No, answering all four questions is not easy. That is to what I was alluding in a previous post. To convert Slackware into a family friendly operating system is doable but challenging. I don't know when I'll finish my how-to on the subject. There are many little things that need attention to convert Slackware into that type of system. Right now the how-to is only a personal project but I intend eventually to publish and invite, er, constructive criticism.

I have been asked for recommendations. People often ask me what I use, figuring whatever I use must be good enough for them. I tell them I use Slackware but tell them I do not recommend the system for them. They ask why. I tell them they are looking for a point-and-click system, with as much being automated as possible, and that Slackware is for "people like me" who want to tinker and get under the hood. I tell them I never have used Ubuntu but recommend they try the Ubuntu live CD. Then I tell them to try several live CDs and not to install anything until they think they are comfortable with what they see from the live CD. I remind them that running an operating system from a CD is slower, but more than tolerable to experiment. Usually that is far as the conversation goes.

Would I install Slackware for a close friend or relative? Possibly, but only under the condition I configure the system so I can support them more easily. Three brothers use Windows, one uses Vista. They all complain about Windows and know that I don't use Windows as a primary operating system. They know I run Windows in a virtual machine. They know my system is stable, I never worry about viruses and malware, and that I tweak the system with shell scripts. Yet they don't ask me to install anything. They want to run Windows. They are not dumb, they just have other priorities in life. The computer is strictly an appliance to them. Something to surf the web, play a few tunes. I'm fine with that.

When I'm ready AND HAVE TIME, I'll learn. That is the end of that specific discussion.

Sure, sometimes. I don't think that is a difficult concept to understand or accept. No human can be in two places at one time. I can only do one thing at one time. The idea that humans can multitask is a fallacy. Humans can set several tasks in motion concurrently, but they can only attend to one thing at a time. I can throw a load of clothes in the washing machine and then sit in my office surfing the web, but I can't fold clothes without leaving the computer. The dimension of time is linear. Despite science fiction, nobody yet has learned of a method to traverse the dimension of time.

I went a long time using GNU/Linux before I started trying to build packages. I downloaded pre-made packages. I focused on other aspects of what I wanted to learn. I can only learn so much and only so fast. In the early days of my migration efforts, back in 2002, I focused on learning how to use a GNU/Linux system. I figured building packages would one day come, but not then. The same goes for learning more details about compiling software. For now I am content to download a build script. I have done that often, I have installed more than 120 packages that way. I don't have time right now to learn to troubleshoot a compile process from scratch. Yes, often the compile is straightforward. I understand that. Sometimes not and that requires TIME to troubleshoot.

Life itself requires sacrifices every day. Most sacrifices are small and only a nuisance. Some are not. "Living without" does not mean forever. Just that having something today is not the highest priority. I don't have satellite or cable TV. To some people that is almost unimaginable. But I watch only a little TV. I don't have an iPod, PDA or any other hand-held device like that. To some people that is almost unimaginable. I did not own a cell phone until last year. I have been around computers for almost 30 years but I'm not a gadget freak. I'd much rather use an old-fashioned phone than send text messages. I'd rather read a book or write a shell script than watch TV. I have owned the same vehicle for 20 years, the same TV for 30 years. Even when I want something, I never go into debt to obtain that item. I always save first and then buy. That means (gasp) waiting. I'm not a big fan of instant gratification for most things. I'm willing to wait and willing to work toward a goal. Now, are all of these decisions sacrifices? Or only daily life choices? Or contentment?

But we are talking about most people with respect to the latest flurry of discussions in this thread. If you mean only the topic of compiling software, then fine, talk only about me. But I don't want to discuss the topic anymore. I made my point, several times, that the discussion is not about aptitude or ability, but time and priorities. I don't know how many different ways I need to say that to stress the point. When I'm ready AND HAVE TIME, I'll learn. That is the end of that specific discussion.

1.Not if he/she is supposed to maintain the system.
2.No (nor is any other OS, *Buntu included!)
3.Yes
4a.Impossible to answer.
4b.No
You see, it can be done.

lucmove wrote somewhere in this thread that he used Kubuntu for a couple of days and was surprised that everything works, apt-get is great, etc...
I'll let you in on a secret: I ran Ubuntu for more than a year and at first I was very positive about it. After a year (and the I-don't-know-how-maniest complete fuck up after an upgrade) I called it a day...
Like said before, there are hundreds of distro's, choose the one you like most and stop whining about a distro you apparently don't like.
I never complained at Ubuntu forums about my problems. You just don't do that. It's like pissing in a policeman's boot and then looking surprised that he's going to fine you.

That doen't mean that criticism is not allowd (definitely not!), but you do it in a very stupid manner, which can be seen as trolling.

Why do you think that is?
Because it's a point-and-click-distro that does all the thinking for you?
I respect you a lot Woodsman and your site is great, visited it several times. You're a great contribution to the Slackware community, but on this matter, to my opinion, you miss the point.

Finally, I want to share something. These matters remind me of a blogpost from Mozilla's Asa Dotzler where he was ranting about Linux. This guy, who named himself "Beer", stood up to him and kicked his ass. The entire blogpost can be found here.
Especially the last line in his last post is hilarious:
Enjoy!

It is quite simple actually. After KDE 3.5.10 which Slackware 12.2 uses, there will not be any new features in a future KDE3 release. The KDE3 branch is in maintenance mode.

When KDE4.2 gets released (in january 2009) it will be the first 4.x release that the developers will recommend over KDE3 for the average end user.
At that stage, Slackware will probably also switch to KDE4. But don't hold your breath.

I run KDE4.1.3 (On this laptop) and KDE4.2beta2 (on my development box) full-time and have not experienced any instability (the previous 4.1 releases and 4.0 were not suited for everyday use). Especially 4.2 will be a huge improvement over 4.1.3.

Historically, the KDE releases have generally been regarded as bad Windows clones. And although I do not fully agree to that point of view, there is an element of truth in it. I also think that KDE (even KDE3) never looked too visually pleasing. In my opinion, KDE4.2 (using Qt4) is the first version of KDE that surpasses MS Windows in usability and graphical impression, instead of trying to copy it's look and feel.

And of course there is still XFCE which is a perfectly fine alternative for KDE if you decide not to go for KDE4.

Eric

Oh my, no. Just the opposite. Slackware is not point-and-click at all. That was my point. I have massaged Slackware into something pretty nice, however, and that is what I meant. If I wanted only point-and-click, I would have abandoned Slackware long ago. Anybody who reads my journal learns that I struggled many times to grasp the way Slackware does things. Yet the times I tried other distros I got more frustrated because of the design decisions that were made presuming how I should run a computer. There are days when I get tired of the manual configurations I need and I want the simplicity of point-and-click. Every time I think about moving to something like Ubuntu I simply tell myself "sudo."

Perhaps I have, perhaps we're saying the same thing but differently. I don't know. My point is that Slackware works for me today. Slackware does not work for a lot of people. I have no issue with that. There might come a day when I hang my hat and decide I no longer want to tinker with computers in any fashion. I then would use something like Ubuntu or OpenSuse. There might come a day when I don't use a computer at all. Three of my immediate neighbors don't and never have used a computer. They all are content with life.

I think you were ready right now and you had time right now. Because time you used typing replies would be enough to learn it. But it is your decision. Still, I don't understand, why would someone wait learning this. Anyway,
here is short howto. It is not perfect, but should be enough. It was written purely for the sake of "new year".

Well-said, Woodsman. I also enjoy technical writing, but, I need to catch up with you.
Slackware, FreeBSD, and Debian are distros that work for me. Live and let live. I say use what ever OS is a good fit for your needs. If you don't like an OS move on to something else.
Slackware is and always will be my primary OS.
Thank you Mr. V!!

This guy is awesome.


Judging by Plasma and its ridiculously big icons (with sub icons!!!) and the default configuration and behavior of Dolphin, I am quite convinced that KDE 4 is supposed to be better just because it resembles Vista. But I am strongly biased. I have a lot of spite.


No, it isn't. Not even close.


I have, but didn't reach any useful conclusion.


That's your problem: Your Majesty is satisfied, so screw everyone else. I wonder what politics ever mean to you.

"If you're not happy with your country, stop complaining, just go live elsewhere."

Does that sound about right?


There is one big flaw in your attitude (and most of ErV's): you assume that you have the supreme power to determine what Slackware really is and should ever be, and that the entire Slackware user base agrees with you. Maybe, but you don't know. You just assume.


All these people referring negatively to a supposed "ubuntufication" of Linux remind me of a classic Seinfeld dialogue:

I like Slackware. I like Debian, but not as much as Slackware. I don't want Slackware to be like Debian, or vice versa.
I like steak. I like chicken, but not as much as steak. I don't want steak to taste like chicken, or vice versa.
I cannot stand prawns, but do not tell everybody who enjoys them what I dislike about their taste and texture.

And that pretty much sums it up for me... I'd rather drive than take a cab any day.

