|
Quote:
This was the weirdest laptop I have ever seen wish I still had it so I could give you guys more information about it. I took it to a local computer shop way back and they looked at it and were like "woooah, we don't know either" :\ . [edit] It may have been bigger than 5" not too sure. I do remember it was a Panasonic laptop, and it had a massive cartridge that said dvd-ram on it that I loaded under the keyboard, and thats all I remember. |
Quote:
I'm pretty sure it was, and I take it as, a compliment -- something like "you're hard core!" He had already impressed me (shown he was serious) by saying that his lab uses Linux exclusively. The distro was an after-thought at that point. Joel |
In the company that I do occasional recovery and rebuild for, I'm working on a proposal to replace 13 Windows machines of various vintages and OSes with a customized system based entirely off Slackware 12. I'm looking at 9 identical workstations, each customized to a role currently performed by some machine we already have, plus a file server, a dedicated Backup server, and possibly a firewall/router. The best part of all is, I could set up a secure remote administration system, so if a machine crashes while I'm traveling, I could just ssh in and perform data recovery. No more worries about viruses, no spyware, and no mixed-mode environment... the only computer we currently have that experiences no networking problems is my laptop running Slack 11!
The ironic part is, with a little more tweaking on my part, I could use the computers we already have in the business. I want to buy a set of new ones, just for the express purpose of having identical hardware. The other day one of our critical machines crashed, and I spent 8 hours testing PC100 memory sticks before finding out I only had one 32MB stick that was okay... Windows 2000 was not happy. I'll let you guys know if my proposal ever goes forward. I know it would save a heck of a lot of money for my employers. |
SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE
SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE Slackware is the good stuf the only good stuf an nothing but the good stuf so help me god:tisk: |
My Slackware experience...
...began at the Masonic Temple in Toledo, Ohio. I went there to a computer/ham-fest with some friends and users of my computer BBS (anyone remember those?). I picked up my first copy of Media Magic Linux. It was vintage 1994 two disk set. It had initial versions of Slackware, Debian, and get this, Red Hat. I could only get the Slackware to install as it supported the CD ROM drive (SB16 w/ proprietary CD interface). Neither of the other distros wanted to work with the CD ROM drive.
It was installed on a 486SX33 with a math coprocessor,500 megs of hard drive space, 16 megs of RAM, the SB16, and an ATI Mach 32 VLB video card. I learned a lot, but eventually got tired of the iffy CD ROM access. The CD ROM drive worked when it wsnted to, and could not be cajoled into working consistently. I actually got FVWM up and running consistently. What I loved the most about Slackware were the screen savers with Bob, the pipe-smoking icon of the Church of the Subgenius. I began working as a computer tech, and lost interest in Linux. At the time, Windoze 3.11 and OS/2 were the operating systems most people had. Linux was a thing for total geeks, and computer snobs. It wasn't mainstream, or even close to it. Microsoft was the only way to the cross, at least the only way that was socially acceptable. I became re-introduced to Linux about two years ago. A friend showed up at my place with a laptop loaded with PHLAK. I began to think about playing with Linux again. I was really quite impressed when I first saw the Gnome desktop. I finally decided to get back into Linux seriously almost a year ago. When I found out that Slackware still existed, I got a little excited. I really wanted to see how far it had come since the last time I worked with it. I was so impressed, it has become my Linux distro exclusively. That decision was made after I wrote a series of articles entitled The Linux Project for the blogging web site, OpEdNews.com. Click here to go to my author page to read that series of articles. After trying all the distos reviewed for The Linux Project series, once again, I decided that it was Slackware for me. Why? 1) I began using computers before they had GUI's. I was used to typing in commands to get said computer to do something, and Slackware is definitely about typing. 2) Slackware's bullet-proof stabitity shone through. None of the other distros reviewed were anywhere as stable: not Ubuntu, not Vector, not Fedora, and certainly not Debian! 3) Consistency: the installation process for Slack-12 is the same as it was for my first version: partition the drive, then start the setup program and let it do the magic. Slackware is, in my opinion, the best thing going in Linux. It has the versatility of Debian without the seemingly inherent Debian instability. It has been around since the beginning, and has definitely gotten better with the passage of time. Even though I think the latest Slackware iteration is not all that and a bag of chips, I'd still rather use it than any other open source opertating system that exists. I am a Slack-head, for sure! Blessed be! Pappy |
Hi,
If you are as computer literate as you say then what's the problem? You seem to have a lot of problems with setting up HAL on Slackware 12.0 for your system. I've just read your series of posts in the thread '12.0 and HAL - READ THIS!', the last of which is #43. I can associate with some of the errors and frustration. But I worked to solve the problem(s) instead of throwing up my hands an giving up. You could always disable HAL, if you say it causes you that much trouble. As stated before, the system is yours to do as you wish. If Slackware 11.0 meets your needs then use it. I really like Slackware 12.0 and find that every install is just a little bit different. Some find this a problem. These are the same people who just don't understand the OS let alone their system. A lot of people who have problems with Slackware 12.0 or for that matter any distro seems to jump on the wagon with 'Well it works for Windows' or 'Works on Timbuctoo distro'. The common reply instead of trying to find the solution for the current problem. I'll give you some credit. At least you attempted to solve the problems but fall short of getting the problem(s) corrected. As for your purist status, not my call. BTW, as for the hamfest/computer shows (post 'Who's using Slackware'), I still attend at least one a year. In fact we have a Superfest coming up in September which is worth the time spent. |
Quote:
Debian is unstable? I run Etch and it is stable like a rock. What do you mean Debian is unstable? |
Quote:
Perhaps that's the way it was in the arena of people who actually worked with computers, but when I was a teenager and started real computer use (my family always had computers, e.g., Commodore 64), DOS and UNIX (on our school district accounts) were what everybody used. I'm always amused when my coworkers refuse to use, or avoid like the plague, a command line. When I started using computers, that's all there was! We had no choice. No, wait, we did have a choice: we thought graphical interfaces were stupid. There was Windows, which we only used if the computer we were on used Word for Windows. And then there was Macintosh --- we were all really annoyed that there was no command line so we could just make the thing do what we wanted. We used to sit for hours making jokes about pointing and clicking... Overall, we had many choices, and the ones we chose were usually command-line interfaces and text editors. Most of our time was spent writing funny profile messages and chatting... Joel |
Quote:
Joel |
Quote:
Not a big deal, I just don't like inaccurate information being posted. Debian is not an unstable distro by any stretch of the imagination. |
Quote:
I wonder what'll happen when distros are no longer supporting "mouse-on-treadmill" based systems... :scratch: |
Quote:
I'm still very curious as to what made pappy_mcfae label Debian as unstable (a bad experience perhaps?). I've never had a problem with the "stable" branch of Debian. |
Some questions answered.
Firstly, I want to be clear on one issue. I am not going to mess with Slack-12.
Why should I? I agree that much of what makes Linux go so far beyond anything put together by M$ is the fact that you have to make it your own, in some form or fashion. Truth be told, all was not well out of the box for Slack-11. However, the glitches were minor, and I could correct them by editing the required .conf files (CUPS and samba). Compared to being told I can't access my drives, those are some small and insignificant bugs. I also think that inability to install is a big bug. If I can't get software to install properly, after numerous tries, that tells me the software is somehow broken, defective, inferior, screwed, glued, and tattooed, however you want to say it. In my opinion, such is the case with Slack-12. I spent a lot of time installing a lot of different Linux distributions on a few systems. I know from stable, and anything but. Which brings me to Debian. I installed Debian three separate times on a system I had cobbled together from parts I got from repairing computers for customers. Anything they didn't want back after system upgrade was up for first dibs of the tech that did the repair. The system in question is a PII-450, 500 megs of RAM, two DVD ROM drives (one is a burner), two PATA drives (20 gig for Slackware, 80 for XP), and a SATA 160 gig (half NTFS, half FAT32). It is presently a file server that dual boots into either Slackware or win2K. It runs Slackware like a champ, albeit a slow champ. The recompiled kernel chopped to the bare bones helps it run a bit faster, but it is what it is. This same system also had Debian installed on it. I can say that I love Debian's package handling. There is no other distro that is so well supported from a pre-compiled programs point of view. Literally, if it exists in source code, someone somewhere has turned it into a .deb file. However, from my experience Debian was incredibly unstable on the above mentioned system. I installed it using the 40 meg Internet install .iso CD. I told it to install the basics, Xorg, kde, gnome, and the rest of the goodies to go along with it. The first time I installed it, the installation failed while setting up the libraries for X-windows, and when I say, "failed," I mean the computer locked up solid! After a hard reboot, it went back to where it was when it tied up, and started over. When it did finally finish, X-windows would not work at all. The second time I tried installing it, it locked up again, but when it finished after it was restarted, kde did come up, but it was very unstable. The third time, it went all the way through without a failure. However, the GUI was very unstable, whether I used gnome or kde. I define that instability in many ways. It had video problems. It had networking problems. It had sound problems. You name a subsystem, it was problematic under Debian. I told the set up program to set up the stable version. Long story short, I wasn't impressed. Ironically, the Ubuntu family sets up and runs just fine on that system. Strange but true. Also, for those that missed it, While I kept the original CD's with the early versions of Slack, Debian, and Red Hat, I stopped playing with Linux the system. I worked on customers' computers, so there was little need for me to know anything about Linux. Few indeed are the computer nerds into Linux that would suffer the indignity of having someone else fix their computer...it's sheer heresy! So, while I did play with Slackware back in '94, I stopped playing with it about '96 or so. I rekindled my interest in it about two or three years ago...can't recall, many spliffs have passed between then and now. I got serious about Linux about a year ago. Ironically enough, the same observations I made about Slackware recently are the same ones I made when I installed it from my original Linux CD's. Of the three, it was the only one that would set up properly with my CD ROM drive. I could actually get the GUI (FVWM) up and running. It didn't like to mount the CD player more than once, but it was still pretty cool playing around with it. The other two distros wouldn't set up. Debian could see the CD ROM drive, but for some reason, it wouldn't install. Red Hat didn't see the CD ROM drive at all. I use Slackware today because it gives me a choice of working with a console session, or a GUI. I use Slack-11 because I have set it up to run on every computer I own, and it has worked flawlessly on them all, including the Compaq Pentium 133 laptop I have. I use Slack-11 because it is rock solid stable! It stands head and shoulders above anything that M$ has made, and pretty much everything else in the Linux stable of operating software. One more thing, just because I don't like Slack-12 doesn't mean I need to be proselytized about it to within inches of my sanity. I don't like it for many reasons. For my systems, at least the ones on which I have installed it, it has not worked as expected. While it is true I could go to great lengths to get it to run, when I don't need what it's giving, why use it? That's the kind of mentality I would expect from He Who Must Not Be Named, but made billions ripping off other people's ideas. Windoze Vista didn't suit my needs. I replaced it with Windoze XP, which did. The point is, I am still a Linux user, and even a registered one (451386), even if I am not gung-ho on the newest release from my Linux of choice. I am using what works, which for me is Slackware-11. I don't see a reason why I should forgo what works for what doesn't. Believe me, my friends, it's not the end of the world if I think Slack-12 isn't all that and a bag of chips. So please, let's talk about something else. Frankly, I am starting to feel a little put out. I came here to share my opinion. Some folks took offense, and for that, I apologize. I am glad I came back to the world of Linux. As I have said before (though not here), as soon as I find a stable, fully functional sound editing/mixing/recording program (a port of Cool Edit Pro, please???), I will give Voldemort Gates and his evil empire the long kiss good-bye. And it's a pretty sure bet if I go there, I will be running some version of Slackware. Blessed be! Pappy |
Hi,
As you said, your opinion. If Slackware 11.0 meets your needs then why change. No need to justify to me. My point was that Slackware 12.0 or for that matter any OS can hiccup at any time. The person who can get the system to do as they desire will continue until the problem is solved. That's why a lot of people use Slackware as their OS. Obviously Slackware 11 fits your need and you have got it out of the box to do as you wish. |
pappy_mcfae, not being mean or anything, but I think you took the comments the wrong way. I re-read the posts and I think most where wondering where you had problems (except for rkelsen). Maybe I am a little thick skinned though. I take most things with a grain of salt unless I think they are getting personal.
As for the recording software, I think a couple issues back in Linux Journal (maybe Linux Magazine) they had an artical about a recording software. I am not sure if it is what you where looking for. I am at work right now and can't look it up. If I remember when I get home I'll get the name of it for you. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:21 AM. |