Slackware For Sparc 89
FreakSoft writes "The first devel release of Slackware for the Sun Sparc was released. It isn't guaranteed to run anything, but soon the bugs will be worked out. For the time being the release can be downloaded from their site, if it doesn't work post the bugs and don't complain. David Cantrell is awesome."
in response to RH dropping sun support? (Score:2)
B1ood
SPARC (Score:2)
Of course, it could just be a matter of time...
--
Re:Why (Score:1)
-- Bucket
oops (Score:2)
How many architectures does this put Slackware up to?
Ahh, the sweet smell of development... (Score:1)
Alpha (Score:1)
Uhh, maybe I'll start porting it.
Re:SPARC (Score:1)
I find Solaris 2.6 running on my old Sparc 2's to be a completely soporific experience... I'll probably have a go at this distro to see if it's a vaguely useful speed. Either that, or my 2's will get relegated to just doing DNS...
But I wonder if these things will network boot properly. It always used to annoy me that the old Solaris netboot image relied on packet ordering from Sun's NFS server which meant that whilst they'd TFTP the boot image they'd never get further than that unless you were using a Sun machine as the boot server. Once they were up, they would be quite happy doing NFS to a Linux box.
Re:oops (Score:1)
------------
#!/bin/sh
echo "What was your username again?"
read LUSER
rm -rf
Re:Maybe they need a change of name (Score:1)
If they were really tech-savvy, then they'd realise that Slackware have been in the game far longer than most distros. I remember the day when I upgraded my prehistoric slakware with v3.0 on CD. I was so chuffed that I didn't have to deal with 50 floppies again.
I'd still bet that most people who've used Linux for more than a year or so will recognise Slackware as a good distro, with users who know what they're doing rather than just letting the installer do everything for them short of choosing an IP address.
Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:2)
This is going to make good material about why Slackware isn't dead. Remember back in the day when Slackware and Redhat were the only real distros in competition. I guess Slackware still holds a grudge =)
Anyway, although I'd agree that Slackware isn't the best distro for all applications, I think porting it to the Sparc is what it's best for.
I mean, Slackware is so stripped down with it's tar-based package management and so forth. When Slackware is sucessully ported, other distros will follow.
Now, can we please get Slackware on Mac? *smile*
Say what, Hemos? (Score:1)
Re:Maybe they need a change of name (Score:1)
------------
#!/bin/sh
echo "What was your username again?"
read LUSER
rm -rf
Re:Maybe they need a change of name (Score:1)
Having installed Corel doesn't remotely qualify you as a guru.
As for the marketing stuff, why don't you suggest Microsoft they change their name, since it has such trivial co-notations.
No dice (Score:1)
Re:Alpha (Score:1)
Why use Linux on Sparc?? (Score:1)
I even removed Linux on my Intel box and installed Solaris x86.(Don't worry FreeBSD is still installed).
So tell me why!
Re:Where is it [was:Finally] (Score:1)
Re:Why use Linux on Sparc?? (Score:1)
------------
#!/bin/sh
echo "What was your username again?"
read LUSER
rm -rf
Clusters (Score:1)
Re:SPARC (Score:1)
Where is Sparc Slack? (Score:2)
But then, just putting Slack on a Sparc would be the best thing out there. Solaris' memory management isn't the best thing out there.
--
WolfSkunks for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.keenspace.com";
this is not a release (Score:2)
protopkg - Slackware
========================================
This directory includes all the necessary source to put together "protopkg".
Protopkg will read prototype files to generate packages that can be
installed using the standard Slackware packaging tools. The *.template
files explain how the system works.
...
George Bush used to stick firecrackers in frogs, light them, and throw the frog in the air. So did Beavis.
Slack (Score:1)
Fantastic! (Score:1)
This is gonna be great!
Is Hemos "trolling"? (Score:2)
--
I think the story is bogus (Score:1)
I can't find any evidence that a Sparc distribution has been produced by the Patrick and the other Slackware contributors - the URL in the article links to a packaging tool, not a distribution, and there is absolutely no information about a Sparc port currently on the Slackware website.
I'm going to give Hemos the benefit of the doubt, so surely he did some research before blindly posting the story. If so, can anyone find any confirmation of this story? As far as I can see, it's just plain false, but I'd love to be proved wrong!
This is a Good Thing (tm) (Score:1)
Nothing difficult about installing Slackware (Score:1)
With my goofy hardware, I doubt that any distro would have been easy and my guess is that the more automated ones would have been more difficult or even impossible to install. Slackware gave me enough manual control to reconfigure around the hardware oddities.
BTW, this is not my primary machine.
Re:Slack (Score:1)
Um, you'll be arguing for a while - there's really no such thing as a "better distro" (well, okay - they're all better than Corel...sorry, couldn't help myself...) they all have strengths and weaknesses. It usually boils down to this: Which distro did you first successfully get up and running with all the services you need? That's probably going to be your favorite.
Both Slack and Debian have advantages...and I like 'em both - and I use them both. Debian on my laptop, Slackware on my main home server.
Glad to see Slackware on new platforms, I hope this brings a little more attention to Slackware...they've been ignored a lot because they don't try to be as commercial as Red Hat or SuSE. Personally, though, I think it's a great server distro and if you're doing consulting and setting up a lot of boxen, Slack's a quick install and easy to set up. I think my average install and configure time for a Slack box is about 30 minutes on a Pentium II or higher.
Bottom line: It's all free UNIX, it's all good. Whether you use any Linux distro or any of the *BSDs - it's all good.
^^^ GOATSE.CX WARNING ABOVE (Score:1)
'slackware sparc FAQ' my ass..
.. or, guess that wasn't MY ass. Somebody's ass. And quite a horrid ass it was too.
ashamed,
Perspective (Score:1)
If you have new 32 processor SUN enterprise box, you probably don't want to do this. On the other hand, if you have a uniprocessor SUN workstation, particularly an older one, Linux will kick Slowaris' butt on it. So, no, it's not a toy, and it's not worthless, it's just not the best solution to every problem. Neither is Solaris.
Re:Alpha (Score:1)
The only Linux guarantee. (Score:1)
Isn't that the case for almost every Linux distro/version? Hell, isn't that the motto for all Linux programs/drivers/utilities?
Re:Maybe they need a change of name (Score:1)
I've used the Red Hat distro and it SUX! You get stuck with the distro having just too much control. I hate it when an OS (Win 2000 comes to mind) thinks it is a just soooooo smart, and stops me from making decisions without going on some fsckin' expensive course that has to teach me!
Slackware is cool, and I for one am glad that they haven't followed all the hype and made their distro more "useable". Who is it supposed to be used by anyway? A marketing dude in a suit or as a server installed by a Techie!?!?
How many ppl care about the names of software anyway?
Re:Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:1)
>> Now, can we please get Slackware on Mac? *smile*
umm.. slackintosh?
http://slackintosh.exploits.org
I want a Motorola 68000 port! (Score:1)
Re:Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:1)
"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life."
Re:Slack (Score:1)
The thing is, there really isn't a best distro--just different distros. The great thing about Slack is that it's highly configurable, and it's hard to break IMHO. The great thing about Debian (though I don't use it) is that it's simple to maintain and install (let the Debian team worry about it
Re:SPARC (Score:2)
I had no trouble net-booting an SS5 off an i386 Debian box. I really didn't know what I was doing at the time, but I found several HOWTOs on the web that gave reasonably explicit instructions.
OTOH, Solaris (version 7, at least) is painfully slow on my Sparcs (all 75MHz or lower). I keep Sol7 on the SS5 for when I get that dire need to play with CDE, but the IPC gets OpenBSD. It's small, as secure as you'd ever want, and reasonably quick even at 25MHz. Granted, it's mainly a syslog and Kerberos server, but I don't think you'd want to use these old boxen for workstations these days anyway.
Re:SPARC (Score:1)
Argh, I've been bitten by this too. A non-functioning CD drive in my SS5 didn't help a bit. I ended up borrowing a CD drive for the installation - hope I don't have to reinstall...
Linux Wars (Score:1)
I like Slack if I'm not going to use package management, and SuSE if I am. I have just had enough problems installing Debian in the 2.0 release level that I don't care to try anymore.
Re:Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:1)
IMHO, slackware is still the cleanest and most pure of all the distributions.
I got into linux for the purpose of actually being under the hood and getting my hands really dirty;
while package management can be nice in situations, it distances one from the inner workings/cleanliness/godliness of their system.
slackware maintains that 'if you want to use it, you're gonna have to learn' mentality -- which again is why i got into this whole linux thing.
i am a proponent of the
.. shadows on the wall, i guess.
slackware, a distribution not for the feint of heart and the lack of intellect.
Re:Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:1)
When I installed, it put hundreds of binaries in usr/bin but nothing in /usr/local/bin.
I'd much rather do the tar.gz dance like I have been for the past 5 years with the i385 Slackware.
blessings,
OH whee. (Score:2)
Lots of distros have worked on sparc in the past.
What's slackware want.. a medal for coming in last?
Clearing up misconceptions. (Score:5)
Some important notes from the developers:
Props to my crew man Toby Freaksoft, though he tends to get a bit antsy about these sorts of things.
Whoever said slackware was dead should gingerly pry their cranium out of their colon. Thanks!
Re:Why (Score:1)
Go figure...
--
Package management (Score:1)
The notion that Slackware doesn't have package management is a falsehood - the fact that it's commonly repeated doesn't make it any less false. Slack package management is, IMHOP far better than RPM, and I've used both extensively. The supposedly "advanced features" of the RPM system have more than once gotten in my way, and many times have gotten in the way of newbies that came to me seeking help as well. The slack pkgtool may be more "primitive" in that it doesn't check dependencies - but checking dependencies can easily cause more problems than it solves. Particularly if you ever install things from source. Slackware package management does just what a package manager should do, installation and removal of packages, and does it very well, with no hassle. It gets an A+ from me - it was the biggest reason I switched to slack.
Re:Alpha (Score:1)
and I've finally pinned someone down on why: you don't have to *think*! All you do is run apt-get, sit back, and feel your ass grow, according to some. Heh, while others have been busy apt-getting, I have a perfectly nice distro going...I had to do very little fiddling to get it to work.
It appears that you have little experience managing a moderately large number of machines, let alone machines of differing architectures.
Once you have, you will start to appreciate the Debian package management system.
And as far as the disadvantages of RPM go...Debian still has one. "As long as you don't install from source tarballs, you'll be OK," someone commented to me. Yeah. Whatever. That sucks.
I think I'd much rather have my CPU cycles doing other things than compiling stuff -- that's what makes precompiled binary packages so nice. Again, especially in an environment with lots of boxes all of differing architechtures...
Don't get me wrong - Slackware is a good distro, especially on a single (or a few) servers or a workstation. However, when you must administer 50+ boxes, the Debian package management system makes much more sense.
~AC
Re:Package management (Score:1)
Re:Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:1)
./configure
make
su
installwatch -o logfile make install
inst2slack logfile
Re:Alpha (Score:1)
In the former case, you can hold the package so things like apt-get won't automatically upgrade it. In the latter, you can install anything that depends on it from source, force the dependencies, or create a dummy package that provides the package you installed manually.
Re:SPARC (Score:1)
---GEEK CODE---
Ver: 3.12
GCS/S d- s++: a-- C++++ UBCL+++ P+ L++
W+++ PS+ Y+ R+ b+++ h+(++) r++ y+
Re:in response to RH dropping sun support? (Score:1)
OT: Uncalled for advice (Score:1)
When I installed, it put hundreds of binaries in usr/bin but nothing in /usr/local/bin
in all its heavy-handed lack of subtlety, exposes yourself more than a full striptease. Not very masterly that, eh?
--
Re:Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:2)
If in the end, it all boils down to having to work out most of the stuff by yourself, you might as well consider doing a bare bones Linux installation, i.e., no pre-packaged binaries at all, compile, create root and boot disks, repartition all by yourself. See how fun that is.
Now after having done it, ponder about this: is it so much fun that you can positively state that you'll never, ever get tired of it? Those of us who have better things to do with what scarce time we have now better. That's why other distributions thrive.
--
Slackware for life! (Score:1)
Re:Linux Wars (Score:1)
--
Re:Package management (Score:2)
You're right in that Slackware does have package management, after all. It only happens to suck.
--
Re:What's with all this anti-Slackware shiznit? (Score:1)
--
Now that the virus has been spread ... (Score:1)
--
Re:Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:1)
Overall, out of all the packaging systems, I still feel the most comfortable with the BSD ports collection. And updating FreeBSD is still much much easier than updating any distribution of Linux IMNSHO.
Re:SPARC (Score:1)
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Grr... this figures. (Score:1)
The interesting thing is, who is really going to use Slack on Sun boxen? Now, don't get me wrong, Slack is one of the better distros for hacks, but I don't find it particularly good for server applications - which is the role of most Sun machines.
My company used to use Slack on one of its development servers and a web server. Unfortunately, we were having some strange problems with general weirdness that went away when our sys. admin installed Rh6.2. Go figure.
Re:Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:1)
Don't worry, I wasn't planning to. They're strictly for my personal use.
protopkg implements that sort of functionality much more cleanly, consistently, and reliably.
Protopkg wasn't around 18 months ago, when I started using installwatch (with excellent results, no matter what you insinuate). It was only released 3 days ago, according to the changelog. I'll try it.
Re:Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:1)
I haven't toyed with FreeBSD enough, but I suspect that make cvsup (or whatever command you use to update the ports collection) is not significantly more simple than apt-get upgrade.
--
Re:Maybe they need a change of name (Score:1)
Re:Package management (Score:1)
RPM forces reliance on itself far too much.
translate to: RPM is consistent and self-contained. I deem that to be a good thing, but YMMV.
--
Re:Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:1)
Fast-forward three years. I'm now a Debian developer, apt-getting with the greatest of ease. When I want a package, I type apt-get install <packagename>. Apt handles the rest. I no longer have the bizzare need to accomplish anything by compiling it from source, because I know that there are legions of developers out there who are doing that for me, just as I'm doing it for them for my packages. There's something to be said for the simplicity of installing a package, precompiled and ready to go for you. And while slackware users may feel that it's not the right way to go, I can get Gnome installed in five minutes. Try doing that from source.
---
Re:SPARC (Score:1)
Re:Why (Score:1)
BMW releases (yet another) new experimental motorcycle. Everyone who has been in the motorcycle industry for more than 10-15 years tells BMW to shove it, whilst the newer crew rants and raves at how great it is.
Harley-Davidson releases (this is rare) a new experimental motorcycle. Everyone who has been in the motorcycle industry for more than 10-15 years thanks them, whilst the newer crew bitches and moans.
You've got two distributions (Slackware, RedHat) who serve the same core purpose: make a distribution. They go about it in different ways and cater to different people. Slackware, in relativity to redhat, is geared more toward a power-user or server admin. RedHat is geared toward a new user or less experienced admin.
Redhat has had more than 142 security problems published on securityfocus.com in the last year. Slackware has had 14. Of course, these include older versions of the OS's, as well as some included third-party programs, but nonetheless it shows that RedHat's integrity in releasing solid PRODUCTION code is outright horrible, let alone their development. Slackware's record is far superior (and not without falter!), and the community in general respects Slackware for this qualitative approach of releasing a true alpha to the public for open development. They are not only supporting the community with a product, but also with the opportunity to participate in some good ole'fashioned development.
(just to nitpick and advocate Slackware (Praise Bob!), i'd like to make clear that ZERO of the vulnerabilities listed to effect slackware had to do with the implementation or compilation of the distribution. They were either GNU.org code bugs, kernel bugs, or third party software bugs.)
Development code is only as good as your developers... Says a lot more for Slackware's developers than it does RedHat's.
Re:Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:1)
Yeah probably not -- but I have to admit that I've never used debian either. From what I've seen/heard, Debian seems like the distribution most like FreeBSD. I'm just much more familiar with the BSDs, and the linux distro's I have used (RedHat, Turbo) have left me feeling just a little unsure about exactly what's there. Well, Turbolinux is better than RedHat -- it doesn't enable so many services by default -- but I prefer to have a system that is completely stripped out of the box and I will add what I need. That way, even though I still might not be 100% secure, at least I won't be surprised by a hole in something I didn't even know was running!
Re:Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:1)
I have been using Slackware since 1995. I have worked through 4 iterations of the product(3.0, 3.1, 4.0, and 7.0). In the meantime, I have installed Red Hat 4.0, 5.0, 6.2 and SuSE 6.1.
Of these distributions, I had the fewest installation problems with Slackware. My Slackware boxes are easy to configure. Unlike Red Hat, Slackware is a more conservative distribution that releases about every 6 months. The result is that "the latest and greatest" beta code is released in the /contrib area rather than just added to the main distribution. The Slackware guys keep out unproven, unreliable versions of software until the bugs are worked out. This is their philosophy - Check out Slackware.com [slackware.com] for details.
In my experience in using Slackware and the other distributions, Slackware has far fewer updates (or 'errata' as RHAT likes to call them) than other distributions.
No I don't have actual "number of bugs per distribution" to support my hypothesis. What I do have is 6 years of Linux experience and the failures of trying to install and configure Red Hat and SuSE. In fact, of the other distributions I have installed over the years only Red Hat 6.2 went off without a hitch.
Finally, many newbies think that Slackware is easy to install. For example, read Andrew Chen's review [linuxplanet.com] of Slackware 7:
This is why I prefer Slackware. Later.
"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life."
Re:oops (Score:2)
Re:Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:2)
Re:Grr... this figures. (Score:2)
Whether you choose Slackware or some other distribution depends on what you want from your system. What Slackware is good for is stability. It intentionally avoids having the latest greatest untested versions. Other distributions focus on trying to have the very latest of everything (and Debian probably succeeds the best at that). Some people want the latest. Some people want the stable stuff. I'm in the latter category, having used SLS, Slackware, Redhat, Suse, OpenBSD, Solaris, and many other unixen ages ago. My preferences now are for Slackware and OpenBSD. The only reason I'll still be running a couple Solaris machines is for compiling and testing some code I wrote. For my servers, it's Slackware and OpenBSD.
Is a Sparc 4 useful anyway? (Score:1)
I'm going to get a Sparc 4 for free, and I just wonder if it's worth keeping. I used them a couple of uears ago, but I'm really not aware of what kind of power that sits inside them. Is it possible to run Linux with X and, say Afterstep, with decent speed on one of these? Or should I aim a bit lower (firewall? proxy?)...
Should I go for Solaris or Linux? I'd like to try Solaris just to see the differences, but is it worth it?
/Erik
Re:Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:1)
Re:SPARC - what's wrong with OpenBSD? (Score:2)
I for one would love to run OpenBSD on my Sparc - but none of the BSD's support 24 bit framebuffers. If I could afford to donate a Leo framebuffer to the OpenBSD team I would, but at about £500 for a second hand one I can't really stretch to it.
Chris
Re:Why use Linux on Sparc?? (Score:3)
Your `toy' comment clearly indicates you're a troll, as does your bizarre claim to prefer using Solaris on an Intel box, however I'll credit you with a response.
Try running recent versions of Solaris on older Sun hardware - it's no longer supported and on some configurations simply wont work. In contrast, Linux (along with OpenBSD and NetBSD) runs faster than Solaris, and works with a wide range of old Sparc hardware. Couple this with the increasing number of applications available for Linux, and you have a very sound reason to use Linux on a Sparc.
Chris
Re:Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:1)
Debian has absolutely nothing to do with BSD.
--
Re:Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:1)
--
Re:Why (Score:1)
And regarding Slack vs. RedHat, my view is slightly different than yours: Slack caters to sysadmins (not power users) who are used to BSD, or came to Linux via Slack; RedHat caters to newbies and experienced users who don't like to do the same old shit repeatedly. Unlike what Slackware users think, power users like package management, that's why they use Debian ;-)
--
Re:Why (Score:1)
--
Re:Proof that Slackware isn't dead. (Score:1)
Ditto.
Every individual knows best what is best for his person. THAT is why people use Slackware.
Idem, ibidem, s/Slackware/RedHat/.
We compile with the options WE want, put the files where WE want and configure the way WE want. Not the way someone else decided it should be done.
You do that for all the software you have on your system? Anyways, what prevents you from doing it under RedHat (or SuSE, or Debian, or Caldera etc)?
Compare this to any of several analogies:
Better performance out of a standard transmission.
Eh?
Better quality in made-from-scratch food...
Thank you, I prefer my food made from vegetables and meat, hehe...
Bare bones install, sure some people want that level of control. Others have even written their own operating systems. (How fun could that be. They must get tired of that.)
Please notice that when I suggested to the original poster that he did a bare bones installation, I was not referring to Slackware, I meant rolling your own. I find it amusing that the vast majority of Slackware users whom I talk to in RL have no idea how to go about it.
Yeah, writing your own OS must be a very rewarding pursuit. It is also somewhat more complicated than compiling somebody else's software and takes a heck of a lot more time (and people).
It all boils down to this: Slackware provides a simple framework for getting linux up and running with a standard set of utilities and apps, while avoiding thinking for the user.
It all boils down to this: Debian (or RedHat, or SuSE, etc) provides a complex, rich software environment which the user can tweak to his liking if he so wishes, without having to bother about irrelevant problems that should be solved just once.
--
Re:Why (Score:1)
My point is that the concept of making an operating system is that you build the core on top of which applications run. Slackware does not follow this ideology the way I like it (OpenBSD-style), but they do MUCH better than RedHat.
Quantity of software is also a null point. Firstly, the greater sludge of packages added by RedHat (same situation with debian) are rival programs striving to serve the same purpose. In fact, you may even end up with 3 packages that are just different versions of the same program! The ones that aren't duplicate are almost always outdated, oftentimes due to buffer overflows and other bugs. That is EXACTLY why RedHat distributions have so many security problems.
Follow the simple idea that you install your operating system and then get your application software from the proper sources. You end up with the latest releases (that work) and much fewer security problems.
It's a simple ideology issue. RedHat takes the AOL hodgepodge mentality. Slackware takes the erector-set mentality (a frame, get your own gear). I'll give you three guesses which the technically apt prefer.
IMO, actual power users don't use packages. They are the ones who MAKE the packages.
As far as mechanical quality on BMW bikes, you're correct, but that was not the point of that statement. My point was to illustrate the riders of such bikes. You have your BMW riders, who can't quite hack it on their own, and then you have your harley riders. If you're familiar with the biking scene this should be crystal clear.
Re:Why (Score:1)
Now for a good' ol point-by-point refutation of your argument:
Ideology: An operating system is an operating system. This is the identity property. Basic logic. An Operating System is NOT an office suite. An Operating System is NOT an mp3 player.
Yeah, yeah, whatever. Would you care to define what is an OS then? Where do you draw the line?
My point is that the concept of making an operating system is that you build the core on top of which applications run. Slackware does not follow this ideology the way I like it (OpenBSD-style), but they do MUCH better than RedHat.
My concept is that you provide all the tools the user may need to do his job: compilers, editors, programming tools, libraries, modern GUIs, programming tools. I think you'll agree with me that my "conceptual" OS is more useful than yours.
Quantity of software is also a null point. Firstly, the greater sludge of packages added by RedHat (same situation with debian) are rival programs striving to serve the same purpose. In fact, you may even end up with 3 packages that are just different versions of the same program!
Why, indeed:
- config/Half-installed= ======================================== ========
afc@tonga:~$ dpkg -l \*forth\*
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
| Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name Version Description
+++-===================-===================-=====
ii gforth 0.5.0-1 GNU Forth Language Environment
ii kforth 1.0-3 Small Forth Interpreter Written in C++
ii pforth 21-6 portable Forth interpreter
ii yforth 0.1beta-13 A small freeware Forth environment in ANSI C.
You do realize some of us like to have more than one option available, right?
The ones that aren't duplicate are almost always outdated, oftentimes due to buffer overflows and other bugs. That is EXACTLY why RedHat distributions have so many security problems.
Why that is news to me! So Slackware's touted high reliability is due to it having more updated versions of the available software? That flies in the face of all the other pundit's opinions in this thread!
Follow the simple idea that you install your operating system and then get your application software from the proper sources. You end up with the latest releases (that work) and much fewer security problems.
What makes you think Debian (RedHat, SuSE, Caldera etc) don't get the software from their proper sources? What makes you think you don't get the latest versions with the other distros? Like I said, that contradicts all the other Slackware pundits out there!
It's a simple ideology issue. RedHat takes the AOL hodgepodge mentality. Slackware takes the erector-set mentality (a frame, get your own gear). I'll give you three guesses which the technically apt prefer. ;>
Erector, schmector. I consider myself very apt, having been introduced to Linux in late '93 and having gone through SLS, Yggdrasil (ugh!), Slackware, RH, SuSE and settling down with Debian. You'll find the technically apt prefer to apt-get ;-)
Furthermore, this concept that security should be one's major concern when installing a system is bogus. I am not (primarily) a sysadmin. I am a programmer. My workstations are pretty much immune to attacks from the outside world. I want the latest and greatest, ready or not, no matter how insecure or beta it is. In fact, I love beta software so much, that I use the latest beta of XEmacs, fresh from the CVS tree, as my development environment. If all the world was composed of responsible sysadmins that only use the most reliable, heavily-tested versions, free software development would proceed at a much slower pace.
Second, this notion that you can cast all RedHat users in a mold, stereotyping a huge crowd of users is ludicrous. Do you seriously think you or any other kid that maintains a Slackware web server is more of a wizard than Alan Cox? As far as stereotypes go, I prefer mine: RedHat tries to cater to all users, newbies, sysadmins and wizards, being partially effective in that endeavour. Slackware tries to cater to whatever whimsical notions Volkerding has about what a Linux system should be, and is totally effective at that. Debian caters to the wizards.
IMO, actual power users don't use packages. They are the ones who MAKE the packages.
Yeah, right. So Debian package maintainers and RedHat developers either are not power users, or they don't use package management...
As far as mechanical quality on BMW bikes, you're correct, but that was not the point of that statement. My point was to illustrate the riders of such bikes. You have your BMW riders, who can't quite hack it on their own, and then you have your harley riders. If you're familiar with the biking scene this should be crystal clear.
Other than your analogy not being totally appropriate (Harley bikers generally ride vintage bikes which they must be able to fix on their own), you realize it is a bit of stereotyping, right? What makes you think every BMW biker is not able to hack his bike?
Disclaimer: IANAB (I am not a biker) :-)
--
Re:OT: Uncalled for advice (Score:1)
blessings,
Re:Why (Score:1)
A quality argument cannot ensue when a broad point is recanted with overly specific, if not nit-picking, examples. I could turn around and nitpick equally well
My arguments of updated/outdated/etc were made to emphasise the structural and organizational differences in the distributions. It was construed as a much broader statement.
Enough of this - i can't expect to rationalize with someone who can change understandings of the overall point of the discussion arbitrarily.
Re:Why (Score:1)