Is slackware just for the pros?
This is a discussion on Is slackware just for the pros? within the Slackware Linux Support forums, part of the Unix Operating Systems category; --> On alt.os.linux.slackware, in <JTHNe.9663$Il.5362@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, "kitt" wrote: <body not downloaded> > Subject: Re: Is slackware just for the pros? No. ...
| |||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
02-20-2008, 10:26 AM
| ||||
| ||||
 Re: Is slackware just for the pros? On alt.os.linux.slackware, in <JTHNe.9663$Il.5362@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, "kitt" wrote: <body not downloaded> > Subject: Re: Is slackware just for the pros? No. It's just another Linux distro. The differences between the distros are superficial. Slackware uses BSD initiation scripts, instead of SYS5, but this is not a big deal. Different package managers are found on different distros, but those, as well as init, are just programs. You could run Slackware's package manager on Debian, if you wanted. They all run 99% of the same programs, if you want, right out of the box, and the same shell scripts will run on all of them. They all have about 90% of the same utilities and applications on them. With a little experience you can create your own distro. AC -- http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/ http://angel.1jh.com./nanae/kooks/alanconnor.html      |
|
02-20-2008, 10:26 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Is slackware just for the pros? On 2005-08-20, ANC <xxx_nospam@takeout_adams-blake.com_nospam> wrote: > kitt wrote: > >> Is this OS just for pros? > > Yeah, pretty much. > > >> or can it be used by beginner >> home users like me? > > It CAN be if you are willing to spend a lot of time reading the manuals, > asking questions, and learning how to do the configuration (i.e. > sound/video, apache, mysql, etc.... if you need them) And then you will > have to learn how to use Slack's arcane and antiquated package manager when > you want to add new software or update what you have. (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.) > [snip] Slackware was what I started in Linux with, about 8 years ago. I installed it quite easily but could never manage to get any new programmes to work and was on the point of abandoning Linux when I tried Redhat. The rpm packaging changed my life and I stuck with Redhat for a year and a half, but eventually got fed up with dependency problems and moved to Debian, where I still am. I have a lot of respect for Slackware and last year installed it in a spare area of my disk to try it out again. Now that I know more about Linux I could work with Slackware usefully (and no doubt it is easier to manage now than it was 8 years ago). For me, Slackware, Gentoo and Debian are the joint field leaders. I should think Gentoo would defeat any beginner but either of the other two are possible candidates; however, I still find that Debian gives me the best of both worlds: easy reliable installation of new stuff without having to work at it hard but the opportunity to compile and tweak if you really want to. Anthony -- Using Linux GNU/Debian - Windows-free zone http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews, Assassins, homeopathy, and skeptical articles). Email: replace "www." with "ac@" |
|
02-20-2008, 10:26 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Is slackware just for the pros? Ok, back to the original issue - whether Slackware is "just for pros". I'm a Linux beginner and I proudly use Slackware. I paid for the 10.1 discs (narrowband....yeeeeaaaah), it's very EASY TO USE, and the on-disc packages are just a few reasons this newbie stays with Slackware. (I admit to reading a few Linux books to learn atleast how to make use of many utilities, etc. - does that still qualify me as a newbie?) Stick with Slack - you'll be glad you did. |
|
02-20-2008, 10:26 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Is slackware just for the pros? Alan Connor wrote: > Slackware uses BSD initiation scripts, instead of SYS5, but > this is not a big deal. Different package managers are found on > different distros, but those, as well as init, are just programs. Been playing with NetBSD recently, and the initiation scripts are not quite like slackware's. I've not had much to do with other distributions, but correct me if I'm wrong, they put the scripts for each run level in a directory for that runlevel. Slackware has everything in rc.d, and runs them by going through a few control scripts that run the services and set things up if the the file to do it is executable. NetBSD (don't know bout Free/Open) has an rc.d full of scripts like slackwares, but they are controlled from an rc.conf. To make something run, a line such as service=YES would do it. There's an /etc/defaults/rc.conf as well, which sets a lot of these up, (Never alter) and you can just turn em off in /etc/rc.conf if you don't want them. The scripts in rc.d have a few lines at the top such as: # PROVIDE: apache # REQUIRE: DAEMON # KEYWORD: shutdown # # You will need to set some variables in /etc/rc.conf to start Apache: # # apache=YES # apache_start="start" # set to "startssl" to allow HTTPS connections; # # this variable is optional Similar in that theres a big directory full of scripts, but the control over running them is completly different. Slackware has Slackware initiation scripts :-) Its All Unix(tm). |
|
02-20-2008, 10:26 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Is slackware just for the pros? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 _.-In alt.os.linux.slackware, James Woodard wrote the following -._ >> A quick note on Debian: Debian is for people who think they're good >> enough to be a Slacker, but still need to have someone (apt-get) to hold >> their hands and can't deal with vanilla versions. 'Nuff said  > Hmm. Mod-Quote perhaps? I already put that one in for the next batch. But thanks for pointing it out incase it had been missed. Next time please submit it via im or email so I don't accidently pass it by. And now for something you didn't know: > 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". Someone BOZO sent me a message yesterday saying that that should be a modquote. So it looks like you found one quote and made another. Congrats. - -- .-')) fauxascii.com ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that ' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to ((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word. ((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDCJ3/SJec2PH9pbURAiEsAJ4teccAgB1w0Bqh4LaO7T2WWntbUgCcCP yf iOIoVPrcJpc6byT5GPlakCw= =5ml9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
02-20-2008, 10:26 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Is slackware just for the pros? 4partee wrote: > 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? > Slackware 10.1 on a Dell Latitude C610 laptop. I "wifi" all over town. The internal pcm-cia 802.11b card is eth0. A simple bash script using iwconfig and dhcpcd gives me the ability to quickly get connected to my usual APs with/without encryption. -- Stephen S. ------------- |
|
02-20-2008, 10:26 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Is slackware just for the pros? On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:12:14 -0400, William Park wrote: > You have to lose this concept of "server" and "workstation" at the > distro level. It's purely marketing ploy of commercial OSs. Yes, of course. But, OTOH, a headless machine in a lights-out room might usually be called a server, and a notebook machine might usually be called a workstation. In my case, the notebook usage reflects both. My main use is to wirelessly import information from internet sources into MYSQL and then process the info using PHP. Once processed, APACHE+PHP is used to present the results. However, since I physically hold the notebook I view it as a workstation. > > My point was, just install everything, and you'll never encounter > dependency problem. Yes. And the defaults will tend to be oriented towards a server(as defined above). I too am a Slackware enthusiast. My point was that it was not very easy to setup my wireless(wifi and cell-phone) notebook as a workstation. YMMV. No offense intended, given or taken. |
|
02-20-2008, 10:26 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Is slackware just for the pros? David Jenkinson <cow@dow.uklinux.net> Wrote: >> Alan Connor wrote: > >> Slackware uses BSD initiation scripts, instead of SYS5, but >> this is not a big deal. Different package managers are found >> on different distros, but those, as well as init, are just >> programs. > > Been playing with NetBSD recently, and the initiation scripts > are not quite like slackware's. I've not had much to do > with other distributions, but correct me if I'm wrong, they > put the scripts for each run level in a directory for that > runlevel. Slackware has everything in rc.d, and runs them by > going through a few control scripts that run the services and > set things up if the the file to do it is executable. > > NetBSD (don't know bout Free/Open) has an rc.d full of scripts > like slackwares, but they are controlled from an rc.conf. To > make something run, a line such as > > service=YES > > would do it. There's an /etc/defaults/rc.conf as well, which > sets a lot of these up, (Never alter) and you can just turn em > off in /etc/rc.conf if you don't want them. The scripts in rc.d > have a few lines at the top such as: > > # PROVIDE: apache REQUIRE: DAEMON KEYWORD: shutdown > # > # You will need to set some variables in /etc/rc.conf to start > # Apache: > # > # apache=YES apache_start="start" # set to "startssl" to allow > # HTTPS connections; # this variable is optional > > Similar in that theres a big directory full of scripts, but the > control over running them is completly different. Slackware has > Slackware initiation scripts :-) > > Its All Unix(tm). If I was addressing an experienced user like you, instead of a newbie, I would have said: Slackware has a BSD *style* init, rather than than a SYS5 *style* init, which most of the other distros have. But I wasn't. And there's no point in going into this kind of detail with a newbie, nor is it even appropriate to the discussion. Tell me. When you see a sign that says: SLOW Cattle Crossing do you like around for slow cattle? :-) AC |
|
02-20-2008, 10:26 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Is slackware just for the pros? In alt.os.linux.slackware, Alan Connor dared to utter, > Tell me. When you see a sign that says: > > > SLOW > > Cattle Crossing > > > do you like around for slow cattle? Typically in my case, yes. I also look for my house and any kinfolk that might be around. -- It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, Than for a man to hear the song of fools. Ecclesiastes 7:5 |
|
02-20-2008, 10:27 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: Is slackware just for the pros? On alt.os.linux.slackware, in <voWdndjbjflC2pTeRVn-tQ@trueband.net>, "+Alan Hicks+" wrote: > > > In alt.os.linux.slackware, Alan Connor dared to utter, >> Tell me. When you see a sign that says: >> >> >> SLOW >> >> Cattle Crossing >> >> >> do you like around for slow cattle? > > Typically in my case, yes. I also look for my house and any > kinfolk that might be around. Can you tell them apart? :-) > > -- > It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, Than for a man > to hear the song of fools. Ecclesiastes 7:5 -- It is better to read the Seth Material (the book and the library) by Jane Roberts than it is to waste your time with the Bible. People have been reading that for 1800 years and look where its gotten them and the world. |
Linear Mode
