Ubuntu. For an Ubuntu user Slackware would not be an easy distro to install or configure. So from this frame of reference her comments about ease of use are accurate. That is, a person who does not know how to hand edit system files or navigate on the CLI will find Slackware difficult to use.
I do agree with you that there is a difference between using Linux and comprehending how the system functions.

I agree with Woodsman & hitest in their opinions on Caitlyn's review. For any "average" Linux user who's only come to it in the past four or five years, Slackware appears "primitive" in some ways. However, the proof of Slackware's excellence can only be seen once it has been experienced.

I came to Linux 10 1/2 years ago, with Red Hat 5.2 and no idea of how anything worked. All I had was curiosity, a blank hard drive and the pdfs that came with the retail sales box (which was priced at $20). After a few months of learning Linux in my "hobby" hours, I moved to Mandrake 7. True, it was like going from a straight shift to an automatic. I saw a couple of articles on Debian and took an interest in it next. I learned so much more about "how Linux worked" from Debian than I did from either Mandrake or Red Hat -- and this was with an 8mb video card, 256 mb ram, on a p3 and a V92 modem. I still remember the overnight hours it took to download emacs at the time.

In all of this time my only resources for learning were (1) the Red Hat pdfs, (2) the web, (3) two slim Mandrake booklets, (4) the Debian Bible, (6) Linux Mag & Linux Journal and (5) my time. No human contacts, no forums, nothing else. Yet even I was able to install Slackware 9 from a "Linux User & Developer" magazine cd (which I still have. The "cover" reads: Latest version! Easy to install! Fuss free! Linux kernel 2.4.20x Free86 4.3 OGCC 3.2 ...and so on. And a picture of Tux and his red pipe.).

In no time at all, Slackware became my default Linux, just as FreeBSD at around the same time became my default *BSD. Both worked great on both that PC and the desktop machine I Built By Myself seven years ago. I had some laptop troubles when I switched to one about 3 years ago, but I overcame even that.

Today I still check out one openSUSE, Debian, Ubuntu, gNewSense, VectorLinux, Puppy and Fedora release each year and install them on a 20G "test drive" I use just for curiosity in their installation & repository schemes. Each distro stays on the testbed for one to five days. (Last time, Fedora stayed on the drive maybe 7 hours before I wiped it off :-) ). And I remain convinced of the superiority of both Slackware and FreeBSD for my needs.

I applaud Patrick & the other Slackware volunteers for keeping the installer & package tools just as they are. And it's going to be the rare reviewer who reviews Slackware as Its Own Thing and not something else. After all, am I wrong, or aren't 2/3 of the people who'd be reading a Distrowatch review be pretty savvy? (And the other 1/3 -- mostly recent converts -- may be in some tech nether world for awhile?)

And that's the opinion of this 48 year-old woman.

I don't remember it being default. Just because something is selected doesn't mean it's recommended or default.

Yes but you forgot to read that now you don't even need an xorg.conf. I don't know how well Xorg with HAL detects everything, but I would assume that most people won't need an xorg.conf.

Actually, IIRC those are loaded by hotplug (the software daemon) and/or udev/HAL automatically, so it's really an issue where those automatic features aren't doing their job. Still, laptops have issues with that from time to time due to non-standard / varying setups, so I don't really see that as a problem with Slackware. However, I have both a toshiba and a sony and both those get their modules loaded at boot. In my opinion those modules are support for non-standard platforms in the first place: I "blame" the laptop manufacturers first.

It also depends upon their willingness to learn. I have had people who figured out Slackware easily who had never even used Linux before. Also, once shown how to "feed themselves", Slackware becomes very easy.

True, but you haven't seen people experience horrible problems with Ubuntu or Mandriva. On Mandriva in the past (since this is my #2 favorite distribution; 2009.0) I have had to do some interesting customization to get it to act usable enough. It mis-identifies my touchpad, and the promise of display switching is not delivered. It loads unnecessary garbage, and using your own tested-and-approved kernel configs with it is definitely a no-go (get ready to use THEIR kernel source that's hacked with their "improvements"). Then to top it off they include their own sound daemon (forgot the name) which runs on top of ALSA but only makes my applications do weird stuff, and which cannot be uninstalled or removed. That and their release of KDE4 gave you many problems, not the least of which was that you can't use KDE3 without major surgery, something that typically broke the system (even though it's their own packages).

I've even had Mandriva (2009.0) install fine but then not even work. I checked the DVD and it was indeed good to go (md5sum). (Now some distros are offering only the CD, not the DVD, which is sad in my opinion.)

How do you call the above "easy to use"? I learned to fix problems like other people have during my time using Slackware Linux and having to do things myself. I've helped people with the weirdest problems using Ubuntu or whatever else using my Slackware skills: problems their graphical tools didn't solve.

A promise made but not kept is better not made. This is why Slackware promises nothing but delivers, at least for me. I am not hating on other distributions, and I understand your complaints, but I just don't agree with you. This is why stability trumps usability: you can't use something that's broken.

Well, technically and literally, it is - if the kernel only supports ext3, that's the default but, if it supports ext4, that is, and those are the only defaults:

Those variables are used later in the menu command. Since it's the middle entry, Pat's specifically saying "if you hit enter, you get that one, not EXT{2,3} or {J,REISER,X}FS" or dialog would just default-default to ext2 as the first item. So I agree with her there.

Re-reading my own rant and other people's comments, I will agree that she does a generally more balanced and technically accurate review than many (though hardly perfect) but to all those who claim she's being totally dispassionate and objective, I just point to phrases like, "grossly incomplete" and "pretty much inexcusable" and so on.

I think they can, but I do agree with you to some extent in that they're missing a lot of good things that we see in linux (or unix-like) OSes if they shy away from the CLI.

It depends on how literal you want to be with "linux user". Almost all "car users" know little about how their car works (they would probably save a bit of time/money/environment if they did know a little more!) but they are nevertheless users of cars.

Is Caitlyn real? If you read her reviews of 12.1 and 13.0, you'll find some passages that are identical. So, could she be some kind of review writing software, with a user-friendly GUI where you enter the distro name and it churns out a suitable, cliche-ridden, article?

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?is...091005#feature

http://news.oreilly.com/2008/06/slac...est-versi.html

Well i got to admit that she's slowly getting better. In the 12.1 "review" she mentioned vectorlinux 7 times. In the 13.0 one, only 4.
Thank bob she doesn't write reviews about Debian.

brianL, that is hilarious! :) Thanks for a good laugh!

It is ludicrous that advanced users should be permitted to claim that anything is "simple" or "easy to use". You never hear astronauts proclaiming that landing the space shuttle is easy; an airline pilot praising how simple it is to fly a 777; or a photographer claiming that it's a piece of cake to take pictures with the new Canon SLRs.

Likewise it is inconceivable that users of an advanced operating system should ever consider activating an FTP server by deleting a character in 'inetd.conf', or changing the screen resolution by adding a line to 'xorg.conf', to be "simple".

How ridiculous you Slackers are to think that you can consider YOUR WAY of doing something "easy" -- you forfeited that right the first time you compiled a program from source. You sacrificed all opportunity to praise elegance and transparency when you first grepped in /var/log/packages to determine what package a library belongs to, or performed an 'ldd' to list a program's dependencies.

If you can hit more than two characters on the keyboard in sequence then you are no longer permitted to use the words "simple", "easy", or (heaven forfend) "usable"; those words are reserved solely for the infantile caveman who aspires to no greater ambition than to point at pretty pictures on the wall and grunt "Next...".

Shame on you, Slackers!

Well said, saulgoode!
Cheers.
(That name is familiar; electronics? :) )

Configure Slackware is very, very simple, but acquiring the knowledge is up to you. This only demand brain, not skill. If you failed, it was not Slackware fault...

In same review

Look at comment 112 (by Caitlyn Martin on 2009-10-07 18:19:07 GMT from United States)
Is this opinion true :scratch:

I read about slackware stability and many benefits so i think slackware suitable for servers not only desktop :-)

Interpretation: you can't do these two things because there is no specific howto written yet . . . Oh, wait . . . maybe there's a howto written for one of them, so maybe you can do that, but there's no step-by-step howto about the other one, therefore it cannot be done.

The opinion is as true as the idea that Slackware itself is "solid," but that derivatives like Vector Linux are "truly great distros."
So, no, it is not true.

I know some pilots, and as one who works on the systems they use (I'm Flightline Avionics), ease of use has everything to do with it. In the F-16, they can literally flip one switch and go straight to trying to lock-on to a target with a missile. The whole aircraft configures itself for what he is doing (this is called "master modes"). Ease of use is not just for newbies.

I know someone who is a military photographer. He uses a Nikon, and praises it for staying out of his way while he takes pictures. Ease of use is not just for newbies.

It is this way when I play guitar also. I can flip a switch and go to a face-melting solo on my bridge pickup. They also have multi-effects-pedals that have a solo switch for this same reason. Ease of use is not just for newbies.

Slackware is easy to use because it is predictable and stays out of my way. For me, since I've been using it since 9.0, configuration is extremely easy (I can be up and running on a new install in like 5 minutes).

So I don't know where you got this from, but ease of use is not just for newbies.

It's kind of hard to tell when it sounds just like the real thing, but that was sarcasm.

Not just sarcasm . . . super awesome, well-crafted sarcasm. It fooled me, too, until I was about two-thirds of the way through the post.

I never understood why people have such a hard time with an ncurses install lol. It takes you step by step through the whole process and usually already has pretty safe and explicit defaults as well.

Especially since half of a Windows install is text-based. It's been that way at least until Windows XP.