LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware > Slackware - Installation
User Name
Password
Slackware - Installation This forum is for the discussion of installation issues with Slackware.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 05-20-2008, 12:17 PM   #91
Darth Vader
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Location: Romania
Distribution: DARKSTAR Linux 2008.1
Posts: 2,727

Rep: Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244
Thumbs up A very good point!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Road_map View Post
There was no "a new Slackware user was born" note on my head. I and we all discover, learn and enjoy Slackware Linux. Why don't you give to the new Linux user the chance to discover the real Slackware, not that Slackware hidden under yours graphical tools? Why do you think that a new Slackware user don't want to learn?
Dear friend, you have a very good point!

There was three cases of Linux beginners, in my opinion:

Scenario: Linux experience equal zero. No more cfdisk or network/PPPoE configuration knowledge...

1. "want to learn"

The graphical tools can be assist the new user over the installation and daily use. For example, to install new applications, etc.

But, our new user "want to learn", and, quickly, learn the base and going to experiments, outside of the graphical managers & Co. And, "outside" is, of course, the old-known Slackware.

2. "want to work"

In this case, our new user is not interested about the operating system fine-tunning, his want to use the computer. For example, for browsing the internet or to write some documents.

This use, I think, no going outside of the graphical environment or the GUI configuration tools and that's it! Is not interested to known more. And this user is a Very Important Person, because this think most computer users.

3. "is a baby-geek"

Well, in this case the graphical tools is inutile and the text installer or configuration tools is selected first! The genuine Slackware is the best choice!

BTW I remember this: I seen the X11 graphical desktop and the Netscape over a 2 months of "kick-boxing" with the configuration of Slackware 1.1, in a 386 machine. A great pleasure to see the X cursor in my first Linux configured by hand!

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

As conclusion: the graphical tools can be assist the new user in the first use stage, commodity or if don't want more Linux learning. This graphical tools can be dramatically extend the user-base of my beloved Slackware.

But, not only the graphical interface is important. This is the top of the Iceberg. The assistance of smart managers and this underground work is important, too.

For example, in case of our Disk Manager, the management of 13 filesystems (all Linux used) is handled in background, of course. Compare with cfdisk/mkfs way. For me, the "true way" is second variant, this "cfdisk", but, a easy and performing partitioner is a good option too...

But, the truth have another face, too...

A graphical and smart, complex manager is a "programming" complex task, and error prone, too.

Why? Because is billions of possible combinations of user actions and system variants.

For example, in my opinion, ALICE is a teenager, as configuration suite, at this time.

But, after three distribution releases, ALICE, including the installers have 5 reported bugs and 1 reported unimplemented feature, a good performance, I think, if consider to contains more than 700.000 lines of code...

Last edited by Darth Vader; 05-20-2008 at 12:18 PM.
 
Old 05-20-2008, 12:26 PM   #92
arny
Bluewhite64
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: Baia Mare, Maramures, Romania
Distribution: Bluewhite
Posts: 87

Rep: Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Road_map View Post
@ arny, I got you 2 examples about how do you respect the work of another peoples. There are no excuses for these mistakes. I can understand a code error, but I can't understand this kind of mistakes. It's just not fair.
#1. At the Copyright UNINTENTIONALLY change was in only 1 bash script (I double checked), it was the "setup" in the install scripts. Why you don't ask yourself, why I'm not changed in any other scripts?

I have used "sed" to change "Slackware" name in "Bluewhite64", there is text in the install scripts which need to be changed, as Pat told me to not use the name - so I respect his work and wish); also, I'm using bluewhite64/ instead of slackware/ as a directory where the main packages are, here I used "sed" again to change. After all this I made a diff between Slackware's install scripts and BW64's. I found that some copyright notes has changed and manually fixed. But, it looks like I missed that one (I use pico to edit files and sometimes is hard to identify what you need to change). As I said, was not intentionally and I'm sorry for this.

At #2 issue, I'm not commenting yet, I have to check something before to be sure.
 
Old 05-20-2008, 12:32 PM   #93
MarcusMoeller
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Germany
Distribution: GNU/Linux
Posts: 33

Rep: Reputation: 15
Wink an (easy) option

Hi together.

I agree with my friend Adrian. In the past easys came with a i18n-capable version of the unique Slackware installer. But we decided to switch to a graphical environment instead. In our point of view this is a great improvement. I can't see any good reason for a text-base only installation system in year 2008. Maybe a text based installer could be used as fall-back (as rh does it).

Up on the graphical management tools, I personally see them as option, not as replacement. You can still configure all tasks manually, if you want to.

This has nothing to do with geek-or-non-geek. To change an ip address quickly via gui (or use network profiles) is even a nice option for a geek-like-me.

Edit: I also agree that Slackware is unique as it is and Pat does not easily accept code contributions from outside (at least if it's code that he is not able to read/write/modify on it's own). I would just do the same.

But re-read our philosophy page and try to understand our intends. I can just repeat: If you are already using Slackware: great, if you want to try out the 'hard trial': also great, if you want to install a well preconfigured Slackware desktop in about 15 minutes and then keep on slacking: try easys.

Best Regards
Marcus

Last edited by MarcusMoeller; 05-20-2008 at 01:05 PM.
 
Old 05-20-2008, 01:56 PM   #94
shadowsnipes
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,443

Rep: Reputation: 73
The title of this thread no longer makes sense.

It is an interesting discussion, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vader View Post
What is wrong with the slapt-get? Is created in the top of pkgtools and, at first time, offer a "network transparency for packages management". The dependencies is a additional feature and is very easy for a Slackware Jedi to handle this feature at the build time...
It's very easy for the Slackware newbie to install slapt-get onto Slackware. They can also install other package managers if they want to as well. It's not like they are a big download or anything. The problem is that most of these people will ignore the Slackware documentation (UPGRADE.TXT, CHANGES_AND_HINTS.TXT, etc) when using these tools, and they won't pay attention to what the tool is doing. Before they know it, they upgraded a package improperly or goofed up their libraries for a new package, and they end up with a broken system. Including these tools on Slackware is unnecessary and will only encourage people to use them without learning to use them properly. In addition, as Eric stated, the Slackware package format is not setup for dependency resolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vader View Post
What is wrong with a (alternative) graphical configuration suite in Slackware? Can tell me more details?
Well, if it is truly graphical it would require X, which would add major changes to the install procedure. But what is wrong with the ncurses based setup tools? If they are not easy enough to use then configuring and administering Slackware would probably be difficult as well. I find the current setup tools very nice and very quick. I don't think Pat would add an alternative graphical installer unless he had a lot of time to thoroughly test it himself. More than likely he'd probably rather spend his time working on other things.

What's wrong with users using a custom boot cd of yours so they can use your graphical installer to install packages from the official Slackware discs and configure the system?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vader View Post
What is the truth about this 30-40 distributions as pseudo-forks of Slackware?
I think you will find pseudo-forks for every major Linux distribution. That's Linux. The truth is that Slackware has been around longer than any other current distro, so it is no surprise it has lots of forks and pseudo-forks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vader View Post
Every team of Slackware pseudo-fork distribution is formatted from Slackware lovers, who want to offer a new functionality to Slackware.
Every user does this when they add or change a single package to their system. That's what is great about Slackware. It is easy to make it your own. The difference is that most of these users don't release it to the public as a new distro. Why add levels of complexity to Slackware which could inhibit making Slackware your own private distro?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vader View Post
As example: Now, the 64bits is a common architecture, but Slackware have several "unofficial" ports to AMD/EMT64. Why? Three mans create a three different ports! A very bad use of development forces!

Now, the most advanced 64bits port is Bluewhite64. If this port is adopted as official Slackware64, can be no more needing of another several ports to 64bits.
Why do any of those unofficial 64-bit ports need to be made official? If they were, that would imply that Pat has thoroughly tested them and given it his seal of approval. Again, I imagine his time would be spent elsewhere. If the 64-bit port devs of these distros are worried that their isn't "One to rule them all", then why don't y'all site down together and decide which one should remain. Nobody is stopping you from doing this and nobody is stopping users from using all of these distros.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vader View Post
As conclusion: In my opinion, this pseudo-forks is generated by the Slackware development philosophy (read "very rigid") and because the people love the Slackware and want to implement new features in our beloved distribution. But, the 30-40 pseudo-forks is a big wasting of development forces for generating another and another distributions.

I'm wrong? The Slackware development team can be have (easy) 150-200 members, at this time, if the Slackware development be more friendly about the adding functionalities...
I personally don't foresee the Slackware team ever being a large team because I believe that is by design. If you start adding tons of developers they aren't always going to agree, and eventually you might end up with something like Debian's development process. Keeping the team smaller has the advantage that decisions can be made quickly so that development moves forward continually and in a stable way.

The fact that there are "30-40 pseudo-forks" simply underscores the fact the Slackware is a great distro and that users like to make it their own. This does not mean that Slackware should become like, or combine features, with one of those pseudo-forks. If this were true then there would be only one pseudo-fork that everyone wants. Rather, everyone wants something different. Some people will add what they want to Slackware and some will pick something among the plethora of other distros that include Slackware forks and psuedo-forks.

In conclusion, I think the majority of Slackware users like the philosophy of Slackware. From what I've seen most users request stuff like an updated website, documentation, and maybe a package or two (see What Changes/features would you like to see in Future Slackware?). Most users say the philosophy of Slackware is good. Some use it as a base to make their own system. Some just use something else. Post in the thread above and see what reactions you get. Maybe you will prove us all wrong.

My belief is that if these Slackware-based distros were what "people really wanted" then Slackware would have died out by now. Instead a good fork like SUSE is strong on its own, and Slackware is still going strong, too.

I think Eric basically said:
If you think the Slackware philosphy is too rigid then fork your own project to "free" yourself.
Does that sound right, Eric?

I like this quote by brianL
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
There are 300+ distros out there, enough to suit every taste and need. But very few can claim to be unique, to have any individuality - Slackware, as it is now, is one of those few. Leave it alone.
 
Old 05-20-2008, 02:11 PM   #95
MarcusMoeller
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Germany
Distribution: GNU/Linux
Posts: 33

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
What's wrong with users using a custom boot cd of yours so they can use your graphical installer to install packages from the official Slackware discs and configure the system?
I thinks this could also be an option. But easys is a lot more. It offers a completly preconfigured KDE desktop reduced to a minimum of necessary packages. And it contains unmodified Slackware package. So what's wrong with that?

Best Wishes
Marcus
 
Old 05-20-2008, 03:27 PM   #96
Road_map
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2007
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 341

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by arny View Post
#1. At the Copyright UNINTENTIONALLY change was in only 1 bash script (I double checked), it was the "setup" in the install scripts. Why you don't ask yourself, why I'm not changed in any other scripts?
Your #1 is not mine, but I don't care. You don't must give this answer to me. But will be better if you'll have good answers.

To all three project managers: I am NOT anti-<your_project>. Maybe I simply don't understand your vision.

I'm still a new Linux user. I'm not a geek and I'll never be, but I really think that a graphical tool for critical tasks is not only useless, but dangerous too. I use Slackware on server, desktop and notebook. I work, learn and play with Slackware Linux. In which category am I? In real life, the new Linux users are a little more complex than 3 categories.

Or maybe I'm on the wrong way (like Alien Bob said), so I'm stoping right now.

Best regards and good luck to all!
 
Old 05-21-2008, 02:53 PM   #97
MarcusMoeller
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Germany
Distribution: GNU/Linux
Posts: 33

Rep: Reputation: 15
Dear Road_Map.

Quote:
Maybe I simply don't understand your vision.
We have clarified our vision on our philosophy page. Just take a look at it.

Quote:
I'm still a new Linux user. I'm not a geek and I'll never be, but I really think that a graphical tool for critical tasks is not only useless, but dangerous too. I use Slackware on server, desktop and notebook. I work, learn and play with Slackware Linux. In which category am I? In real life, the new Linux users are a little more complex than 3 categories.
I think this statement is of course very geek-ish. Why should it be dangerous to use a well written graphical configuration tool? I may agree on critical server tasks but not on daily desktop issues.

Our user base very often cries for simplified (graphical) tools for easy installation and administration. That's why we have started co-developing YaLI.

Best Regards
Marcus
 
Old 05-21-2008, 03:37 PM   #98
Alien Bob
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 8,133

Rep: Reputation: 6994Reputation: 6994Reputation: 6994Reputation: 6994Reputation: 6994Reputation: 6994Reputation: 6994Reputation: 6994Reputation: 6994Reputation: 6994Reputation: 6994
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusMoeller View Post
I think this statement is of course very geek-ish. Why should it be dangerous to use a well written graphical configuration tool? I may agree on critical server tasks but not on daily desktop issues.
Well I would not trust it because of this earlier comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vader View Post
But, after three distribution releases, ALICE, including the installers have 5 reported bugs and 1 reported unimplemented feature, a good performance, I think, if consider to contains more than 700.000 lines of code...
If this is an accurate number, then it is overkill as a replacement for any Slackware configuration tool replacement. If it is a gross exaggeration, then I'd definitely not want to run software by a bragging developer (the swaret disaster comes to mind).

