Quote:
. . . I have finally had to abandon Slackware for something which runs out of the box so to speak.
|
I understand and empathize. My similar experiences motivated me to create
my web site where I posted my solutions, especially many issues
associated with Slackware.
Quote:
Final compiled a new kernel and then sound did not work . . .
|
Yes, this is true and an issue I discuss in my how-to on
compiling the 2.4.x Linux kernel. The fix is simple, but as with any solution, is not simple until that knowledge is revealed and understood.
Quote:
You need to reinstall alsa after a kernel compile. This will be the same for all distros . . .
|
More specifically, typical users do not need to reinstall the ALSA. They need only restore the
/lib/modules/2.x.x/kernel/drivers/sounds subdirectory, which they can do from backups. I discuss this issue in my
how-to.
However, if a person uses the
EXTRAVERSION option in the Makefile, then the user will indeed have to recompile the ALSA modules.
Quote:
Even experienced users cant be bothered configuring a system every time they added new hardware.
|
If I understand you correctly, I think what you mean is not being bothered with recompiling a kernel each time there is a hardware modification. If that is your point then I agree. As much as I prefer the minimalist approach of Slackware, I disagree with the manner in which PV packages kernels. I believe he should package a default generic kernel that does just about everything and should never need recompiling by average or typical computer users. Personally, I don't know why he bothers with a separate
bare.i and
scsi kernels. Just merge the two kernels into one and enable scsi emulation directly rather than as a module. My own motivation for learning to compile a 2.4.x kernel was driven in part because PV packages scsi emulation in a non-standard manner from other distro maintainers. Similarly, I don't know why power management is compiled into a separate kernel.
If Slackware was packaged with a more generic kernel that average or typical computer users could install, rather than puzzle over the many customized kernels that presently are packaged in Slackware, I believe many first-time Slackware users would avoid several issues that seem to be common.
Quote:
Configuring and building a kernel is not a big deal if everything is ready. Won't take more than a few keystrokes.
|
Perhaps this response misses the fundamental issue of the OP. Typical users never should have to face compiling a kernel any more than typical car users should have to face overhauling an engine block or transmission. Kernels should "just work" for the typical users. Let the "Saturday motorheads" tinker with overhauls and customizations. And although a kernel compile might take only a "few keystrokes," the actual time involved behind those few keystrokes is not so simple. On my aging hardware a kernel compile takes about three hours total. Doable for me because I have a second box, but many people do not and that kind of time consumption ties up a box. This is especially true if people are dual booting and then cannot use Windows while compiling. And overwhelmingly, most people need several attempts at compiling before they finally get things to work successfully and get the hang of things. Experienced users and people with formal computer training adapt more quickly to compiling a kernel because they possess the knowledge to adapt. Typical users do not and they never will, nor should they. No, typical users should never be faced with compiling a kernel.
tamtam: I agree with your assessments. Distros such as Suse are designed with the mainstream business users and IT staff in mind. Slackware is not, at least not to the same extent. With distros such as Suse you will find more bells and whistles included to get up to speed sooner. I doubt Slackware will ever include any such tools and as long as PV finds a way to make a decent living within his niche Slackware market, I see little motivation for him to modify the distro.
Slackware is well known for not holding hands, so to speak, but once a person gets over the hump of learning how to configure and maintain the distro---which does indeed require "under the hood tinkering"---Slackware is well known for stability and speed. Getting from A to B is a challenge for less experienced computer users and for those who are facing schedule deadlines to achieve quick productivity. A person should
not be embarrassed for not choosing Slackware if such goals exist.
I don't see the Slackware philosophy changing any time soon. Several people have forked or adapted distros from Slackware in the hopes of automating some of the tasks that usually require manual configuration. Slackware might have been "the best GNU/Linux the 1990s had to offer," but with today's "non-geek" user prevailing as users, I believe Slackware will now remain a niche distro rather than mainstream as in the 1990s. This is just my opinion and nothing more. Do know that the only GNU/Linux distro I use is Slackware.
I prefer Slackware because of its underlying simplicity, but I uttered more than my share of four letter words getting to this comfort level with Slackware. One result of my expletives was my
Slackware Desktop Enhancement Guide.
One of the underlying elements driving human existence is placing a personal value on time. Every human receives only so many ticks of the clock before they depart from this planet. I suspect that many Slackers pursue Slackware because they have decided to devote time to explore and they possess motivation to tinker under the hood. Many typical computers do not share the same subjective goals and motivations. Hence, Slackware probably is not a good choice for such users. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer in this kind of discussion. There is only the opportunity to ask questions to empower future users to make their own choices that satisfy their subjective needs and desires. tamtam has been honest with her/himself, and that is a critical cornerstone toward living a productive life as s/he sees fit.
