LinuxQuestions.org
Register a domain and help support LQ
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 06-21-2006, 08:20 PM   #16
choker64
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0

Hey Guys,

How do I just install the standard Gnome off the install CD??
:^)

Thanks
 
Old 06-21-2006, 08:48 PM   #17
liquidtenmilion
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: South Carolina
Distribution: Slackware 11.0
Posts: 606

Rep: Reputation: 31
There is no gnome on the install cd. That's pretty much the reason why we have this topic.

You'll have to use Dropline/Freerock/Gware if you want gnome.
 
Old 06-21-2006, 09:40 PM   #18
Xian
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: 33.31N -111.97W
Distribution: SuSE
Posts: 918

Rep: Reputation: 31
Does anyone here run a Gnome desktop on Slack's 'current' build??
Just curious if it is being done.....
 
Old 06-21-2006, 10:47 PM   #19
liquidtenmilion
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: South Carolina
Distribution: Slackware 11.0
Posts: 606

Rep: Reputation: 31
It'd be WAY too difficult. Gnome is 200+ packages, and there are usually many binary incompatibilities that arise as current gets updated.

You'd have to rebuild many packages way too often for it to actually be worth it.
 
Old 06-21-2006, 10:58 PM   #20
cereal83
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 478

Rep: Reputation: 30
I installed Dropline about a week ago. I had to download and install about 232 packages. I went away for about an hour and came back and it was done. I started X and everything worked like it does on my work computer.

Dropline > * imo
 
Old 06-22-2006, 12:54 AM   #21
choker64
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidtenmilion
There is no gnome on the install cd. That's pretty much the reason why we have this topic.

You'll have to use Dropline/Freerock/Gware if you want gnome.
WTF. When did they start to do that!!
I'm sure the last Slack I used was 10 and it had Gnome.
 
Old 06-22-2006, 01:41 AM   #22
dugan
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 4,562

Rep: Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394
Dropline replaces 50 packages:
http://forums.droplinegnome.org/viewtopic.php?t=4739

Freerock replaces 27 packages:
http://gsb.freerock.org/content/repl...lack_packs.txt

Gware replaces 8 packages:
http://www.websightdesigns.com/files...2.12.3/INSTALL

Uninstalling each of these consists of removing its packages (one step) and then reinstalling the Slackware versions of each package it replaced (potentially many steps).

Well, enough bitching (on my part) about the tedium of putting back 50 packages: how about a one-step solution?

I imagine the following should work:

Quote:
for FILE in $(< replaced-slack-packs.txt); do find /mnt/cdrom/slackware -name $FILE -exec installpkg '{}' \;; done
EDIT: The people who said I was too stupid to use Slackware because I didn't want to reinstall 50 packages by hand should have posted a solution like this themselves.

Last edited by dugan; 06-22-2006 at 11:46 AM.
 
Old 06-22-2006, 07:20 AM   #23
Xian
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: 33.31N -111.97W
Distribution: SuSE
Posts: 918

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugan
Uninstalling each of these consists of removing its packages (one step) and then reinstalling the Slackware versions of each package it replaced (potentially many steps).
It also involves bastardizing the associated DE and creating something never intended.
In short, it can obviously be done....but is it better for the user??
 
Old 06-22-2006, 11:26 AM   #24
dugan
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 4,562

Rep: Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394Reputation: 1394
Xian: Of course its better to uninstall GNOME than to reinstall Slackware. Un-uninstallable programs (hint: Internet Explorer) are the kinds of things that we left Windows to get away from! After you remove the GNOME packages and put back the Slackware ones that were replaced, your system should become the way it was before you installed GNOME. Can you tell us more about what you're worried about?

Last edited by dugan; 06-22-2006 at 07:07 PM.
 
Old 06-22-2006, 11:45 AM   #25
Nylex
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: London, UK
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7,464

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by choker64
WTF. When did they start to do that!!
I'm sure the last Slack I used was 10 and it had Gnome.
10.1 was the last release to have GNOME in it.
 
Old 06-22-2006, 01:27 PM   #26
jong357
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Distribution: DIYSlackware
Posts: 1,914

Rep: Reputation: 52
Where are you guys getting this crazy idea of 200 packages? Try around 100.. You can get away with 50 packages and have a functional desktop.

Even according to Gnome:
http://www.gnome.org/start/2.14/note...tallation.html

there are roughly 125 packages and that list would result in a pretty bloated Gnome install. Let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill....

DBUS, HAL and Avahi are still optional as of 2.14... I have a really nice Gnome-2.14 install on 10.2 with about 60 packages. Oh no... No automounting. What shall I do? Granted, I had to update atk/pango/glib2/cairo/gtk2 but that's about the extent of package replacement minus a few other small libraries...

Alot of people give the impression that Gnome is some nightmare to build. It's not. It's quite simple actually if you trim it out and ditch all the pointless fluff. And yes... There is quite a bit of pointless fluff in Gnome as a whole.

Last edited by jong357; 06-22-2006 at 01:32 PM.
 
Old 06-22-2006, 02:01 PM   #27
zborgerd
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Distribution: Slackware / Dropline GNOME
Posts: 378

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by jong357
Where are you guys getting this crazy idea of 200 packages? Try around 100.. You can get away with 50 packages and have a functional desktop.

Even according to Gnome:
http://www.gnome.org/start/2.14/note...tallation.html

there are roughly 125 packages and that list would result in a pretty bloated Gnome install. Let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill....

DBUS, HAL and Avahi are still optional as of 2.14... I have a really nice Gnome-2.14 install on 10.2 with about 60 packages. Oh no... No automounting. What shall I do? Granted, I had to update atk/pango/glib2/cairo/gtk2 but that's about the extent of package replacement minus a few other small libraries...

