slackware dying? yeah . . . right...
Grant
Distrowatch today has NetSecL, Ultima Linux, easys and Absolute Linux
slackware derivative new releases on the front page today.
Grant.
--
For linux system scripts, linux-kernel configs and dmesg, ipv4 geoip
and firewall tools: http://bugsplatter.id.au/
Google Groups is evil? See: http://improve-usenet.org/
andrew
> Distrowatch today has NetSecL, Ultima Linux, easys and Absolute Linux
> slackware derivative new releases on the front page today.
And a permanent spot here:
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major
although with slightly muted praise :-)
Andrew
--
echo 'http://www.andrews-corner.org' | \
sed -e 's/^.\{10\}/usenet/' -e 's/...$/com/' \
-e 's/s-.\{6\}/@gmail/'
notbob
> Distrowatch today has NetSecL, Ultima Linux, easys and Absolute Linux
> slackware derivative new releases on the front page today.
Yeah, it's painful to see. Slackware naysayers are too stupid to
even understand KISS. Talk about lowering the bar.
nb
A Guy Called Tyketto
Hash: SHA1
notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>
<modquote>
> Slackware naysayers are too stupid to even understand KISS. Talk
> about lowering the bar.
</modquote>
BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: tyk...@sbcglobal.net
Unix Systems Administrator, | tyk...@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFI5GhyyBkZmuMZ8L8RApamAKDuEI70BmE2bjjDJfv7rH4mGTqcZQCbBePQ
y02Fml8NGWpU3qdcduNWASk=
=W8M3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sidney Lambe
> notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
Who is an asshole in my killfile.
(under more names than that one, probably)
><modquote>
>> Slackware naysayers are too stupid to even understand KISS. Talk
>> about lowering the bar.
>
></modquote>
And there you see why: To call all of Slackware's critics
'stupid', when many of them are clearly more intelligent,
educated, and computer-literate than you and most of your
Slackware buddies, is something that only a punk would do.
If that's the kind of juvenile, offensive, and ignorant garbage
you think should be 'immortalized' as a "mondquote", then you are
simply making Slackware users look like a bunch of punks.
Sid
Mark Madsen
Why is it painful? There are people out there who are using Slackware as
the platform to create new tools and distros. That doesn't make them
naysayers. NetSecL is a distro with a whole bunch of security and
forensics tools added, Ultima is a bleeding-edge distro with a different
package management system, Absolute is a lightweight desktop system that
is a little more newbie friendly.
Grant's point is that Slackware deserves extra kudos for making it easy
for other people to build on it.
Two Ravens
> If that's the kind of juvenile, offensive, and ignorant garbage you
> think should be 'immortalized' as a "mondquote", then you are simply
> making Slackware users look like a bunch of punks.
One might even refer to them, (Slackwe users), as 'Bozo's, oh I just
remembered someone already did!
--
Two Ravens
"...hit the squirrel..."
mister b
<snip>
I think I'll turn the noise down a bit...
*plonk*
notbob
> Why is it painful? There are people out there who are using Slackware as
> the platform to create new tools and distros.
Mark, I think you may have misinterpreted my meaning. Maybe I misstated it.
I think Slack spin-offs rock and wish all success to them and hope others
follow. :)
nb
Mike
Seconded. How many other distros have so many derivatives?
Somebody somewhere is doing something right if its that easy to re-build
the whole thing into so many different shapes. :)
Evolution theory (observed)...
Linux -> Slackware -> derivative distros -> other stuff.
Thats my theory and I'm sticking to it. :)
--
*===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
*===( http://www.badphorm.co.uk/
*===( http://www.zenwalk.org/
Keith Keller
>
> Evolution theory (observed)...
>
> Linux -> Slackware -> derivative distros -> other stuff.
>
> Thats my theory and I'm sticking to it. :)
Well, evolution usually has more branches. So maybe
-> rpm or deb based
/
linux->Slackware--> BSD startup style --> pkgtool-based
\
-> SysV startup style --> rpm-based
| \
| -> deb-based
\
-> source-based (eg Gentoo)
I don't even know if true RPM or deb distros with a BSD startup style
exist, but given the sheer number of existing distros I assume they
must. :)
I think the interesting thing about the above tree is that it basically
shows practically every major difference between adminning a distribution.
Obviously this is a simplification, but the basic information admins
need to know is "how do I install stuff?" and "how do I start up stuff?"
(The other major component missing from my tree is "how do I configure
stuff?", but I've found that often, though not always, goes with the
package manager. And I ran out of patience to add these branches.)
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Dan C
> If that's the kind of juvenile, offensive, and ignorant garbage
> you think should be 'immortalized' as a "mondquote", then you are
> simply making Slackware users look like a bunch of punks.
Fuck off, Alan Connor. Or is it Tom Newton? Calling yourself "Sidney
Lambe" doesn't change who you are, asswipe.
Aren't you supposed to be in an institution? Take your medicine.
--
"Sidney Lambe" ("Tom Newton") - the latest nymshift of "Alan Connor".
Read more about the netkook Alan Connor here:
http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/fga.shtml
Email him: calh...@gmail.com or simple...@gmail.com
ANC
Two Ravens <two-r...@operamail.org> wrote:
> One might even refer to them, (Slackwe users), as 'Bozo's,
Or a pack of wild dogs! (With Dan C. as the alpha dog!)
Al
Mike
> On 2008-10-02, Mike <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>>
>> Evolution theory (observed)...
>>
>> Linux -> Slackware -> derivative distros -> other stuff.
>>
>> Thats my theory and I'm sticking to it. :)
>
>
> Well, evolution usually has more branches. So maybe
>
>
> -> rpm or deb based
> /
> linux->Slackware--> BSD startup style --> pkgtool-based
> \
> -> SysV startup style --> rpm-based
> | \
> | -> deb-based
> \
> -> source-based (eg Gentoo)
>
> I don't even know if true RPM or deb distros with a BSD startup style
> exist, but given the sheer number of existing distros I assume they
> must. :)
>
> I think the interesting thing about the above tree is that it basically
> shows practically every major difference between adminning a
> distribution. Obviously this is a simplification, but the basic
> information admins need to know is "how do I install stuff?" and "how do
> I start up stuff?" (The other major component missing from my tree is
> "how do I configure stuff?", but I've found that often, though not
> always, goes with the package manager. And I ran out of patience to add
> these branches.)
>
> --keith
Interesting, but notice how Slackware is the single thread that goes
right through and past the other variations, and remains, while others
end up in evolutionary cul-de-sacs. In another millenia there will only
be Slackware's children.
Follow the way, the light, the code. :)
Sylvain Robitaille
> Interesting, but notice how Slackware is the single thread that goes
> right through and past the other variations, ...
The diagram was simplified for editorial impact. If you want to see
what the evolution of Linux distributions really looks like, see
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Gldt.svg
> end up in evolutionary cul-de-sacs. In another millenia there will
> only be Slackware's children.
I don't expect that to be true at all ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@alcor.concordia.ca
Network and Systems analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike
>> In another millenia there will only be Slackware's children.
>
> I don't expect that to be true at all ...
Blas-PHEMER!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R_hlMK7tCks
Michael Black
> Responding to Sylvain Robitaille:
>
>>> In another millenia there will only be Slackware's children.
>>
>> I don't expect that to be true at all ...
>
> Blas-PHEMER!
>
But it all supposes that all future distributions will follow
what already exists.
Innovation stalls that way. Every so often, it makes sense
to go back to the beginning, and start from scratch. Instead
of incremental changes, which likely are given without much
thought, you may have a big leap forward because you aren't
encumbered by all that came later, or even the assumptions.
Michael
Mike
Er, yeah. I was just flag waving for the fun of it, and the idea here was
to have a giggle at the vid really. ;)
Keith Keller
>
> The diagram was simplified for editorial impact. If you want to see
> what the evolution of Linux distributions really looks like, see
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Gldt.svg
That's not really an evolutionary tree, that's a family tree. But
obviously Debian did not spring into being like Athena eating her way
out of Zeus' head. Distros borrow ideas freely from each other, which
is what makes a true phylogenetic tree.
You'll also notice that, for the most part, I was completely 100%
utterly correct (more or less) about the main branches of the linux
evolutionary tree: the largest families are Slackware, Debian, and
RedHat. The Gentoo branch is young, so may or may not develop.
Sylvain Robitaille
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Gldt.svg
>
> That's not really an evolutionary tree, that's a family tree.
Well, according to the caption on the page that links to that, it's
a timeline, specifically. I do think that it clearly shows how the
various distributions evolved from their primary "families", if you would.
> But obviously Debian did not spring into being like Athena eating her
> way out of Zeus' head. ...
It was one of many distributions getting started at approximately the
same time, before some that would become important, but after others. I
would say that Debian's beginnings are much too close in time to
Slackware's for anyone to make a claim that Debian did not evolve
independently of Slackware. It may have borrowed from the same "parent"
as Slackware, though that diagram does not suggest that it did.
> You'll also notice that, for the most part, I was completely 100%
> utterly correct (more or less) about the main branches of the linux
> evolutionary tree ....
I didn't intend to suggest otherwise. I was simply making the point
that these are actually parallel development branches, rather than
having branched out from Slackware, and that your diagram had purposely
simplified that notion to make its point. The poster of the message I
followed up to appeared to believe that the other branches had grown out
of Slackware, and I wanted to clarify that they hadn't.