LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
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 09-12-2017, 10:24 PM   #16
mralk3
Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Distribution: Slackware, Debian, CentOS, FreeBSD
Posts: 900

Rep: Reputation: 309Reputation: 309Reputation: 309Reputation: 309

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankbell View Post
I do have a quite precise theory on this.

I believe it's because Slackware does not offer to automatically partition the target drive(s).

I was familiar with DOS fdisk, so cfdisk came easily to me.
That and the fact that many Linux users from other distributions like to do "minimal installations." For Linux users coming from .deb or .rpm distributions this is quite complicated to figure out without automatic dependency handling. After having done it myself, I realize it isn't all that complicated, but for Slackware newbies it's a bit daunting.

As an example:

A while back I made a "minimal" installation of Slackware 14.1 on an Asus EEE PC 2G Surf, which has a 2 GB internal hard disk. Obviously a full installation of Slackware is not feasible in this case. It took a lot of understanding of application dependencies in order to have a functional system while still stripping out as many unneeded packages as possible. It was a very educational and fun process. This system is now being used as a makeshift wireless IDS with GPS tracking.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-13-2017, 04:47 AM   #17
drmozes
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: Surrey, England
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 587

Rep: Reputation: 423Reputation: 423Reputation: 423Reputation: 423Reputation: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by mralk3 View Post
That and the fact that many Linux users from other distributions like to do "minimal installations."
On a development side bar: it'd be far more work on the team since even if you mapped every dependency against every package (which can't be fully automated, since it's more complex than checking which libraries link - some packages contain for example python scripts, which then links to something else), the packages tend to pick up new dependencies are they're developed: e.g. I occasionally get reports that the -current mini root file systems for ARM don't work properly because one of the existing packages now depends on something that isn't included.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-13-2017, 06:05 AM   #18
agropec
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2014
Posts: 16

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I am just curious, my first and second installations were Slackware 7 and OpenBSD; after that, i tried Debian Testing (Sarge 2000 year because i could not install Potato), but for me it was very simple and clear installers. Why the people say that Slackware is difficult to install, and administer it? Is it a myth?
 
Old 09-13-2017, 06:44 AM   #19
drmozes
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: Surrey, England
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 587

Rep: Reputation: 423Reputation: 423Reputation: 423Reputation: 423Reputation: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by agropec View Post
I am just curious, my first and second installations were Slackware 7 and OpenBSD; after that, i tried Debian Testing (Sarge 2000 year because i could not install Potato), but for me it was very simple and clear installers. Why the people say that Slackware is difficult to install, and administer it? Is it a myth?
Could be because the vast majority of users that moved to Linux or gave it a try, were used to GUI installers that took all of the learning away from them and were scared to read documentation, didn't want to spend the time or more.
Everything is expected to be "easy", so the level of deep knowledge and skill in the general populous decreases.

I doubt Slackware was "difficult to install" back in the 90's - I just followed the instructions as you did when I first installed it. It's only by comparison that it's supposedly difficult.

Last edited by drmozes; 09-13-2017 at 06:54 AM.
 
Old 09-13-2017, 02:33 PM   #20
upnort
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2014
Distribution: Slackware, CentOS, Ubuntu MATE
Posts: 385

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
How did Slackware get such a reputation? Bad memories from the 90's? Propaganda from other distributions? Or are people really that allergic to the command-line?
Possibly because the majority of people using computers today have done so only for about 15 to 20 years. All they have ever seen is GUI booting and desktops. In the 1990s the command line was common. In the 1990s through the turn of the century, desktop computers transformed rapidly from MS-DOS to Windows 95, Windows 98, NT4, Windows 2000, and then XP. Unlike previous desktop systems, preinstalled operating systems took off with XP. Outside of Amigas and Macs, before that most people using computers had to manually install an operating system.

Desktop computers did not become popular until the combination of XP and the world wide web. The web did not become popular until the late 1990s.

Then along came smart phones. Swipes and taps replaced pointy-clicky.

Linux based systems survived this rapid expansion but most users were (and are) inclined toward the old user interface methods of the command line. The majority of people using computers today look at the terminal, are horrified, step back, and mutter something like "WTF."

