A similar addon used to be known as vimperator, then I think they forked it and created pentadactyl that I've been using for a couple of years. When firefox deprecated XUL they both stopped working and tridactyl was started. It's not as good as pentadactyl yet but better than nothing. I can't imagine doing everything using only mouse in web browser.

There's Vimium. It works on both Firefox and Chrome-based browsers. It's not as feature-complete as Vimperator, but it gets the job done for me.

I find Slackware easier today, primarily because of the existence of Slackbuilds.org and AlienBob's Slackbuilds.

I started using Slackware 14 years ago. The installation routine was exactly as it is now (except today it offers to create a bootable USB; back then, it offered to create a bootable floppy disk) and the install was rock solid out-of-the-box, but, if you wanted to install a new program, there were very few sources for packages built for Slackware.

I recall there was one repo in Italy (based on the domain name) that I used several times, but, in general, if you wanted to install something new, you pretty much had to compile from sources. If you needed a library that you didn't have, the search could lead you on quite a twisty and convoluted path.

Ok...this thread prompted me to login to LQ, rather than lurk for the most part.....


Has Slackware become easier?

NO, and it is NOT Slackware that has done that, and I'm happy for that!

In the beginning, it was the difficulty of getting X working. VESA relieved ALL of that, and it was NOT a Slackware 'Feature.' One other hack was moding the SCSI driver to support my ThinkPad Dock SCSI adapter with my 750P Laptop...That WAS the fun of working with Linux, not necessarily Slackware.

IF Slackware was to become easier (for the user)....I would look for another distro. There are too many out there that HOLD the user's hand.

I've dabbled with LFS about a decade ago, because I wanted to understand what packages depends on what...and I walked away without any more understanding of dependencies. Sad.

What I would like to see in Slackware 15.0 is a FULL dependency list: What requires what....to the extreme. I prefer running a LEAN system, and as Patrick has said, the "Libraries" are getting too big.

FYI, I gave up on KDE after 4.0 was the default. Too big, too bloated. Moved to XFCE and not having any regrets. Not interested in Plasma, because I try to run Slackware on OLD, and I mean OLD hardware.

Example: I am running current on a Dual PentiumPro w/512MB of RAM. It works. This system is running bind, dhcp and NTP for my home network. It functions, and I'm very happy. I've also run Cacti and Nagios on this same system, monitoring 200 devices...and it just chugs along, keeping the CPU's very busy. I love it. A MoBo that I bought in 1996 STILL WORKS with Slackware! Is it slow? Not really. It does the job, and it is paid for.

Some of you may say: WHY???

It's NOT DEAD, and I'll run this box until IT does die. If It's not broke, don't fix it.

Anyway...

I DO NOT want Slackware to get easier. There's other Linux distros for that.

Slackware was my first Linux distro....way back in the early 90's...and as I've tried MANY other distros...they make TOO MANY assumptions of what I want to do...and that is NOT what a Linux/UNIX distro should do.

Folks that are looking for EASY should run Windows or MacOS. These OS'es have spoiled me a bit over the years.....

BUT I still run Slackware!

Long Live Slackware! As difficult you may believe it is!

</rant>

2 members found this post helpful.

One of the things that frosts my cake is the notion that Slackware is difficult. It ain't.

It installs and it works.

I think the primary reason for said myth is that Slackware does not offer to automagickally partition the hard drive upon install. If user doesn't know how to use fdisk (I don't) or cfdisk (I do, because it's like DOS fdisk), user is immediately stumped. Therefore, Slackware is difficult.

(grump grump grump)

1 members found this post helpful.

"Is Slackware easier to use now than it was 16 years ago?"

I've only been using Slackware for ~6 years, so I could say that it is the same for that period.

But if that is an indicator I would say, Slackware is as easy to use today as it was 16 years ago.

for the most part it is same now as then, what has changed better hardware support which is linux overall not just slackware. If I started using slackware today, with what I knew(absolutely nothing) back when I first tried to install slackware, It would still take me 6 months to get it installed lol.

My answer to the OP's question is "Yes."

In fact, it's easier than it was 22 years ago.

That's the point. Linux is NOT Windows, and it requires 'some' user configuration.

HDD configs? Most folks these days don't remember adding a RLL controller to an old MFM drive to get 1.5X storage. Dealing with HDD's are so easy, it's sad. Remember dealing with Head/Cylinders/Sectors? That was a nightmare.

In the early days.....How may of us old timers remember trying to configure "ModeLines" for X?

Yes, it IS easier these days, but NOT because of the 'improvements' of Slackware. Hardware and the software support within the Linux environment has become much easier.

I'll say that the 'tweakers' like Slackware. It makes NO assumptions upon it's users. IF you want to do something....You'll have to figure it out. If that's not your cup of tea, look elsewhere.

I'm NOT dissing Slackware....but there's a certain attitude that leads folks to the 'light' of the Slack. And here WE are!

Yes, it did, in release 8.1, when the current package naming convention came in (7.x and 8.0 still used the 8+3 filename format) and thus enabled real updating.
In 7.x and 8.0 a patched or upgraded package still had the same name as the original installed one, like
(from the 7.0 "patches" directory, no /packages subdir yet)
In 7.1 the "packages" subdir first appeared, but those packages still didn't contain version numbers yet, like
The description files too weren't there yet as "separate" files, there was a generic "package_descriptions" one, from which the installer extracted the right desc text part.

All that changed in 8.1, as I mentioned above.

To be honest, the way I use it, I can't tell much difference between now and when I started back with V2.x.

What has changed is the world around it. We have slackbuilds.org, xorg configures itself (actually, I still do that manually, but I don't miss having to calculate dot clocks and modelines), and no one has to worry about configuring slip/ppp dialup with expect scripts and setting the correct S-registers and baud rate on their modems in order o get a working internet connection.

Slackware is still Slackware. If anything, it's a little more complicated now than it was back then because of things like udev, but most folk are happy with the defaults and don't have to concern themselves with that.

1 members found this post helpful.

I've only recently moved to Slackware so I can't say if it was harder in the old days. I think Linux in general was harder then. I remember the Harrow Computer Club trying to install an early version of Debian (I think it was Potato) on the club computer and failing miserably. And you couldn't configure X then unless you understood ramdac and modes and all that stuff.

I installed my Slackware from a minimal installation image that someone (I think Eric) gave me and found the installer very friendly once I had twigged that it needed a local repository to read, holding the most fundamental packages. And that was very easy to create because of the simple way that Slack software is arranged and because there are written accounts of how to do it.

Slackware has its own way of holding your hand. Instead of point-and-click tools that hide what is going on, it gives you documentation. Lots of it and good stuff too. For example, I decided early to use the generic kernel rather than the huge one to save on boot time, but that requires the creation of an initrd image. I had never created one before because most binary distros provide one for you, and source-based distros allow you to build a kernel that doesn't need one.

But in /usr/share/doc/mkinitrd-1.4.10 I found a README that told me exactly how to do it. It pointed me to a nice friendly script (written by Pat himself, God bless him!) that even told me what arguments I needed to use to make the kernel bootable on my specific hardware. The introductory email that you get after installation is also a gold mine. I reckon that if you can read, you can use Slackware.

1 members found this post helpful.

One change has been the number of add-in cards shrunk from four or five to zero or one. PCs no longer need disk controller cards, network cards, sound cards, or modem cards. Only graphics cards remain. These functions being included on motherboards has enabled OSes to work out-of-the-box on nearly all machines.
Ed

1 members found this post helpful.

tools are the same. Sound works much better since 14.2 other than kdeconnect has been broken in 14.2 and current do to qt5. seems the same.

I started with Redhat Linux in 1997, moved to Mandrake in months and switched to Slackware in 1999, just in time for my v4.0 download to be obsoleted by v 7 . Since I don't use slackpkg and often miss the old method of

I have been seduced by SlackBuilds, but so far that's as much as I've caved to convenience (and I still prefer Pure ALSA).

I don't find Slackware any easier or more difficult. I just find Linux easier mostly due to kernel and kernel implementation improvements as well as PNP hardware improvements like serial interfaced gear, especially hard drives (SCSI was cool except for the absurdly wide ribbon cables) and fewer monitor profiles (CG, VGA, SVGA, XVGA etc etc etc.) and more intelligent firmware. Now Linux supports more hardware than any other OpSys.