LinuxQuestions.org
Did you know LQ has a Linux Hardware Compatibility List?
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 09-27-2009, 08:38 AM   #46
samac
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Westray, Orkney
Distribution: Slackware64-14.1 (multi-lib) KDE 4.11.4
Posts: 1,422

Rep: Reputation: 137Reputation: 137

Quote:
Ok, then: Peace!
That is something we can all agree on.

samac
 
Old 09-27-2009, 05:50 PM   #47
stinkytaco
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Location: Fargo, ND
Distribution: Slackware 13
Posts: 14

Rep: Reputation: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by samac View Post
I cannot accept that, it is my computer, they are my programs, it is my data, why should their tools look after that in their way. You seem to forget that a computer is just a tool and it should do as it is told. You should not have to accept something because it is the "Distribution's Way".
Well, that's sort of what you buy into when you use a computer/car/ham radio/cable box, etc. I could also say, "Why does Apache handle all that web serving for me, I want to write scripts to do it myself." Or even, "Why should I use TCP/IP, that's pretty inefficient?"

A computer is a tool, but tools make your life simpler, not harder. I don't want to write in assembler, so I use C, Java, Python, etc to automate some of the heavy lifting. I don't want to write my own MP3 decoder so I use Xine, and so on.

I don't like all the hand holding either, but it's a matter of what you're comfortable with. And some people are comfortable with SuSE/Fedora/Ubuntu's level of hand holding.

EDIT: I should add that I follow your logic of "GUI tools and command line tools should coexist peacefully" but I'm not sure that's possible. If I squeeze a jet engine in my Honda Civic then it's reasonable to expect I'll need to replace the drive train as well and that Honda will no longer offer me warranty service. I think that as developers add configuration tools that "play nice" (i.e. Wicd) then Slackware should be adding them, but I agree that Slackware shouldn't add any jet engines that also replace the drive train.

Last edited by stinkytaco; 09-27-2009 at 08:57 PM.
 
Old 09-27-2009, 08:14 PM   #48
vigi
Member
 
Registered: May 2009
Location: australia
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 177

Rep: Reputation: 27
I tried about 10 distros, until I realized that when something did not work it was usually the fluffy gui that the distro/remixer had added to the base system to make it easier?
Some Distros are like local language dialects. People can live in the same country and not understand one another. Slackware sticks to a formula that you can learn.
 
Old 09-27-2009, 09:08 PM   #49
stinkytaco
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Location: Fargo, ND
Distribution: Slackware 13
Posts: 14

Rep: Reputation: 1
Everyone else has said this, but I'll summarize my reasons:

1. Slackware is generic. I can use the developer's documentation and support system (forums, etc) because I know Patrick hasn't patched the thing up the wazoo. If you've got an Ubuntu package you can't be sure the documentation has been updated to reflect its Ubuntuization and your reliant on help from the Ubuntu community.

2. I like to know what's going on. Slackware doesn't do a bunch of stuff without telling you. Sure it does some stuff (xwmconfig, installer, other various scripts) but I'm comfortable with that and I can go change it later by hand if I want.

3. The system is not automated. There is an automated updater, but that does the same thing as if I were to update the required packages by hand. It doesn't install and uninstall a bunch of stuff and change configurations without telling me.

4. It follows a predictable pattern. This is a slightly different definition of "user friendly" than most people have, which is "decide most stuff for the user so they don't have to". Slackware is pretty easy to figure out. If you do a bit of reading, almost anything can be adjusted, etc, to meet your needs without breaking the system. Things can be as default or customized as you want and it's not difficult to move back and forth between the two. I can customize the hell out of one package and leave others generic, etc.

To sum it up, Slackware is basically what I would get if I made a system from scratch. I don't always agree with some of the decisions (I don't like KDE, for example) but I have the choice to change those without wrestling with an automated system.
 
