gargamel |
05-21-2013 03:09 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7
(Post 4955302)
I actually think Slackware not only follows, but exceeds the LSB standards by promoting the adamant usage of non-proprietary system software (like systemd which is Linux-only software) unless unavoidable (like udev).
If anything Slackware is the benchmark standard of Linux. Red Hat is far from even being near to any standard other than their own. If anything Slackware is not only closer to the LSB standard than Red Hat, but Slackware is even closer to the SUS (Single UNIX Specification) than any other distribution save Gentoo and LFS maybe.
|
Hmm, I'd put it a bit differently. Slackware is closer to the (actually useful) goals of LSB than some of the LSB creators. I doubt that Slackware would be more successful in LSB certification tests than Red Hat or SUSE, but I was able to get packages running on Slackware that wouldn't run on OpenSUSE. There's only one exception: I was able to run KMyMoney2 with HBCI support (German online banking standard) only on OpenSUSE, but on no other distro I tried, not even Slkackware 32-bit.
It's just, that some of the packages required to set a symlink or tweak a path at build time. So Slackware may not be LSB compliant by definition (of LSB), but IMHO Slackware achieves the goals of LSB even better than the creators of this debated standard.
Conclusion: - Is Slackware LSB compliant?
Strictly speaking and by definition: No.
- Does this affect any Slackware user in any way?
Not, at all.
- Does this affect a system administrator, who wants to use Slackware in an enterprise environment?
Unfortunately, in the real world it does. Admins must convince their managers, but managers don't want to be responsible, they prefer to spend the money of investors and cut head count to save money, in order to buy kind of an insurance. That's what a certificate and a contract with a large vendor are in their eyes: Insurances, that cover their back.
- If managers insist in certification and contracts, how can Debian be so successful in enterprise environments?
Debian has been chosen especially by banks and insurances as a desktop (client) system. Some use it on their servers, too. There are a few reasons for this, that also explain, why Slackware isn't used as much in the same environments:- If you can convince a manager that free software is actually a good thing to mitigate risks of vendor lock-in etc., he or she will insist in using free software and not to take any risk of law suits due to patent or licence violation in non-free or non-open-source software coming with your distro. In my experience, managers support free software when they just have had a bitter experience with some of their commercial vendors, and when they realize, how much they depend on one or another software vendor. In such a situation, however, they'll try to avoid finding themselves in a similar position again, a few years later, and therefore are open for FOSS. That's one reason, why they find Debian quite appealing, more than other distributions.
- Another reason are the huge software repositories and the package management. Slackware users know about the pros and cons of dependency reason probably better than anyone else, and that's why we don't want it. ;) But as we all have to admit, for a beginner dpkg and the tools supporting it make it rather easy and painless to keep the system up-to-date for a while (as long as the package maintainers do a proper job and the package manager doesn't screw the whole system) even with little Linux experience. And we all know, that it is an uphill battle trying to convince a user of Debian or *buntu or OpenSUSE of the advantages of package management without automatic dependency resolution. It's like telling a child that the stove is hot --- as long as the child hasn't touched a hot stove, it will not even know, what you're talking about.
- Finally, some consulting firms advise companies willing to use Linux on desktops to choose Debian. Their arguments are, again, package management, and the fact that it does not depend on a particular company, but is a community project. The consultants tell their clients, that these would be "strategic assets". (And for some part, they definitely are).
Best regards
gargamel
|