swap or not, it's not a question of "problems" or issues or whether things will go wrong.
This is about how the system handles the memory

Read the post of Jan K
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post6345416

Nah, that article is written by the one of the kernel memory management guys, so what does he know?

The conclusion btw...

3 members found this post helpful.

An interesting read, thank you Jan K.

On Chris Down's website:https://chrisdown.name/
It says:
So I guess he knows what he's talking about.

My English is probably not very clear...
But what I said (or wanted to say) is:
I use swap because I use hibernation.
And because of power saving, hibernation is not an option for me

I don't see any reason not to use swap anyway (cf. Jan K. post & link)

This sentence is basically saying what I asked about before. What this sentence comes across as is you can't use hibernation ("hibernation is not an option for me") because of power saving.

It doesn't seem like that is your intention behind the sentence...

hmm, not really. At least, that's not what I wanted to say
"is not an option" means "is mandatory"

in any case, in French that's what it means

Aah, the complications of translation and idioms.

In English, "not an option" usually means "can't do that" or "that choice is not available".

"Not optional" would be closer to "mandatory". "Optional" meaning "do not have to", so negation in "not optional" means "have to".

If you've ever seen Apollo 13 in English, you'll understand the differences with the phrase.

In the movie, Gene Kranz, the flight director in Houston states, "Failure is not an option." meaning, we can't fail or our people up there die. We definitely don't want "Failure is mandatory."

Here's a timestamped link to the specific quote, but the entire scene is great to watch.

Sorry, I didn't intend for this to turn into an English lesson

1 members found this post helpful.

I know I'm new here, but I think that the occasional friendly English lesson in an effort to help each other understand and communicate better is not a Bad Thing. Much better than degenerating into a flame war because someone took something differently than intended.

3 members found this post helpful.

No flame war here

Mr. bassmadrigal knows very well that the meaning of a sentence can be different in two states of his own country, so with a different country, culture, etc. the different levels of understanding are logical

And to conclude on this point:
to keep the negation (because failure is a "negative" word), and the meaning:
failure is not an option ==> no failure is mandatory
ditto for:
miss the target is not an option => hit the target is mandatory

There are many ambiguities in language. The statement "xxx is not an option" can equally be taken to mean:

1. We absolutely must achieve xxx. Everything depends on it. Or,
2. Since there is no possibility of doing xxx, we must find another way to achieve our goal.

Here's another favorite of mine: "We only do xxx in the Winter," which could mean either:

1. Service xxx is not offered except during the Winter, or
2. During the Winter, the only service we offer is xxx.

Sometimes you can't know which was meant without knowing which was meant (or at least which is the more likely interpretation).

3 members found this post helpful.

The word marav is looking for is "optional".

1. Suspend/Resume is not an option because it consumes power even while sleeping.
2. Hibernate does not use power and is your best option.
3. If no other power management systems offer 0% power utilization and you require a power saving solution for your use case, then we can conclude that Hibernation is not optional.

The "failure is not an option" idiom does not apply to this situation and is generally used as a "call to arms" in competitive scenarios. E.g. Russia has more tanks, but failure is not an option!

[removed]


LOL that made my day. Spent the whole bus ride home chuckling to myself.

As usual this thread has been dragged off to off topic land.

In summary, "Is it possible to install Slackware without swap?" Yes it is possible to install Slackware without a swap.

To continue with the language disambiguation, but also staying on topic...

The initial question asks about a possibility: can XXX be done (or not), which has a yes/no answer. Either it can, or it can't.

Reading between the lines, one might think that the actual question being asked is "Is it a good idea to install Slackware without swap?". This still leaves much ambiguity, because "good idea" is not an objective fact, it is an opinion. What might seem like a good idea to one person may seem like a bad idea to another - either due to simple preferences, or due to additional unknown differences is setup or use.

Adding more interpretation, you could answer the question "What are the advantages or disadvantages of installing Slackware without swap?", but this is only a useful question if the answer to the original question is "yes'. At this point, the question allows one to collect information, hopefully to be able to make up one's own mind about "is it a good idea?".

And when the original question leaves ambiguity, and people ask for more information so that they can help answer the correct version, the person that originally asked is best off to realize the ambiguity and clarify.

I think in this thread, we've seen the answers to "can you?", "Is it a good idea?", and "what are the advantages/disadvantages?". Constructive dialog.

As the original poster I was asking "Is it possible". Having installed slackware many times I am familiar with the stage of setting up swap and I wanted to know if it was possible to skip that swap stage entirely.

Having said that I did appreciate all the discussion about the wisdom of doing so and perhaps sub-consciously I had this question in mind as well.

3 members found this post helpful.