ANC wrote:
> One important point is that Slackware can be used as an excellent
> non-multimedia out-of-the-box desktop. (You need to have a PhD in
> quantum physics to get all the various video and audio files to run on
> it, as opposed to Ubuntu, Novell

I disagree. Although only MP3 comes OOTB, downloading and compiling
mplayer is almost trivial, especailly since the Slackware build
environment is "vanilla" and ready to go OOTB. And mplayer plays just
about anything.

> Just my opinion. YMMV. (And here come the flames, I'm sure. After all,
> this is a.o.l.s where a serious, civil discussion of any distro vs.
> Slackware is actually (not virtually) impossible.)

LOL


--
Milan Babuskov
http://njam.sourceforge.net

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

On 2007-03-26, Milan Babuskov <mbabuskov@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I disagree. Although only MP3 comes OOTB, downloading and compiling
> mplayer is almost trivial, especailly since the Slackware build
> environment is "vanilla" and ready to go OOTB. And mplayer plays just
> about anything.

Almost trivial? I think we've got something to make it 100% trivial.

http://www.slackbuilds.org/repositor...media/MPlayer/
http://www.slackbuilds.org/repositor...er-codecs-all/
http://www.slackbuilds.org/repositor...playerplug-in/

Download 'em, read the included READMEs, download the source, and then
just run the build scripts. Not only have permissions and options been
taken care of, but now mplayer can be managed using pkgtools.

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGB+C3FRvIvfSNceoRAv3wAKC7ZMrMfUfE+I/j6R32LxzC3wcRiACeMeyH
4SaNrcewZaDqwuoJyswukxY=
=9SMs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

+Alan Hicks+ wrote:
> http://www.slackbuilds.org/repositor...media/MPlayer/
> http://www.slackbuilds.org/repositor...er-codecs-all/
> http://www.slackbuilds.org/repositor...playerplug-in/
>
> Download 'em, read the included READMEs, download the source, and then
> just run the build scripts. Not only have permissions and options been
> taken care of, but now mplayer can be managed using pkgtools.

I didn't know about this. Great.

Thanks,

--
Milan Babuskov
http://njam.sourceforge.net

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:56:19 +0000, ANC wrote:

> I think you have to be a nut-case to run a desktop machine with FreeBSD.

It's not hard. Especially if you start with a TrueBSD liveCD in your hand.

There is only one major difference between the BSDs on one hand and the
Linuxes on the other.

With Linux, the simlest thing is to install, boot, and fiddle a bit. The
documentation is a last resort when something doesn't work, because most
documentation is sparse and inaccurate or just out of date. (Admittedly
there are notable exceptions.) That approach will get you exactly nowhere
with a BSD.

With BSD, the simplest approach is to read, and memorise, the
documentation. When you can recite it correctly, backwards, before your
first coffee of the day, you are ready to install a BSD. And it will all
work the first time.

A few other things about the BSDs are enviable, like having working
free drivers for Realtek wireless cards, like the ability of NetBSD to run
an X desktop in about 40MB of RAM with no swap, like the ability to
install OpenBSD with a single floppy and a wireless card.

And, of course, a lot of people like Slackware because it feels quite
BSDish in some ways, but with the wider range of choices afforded by
Linux.

And the automatic "RTFM" response to any question makes it feel *just*
like a BSD newgroup... :-)

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

On 2007-03-27, mark south <marksouth@null.invalid> wrote:
>> I think you have to be a nut-case to run a desktop machine with FreeBSD.
>
> It's not hard. Especially if you start with a TrueBSD liveCD in your hand.

I've never personally run a BSD desktop, but I've heard that PC-BSD is
another good starting point for a BSD desktop.

> There is only one major difference between the BSDs on one hand and the
> Linuxes on the other.

I would disagree there. There are several fundamental differences
between Linux and the BSDs as a whole, as well as the BSDs
individually. All-in-all though, they mostly _feel_ the same.

> With Linux, the simlest thing is to install, boot, and fiddle a bit. The
> documentation is a last resort when something doesn't work, because most
> documentation is sparse and inaccurate or just out of date. (Admittedly
> there are notable exceptions.) That approach will get you exactly nowhere
> with a BSD.

Exactly. OpenBSD is a great example of this, as they consider any
inaccuracy or incompleteness in a man page to be a bug just as
important as incompleteness or inaccuracy in the program's code.

> A few other things about the BSDs are enviable, like having working
> free drivers for Realtek wireless cards, like the ability of NetBSD to run
> an X desktop in about 40MB of RAM with no swap, like the ability to
> install OpenBSD with a single floppy and a wireless card.

I would also say that I think the BSDs' use of sysctl.conf is much
preferred over Linux's use of the /proc filesystem for handling things
such as packet forwarding and other tweaks to a running (or booting)
kernel.

> And, of course, a lot of people like Slackware because it feels quite
> BSDish in some ways, but with the wider range of choices afforded by
> Linux.
>
> And the automatic "RTFM" response to any question makes it feel *just*
> like a BSD newgroup... :-)

Hear! Hear!

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGCaedFRvIvfSNceoRAiP6AJ9KUT//6H8CnbUkUDT2o1M1MlucYQCeNlXn
OyGxC9g23LVu38WuA6wE9lg=
=lOud
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:21:10 -0500, +Alan Hicks+ wrote:
> On 2007-03-27, mark south <marksouth@null.invalid> wrote:
>>> I think you have to be a nut-case to run a desktop machine with FreeBSD.
>>
>> It's not hard. Especially if you start with a TrueBSD liveCD in your hand.
>
> I've never personally run a BSD desktop, but I've heard that PC-BSD is
> another good starting point for a BSD desktop.

There are several. If you spend an hour reading the handbook, you can set
up a BSD desktop in an hour or so from even FreeBSD or OpenBSD. But it's
just nonsensical to say that a BSD desktop is somehow difficult.

>> There is only one major difference between the BSDs on one hand and the
>> Linuxes on the other.
>
> I would disagree there. There are several fundamental differences
> between Linux and the BSDs as a whole, as well as the BSDs
> individually. All-in-all though, they mostly _feel_ the same.

Oh, I was exaggerating for effect somewhat. There are numerous
significant and instructive differences. Code quality and platform
stability are a couple, rate of innovation is another.

>> With Linux, the simlest thing is to install, boot, and fiddle a bit.

Sometimes spelled "simplest"....

>> The documentation is a last resort when something doesn't work, because
>> most documentation is sparse and inaccurate or just out of date.
>> (Admittedly there are notable exceptions.) That approach will get you
>> exactly nowhere with a BSD.
>
> Exactly. OpenBSD is a great example of this, as they consider any
> inaccuracy or incompleteness in a man page to be a bug just as important
> as incompleteness or inaccuracy in the program's code.

They do, greatly to their credit. On the downside, you can mail
corrections to the code and man pages to the maintainers till your fingers
bleed, and if they haven't heard of you before, they will ignore you.

>> A few other things about the BSDs are enviable, like having working
>> free drivers for Realtek wireless cards, like the ability of NetBSD to
>> run an X desktop in about 40MB of RAM with no swap, like the ability to
>> install OpenBSD with a single floppy and a wireless card.
>
> I would also say that I think the BSDs' use of sysctl.conf is much
> preferred over Linux's use of the /proc filesystem for handling things
> such as packet forwarding and other tweaks to a running (or booting)
> kernel.

Sysctl really kicks, it's true. The BSD kernel config sometimes seems far
simpler too, and the ports system is massively enviable.

>> And, of course, a lot of people like Slackware because it feels quite
>> BSDish in some ways, but with the wider range of choices afforded by
>> Linux.
>>
>> And the automatic "RTFM" response to any question makes it feel *just*
>> like a BSD newgroup... :-)

Or "newsgroup", even.

> Hear! Hear!

RTFM, freakin' newbie!!!

:-)

Mark
--
Signature ate too many chocolate eggs to make an appearance.

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

On 2007-04-03, mark south <marksouth@null.invalid> wrote:
>> Exactly. OpenBSD is a great example of this, as they consider any
>> inaccuracy or incompleteness in a man page to be a bug just as important
>> as incompleteness or inaccuracy in the program's code.
>
> They do, greatly to their credit. On the downside, you can mail
> corrections to the code and man pages to the maintainers till your fingers
> bleed, and if they haven't heard of you before, they will ignore you.

I don't think I've ever minded a group of hackers being elitist though.
I mean, let's be honest. If some Joe Blow strolled on into this
newsgroup and said something like installpkg has a bug in it that will
crash the system when installing a custom package larger than say 50MB
we would probably think he's insane even if it turns out he's right.
Of course, the BSD guys tend to be even more exclusive than us
Slackers, and that's saying something!

>> I would also say that I think the BSDs' use of sysctl.conf is much
>> preferred over Linux's use of the /proc filesystem for handling things
>> such as packet forwarding and other tweaks to a running (or booting)
>> kernel.
>
> Sysctl really kicks, it's true. The BSD kernel config sometimes seems far
> simpler too, and the ports system is massively enviable.

I'm not so big on the kernel config, as it's too easy to leave out some
prerequisite as you're essentially just editing the equivilant of
..config. Seriously, my two main wishes for Linux are sysctl and pf.
If it had those two, I wouldn't miss much from BSD.

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGEvmvFRvIvfSNceoRAjCHAJ4naLhryNRGa0DXgN2pG0 X2VDPDtACfRiB5
Cix1ySWo9xHLfA+A4HDRTMw=
=4tDA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

+Alan Hicks+ <alan@lizella.network> wrote:

pgp trash troll delete

> I don't think I've ever minded a group of hackers being elitist
> though.

Sure. You consider yourself a "hacker" and you somehow feel that
this gives you some right to treat others rudely. Treating others
rudely is the bad side of being elitist and you, and a few others,
have a corner on it.

> I mean, let's be honest. If some Joe Blow strolled on into this
> newsgroup and said something like installpkg has a bug in it that
> will crash the system when installing a custom package larger than
> say 50MB we would probably think he's insane even if it turns out
> he's right. Of course, the BSD guys tend to be even more
> exclusive than us Slackers, and that's saying something!

Us slackers? You don't speak for anyone other than yourself. And
if anyone using BSD treats people rudely, as do you, then the BSD
user is simply a troll, like yourself.

You are asked, again, to bugger off on out of here. Take your pgp
trash with you. There is absolutely no reason why you don't bury
your pgp in your headers, except that you deliberately want to annoy
other posters.

You're pathetic.

Bugger off.

cordially, as always,

rm

* +Alan Hicks+ <alan@lizella.netWORK>:
[ ... ]
> .config. Seriously, my two main wishes for Linux are sysctl and pf.
> If it had those two, I wouldn't miss much from BSD.

Does not Linux *have* a sysctl of its own as part of the procps package?
It's been awhile since I've touched FreeBSD but checking the Handbook
now, Linux's sysctl seems to be analogous.

Anyway, I've been using an '/etc/sysctl.conf' to set the max RTC user
frequency to suit MPlayer.

On Slackware, a section in 'rc.S' calls sysctl if you have an
'/etc/sysctl.conf' file.

--
James Michael Fultz <xyzzy@sent.as.invalid>
Remove this part when replying ^^^^^^^^

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

On 2007-04-04, James Michael Fultz <xyzzy@sent.as.invalid> wrote:
>> .config. Seriously, my two main wishes for Linux are sysctl and pf.
>> If it had those two, I wouldn't miss much from BSD.
>
> Does not Linux *have* a sysctl of its own as part of the procps package?
> It's been awhile since I've touched FreeBSD but checking the Handbook
> now, Linux's sysctl seems to be analogous.

Yes, but it's just not as nice. The BSDs set up all the defaults in
/etc/sysctl.conf and you can over-ride them in /etc/sysctl.conf.local.
OpenBSD is really nice about doing things like that. I really like
their rc.conf and rc.conf.local for starting and stopping services.

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGFDkjFRvIvfSNceoRAkoTAJ99ahkibVD1qBFuK5zx0J 5+doosywCeP2B1
LpLK2Et46qPjbpCNmtCFKYs=
=bpmY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----