No, it is not a fault. It is by design. Slackware works the way it is supposed to work. The point was, installing third-party packages requires more work than with most distributions, which was in response to a claim that installing and using Slackware does not require any more effort than most other distros.

The last time I saw Windows, installing anything required an installation disc containing what was needed, but not on the system. But then my experience was limited to hardware, such as installing printers.

No it was in response to me suggesting that you don't have to tweak Slackware in order to use it and you don't have to. If you are happy with Slackware as it is installed you do not need to tweak it at all. I used it for 6 months to see what it was like from a noobs perspective. I never felt a need to go over and above the packages that PV provided because they did what I needed and Slackware did what I needed it to do. If people want to install 3rd party packages (which I discourage noobs to do in all distributions until they have a grip on what is provided already) then so be it but to say they must install 3rd party packages to use Slackware is as false as saying they must tweak the init to use Slackware.

Early development stage... This is better than "research and development" which suggest that you're doing something we, as human, feel impossible to do...

When a mechanic "tweak" his car engine, you call that R&D ?

btw, you might have good intentions on trying that, and more, you might improve your knowledge, which is a move I like (willing to learn, test, etc.). But do you have a real need in that ? Or do you do that just for fun/exercise ? Although some level of tweaking is good to improve "workstation user experience" (dedicate a workstation for an efficient production in some sort of job, or super-fine-tune a server etc.), sometimes too, maintaining that "tweakiness" start to eat more and more time, and stack stress on top of all the things "different from the book" that you have to actually remember, fix, improve, etc.

Garry.

This is what brought me to Slackware in the end. I liked the measured approach and the fact I can just let it be, and it will be okay. I'd come up on Arch, but I found I spent more time maintaining than using (same with Gentoo, actually, but I still love it and run it at work).

Incidentally there does seem to be some sort of awakening about systemd this last month; as if people are finally starting to realise the drawbacks and future of the project may not be that healthy.

Most likely brought on by his article about, "revisiting how we put together Linux systems."

I'm not going to link it, but essentially it clarifies his own megalomaniacal goals.

I would actually classify it as R&D because more or less, I'm still researching inittab's usefulness in things and even how the scripts work together. Early stage development would be something more akin to, in my opinion, starting work porting things to inittab out of rc.M to launch either via a separate script in a tree for dependencies, and/or directly through it's own script execution in inittab.

To me this is learning and expanding knowledge. I find learning fun. I don't care if I end up seeing that it was pointless or a waste of time. Learning is learning. And you can't spell lose or loss without lesson.

Yep, I know it. I mentioned it earlier in the thread. I think it's more the case that there has been this explosion in functionality recently. The whole project was barely a thought just five years ago, and it's now well on its way to being the defining component outside of the Kernel.

Strange days.

I'm totally alright with that, I do the same :). Learning is a full time job.

For the "Research and *", research, to my point of view, should be used for something "we don't have any knowledge about"... I mean, even in any book or thesis... I guess research can be understood in pioneering in some subject. Hacking the inittab doesn't sound like a new frontier to me :).

Cheers

Garry.

Hacking the inittab, from what I've read, has always been considered taboo.

To me, saying hacking inittab to do what I am looking into is taboo... well that just that sounds like an open invitation to start experimenting. After all, isn't hacking scripts, source, and configuration files part of what open source is all about... freelance developments, research, and contributions for the benefit of everyone?

Although I define hacking in two ways. One (such as this) is good and educational, the other is just bad, cheap, and thoughtless.

That was just the how of an idea the Lunduke floated in his 2012 or 2013 "Linux Sucks" talk. Obviously there is an undercurrent for more standardization or more acceptable standardization. IMHO if this standardization brings more SW devs and SW houses into the fold then I'm happy. If there is a desire for a "Year of the Linux Desktop" this is about as good of a shot as can be made. It would please me to no end to replace my Mac Pro at work for a Linux box but right now I can't. So it goes

SBo is de facto official, widely known about and used by a lot of Slackware users on this forum - as are Alien Bob's repos. You're simply applying narrow Debian centric standards to Slackware.

Your posts, which appear, as ever, to be constructed solely to justify your opinions, really do expose your lack of knowledge of Slackware. As a Slackware "noob" who never ventured beyond just installing it and running it for "6 months", I'm not sure why you'd think you're qualified to advise "noobs" on what they should/not do on a Slackware system?