Quote:
Our user base very often cries for simplified (graphical) tools for easy installation and administration. That's why we have started co-developing YaLI.
I am not against graphical installation/configuration tools. But if you want to actually use (and learn to use) Slackware, and still need these GUI tools, then Ubuntu or SuSE may be the better choice for you (no offense - the tool's screenshots look nice, but they also look just too much like another distro).

Eric
 
Old 05-21-2008, 04:32 PM   #99
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.2
Posts: 7,811
Blog Entries: 58

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Yes, there's plenty of choice among the 300+ distros for those who prefer a graphic install. I really don't see what is difficult about installing Slackware. I was a relative newbie to computers in general when I first tried dual-booting with Slackware 10.2 in 2005, given away by Linux Format. There was a brief how to in the magazine, no great detail, but I managed it. I've had Debian on a couple of times, and never choose the graphic install.
 
Old 05-21-2008, 07:24 PM   #100
corto
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: Essaouira
Distribution: Slackware 12.1, OpenSUSE 11.0-64
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: 0
I totally agree with the word parasite actually! I have been reading all the posts from the start and it makes no sense to take slackware and try to put shiny installer to it and whatever packages is not shipped with the original distro! at one point in time you have to FORK from the original. slackware users can do that themselves if they want to and Ubuntu exists for newbies. the more distro there is out there the more confused potential converter will be!
 
Old 05-21-2008, 07:46 PM   #101
AceofSpades19
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: Chilliwack,BC.Canada
Distribution: Slackware64 -current
Posts: 2,079

Rep: Reputation: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusMoeller View Post
Hi together.

I agree with my friend Adrian. In the past easys came with a i18n-capable version of the unique Slackware installer. But we decided to switch to a graphical environment instead. In our point of view this is a great improvement. I can't see any good reason for a text-base only installation system in year 2008. Maybe a text based installer could be used as fall-back (as rh does it).
I don't see whats so bad about a text-based installer, it does its job fast and is very stable, I don't see any reason why slackware would want or need a graphical installer. I love how I can have slackware all setup within half an hour of putting in the DVD, with a graphical installer, it would take a lot longer and might not work 100 %
 
Old 05-21-2008, 07:55 PM   #102
Darth Vader
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Location: Romania
Distribution: DARKSTAR Linux 2008.1
Posts: 2,727

Rep: Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien Bob View Post
If this is an accurate number, then it is overkill as a replacement for any Slackware configuration tool replacement. If it is a gross exaggeration, then I'd definitely not want to run software by a bragging developer (the swaret disaster comes to mind).
Yes, is a accurate number of reported problems about the ALICE, over the release of DARKSTAR Linux 2008.1, easys GNu/Linux 4.1 and the current Bluewhite64 LiveDVD in the several months as time-window.

Some details:

1 Critical security bug (DARKSTAR Linux 2008.1)
1 Minor engine bugs ((DARKSTAR Linux 2008.1)
2 Minor engine bugs (easys GNU/Linux 4.1)
1 Minor engine bugs (Bluewhite64 12.0 LiveDVD)
1 Unimplemented feature (reported in easys GNu/Linux 4.1 but available in al installer versions)

The reported problems is pending to be fixed, now...

BTW Slackware 12.1 and this tools is completely error-prone?

Thanks! Is my wonderfully day! Thanks you, dear Eric!

I have a CRITICAL BUG to report about Slackware 12.1:

I have a "Fujitsu-Siemens Primergy TX150 S2" server, and I can't install the latest Slackware 12.1 on this server, because the installer not recognize the storage devices. As storage device, I have installed 3x320GB as RAID5, with the usable size of 640GB. I decided to report this as CRITICAL BUG because in this server the Slackware 12.1 is UNUSABLE at all.

BTW I think: this is a typical entry level server, anyway. Is a bad taste for my beloved distribution...

Please, dear Eric, help me to install Slackware 12.1 in this server! I'm desperate man! Help me! I promise! I not want graphical tools in my server, only a fu***ng command line, without NCURSES text interface too!

BTW Because the DARKSTAR Linux 2008 is a "rebranding of Slackware 12.1 with some graphical tools and additional packages", of course, not work. That's is! I not comment... But, the upstream?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien Bob View Post
I am not against graphical installation/configuration tools. But if you want to actually use (and learn to use) Slackware, and still need these GUI tools, then Ubuntu or SuSE may be the better choice for you (no offense - the tool's screenshots look nice, but they also look just too much like another distro).

Eric
By the way, now I have own graphical tools, in the Slackware. Is too late to use another distro for this... And is, of course, the Slackware business, if threat the ALICE in the same way of past YaST...

Of course, our tools, even is created for a Slackware(-based) system, look much like as another distros: have a graphical interface, i.e. a window for the dialogs... I'm sorry!

PS. I known the source of the Slackware problems with my server, if you want, ask me about this! But, over I'm a programmer and I known very good the operating system, I can't fix the bug to make the Slackware 12.1 to work in this server. Is not possible to use the vanilla Slackware 12.1 in this server! Maybe, this is a FATAL BUG.

Last edited by Darth Vader; 05-21-2008 at 09:15 PM.
 
Old 05-21-2008, 08:01 PM   #103
Darth Vader
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Location: Romania
Distribution: DARKSTAR Linux 2008.1
Posts: 2,727

Rep: Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244
Quote:
Originally Posted by corto View Post
I totally agree with the word parasite actually! I have been reading all the posts from the start and it makes no sense to take slackware and try to put shiny installer to it and whatever packages is not shipped with the original distro! at one point in time you have to FORK from the original. slackware users can do that themselves if they want to and Ubuntu exists for newbies. the more distro there is out there the more confused potential converter will be!
Dear friend, please don't use the word "parasite". Because is published as GPL, any person can sell the Slackware Linux or publish a derivate version. Legally! That's is! This is GPL license rights!

If you don't like the GPL rights, why not use a great operating system as described in:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...a/default.aspx

BTW From Pat's copright notice:

"Note that you can still redistribute a distribution that doesn't meet these criteria, you just can't call it "Slackware". Personally, I hate restricting things in any way, but these restrictions are not designed to make life difficult for anyone."

The Romanians have a phrase: "You are more catholic than Pope!"

Best Regards
Adrian

Last edited by Darth Vader; 05-21-2008 at 09:11 PM.
 
Old 05-22-2008, 01:24 AM   #104
MarcusMoeller
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Germany
Distribution: GNU/Linux
Posts: 33

Rep: Reputation: 15
Okay. I am off on this thread now. I have said everything I wanted to say. All you guys complaining that Slackware does not need a graphical installer: just keep using it as it is. There are just some people out there that would never get in contact with Slackware as-it-is. And there are people that just whant a well preconfigured Slackware Desktop installed in a few minutes (Try it. Don't just look at Screenshots). Configuring a Slackware Desktop like easys does it would normally take 2-3 days.

We provide a way for these people to get in contact with Slackware (also people from non-English speaking countries). All this is done to enlarge the number of Slackware users (read the philosophy before you complain!).

If you think that's wrong: Keep on. But I just can't understand it. If you really love Slackware you would just thank us and say 'Keep that great work going'.

And for those strangers who call this parasite: Just go away. Nothing is wrong in what we are doing. We are not Ubuntu!

Best Regards
Marcus
 
Old 05-22-2008, 01:46 AM   #105
arny
Bluewhite64
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: Baia Mare, Maramures, Romania
Distribution: Bluewhite
Posts: 87

Rep: Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien Bob View Post
If this is an accurate number, then it is overkill as a replacement for any Slackware configuration tool replacement. If it is a gross exaggeration, then I'd definitely not want to run software by a bragging developer (the swaret disaster comes to mind).
Eric
Nobody said that the GUI installer and tools will replace any tools and installer found in Slackware. The GUI is just another way to install and configure your Slackware for those who want to try something new and for newbies is great. If you like to see how is working a GUI installer and the traditional CLI Slackware installer from the same CD, please drop me an email and I make for you a minimal ISO from the BW64EL to test this. You will see that the GUI installer is simple as the CLI is . Btw, some screens with the GUI installer can be found here(this is the first version, the actual one is v 0.9.14).
 
  


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
Where to Download an i386 DVD installer -.iso image- for Slackware -Current Jags_FL Slackware 7 02-21-2008 10:59 AM
IPV6 slackware download iso image manolo Slackware 6 07-12-2007 02:40 PM
iso image download help ABHISHEK_CHANDRA Linux - Newbie 1 12-28-2006 07:47 AM
Which ISO image shall I download satimis Linux - Distributions 9 08-29-2006 10:17 AM
which iso image 3.1_r to download harys Debian 4 03-15-2006 09:05 AM

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

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 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
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration