- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Linus Torvalds on Linux Distributions
10 days ago Linux creator Linus Torvalds gave an interview in which he talked about what he likes and doesn't like in a Linux distribution:   I've used different distributions over the years. Right now I happen to use Fedora 9 on most of the computers I have, which really boils down to the fact that Fedora had fairly good support for PowerPC back when I used that, so I grew used to it. But I actually don't care too much about the distribution, as long as it makes it easy to install and keep reasonably up-to-date. I care about the kernel and a few programs, and the set of programs I really care about is actually fairly small. When I reviewed Slackware last month three of my four main criticisms all boil down to ease of use. I drew the ire of some Slackware users for stating that, in my opinion, Slackware isn't user friendly due to it's lack of graphical administration tools, lack of a package manager with dependency checking, and lack of a decent repository of additional software packages. Some even took issue with my using a conventional definition of user friendly, specifically that a distribution be intuitive and relatively easy for even a non-technical user to install, configure, and maintain. Ease of use isn't just for newcomers. Nobody would question Linus Torvalds' expertise when it comes to Linux or his technical skills yet he stresses ease of installation and ease of keeping a distro up to date. In that context his preference for Fedora and Ubuntu over what he calls "overly technical" distributions makes a lot of sense. While he only names Debian I think we can safely assume that Gentoo and Slackware would fit into this category. The reason Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, and SUSE are leading desktop distributions is that they all try, and to a great degree succeed, in allowing users to concentrate on something other than the OS, like the work they want to do with their computer in the first place. All of these distributions allow you to get under the hood to customize and tweak to whatever extent you might want or need. What they don't do is force you to get under the hood just to get configuration done. A large repository means that you aren't forced to compile from source on a regular basis. Linus Torvalds' comments on distributions are in line with what the majority of Linux users I've worked with and talked with over the years prefer, even highly technically competent users. Linus makes one other point which is worth noting: Me personally, I'm a believer in choice. Yes, it can be confusing, and yes, it can cause the market to look more fragmented, but on the other hand, it also begets competition. And competition is good - and it's good even within a project. It's what makes people try different things, and it ends up being very motivational. The freedom of choice that the plethora of Linux distributions offer pretty much guarantees that Linux users will always be able to choose a distribution that suits them best. It's clear that for a sizable number of Linux uses that choice will be a Linux distribution like Debian, Gentoo, or Slackware. |
|
|
Comments (53)
33 earlier comments in the full thread.
To help, here's the misunderstanding I sense, explained by Mr. Tuomov - someone who dislikes Linux, Slackware, Ubuntu, Gnome, automake, glibc - almost the whole Linux chain and ecosystem actually. Anyway, he says something that's useful for this thread:
"Usability simply does not equal low learning curve, and hiding system details from the user, as the Official Truth seems to be these day"
http://modeemi.fi/~tuomov/b/archives/2006/09/29/T23_35_30/
Mr. Tuomov by the way has intersting things to say about the whole Linux ecosystem though someone might not like his ranting style.
Back ontopic: Mr. Tuomov makes a distinction between usability and approachability. So what Bigg, maybe garymax and at least myself are blaming Caitlyn for is that she uses 'ease of use' and 'usabilty' without actually explaining what she means; without giving her definition. In 'our' views, she means 'approachability' but instead writes 'ease of use' or 'usability'. That's causing all this debate; a simple miscommunication and differences in ones definition of usability. Without a clear definition, discussing usability is a waste of time if you ask me (and the thread above shows), so I'm out.
"Usability simply does not equal low learning curve, and hiding system details from the user, as the Official Truth seems to be these day"
http://modeemi.fi/~tuomov/b/archives/2006/09/29/T23_35_30/
Mr. Tuomov by the way has intersting things to say about the whole Linux ecosystem though someone might not like his ranting style.
Back ontopic: Mr. Tuomov makes a distinction between usability and approachability. So what Bigg, maybe garymax and at least myself are blaming Caitlyn for is that she uses 'ease of use' and 'usabilty' without actually explaining what she means; without giving her definition. In 'our' views, she means 'approachability' but instead writes 'ease of use' or 'usability'. That's causing all this debate; a simple miscommunication and differences in ones definition of usability. Without a clear definition, discussing usability is a waste of time if you ask me (and the thread above shows), so I'm out.
> Without a clear definition, discussing usability is a waste of time if you ask me (and the thread above shows), so I'm out.
I tend to agree with you, but given that she's one of the more influential Linux bloggers, I feel I have no choice but to add comments to her stories to make sure the "technical" distros get a fair hearing. I think it's an injustice to users who, like myself, do not try distros because all of the reviewers present things from the perspective of a Windows user.
I tend to agree with you, but given that she's one of the more influential Linux bloggers, I feel I have no choice but to add comments to her stories to make sure the "technical" distros get a fair hearing. I think it's an injustice to users who, like myself, do not try distros because all of the reviewers present things from the perspective of a Windows user.
@bigg: Now you are doing me an injustice. I am not a Windows user and I haven't been (at least not as my primary OS) for about 15 years now. I last supported Windows professionally in 2003, and then only because the company I was working for was in financial trouble and downsizing and the last Windows admin was fired. I was the last admin standing.
The whole point of my current article was that this issue isn't just about newcomers or Windows users. Ease of use matters to many experienced Linux users.
I'll take the comment about how influential I'm supposed to be as a compliment. I have my doubts but I appreciate the thought.
@hkwint: In the current article I have explained what ease of use means, or at least I adopted Linus Torvalds' definition: easy to install, easy to keep up to date. I added, in my own words, intuitive. That does mean someone not familiar with the distro can look at it and figure it out.
@garymax: Ease of use is a common thread among these two articles. It goes way beyond that. It is a common thread in every review of a Linux distribution or desktop environment or window manager that I write. It is an important subject when discussing Linux on the desktop in general and in discussing greater acceptance of Linux. It is a continuing theme in many of my articles. I believe it is a vital issue towards greater acceptance of Linux and it is a subject I will continue to write about frequently.
The only difference between these articles and others I have written is one specifically was a review of Slackware and one followed that review closely so I chose to reference it and the discussion which followed.
If you believe writing about ease of use on the Linux desktop is "beating a dead horse" I respectfully disagree. I also disagree sharply with your characterization of my style of debate and your contention that I don't consider what others say in disagreement.
---
One again I will say look at the comments on that article. I think there are 13 including a few responses from me. None of them are about Slackware specifically. This article wasn't and isn't about Slackware. It's much broader than that.
To those who say talking about ease of use isn't generally understood I actually think it is even if some (most) in this thread challenge that or have a different understanding.
I think I've said all I can usefully say on this subject. I, despite statements to the contrary, have no interest in repetition.
The whole point of my current article was that this issue isn't just about newcomers or Windows users. Ease of use matters to many experienced Linux users.
I'll take the comment about how influential I'm supposed to be as a compliment. I have my doubts but I appreciate the thought.
@hkwint: In the current article I have explained what ease of use means, or at least I adopted Linus Torvalds' definition: easy to install, easy to keep up to date. I added, in my own words, intuitive. That does mean someone not familiar with the distro can look at it and figure it out.
@garymax: Ease of use is a common thread among these two articles. It goes way beyond that. It is a common thread in every review of a Linux distribution or desktop environment or window manager that I write. It is an important subject when discussing Linux on the desktop in general and in discussing greater acceptance of Linux. It is a continuing theme in many of my articles. I believe it is a vital issue towards greater acceptance of Linux and it is a subject I will continue to write about frequently.
The only difference between these articles and others I have written is one specifically was a review of Slackware and one followed that review closely so I chose to reference it and the discussion which followed.
If you believe writing about ease of use on the Linux desktop is "beating a dead horse" I respectfully disagree. I also disagree sharply with your characterization of my style of debate and your contention that I don't consider what others say in disagreement.
---
One again I will say look at the comments on that article. I think there are 13 including a few responses from me. None of them are about Slackware specifically. This article wasn't and isn't about Slackware. It's much broader than that.
To those who say talking about ease of use isn't generally understood I actually think it is even if some (most) in this thread challenge that or have a different understanding.
I think I've said all I can usefully say on this subject. I, despite statements to the contrary, have no interest in repetition.
Caitlyn said, "...I also disagree sharply with your characterization of my style of debate and your contention that I don't consider what others say in disagreement."
Take what I have written as constructive criticism or throw it out--the choice is yours. No matter what you decide to do, remember this: people do not judge you based on your intentions; they judge you by what you say--or write.
And sometimes, we come across in ways that we do not realize.
Selah...
Take what I have written as constructive criticism or throw it out--the choice is yours. No matter what you decide to do, remember this: people do not judge you based on your intentions; they judge you by what you say--or write.
And sometimes, we come across in ways that we do not realize.
Selah...
> If you believe writing about ease of use on the Linux desktop is "beating a dead horse" I respectfully disagree.
Ease of use isn't the dead horse. Ease of use of Slackware is.
I don't expect you to keep writing about ease of use. I don't expect you to stop using your definition of it. I do expect that you should realize that ease of use varies widely from one person to another depending on their past experience, attitude, and available support.
This is why I consider your review of Slackware to be substantially correct. Most new users will not have the background or support to find Slackware easy to use, while you yourself find that Slackware consumes too much of your time in comparison to other distributions.
However, neither of these makes Slackware "hard to use" as a general case.
> To those who say talking about ease of use isn't generally understood I actually think it is...
And that essentially sums up our disagreement.
Ease of use isn't the dead horse. Ease of use of Slackware is.
I don't expect you to keep writing about ease of use. I don't expect you to stop using your definition of it. I do expect that you should realize that ease of use varies widely from one person to another depending on their past experience, attitude, and available support.
This is why I consider your review of Slackware to be substantially correct. Most new users will not have the background or support to find Slackware easy to use, while you yourself find that Slackware consumes too much of your time in comparison to other distributions.
However, neither of these makes Slackware "hard to use" as a general case.
> To those who say talking about ease of use isn't generally understood I actually think it is...
And that essentially sums up our disagreement.
Quoting:In the current article I have explained what ease of use means, or at least I adopted Linus Torvalds' definition: easy to install, easy to keep up to date. I added, in my own words, intuitive.
OK, then the fault was mine. I'm glad it's cleared up now - at least for me.
jdixon,
I think it is possible to overemphasize "ease of use." If I knew that an author was going to be judging all of their Linux experiences by ease of use or use that as a criteria for evaluating distributions from here on out, I wouldn't read their material. It would be using an arbitrary standard with which to judge.
In order for there to be meaningful discourse, we first have to agree on what constitutes ease of use. And who would set the standard?
Physics is simple to the college professor who teaches it but not to the 6th grader. It's relative. And I think Caitlyn hasn't defined ease of use to such an extent that we can all agree with her definition. Then, Caitlyn writes for or against a distro using her ideas of what ease of use entails and speaks out against Slackware (or another perceived "hard to use" distribution) because it lacks what she thinks would make it easy for newcomers or people in general.
Then she quotes Linus Torvalds as an authority to buttress her article--which is permissible. But Linus' needs aren't my needs. He wants a no muss, no fuss distro so he can get to working on kernel level issues as quickly as possible. But that doesn't mean that Torvalds' needs set the standard for the community. Linus uses Fedora which I would never use. Big deal.
It all boils down to what the individual's needs are. And I do not think that you can say that there is an objective set of criteria that determines ease of use. Easy is a relative term.
I find Slackware easier to use than Ubuntu. But that doesn't mean it's for everyone.
I think it is possible to overemphasize "ease of use." If I knew that an author was going to be judging all of their Linux experiences by ease of use or use that as a criteria for evaluating distributions from here on out, I wouldn't read their material. It would be using an arbitrary standard with which to judge.
In order for there to be meaningful discourse, we first have to agree on what constitutes ease of use. And who would set the standard?
Physics is simple to the college professor who teaches it but not to the 6th grader. It's relative. And I think Caitlyn hasn't defined ease of use to such an extent that we can all agree with her definition. Then, Caitlyn writes for or against a distro using her ideas of what ease of use entails and speaks out against Slackware (or another perceived "hard to use" distribution) because it lacks what she thinks would make it easy for newcomers or people in general.
Then she quotes Linus Torvalds as an authority to buttress her article--which is permissible. But Linus' needs aren't my needs. He wants a no muss, no fuss distro so he can get to working on kernel level issues as quickly as possible. But that doesn't mean that Torvalds' needs set the standard for the community. Linus uses Fedora which I would never use. Big deal.
It all boils down to what the individual's needs are. And I do not think that you can say that there is an objective set of criteria that determines ease of use. Easy is a relative term.
I find Slackware easier to use than Ubuntu. But that doesn't mean it's for everyone.
> And I think Caitlyn hasn't defined ease of use to such an extent that we can all agree with her definition.
I think it's safe to say her definition wouldn't apply to me. But then I'm not your average user, for which Caitlyn is (in theory) attempting to define the term. Unfortunately, this "average user" is an extremely nebulous, hard to define, and somewhat mythical creature, which makes defining such an "ease of use" almost impossible. At best you can come up with some generalizations, none of which may apply to any individual user.
> And I do not think that you can say that there is an objective set of criteria that determines ease of use. Easy is a relative term.
Exactly.
I think it's safe to say her definition wouldn't apply to me. But then I'm not your average user, for which Caitlyn is (in theory) attempting to define the term. Unfortunately, this "average user" is an extremely nebulous, hard to define, and somewhat mythical creature, which makes defining such an "ease of use" almost impossible. At best you can come up with some generalizations, none of which may apply to any individual user.
> And I do not think that you can say that there is an objective set of criteria that determines ease of use. Easy is a relative term.
Exactly.
Garymax says I'm "against Slackware". I'm not. I was very clear in pointing out it's strong points: reliability, stability, and a nearly bug free distro. (At the time I wrote the review I said I hadn't found a bug but that no longer is true.) All of my reviews point out what I consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of a distro. I have never said that Slackware is horrible or that nobody should use it. Quite the contrary: I said that I keep coming back to it.
What I read in comments like this is an us vs. them attitude. It's kind of like President Bush saying you're either for us or against us. I'm sorry but the world isn't black and white.
I've spent 28+ years supporting users of all sorts in my career. I do believe that gives me some credibility in claiming I have a good idea of what a majority of users are looking for. Of course we're all individuals and we all have different needs. That goes without saying. What I write may not apply to you. That's fine and I accept that. Equally what applies to you may not apply to me. What applies to you or to me may not be a majority view. Based on my not so inconsiderable experience it isn't.
When I don't yield to or accept your view suddenly I'm inflexible. If you don't agree with my argument it's a "strawman". Sorry, no. All it means is that I see things differently.
I write for the diversity of readers that come to O'Reilly News. O'Reilly isn't a Linux website. We cover Windows, Mac, commercial UNIX, the BSDs, you name it. While our readers tend to be technically sophisticated, at least more so than the general population, they are not necessarily knowledgeable about Linux. Many are but many are not.
From what I've seen Slackware fills a niche. I'd even say it fills it well. That's why it still has a devoted following. I've never disputed that. To claim that just because people who are used to and like Slackware find it easy to use doesn't make it so for the general population or even for much of my readership. I do not believe that most people find the command line easy or even desirable. Professional systems administrators, myself included, certainly do. However, when the command line becomes the only option for routine tasks I am going to, in writing for more than just myself and more than just professional system administrators, point out the fact that the GUI, which is much more comfortable for many people, is missing. It's an undeniable fact. Now you, as a Slackware user who is comfortable of the command line may find that to be irrelevant. I don't. Most people don't.
I can count the number of popular Linux distributions which don't have automated dependency checking on one hand and have fingers left over. All the other do have it. Why is that? Slackware users argue that dependency checking is problematic and that it can get in the way. If most Linux users and developers felt that way why hasn't dependency checking gone by the wayside? If it makes life more difficult instead of easier why is it incorporated into nearly every Linux distribution? Perhaps even more to the point, why is someone who takes the view that it is important an anathema to you?
None of these issues were covered in the current article. Linus Torvalds' only example of what makes a distro "overly technical" is that it encourages you to compile your own software. In the case of Slackware that's only one issue of four that I raised. However, I did not bring those issues up again in this article, did I?
You don't like my criteria for reviewing a distribution? That's fine. You don't want to read what I write? Gee... was anybody forcing you to read my stuff? I don't think so. You want to tell the world you think I'm an idiot? If that's your opinion you are certainly within your rights to do so.
The top stories on O'Reilly News are chosen by the editors. It's not a popularity contest like it was on the O'Reillynet blogs. There is a reason my story has been at the top of the page for two days. My editor wrote me to congratulate me on an excellent story that picked out the most important parts of the interview. He liked the story a lot. I do have to please him if I want to write for him. I don't have to please the Slackware community. Believe it or not, though, I wasn't trying to please anybody. I was writing about an interview that Linus Torvalds gave that included a viewpoint which I strongly share. I wrote it because I felt it was valuable. That is and will remain my criteria. I will never please everyone nor should I try to.
I will repeat myself one last time on one key point that is being ignored: This article wasn't about Slackware. It isn't about Slackware. It would have been written even if I never had reviewed Slackware. It's about Linus Torvalds' views on what makes a good distribution. He places a very high value on ease of installation and maintenance. He also thinks having choices, including what he terms "overly technical" choices, is important. That's what this story was about. If some of you who defend Slackware somehow feel threatened by that viewpoint, which is definitely what I've come away with from this thread, well... To quote the person who started this thread: "Get over it."
OK, now I really am done here.
What I read in comments like this is an us vs. them attitude. It's kind of like President Bush saying you're either for us or against us. I'm sorry but the world isn't black and white.
I've spent 28+ years supporting users of all sorts in my career. I do believe that gives me some credibility in claiming I have a good idea of what a majority of users are looking for. Of course we're all individuals and we all have different needs. That goes without saying. What I write may not apply to you. That's fine and I accept that. Equally what applies to you may not apply to me. What applies to you or to me may not be a majority view. Based on my not so inconsiderable experience it isn't.
When I don't yield to or accept your view suddenly I'm inflexible. If you don't agree with my argument it's a "strawman". Sorry, no. All it means is that I see things differently.
I write for the diversity of readers that come to O'Reilly News. O'Reilly isn't a Linux website. We cover Windows, Mac, commercial UNIX, the BSDs, you name it. While our readers tend to be technically sophisticated, at least more so than the general population, they are not necessarily knowledgeable about Linux. Many are but many are not.
From what I've seen Slackware fills a niche. I'd even say it fills it well. That's why it still has a devoted following. I've never disputed that. To claim that just because people who are used to and like Slackware find it easy to use doesn't make it so for the general population or even for much of my readership. I do not believe that most people find the command line easy or even desirable. Professional systems administrators, myself included, certainly do. However, when the command line becomes the only option for routine tasks I am going to, in writing for more than just myself and more than just professional system administrators, point out the fact that the GUI, which is much more comfortable for many people, is missing. It's an undeniable fact. Now you, as a Slackware user who is comfortable of the command line may find that to be irrelevant. I don't. Most people don't.
I can count the number of popular Linux distributions which don't have automated dependency checking on one hand and have fingers left over. All the other do have it. Why is that? Slackware users argue that dependency checking is problematic and that it can get in the way. If most Linux users and developers felt that way why hasn't dependency checking gone by the wayside? If it makes life more difficult instead of easier why is it incorporated into nearly every Linux distribution? Perhaps even more to the point, why is someone who takes the view that it is important an anathema to you?
None of these issues were covered in the current article. Linus Torvalds' only example of what makes a distro "overly technical" is that it encourages you to compile your own software. In the case of Slackware that's only one issue of four that I raised. However, I did not bring those issues up again in this article, did I?
You don't like my criteria for reviewing a distribution? That's fine. You don't want to read what I write? Gee... was anybody forcing you to read my stuff? I don't think so. You want to tell the world you think I'm an idiot? If that's your opinion you are certainly within your rights to do so.
The top stories on O'Reilly News are chosen by the editors. It's not a popularity contest like it was on the O'Reillynet blogs. There is a reason my story has been at the top of the page for two days. My editor wrote me to congratulate me on an excellent story that picked out the most important parts of the interview. He liked the story a lot. I do have to please him if I want to write for him. I don't have to please the Slackware community. Believe it or not, though, I wasn't trying to please anybody. I was writing about an interview that Linus Torvalds gave that included a viewpoint which I strongly share. I wrote it because I felt it was valuable. That is and will remain my criteria. I will never please everyone nor should I try to.
I will repeat myself one last time on one key point that is being ignored: This article wasn't about Slackware. It isn't about Slackware. It would have been written even if I never had reviewed Slackware. It's about Linus Torvalds' views on what makes a good distribution. He places a very high value on ease of installation and maintenance. He also thinks having choices, including what he terms "overly technical" choices, is important. That's what this story was about. If some of you who defend Slackware somehow feel threatened by that viewpoint, which is definitely what I've come away with from this thread, well... To quote the person who started this thread: "Get over it."
OK, now I really am done here.
> I'm sorry but the world isn't black and white.
That's a hot button for me, which I'm sorry you pushed. No, the world isn't black and white, but it's a lot more black and white than most people who use that saying are willing to admit.
> I don't. Most people don't.
Most people don't use Linux, and you claim they're happy with Windows. Using that same argument, why cover Linux at all?
> Why is that?
Because Patrick (and by extension, those who use his distribution) doesn't like it.
> ...why is someone who takes the view that it is important an anathema to you?
Anathema? You overrate yourself. I (and I believe the others commenting) merely disagree with you about what makes a distribution "easy to use", and therefore the relative worth of Slackware.
The folks here were commenting about and discussing your column, not you. You're the one who made it personal by claiming "I see someone wants to censor what I write" and similar comments (see anathema above).
You're the one who's trying to make this into a personal attack, Caitlyn, not us. We're merely voicing an alternative viewpoint. Unless we cross the lines of LXer's rules, that's as much our right as posting your columns is yours.
That's a hot button for me, which I'm sorry you pushed. No, the world isn't black and white, but it's a lot more black and white than most people who use that saying are willing to admit.
> I don't. Most people don't.
Most people don't use Linux, and you claim they're happy with Windows. Using that same argument, why cover Linux at all?
> Why is that?
Because Patrick (and by extension, those who use his distribution) doesn't like it.
> ...why is someone who takes the view that it is important an anathema to you?
Anathema? You overrate yourself. I (and I believe the others commenting) merely disagree with you about what makes a distribution "easy to use", and therefore the relative worth of Slackware.
The folks here were commenting about and discussing your column, not you. You're the one who made it personal by claiming "I see someone wants to censor what I write" and similar comments (see anathema above).
You're the one who's trying to make this into a personal attack, Caitlyn, not us. We're merely voicing an alternative viewpoint. Unless we cross the lines of LXer's rules, that's as much our right as posting your columns is yours.
> I can count the number of popular Linux distributions which don't have automated dependency checking on one hand and have fingers left over. All the other do have it.
I keep saying I'm not going back to this thread, but that's like saying I'm going to stop eating the potato chips when there's still half a bag left.
Gslapt works quite well for me. I add slacky.eu to my sources and I've got most of what I need. The rest comes from SlackBuilds.org.
And, to repeat a point I made before, Slackware is designed so that dependency resolution is not an issue like it is with other distros. With Debian you _need_ dependency resolution.
I have to laugh when Fedora is cited by Linus as an easy distro. I set up Fedora 9 for someone right after it came out. The details are not important, but I used only the official repos. At first a couple of updates couldn't be installed due to dependency problems, then a few more, and after a couple weeks the system was toast. I tried Fedora 7 a year ago (when I experienced my first frustrations with Debian), it worked great, but then after a couple months of updates and infrequent use I had dependency problems. Fedora 8 lasted all of two days, as networking seldom worked.
I keep saying I'm not going back to this thread, but that's like saying I'm going to stop eating the potato chips when there's still half a bag left.
Gslapt works quite well for me. I add slacky.eu to my sources and I've got most of what I need. The rest comes from SlackBuilds.org.
And, to repeat a point I made before, Slackware is designed so that dependency resolution is not an issue like it is with other distros. With Debian you _need_ dependency resolution.
I have to laugh when Fedora is cited by Linus as an easy distro. I set up Fedora 9 for someone right after it came out. The details are not important, but I used only the official repos. At first a couple of updates couldn't be installed due to dependency problems, then a few more, and after a couple weeks the system was toast. I tried Fedora 7 a year ago (when I experienced my first frustrations with Debian), it worked great, but then after a couple months of updates and infrequent use I had dependency problems. Fedora 8 lasted all of two days, as networking seldom worked.
For some reason, Slack 12.1 wouldn't boot on my VIA C3 Samuel box. Slack 12 and 11 did fine on it, but none of the 12.1 kernels will even boot. I really wanted to get GNOME Slackbuild on there and see how Slack ran that way. I just had trouble with the latest Lenny installer, too, so maybe the VIA is being left behind ...
> For some reason, Slack 12.1 wouldn't boot on my VIA C3 Samuel box.
Well, the smp kernels are i686, but the single processor kernels are i486, so in theory they should work. You should probably let Patrick know, just so he's aware of the problem. I doubt too many folks use the C3 processor. I also doubt you want to take time to compile your own kernel or compare kernel config files to troubleshoot the problem.
Well, the smp kernels are i686, but the single processor kernels are i486, so in theory they should work. You should probably let Patrick know, just so he's aware of the problem. I doubt too many folks use the C3 processor. I also doubt you want to take time to compile your own kernel or compare kernel config files to troubleshoot the problem.
Caitlyn,
I will not address your diatribe as you appear to be obstinate. And again, I have nothing against you personally. I do not know you. But your demeanor in this forum leads me to believe that you do not take criticism well and you don't seem to take kindly to dissenters. You routinely misrepresent the views of others and then attack them when the expressed view is different from your version. That is why I keep bringing up the strawman argument. I don't bring it up simply because I disagree with your viewpoints; I keep bringing it up because you have taken my and other's posts out of context several times now, and made us to say something we never said. And that is a strawman argument.
If you have behaved differently in other forums as you say you have, then why haven't you displayed that same generosity to us here?
Is it our fault?
I will not address your diatribe as you appear to be obstinate. And again, I have nothing against you personally. I do not know you. But your demeanor in this forum leads me to believe that you do not take criticism well and you don't seem to take kindly to dissenters. You routinely misrepresent the views of others and then attack them when the expressed view is different from your version. That is why I keep bringing up the strawman argument. I don't bring it up simply because I disagree with your viewpoints; I keep bringing it up because you have taken my and other's posts out of context several times now, and made us to say something we never said. And that is a strawman argument.
If you have behaved differently in other forums as you say you have, then why haven't you displayed that same generosity to us here?
Is it our fault?
@Steven:
I had trouble booting the default (SMP) Slackware 12.0 kernel on my previous system, an AMD Athlon. I had to specify the non-SMP on the SysLinux command line, just to boot the installation CD.
I'm not willing to blame Patrick for this one, because it was a home-brew system. Once I found a work-around, everything was hunky-dory.
I had trouble booting the default (SMP) Slackware 12.0 kernel on my previous system, an AMD Athlon. I had to specify the non-SMP on the SysLinux command line, just to boot the installation CD.
I'm not willing to blame Patrick for this one, because it was a home-brew system. Once I found a work-around, everything was hunky-dory.
jdixon,
I think this sums up this whole thread quite nicely.
Quoting:Anathema? You overrate yourself. I (and I believe the others commenting) merely disagree with you about what makes a distribution "easy to use", and therefore the relative worth of Slackware.
The folks here were commenting about and discussing your column, not you. You're the one who made it personal by claiming "I see someone wants to censor what I write" and similar comments (see anathema above).
You're the one who's trying to make this into a personal attack, Caitlyn, not us. We're merely voicing an alternative viewpoint. Unless we cross the lines of LXer's rules, that's as much our right as posting your columns is yours.
I think this sums up this whole thread quite nicely.
Hmmm. I'm new here. I was drawn to this article because 1) I'm a Slackware user and 2) Caitlyn's name is very similar to my daughter's rare name.
I just read the comments and from an outsider's perspective find her comments in this thread a bit defensive. The key was her initial comment which accused someone of wanting to censor her. That's a real conversation squelcher.
I re-read the three comments before her's and couldn't find anything close to suggesting she shouldn't be writing (or more importantly should be allowed to write (that's censorship, right?). I think that comment is an example of the strawman argument someone else suggested.
I find these conversations a lot more educational when from time to time you say something like "I see your point". It makes the other person feel good and forces you to practice some humility. Something I can always stand to do more often.
FWIW, I agree with Caitlyn's premise. Slackware is more difficult (for me, anyway), than, say, Ubuntu. But I know more about Linux than I ever would know using the bug "U". Maybe not everyone.
\uSlackr
I re-read the three comments before her's and couldn't find anything close to suggesting she shouldn't be writing (or more importantly should be allowed to write (that's censorship, right?). I think that comment is an example of the strawman argument someone else suggested.
I find these conversations a lot more educational when from time to time you say something like "I see your point". It makes the other person feel good and forces you to practice some humility. Something I can always stand to do more often.
FWIW, I agree with Caitlyn's premise. Slackware is more difficult (for me, anyway), than, say, Ubuntu. But I know more about Linux than I ever would know using the bug "U". Maybe not everyone.
\uSlackr
@uslackr:
You are correct, Slackware has a steeper-than-usual learning curve when you raise the hood/bonnet. But, following the basic installation instructions, anyone who wants can be productive immediately after installation, using KDE. Truthfully, the only configuration necessary after launching the GUI is printer setup (for paper office) or Internet (for paperless).
Granted, the default configuration is geared toward the lowest common denominator. Instructions are available for those who wish to "take it to the next level", but it isn't a requirement for productivity in Slackware.
You are correct, Slackware has a steeper-than-usual learning curve when you raise the hood/bonnet. But, following the basic installation instructions, anyone who wants can be productive immediately after installation, using KDE. Truthfully, the only configuration necessary after launching the GUI is printer setup (for paper office) or Internet (for paperless).
Granted, the default configuration is geared toward the lowest common denominator. Instructions are available for those who wish to "take it to the next level", but it isn't a requirement for productivity in Slackware.
> Granted, the default configuration is geared toward the lowest common denominator.
And to be fair, the laptop Caitlyn uses for testing doesn't work with this default configuration (it doesn't support the VESA display, from memory). So she has to "take it to the next level" right from the start.
And to be fair, the laptop Caitlyn uses for testing doesn't work with this default configuration (it doesn't support the VESA display, from memory). So she has to "take it to the next level" right from the start.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Caitlyn,
There's a big difference between your writing style and your debating style. One may like your writing and abhor your debating style.
From what I have seen, when you "debate" you do so in a manner that sets up strawman arguments to make your points look good instead of letting your points--and those of your detractors--stand on their own merits.
Just an observation.
One doesn't prove the merits of their position by shouting louder than others. One wins--or at least proves--their points with cogent replies and appeals to factual content.