Cheers. I hadn't noticed that!

IMHO you're just wasting time here. It' much more produtive to discuss facts and not opinions.

Having said that, I wish I could say something about it but I haven't had any issues recently.

BTW, I hope everyone a great new year.

Skuzye

Fair enough. Let's look at the example you're setting:



I've already pointed out the five lines of insults, personal attacks and name-calling in your first post here. None of us, at the time, had done anything to deserve them.

How can you start with such a negative post and then recommend a constructive attitude towards anyone replying to you?

Some guy somewhere tried Slackware and wrote a somewhat unfavorable review about it. Then several posters here said the reviewer was completely wrong, many even presented reasons. HOW is that more useful than my particular take on the issue? It was idle chat already when I joined it. Why did you not classify the comments before mine as "useless"?

I think you didn't blow them off because they were defending Slackware's reputation like the reputation of a damsel, and you approved of that. It wasn't fun anymore when someone (me) decided to go against the opinion of the majority. I think you hate me because I ruined the good fun the boys were having crucifying the reviewer.

And what do you mean, I am "not proposing what to change"???!!! Gee, isn't that's obvious? Introduce the useful things that some people perceive as missing and make the things that do not work finally work. But I think it's just as obvious that if Patrick had the resources and/or interest to do those things, he would have already, so I don't feel like discussing those issues much more than that. I don't think that Slackware is going to incorporate those changes soon (although I think it will eventually, everyone/everything has to catch up with the times albeit slowly). I never intended to "change the world". I was just explaining why I agreed with the review. Note that I didn't join the thread until the review was mentioned. My participation here is all about the review.


Please go back a few comments in this thread and see what Woodsman wrote. He doesn't agree with all my points, but has maintained a constructive attitude towards them.

In essence, every review is actually saying "It's good except for the following flaws: this, this and that." The constructive attitude towards that kind of commentary is to try to recognize the flaws and maybe do what it takes to overcome them.

Doesn't need to be and lucmove is not the one doing the flaming.
His original post wasn't a rant. He outlined what he doesn't like and needs, in his opinion, to be changed.

Post deleted. It wasn't constructive and would have taken the thread further in the wrong direction .

I agree. I am aware of the challenges. I have seen small differences even between build scripts from slackbuilds.org and slacky.eu.

I found the remainder of your responses interesting because I raise the same issues in the how-to I'm writing. As you noted, Slackware is not intended for the mass market and that presents challenges with creating a full-featured Slackware. My how-to is written to recognize that doing so is possible on an individual basis, but to support a widespread client-customer base probably is an adventure to avoid.

You and I both understand that a computer is a complicated machine. Most users do not. They have and always will have an appliance attitude toward computers. As I mentioned in my previous post, I almost always boot into run level 3. I find comfort in seeing the stdout messages. Most users don't. They tend to freak out with that.

My use of the phrase "just works" was not intended to imply that all of these things are flawless in other operating systems. I've been around computers too long to think that. The name of my web site is "humanreadable," and in my home page I explicitly state that I still believe computers are more user-hostile than user-friendly. My use of the phrase "just works" is that most of the time these connections should work and should be seamless.

If you haven't surmised from previous posts, I tend to agree. As I have researched this project the past few weeks I have come to realize the overwhelming nature of such support. I think such support is doable, but a person has to stick with only one or two distros, know them well, and provide those solutions preinstalled and pretested. That is rather straightforward for people buying a new computer or even just a new hard drive. The people who want to maintain their Windows systems and dual boot will be difficult to satisfy because there is no shortcut to shrinking a Windows partition, adding additional partitions, installing all the software from scratch or an image, etc., etc. All of that takes time. Then there is data migration. Not that all of that can't be done, but the price just increased dramatically to provide that kind of solution.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I did not raise the issue of aptitude or ability. I raised the issue of time and priorities. Some people have different goals in life and for many, building packages is not one of them. My best friend was a genius. His IQ was as high as a professional bowler's average. He was a mathematical wizard and saw mathematical patterns in the world everywhere he went. Calculus was as natural to him as breathing. He could analyze systems and explain their mathematical relationships. Yet he struggled with computers. He called me once or twice a week to help him with his computer. Now, he was a whiz with a spreadsheet, but everything else he was not. He was like most people in that regard --- he learned only what he needed to finish his task. The man just blew people away with his analytical and deductive skills, but he had zero time to learn much about a computer other than peck-and-type basics. That is my point. Aptitude and ability are not the issues. Time and priorities are the issues. To tell somebody that building packages is easy for these people is irrelevant.

I have already written more than once that the issue is not aptitude and ability but time and priorities. I have admitted a lack of understanding but I also said I don't have the time to become more intimate with software compiling. Once again, to tell somebody that building packages is easy, or to challenge a person's intelligence, is irrelevant. And condescending. And elitist.

I agreed with two points and I declared certain presumptions for that agreement.

There is no such thing as a perfect operating system. Every person on this planet shares a different definition of happiness. Anybody who browses my web site learns that after 30 years of being around computers I still consider computers more user-hostile than user-friendly. Slackware is not perfect for me either, but gets in my way less than other systems, which allows me to fine-tune and customize the system closer to my definition of happiness. There remain gaps in that pursuit of course, which my active participation in this forum will confirm.

Because of my background I tend to empathize with the perspective of most users, who want to treat a computer as an appliance. There are many ways to improve operating systems, including Slackware. I don't back off from constructive criticism --- against others or against myself. Yet I seldom provide a critique without also offering a possible solution or offering to help find a solution. The past three Slackware releases I have participated in testing Current. Not to the depth of the primary Slackware team, but in my own way. I submitted bug reports and I submitted suggestions. Some were accepted, some were not. Of those that were not, I have no idea what Pat and the team will do. They might have already placed some of them in the proverbial bit-bucket, they might have placed some of them aside for now. I respect their intelligence and decision-making responsibilities and I figure submitting a suggestion is sufficient. No need to hammer them or whine.

Those of us who have been around computers long enough know that computers are complex machines. Anybody who has studied any kind of complex system knows that Murphy rules. If something can go wrong, something will go wrong. The challenge with complex systems is that humans are creatures of limited knowledge. Nobody has the ability to foresee all the consequences of any related decision. A simple tweak on the code in one place sometimes creates havoc elsewhere. This is the nature of any complex system. That is one reason why constructive criticism is an essential component of creating a good computer operating system.

I'll second the motion of "Why?" I have not seen any vitriolic posts. I have seen some emotion, some passion, and some disagreement, but nothing to forcibly close this thread.

You had already answered the question. I like the underlying design. As I just mentioned in this post, Slackware gets in my way less than the design of other operating systems, which allows me to fine-tune and customize the system closer to my definition of happiness.

By the way, nowhere in my previous posts in this thread have I declared a hatred, distaste, or contempt for Slackware. I only have noted some areas in which I think Slackware could improve. I use Slackware daily as my primary operating system.

The reality is that most people consider documentation a remedy of last resort. I should know as I have been in the technical writing business for more than two decades. Even within the tech writer profession, many do not want to read documentation. On my last contract project I wrote three --- not one but three user guides specifically for the writers. Yet 7 times out of 10 most of them left their desks and approached me at my desk or hollered across cubicles to ask me rather than open the guides. That is human nature. I enjoy the heck out of writing documentation and trying to master the intricacies of the written word, but I accept the reality that most people will not use documentation except as a last resort. Not all people, just most people. To most people, yelling RTFM is water on a duck's back.

I don't recall arguing that cfdisk was difficult. I said only that being confronted with cfdisk will paralyze most people. Regarding graphical partition tools, I have recommended before in this forum that gparted is a nice alternative to cfdisk. I have even recommended this to Pat for inclusion in the installation scripts as an alternative to cfdisk. But the point about partitioning is mostly irrelevant because most users never do this. They buy an operating system preinstalled.

I disagree, based upon years of experience both with computers and providing technical writing services. People like you and me --- people who like to tinker with these complex tools, look for documentation almost as easy as we breath. Not most people. I keep trying to emphasize the difference between most people using computers and hackers and tinkers. There is a chasm between the two types of people.

My fellow tech writers always call me a geek. I always tell them, "No, I simply have mastered the tools of my profession." The point being is that even in the field of tech writing --- people who write about technical topics, most of the people are not computer people. They are not stupid people, they simply have different goals and priorities. The RTFM attitude does not work with most people. As a long-time tech writer, I have learned that the best way to introduce documentation is concurrently with an actual hands-on demonstration. A proverbial arm around the shoulder helps a lot too. But to scream RTFM is a quick way to make enemies and as a long-time contractor, a quick way to find a contract terminated. Deal with people as people, not automatons.

Besides, the Slackbook is only a guide, a starting point. An out-of-date one at that.

And what a pain it is! Kubuntu 8.04.1 LTS, amd_64 with KDE 3.5.10 ran very well, but I made the mistake of installing 8.10, which installs KDE 4.xx, now at 4.1.3. What a can of worms! There are times when I think I must be running winblows 98, second edition. Twice this morning alone, while trying to respond to messages in this thread, the entire system froze up solid. I've since booted to Slackware 12 and all those problems have magically disappeared.
And, yes, they are forcing KDE 4 upon the public regardless of the fact it is not ready. As a result of my experience with Kubuntu 8.10 and KDE 4.xx, I'm planning on installing Slamd64 when version 12.2 becomes available (and assuming it is still multilib).

While we are on the subject of KDE, would someone be kind enough to explain, in "end user" terms, just what is so "great" about KDE 4 and why is it being force upon us? And please don't say we are not being forced. If you are using, e.g., "koo-boon-too" or OpenSUSE, and want to be able to use the latest versions of your favorite programs tweaked for your favorite flavor of Linux, you have to make the switch to the latest version of your distribution which means you will be using KDE 4.xx. That is turn is another reason to be using Slackware.

Woodsman, you've identified two types of users.

Type A
Type B
We agree that Slackware is a great distro for type A. Now let's restate the questions we've actually been discussing:

1. is Slackware currently a good distro for type B?
2. if not, can it be changed to conform to type B's preferences?
3. would the necessary changes make it less suitable for type A?
4. can you give examples of such changes, and how they will be viewed by types A and B? Would they be appropriate for both an X-based desktop and an X-less server?

Answering all 4 isn't that easy, is it? I can't answer all of them in any detail, so anyone who can is invited to do so.

BTW, Woodsman, I'd be very surprised if you would recommend Slackware to people that you know are in type B. Especially if they pay you for the recommendation.

Lucmove: "constructive criticism" involves thinking about why things are the way they are. You proposed that Slackware include a package manager with automatic dependency resolution. In reality, several exist for Slackware. However, they don't get recommended much. One is no longer even maintained. Have you thought about why?

There are 300+ distros out there, something to suit almost everybody. Slackware suits me the way it is. It fills a particular niche that no other distro does. I don't want it to become Debianised, Ubuntuified, or Fedorated. Whether other people like it or loathe it is of no concern to me. Everybody's entitled to their own opinion (even if it is the wrong one ).

Because I'm not interested in external slackware reviews or opinions about them. I'm using OS, I like it, I'm not looking for alternative, so I'm not interested in opinions of Ubuntu users about slackware or something similar. I don't care. Besides your post is not about review.

Hate you? Get a life, man. You are nobody to me - just a faceless (and for some reason angry) nickname on the forum. You haven't done enough to make me hate or respect you. You aren't even close and you aren't even moving in right direction.

Acceptable criticism:
1) No emotions.
2) List of things you want changed (notice - not "don't like")
3) For each item in the list:
3.1) Explanation why it should be changed.
3.2) Few possible ways to change situation. For example: few alternative packages that can be used
3.3) List of possible outcomes from change.
3.4) (optional, but recommended) Slackbuild or package ready to inclusion into distribution.
Use this and you will have chance to change something.

Unacceptible criticism:
1) Emotions
2) List of things you don't like.
3) For each thing in the list:
3.1) Phrase "I don't like it, change it somehow".
3.2) Twenty exclamation marks.
Use this and people will ignore you as timewaster.

Easy enough to understand?

The thread is called "Slackware 12.2 is released". What the hell has review to do with it? Find a thread with a review or something.

The flaws normally are matter of taste. Flaw for the one is advantage to another. What you think are flaws are advantages to my opinion.

If you want to change slackware into *buntu, just use ubuntu instead of trying to make slackware something its not. There is a reason why there is more then one distro

Learning "make DESTDIR= install" takes 15..60 minutes. Not days, not weeks, not years. And you will have to learn it just once. There is no secret knowledge, no hidden philosophical questions, nothing. You just can take instruction and repeat it blindly. Of course, there is a caveat - make DESTDIR install will fail with 5% of software (manual makefile, no configure or scons-based). But it will work in most cases. So it is definitely worth learning since it doesn't take a lot of time, it is easy to use, and project is easy to check if it is incompatible with "make DESTDIR install".
To me it looks like you are overestimating complexity of learning "how to build package". And I wasn't talking about "abstract user", I was talking about you.

Woodsman, are you saying that you would rather "learn to live without" the software you want to use, than spend an hour learning to build them?

And please, no more about how "most people" are. As ErV pointed out, we're not talking to them. We're talking to you and expecting you to speak for yourself.