Old 09-28-2009, 01:12 AM   #50
Josh000
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Distribution: Slackware 13 64bit
Posts: 534

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by samac View Post
JoshOOO I'm sorry if you don't get this, but your implication that I am saying that you should just use gui tools or cli tools, is just frankly wrong. All I have said is that I should be able to determine what happens on my computer. I use both gui and cli to do that. I just do not want the computer program/OS writers to make that determination for me, and that the specific case was where I made a modification to a configuration file and the OS wrote it back on the next boot.
You're still missing the point.

All I am saying, and what you are disagreeing with, is that using gui tools on other distributions, is not sacrificing control, it is not the computer making decisions for you.

It is the users choice to use such tools, because they find it easier. The computer is doing exactly as they have asked. The key point here, is that if you ask the computer to handle something automatically, you can't complain when it does.

Quote:
I can and do expect to be able to use both gui and cli and not have them contradict each other as more often than not the gui is just using the command line as the backend, therefore they should in no way contradict each other as they are to all intents the same program acting upon the same configuration file.
The problem, is that it is not as simple as you suggest. GUI programs on other distributions do not simply use the CLI as the backend. They have rather detailed interfaces and wrappers, and quite often their own databases to handle a lot of stuff.

No one is forcing you to use these tools(as much as it may be heavily suggested sometimes), but if you do, you cannot logically have any expectation that you should have 100% manual control over all config files.

You can have one or the other. It is not about gui vs cli tools, it is about automatic/helper tools vs manual control. As an analogy, if you setup a cron script to always back your home directory to ~/back.tgz, you can't complain if you decide to store a different file as ~/backup.tgz and it gets overwritten.

Quote:
In Slackware you can do this, that is why I use Slackware, in some other Linux distributions it is more problematic that is why I do not use them. In Slackware the designer (Pat Volkerding) has designed it so that everyone has the choice and control over their computer, some other distributions try to impose "their way".
I agree with that whole heartedly. My point was that another distributions 'way', while to us will be sacrificing control, is exactly what other users want, and is not a bad thing.

Quote:
I hope this clarifies my thoughts in response to your actual question.
Well, yes, my question has been clarified in that what I posted originally, is definitely a misconception.
 
Old 09-28-2009, 02:34 AM   #51
samac
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Westray, Orkney
Distribution: Slackware64-14.1 (multi-lib) KDE 4.11.4
Posts: 1,422

Rep: Reputation: 137Reputation: 137
Josh000 I am obviously not eloquent enough to change your entrenched position on your view that
Quote:
The key point here, is that if you ask the computer to handle something automatically, you can't complain when it does.
. I am not complaining that it does, I am complaining about the OS doing stuff that you do not ask it to do or breaking something that is working because it knows better. I know that if I ask it to do stuff, it is my choice, however I can expect, quite reasonably, not to have to put up with shoddy programming/design/thinking by a third party.

That is why I use Slackware. It just works and doesn't try to impose even if I do something out of the ordinary.

This is what I mean about control, PV has given us the control and freedom to use an OS that does not try, beyond those limits inherent in Linux, to do as we wish in the way that we wish.

If you cannot see what I mean by this then we obviously have had very different experiences in the world of computing, my experience of these things happening was over five years ago, ancient history in computing terms, however it led me to Slackware. Which refers back to your original question. To add another answer to the list "Slackware appears to work more often without falling over than other versions of Linux that I have tried, but of course this view is subjective".

I would ask that we continue to agree to disagree, because you obviously cannot see what I am trying to say and whilst what you are saying is 100% correct on the surface it is flawed. As a final attempt to sway you, I would say that is perfectly easy to do things in, Ubuntu/Mandriva/Debian/SuSe/Fedora/any linux, as you would do in Slackware however if you did do those things you would change the fundamental essence of those distributions and they would probably break and you would be left with plain old Linux. If you add helper programs to Slackware you get Slackware with helper programs.

That is the difference.

samac
 
Old 09-28-2009, 03:16 AM   #52
~sHyLoCk~
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2008
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 1,173
Blog Entries: 12

Rep: Reputation: 129Reputation: 129
GUI or CLI, as long as you can get your work done be happy. If you want to learn about Linux then go the LFS way. Else if you feel it's not worth it to punish yourself and waste time by doing something that can be done easily the graphical way [click next->finish], then pick one of the graphical distros. [often regarded as newbie distros by elitists]. That said, not all the time such GUI tools are efficient and can provide you with the complete freedom and control over your system. You must pay the price on either side. Either be an ignorant user who is satisfied with pretty looking GUI tools or use the boring cli and type a lot of commands, the choice should be left with the user. I don't see a point in arguing over this. Pick something that works for you, no point in comparing/criticizing slackware or any other distribution with another just because they have a different policy of doing things.

Last edited by ~sHyLoCk~; 09-28-2009 at 04:18 AM.
 
Old 09-28-2009, 04:34 AM   #53
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,362

Rep: Reputation: 891Reputation: 891Reputation: 891Reputation: 891Reputation: 891Reputation: 891Reputation: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh000 View Post
The problem, is that it is not as simple as you suggest. GUI programs on other distributions do not simply use the CLI as the backend. They have rather detailed interfaces and wrappers, and quite often their own databases to handle a lot of stuff.
And this is exactly why I don't like them. I've got no problem with user friendly GUI wrappers for CLI configuration tools, but as soon as they try and supplant the underlying commands/config files by replacing them with their own private mechanisms, then they're no longer respecting the platform they're running on and IMO have overstepped the line.

This is why I tend to view KDE and Gnome not as desktops for the linux/gnu platform, but platforms in their own right. Similarly, if SUSE or Redhat re-implement their own config system then that's fine too, but as soon as they do they're no longer linux/gnu either. they're SUSE and Redhat.

That is sort of the point behind the, "If you know Slackware, you know linux" line. Which if put more accurately would read, "if you know Slackware, you know the underlying products/components", but that doesn't scan as well.

Anyway, if you're happy using these systems that implement their own config mechanisms for others products/components, then that's a personal choice. My choice is to believe that doing this ties you into those config mechanisms and may restrict your options at some point, and is therefore a mistake.
 
Old 09-28-2009, 05:21 AM   #54
Josh000
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Distribution: Slackware 13 64bit
Posts: 534

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by samac View Post
I am not complaining that it does, I am complaining about the OS doing stuff that you do not ask it to do or breaking something that is working because it knows better. I know that if I ask it to do stuff, it is my choice, however I can expect, quite reasonably, not to have to put up with shoddy programming/design/thinking by a third party.
Yes, exactly. I agree with you here.

My point, is that what you are saying, does not happen. I think gargamel has also tried to point this out to you.

None of the distributions do stuff that you do not ask it to. They may have more things set up automatically, or may suggest you use gui tools to configure things, but in all cases, the user has compelte control and the computer can be prevented from doing anything unless the user consents.

Which is why I made this thread. While some distributions may strongly advise against doing things manually, the idea that some distributions 'steal' control from you, as you seem to be suggesting, is simply false.

Quote:
If you cannot see what I mean by this then we obviously have had very different experiences in the world of computing, my experience of these things happening was over five years ago, ancient history in computing terms, however it led me to Slackware.
Maybe we are misinterpreting each other. I think I like slackware for the same reasons as you, I just disagree on your view of other distributions.

Quote:
I would ask that we continue to agree to disagree, because you obviously cannot see what I am trying to say and whilst what you are saying is 100% correct on the surface it is flawed. As a final attempt to sway you, I would say that is perfectly easy to do things in, Ubuntu/Mandriva/Debian/SuSe/Fedora/any linux, as you would do in Slackware however if you did do those things you would change the fundamental essence of those distributions and they would probably break and you would be left with plain old Linux. If you add helper programs to Slackware you get Slackware with helper programs.
I would suggest in the future, if you wish to agree to disagree, you don't end with a 'final attempt to sway'

What I am saying is not flawed, and I have to wonder where you have this view of other distributions from. It is honestly a misconeption.

Anything I do on slack, I can do on Ubuntu/Mandriva/Debian/SuSe/Fedora/any linux. Depedning on the distro, it may be considered a bad practice by the community, but even then, advances users as most slackers are tend to get left alone.

It certainly won't stuff(except, perhaps, in some strange package dependency cases, but even then this can be fixed quite easily, and is optional to use them anyway), and while it may negate the reason for using the distro in the first palce, there would probably be a good reason for doing so.

I've honestly talked to a lot of people about this, to get an idea. So, let us take Redhat for example. I was of the same opinion as you until I investigated it further. After talking to some expert RH users, everything can be stripped down, and most of the wrappers and such are not necessary. RPM can still be a bitch, but you don'T have to use it. So, then, there are other reasons for using RH, which would be in contrast to our reasons for using slack. Even then, many of the people who use RH, in no way have to sacrifice control or choice, anymore than you do by choosing to use xorgsetup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~sHyLoCk~ View Post
You must pay the price on either side. Either be an ignorant user who is satisfied with pretty looking GUI tools or use the boring cli and type a lot of commands, the choice should be left with the user.
That is the thing though. As much as some distributions may strongly encourage you to use their own tools, they all still give you the choice. No distributions remove the choice or functionality from you, and when they do, it is reasonable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GazL View Post
And this is exactly why I don't like them. I've got no problem with user friendly GUI wrappers for CLI configuration tools, but as soon as they try and supplant the underlying commands/config files by replacing them with their own private mechanisms, then they're no longer respecting the platform they're running on and IMO have overstepped the line.
Well, I think that is an interesting thing. I think many distros deliberatly do not want to respect the platform they are on, but rather make their own platform. I see nothing wrong with this. You can, in some sense, look at something like Ubuntu, and see it as Ubuntu, and not just another abstraction of Linux. In which case, Ubuntu will have it's own tools and such , and if you want to use Ubuntu, you should do things the Ubuntu way.

A good example of this is maybe Windows 95 being built on DOS. It is no longer DOS, nor should you expect to be able to do all the things you could do in DOS. The fact it uses it as a base is irrelivant, because it is not being sold as DOS.

Another example would be Debian. It runs on Linux, but it is Debian more than it is Linux. For example, it can run with FreeBSD. In which case, things become the Debian way, and the base is less important.

I agree with the rest of your post though.
 
Old 09-28-2009, 06:07 AM   #55
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 6,958
Blog Entries: 52

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I've said this in another thread: using Slackware gives me more incentive to learn and experiment. Whereas, with Debian for example, I feel constrained to always do things "the Debian way". There are always those "Debian policies" on this, that, and the other, that seem to stifle initiative. I can ignore them, they're not enforced by law. But they're there, nagging:"Do it this way, don't think for yourself." This is a purely subjective opinion.
Like ~sHyLoCk~ says:
Quote:
Pick something that works for you
 
Old 09-28-2009, 06:58 AM   #56
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,362

Rep: Reputation: 891Reputation: 891Reputation: 891Reputation: 891Reputation: 891Reputation: 891Reputation: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh000 View Post

Well, I think that is an interesting thing. I think many distros deliberatly do not want to respect the platform they are on, but rather make their own platform.
Absolutely, it's called 'lock-in' and it's standard operating procedure for any business. By heavily customising their distro and effectively making it into the 'platform' they're forcing you to use their versions of packages, patches, security upgrades etc (unless you're prepared to jump through hoops to work around it). These are all things that they can try and monetize through support contracts and what have you. You only need to look at Novell to see this in action. It also makes it more effort for you to swap to a competitors product which is something any business obviously would rather you didn't do.

I can't help but feel though that if you really want one of these super-distros (for lack of a better term), then you might as well just stick with proprietary systems from any number of traditional system vendors.
 
Old 09-28-2009, 07:45 AM   #57
hitest
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD
Posts: 4,160

Rep: Reputation: 525Reputation: 525Reputation: 525Reputation: 525Reputation: 525Reputation: 525
Josh000,

This has been an interesting thread:-) I am in agreement with your core premise, that is, that all versions of Linux allow you to do what you want to do. It is important though that it is stipulated that this argument obviously only applies to intermediate to advanced Linux users.
A novice Linux user (***cough Ubuntu cough***) will have no idea that their use of the distro is being shaped by system defaults.
This is one of the many reasons why I love Slackware. Slackware's system administration methods are a thing of beauty. Slackware assumes nothing, it doesn't care if you install it on a toaster (now that would be cool) or on a super computer. Slackware stays the hell out of my way.
 
Old 09-28-2009, 08:09 AM   #58
Josh000
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Distribution: Slackware 13 64bit
Posts: 534

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by GazL View Post
Absolutely, it's called 'lock-in' and it's standard operating procedure for any business. By heavily customising their distro and effectively making it into the 'platform' they're forcing you to use their versions of packages, patches, security upgrades etc (unless you're prepared to jump through hoops to work around it).
Hmm. I think that is an unneccesarily pessimistic view.

I think something like Ubuntu is primarily altruistic. Hell, shutlleworth continues to support the idea and have yet to make a profit.

Sure, some companies do this, but I think there is also a desire to use Linux as a base, and actually come up with their own products. redhat does not sell Linux, they sell RHEL. Which is seperate from Linux, exactly because of all the stuff they add, which is what people pay for. Well, they mainly pay for support, but you get my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitest View Post
Josh000,
This has been an interesting thread:-) I am in agreement with your core premise, that is, that all versions of Linux allow you to do what you want to do. It is important though that it is stipulated that this argument obviously only applies to intermediate to advanced Linux users.
A novice Linux user (***cough Ubuntu cough***) will have no idea that their use of the distro is being shaped by system defaults.'
Indeed, it has been interesting

I just had seen so much 'badmouthing' about the other distros, and had a similar opinion myself, and wanted to actually get the facts. The facts are, that no distros actually prevent you from doing anything, some just make it harder, and usually that is reasonable.

I think a ubuntu user is not discouraged from digging deeper. most will not want to which is fine. For those that do, they will not be prevented from learning, but may ultimately become frustrated with the abstraction and move to slack
 
Old 09-28-2009, 09:02 AM   #59
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 11,102
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1401Reputation: 1401Reputation: 1401Reputation: 1401Reputation: 1401Reputation: 1401Reputation: 1401Reputation: 1401Reputation: 1401Reputation: 1401
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh000 View Post
<snip>
Indeed, it has been interesting

I just had seen so much 'badmouthing' about the other distros, and had a similar opinion myself, and wanted to actually get the facts. The facts are, that no distros actually prevent you from doing anything, some just make it harder, and usually that is reasonable.

I think a ubuntu user is not discouraged from digging deeper. most will not want to which is fine. For those that do, they will not be prevented from learning, but may ultimately become frustrated with the abstraction and move to slack
But you are always going to get 'badmouthing' or zealots that will use anything to support their views.

I see some leaning on your part to the open configuration methodology. Sure the 'cli' will get you the results expected but when you utilize the 'GUI' you will be dependent on the author's expertize with the system in implementing. I think that investigative individuals will find the way to implement their needs on a 'GUI' based distribution but the average user will not. I'm biased to the use of the 'cli', been using it way longer than a 'GUI'. I've written 'GUI' tools for propriety software an know the road blocks that one will have to work around. That damn problem with human interfacing keeps getting in the way.

Some of the 'GUI' users just want the damn thing to work. No jumping through hoops or RTFM which just adds to the confusion. We could 'man' everything but the users still need to be able to read for understanding. Why should they when most know that someone else will do the grunt work for them. Can we say 'GUI'?
 
  


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
LXer: Linux Shootout: 7 Desktop Distros Compared LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 05-14-2008 07:40 AM
Linux Shootout: 7 Desktop Distros Compared DragonSlayer48DX Linux - News 1 05-05-2008 06:09 PM
LXer: Three MythTV Linux distros compared LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 08-28-2007 03:50 PM
Heavyweight vs. Lightweight Distros Rick069 Linux - Software 6 09-28-2005 06:37 PM
Why is redhat so big compared to the other distros? sandboy6184 Linux - General 4 09-30-2004 11:49 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:25 AM.

Main Menu
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