Structurally, Slackware has changed little throughout this period. Possibly then a cause of the alleged reputation. Yet I suspect most people using Slackware would say, "Yup, this is exactly how things should be."
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-14-2017, 02:16 AM   #21
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: Debian, Crux, LFS, AntiX, NuTyX
Posts: 1,444
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 612Reputation: 612Reputation: 612Reputation: 612Reputation: 612Reputation: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by upnort View Post
Unlike previous desktop systems, preinstalled operating systems took off with XP. Outside of Amigas and Macs, before that most people using computers had to manually install an operating system.
That's not how I remember it. The first PCs had DOS preinstalled. And I'm sure I remember PCs being sold with Windows 95/98, though the people I knew installed those over DOS, which they already had.
Quote:
Desktop computers did not become popular until the combination of XP and the world wide web.
I had the impression that it was Win95 that was the game-changer. I got my first 2nd-hand computer in 2000 and I remember the seller asking me if I wanted Windows 3 or Windows 95. No Internet access, but that was quite usual then.
Quote:
Linux based systems survived this rapid expansion but most users were (and are) inclined toward the old user interface methods of the command line. The majority of people using computers today look at the terminal, are horrified, step back, and mutter something like "WTF."
That makes me smile. People like me who worked in offices and libraries in the 80s and 90s were very familiar with the command line. It was my first experience of Windows that horrified me! Finding Linux was like coming home.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-14-2017, 02:46 AM   #22
Randicus Draco Albus
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Hiding somewhere on planet Earth.
Distribution: No distribution. OpenBSD operating system
Posts: 1,672
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 604Reputation: 604Reputation: 604Reputation: 604Reputation: 604Reputation: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
That's not how I remember it. ... I got my first 2nd-hand computer in 2000 and I remember the seller asking me if I wanted Windows 3 or Windows 95. No Internet access, but that was quite usual then.
In essense, you and upnort are both correct. When you bought your first computer North America accounted for 9/10 of all internet traffic. At that time most "connected" computers in Europe and Japan where at universities. So it is understandable for people in different parts of the world to have different memories.
 
Old 09-14-2017, 10:42 AM   #23
upnort
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2014
Distribution: Slackware, CentOS, Ubuntu MATE
Posts: 385

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
That's not how I remember it.
Yes, perhaps my memory is fuzzy. I'm sure some retailers were preinstalling DOS or Windows 3/95. I was trying to emphasize that the majority of users back then were DIY folks. I was an early adopter of computers and a DIY user. I did not buy computers then through retailers. Overall usage in the general populace was increasing with Windows 95 but the market seemed to explode, so to speak, with XP.

Quote:
That makes me smile. People like me who worked in offices and libraries in the 80s and 90s were very familiar with the command line. It was my first experience of Windows that horrified me! Finding Linux was like coming home.
I had become somewhat a subject matter expert with Windows 3.11 and INI files. I still have all of the original dead tree documentation on the shelves. I remember when I installed NT4. All GUI. I was seriously frustrated. I could not separate the "base" OS from the "desktop." When I found the terminal launcher I changed the window title to "Good Ol' DOS!" My NT4 VM remains configured that way. A few years later I installed my first Linux distro. The system booted to a command prompt. I thought that was so sane.
 
Old 09-15-2017, 01:04 AM   #24
agropec
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2014
Posts: 16

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmozes View Post
Could be because the vast majority of users that moved to Linux or gave it a try, were used to GUI installers that took all of the learning away from them and were scared to read documentation, didn't want to spend the time or more.
Everything is expected to be "easy", so the level of deep knowledge and skill in the general populous decreases.

I doubt Slackware was "difficult to install" back in the 90's - I just followed the instructions as you did when I first installed it. It's only by comparison that it's supposedly difficult.
Yes, it makes sense!
Additionally, the first personal computer, that i used superficially, was an HP-86 1980-85; i never knew what OS it used!
 
Old 09-15-2017, 05:21 AM   #25
NoStressHQ
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2010
Location: Geneva - Switzerland ( Bordeaux - France / Montreal - QC - Canada)
Distribution: Slackware 14.2 - 32/64bit
Posts: 572

Rep: Reputation: 196Reputation: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by agropec View Post
Yes, it makes sense!
Additionally, the first personal computer, that i used superficially, was an HP-86 1980-85; i never knew what OS it used!
Maybe because there were no OS at all ... I guess it was a ROM basic by default, and "bootable" programs for everything "serious".
 
Old 09-15-2017, 11:50 AM   #26
Nate_KS
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2017
Location: Bremen, KS
Distribution: Slackware14.2 & Current, Devuan 1.0
Posts: 23

Rep: Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by upnort View Post
Yes, perhaps my memory is fuzzy. I'm sure some retailers were preinstalling DOS or Windows 3/95.
Indeed, they were. It was during this time frame of the late run of Windows 3.1 and the early years of the transition to '95 that those desiring a computer preloaded with OS/2 or even just MS-DOS 6.x were very frustrated. It was at the same time that People chaffed at the idea of getting MS Word/Office for "free" and then having to buy Word Perfect separately. These were the years--'92 through '96 or thereabouts--that fueled the anti-trust action against Microsoft.

I came to Linux in the late summer of 1996 so my reference begins then. I seem to recall that it was around late '97 through '99 that those who wanted a preloaded Linux distribution, or at least not having to pay the "Microsoft Tax" on a new computer gained traction.

Quote:
I was trying to emphasize that the majority of users back then were DIY folks.
True, though by '92 or '93 computers with Windows 3.0/3.1 preinstalled were quite common, if not a majority of the market share. There were quite a few vendor branded copies of Windows 3.x that I saw.

Most of this is from my recollection of Computer Shopper advertising.

Quote:
I was an early adopter of computers and a DIY user. I did not buy computers then through retailers. Overall usage in the general populace was increasing with Windows 95 but the market seemed to explode, so to speak, with XP.
Myself as well, though I didn't get my first PC clone until the summer of 1989. Prior to that I had a Color Computer 2 since late 1983.

