> distros. Because that's how you can sell more: by being compatible and

Thats not what slack is about. Although I can't speak for him, I'm sure
"what is going to sell more" is on the bottom of his priority list.

> also have that "little tick" that makes you different than the next

Not trying to be different, for the sake of difference, at the cost of
stability or dependability, is that "little tick" that makes slackware
different for the rest.


--
-alex49201

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2003-12-06, Eugenia Loli-Queru <> wrote:
> Because that's how you can
> sell more: by being compatible and also have that "little tick" that makes
> you different than the next distro.

Doesn't that little tick make your distro less compatible?

I think Slackware's little tick is that it doesn't have any little ticks
to try to lock you in to Slackware.

- --keith

- --
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/0oCuhVcNCxZ5ID8RAowcAJ0WYTaHsAktZxGbc20mwoi91L68Cw CdEJbm
V8oGOCDb7YATtW7+5yYyTMk=
=Vs3/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
> The last paragraph is talking about a possible general future direction.
> About innovation, engineering and not just a repackaging distro. The
> "differentiation" part means the ability to offer something not only better,
> but also different taste-wise than other distros. Because that's how you can
> sell more: by being compatible and also have that "little tick" that makes
> you different than the next distro.

but it's not slackware's main goal to sell as much as possible. slackware's
business model isn't based on growth in quantity, but on quality.

slackware already has something that makes it different from the other
major distros: its KISS philosophy. and that's why we like it.

--
Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com
Slackware doesn't have any quirks. Other distros have quirks. Slackware's
just pure Linux.

Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote :
>
> The last paragraph is talking about a possible general future direction.
> About innovation, engineering and not just a repackaging distro.

Slackware has actually survived for more than 10 years this way. I think
there always will be a group of Linux users who appreciates Slackware as
a repackaging distro and nothing more.

> The "differentiation" part means the ability to offer something not
> only better, but also different taste-wise than other distros.

OK. I thought that it was some kind of tool for cleaning up messy
desktops.^^

Knowing what it is I must say I really don't like the whole idea behind
differentiation. Just take a look at what has happen to KDE. Today KDE
in one distro differ so much from another that a Mandrake user hardly
can help a Red-Hat user.

> Because that's how you can sell more: by being compatible and also
> have that "little tick" that makes you different than the next distro.
>
The "little tick" in Slackware is that everything runs fast and stable.
--
Thomas O.

This area is designed to become quite warm during normal operation.

Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:

> > The last paragraph is talking about a possible general future
> > direction. About innovation, engineering and not just a
> > repackaging distro. The "differentiation" part means the
> > ability to offer something not only better, but also different
> > taste-wise than other distros. Because that's how you can sell
> > more: by being compatible and also have that "little tick" that
> > makes you different than the next distro.

> but it's not slackware's main goal to sell as much as possible.
> slackware's business model isn't based on growth in quantity, but
> on quality.

Slackware's "business model" is to sell enough of each distribution
to make a new one worthwhile. There is no more "quality" in
slackware than anywhere else

> slackware already has something that makes it different from the
> other major distros: its KISS philosophy. and that's why we like
> it.

There is no "we" and if there ever is a "we" in the future you
certainly won't be a part of it. For every person that uses
slackware you will find a different reason for using it.

cordially, as always,

rm

Thomas Overgaard <thover@post2.tele.dk> wrote:

> Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote :

> > Because that's how you can sell more: by being compatible and also
> > have that "little tick" that makes you different than the next distro.

> The "little tick" in Slackware is that everything runs fast and stable.

Slackware does not run any faster or with more stability than any
other linux distro. Slackware is nothing more than a stock kernel
packaged with standard applications. And while slackware is as
stable as the other distros it is less popular because it is a lot
harder to install.

cordially, as always,

rm

Ron Matthews wrote:
> Thomas Overgaard <thover@post2.tele.dk> wrote:
>
>>One of the things i appreciate the most about XFree86 is the
>>ability to have several desktops and running one or a few
>>applications in each. I really feels this gives me a very "clean"
>>and less confusing desktop.
>
> Can you give us an example of where you would use several desktops?
> Could you please tell us what applications you feel you need to
> spread amongst several desktops?

I used Slackware on my machine at work, where I have 12 desktops
going in the Desktop Switcher up in my Gnome panel. The top right
one is labelled "mail"; it has Mozilla Mail open. The top left
one is labelled "dev"; it contains the emacs windows with the source
code I'm currently working on (I'm a programmer). It also has
terminal windows open on the machines I need to compile on (the code
runs on several different OSes).

The bottom left has a couple of terminal windows open on the
database server, so I can run SQLPlus commands to see if the code
I'm working on is doing the right thing. There are 4 or 5 other
desktops open on the other servers that my code hits, for the same
purpose. It's a telephony app; sometimes a phone call sends messages
to 5 different servers where I might need to watch logfiles or
run debuggers.

3 of the desktops are "scratch" in case I need to do something else.

> You don't need both desktops and windowmanagers.

In theory, I guess could do this by minimizing windows with a
window manager, but, given the number of windows I've got, I think I'd
be lost all the time.


Duke

Duke Robillard <duke@nospamio.com> wrote:
> Ron Matthews wrote:

> > Can you give us an example of where you would use several desktops?
> > Could you please tell us what applications you feel you need to
> > spread amongst several desktops?

> I used Slackware on my machine at work, where I have 12 desktops
> going in the Desktop Switcher up in my Gnome panel. The top right
> one is labelled "mail"; it has Mozilla Mail open. The top left
> one is labelled "dev"; it contains the emacs windows with the source
> code I'm currently working on (I'm a programmer).

You use mozilla mail? You use emacs from xterm? And you are
saying that this is an excuse to keep extra desktops open?

> It also has terminal windows open on the machines I need to
> compile on (the code runs on several different OSes).

That's four.

> The bottom left has a couple of terminal windows open on the
> database server, so I can run SQLPlus commands to see if the code
> I'm working on is doing the right thing. There are 4 or 5 other
> desktops open on the other servers that my code hits, for the
> same purpose. It's a telephony app; sometimes a phone call sends
> messages to 5 different servers where I might need to watch
> logfiles or run debuggers.

> 3 of the desktops are "scratch" in case I need to do something else.

Why don't you have a mozilla browser in one? And staroffice in 2
or 3 more desktops just in case you need a spreadsheet or you need
to type a memo?

> > You don't need both desktops and windowmanagers.

> In theory, I guess could do this by minimizing windows with a
> window manager,

You wouldn't have to minimize any windows. You should really take
a look at how windowmanagers work.

> but, given the number of windows I've got, I think I'd be lost
> all the time.

In theory? You are not only running 12 desktops, you are running
12 windowmanagers. You would be a lot better off doing your coding
from the console. But if you have the horsepower and the anal
personality (and it seems you have both) then go for it...

cordially, as always,

rm

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:27:33 +0000, Simon wrote:

> On 5 Dec 2003 14:37:32 GMT, Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "integrated server/system tools"? "differentiation on the desktop side"?
>> FAM" wtf is that all about?
>
> Apart from FAM, that Google knows about[0], the other sentences don't
> make any sense to me. It looks like something a sales manager would
> come up with (i.e it looks impressive to other managers, but doesn't
> mean anything).
>
>
> [0] http://oss.sgi.com/projects/fam/faq.html#what_is_fam

thanks for the link - i did google it but found so many different things,
i got lost. FAM actually sounds like something for gnome/kde which should
be built in. think the reviewer kind of missed the whole slackware and
linux attitude by just showing how pretty her desktop is and asking for it
to look prettier. looks like she was reviewing gnome or kde ( can't
remember which she was using ) and blaming it on slackware. though she did
talk about package management. i would be more interested in a review from
her husband.

BigMac

What have you been smoking, or where have you been lately? Apparently
you've missed out on installing the latest 9.1 release. It consists of
2 CD's and is among the easiest installs, imo. Perhaps if you're a
complete and total moron, or are illiterate, I could understand this
being a problem for you. The only difficult thing I've found with the
installation is manually fdisk'ing and, sometimes, having to run
"xf86config" because it didn't pick up on the right video settings. I
still don't call that a hard install, especially considering the problem
is rectified with a google search, if the user is so willing. Compared
to GenTOO, I'd say Slackware is a complete and total breeze to
install... Just my two cents, of course...



~JK





Ron Matthews wrote:
> Thomas Overgaard <thover@post2.tele.dk> wrote:
>
>
>>Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote :
>
>
>>>Because that's how you can sell more: by being compatible and also
>>>have that "little tick" that makes you different than the next distro.
>
>
>>The "little tick" in Slackware is that everything runs fast and stable.
>
>
> Slackware does not run any faster or with more stability than any
> other linux distro. Slackware is nothing more than a stock kernel
> packaged with standard applications. And while slackware is as
> stable as the other distros it is less popular because it is a lot
> harder to install.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm