I am not saying I agree with the posters whose posts you are referring to, because I thought they sounded to extreme, however I am also not saying I am agreeing with you because your post also seems extreme. In a certain, (non extreme), ----> light <----- I can agree with both, (you and the other posters in question).

Now what I think the poster, whose posts, you are referring to meant was that they contribute little and, while they can because they have the right to, they do more harm then good. To be more clear, the impression that I got was that since they actually do very little and are for the most part 99% dependent on Slackware that a best case scenario for those types of distros are very bad for both them and Slackware.

So what I am hearing is that, the claim is those other "so called forks", (that is how I think they are substantiating their claim), can not survive with out Slackware because they are not true forks and, in fact, perhaps (or maybe in truth in their case) are not capable of maintaining a real fork.

O well, lol, my post is going no ware. Ignore my ramblings, that is all this is. I my self do not know what I am talking about.

Really I was going off but I lost my thoughts. I do not think its something to worry about to say the least.

I agree with this:


-----> Yet I do not see that happening any time soon. Especial if the "so called forks" are not them selves capable of being real forks and are, in fact, not a real fork, what ever all that means.


Other thoughts: I must be real bored to have wrote all this none-sense ;p

*cough* SLS *cough*

I don't think any of these forks pose a threat to "real" Slackware. Has Debian suffered to any extent since the birth of Ubuntu?

It's like improve pizza recipe, you can always add more stuff in a pizza, but be carefull or you will end with a non-well shaped, too thin crust :)

I agree, and that is a good question. One possibly good place to look is distrowatch:
http://distrowatch.com/index.php?dataspan=52

It shows hits per day and fluctuations in this.

I can see the difference between a "parasite" and a "fork": a fork will take the original distro and do something different with it - look at the Red Hat/Mandriva/Novell distros, there are many similarities and many differences between them. you could even look to Ubuntu and Debian and see why it would not be feasible to try to feed Ubuntu type changes into the main Debian tree (mainly because you'd get a situation where the forks became pitchforks!).

A parasite is purely one that cannot live on it's own - if, tomorrow, Debian shut up shop, Ubuntu would be able to continue along. With the example that Robby made (post #11) you have a distro that cannot survive without Slackware - it doesn't do anything new apart from add in a package manager that may or may not break your system and it only updates whenever Slackware does. They probably find all the updated programs and change "slackware" to their own name whenever it is in the programs and add there own exetension. If Pat, Robby, Eric and the rest all stopped providing updates and programs the parasite would die.

I think, personally, that there is enough choice out there that the forks can stop - unless you are doing something very different and can show that it can't be fed back into the real project, there's really not much point to doing a whole distro. In the case of the OP, why not just make your shutdown script public, explain what it does and let people decide for themselves whether to use it?

Well, I agree with all that, and I think whatever "parasite" there might be will die off quickly before it can do any damage. No-one will pay any attention to the new "distro" and it will simply disappear like the hundreds of other distros that have started and disappeared because of low quality and lack of interest. What bothers me is not this sense of the word "paraisite". What bothers me is when this is used to characterize almost any fork of Slackware, then my (rather caustic) argument above applies.

Not sure why such an old thread was resurrected...

It was in the graveyard until he posted....

If anyone cranks out a distro of their own, regardless if it's a clone or not, they "give back". I report bugs upstream to their respective project developers all the time but yet I "ride the coattails" of DIY, Slackware, LFS and even Fedora.

I've referenced GSB SVN on quite a few occasions for my Slackware Gnome 2.24.0 build. Reality check. This is how it works folks. 10:1, GSB has done the same. I've figured things out on my DIY build that I've later seen replicated verbatum in LFS.... What the real problem is, is when you have 2 very similar projects going on, there is ALOT of duplicated effort. 2 people arriving at the same conclusions and solutions on separate projects when they probably should just pool resources and work on one project. That is the only crux of a clone project.

Some people need to get off their high horse and realize that this is GNU land and we all feed off each others work in one shape or another. PAT does it all time. So does Robby and so does Eric. I've seen lot's of "Fedora" esque' commands on Slackbuilds so the implied pretension isn't warranted here.

