I do not know the mind of the BDFL of Slackware but there is this: https://docs.slackware.com/howtos:sl...ystemupgrade?s[]=system&s[]=upgrade

As for the dependency stuff I believe the BDFL is of the opinion that one should do a full install. If not then the user should be knowledgeable enough to deal with any issues. The lack of dependency resolution is a design choice.

Also the all configuration done by editing text files is a lie. Slackware comes with programs to setup PPP and configure X Windows System: http://www.slackware.com/config/
Software comes with programs which do a lot of configuration. I have not had to edit many text files and those adjustments
have been very small to get the behavior that I want.

What is the motive regarding asking these questions?

I want to know if is wrong the Distrowatch article about Slackware.

This is not the motive. You were asked why you want to know that. Do you consider installing it, but want to know if that's what you are looking for? Then reading some documents @ https://docs.slackware.com/ will help you make your own opinion.

Oh, and if Patrick Volkerding or Slackware contributors want to answer, they will. Else, they won't. Simple as that. Also, as far as I know there are contributors working as a team but no "official developers" beyond Patrick Volkerding himself.

4 members found this post helpful.

Didier

The questions I asked were these:

"It is true that the Slackware uses a simple, text-based system installer and a comparatively primitive package management system that does not resolve software dependencies?"

"It is true that the on Slackware all configuration is done by editing text files?"


"It is true that the upgrade procedure of Slackware is complex?"

"What is the opinion of Patrick Volkerding and of official Slackware developers?"

I want to know if the following parts of the Distrowatch article are wrong:

"It uses a simple, text-based system installer and a comparatively primitive package management system that does not resolve software dependencies."

"All configuration is done by editing text files."

"Cons: complex upgrade procedure"


Why Patrick Volkerding or Slackware contributors won't to answer?

1 members found this post helpful.

They will if they want to. Their time is valuable; they're creating the best operating system on the planet.

There is no point repeating these questions again and again, this is just annoying.

Let me guess...

• Because these statements are opinions, not facts. Only facts can be true or false.
• Because if they are partially factual you can find the answers yourself with a few reading, as I already suggested.
• Because the answers wouldn't be useful to anything.
• Because they have more useful things to do.
• Because they don't want to loose their time answering, as I am doing now.

Now, please stop asking, else we will think you are just trolling.

9 members found this post helpful.

The best way to find out is to install Slackware (it's not difficult if you read the documentation) and use it (also not difficult). Then you'll know, as opposed to relying on second hand information.

5 members found this post helpful.

Distrowatch does not like Slackware's philosophy and design decisions therefore it lies and uses language which is disrespectful. No dependency resolving but no dependency hell either. Slackware is a base for people to do what they want with it. It doesn't obfuscate and keeps it simple. I easily updated from 14.1 to 14.2 to Current using slackpkg and some directions I found off the internet. I thought it was easy and fast. I rarely edit config files. Slackware has configuration utilities.

I find your entitlement interesting

2 members found this post helpful.

In context, I assume they meant the update procedure?

No, it's not. That's outdated information. Slackware ships slackpkg now. So it's just:

3 members found this post helpful.

Let's go see if you can get an answer from the head people with Arch, Ubuntu, or Red Hat about random questions that can be easily answered by trying out Slackware in a VM (or using Alien Bob's Slackware Live).

They have important things to do and the answers to some of those questions are largely subjective.

Almost all of your questions have been answered except for ones that are subjective like how hard something is. That is something only you can answer based on your knowledge and desire to learn.

8 members found this post helpful.

@pompous: ever hear of VirtualBox.org? Trying distros takes minutes.
Less minutes than postng takes, but maybe not as social_media-ish
But I don't think it will run on your Android phone. A $20 computer, yes.
Enjoy.

1 members found this post helpful.

Another data point for your consideration: Distrowatch gave a considerable amount of money to SlackBuilds.org just a few months ago.

3 members found this post helpful.

Long live PJV
And, that's an order sir

That's actually an overstatement - it works on a ~$16 one here (Orange_pi_PC )

I knew it! they seem be plotting to take over slackpkg with sbotools and force it upon us!!!! must learn Slackware from scratch ASAP

3 members found this post helpful.

Nevertheless what I said was true. Also here is a data point for your consideration: How many would be users and resulting revenue are turned away from Distrowatch's reviews? If I kiss the sites butt will it be honest in its reviews? It doesn't have to like the design decisions and philosophy but it shouldn't misrepresent them. This is a lie: "All configuration is done by editing text files." This is a value judgment (can you imagine if this was race they were talking about): "primitive package management system." It does what it is designed to do very well. Slackpkg makes it easy. The reviews are littered with insults. In the 14.2 review they mirror hopped and made a mess of things which was their own fault for not paying attention but they blamed Slackware. Then they complained that Slackware keeps the packages vanilla. They knew that was a design decision to keep packages as close to upstream as possible. The reviewer is clearly biased. It is fine they don't like Slackware. Its when they throw insults at it for not being Ubuntu which is the problem. Its unprofessional.

6 members found this post helpful.

It is an unfortunate human characteristic to hate what you do not understand, and people today do not understand how manual administration is still necessary to maintain a smooth-running system. This, I believe, is what is happening here.

This is the core assertion which I keep seeing. Patching is fine, as long as it improves functionality, not add fluff for the sake of a maintainer's desire. This is what is going on today with major distros, and people accept it as the norm, and look down on those who abhor modifying upstream software. Vanilla is bad. Flavor is wonderful.

I don't think that will ever stop; the trend is toward user-friendliness, or at least their version of it, and anything which disagrees with it in the slightest will draw their ire.

2 members found this post helpful.