Alot of people give the impression that Gnome is some nightmare to build. It's not. It's quite simple actually if you trim it out and ditch all the pointless fluff. And yes... There is quite a bit of pointless fluff in Gnome as a whole.
I seriously hope that nobody actually believes this absurd claim.

Running desktop? Maybe. Functional desktop... No. Seems like a gross overexaggeration to me.
 
Old 06-22-2006, 08:02 PM   #28
jong357
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Distribution: DIYSlackware
Posts: 1,914

Rep: Reputation: 52
What's your definition of functional? Does having ekiga/gnomemeeting constitute functional but without it it's not? Ephifany, evolution-*, Galeon, gnome-common, gtk-doc, hal, dbus, avahi, icon-naming-utils, system-tools-backends, bug-buddy, gnome-netstatus et. all... All fluff and never used by the average desktop user. I could list atleast 50+ more packages used by dropline that fall into that same catagory.

It seems evident that most people are so used to building a rediculously bloated Gnome that they have no idea what is required and what isn't... 60-70 packages and you have a Gnome that runs and functions, yes that's right, functions extrodinarily well. Maybe you should actually try building a vanilla gnome before you put your foot in your mouth any further...

Really folks.. It doesn't take much to get Gnome working and working well. I'm not talking out of my arse here so please don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I've been building gnome since before you joined the dropline team. Look at Pat's collection of Gnome-2.6 packages and add about 10 more packages tops and you have a standard vanilla gnome just like Pat used to bake... If you call the last version of Pat's Slackware gnome non-functional then it seems we have a very different view of what's functional and what's not. You call it functional, I call it a beached whale. I call it functional and you call it barely able to run.

Gnome is a window manger folks. It's not a video confrencing application. It's not a mail client. It's not 4 different web browsers that all do the same thing. It's a GUI window manager plain and simple. This is the benefit of building from source verses having "200" packages shoved down your throat. Don't like epiphany? Don't build it cause it's not required. Don't want gnome-vfs linked against DBUS/HAL? Then don't do it cause it's not required.

Last edited by jong357; 06-22-2006 at 08:05 PM.
 
Old 06-22-2006, 09:02 PM   #29
Xian
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: 33.31N -111.97W
Distribution: SuSE
Posts: 918

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugan
Can you tell us more about what you're worried about?
The described approach just seemed horribly backasswards.
jong357's proposal has a "do it right the first time" mentality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jong357
Really folks.. It doesn't take much to get Gnome working and working well. I'm not talking out of my arse here so please don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I've been building gnome since before you joined the dropline team. Look at Pat's collection of Gnome-2.6 packages and add about 10 more packages tops and you have a standard vanilla gnome just like Pat used to bake...
What method do you use to build your Gnome desktop and decide what to include?
 
Old 06-22-2006, 09:30 PM   #30
liquidtenmilion
Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: South Carolina
Distribution: Slackware 11.0
Posts: 606

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
What's your definition of functional? Does having ekiga/gnomemeeting constitute functional but without it it's not? Ephifany, evolution-

-snip-

All fluff and never used by the average desktop user. I could list atleast 50+ more packages used by dropline that fall into that same catagory.
That is what functional means. I am posting from Epiphany right now, and gnomemeeting is infact part of gnome.


Quote:
Gnome is a window manger folks. It's not a video confrencing application. It's not a mail client. It's not 4 different web browsers that all do the same thing. It's a GUI window manager plain and simple. This is the benefit of building from source verses having "200" packages shoved down your throat. Don't like epiphany? Don't build it cause it's not required. Don't want gnome-vfs linked against DBUS/HAL? Then don't do it cause it's not required.

No, it is not. Gnome is specifically NOT a windowmanager. Metacity is a windowmanager, sawfish is a windowmanager, kwim is a windowmanager, but GNOME is a desktop environment. A desktop environment is a window manager AND a series of standard apps that work well together.

It IS, by definition, a mail client, as that is part of a "desktop environment". What you are using is Metacity + a few apps. Not gnome. Gnome is a collection of projects designed to work together to create a seemless experience to the user.

And, gnome(dropline/freerock included) comes with ONE web browser(and ONE video player, and ONE audio player, and ONE image editor. and ONE cd burner, and follows the standard "one app for one purpose") And it's epiphany. And epiphany is lightweight at that. Hell, even slackware comes with 5 web browsers, but yet gnome comes with one. According to what you constitute as bloated, that is one bloated operating system!

Besides, ever think that we, the VAST majority of dropline/freerock, no, the vast majority of USERS period would want to use gnome-vfs linked against dbus/hal? Obviously the gnome devs think so. That's also what dropline/freerock/ubuntu/suse/debian/arch/LFS/mandrake/fedora/gentoo/freebsd/Sun think.

Clearly, we must all be wrong....


And anyway, it does not matter HOW many apps come with something. An operating system can come with 50,000 apps, but it isn't necessarily any slower than the OS that comes with 4 apps. Unless you plan on running all 50,0000 of those apps at once.

Last edited by liquidtenmilion; 06-22-2006 at 09:34 PM.
 
  


Reply

Tags
spam, trolling


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Install GNOME RPM after minimum RHEL install linuxhead Linux - Newbie 4 02-23-2007 03:36 PM
can i install gnome onto a knoppix hd install? FuriousGibbon Debian 4 03-21-2004 03:39 PM
Cannot install gnome-utils....Knoppix 3.2 HD install quo_vadis Debian 3 11-10-2003 07:44 AM
Gnome 2.4 install on 3.0 IvanJ Debian 0 10-22-2003 06:33 PM
new install dropline gnome install corbintechboy Slackware 5 10-09-2003 02:33 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:43 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration