slackware is supposed to be hard?
 

why is it that when installing slackware, and windows 2k sp4 at the same time...

slackware is up, running, and configured in an hour, and on the third day i am still installing "critical updates" on windows over a high speed connection?

even after the latest sp install, win has needed about 50+ updates to get a usable system. All slack has needed (bc of my preferance) was bbconf, and firefox+plugins.


If it wasnt for me being both lazy and a gamer, windows would be dead to me. My XP box could die and burn if steam and battlefield 1/2 ever released a native linux port.

I definietely agree! :)

BP

I don't think Slack is hard at all. I think some people just find the going tough if they are used to gui installations and gui control panels.

Not to diss linux but did you actually update your linux system. I'm sure you would have over 50 updates in linux if you updated it. Of course that's all the software and not just the OS which is what makes updating windows so much more aggravating.

But yeah slack isn't difficult, actually easier to get up and running than most of the hand holding distributions are, at least if you know how to use the command line somewhat.

I just recently did the same thing.. I built a Win2K for my mother and at the same time a Slackware server for her as well that I'll be remotely administering.. basically will be a fileserver using Samba and a server for her domain I just registered with email..

But installing Win2K.. after initial install, I was suprised to find 8 updates needed.. so I installed those but directly after the SP 4.. there was 43 updates for Win2K.. total time: 3 hours and 50 minutes.. and I stopped counting reboots after the 10th time.. and then I had to install Office and other applications she needs, another 2 hours.

So total time with installation, updates, driver installs and software updates: Roughly 6.5 Hours

I installed Slackware in about 15 minutes and applied all packages to make it Slackware-Current in another 30 minutes.. total time including configuring email, apache and Samba for the machine.. 1 Hour.

Win2K is a pain in the butt for updating. But then again it is a 6 year old OS so their are bound to be a lot of updates. Install Redhat 7.2 and you are going to have a ton of updates to apply. Of course you don't need a new liscense to get Fedora core 3 so why would you install 7.2. :)

I can get a Win XP box up and running in 1 hour fully updated and with the software I need. Of course that's just a basic OS, the beauty of linux is that you ca have a fully functional file server, web server, and mail server in that 1 hour.

Not to mention a full slack install gives you an office suite, several browsers, several instant messengers, web servers, development software, etc... all of which would have to be installed separately on a winxp system, adding more time and reboots to get running.

And it still only takes slack half an hour to do all of this :)
It took me that long just to install microsoft office

Some still use Win98.. it all depends on what your installing it on, etc. The hardware I chose was not the fastest, along with not having an XP license, I don't even like XP. I think its a bloated Win2k with the updates already applied.. ;)

But yeah, Slackware install gave me everything I needed during the install and it still took less time than Win2k did as Win2k was only the OS. Slackware gave me www, mail, mysql and everything all in a 15 minute install. Win2K took about 45 minutes or so.

I've found myself in two threads the last couple days defending windows, which is weird becuase I'm almost exclusivly linux at home, and I would honestly like to see Linux as the standard operating system in the home. I use Windows for games, and just to keep fresh becuase most of the customers who come to my store use windows and I need to keep using it so I can help them.

"Win2K is a pain in the butt for updating. But then again it is a 6 year old OS so their are bound to be a lot of updates. "


Thats what service packs are for. MS needs to come up with a way of keeping them up to date, like mabey always having a "servicepack-current" that they update with every update to help clean-installers, or at least updating them before there are more than 10 individual updates.



If a bunch of hackers can write somthing like Autopatcher (which I would have used if i realised how many fkn updates there were).... MS should really be able to do the same in house for its customers.

I'd have to agree. Would it be so hard to make it so if you install Win2K that comes default with no SP's that when you go to update it, its one big update.. instead of first updating to one SP that it detects you need and after the reboot it then detects you need another one with 43 or more patches.. ughhh!!

It also would be nice if you could easily download and burn an autoupdate utility for Windows. When you install as many copies of windows as we do at my job the bandwith we use is ridiculous and Microsoft could save a ton if we could just download one service pack and drop it onto a CD.

Check into autopatcher if you do alot of windows updating... it is basically what you said, althought supported by sombody other than MS.

Also, Check out Technet.com. You can download network installs of everything, which you could also burn to cds... so at least you wont be wasting your bandwidth, just your time.

and finally, I havent gotten around to it yet (as i only do it once in awhile) but check into unattended installs, and setting up a "Distribution server" You can do quite a bit of automation as far as installing all the updates with a clean install, as long as you keep the disribution server up to date. Not practical really for an occasional home user install, but if you install windows for living its a must have :)

cool thanks, I'll look into that, sounds like a good boring saturday project

The whole idea of service packs is complete bs.
Sure they're needed for computers that are already running the OS, but why should you have to go through the whole service pack/patch ordeal whenever you set up a new machine.
M$ should provide installation CD's that install the OS with the patches already installed every few months, and allow the customers who already bought their stupid OS to download them for free. (like we get to do with linux).

Cant belive im saying this, but in their defence....

they are trying to make money. I think posting windows ISOs to the net would make piracy easier than it already is... but you cant pirate windows by downloading a service pack. I would be quite happy with always having a servicepack-current... which can be slipstreamed by the user to create a completley up to date disk the way service packs already can be.

althought if they started posting completley up to date windows isos I would certainly dl them :)

Well it's been said before a million times, but windows relies on piracy to keep its monopoly. Whether they admit it officially or not.
Offering current isos would just make life easier for their corporate customers.
The pirates will get their copy one way or another.