LinuxQuestions.org
View the Most Wanted LQ Wiki articles.
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 05-20-2013, 06:37 AM   #31
irgunII
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Location: Directly above the center of the earth
Distribution: Slackware. There's something else?
Posts: 372

Rep: Reputation: 65

Quote:
Originally Posted by kikinovak View Post
LMFAO! Good one Kikinovak!
 
Old 05-20-2013, 07:57 AM   #32
edorig
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2013
Location: France
Distribution: Slackware; Scientific Linux
Posts: 106

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Thanks for your link wildwizard. This whole "linux advocacy" is ridiculous beyond belief. What about closing the
thread ? We know that LSB does not amount to much, except (1) having paid a lot to get certified and (2) having some
minimal compatibility with RedHat, opinions of random bloggers notwithstanding. Incompatibility with an ISO/ANSI standard, an IEEE standard, or a standard established by a group of Unix vendors such as the Open Group could be an issue, depending on its severity (i. e. does it make a source package non portable, does it prevents interoperability etc...). Possible issues when installing a binary designed for another Linux distribution on Slackware are unavoidable. In fact, even installing CentOS 6.1 software (xmgr) on Scientific Linux 6.1 (both RHEL clones) can fail, simply because SL has upgraded one library (netCDF) while CentOS has not.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 09:22 AM   #33
hitest
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD
Posts: 4,163

Rep: Reputation: 527Reputation: 527Reputation: 527Reputation: 527Reputation: 527Reputation: 527
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by kikinovak View Post
Oh my, you caught me off guard with that one, mate! LMAO.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 02:48 PM   #34
dugan
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 4,629

Rep: Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabamaru View Post
Caitlyn Martin joins LinuxAdvocates
I've read a bit of LinuxAdvocates' content, and I think she's perfect for them.

Last edited by dugan; 05-20-2013 at 03:12 PM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-20-2013, 07:03 PM   #35
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, FreeBSD 10.0, CRUX 3.1
Posts: 3,042
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 764Reputation: 764Reputation: 764Reputation: 764Reputation: 764Reputation: 764Reputation: 764
I actually think Slackware not only follows, but exceeds the LSB standards by promoting the adamant usage of non-proprietary system software (like systemd which is Linux-only software) unless unavoidable (like udev).

If anything Slackware is the benchmark standard of Linux. Red Hat is far from even being near to any standard other than their own. If anything Slackware is not only closer to the LSB standard than Red Hat, but Slackware is even closer to the SUS (Single UNIX Specification) than any other distribution save Gentoo and LFS maybe.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 07:11 PM   #36
Richard Cranium
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Carrollton, Texas
Distribution: Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 1,482

Rep: Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsman View Post
Marketing, by nature in the modern world, involves deception and sleight-of-hand.
By nature? I think not.

In practice? Much more often than it should be.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 07:51 PM   #37
Woodsman
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Distribution: Slackware 14.1
Posts: 3,482

Rep: Reputation: 534Reputation: 534Reputation: 534Reputation: 534Reputation: 534Reputation: 534
Quote:
By nature? I think not.
In practice? Much more often than it should be.
Okay --- in practice.

[Off topic]
Modern marketing is horribly deceptive and misleading. Just this weekend I read some articles about the birth and growth of the dry cereal business. Almost completely built upon deceptive marketing. Another example of deceptive marketing is the contents of a loaf of bread.
[/Off topic]

Regardless, this practice of deceptive marketing has infested almost all facets of our modern life. Software is no exception.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 10:42 PM   #38
Richard Cranium
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Carrollton, Texas
Distribution: Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 1,482

Rep: Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420Reputation: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsman View Post
Regardless, this practice of deceptive marketing has infested almost all facets of our modern life. Software is no exception.
Well, view it as an extended IQ test. Or a different type of test that rewards paranoia.
 
Old 05-21-2013, 12:29 AM   #39
kikinovak
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Montpezat (South France)
Distribution: ElementaryOS, Ubuntu LTS, Slackware
Posts: 1,549

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721Reputation: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsman View Post
Regardless, this practice of deceptive marketing has infested almost all facets of our modern life. Software is no exception.
I like Slackware's marketing concept and try to apply it as much as possible to my own little company (http://www.microlinux.fr). Slackware offers what seems to me like a healthy mix of sustainability, transparency, understatement, sane pricing and word-of-mouth.

(Mostly due to my character, I'm yet struggling with the understatement bit. )
 
Old 05-21-2013, 03:09 AM   #40
gargamel
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Distribution: Slackware, SLAX, OpenSuSE
Posts: 1,594

Rep: Reputation: 142Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
I actually think Slackware not only follows, but exceeds the LSB standards by promoting the adamant usage of non-proprietary system software (like systemd which is Linux-only software) unless unavoidable (like udev).

If anything Slackware is the benchmark standard of Linux. Red Hat is far from even being near to any standard other than their own. If anything Slackware is not only closer to the LSB standard than Red Hat, but Slackware is even closer to the SUS (Single UNIX Specification) than any other distribution save Gentoo and LFS maybe.

Hmm, I'd put it a bit differently. Slackware is closer to the (actually useful) goals of LSB than some of the LSB creators. I doubt that Slackware would be more successful in LSB certification tests than Red Hat or SUSE, but I was able to get packages running on Slackware that wouldn't run on OpenSUSE. There's only one exception: I was able to run KMyMoney2 with HBCI support (German online banking standard) only on OpenSUSE, but on no other distro I tried, not even Slkackware 32-bit.

It's just, that some of the packages required to set a symlink or tweak a path at build time. So Slackware may not be LSB compliant by definition (of LSB), but IMHO Slackware achieves the goals of LSB even better than the creators of this debated standard.

Conclusion:
  • Is Slackware LSB compliant?
    Strictly speaking and by definition: No.
  • Does this affect any Slackware user in any way?
    Not, at all.
  • Does this affect a system administrator, who wants to use Slackware in an enterprise environment?
    Unfortunately, in the real world it does. Admins must convince their managers, but managers don't want to be responsible, they prefer to spend the money of investors and cut head count to save money, in order to buy kind of an insurance. That's what a certificate and a contract with a large vendor are in their eyes: Insurances, that cover their back.
  • If managers insist in certification and contracts, how can Debian be so successful in enterprise environments?
    Debian has been chosen especially by banks and insurances as a desktop (client) system. Some use it on their servers, too. There are a few reasons for this, that also explain, why Slackware isn't used as much in the same environments:
    1. If you can convince a manager that free software is actually a good thing to mitigate risks of vendor lock-in etc., he or she will insist in using free software and not to take any risk of law suits due to patent or licence violation in non-free or non-open-source software coming with your distro. In my experience, managers support free software when they just have had a bitter experience with some of their commercial vendors, and when they realize, how much they depend on one or another software vendor. In such a situation, however, they'll try to avoid finding themselves in a similar position again, a few years later, and therefore are open for FOSS. That's one reason, why they find Debian quite appealing, more than other distributions.
    2. Another reason are the huge software repositories and the package management. Slackware users know about the pros and cons of dependency reason probably better than anyone else, and that's why we don't want it. But as we all have to admit, for a beginner dpkg and the tools supporting it make it rather easy and painless to keep the system up-to-date for a while (as long as the package maintainers do a proper job and the package manager doesn't screw the whole system) even with little Linux experience. And we all know, that it is an uphill battle trying to convince a user of Debian or *buntu or OpenSUSE of the advantages of package management without automatic dependency resolution. It's like telling a child that the stove is hot --- as long as the child hasn't touched a hot stove, it will not even know, what you're talking about.
    3. Finally, some consulting firms advise companies willing to use Linux on desktops to choose Debian. Their arguments are, again, package management, and the fact that it does not depend on a particular company, but is a community project. The consultants tell their clients, that these would be "strategic assets". (And for some part, they definitely are).


Best regards

gargamel

Last edited by gargamel; 05-27-2013 at 12:32 PM. Reason: Corrected a couple of typos.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-21-2013, 06:17 AM   #41
commandlinegamer
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2007
Posts: 80

Rep: Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenni View Post
It HAS been done, however. Unifix Linux is (or was not sure it's still around) completely POSIX.1 compliant and I *think* was even certified as such: http://www.unifix.de/products/unifix_2_0/
Wow, that's a blast from the past! Never used it mind you. A search for related stuff led me to this page. Amusing to see the number of major distros back then:

http://www.ru.j-npcs.org/usoft/WWW/w...tribution.html

When you mentioned it, my first thought was of this, a later project which also ran out of steam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Linux
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-21-2013, 09:22 PM   #42
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, FreeBSD 10.0, CRUX 3.1
Posts: 3,042
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 764Reputation: 764Reputation: 764Reputation: 764Reputation: 764Reputation: 764Reputation: 764
Isn't SuSE somewhat based on Slackware however?
 
Old 05-21-2013, 09:50 PM   #43
dugan
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 4,629

Rep: Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429Reputation: 1429
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
Isn't SuSE somewhat based on Slackware however?
Er, what?
 
Old 05-21-2013, 09:55 PM   #44
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, FreeBSD 10.0, CRUX 3.1
Posts: 3,042
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 764Reputation: 764Reputation: 764Reputation: 764Reputation: 764Reputation: 764Reputation: 764
Yep, SUSE was based on Slackware an an extension of it, at least in it's early years.
 
Old 05-21-2013, 10:35 PM   #45
JWJones
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2009
Location: Cascadia
Distribution: Slackware, LinuxBBQ, OpenBSD, Mac OSX
Posts: 723

Rep: Reputation: 186Reputation: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
Isn't SuSE somewhat based on Slackware however?
Yup. "In the early days, the young company sold sets of floppy disks containing a German edition of Slackware Linux, but it wasn't long before SuSE Linux became an independent distribution with the launch of version 4.2 in May 1996."
 
  


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
[SOLVED] how to make Slack 13.37 LSB 3.2 compliant waddles Slackware 10 10-02-2012 02:01 PM
Why Slackware isn't LSB compliant? testing Slackware 64 12-06-2010 11:05 PM
Which distros are most Linux Standard Base (LSB) compliant? catkin Linux - General 2 08-18-2009 08:44 AM
Building LSB compatible application with LSB SDK - lsbappchk fails gkiagia Programming 0 01-12-2007 05:00 AM
LSB 3.0 released - Slackware compliance? Yalla-One Slackware 1 09-21-2005 07:34 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:30 PM.

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