If anyone has half a brain, and you find yourself in a jam, you'll be hitting Rawhide (or some other reputable source) pretty damn quick.

Yes, there's nothing new under the sun. Everything's derived from something else.
Which distros are regarded as "forks" and which "parasites" of Slackware?

I've never said nor implied that looking at how another distribution does something (for inspiration or otherwise) is wrong. It's one thing to look at how Fedora does something and (try to) duplicate it; it's a whole 'nother breed of cat to take Fedora in its entirety, rebrand it to call it something else, add/remove a few things, and then release it as one's own work. Whether the GPL permits this or not is largely irrelevant; just because something isn't "illegal wrong" doesn't make it right.

I won't call names here, because I'm not intending to single anyone out for good or bad, and perhaps there are some of the "forks" who do occasionally send feedback, but as a whole, they do not. Basically, it's just frustrating to know that we're doing the "heavy lifting," so to speak, with very little (if any) help from the "fork" people. I can think of quite a few things those folks could be doing which would *really* be helpful: find bugs in upstream software which affect us and work on them; find new implementations of various things that we'll have to move to later, and go ahead and try to get them working in Slackware. Actual examples of some of those should be easy to find *if* they're following upstream developments as opposed to just watching the Slackware ChangeLog.

Yes, I agree. Anybody would feel the same frustration. And, as you said, about "illegal wrong", if something is not exactly illegal it may still be unethical.

Agreed. That was my point with reporting upstream. When I've found bug's in coreutils, bash and multiple other progs, I don't email Pat. I email the projects mailing list. My findings will affect everyone on the next release of said package.

So.... Just because Slackware doesn't get bug reports from Vector, Slamd or who ever, doesn't mean they aren't helping the Slackware cause. One more distro is just one more group of people making things better for everyone. So, in that regard, I seriously doubt there is any true parasitic distro out there.

On a semi-related note, I've known about a findutils/removepkg bug for atleast a year now but you guys probably haven't seen it because your still at 4.2... I could have reported it eons ago or I could continue to do the same thing I have done and let you guys hit it on your own.... I've taken the same stance on other Slackware issues I've found. Doesn't necessarily mean I, or anyone else, doesn't contribute tho.

Still alive
 

No, I'm still building on my project, but rewriting codes, scripts, adding new stuff and testing takes a lot of my spare time. If I have any. That's why I need help with this if I want to release it within a year or so. And I don't need people that are crushing my distro to it's death even before it's released. That's not very motivating is it? If they are so smart, come up with something instead of complaining. Complaining is easy, working is not. Keep in mind that I'm doing this also for you... for free. Just like many other Linux developers. Without them, Linux will die.

And if you are shocked by my postings: I don't like people who can only complain and judge without any knowledge of what I'm doing. I'm just straight forward to these guys. Hate me or love me.

The idea behind Linux is that everyone provides a building block. One man could never have all the knowledge or time to build the perfect distro. But on man can build a good distro with all those building blocks provided by experts on every level and his own expertise.

My distro is based on Slackware just as Slackware is based on the Softlanding Linux System. The core of my Distro is totally rebuild for speed and security mostly from scratch. Only the extra programs will come directly from Slackware to save time so I can put all the effort into the core programs and thus making it Slackware comPATable if, but It can live without Pat's Slackware. Want Debian based? Done.. The only choice for Slackware is because it's clean and clear.

This is not a real fork or parasite, this is called progress, development, evolution and merging the best of distro's. Why shall I re-invent the wheel? See my distro as a merge of Slackware, LFS (hardened), Engarde Linux, Hardened Linux, (Free)BSD, Zenwalk, Vector Linux, Fedora and Debian.

It will fulfill the security you need today. Expect insane security where possible. Maybe it's not so user friendly to newbies and it will take some time to even get to the internet from your box. But believe me, it's worth the effort if you give a lot about your privacy and computer security. The only "problem" is, that you've to answer many (complicated) questions during install or configuration.

If I can make profit from it, I'll end my current job and make this project my life. I'm open to new ideas or any reasonable suggestions. It will be a project of us all. Yes, maybe it will die young. But the last couple of years I studied the wishes of people and the state of operating systems from today and I think there is a good market for it.

I even got an security solution for the so called "Cold Boot Attack" on encryption keys and passwords. I've got the solution on paper but not an easy way to implant it into my Distro because I need to rewrite and maintain parts of the kernel myself.


To put this in another way:

People who give a lot about privacy and security will love it. People who don't like to do some effort for it, won't.

And these days my distro's encryption is not allowed anymore in the US and it's save against the UK's law to hand over your encryption key to the...... Even if tell the password, you've lost the key somewhere before and your data wlll be save to prying eyes.

The additional spin-off or children distros exist because people find various aspects they do not like about the stock Slackware. There are several threads here at LQ addressing that issue. Various wish lists are an example of a certain level of dissatisfaction. Many people who stick with the stock Slackware modify the core installation in various ways. I have modified several rc.d scripts to my taste. I have added bash shell startup scripts. I have modified the startx script. Etc.

I have forwarded some of the mods to Pat. Whether he decides to incorporate the changes will not stop me from continuing with my modifications. The world is filled with approximately 6.5 billion people, which means 6.5 billion different opinions about how the world could spin. When a significant majority of people accept that simple fact then there will be far less conflict and violence in this world.

That several spin-off distros exist is a good thing. Permutations and variety is how humans invent and innovate. Pat is free to incorporate those ideas and he is free not to. I have written a hundred or so shell scripts to fine-tune Slackware. I share many of them at my web site and here at LQ too. So have many others here at LQ. Yet I do not expect or demand Pat or anybody else to use those tweaks.

I could convert those many tweaks into full-fledged packages, which users could install to their pleasure. In that respect, my effort is little different from the various children distros. I simply do not relabel my mods as a new distro.

There was an allegation posted in this thread that the developers of the children distros do not contribute upstream. I would like to see actual evidence rather than allegations. First, because free software is open to everybody to study, Pat is free to adopt any idea used in the children distros. Second, I suspect the various developers of the spin-off distros occasionally discuss issues with Pat without publicizing those discussions. Third, as mentioned by jong357, often bugs are not Slackware specific but upstream in the core software. Slackware spin-off developers are not required to report those bugs to Pat.

I raise my eyebrow whenever anybody uses the term parasite with respect to free software. As H_TeXMeX_H already shared, there is no such thing. If you want examples of human parasites, then look elsewhere outside of free software. The entire philosophy of statism is parasitical in nature and violent to the point of destroying this planet. Patents (software or otherwise) are examples of how statists promote this violence and destruction. The primary goal of patents and other statist supported monopolies is to stifle growth, individuality, independence, and to create indentured slaves of a majority of people.

Healthy human parents encourage children to venture on their own, to explore, and to learn to think independently. Healthy parents are pleased and proud to watch children grow and develop as unique individuals. Free software encourages this same healthy approach.

That the inner core Slackware developers and outer core Slackware users perform the "heavy lifting" is non-sequitur. Why should Slackers be emotionally upset if others benefit? Slackers get what they wanted. Users of spin-off distros get what they wanted. This argument is similar to how statists provoke emotional responses to justify various forms of theft under the color of law. This type of emotional response is based upon the free rider fallacy. There is always a spillover effect in every human interaction. Avoiding that effect is impossible. In any environment of free association and voluntary exchange, nobody receives less than they bargained. The spillover effect means some people get more, but nobody gets less than they bargained.

The healthiest relationships are those that are reciprocating and mutually beneficial. Yes, if downstream beneficiaries offered their modifications upstream that would be more emotionally satisfying, but those downstream modifications are not required to be offered or accepted. One argument asks child distro developers to help more with the core Slackware, but a counter argument can be offered that Pat should incorporate more of the modifications created downstream.

Isaac Newton often is cited for his statement Pigmaei gigantum humeris impositi plusquam ipsi gigantes vident: If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants. This statement describes the essence and philosophical core of free software. The term parasite does not apply well to free software.

Guess I got my answer here..........

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...9/#post3339774