I saw the following message on a newsgroup that appears to be made up of
e-mails to a FreeBSD mailing list. It seems even some FreeBSD users
have good things to say about our favorite distro.
*********************************************************************
From: Chris Maness
Newsgroups: mpc.lists.freebsd.questions,muc.lists.freebsd.questions
Subject: Re: OT: Slackware: Starting Servers at Boot
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:09:40 -0800
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Waitman Gobble wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2012 12:22 PM, "Chris Maness" wrote:
>> I have been using FreeBSD for so long I forgot how to configure
>> services and startup. I now also have a Slack box. What file do I
>> edit to so that services like named start automagically? I am aware
>> lines can be uncommented in inetd.conf, but I want the service
>> running without spawning from inetd.
>> Thanks,
>> Chris Maness
> hmm never tried slackware GNU/Linux but maybe
> ntsysv
> works?
After more searching it turns out that all that one needs to do is
make the rc.bind executable in the rc.d directory. Wow, that is as
straight forward as it comes.
Chick Tower <c.to...@deadspam.com> writes:
>I saw the following message on a newsgroup that appears to be made up of
>e-mails to a FreeBSD mailing list. It seems even some FreeBSD users
>have good things to say about our favorite distro.
I would consider myself one of the OpenBSD fans. Right now I use Slackware
because there are some things that I cannot do effectively on OpenBSD. My
impression has always been that the BSD community has a good deal of respect
for Slackware. I think Slackware does a remarkably good job of trying to
remain the most UNIX-like GNU/Linux distribution, and the value of that
cannot, I think, be overstated.
-- Aaron W. Hsu | arcf...@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.
>> I saw the following message on a newsgroup that appears to be made up
>> of e-mails to a FreeBSD mailing list. It seems even some FreeBSD
>> users have good things to say about our favorite distro.
> I would consider myself one of the OpenBSD fans. Right now I use
> Slackware because there are some things that I cannot do effectively
> on OpenBSD. My impression has always been that the BSD community has a
> good deal of respect for Slackware. I think Slackware does a
> remarkably good job of trying to remain the most UNIX-like GNU/Linux
> distribution, and the value of that cannot, I think, be overstated.
Slack isn't the only distro that tries to stay as close to UNIX as possible. Gentoo and Arch Linux are also in that ballpark.
But I agree: the value of staying true to the UNIX design and philosophy cannot be overstated in this day and age of Microsoft Idiocracy. ;-)
(Dan C knows what I'm talking about. :p)
-- = Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:01:36 +0100, Aragorn wrote:
> On Sunday 05 February 2012 21:43, Aaron W. Hsu conveyed the following
> to alt.os.linux.slackware...
>>> I saw the following message on a newsgroup that appears to be made up
>>> of e-mails to a FreeBSD mailing list. It seems even some FreeBSD
>>> users have good things to say about our favorite distro.
>> I would consider myself one of the OpenBSD fans. Right now I use
>> Slackware because there are some things that I cannot do effectively on
>> OpenBSD. My impression has always been that the BSD community has a
>> good deal of respect for Slackware. I think Slackware does a remarkably
>> good job of trying to remain the most UNIX-like GNU/Linux distribution,
>> and the value of that cannot, I think, be overstated.
> Slack isn't the only distro that tries to stay as close to UNIX as
> possible. Gentoo and Arch Linux are also in that ballpark.
> But I agree: the value of staying true to the UNIX design and philosophy
> cannot be overstated in this day and age of Microsoft Idiocracy. ;-)
Aragorn <stry...@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
>Slack isn't the only distro that tries to stay as close to UNIX as >possible. Gentoo and Arch Linux are also in that ballpark.
When I last tried Gentoo, I can't say that working with it was anything
close to working with the BSDs or any other UNIX with which I am familiar.
Not to disparage Gentoo, far be it from me, but I wouldn't consider nearly
as close to other UNIXen as Slackware.
Arch is a bit different though. I have heard great things about it, but I've
not tried it heavily yet. I tried a fork of it for a special situation, but
that failed miserably. It does seem to try for a good UNIX like perspective.
I am a bit disconcerted by the rolling releases, partly because I've heard
of people being bitten by this, and I've been bitten by rolling releases as
well. It's a nice distro, but for stability and "comfort" (for my definition
of comfort) I'd still give the edge to Slackware.
-- Aaron W. Hsu | arcf...@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.
>> Slack isn't the only distro that tries to stay as close to UNIX as
>> possible. Gentoo and Arch Linux are also in that ballpark.
> When I last tried Gentoo, I can't say that working with it was
> anything close to working with the BSDs or any other UNIX with which I
> am familiar.
That is strange. Installing and updating Gentoo is all commandline-
driven, and Gentoo's Portage package management is based upon the BSD Ports system.
The init system is of course different from that of BSD. It uses openrc now, which is written in C and behaves very similarly to the traditional System V init, but with named runlevels rather than numbered ones, and dependency-based init scripts. It supports both parallel and sequential runlevel initialization.
> Not to disparage Gentoo, far be it from me, but I wouldn't consider
> nearly as close to other UNIXen as Slackware.
Well, I beg to differ on that.
> Arch is a bit different though. I have heard great things about it,
> but I've not tried it heavily yet. I tried a fork of it for a special
> situation, but that failed miserably. It does seem to try for a good
> UNIX like perspective. I am a bit disconcerted by the rolling
> releases, partly because I've heard of people being bitten by this,
> and I've been bitten by rolling releases as well. It's a nice distro,
> but for stability and "comfort" (for my definition of comfort) I'd
> still give the edge to Slackware.
Both rolling upgrade releases and fixed upgrade releases have their pros and cons. It's just another way of maintaining the system. And sometimes, even fixed date releases break things, like a number of years ago, when RedHat, Mandrake and several others suddenly went from RPM version 3.x to version 4 during the distro's lifetime.
-- = Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
Chick Tower <c.to...@deadspam.com> writes:
>On 2012-02-05, Aaron W Hsu <arcf...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
>> I would consider myself one of the OpenBSD fans. Right now I use Slackware
>> because there are some things that I cannot do effectively on OpenBSD.
>What, pray tell, would those things be, Aaron, if I may be so nosy?
At the moment, it would be high-performance SMP support, including
threading, good 64-bit Linux Binary compatibility (I work with a number of
proprietary Linux applications including BX Pro, Dyalog, VMWare Workstation
and Opera), Enterprise WPA2 support in Userspace (i.e. -- something that's
really usable for a roaming laptop), and probably a couple of other things
that I don't recall now.
Were it not for those things, I do find OpenBSD to be the most pleasant
development platform to work on, and one of the most stable and reliable. But I really do have an interest in the 64-bit builds, and those don't have
Linux compatibility for some of the binaries, and without the wireless....
Maybe it's worth another shot though.
-- Aaron W. Hsu | arcf...@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.
