LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Slackware (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)
-   -   slackware 15 and pam (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/slackware-15-and-pam-4175483168/)

Arkerless 07-30-2014 01:22 PM

I guess that's one of the few things where I actually prefer the old Slackware. I remember a time when it was easy to do a minimal install, and that was usually what we did - I mean who wants to deal with a 400 floppy install set really?

When I see people posting for help because they tried to do a minimal install and now need a dependency getting responses telling them to just do a full install, I admit I die a little inside.

Woodsman 07-30-2014 02:10 PM

Quote:

When I see people posting for help because they tried to do a minimal install and now need a dependency getting responses telling them to just do a full install, I admit I die a little inside.
Seems additional options in the installer are needed to support various types of installations. Not to pimp Debian, but only for a simple comparison, the Debian installer supports different installation configurations. Could the same be done for the Slackware installer? Probably.

I am guessing if somebody added the changes at least a few folks in the community would test the patched installer. With sufficient testing Pat might be motivated to absorb the changes into the stock Slackware.

Perhaps something similar could be done with PAMified packages. Perhaps the installer could be modified to ask the user whether to install PAMified packages.

Just talking out loud. :)

ponce 07-30-2014 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsman (Post 5212080)
Seems additional options in the installer are needed to support various types of installations. Not to pimp Debian, but only for a simple comparison, the Debian installer supports different installation configurations. Could the same be done for the Slackware installer? Probably.

I am guessing if somebody added the changes at least a few folks in the community would test the patched installer. With sufficient testing Pat might be motivated to absorb the changes into the stock Slackware.

hmmm, having used some slackpkg templates/tagfiles for webserver/virt-manager configurations since a couple of releases I think the hardest task there will be not to assemble them but to maintain and support them between releases (they will need continous testing)...

Quote:

Perhaps something similar could be done with PAMified packages. Perhaps the installer could be modified to ask the user whether to install PAMified packages.
and having to maintain and support two versions of the needed packages (they were quite a lot when 14.0 came out, now they're more)?

55020 07-30-2014 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkerless (Post 5212064)
When I see people posting for help because they tried to do a minimal install and now need a dependency getting responses telling them to just do a full install, I admit I die a little inside.

What *benefit* is conferred by a "minimal install"?

If someone improvises a "minimal install", and then is *surprised* when their "minimal install" is *excessively* minimal, and doesn't know how to diagnose and fix it, do they have the mental toolkit to handle anything other than a full install?

We have to be realistic about the abilities of Slackware beginners. In my opinion, there are two possible answers if people want something less than full Slackware.

One is, change your mind.

And the other is, use Porteus. Its modularity has been well thought out, and it keeps people in the Slackware family.

Arkerless 07-30-2014 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsman (Post 5212080)
Seems additional options in the installer are needed to support various types of installations. Not to pimp Debian, but only for a simple comparison, the Debian installer supports different installation configurations. Could the same be done for the Slackware installer? Probably.

I havent used Debian recently but the one place I remember it really shining was in the installer. It made it very easy to do a minimal base install and only add what you needed over the network afterwards.

willysr 07-30-2014 04:49 PM

And you will get your system bloated in no time......

Arkerless 07-30-2014 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willysr (Post 5212150)
And you will get your system bloated in no time......

Eh, in a sense. I believe I could have gotten a leaner system with slackware given time. But in this case, Debian gave me slack - I didnt have to spend the time. And it was lean enough for what I was doing - a webserver for a small group with minimal needs. Installed what I needed, threw it in a closet, and ssh'd in once a week to make sure all was well. So little opportunity for bloat after the initial install.

Trying to run my actual workstation with it was much less successful though.

willysr 07-30-2014 05:34 PM

Slackware is not designed to be spesific-need like a server/desktop. It's more like a general purpose OS and let the user/admin configure the OS in a way he/she likes it. IOTW, the control is in the user, not from the developers.

ReaperX7 07-30-2014 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kikinovak (Post 5212035)
Eat systemd.

If you want to be an arse about things let me remind you of your own words carefully sir!

Quote:

Originally Posted by kikinovak
This special kind of admin seems to breed in France. I see them everywhere, they're a plague. They're the main reason I ended up creating my own company with my own services on offer, my own clients, etc.

I have never said I was right or wrong on anything in this topic, I just said no to you and Eric's pompous arrogance, and if I'm wrong so be it as I've said before, so do please re-read your own words carefully. Good day!

NoStressHQ 07-30-2014 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7 (Post 5212179)
... I just said no to you and Eric's pompous arrogance,...

Sorry Reaper, I have basically nothing against you but what I read from you in this thread (and some other posts you sometimes commit), is really pompous arrogance... And not mature at all. So I excuse you in a sense that you're a Slackware fanboy, I love Slackware for maybe the same reasons as you love it, but the way you dismiss other ideas or discussions is aggressive, sometimes insulting other people skills, whereas you never sounds to me as a real expert. As I said, it's more a fanboy attitude, trying to prove others you're more "pure slacker" than others... I love this community on LQ because there's not a lot of this behavior around there, but I'm a bit sad when you start to attack and dismiss other.

So keep calm, try to listen (or read) other people, we will all be wrong one day or another but the "supremacist" attitude dismiss you, and dismiss you more when you end accusing other to be "pompous arrogant".

You might have heard of this one: "‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye?".

Hope we'll be able to have more peaceful discussions in future.

Cheers,

Garry.

ReaperX7 07-30-2014 07:27 PM

I've never tried to be arrogant.

All I've said is, "Why does Slackware need package <insert name here> if it's for a limited audience?" as well as "If it's needed for a very limited purpose, why not create an SBo for package <insert name here> on SlackBuilds.org as well as any other required files and packages?".

I'm trying to make a point that the more complexity we cram into Slackware, the more complex the overall system will be to Johnny H. Q. Public that is looking for simplicity. It doesn't matter where that complexity comes from, the question is, is this complexity for the overall good and the better?

I don't know if anyone is listening to that, but honestly, I just get sick of seeing people say, "Add package <insert name> to Slackware so we can be like everyone else!"

Since when does Slackware have to be like any other distribution? I don't know how I can rephrase that any easier or in plainer English.

Didier Spaier 07-30-2014 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7 (Post 5212203)
I've never tried to be arrogant.

But that's how you sometimes look in the eyes of some of us. Also, I feel that your answer completely miss to address the remarks made by NoStressHQ.

ivandi 07-30-2014 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willysr (Post 5212170)
Slackware is not designed to be spesific-need like a server/desktop. It's more like a general purpose OS and let the user/admin configure the OS in a way he/she likes it. IOTW, the control is in the user, not from the developers.

True. But in its current form Slackware is actually a general purpose desktop with most of the general purpose server software included. Even if you skip /kde /xfce /t /tcl /x /xap /y /f /e /d at install time you get an over-bloated /l (gtk1,2,3, qt, soprano virtuoso and opera stuff alike, ah, forgot akonadi). You get also a lot of much needed server software in /n like bluez and networkmanager etc. The *-kit garbage is installed too. If you skip /d perl is missing but if you don't skip it you get COBOL as a bonus. If you skip /x you risk some web software that uses gdlib to fail and if you install it you get scim plus tons of fonts.

Sure you can spend some rainy weekend tweaking your setup and creating tagfiles/template for future use (actually till next release), but if I have to setup a small LAMP server tomorrow, I'll opt for a distro that provides a sane minimal setup.

And the idea that every minimal installation gets bloated over time is maybe true for a desktop/workstation, but certainly not the case for a server.

Anyway Slackware is still the best distro out there for home/hobby use, but that doesn't change the fact that there are some important flaws.

Cheers

elvis4526 07-30-2014 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kikinovak (Post 5212035)
Eat systemd.

I know how I promised to not post here again mainly because of ReaperX7 attitude, but when I saw this I laughed so much that I fell of my chair. :D

ReaperX7 07-30-2014 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivandi (Post 5212223)
True. But in its current form Slackware is actually a general purpose desktop with most of the general purpose server software included. Even if you skip /kde /xfce /t /tcl /x /xap /y /f /e /d at install time you get an over-bloated /l (gtk1,2,3, qt, soprano virtuoso and opera stuff alike, ah, forgot akonadi). You get also a lot of much needed server software in /n like bluez and networkmanager etc. The *-kit garbage is installed too. If you skip /d perl is missing but if you don't skip it you get COBOL as a bonus. If you skip /x you risk some web software that uses gdlib to fail and if you install it you get scim plus tons of fonts.

Sure you can spend some rainy weekend tweaking your setup and creating tagfiles/template for future use (actually till next release), but if I have to setup a small LAMP server tomorrow, I'll opt for a distro that provides a sane minimal setup.

And the idea that every minimal installation gets bloated over time is maybe true for a desktop/workstation, but certainly not the case for a server.

Anyway Slackware is still the best distro out there for home/hobby use, but that doesn't change the fact that there are some important flaws.

Cheers

In that comment, maybe there needs to be a spin off project created and dedicated to making a server oriented edition of Slackware focused on security, resource controls, and network interoperability.

We have SalixOS which is a more desktop derived distribution with dependency resolution, so...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:50 AM.