Same here. I started to maintain packages i used on my machine which is sometimes ahead of Slackware on my SlackHacks repository. Some of them are SlackBuild adapted from Slackware and SBo projects, and the rest are my own SlackBuild that i made by myself.

By doing this, i learned how hard to maintain a package because it can be broken anytime, especially when things are moving so fast like what we had in -Current. I also learned a lot of things by creating/maintaining my own packages.

Perhaps you should try to do this as well and you will understand why Slackware doesn't have a gigantic packages included in it's default installation.

Although I do not use Slackware, I believe the responses to your OP would not have been so negative if you had included some examples.

Which out-dated documents? If you had included two or three examples, people would have an idea of the problem as you see it. The same with unnecessary stuff. Two or three examples of the perceived bloat would have been helpful. Providing examples of the problems explains the criticisms more clearly, allowing others to respond to those criticisms. A simple get rid of out-dated stuff provides no information to work with and makes the criticism appear to be a trollish rant.

The same with the second point. The OS would be better if it was more open to innovation. Again, vague and without details. What innovations would you like to see? Stating that would give others the opportunity to comment on the feasibility of your wishes.

In summary, constructive criticism needs to be fleshed out with details to be constructive. If not, it will be seen as an attack. I hope this advice helps you in the future. Remember; a clear statement supported by evidence.

1 members found this post helpful.

I think a lot of distro's out there could learn from FreeBSD and Arch about good documentation. FreeBSD docs are precise and to the point, Arch are similar but go into the nitty gritty more and is excellent. You can argue that more documentors will make a better job of documentation but there again, a distro thats been around for a long time should be on top of these things.

Well as an example, I was trying to set up a WPA2 connection and was having a bit of trouble so I went (as one would) to the wireless section of Slackbook. That was not very helpful when you compare it to the likes of the same sections in the FreeBSD Documentation or the same section under the ArchWiki.

That is the kind of thing I was referring to. A couple of examples of what is considered a problem will either provide evidence of the problem's existence or allow others to correct a mis-interpretation. Writing constructive criticism is very similar to "How to ask a question the right way."

Hope this does not happen, but there are mirrors. Not to mention, if you use sbopkg, it keeps a copy of all scripts in /var/lib/sbopkg/SBo

Seriously, what's this thread supposed to achieve, apart from attention for the OP?

6 members found this post helpful.

To make Slackware better which is apparently much harder as the OP thought.

Running over the same old ground.
What have you found? The same old crap.
Wish you weren't here.
(apologies to Roger Waters)

2 members found this post helpful.

Oh I see. I wish he'd called it 'Let's make Slackware more like Ubuntu' or something. I thought he was just moaning about stuff he'd moaned about before. My mistake.

Apparently you were talking about the SlackBook here. Put your money where your mouth is, run "git clone git://slackbook.org/slackbook", enhance the text where you think it needs fixing, and send a git pull request to the book's primary maintainer. This is a community effort. You are part of the community, it is give as well as take.

If you compare Slackware as it is today (the almost ready Slackware 14) with the version that you ran in 1998, you will see masses of innovation in the distro. You can install and start using Slackware almost without editing any configuration file these days. Compare that to 14 years ago! This is of course not all Slackware's doing - it is the software which makes up the distribution which has evolved and allows you, the user, to do things in Slackware you could not do so easily 14 years ago. All these innovations found their way into Slackware. This is an evolutionary process, all the other distros have gone through this as well. Still, Slackware managed to remain true to its own philosophy. It has not been forced to look like all the other distros by adopting dependency resolution, GUI configurators and other stuff that makes your Granny happy.
Slackware is about control and the freedom to choose. Those are natural boundaries for what we allow to become part of the distro and what not.

In fact, you are confusing "innovation" with violating the core philosophy of Slackware Linux. The "innovation" you seek goes against that philosophy. The ideas you want to see implemented belong in other distros. The conclusion is evident. You may have to find another distro that matches your needs better.

Again, this goes against the distro's philosophy. The core team will stay small, the development model will remain closed. No public bugtracker, no commit rights, no public repository other than the finished packages. This is the only way to ensure that Slackware stays true to its roots and ideas.
But the support model will also remain: there is this forum, the Freenode Slackware channel, as well as personal blogs by several of the core team members. The line to the developers are shorter than in any other distro. We actually do listen to people. With Slackware, you do not have to go through twenty stages of apprentice-ship before we take you seriously.

Constructive criticism is alright with me. But you seem to be desiring some changes in Slackware which are never going to happen. This is something you have to accept if you are going to stick with this distro.

By the way, I was very disappointed to read that someone ran a DoS against you. I almost cannot believe it was someone in this forum, I certainly hope it was coincidence and there was something else at play. But differences of opinion should be "fought" with words, not with destructive tools.

Eric

8 members found this post helpful.

...I call bs on the DoS thing. Judging by the melodrama perpetrated by the OP, I am skeptical, especially since the OP has already said goodbye, yet has returned to post a few more times, and will be back again. "Drama Queen" is apropos.

cheers,

3 members found this post helpful.

This thread was already put back on track.
Now it faces derailment again. And this time not from the OP.
Unless you are involved with slackware development*, contributions to this thread should focus on the technical part of the discussion.
Provocation is not an option, regardless of how it is phrased.
Not posting is always an option, especially wrt LQR 4.

This thread will be re-opened shortly.
Please remember that mutual respect and meaningful discussion are at the basis of what we all value at LQ.
Think before you post.



*yes, that's right: unless you're one of the three here this excludes you!

Speaking purely as an outsider (I rarely participate on forums these days), I came across this thread when making one of my rare visits to LQ.org.

I am glad the personal attacks are over, because otherwise this thread has generated some excellent and thoughtful discussion.

I am always interested in Slackware, and though I've had my flame wars with Slack users in the past, it is a distribution that I have kept in touch with.

One reason for this comment is to state that Slackware since around version 13 came out has been a lot friendlier out of the box than it was before. A lot of stuff has changed and the need for manual configuration/editing of config files has reduced quite a lot. Case in point: wicd/NetworkManager for wireless.

Even package management: slackpkg and sbopkg really help a lot. I speak as a very biased Debian fan/user since around 2002-3.

Now back to my obscurity.

Yeah!!!!