Then maintain your thing and stop trolling. Pat has not added PAM to Slackware. That is reality. And if I have to decide who gets more credibility points from me, that is not even the faintest question. And so, welcome to the Slackware reality. If you do not like it, you may move on.

Darth, is this available somewhere, so others can use it? May be those who want PAM can even contribute?

The single one into this thread who I see trolling is right you. :hattip:

And you miss something, my German friend. This Forum is not your little German town, and I, I'm not a whatever poor Syrian emigrant asking for work, into your town, to who to yell "This is German reality! You don't like, go home!". I have news for you:

Is my freedom to make there lobby even for Slackware to adopt NTOSKernel, for my whatever reasons. You, my friend, if you enter in one of my threads, please come with arguments, against or pro, BUT please leave the likes of "This is German reality! You don't like, go home!" for your real life. I'm not impressioned.

All the best!

If we talk about what I work, it is a in-house developed distro, for Company's internal use. And I do not know about any plans to publish it.

You known, it is their distro, NDA, so on... ;)

Also, I do not agree with being public available of as Yet Another Slackware-derived Distribution.

I for one, I believe that all of us should concentrate into supporting right on the true Slackware, for the Greater Good.

Congratulations Darth Vader. You are the first to receive the memo:

MEMO

This is an automated reply from the Bullsht Detector at Slackware LQ.

Your recent posts contained troll-like characteristics which resembles the type of message sent by spoiled whining little children in the Chocolate Factory, systemd, Gnome3 and Phoronix forum fanbois who have recently inhaled Lennart Poetterings foul rantings, or mindless sheeple who want their OS to do everything for them and don't give a crap about compiling and configuring a system to suit their own personal needs.

In order to prevent another thread being hijacked, and to send your message to the appropriate department for response (FOAD, GTFO, STFU, YAAFM or The Bus To No Freedom of Choice in Linux Is Leaving - Be Sure You're Under It), kindly read the following questions and decide which one or ones apply to you:

1. Are you using Slackware expecting it to be like Windows, Mac or Ubuntu and it's derivatives?

2. Have you ever read the Slackware documentation explaining what this OS is about and it's philosophy?

3. Did you realize that you were going to have to get your hands a little dirty under the hood and learn about config files, compiling Slack.Builds for packages that aren't included in the release distro and search through some great repositories for pre-compiled packages before installing Slackware?

4. Do you know that along with Gentoo, Slackware is probably the most customisable GNU/Linux distro still out there and you can make it into what you want it to be (DE, init system, etc.)?

5. Do you know that if you want to run Slackware with systemd and pam that you can and if you don't like PulseAudio that you can easily keep ALSA as your audio output handler or that you can remove it by spending a few minutes work?

6. You are here on Slackware LQ so you should know that there are many experienced users here along with the Slackware team if you need help making your system the way you want it, and if you don't receive help is it because you didn't ask explain your problem correctly and give pertinent information or have been rude previously, troll threads and generally have a bad tone and attitude on this Forum.

7. If your complaint is about what Pat and the team included or didn't include in Slackware, you do know that you can fork Slackware and start your own project, making the OS you want and have it the way you like it?

8. Do you realize that Pat has the final say about everything, not the end user. Pat is the BDFL and what he says goes. Praise Bob!

If you don't like things the way they are in Slackware then I suggest finding a new distro, otherwise, starting acting more like ESR and embrace the challenges and look for solutions to problems and be less like a whining baby who spat the dummy when people didn't like his applications, coding or implementation of his applications.

Slackware still stands for freedom of choice in Linux, unlike some other major distros that have kowtowed to Red Hat and upstream to take away your choices and conform to their agenda.

Consider yourself served and have a pleasant day.


Slackware LQ Bullsh-t Detector and Troll Hammer

Amazing! So, now I "hijacked" my own thread?

Look to the thread title, man! See the light? Also see who is the OP of this thread before to write walls of text... :hattip:

That's just your opinion. We use slackware where I work and the lack of PAM is irrelevant. So please don't make blanket statements.

why this should be bad? (but_why.gif)

Also, there, we use Slackware where I work and the lack of PAM is irrelevant. Because, after all, they payed a guy (me), to modify the Slackware as they want.

But I seen hundreds times how the things are:

Manager of Company X: So, we need to implement that new Project under Linux, and it should have a good interchangeability with the existent infrastructure (read as dozens Windows Server units).

Team Leader to Administrators: So, what Linux we use, for a facile Centralized Authentication & Co., using the actual infrastructure?

The Crowd of Administrators Kerberos, LDAP, blah, blah. And as Operating System, we suggest RHEL or CentOS as second option.

Administrator Y: But we can use Slackware! Is small, is simple, and so on...

Whatever Administrator: But, we will need, as base, the LinuxPAM. Slackware have it?

Administrator Y: Nope! But we can rebuild it with PAM.

Team Leader of Administrators: I said to use an existent Linux Operating System, not to develop one! No way!

-----------------

No one ask to Slackware to introduce Corporate ready components for deal face-to-face with RHEL, but Slackware to pass from the 99.9 of the Team Leaders from Corporate environment, you should not rebuild the distro's core components.

That's idea! :hattip:

Because 99% from the Linux (users) share is right on the Corporate environments. We are a handful those who use Linux @Home.

Just because Slackware forces you to learn to do for yourself doesn't make it unfriendly to Corporate IT, it actually makes it more adaptable to Corporate IT than others, because it can more easily restructured to fit Corporate IT site specifications.

IF Slackware pass beyond your Team Leader...


See my previous post, for a opinion about how think those Team Leaders.

BTW, Tobi, you aren't a Moderator?

What you guys do about this wall of Korean speaking spams?

Just saying... ;)

beside not agreeing with the numbers, talking about my personal experience and the places I've worked in (one with 400 employers, another with 220, another one with 2000 and so on), IMHO, if corporate environments want a stable, corporate-ready linux distribution they should pay for it or pay a team that maintains it for them.
no corporation deserve a free operating system.

so I personally don't care if distribution X is not ready for the enterprise: it's time that the enterprises invest their money in the right place and stop throwing it away on shitty proprietary solutions.

You're dreaming that your purpose here is more than being a troll.

I guess if you complain about everything then you can imagine you've been leading the way. Do you even remember why the $ARCH change was made on 32-bit, or did you ever pay attention to know? It wasn't done because you wouldn't shut up about it, that's for sure.

Tobi is a HERO for the work he's doing keeping this place clean today. And any of the other mods too.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...0/#post5483978
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...0/#post5484001

and they used Slackware and updated it with their own PAM builds?
I guess not.

my experience is:
except a very few exceptions where some enthusiasts care about Slackware is not available in companies. and for enthusiasts its can be hard to use it because you might experience some opposition and since it is that easy to argue why Slackware is a nogo, its not friendly to companies, on more of ubuntu/debian/rhel/centos/suse will make it.

as long as you do not make the decisions for the companies it does not matter what you care or not.

I'd rather read those than most of your posts.

who told you I don't? In some cases I did/do.
and beside that I can freely criticize idiotic technical decisions, I think I don't need your permission.

I did not assume that you are not one of the a very few exceptions and enthusiasts that care about Slackware in companies.
may I ask how many Slackware installations with PAM do you maintain and if the builds public accessible?

please a4z, read my posts above again: they should answer this last question of yours.

I looked, but there is no answer to the question about how many Slackware installations with PAM do you maintain and if the builds public accessible.
but it does not matter, I think I can guess the answer...

Care to share it?

If your Team Leader already uses another distribution that meets or exceeds the site policies of the company you work for, then you have no say, and rightfully so, so complaining about it doesn't matter. The company policy is what it is for a reason. They aren't just going to change if Slackware changes, so why is that even matter. If they use CentOS, then chances are for years to come, they'll use CentOS, still be using CentOS, and nothing you do or say will change this. Even if you became the Team Leader, you still have a person above you who is going to say Yes or No to changes, and if they tell you to keep using CentOS, then you'll be using CentOS, or else you will be swiftly unemployed.

has already been asked and answered

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post5483928

I has been public for a while: http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=darkstar

above I said I don't give a sh*t about maintaining such thing for the enterprises' benefit unless someone pay me for it and as you could have desumed from the rest of the posts this hasn't happened yet.
if it interests you I have experimented and used also samba and LDAP (this is just the only thing not in standard Slackware that I speifically built) and still using the first.

I guess you did not try actually accessing the site? The hostname no longer resolves, and has not done so for quite a while.

Yes I tried again but was not surprised of that failure as I have been aware since some time that it is not public anymore. Which is consistent with the status "discontinued" attributed by DW. I just wanted to give a clue to Nicolas about how it looked when it was publicly released, possibly reading one of the reviews.

Of course I assume that the system is very different now.

Poor unloved PAM, is it that she is only good for a quick finger and getting intimate with certain corporate types?

The main advantage to a feature being implemented in the distribution is that it then receives testing from the entire community of Slackware users, who report bugs so those bugs can be addressed.

Implementing a feature myself, I only know if my deployment environments trigger a bug (for now). I am at increased risk of encountering a bug in production when my environment changes.

By running Slackware in a greater variety of environments (tens of thousands of users' environments, not just my two or three), bugs are more likely to be exposed before they become problems.

The disadvantages are that it puts more burden on the Slackware team, and could introduce unnecessary problems for uninterested Slackware users. If it's a feature that hardly anyone wants, then it's unfair to ask the team and the users to shoulder the risk just so we few who want the feature can reap the benefits.

Because of this, I try not to be strident about asking for features, or protesting changes which are not to my direct benefit. We're a community, and should be community-minded about these tradeoffs.

There's plenty I "could" ask as well for, but I know full well, we'd never get it unless Patrick said yes.

Why don't I ask? Because it's Patrick's OS, not mine, and while I can place a suggestion on the ol' suggestion box, that's all I can do. If Patrick says no, he means no, not we'll see next cycle.

Example: ZFS... Despite the licensing issues several distributions were given the green light to use it by one of the major legal teams that aids Free Software licensing issues. Would be kickass if added, but I know it never will be.

burden on the Slackware team, maybe, but possible not more than caring about not having the dependency.
unnecessary problems for uninterested Slackware, sorry, this is nonsense, in the last 10 years, those distros shipping PAM caused exactly which problems for the users that do not care about such details?
I would be much more quiet if FUD like this would not always pop up in such discussions. But to say something positive, I am glad that so far we have nearly non technical wrong things in the discussion, hope it stays like that.

Edit: sorry, posted in wrong thread.

maybe someone already linked this, but it's just to answer your specific question with some of them
https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=pam

That is quite interesting - not as many issues as I thought (given the relentless bagging that PAM receives in this forum) - 5 issues for 2015, 3 for 2014. For interest, I compared with ssh https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=ssh - 30 issues for 2015, 24 for 2014 and already 4 for 2016. That may give a pointer to the relative maintenance loads required by the two packages (if we had a PAM package).

chris

Some of those issues also are for OpenPAM as well, not just LinuxPAM.

I think we should just end this discussion on the fact that the only person who's going to do anything is Patrick, and the constant complaints aren't going to win any arguments to force the issue. When and if Patrick decides to bring in a PAM implementation is up to him, him alone, and we should therefore leave the topic and Patrick alone about it.

says of course nothing about how it affects people and, to be more specific, users, just that there are astonishing less problem reports compared to e.g. firefox, the kernel, or many others, and lots of the reported problems do not even affect PAM.

I am opposed to closing this thread as I learned many necessary English abusive and swearwords for communications in Slackware community.

you asked which were the "unnecessary problems for uninterested slackware users" calling FUD and, like I stated, I simply answered with some security related ones (I don't think it's needed to be explained on how these affect people), it was not my intention to do a comparison with others not pam-related.
if you feel like arguing good for you, I don't.

ok, one more time you can not mention one concrete example for something you arguing with, seems to be a repetitive pattern of you.
well, if you do not want to spread FUD, simply don't do it, or, if than do it correct, namely:
Slackware users have already unnecessary problems in form of running less tested code in components that usually link and uses PAM. :D
that's a much more realistic problem than the theoretical stuff that is, if it exists,fixed on zero day simply through the enormous amount of users companies and interests combined to them.

This thread somehow reminds me of the last year of my marriage. :hattip:

There was an old troll named Twitch
Who loved to whine and bitch
He went without being fed
And very soon was found dead
For nobody would scratch his itch.

Take a hint...

I think you'll find that the earlier in PAM's lifecycle you go, the more bugs you'll find. (The bug curve is probably logarithmic, but I haven't bothered to plot it out.)

Architecturally, there's no reason to think that PAM is a bad idea. Some of the implementations may be (and appear to have been) sucky, but those that were have been fixed. But the basic idea of creating a generic framework capable of answering the question "is user X authorized to do Y?" is not a bad thing.

Given the screaming that pulseaudio invoked, it's probably going to be 20 years before Pat considers adding PAM.

That's really charming behavior that adds something to the discussion. Of course the moderators don't care.

Slackware was the distribution that didn't have this kind of thing. If I need Pulseaudio and Bluetooth there are many distributions where they work out of the box. Slackware was a simple system that followed the Unix philosophy. Pulseaudio is not Unix. Recompiling some programs in the base system if you need additional functionality is not a big deal. You're going to need to compile stuff if you use Slackware anyway.

Already have, it's not Linux though.

So I am allowed to have an opinion but not free speech?

There's a difference between free speech and endless repetition of complaints. We heard and recognize your opinion. We disagree. Nothing else to discuss.

Pulse Audio is available in several BSD and also for Mac OSX:
http://www.manualpages.de/FreeBSD/Fr...seaudio.1.html
https://wiki.netbsd.org/tutorials/using_pulseaudio/
http://macappstore.org/pulseaudio/

Please also note that OS X version 10.11 El Capitan is a certified UNIX.

So, if your statement means that PA is not portable (i.e. it doesn't use only the interfaces specified by POSIX) it is wrong.

See the description on this page: App description: Sound system for POSIX OSes

Repetition? I posted it once.

If you think there is nothing else to discuss you can move along. No one is forcing you to read this thread.

I mean that it doesn't follow the Unix philosophy.

Please indicate:

1. Where is the description of the Unix philosophy you rely on.
2. In what respects PA doesn't follow it.