Yes. I stand corrected there. But, without a graphical representation of the Linux file system this will be hard for a new windows user to understand:

/home

For example, during the partitioning process if you want to create a separate home partition you are prompted by the ncurses installer to select a mount point.

Anyway. I think I'm digressing here. Point well-taken, Lufbery.

Agreed.

I see. Thankyou for clarifying. I don't have a problem with forking and going off in a different direction from the original but I'm generally opposed to that type of 'tracking' activity as I believe there's a danger it can damage the original project it is based on by cannibalising it's sales/userbase, especially so if that userbase isn't all that large to start with, but that's just a personal opinion and as such holds no sway with anyone but myself.

I've been reading all these posts, and I am surprised that some of the most discussed ideas are also the most vaguely defined. The impression I get is that people find installing distribution challenging, find switching runlevels challenging, and subsequently installing packages to be challenging. Solutions for some of these could be as simple as changing some language in the installation, or offering some additional options.

Could some of you who have commented generally about ease of use issues choose a couple of pet ones and describe them in detail? I don't doubt that they exist at all, or that Slackware couldn't benefit from changing them, but its difficult to think about improvements without some very specific ideas.

you think very wrong until gnome 2.28 was released i was a gnome fan, but after that i start using kde4, and now i`m realy pleased of it, so i became a full-time slacker.

i like KDE4, so on my system you will find only kde4 and xfce. i won`t use fluxbox or any windows manager cuz you said.


PS: GSB for slack13 from my point of view, it`s unstable.

hoho: very old post.. :-j

sorry to interrupt, a word or two about precompiled packages.

I use slackware from ten years now and it has always been my preferred choice on my desktops and my servers for easiness of install and customization (editing a few files files with vi, my favourite way).
Using it as a desktop I always needed additional packages, codecs and generally software not in the default slackware full install.
sbopkg and technology progresses (increase in cpu power/cores/memory/storage/net access and virtual machines) changed the way I used to mantain my personal repos: now i simply launch a queue of nearly 250 (and looking on increasing) packages in sbopkg on a freshly installed slackware, taking a look now and then (like a tamagotchi ) at the output; some hours and it's all done.
you only have to build packages in the correct order, this is the queue I use.
I have done it recently on a slackware64-13.0 and I do it twice a month for slackware64-current: I have some pcs to feed and this way I can also check if those packages still build and eventually report problems to slackbuilds people (if not related to sbopkg)
I build just a few packages manually.

if you need some stuff try have a look here (speaking about trust I can understand I'm mr. nobody but I just wish to share the things I do for my personal ease in using slack), dependencies are listed on slackbuilds.org packages pages.
those are what I use on my pcs (not all those games ).

I fail to see how they are two different goals. I see both goals complimenting one another nicely. Fundamentally, every distro that is available is both an operating system and a repository.

Long ago the Zenwalk team provided backwards compatibility. That guarantee disappeared with each new release.

I think that is a harsh statement. I think the Salix devs know how Slackware works quite well. One wiki entry is no foundation for such a blanket statement.

Another generality statement that is unsupported. I'm a regular Slacker and although I knew that Ctrl-Alt-Backpsace remained available in Slackware, I never investigated why.

Your last two statements indicate you expect perfect knowledge, or knowledge through osmosis. That is an impossible idea. All people are ignorant to one degree or another. Even subject matter experts are ignorant about their subject specialties --- they do not know everything about their selected subject. They are only less ignorant than most people.

I suspect eventually that will happen, similar to the history of slackpkg.

One challenge with all of these different repositories is each person uses a different model for the SlackBuild scripts. None are the same. The slackbuilds.org folks have been adamant about not hosting pre-compiled packages. Probably a combination of time and money.

Well, this isn't religion. Healthy discussions about improving Slackware is a Good Thing. I like Slackware. My advocacy has always been for the inclusion of a handful of graphical administration tools for non-technical users. I support the idea that die-hards need not install or use such tools. Place those kind of tools in /extra. For example, the Salix admin tools are great little apps for non-technical users. I would like to see KPackage and KNetworkManger repaired once and for all to work with Slackware. None of these tools need to be used by die-hards but provide much peace for non-technical people.

Building packages is a personal issue. Although I build my own packages, there are many times when I would rather just download a pre-compiled package. Yesterday I built QT-4.5.1 for my 12.2 systems. Even with a dual core system, the build required something like two hours or so to build. I can't imagine expecting or demanding non-technical users to build such packages. A couple of days ago I was looking for some packages to create slide shows of some photo collections. I really wanted to create the slide-shows, not spend time building packages.

Most people loathe reading documentation. I know because I have been in the technical writing business for more than two decades. Perhaps surprisingly to some people, many tech writers are loathe to read documentation too. In my last contract project I wrote three comprehensive user manuals for the shop writers. Most would not use the manual and instead simply asked me for help. Sometimes I helped, sometimes I showed them where in the manuals they could find the solution. The real problem is not the lack of documentation but poorly designed software. Most software has to be learned. When software does not adhere to commonly accepted expectations, many people surrender and move on. This behavior seems inherent in most people. Geeks tend to be an exception.

So is rocket science. Almost anything become easy once a person masters fundamentals.

Ha! My experience with most people is mentioning the word partitioning results in blank stares. The bottom line is most people are not and will not take time to install an operating system. The minority who do will try to learn about partitioning. The significant majority only want a pre-installed system.

How about enabling/disabling services and daemons? Those of us who tinker with computer systems find such discussions natural, possibly even invigorating. The non-technical user simply wants a point-and-click tool to disable/enable services and daemons. File permissions might be second nature to many of us, but most non-technical users don't care.

Another example is a boot splash screen. Most non-technical users recoil at the sight of stdout screen messages during the boot process. They get scared. Most of us discussing these issues never think twice about booting a Linux-based system. Most non-technical users want that stuff hidden from them.

Change the clock and time zone? Don't tell a non-technical user to pop open a terminal window and run the timeconfig tool. Show them where to point-and-click.

Power management? Browse the forums to appreciate the many problems people have with power management on Linux-based systems. People coming from Windows know that all they need do is select the appropriate button in the shutdown dialog box. They are not going to waste time editing configuration files.

Vi? Only in your dreams will a non-technical person try vi ---or emacs, or any console text editor.

There is no hope trying to educate such people any more than trying to educate a person how to perform a car engine overhaul is going to succeed. Many people will change their engine oil, but try to engage them in a conversation about overhauling and they will find something else to do.

With those examples, some people might argue that such people should not use Slackware --- or any Linux based system. Stick with Windows or Macs. I think those days are long gone. The majority of people nowadays focus on the apps, not the operating system. Sure, people who want to tinker with an operating system will do just that. As I mentioned previously, I would like to install Slackware for other people. I don't because of the lack of graphical administration tools. I open a terminal window dozens of times a day, I have written many dozens of shell scripts to help me with how I use my computer, but I have no illusions that most people will embrace the so-called "Slackware way" --- whatever that expression is intended to imply. These people need and expect point-and-click. I think all of the developers for the Slackware derivative systems agree in spirit and they all are trying to add that graphical overlay to Slackware. They choose Slackware as their foundation for many reasons, but primarily because of the underlying design.

I don't think the discussion here is about major overhauls with Slackware. I don't think most Slackers want that. I don't. I think many Slackers only want some easily available ways to extend Slackware. That is all I advocate too.

I think your concept of the average Slackware user is flawed.

Eric

1 members found this post helpful.

Any gui enhancements for Slackware are going to come from the upstream, so they would be feature requests against KDE, rather than Slackware. Obviously some of those tools exist already in KDE, but they could surely use improvement. It probably makes more sense to raise precisely these requests via bugtracking for those projects, so that they feel the demand for them.

that would be a regression- instead of fielding complaints from people about the amount of console output, you'd be fielding complaints from people trying to figure out which key to press to get console output.

on the other hand, I feel that this class of hypothetical user is contrived; who is motivated enough to procure a copy of slackware (which is not the kind of thing you find lying around), get it installed and logged into, but then find himself at a dead stop trying to set the clock? I don't think these people exist, and if they do, it's probably because their nerd acquaintance has been pestering them to install it

1 members found this post helpful.

I credit people with more intelligence than you seem to do, Woodsman. I believe most people who want to adopt Linux would try several distros and choose the one that suits them. If they choose Slackware, then they must be pretty satisfied with it as it is. To draw an analogy: I don't like fish, so I don't eat it and wish someone would genetically alter it to taste like beef.

I don't follow. I have been continually referring to non-technical users, not Slackers.

I haven't argued that these people are stupid or lack intelligence. Indeed, in my example with technical writers, most typically are fairly smart. But overwhelmingly most are not computer people and have no desire to be. They see the computer merely as the means rather than the end. A glorified typewriter with some storage features. Most people, regardless of profession or vocation, are like this. If computers are not their niche, then they see computers only as a tool. For example, I have carpentry tools in my house --- I used them all to build my house, but I don't consider myself a carpenter and I have no motivation to pursue that vocation. Once again, I'm not advocating an overhaul of Slackware, only some easily available ways to extend Slackware for the non-technical user.

I'd like to see a 3-D first person installer.

This.
Perfectly said. Use Slackware for what it is. There are other distributions to choose from, hundreds of 'em, pick the one that suits your needs. I hope Slackware stays the way it is. I don't think anything is impossible to do in Slackware which can be done in other distros, you just need to dig a little deeper and experiment with it yourself and you will find a way to implement it in Slack as well. No need to ubuntufy Slack for the lazy people.

I regard myself as a non technical slackware newbie, (but improving every day) so here is my 2cents worth. I do not believe slackware is any more difficult to install than ubuntu, or any of the other 14 systems I have installed to date including salix.
The difference with slackware is the information is more scattered, and a great deal of time is required to search through the countless ways to do things. I am not skilled enough to compile applications, so I have used binary pkgs from RWorkman, Alien Bob and the slackware offshoots. I can see the attraction of the vector/wolvix/salix/zenwalk etc etc model. a one cd slackware base system installation and a single repository to down load from. My installation CD is very much the same. I have simply used Isomaster to remove series: e,f,k,kde,kdei,t,tcl and made my own 654MB CD installation for smaller PCs. The reason I do not use an offshoot, is I became tired of learning systems that vendor(user) lock you with their constant improvements? from one edition to the next. I now use src2pkg to make the odd package that is not in the standard slackware slackpkg repository. I have no idea what it is doing, but it works. My recommendations: slackware should be the LSB (one essential software series for a complete OS-as with freebsd). Offer a desktop installation on one CD.iso. Have an official united software repository. The biggest problem for a newbie is the ocean of choices.

If there are offshoots like Salix and Zenwalk that offer one piece of software per task, why not leave the original Slackware alone? Why make it a clone of an offshoot? Daft idea.

1 members found this post helpful.