Oh spare me. Those days are long gone. Every year from 1998 through 2007 was meant to be "Year of the Linux Desktop."

Face Facts: Microsoft have the desktop market by the throat. Linux has been around for 23 years. If it were going to make a dent, it surely already would have.

I completely understand the arguments for standardisation, but believing that anything will make a difference in terms of market share is pure naivete.

That's why I said If there is to be a "year of the Linux desktop" not there will be.

Google, Microsoft, and Apple will never allow another competitor on the market. Red Hat's dream of promoting a successful Linux desktop is just that, a dream, and they need to seriously wake up. They're late to the game as it is, if not maybe 20 years too late.

Red Hat did make money off of Linux, but that was in the server division. However, the desktop is Microsoft owned and operated, and has been that way since Windows 3.1 arrived. Apple struggled for years to get a slice of that market. Google took the rest through cell phones and tablets. Red Hat honestly, is too little, and too late to the game. By the time they even get a feasible desktop system, Microsoft will have released Windows 10, and Red Hat will be playing catch-up all over again.

Yes, but doesn't make the point any less valid when applied to Slackware and it's users. Slackware is a distro which is suited to a certain type of user - users will either take to it or they won't.

Of course, I am aware of that. Dependency resolution is not essential, nor in my opinion necessary when the entire distribution fits on one piece of install media. SBo packages is where sorting out and building all the dependencies comes in. Whether one is prepared to do this depends on the user.

This doesn't get away from the fact that Slackware does not track upstream kernel patches to the release kernel and if the users needs a fully patched stable kernel for whatever reason, they will have to build from source.

I've installed Slackware countless times and have never ended up with the generic kernel as default. Must have missed that option.

This is the procedure for switching: http://docs.slackware.com/slackware:...generic_kernel

On the subject of 'autoconfiguration' - in other major distros, the kernel installation, upgrade, initrd generation, etc is all handled automagically by the package's post install scripts. To pretend that Slackware is as automated as this is naive.

I have no argument against this but they are not required if someone just wants to run Slackware suggesting they are required is incorrect.

No I am simply rebutting some myths about Slackware, the fact you use terminology such as "Debian centric standards" indicates you have not taken in the actual posts but are rather inclined to disagree for the sake of it and furthermore are happy to spread myths about Slackware that have no basis in fact. Go on turn people of Slackware make it sound as though it is something that is to difficult for them to learn over time. Make it sounds as though they need to be seasoned admins in order to be able to use Slackware immediately after installing it. I'm sure spreading this myth and giving it breath by attempting to tell me I don't know what I'm posting about is really going to help Slackware.

Of course posts justify opinions, you do it all the time. Your words justify your opinions yet now you feel the need to come out with this red herring. This very comment justifies your own opinion of me. Here I am posting about Slackware, here you are attacking the poster for posting their opinion. This is the very same thing you have accused me of countless times.

I'm not sure why you think you are qualified to comment on what anyone else is qualified to comment on. Seriously you jump from distro to distro and then you bag me out for trying things out over time and expressing my thoughts.

Pot meet kettle cynwulf, pot meet kettle.

I just saw that... I read that as: "We are the borg! The resistance is futil!"

This is really, really scarry. People don't really get it. If they make that work it will be fairly easy for a company to seize the complete Linux userspace in a way Apple controls Mac OS X. The distros in that scenario would eventually dissapear because the differences wouldn't exist.

But that's how soem of us have seen the situation from the begining. Even before systemd, there were actual pointers something like that would happen.

Well, Lunduke's Linux Sucks talks are annual and are pro et contra. Not only pro. He has point on some of things but doesn't really see them as black or white, but in black & white.

You are not talking about standardization, you are talking about take over and the integration of Linux into an OS that caters to certain corporate interests. Don't be so blind.

That's not their goal. Don't be naive. They don't give a flook for Linux desktop. It's all about virtualization and the cloud.

Your vehemence is based on the idea that your use-case is typical. You continue to ignore the other half of the argument; if one is happy using KDE (assuming the default GUI was chosen during installation) on a monolingual system with American English. If not ... Even something as simple as changing which GUI the startx command loads requires using a terminal and a shell command. Want to change the locale? Edit a configuration file in /etc. Two examples of simple procedures that are more complex than point-and-click that the average Joe will need to learn.

For others who stumble upon this gargantuan thread, I am not criticising Slackware or trying to make it sound more difficult than it is. It is a wonderful system, but requires more user involvement than most distributions.

I think, that "dream" was just a bait to encourage hobbyist developers to spend their free time working towards corporate goals. This is why you see people pop up here and there discouraging developers who do not work towards these goals, including deliberately breaking their code. Or if you dare to choose a GPL-incompatible license...

The fun in Linux has been gone long time ago.

Actually his talks are more pro that anything..

A few years back he talked about having a standardized package for all of Linux the idea was that that would free up does to do useful things vs repackaging for all the flavors. That is something that can be sold to outside the Linux community the dev can make one package and put it out for sale that's standardization and I like that.

I want corporate interest in Linux outside the server room and the cloud. I want the Adobe's and the Autodesks making Linux packages I'm willing to pay for software like most of the Linux community is but until there are standards that won't happen. It's quite possible none of it would happen anyway but there has to somthing for RedHat and SuSE to sell.

Would you still pay for those software if you also have to pay for a RHEL license along the way ?

It's not like, your actual distro of choice would be compatible with those pieces of software ;)

In the past, Autodesk tried to take the Unix route and failed.

Lot of company had invested so much money into full-blown Unix infrastructure for exactly ZERO benefits.

The so called "industry-grade" software is meant to be ran on either Windows or OS X.

Just deal with it.

The idea sounds as appealing as one standardized universal gearbox for all the world's car brands and models. And as feasible. :)

Thirtyfive pages, and I've lost track. Hands up all those who will abandon Slackware if systemd is adopted? I can't see you, but "Bob" can. Beware!
Of course Slackware needs tweaking post-installation, as has been mentioned. But you don't need to be a 1337 sysadmin to do it. All that's needed is average intelligence, willingness to learn and think for yourself, and the ability to read and follow instructions.
So you can recognize your own faults in others? Good. You are on the path to enlightenment, grasshopper. :)

If they're standards then there it's not just Red Hat which is the point of standards. Things do change as this debate shows, whether the change is positive or not is subjective. Jobs to BSD thew a bunch of crap on top of it, put it on unique processors and sold it to consumers and developers, why can't Red Hat a SuSE do the same. Because Linux has always resided in the server room doesn't mean that is the only place it can reside. Adobe is already offering CC for Chromebooks the step to a normal Linux desktop is just not that big at this point for them but the infrastructure and standards neet to be there.

So why doesn't Arch use rpm, which is the LSB standard?
The answer to that question is the exact reason why that idea is a bad idea.
The answer to that question is also a very big reason for staying with Slackware even if the systemdapocalypse happens. (That should keep the mods happy ;))

As for Mr Lunduke, two words: Dunning Kruger. However, Mr Torvalds has been observed floating similar ideas recently (at the Portland Debconf) with special reference to Subsurface. He's as wrong as Mr Lunduke on this one. There is a problem, but it's not the problem he thinks it is. Upstreams, including Subsurface, think that it's somehow their job to get their software on the end user's box, and that driving out diversity is the way to do it. That's *horribly* wrong. If the distros want diversity (and they do) then it's the distros' own job to support that diversity (duh), and nine times out of ten any packaging work that an upstream does is wasted work, because they don't understand the distros as well as the distros' packagers. The job of upstream *should* be to avoid giving the distro packagers nasty surprises on every new release, so the distro packagers can do the job once and then put upversioning on autopilot. (Hey, we've discovered cmake! Woot, our source tarball is xz compressed this time! Yay, let's reorganise our source archives! Yippee, we love git so much that we're going to abandon tagged versions!)

To be fair to Mr Torvalds, I think everyone can agree that he wasn't at his best on that particular day...

If this is about his talk at DebConf14, I watched that talk and thought he was quite reasonable, but perhaps I missed something.

I watched this year's and it didn't sound like that. But I might be wrong.

It's called "QA_with_Linus_Torvalds" Unscheduled, I think Linus dropped in because he lives in the area, nice guy eh?
wotthehell wotthehell? All here: http://meetings-archive.debian.net/p...ebconf14/webm/
Wherein he asks, "Hasn't systemd already won?" and about world domination, Year Of the Desktop, etc., it's "ChromeOS". There is also "A glimpse in to a systemd future" video for those seeking knowledge.
Debian is the complete opposite of Slackware if you ask me. Huge and complex, and... did I say huge? :D I love Debian, and their video team.

It's not so much that it's "required", but the alternative idea is that a Slackware system out of the box is set up and suitable for the vast majority of Linux users and they will never need to install anything else - clearly not the case. Hence the point you're making is a pedantic one as ever.

In a Debian system for example, you can easily install proprietary software from the projects non-free repos. The software in question is packaged so that it integrates seemlessly with the system - the same cannot be said for Slackware. Debian also includes most of the common window managers and desktops - the same cannot be said for Slackware. Those wanting the inevitable extra packages will be heading over to SBo.
So as ever, anyone who disagrees with you, is simply wrong or "disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing"? I've spread no myths about Slackware. I have always challenged myths about Slackware in the correct manner. i.e. I have explained in simple straightforward terms why Slackware doesn't need dependency resolution instead of telling users they should resolve their own dependencies because it's fun and might make them feel leet...

Give it a rest. Laughable posts like this, chock full of straw man arguments, is precisely why I said that you post solely in order to try to justify your own opinions.

I've pointed out such some technical examples in this thread - and I'm happy for those examples to be rebutted, by anyone. I don't think Slackware is a beginners' distro or a distro for the "average user", based on over 2 years experience of Slackware and based on what I've presented in the thread thus far. That's not about trying to scare people off Slackware, it's about preparing them for what they will have to do, which they would not have to do in e.g. fedora or ubuntu.
I have given examples and constructed arguments to 'support' my opinions. That's what most users do.

Seeking every and any means to justify ones own opinions is something else entirely. All I see you doing is posting argumentative, pedantic crap which you seem to pluck out of your arse at every opportunity and advising people to reread your posts because they've apparently derived the incorrect meaning. To me that says it all.
You ran Slackware for 6 months, you did nothing but run the base install by your own admission. Yet you're here in the Slackware section arguing vociferously about what sort of users it's targeted at and professing knowledge on the subject. Take a look closer to home first before you start casting aspersions.

Actually use Slackware and post some fact based technical examples and then maybe someone might take notice.

Even I'm not sure what did I miss in that talk where I found him talking not the way he usually does.

Regards.

Third-party packages on my public server:


Third-party (and/or modified) packages on my workstation:

Please stop making silly assumptions.

First you install an operating system (or its already preinstalled), then you install third party packages that make the computer do the things it was bought for in the first place. It works this way regardless if the operating system is Windows, OSX, Slackware, Android or iOS.

So installing third party packages is a completely normal thing to do for every computer user.

"Noobs" don't care about your discouraging, because Noobs don't install and administer Debian Linux servers and they don't use Debian Linux on the desktop. You're assuming the Debian model of ten-thousands interdependent ancient ("stable") packages with dubious patches (libssl?) is suitable for any real world usage beside the some LAMP scenario. In reality you see people roll out all sorts of Debian forks and installing dozens of third party packages.

This is very much the du jour thing in the 'social justice' crowd - it's known as tone policing.

Essentially, people with a direct manner like Torvalds are the worst thing in the world.

There's nothing wrong with being direct, and direct people aren't the worst in the world. We just don't like to deal with the constant parading, bullshit, and foolishness of idiots who can't seem to learn their place and must always be the nail sticking up. Now as someone who is direct, yes, I agree direct people are not ideal leaders. We can be downright bloodthirsty tyrants who'd make Hitler look like an angel, but we also can be, when dealing with logical people and people with common sense (which sadly is uncommon) very fair, open minded, and productive.

I think you've misunderstood me. I don't have any problem with direct people at all.

And you said people with a direct manner are bad...

Yeah... Irony doesn't always work with tyrants ;).

Well you're direct when you write, but it seems that information doesn't get "directly" to your understanding... Any bias ? :)

As I understood, he was making an observation of the "main trends" (political correctness), which sounds more critical than approving (so that was implicitly defending some degree of directness...)

Being direct is not bad in itself, but you must aim very well, and you often miss the target.

Garry.

FTFY

Thank you for this. My only plans besides revisiting some familiar silliness would be blacklisting systemd-centric things along with the kernel packages. Though I really like things the way they are and hope systemd will be kept at bay, I seriously doubt 95% of the talk regarding abandoning Slackware and/or Linux altogether in favor of BSD's will have any follow-through. Then again, I'm a lot more worried about "apps", cell phones and buzzword computing ruining the whole "desktop" thing altogether than I am about Slackware not fighting the good fight to the point of its extinction.

That is exactly what Docker containers try to fix. If an application is deployed as Docker container the underlying distro doesn't matter anymore. For proprietary third party software a Docker container is IMHO the best deployment method. Since those applications usually don't integrate well with distros other than the target distro or even a different version of the target distro a package that comes with its own runtime environment is the logical conclusion. I wouldn't recommend that for open source software, for that the package format native to the distribution is preferable, but as I see it for proprietary software this is the best solution, it minimizes the effort for testing and packaging and maximizes compatibility.

You are wrong yet again. I have not said any use case is typical, what I have said is that Slackware does not require fiddling with if the user does not want to fiddle with it. It is a simple fact that the vehemence of many refuses to even acknowledge.

I would rather Slackware go down swinging as the last true hold out, and actually Patrick say such as (and I pray he never does, heaven forbid...):

"We can go no further, Slackware is done, and GNU/Linux is no more. If you wish to use a Linux distribution, you will have to use systemd, there is no choice, it has taken over everything and everything requires it now, otherwise, thank you for all the wonderful years."

than for Patrick to cave in. As unrealistic and bad as that sounds, I think it would speak volumes.

OK, install it, and post-installation: don't edit anything, don't fiddle or tweak or add anything, then come back in a month or two and tell us how things are going.

You know what? I reckon I'd easily cope because the fundamentals are all there.

@ cynwulf, I don't feel a need to respond to most of your post because you are doing the exact same things you accuse me of doing in other threads around LQ. You accuse people of strawman when their is no strawman but rather a conversation being held online. If you claimed strawman in a face to face conversation like you do in LQ I'd just laugh at you and ask you why you can't engage in a normal conversation without claiming people are trying to trick you. You engage in personal attacks that are, to put it bluntly, not only rude but distasteful. There is a thing called netiquite if I was to say you pulled something out of your ass you would possibly report me as would many others. I don't expect you to agree with me, nor do I even want you to agree with me. I post my opinions and experience just like you do. If my opinions upset you so much then that is your problem not mine.
When you tell lies like this you show that your posts aren't worth anything, you are trying to gain attention based on a lie. If I did this you would accuse me of making a strawman argument yet here you are doing what you accuse me of. Your post isn't a strawman, it is hypocrisy.

At no stage have I ever said what Slackware's target group is. I have not said it is a beginners distro. I have not complained in any way shape or form about Slackware as it is when PV makes the installation media for it. I have not argued people have to keep Slackware as it is installed but I have said I recommend they use it as is for a while. I have argued, and it seems I have upset you greatly by pointing this out, that after installation Slackware can be used without having to install more packages and without having to tweak it, yes people can go further if they have a desire to but they don't have to if they don't want to. Simple facts that even to this stage no one can disprove yet you think you need to posts lies in order to make it look like I am posting things I am not.

This is an online forum, people are allowed to voice opinions based on their knowledge and experience. I'm not arguing if you have more knowledge and experience than me. I really don't know if you do or don't, nor can I prove it anyway, nor do I care, you simply don't mean that much to me, but that does not give you any right to start posting lies. Your effort was wasted.

Yeah, me too, with no security patches, wrong locale, no user other than root. But I'd rather not.

I did install it, I did run it without fiddling or anything. It did its job and what I expected of it. If you don't believe me then so be it. The only question I had to ask in this forum was about installing it, after that it performed as I expected.

That's what, it seems to me, people don't understand.

I have nothing against people playing with their system, but I do know this idea that you have to in order to use Slackware is wrong.

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "tweaking", "fiddling", "playing with".
But what that has got to do with Slackware users abandoning Slackware in the event of systemd adoption escapes me. If this thread was about something that involved Linux in general, all distros, then all could participate. But explain this please: how can you abandon Slackware if you don't actually use it?

@ brianL, just because I don't use Slackware right now doesn't mean I wont again. Other people have said the same thing in this thread when it come up about what distros were listed in our profiles. I see no problem in Slackware that would stop me from installing the next release. Unlike Red Hat type distros which I tried many years ago and have no interest in ever trying again.