A-B C. <atakeoutcanton@adams-blaketakeout.com> says...

>All of us want Slack to be continued. That means that someone (i.e. we) have
>to pay for it. I believe that PV would never "sell out" by including "bad
>stuff" in Slack in order to compete. However, he (and we) need to consider
>something (not agree on it... just consider it.): Is Slack more marketable
>with a designated 'full-bore' pkg manager or not?

Less.

Slackware dominates a small segment of the market - a market where the
only thing that comes close to being competition is Linux From Scratch.

The rest of the market is much larger but also has many distributions
fighting over it.

A designated package manager tends to move Slackware out of its market.

Allowing Slackware users to download and choose any package manager
they choose while keeping compiling from source the preferred method
keeps Slackware in its market.

>I'm a typical example.

Actually, you are a typical non-slackware Linux user. You are very
much an atypical Slackware user. Most users who want what you want
choose a distribution that gives them what they want. You choose to
use a distribution that doesn't give you what you want and then to
ask that it become what it is not.

>I would not continue to use Slackware if there were not a swaret.

Yet you do use slackware, so the philosophy of letting each user
choose what package manager to use is working in your case.

>Lots of business types like me "want it all." We want the efficiency and
>compactness of Slack with ease of administration.

As many here have told you, Slackware isn't your best choice if you
want ease of administration, and you can get efficiency and compactness
out of other distributions by installing a subset.

>Swaret is GOOD for Slackware.

Swaret being available for those who wish to download and use it is good
for slackware. Swaret as a (in your words) "designated 'full-bore' pkg
manager" would be bad for Slackware.

>I know many of you think that Slack is a "public service" or a "charity" of
>some kind, but as I understand it, Slackware is a for-profit corporate
>entity... and it needs to make money to pay the people who make Slackware for
>us.

....and the way to do that is to stay true to the Slackware Philosophy
- a philosophy that you reject.

>So I hope that PV has enough "business sense" to see that a Slack with a
>dependency-checking PM makes it a better product, one that is more marketable
>and more competitive.

When you dominate a niche market, it does not make business sense to
abandon it and try to compete in another market.

>It costs PV nothing to include a swaret or a slapt-get utility as
>his "weapon of choice" and it makes the product a better one.

Better in the opinion of someone who rejects the Slackware Philosophy.
Abandoning that philosophy would be far from costless.

>Follow the money.

I suggest that *you* follow the money. Slackware keeps on for year
after year, making a good living for PV, while distributions that
follow your advice go belly up.

--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/