Yes, this sounds absolutely right, when applied to distributions. Before comparing distribution with politics, remember that switching distribution is much easier than switching country.

Guy you don't get it. My attitude is that I like slackware as it is right now. And I don't like the way you want to change it. And I don't care how much users share my opinion.
And yes, I think that "Your Majesty is satisfied, so screw everyone else.". This perfectly decsribes by point of view, and I'm absolutely comfortable with such position, because using distribution you don't like for the sake of humanity (or whatever) is stupid.

In case of ubuntification I object to "The comfort, The speed, The convenience". If you want ubuntu - use ubuntu. If you want make ubuntu from slackware - get a life.

Thank you for taking the time to reply, but the question then becomes, why did they drop KDE 3? Why not continue to improve upon something that is known to work?

Also, if KDE 4.2 is the first 4.x release to be recommended by the developers "for the average end user," why has the earlier versions been forced upon the public in distributions like koo-boon-too and OpenSuse? It has NOT been stable, as I've mentioned in a previous post, and many of the applications, both KDE apps and 3rd party apps don't work as well, if they work at all, as their KDE 3.xx counterparts, etc., etc., etc. KDE 4.2++ maybe worth the wait, but in the meantime, forcing it upon the users has been a great disservice and a black eye on the Linux community.
KDE 3.5.10 could be shown as a viable alternative to a unhappy windows user, but not 4.xxx, at least not yet. I'll never understand the thinking of KDE to do something like this. The attitude is same as what we have been getting from microsoft for the last 20+ years.
The last statistics I've seen show that 90.6% of the world's PCs are running some form of windows, with Linux at only 3.8%, and Macs, and whatever else, making up the difference. With those kind of figures it is understandable that even many OpenSource applications are written first for windows and second for eveyone else. It seems I sometimes spend so much time trying to do in Linux what I've been able to do in windows, that if I should just bite the bullet and use XP, if I've going to have to put up with KDE 4.xx. As it is, to get the scanning I need to do daily, done in acceptable quality, I have to run XP in VirtualBox. Faxing, which, fortunately, I do less and less as time goes on, has been a similar headache...
I'll stay with Linux as I have an extreme dislike for microsoft and their almost total lack of ethics, but there are times when I'm tempted to just use their products and get on with life. Usually running XP for an hour or so "cures" me for a month or two...

Probably because Trolltech released Qt version 4, while KDE3 uses Qt version 3. Transfer to Qt 4 makes sense to me. But I don't understand why they didn't transfer KDE3 to Qt 4 with minimal changes, and decided to do something new instead.

Qt4 has massive advantages over Qt3 and that made it a logical base for a next release of KDE. The new possibilities have quite naturelly resulted in changes to the way KDE works at the core. So? It is different yes, but not worse. And because the concepts of a good graphical user interface change with the increasing power of computer hardware, KDE's UI changes just like XFCE, Gnome, Windows, MacOS and so on. People change too. If you stop being susceptible to change, that is a bad omen.

Just as when Gnome was removed from Slackware, there will probably be groups of people maintaining a set of KDE3 packages for Slackware once the switch to KDE4 has been made. Unlike Gnome, building KDE is a breeze, so that task will not be a difficult one.

As for the why of KDE4's difference to KDE3, sometimes evolution is good, sometimes revolution is better. I do understand the reluctance to get used to a new way of working, but that is the way things work. From the commandline to the GUI, Linux offers a wealth of possibilities, but sometimes you have to choose.

All the people here who have bad feelings about KDE4 should stop complaining that it looks like Vista... all previous versions of KDE had their similarities to the Windows releases of that time. But this time, my opinion is that KDE is ahead of Windows.

Just take the plunge and start using it for a while. Slackware will adopt KDE4 once it is stable and usable, unlike other distros.

Eric

Much easier. Choosing a distro is more like choosing between a loveseat, a lawn chair and a swiveling desk chair.

Again, thank your for taking the time to reply, but I guess I didn't phrase my question properly.

Appearance is not that important to me, but so far, from what I've seen of KDE 4.x, it is not at all attractive! Looks like the splash page, sign on page, and panel were designed by a "Goth."

So, my question is, what are the "massive advantages"
What does it do, or can it do, that will be of benefit to the end user? How can it improve, in whatever ways, productivity? Is it somehow "easier" to use? And, so on.
Thanks.
Oh, and I've been using it, and, sorry, I don't see anything about it which, imho, could be considered "improvement." Screen "tricks," while cute, are not productive.