LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
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 10-17-2012, 07:29 AM   #16
jhw
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2010
Posts: 81

Rep: Reputation: 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
Found this: Dragora, via the "Slackware-based projects" section at SlackLinks.
Dragora is even supported by the GNU project: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
 
Old 10-17-2012, 07:45 AM   #17
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 7,140
Blog Entries: 52

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhw View Post
Dragora is even supported by the GNU project: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
Yeah, blessed by St IGNUcius.
 
Old 10-17-2012, 07:56 AM   #18
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 7,140
Blog Entries: 52

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I've been having a more thorough look at Dragora's website, and there's no mention of Slackware. And here's a quote from their FAQ:
Quote:
Dragora is an independent project for GNU/Linux distribution that was started from scratch without being based on an existing distribution project.
So SlackLinks must be wrong claiming it's Slackware based.
 
Old 10-17-2012, 08:08 AM   #19
Alien Bob
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 5,393

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
I've been having a more thorough look at Dragora's website, and there's no mention of Slackware. And here's a quote from their FAQ:

So SlackLinks must be wrong claiming it's Slackware based.
If you look at the Dragora sources structure of for instance http://mirror.fsf.org/dragora/dragora-2.2/source/ , you will see that they have tried to mask the original Slackware structure. If you then open any of the build scripts (like http://mirror.fsf.org/dragora/dragor...s/gftp/gftp-64 for instance) you'll be amazed at the similarities to a Slackware SlackBuild script...
In no way can anyone state that this is a distro which was developed from scratch without Slackware influence.

Eric
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-17-2012, 08:15 AM   #20
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 7,140
Blog Entries: 52

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Thanks, Eric. I didn't look thoroughly enough.
So it's a rip-off fork, or a forking rip-off.

Last edited by brianL; 10-17-2012 at 08:19 AM.
 
Old 10-17-2012, 10:59 AM   #21
qweasd
Member
 
Registered: May 2010
Posts: 486

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien Bob View Post
If you look at the Dragora sources structure of for instance http://mirror.fsf.org/dragora/dragora-2.2/source/ , you will see that they have tried to mask the original Slackware structure. If you then open any of the build scripts (like http://mirror.fsf.org/dragora/dragor...s/gftp/gftp-64 for instance) you'll be amazed at the similarities to a Slackware SlackBuild script...
In no way can anyone state that this is a distro which was developed from scratch without Slackware influence.

Eric
While it appears to be influenced by the Slackware way, it also appears to be developed from scratch and is not based on Slackware. Build scripts look similar-ish because there is basically just one way to do this job. A quick look at tools such as makepkg is enough to convince me that the dude did not copy and paste Pat's code, but rather re-implemented the philosophy and the overarching technical approach of Slackware. So I don't see a problem with his statement that this distro is not based on any previous one, although it couldn't hurt him to admit Slackware as a source of inspiration.

edit: I mean, I looked at one file. I don't really know how much they borrowed from Slackware, if at all, but even with identical architecture, one can claim to be "from scratch" as long as one does not use large portions of code from other projects.

Last edited by qweasd; 10-17-2012 at 04:20 PM.
 
Old 10-18-2012, 04:19 AM   #22
jtsn
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 908

Rep: Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447Reputation: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by qweasd View Post
While it appears to be influenced by the Slackware way, it also appears to be developed from scratch and is not based on Slackware.
Why does Dragora use /usr/man like Slackware does? FHS requires /usr/share/man. Slackware deviates, because it is older than FHS. But why do that, if you start from scratch in 2009? Why is PAM missing? And http://mirror.fsf.org/dragora/dragor...source/x-xorg/ surely looks like a very original idea!

These similarities in deliberate design choices are too obvious. So I think Dragora was created this way:

1. Take Slackware
2. Remove Copyrights/BSDL and add GPL
3. Add Spanish comments
4. Modify further
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 10-18-2012, 05:36 AM   #23
Alien Bob
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 5,393

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Exactly what I think as well.

Eric
 
Old 01-29-2013, 01:56 PM   #24
qweasd
Member
 
Registered: May 2010
Posts: 486

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Not to toot my own horn, but FreeSlack project has reached all of its goals. Packages with non-free licenses are cataloged, and a de-blobbing procedure is described. In particular, I am getting awesome mileage out of linux-libre kernels (with Pat's configs) on machines where the hardware is supported.

Your feedback is always welcome, but what I would really like is to find at least one more person who is interested in co-maintaining this project, just in case if I get struck by a meteorite.

For the near future, I am entertaining a possibility of building and packaging linux-libre kernels, at least for x64. I am hesitant to move forward because I don't know whether there is any demand for those.
 
Old 01-29-2013, 05:49 PM   #25
volkerdi
Slackware Maintainer
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Minnesota
Distribution: Slackware! :-)
Posts: 877

Rep: Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827Reputation: 1827
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsn View Post
FHS requires /usr/share/man. Slackware deviates, because it is older than FHS.
Just a quick comment on that -- as long as things work/are reachable through the FHS paths, things are compliant. And on Slackware the /usr/share/man symlink ensures that manpages can be found under /usr/share/man, and that any manpages installed to /usr/share/man from packages or source will work as expected.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 01-30-2013, 02:21 AM   #26
Richard Cranium
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Carrollton, Texas
Distribution: Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 1,578

Rep: Reputation: 468Reputation: 468Reputation: 468Reputation: 468Reputation: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chapulín View Post
No one mentions Debian?
Since this is a Slackware forum, no.

I'm sure that you Debian *bleeps* point people to Slackware all the time.
 
Old 01-30-2013, 03:07 AM   #27
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
Quote:
Originally Posted by qweasd View Post
Your feedback is always welcome, but what I would really like is to find at least one more person who is interested in co-maintaining this project, just in case if I get struck by a meteorite.
What are the job requirements ?

I'm probably not the best choice, because I don't believe 100% in RMS. I don't think firmware needs to be open-source, and I'm not concerned if authors restrict use to non-commercial. Think about it, what if I want to make money off my FLOSS project. I make it non-commercial, but tell them to contact me for licensing fees. If any company wants to use it, they have to pay ... they have plenty of money after all, why not share a little and help the project ? As for firmware, it is very low level, I doubt anyone but someone with intimate knowledge of a hardware component can make working firmware for it (there are probably some exceptions).
 
Old 01-30-2013, 09:59 AM   #28
qweasd
Member
 
Registered: May 2010
Posts: 486

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
I'm probably not the best choice, because I don't believe 100% in RMS. I don't think firmware needs to be open-source, and I'm not concerned if authors restrict use to non-commercial.
The requirements are almost non-existent while I am still around. But if you are not excited about running a deblobbed kernel, for example, then you simply won't enjoy this kind of activity.
 
Old 01-30-2013, 10:08 AM   #29
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
Quote:
Originally Posted by qweasd View Post
The requirements are almost non-existent while I am still around. But if you are not excited about running a deblobbed kernel, for example, then you simply won't enjoy this kind of activity.
Yeah, sorry, I'm not excited ... it will probably break support for some devices.
 
  


Reply


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
Linux-Libre in Slackware amani Slackware 2 02-23-2012 02:57 PM
LXer: Liberating non-free software with Linux-libre LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 05-13-2011 11:10 AM
Using Linux-Libre kernel alongside mainline corbis_demon Linux From Scratch 5 09-23-2010 02:34 PM
LXer: Libre vs Non-Libre: It All Comes Down To Trust LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 09-18-2007 06:00 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:44 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
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