Hi,

I'm aware that my use of Slackware is not the same as it is for most users
in this newsgroup. Although I do have one "headless" machine (e. g. an old
PC without screen, mouse or even keyboard) acting mainly as file and
printer server as well as connection handler (three machines sharing one
dialup connectionD), my main use of Slackware is as desktop, which means
a replacement for Windows XP or Mac OS X.

I did try out many other distros that look more desktop-friendly, if one can
say that. In the last two or three years, I tried out Mandrake, Aurox,
Suse, Ubuntu and lately Debian Sarge. They were all more or less a
disaster, in the sense that either they wouldn't install (the latest
Mandriva 2006 just froze on two of my machines, overwrote my MBR without
asking first, and I had to hard reboot and repair a general mess)... or the
result was less spectacular, but still dissatisfying. Debian and Ubuntu
fall into that category. They installed well, and I was seduced at first...
but then, MPlayer had a jerky playback, DVD::RIP refused to rip (and even
to DVDD), and this leaves you, as we say in my native Austria, dumb as
the oxen before the new barn door: what now?

What I have now - on the machine I am writing these lines on - is a "full"
10.2 install (I always feel a bit frustrated during install, when I choose
"full" install in the ncurses interface... "full" implying I'm not an
"expert"...), and then I spend some hours compiling and installing all the
rest I need to make my machine fully desktop-functional: libdvdcss,
libdvdread, libgphoto2, gphoto2, mplayer, kaffeine, k3b, k3b-i18n, and the
list is long....

Why I do this by hand? Well, I did try some of the packages from
linuxpackages.net, as well as those from slacky.it... but more often than
not, the package was buggy or not working at all. I'm not like one of those
Gentoo users, feeling like a pro only because I'm watching compile messages
fly by on the screen for hours and hours... and I'd rather use my time for
something else. Only, I like things to _work_, and this sometimes means
rolling up your sleeves and doing things by yourself.

Lately, I've been doing more Slack installs than before, for friends as well
as for clients. Clients using Windows coming to my home for some repair
work and seeing this other OS running suddenly want to take the plunge and
switch.

Now I'm seriously thinking about putting together an add-on CD with a series
of scripts to automate all this. And before doing this, a few more general
considerations.

Compiling vs. packages... AFAIK, Slackware packages are "i486"... does that
mean that they would run on a 486 (in theory)? On a desktop computer, I
rarely do installs on less than a Pentium III 500 with 128 MB of RAM (I do
have an old Pentium II 266 running with a very light XFCE, Sylpheed and
everything, but that's just for experimental purposesD). Anyway... how do
I go about to optimize packages for recent computers, while at the same
time being sure that they will run on _every_ recent computer? (Is there
some good "Compile Basics" doc around?)

Another possibility would be to write a script or a series of scripts that
build all the packages, but simplified and based on the nifty checkinstall
utility (checkinstall --default --pkgname=$PROGRAM --pkgversion=$VERSION
and so on, you get the idea).

One thing that would be interesting: to know how many people here actually
use Slackware as their main desktop environment? (Stand up and be
counted...)

Cheers,

Niki Kovacs

Niki Kovacs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm aware that my use of Slackware is not the same as it is for most users
> in this newsgroup. Although I do have one "headless" machine (e. g. an old
> PC without screen, mouse or even keyboard) acting mainly as file and
> printer server as well as connection handler (three machines sharing one
> dialup connectionD), my main use of Slackware is as desktop, which means
> a replacement for Windows XP or Mac OS X.

<snip>

>
> One thing that would be interesting: to know how many people here actually
> use Slackware as their main desktop environment? (Stand up and be
> counted...)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Niki Kovacs

I have 4 computers all running Slackware and I keep trying any distro I can
find. So far; all come up short against Slackware.
If you take on a project like this, I will be interested in trying it out.

--
Leo in Canada:
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
< running Slackware 10.1 Linux >

Niki Kovacs wrote:

<snip>

>
> One thing that would be interesting: to know how many people here actually
> use Slackware as their main desktop environment? (Stand up and be
> counted...)
>

Slackware has been my main desktop for a little more than a year. I've used
Slack for probably 90% (or more) of the time for about 3 years. I also have
another desktop that is Slack, that has only ever seen Slack.

--
Best Regards,

Mike Reynolds

Niki Kovacs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm aware that my use of Slackware is not the same as it is for most users
> in this newsgroup. Although I do have one "headless" machine (e. g. an old
> PC without screen, mouse or even keyboard) acting mainly as file and
> printer server as well as connection handler (three machines sharing one
> dialup connectionD), my main use of Slackware is as desktop, which means
> a replacement for Windows XP or Mac OS X.
>
> I did try out many other distros that look more desktop-friendly, if one can
> say that. In the last two or three years, I tried out Mandrake, Aurox,
> Suse, Ubuntu and lately Debian Sarge. They were all more or less a
> disaster, in the sense that either they wouldn't install (the latest
> Mandriva 2006 just froze on two of my machines, overwrote my MBR without
> asking first, and I had to hard reboot and repair a general mess)... or the
> result was less spectacular, but still dissatisfying. Debian and Ubuntu
> fall into that category. They installed well, and I was seduced at first...
> but then, MPlayer had a jerky playback, DVD::RIP refused to rip (and even
> to DVDD), and this leaves you, as we say in my native Austria, dumb as
> the oxen before the new barn door: what now?
>
> What I have now - on the machine I am writing these lines on - is a "full"
> 10.2 install (I always feel a bit frustrated during install, when I choose
> "full" install in the ncurses interface... "full" implying I'm not an
> "expert"...), and then I spend some hours compiling and installing all the
> rest I need to make my machine fully desktop-functional: libdvdcss,
> libdvdread, libgphoto2, gphoto2, mplayer, kaffeine, k3b, k3b-i18n, and the
> list is long....
>
> Why I do this by hand? Well, I did try some of the packages from
> linuxpackages.net, as well as those from slacky.it... but more often than
> not, the package was buggy or not working at all. I'm not like one of those
> Gentoo users, feeling like a pro only because I'm watching compile messages
> fly by on the screen for hours and hours... and I'd rather use my time for
> something else. Only, I like things to _work_, and this sometimes means
> rolling up your sleeves and doing things by yourself.
>
> Lately, I've been doing more Slack installs than before, for friends as well
> as for clients. Clients using Windows coming to my home for some repair
> work and seeing this other OS running suddenly want to take the plunge and
> switch.
>
> Now I'm seriously thinking about putting together an add-on CD with a series
> of scripts to automate all this. And before doing this, a few more general
> considerations.
>
> Compiling vs. packages... AFAIK, Slackware packages are "i486"... does that
> mean that they would run on a 486 (in theory)? On a desktop computer, I
> rarely do installs on less than a Pentium III 500 with 128 MB of RAM (I do
> have an old Pentium II 266 running with a very light XFCE, Sylpheed and
> everything, but that's just for experimental purposesD). Anyway... how do
> I go about to optimize packages for recent computers, while at the same
> time being sure that they will run on _every_ recent computer? (Is there
> some good "Compile Basics" doc around?)
>
> Another possibility would be to write a script or a series of scripts that
> build all the packages, but simplified and based on the nifty checkinstall
> utility (checkinstall --default --pkgname=$PROGRAM --pkgversion=$VERSION
> and so on, you get the idea).
>
> One thing that would be interesting: to know how many people here actually
> use Slackware as their main desktop environment? (Stand up and be
> counted...)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Niki Kovacs
Since 1996 Slackware is the only distro used in my house and on my
laptop. It's clearly the distro I use for all of my desktops, too. I
installed it to many friends and even my sister and my father are
running slackware on their computer (a small war with my sister at the
beginning... but the windows/slackware switch was painless and my
sister's been happy ever since).

Your project seems interesting and I'll be happy to help. Many times I
recompiled tons of srcs just to optimize my installation.

Niki Kovacs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm aware that my use of Slackware is not the same as it is for most users
> in this newsgroup. Although I do have one "headless" machine (e. g. an old
> PC without screen, mouse or even keyboard) acting mainly as file and
> printer server as well as connection handler (three machines sharing one
> dialup connectionD), my main use of Slackware is as desktop, which means
> a replacement for Windows XP or Mac OS X.
>
> I did try out many other distros that look more desktop-friendly, if one can
> say that. In the last two or three years, I tried out Mandrake, Aurox,
> Suse, Ubuntu and lately Debian Sarge. They were all more or less a
> disaster, in the sense that either they wouldn't install (the latest
> Mandriva 2006 just froze on two of my machines, overwrote my MBR without
> asking first, and I had to hard reboot and repair a general mess)... or the
> result was less spectacular, but still dissatisfying. Debian and Ubuntu
> fall into that category. They installed well, and I was seduced at first...
> but then, MPlayer had a jerky playback, DVD::RIP refused to rip (and even
> to DVDD), and this leaves you, as we say in my native Austria, dumb as
> the oxen before the new barn door: what now?
>
> What I have now - on the machine I am writing these lines on - is a "full"
> 10.2 install (I always feel a bit frustrated during install, when I choose
> "full" install in the ncurses interface... "full" implying I'm not an
> "expert"...), and then I spend some hours compiling and installing all the
> rest I need to make my machine fully desktop-functional: libdvdcss,
> libdvdread, libgphoto2, gphoto2, mplayer, kaffeine, k3b, k3b-i18n, and the
> list is long....

Slackware include fewer packages than other but the packages included
work usually without problems. That can be seen as an advantage or an
inconvienent. I have always thought that to manage 14 CDs of binaries
like Debian does is virtually impossible without problems. I have added
a few programs in my slackware but not so many. For the video Slackawre
already include xine (we have to add libdvdcss which cannot be included
because of legal risks in some countries, I know no other distributions
which include it). For burning CD's I prefer the command line: cdrecord,
etc...

>
> Why I do this by hand? Well, I did try some of the packages from
> linuxpackages.net, as well as those from slacky.it... but more often than
> not, the package was buggy or not working at all. I'm not like one of those
> Gentoo users, feeling like a pro only because I'm watching compile messages
> fly by on the screen for hours and hours... and I'd rather use my time for
> something else. Only, I like things to _work_, and this sometimes means
> rolling up your sleeves and doing things by yourself.
>
> Lately, I've been doing more Slack installs than before, for friends as well
> as for clients. Clients using Windows coming to my home for some repair
> work and seeing this other OS running suddenly want to take the plunge and
> switch.
>
> Now I'm seriously thinking about putting together an add-on CD with a series
> of scripts to automate all this. And before doing this, a few more general
> considerations.
>
> Compiling vs. packages... AFAIK, Slackware packages are "i486"... does that
> mean that they would run on a 486 (in theory)? On a desktop computer, I
> rarely do installs on less than a Pentium III 500 with 128 MB of RAM (I do
> have an old Pentium II 266 running with a very light XFCE, Sylpheed and
> everything, but that's just for experimental purposesD). Anyway... how do
> I go about to optimize packages for recent computers, while at the same
> time being sure that they will run on _every_ recent computer? (Is there
> some good "Compile Basics" doc around?)

This is by design. I do not know if there is a real lost of performance
by compiling for the i486.

>
> Another possibility would be to write a script or a series of scripts that
> build all the packages, but simplified and based on the nifty checkinstall
> utility (checkinstall --default --pkgname=$PROGRAM --pkgversion=$VERSION
> and so on, you get the idea).

For the official packages, it is always safer to do custom scripts as
Slackware does than to rely on a automated process.

This is true that it is not difficult to write a script that convert a
standard source tar.gz to a slackware package using checkinstall
(decompress the source, run ./confiure; then make; then checkinstall
with default option). I do not know if such a script would be much more
useful than using checkinstall directly.

>
> One thing that would be interesting: to know how many people here actually
> use Slackware as their main desktop environment? (Stand up and be
> counted...)

I use Slack as a desktop.

Olive

Niki Kovacs wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Compiling vs. packages... AFAIK, Slackware packages are "i486"... does that
>mean that they would run on a 486 (in theory)? On a desktop computer, I
>rarely do installs on less than a Pentium III 500 with 128 MB of RAM (I do
>have an old Pentium II 266 running with a very light XFCE, Sylpheed and
>everything, but that's just for experimental purposesD). Anyway... how do
>I go about to optimize packages for recent computers, while at the same
>time being sure that they will run on _every_ recent computer? (Is there
>some good "Compile Basics" doc around?)
>
>
I'm of the school that says, "install it and forget it" (I'm not big on
fiddling with kernels, rebuilding stock systems and all that -- if it
works satisfactorily, I leave it alone; it's not that I can't, it's just
that I don't want to). I do, however, remove certain packages and roll
my own -- those would be installing Java development, removing Apache
1.x (and building and installing Apache 2.x), removing the distribution
PHP and building from source (I use Informix and Oracle and I need PHP
to "talk" to those), removing the distribution Mozilla packages and
using the ones from Mozilla.com (as of today, .com, apparently). I add
openLDAP so Adobe Reader won't yammer (I don't bother to run it, just
install it). Anything I add to the system goes in /usr/local; that would
include gphoto2, mplayer (and the Mozilla plug-ins), RealPlayer,
Bluefish and a couple of other things -- all in /usr/local (I do
/usr/local because an upgrade or new installation won't clobber anything
I've added and configured). The single exception is openLDAP which seems
to have to go in /usr rather than /usr/local (and I don't want to fight
with it, so OK). I find that it's the rare package that doesn't
configure, make and make install with any problems -- stuff just seems
to work and I like that.

>Another possibility would be to write a script or a series of scripts that
>build all the packages, but simplified and based on the nifty checkinstall
>utility (checkinstall --default --pkgname=$PROGRAM --pkgversion=$VERSION
>and so on, you get the idea).
>
>
Hmm.

>One thing that would be interesting: to know how many people here actually
>use Slackware as their main desktop environment? (Stand up and be
>counted...)
>
>
I do have to have XP for three applications that I cannot find for Linux
or that won't run under Crossover; Family Tree Maker, Stamps.com and
TurboTax -- other than that, I boot XP once a week or so for the
critical updates. I absolutely despise Windows in any form (was crap,
still is crap, always will be crap) but unfortunately cannot live
without the damned thing for those three -- so, yes, Slackware is my
main desktop environment with rare sorries into the wonderful world of
Microjunk.

>Cheers,
>
>Niki Kovacs
>
>

I've always used Slackware as my main desktop ever since I first
discovered it. I use Dropline, for two reasons;

1. I love Gnome. So sue me. (not only that I use the Gorilla theme,
which some wag once commented "looks like wet clay")

2. Dropline provides *most* of the "extras" I need in Slackware. I am
considering trying out some of the other Slackware Gnome efforts
though.

I mentioned the other day that Slackware was meant to be a server OS,
not a desktop OS and got very dismissive reply which I found very
surprising. Yes, of course you can use Slackware as a desktop, but I
don't think thats what Pat has in mind when is doing his magic.

One thing I would like to ask is whether or not you intend to include
codecs in your pack. It seems to me that for a modern desktop OS, you
need as many media codecs as possible installed. Not all these come
from source, so installing them the "proper" way might be tricky...

Much kudos to you for the attempt... I personally think Slackware is
the best starting point to build anything on!

On 2005-11-30, Niki Kovacs <mickey@mouse.com> wrote:
>
> One thing that would be interesting: to know how many people here actually
> use Slackware as their main desktop environment? (Stand up and be
> counted...)

*stands up*

--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

On 2005-11-30, Niki Kovacs <mickey@mouse.com> wrote:

> One thing that would be interesting: to know how many people here actually
> use Slackware as their main desktop environment?

24/7

nb

Keith Keller wrote:

> On 2005-11-30, Niki Kovacs <mickey@mouse.com> wrote:
>>
>> One thing that would be interesting: to know how many people here
>> actually use Slackware as their main desktop environment? (Stand up and
>> be counted...)
>
> *stands up*
>
> --keith
>

me too!