Ah, right. Thanks for that. I somehow thought that openapp was in gnustep-base instead. Fixed!

I use Slackware, because Slackware is very simple OS.
Simple to learn.
Simple to understand
Simple to tweak.
And if some problem occur, then it is very SIMPLE to resolve the problem.

netconfig is sufficient to configure network.
slackpkg is sufficient to install new package, update packages or upgrade full system.
sbopkg is sufficient to deal with slackbuilds.

Then what is need of graphical tools to configure hostname.
Glslapt, sourcery tools for package management.

Slackware is very simple OS.
Salix team wants to add some user friendly touch to Slackware.
It is also good.

In terms of philosophy, some difference exist between Slackware and Salix.
Becase of this Salix is NOT Slackware.

NOT an argument, just discussion.

You are right,
I have not installed Salix on hard drive.
I just tried Salix Live CD.
I installed Slackware and tried to configure Salix repository on Slackware.

While installing Slackware,
it is not compulsory to choose full installation mode.
I prefer XFCE so I skiped kde directory and few packages, few sever related packages, which I don't need.

Slackware installation consist of,
prepare partition,
choose packages,
after that just extract tarballs and run package configuration script (doinst.sh).
And few postinstallation steps.
It is very simple.

Because of this,
I wrote, "Slackware installation process is very simple and fast".

Some difference exist between Slackware and Salix.
After Slackware installation some configuration is required,
On Slackware, you have to configure system as per your need.

During Slackware Installation,
I had not choosen full installation mode.

I don't how I skip CUPS package.
May be, because of I don't have printer.
After that I install slapt-get, Gslapt.
I configured Salix repository.
When I tries to install epdfview,
that time Gslapt adds CUPS as dependency for epdfview.
I download epdfview from Slackbuilds.Org,
compile it and installed.
And epdfview is running properly, without CUPS.

I know CUPS is standard package.
But this is good example.

On server system, I did minimal Slackware installtion.
Around 380 installed packages.
When I first time tried to run vim editor it fails,
because two missing liberies, libperl*, and libpython*.
I want to maintain less packages on system,
so I just copied two missing libries from another Slackware system.

On typical dependency management system.
To install vim, Perl and Python two scripting languages get added into required packages list.
And to satisfy Perl and Python dependency few more packages get added into the list.
You can't install vim without installing all these packages

On dependency-based package management system,
they breaks packages into small units,
if one package need a file which is part of another package,
then that package automatically get added into required package list.

Sometimes to help user, they add few packages as dependency,
So less commands or less no's of package name agrument is required
to do the installation.

If you don't want certain feacture which distributor provides,
you can't uninstall it, because it is hard-coded into package management system.

This is disadvantages of dependency-base package management system.
Sometimes, it become difficult to handle package conflit problem.


Lack of dependency resolution is ONE IMPORTANT FEATURE of Slackware package management system.


Confusion occur, because I used wrong word "unnecessary" to express the meaning.

I don't think that is a good idea, especially on server systems. Now you have to keep track yourself if there are any fixed vulnerabilities in those libraries and have to upgrade those libraries if so. If you would just have installed the packages then you could easily use slackpkg to upgrade the whole system.

Back on-topic: While I usually use Slackware on all my machines I maintain a few system where I didn't want to hassle with the configuration, for example the jukebox in our party room. Since this is a rather old system I just put a base install of Salix LXDE on it, installed Audacious on it and gave it access to the file server. Done, very fast, very easy.
On any system I really work with I use Slackware, but Salix is a good distro if I need a fast deployment for a special purpose.

Other than a minor typo, what is hard to understand?

The Ubuntu is derived from Debian (by extension so are KBuntu, Xbuntu etc).

Salix is derived from Slackware.

However Ubuntu is NOT Debian and Salix is NOT Slackware.

Hard to make it any clearer than that.

I agree.
It is difficult, but it is possible.
Just need to write some shell script.

It means it is possible to handle dependency by own method.

I completely agree.
Every system having its own advantages.

It's hard to understand something that is not written clearly and it's not about the typo. What you wrote:
could easily mean "ubuntu is derived from debian but debian is not the parent distro of ubuntu" and that's how I read it. And that doesn't make any sense. Please try to express you thoughts more clearly next time.

Once again I'm going to reply with exactly the same post. Seems that you didn't read it the first time around: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...3/#post4840944

No, you got it right the second time. Not that hard after all, was it?

No, it isn't a good example. You seem to be misunderstanding things on several different levels.

I don't see you complaining about okular depending on cups. Try installing okular without cups. See if it works. How is epdfview depending on cups any different than okular depending on cups?

You seem to be confusing prebuilt packages with software that you compile yourself. When you compile epdfview yourself, you can leave out any of the optional dependencies. Cups is an optional dependency for epdfview, but without it a very common task of a pdf viewer doesn't work at all (printing). That's why the epdfview package in salix is built with cups support. Same reason that okular in slackware is built with cups support.

Compile time package dependency is also important.

Thanks, for your reply.

Using Salix OS one good practice is to search first what libraries and dependencies are needed, just the usual Slacker way of knowing them first, then consult Sourcery or Gslapt if these are available, install accordingly. For example, installing 'Gparted' in Slackware demands a list of about five (5) dependencies not preinstalled in its base, this is inherited also and occurs under Salix; but in the latter case meeting these dependencies, building and installing them, are easier and faster by way of repositories. Same manner, Slackware does not pre-install all commonly used codecs out of copyright inhibitions, yet, under Salix though equal discipline is inherited and observed, there is a conspicuous offer to the user to automatically install them or not along the main Menu. Salix was born out of Slackers basic desktop experience.

Of all Slackware derivatives Salix OS is not there .... (Joke) Just to make a point that Salix OS is more faithful to Slackware than what ubuntu did to Debian; and that Salix OS is a soundly "customized" Slackware, not a mere derivative.

@ gapan,

I hope you stay long with Salix, you can certainly make it a great Slacker's option.

Congratulations and more power to your team.

BTW, before I forget:

Thank you for bringing us Salix OS.

malekmustaq

Please, Ubuntu takes Debian unstable at a given time and recompiles everything.
There are packages that even not imported, but driven by Ubuntu itself (Gnome for example).
There is no plan at Ubuntu that a final repository can/will/must be compatible with any version of Debian. In simple words Ubuntu is a brand new package set (not compatible with its base), and extra configuration.

On the opposite, Salix takes Slackware as a base, does not recompile the whole Slackware repo, but add packages which are by design/plan compatible with Slackware (not counting accidental mistakes). In simple words Salix is an extra repo for Slack plus some extra configuration.

You can say that Salix is based on Slackware, and Ubuntu is based on Debian, but this is a huge over-simplification, and really confusing. Ubuntu has a bad reputation in some circles, so suggesting that Salix is the Ubuntu of Slackware is not nice for Salix :-)

fdeak

In total agreement with gapan. I am a devoted Slack user but find Salix the most true to the mother. I proudly use it on a couple of lappys and try to recommend it to somewhat tech savvy linux converts.

I got it right the first time too, for those not choosing to be deliberately obtuse.

It's not an oversimplification it is a simple basic fact; irregardless of how good, bad or indifferent the derivative is with respect to the parent or their respective reputations. How that is confusing I have no idea.