XP did have a lot of uptake by new computer users but it was also the next logical upgrade from '95/'98 as the prior versions of the NT series were too much oriented toward business/enterprise. I actually evaluated buying windows '95 or the the new NT 4 in the summer of 1997. I went with '95 and then six months later switched to using Slackware full time in early 1998.

Quote:
I had become somewhat a subject matter expert with Windows 3.11 and INI files.
Shudder. Me too...

Quote:
I still have all of the original dead tree documentation on the shelves.
I dumped all of that stuff years ago.

Quote:
I remember when I installed NT4. All GUI. I was seriously frustrated. I could not separate the "base" OS from the "desktop."
My first encounter with NT 4 was here at work. Almost all of my prior working knowledge was instantly obsolete. Its adoption enabled the company to more centrally administer the desktops which continues through today and Windows 7/10. I can do a limited number of things but am mostly a box changer these days, but I digress.

Quote:
When I found the terminal launcher I changed the window title to "Good Ol' DOS!" My NT4 VM remains configured that way. A few years later I installed my first Linux distro. The system booted to a command prompt. I thought that was so sane.
I was always frustrated by COMMAND.COM and remember what a revelation finding 4DOS was--I had not prior experience with the Unix shell, etc. Later, 4DOS was bought/licensed by Symantec and released with Norton Utilities as ndos. That experience made the transition to Bash easier, though I still preferred the GUI and got X working a few months after the initital Slackware '96 install (mostly due to needing more disk space). These days I spend as much time in the shell as with anything else. Go figure.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-19-2017, 10:09 PM   #27
frankbell
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Debian, Mageia, and whatever VMs I happen to be playing with
Posts: 12,784
Blog Entries: 17

Rep: Reputation: 3315Reputation: 3315Reputation: 3315Reputation: 3315Reputation: 3315Reputation: 3315Reputation: 3315Reputation: 3315Reputation: 3315Reputation: 3315Reputation: 3315
Quote:
I had the impression that it was Win95 that was the game-changer. I got my first 2nd-hand computer in 2000 and I remember the seller asking me if I wanted Windows 3 or Windows 95. No Internet access, but that was quite usual then.
Win95 was indeed a game-changer for home users, in that it integrated the OS and the GUI into one package. It made Windows easy to use for computer-illiterate (or maybe more accurately, computer-inexperienced) point-and-click home users.

I remember running a BBS for my employer with PCBboard on OS/2 in the mid-90s. Actually, I did it for me, but I convinced my employer that I was doing it for them.

They had had an old BBS program of some description on DR-DOS that had become hopelessly out-dated; it was used mainly for file transfers from field to HQ. Whatever it was, it was more primitive that Spitfire.

I really didn't know much of anything back then, but, oh, my heavens, that was fun!
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-23-2017, 09:48 AM   #28
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: Slackware®
Posts: 12,892
Blog Entries: 27

Rep: Reputation: 2183Reputation: 2183Reputation: 2183Reputation: 2183Reputation: 2183Reputation: 2183Reputation: 2183Reputation: 2183Reputation: 2183Reputation: 2183Reputation: 2183
Member response

Hi,

I think the slanderous issues started early on with Slackware. You had to download and create the disk sets. Normal users did not want to do all that work to create their Gnu/Linux. So Slackware got the tag with being difficult to use. Back in '93' it was a must to to create the disk set from downloads and then rawrite to a diskette. I saw some issues from users using cheap media and then blame Slackware for their errors.

I remember hearing Slackware does not have management all the time but those people did not realize 'pkgtool' or just ignored it. Plus the use of cli was not clean for the uninformed. You need to use 'man command' and that required the user to read for understanding. Too much of a thought process for some users.

Why do you think the turn key Gnu/Linux evolved? Hide and you did not have to look behind the curtain. You became the wizard by just getting a copy and booting the installer. Real Gnu/Linux users question things and dig into the inner workings to allow understanding so customization/diagnosis can be done. Slackware Gnu/Linux meets those needs for people who wish to use their computers instead of point an click Gnu/Linux.

This post is not intended to slander lazy Gnu/Linux users but to state that real users will want to know what's under the hood so one can get real work out of their systems.

Slackware is the best UNIX-Like Gnu/Linux!

Slackware users do acquire working knowledge;
Quote:
"Knowledge is of two kinds. We Know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it."- Samuel Johnson
Quote:
"Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them." -Albert Einstein
If Slackware was available at Beecher's time then;
Quote:
A tool is but the extension of a man's hand and a machine is but a complex tool. He that invents a machine augments the power of man and the well being of mankind.” - Henry Ward Beecher
Uninformed turn key users meet this;
Quote:
"Life's tough...It's even tougher if you're stupid." - John Wayne
Hope this helps.
Have fun & enjoy!
 
2 members found this post helpful.
  


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
/etc/ppp/ /.legend/update mjbradakis Linux - Security 0 11-19-2013 06:44 AM
Time to update the legend? MensaWater LQ Suggestions & Feedback 5 10-30-2009 08:42 AM
matlab legend help. ufmale Programming 2 04-01-2008 02:23 AM

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

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:41 PM.

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
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration