Howdy,

ANC wrote :
> Note, the package system is not bad, it is just a hell of a lot more
> complex than Debian's Synaptic/ pt-get or Gentoo's version of
> ports (taken from BSD.)

It's not complex at all..The package system is just raw, it won't check
for depencies.. You'll have to do a huge part of the job, some think
it's stupid since some software can do it for you, some will just tell
you « You're the boss on you box ! ». Choose your camp.

Michael Bueker wrote :
> Slackware is about Doing It Yourself, Being In Charge and Knowing
> What The Fuck You're Doing.

That's true on every Linux system and especially on Slackware. You have
to choose.

I think the key point is to prepare you to migrate. First off, start
using software you'll be able to find once using Linux, then start
reading as many doc as possible before starting the migration process.

Read the slackbook a first time, even if you don't understand it all,
it'll give you a good overview of how things works..

Definitly, Slackware is the perfect distro for a beginer, it'll let you
« do the job », and rather than knowing how to handle some GUIs,
you'll learn how to configure things by your hands..

Slackware is well-known for its learning curve. If further later, you
switch to another distro, your Linux experience as a Slacker will
allways help you.

For sure, you'll learn a lot while using Slackware, but do you want to
learn Linux or to use Linux ?

If you want to use it, try Mandriva, Suse or whatever but not Slackware.

And if you wish to try Slackware, i suggest you to wait 10.2 to be
out.. It's a matter of weeks now.

On 2005-08-20, nakkiel <myardbenoit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Slackware is well-known for its learning curve. If further later, you

It's nothing more than a myth. It's a perceived learning curve. If you can
read and use a text editor you've go 90% of slackware.

>
> For sure, you'll learn a lot while using Slackware, but do you want to
> learn Linux or to use Linux ?
>
> If you want to use it, try Mandriva, Suse or whatever but not Slackware.
>

Complete nonsense...what makes you say something so sweeping and
inaccurate!!???

ken

On 2005-08-20, kitt <kitt@home.net> wrote:
> Hi - been thinking about changing linux distro. I had a look a the
> slackware site, but it seems very 'bare bones' compared to suse, gentoo,
> fedora core etc. Is this OS just for pros? or can it be used by beginner
> home users like me?

Slackware took me from being a beginner home user to being
a pro. (Well, pro as in getting paid to do linux--there are
certainly many others out there who know more than I!) So,
I think the answer to your last question is "yes". But don't
take our word for it--download some ISOs and give it a try!

--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
see X- headers for PGP signature information

No_One's fingers wander over the keyboard and thus produced:

> On 2005-08-20, kitt <kitt@home.net> wrote:
>> Hi - been thinking about changing linux distro. I had a look a the

- - - - - - - < snip > - - - - - -

> Slackware only requires that you use some of those gray cells between
> your
> ears...it requires you to think and read. It's as simple as that.

*Amen*

>
> ken

--
HJohnson aka
humjohn AT aerosurf DOT net

James Woodard wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:42:59 +0200, Michael Bueker wrote:
>
> I finally gathered enough nerve to give Slackware 9.1 a try and instantly
> wanted to cause great bodily harm to all those who told me "it's not
> something a beginner should try".
>>
>> ~Mik
>
> Hmm. Mod-Quote perhaps?

Exactly why I stuck with Linux and OSS, Suse, Redhat, Mandrake were a total
pain in the ar$e. Slackware was simple, a more basic layout and easier to
understand package system. Easy to alter, easy to maintain, as a beginner
I would not have got anywhere had it not been for Slack!

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:52:16 -0400, William Park wrote:

> Also, in other distros, you are given choice of "server", "workstation",
> etc. installation types. No such concept exists in Slackware. Whether
> a machine is server or not, depends on whether or not it runs server
> program. That's all. Initial label during installation has nothing to
> do with it.
>

Not exactly. I believe it is more honest to say that Slackware is a great
dist., but it IS a server dist. Just look at the 'rc' defaults upon
installation.

Yes, it can be coaxed into a workstation if your hardware is similar
to a server's.

What about a notebook using wifi? Have you ever seen a wifi
get an ethX? How then is one to use netconfig? What about
cell phones?

I've got mine working, but no credit is due to Slackware. I'm not saying
other dists. are better at this either, because I don't know about them.

Thank goodness for Google!
--
John & Sue
'04 GMC Safari
'99 Starcraft Starflyer (Shuttlecraft)

In article <pan.2005.08.20.23.51.22.290188@cox.net>,
4partee <4partee@cox.net> wrote:

>Not exactly. I believe it is more honest to say that Slackware is a great
>dist., but it IS a server dist.

No, it's a "I'll give you the tools and let you decide what to do with
it" distribution.

> Just look at the 'rc' defaults upon
>installation.

(1) That depends what you install.
(2) When do the rc scripts run? How much server software should be
started then? How much user software should be started then?


>Yes, it can be coaxed into a workstation if your hardware is similar
>to a server's.

Or even if it isn't.


>What about a notebook using wifi? Have you ever seen a wifi
>get an ethX? How then is one to use netconfig?

I've had it working with no trouble on every laptop I've ever owned.
Of course, I had to do more than just clicking on pretty pictures to
make it work (the first (and second? It's been long enough ago that I
forget) time I even had to find, download, and install the tools myself
(the horror!) because they hadn't made it into the distribution yet),
but it didn't exactly present any insurmountable (or even difficult)
challenges, either.


> What about
>cell phones?
>
>I've got mine working, but no credit is due to Slackware. I'm not saying
>other dists. are better at this either, because I don't know about them.

I have no experience with other distributions to draw on to comment,
but I've never encountered *any* problem that Slackware didn't at least
give me access to the tools I needed to solve it.

If you really want the easy stuff made idiot-proof, perhaps Slackware
isn't for you. On the other hand, if you want the hard stuff to be
possible, Slackware is right up there on the list of what will play
nicely.


dave

--
Dave Vandervies dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
This is similar to running in front of a bus and actually getting to the
other side of the street.
--Joona I Palaste in comp.lang.c

4partee <4partee@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:52:16 -0400, William Park wrote:
>
> > Also, in other distros, you are given choice of "server",
> > "workstation", etc. installation types. No such concept exists in
> > Slackware. Whether a machine is server or not, depends on whether
> > or not it runs server program. That's all. Initial label during
> > installation has nothing to do with it.
> >
>
> Not exactly. I believe it is more honest to say that Slackware is a
> great dist., but it IS a server dist. Just look at the 'rc' defaults
> upon installation.
>
> Yes, it can be coaxed into a workstation if your hardware is similar
> to a server's.

You have to lose this concept of "server" and "workstation" at the
distro level. It's purely marketing ploy of commercial OSs.

My point was, just install everything, and you'll never encounter
dependency problem.

--
William Park <opengeometry@yahoo.ca>, Toronto, Canada
ThinFlash: Linux thin-client on USB key (flash) drive
http://home.eol.ca/~parkw/thinflash.html
BashDiff: Super Bash shell
http://freshmeat.net/projects/bashdiff/

On 2005-08-20, 4partee <4partee@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Yes, it can be coaxed into a workstation if your hardware is similar
> to a server's.

Hell, it can even be coaxed into a server if your hardware is similar to
a low-end workstation. One of my boxes is a crappy eMachines box which
runs Slackware 10 just fine. It detected all the hardware I care about.
(For some reason I can't burn CDs, but I really didn't try very hard at
all.)

> What about a notebook using wifi? Have you ever seen a wifi
> get an ethX?

Yep. Just load the right kernel modules and use the right iwconfig
commands.

> What about cell phones?

What about them?

> Thank goodness for Google!

This makes sense, at least.

--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
see X- headers for PGP signature information