LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 07-30-2014, 12:22 PM   #121
Arkerless
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2006
Distribution: Give me Slack or give me death.
Posts: 81

Rep: Reputation: 60

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.
 
Old 07-30-2014, 01:10 PM   #122
Woodsman
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Distribution: Slackware 14.1
Posts: 3,482

Rep: Reputation: 546Reputation: 546Reputation: 546Reputation: 546Reputation: 546Reputation: 546
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.
 
Old 07-30-2014, 01:17 PM   #123
ponce
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Pisa, Italy
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 5,514

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsman View Post
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)?

Last edited by ponce; 07-30-2014 at 01:49 PM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 07-30-2014, 02:15 PM   #124
55020
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Yorks. W.R. 167397
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,307
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkerless View Post
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.
 
Old 07-30-2014, 02:53 PM   #125
Arkerless
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2006
Distribution: Give me Slack or give me death.
Posts: 81

Rep: Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsman View Post
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.
 
Old 07-30-2014, 03:49 PM   #126
willysr
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Jogja, Indonesia
Distribution: Slackware-Current
Posts: 4,168

Rep: Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395
And you will get your system bloated in no time......
 
Old 07-30-2014, 04:12 PM   #127
Arkerless
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2006
Distribution: Give me Slack or give me death.
Posts: 81

Rep: Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by willysr View Post
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.
 
Old 07-30-2014, 04:34 PM   #128
willysr
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Jogja, Indonesia
Distribution: Slackware-Current
Posts: 4,168

Rep: Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395Reputation: 1395
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.
 
Old 07-30-2014, 05:09 PM   #129
ReaperX7
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 6,450
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026
Quote:
Originally Posted by kikinovak View Post
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!
 
Old 07-30-2014, 05:32 PM   #130
NoStressHQ
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2010
Location: Geneva - Switzerland ( Bordeaux - France / Montreal - QC - Canada)
Distribution: Slackware 14.2 - 32/64bit
Posts: 609

Rep: Reputation: 221Reputation: 221Reputation: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
... 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.
 
Old 07-30-2014, 06:27 PM   #131
ReaperX7
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 6,450
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026
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.
 
Old 07-30-2014, 06:51 PM   #132
Didier Spaier
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Nov 2008
Location: Paris, France
Distribution: Slint64-14.2.1.2 on Lenovo Thinkpad W520
Posts: 9,425

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
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.
 
Old 07-30-2014, 07:27 PM   #133
ivandi
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2009
Location: Québec, Canada
Distribution: CRUX, Debian
Posts: 507

Rep: Reputation: 840Reputation: 840Reputation: 840Reputation: 840Reputation: 840Reputation: 840Reputation: 840
Quote:
Originally Posted by willysr View Post
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
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 07-30-2014, 08:03 PM   #134
elvis4526
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2011
Posts: 114

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by kikinovak View Post
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.
 
Old 07-30-2014, 08:11 PM   #135
ReaperX7
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: Slackware64-Current
Posts: 6,450
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026Reputation: 2026
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivandi View Post
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...
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PAM and Slackware 10.2 darkarcon2015 Slackware 15 10-20-2007 02:32 PM
PAM Available For Slackware 10.0 eric.r.turner Slackware 14 09-22-2006 12:08 PM
PAM for my Slackware rmg Linux - Newbie 3 04-06-2006 01:10 PM
does slackware 10 support PAM? joroxx Slackware - Installation 2 11-16-2004 12:06 AM
pam mount in slackware 10 qwijibow Linux - Software 1 08-06-2004 08:37 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:06 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration