In the time I've spent working on other distros, it doesn't matter their build environment, or that they sign their packages. There are certain maintainers that create sucky binary packages. It quickly ruins my trust of a distro, even when said maintainer just works on a few packages, since they let that person in. Eric is right, it always ends up having to trust the person on quality.

So I now know to avoid this community maintained distro rage, even more so now, even when it's not something I ever really had to spend much time in. This is coming from someone used to the quality of slackware for 15 years now

In SBo, you can't necessarily prevent poor choices in packaging, but at least the packaging is one step moved back in the process from failing you. Now you get to decided your fate So to go an SBo-like community binary package delivery program seems a bit unnecessary, and contrary to its goals.

There are still plenty of people that provide packages in Slackware? Do we need another one?

3 members found this post helpful.

A person can earn trust and not be trustworthy. It could all be apart of some master plan to compromise people's systems.

I bet Panagiotis' stuff is fine. I like the current Slackbuilds setup. If a binary file is suspect then the original source could be suspect as well. I doubt people are reviewing the source of every program/lib out there. People don't have a chance to review the code of commercial software that installs all kinds of stuff to protect itself and phones home daily.

There are already things like palemoon and rar in SBo that link to binary packages instead of source.
Should be separated and tagged SlackRepack instead of SlackBuild as they appear to build something, but aren't building anything.

3 members found this post helpful.

No.

2 members found this post helpful.

I see now that my response sounds quite abrupt, something that I did not really intent. I rarely seek confrontation, and I do apologize if my reply sounded a bit off. However, I have to point out that I am not affiliated with SlackOnly. I simply happen to like the idea of having packages prepared from SBo, as an alternative to what SBo offers. If there's anything I have done for Slackware, that's the collection of SlackBuild scripts that I maintain at SBo.

Yes I do. I made a comment you did not like and therefore the quality of my SlackBuilds suddenly dropped a few rungs?

I have to admit, I begin to feel tired by the stubbornness I see in this community. It boils down to the following: someone wants to provide a packaged alternative to SBo. Why would anyone actively be against that?

5 members found this post helpful.

Nobody that I have seen in this thread is actively against it. That is, no-one has taken action against it. That is what "actively against it" would mean.

Most people here appreciate precise language, and are offput by subtle innuendo or emotional appeal.
The Parent poster Daedra asked for opinions and opinions were offered. That's all that's going on here. Why not let SBo do its thing, and let SlackOnly do its thing and slacky.eu and the others do their thing, and not worry about it!?!
The thing that bothers me is somebody coming along (not you per se!) stating that some group or other should change the way they do things such as SBo start to offer binaries in the main. Not only is it an affront to the wonderful and generous work the SBo people do, but it speaks very ill IMHO in regards to those asking for that change. It speaks of an intrinsic selfishness which IMHO is the main problem we humans have on this planet!

1 members found this post helpful.

I don't think the question actually was "can the SBo team start providing binary packages". The wonderful thing about compartmentalization is that another team can build a piece of infrastructure (binary package repository) on top of a lower-level piece (SBo scripts). The SBo team does not have to be involved in this at all. Exactly like slackonly.com is doing in fact.
Having both allows some people to use just the SBo scripts (because they do not trust a foreign repository or like compiling better for whatever reason) while others will happily use the binary package repository because it is convenient. If you trust the person or team who provides packages, then there is nothing to fuss about, you just use those packages.

I did not say or imply that I do not trust the team behind slackonly.com. The kind of trust I was talking about when I mentioned "web of trust" is not only trust in the benevolence of the team (are they secretly injecting malicious code or not) but also a trust in the quality of the packages (will they break my computer when I install them) and in the consistency of the team (will they still be providing an up to date package repository in one year from now). Building that web of trust will allows one to make a decision about use/skip quickly.

So I would never be against such a repository, why should I? Some people will profit from having it available. And if someone is willing to spend time, money and resources to build and maintain such a repository for the community to use, that can only be applauded. It is irrelevant whether I would actually use those packages, as long as you trust these guys.

Solarfields, my example was not implying that I would suddenly have less trust in your packages. It was an example of how interactions contribute to building trust. But... when someone says something I don't like then that does not mean the statement was false or incorrect, it's just me that took offense. I might find you a less likable guy perhaps, but it would not change the respect that I would have for your work.

I may not have written such a coherent post, but it is late and I am tired.

8 members found this post helpful.

Not only No! but Hell No! Think about it.... then ask yourself "to what advantage and at what cost?" The only advantage OP noted was "more people" but really what that means is "more lazy, ignorant people". If you doubt this check out even fundamental questions asked on Mate, Ubuntu, etc. It's like the blind leading the blind. Slackware attracts people who are serious about the nuts and bolts. Why diminish that by appealing to lowest common denominator and become yet another "also ran"?

1 members found this post helpful.

I can't agree with that, at least not the way you stated it. There are lots of very knowledgeable people using Ubuntu, Mint, etc. Heck, Linus Torvalds uses Fedora, which is in the same category. Is he one of the blind? You're right that Slackware attracts people who are interested in the nuts and bolts, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of Ubuntu users who are also interested in the same. The beauty of open source software is that there is a choice to suit everyone. In the end, people should was whatever suits them and not worry so much about the choices of other people.

(However, I believe it is appropriate to judge the choices of those who control the distributions and major projects, and I disagree with pretty much every significant decision Canonical has made since I started using Linux 5 years ago. But I digress -- I'm getting too far off-topic.)

2 members found this post helpful.

Sorry, but when was the last time Linus was answering a newbie's question on some help forum? While I agree with you in general, this example is just bullshit until you can find plenty of postings like that from the last 10 years.

There are certainly plenty of knowledgeable people on the forums of those distributions helping newbies out, just like there is here, so enorbet's worries seem to me to be worrying about absolutely nothing. Plus, the newbies that get helped will eventually learn enough not to be "blind", as he called them.

If you add a "Download package" button you'll need to add an even bigger "Download package and all dependencies" button

Maybe even modify installpkg that so that giving it a package name also makes it hunt for dependencies or in lieu of that just make it try to install anything that looks vaguely package-ish

Slightly tongue in cheek but there's only so far you can take the hand-holding.

You missed the point of the example. I didn't mean that Linus is helping newbies on the forums, just that he is an example of someone who is not lazy and ignorant and yet is attracted to that kind of distro.

If that was the point of your example it was even more irrelevant to the comment you were addressing. The comment by enorbet was going on about the blind leading the blind, and the only salient reply to that is that there are in fact non-blind people leading as well.

Sorry for being blunt; I really do agree with you, but your point wasn't pointing in the right direction :P

I think that statement is a little silly, I use slackpkg+ to grab packages from AlienBob & Ponce all the time (Thank you Guys!), It may make me lazy but I don't think Ignorant. I can roll my own packages but quite frankly I don't want to waste my time when there are other kind and more experienced people that do it. I think the community would be enhanced by attracting the less experienced users. Hell I have learned a lot about Slackware from reading about someone's "dumb/ignorant" mistake, including my own . Unfortunately Slackware scares a few people because it doesn't have "auto" dependency resolution, which is just because people just don't understand that with Slackware you don't really need it!


So I say IMHO SBO keep up the good work and if there is anyone willing to build all those packages please do so.

2 members found this post helpful.

I gathered that the main point of enorbet's post was that Ubuntu attracts lazy, ignorant people, and the blind leading the blind on the forums (according to him, of course) was his way of proving it. But you're right -- we agree and there's not much point arguing over this detail.

1 members found this post helpful.