> From: Ariz Jacinto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> the first gnu/linux distro that i've owned was Slackware 3.x.
> it was part of the book entitled "Linux Networks" by
> Volkerding (?) that i've used in college. but i never got a
> chance to install it, hehehe. maybe i got envious when
> my classmates start installing RH 5.x. coz their only problem
> with RH was to specify the partition while i have to figure out
> everything on slack. FreeBSD was even easier to install than
> slack back then.

When I tried out RH, it was clear there's a lot 
of stuff added to make it easier for the user.
But the (essentially) forced use of rpm made 
moving to a newer version of X - which had to be
compiled 'coz the rpm was not yet available - a 
living nightmare. I probably spent at least the
same amount of time figuring out how to get the 
dependencies working (never got them to) rather 
than actually figuring out how to compile X. RH 
immediately lost cachet in my eyes - it was clear 
that the system which was supposed to help users 
ended up hindering them. If I hadn't tried to 
compile X myself, I probably would never have 
realized how artificial the help rpm gives really 
is.

With Slack's packaging system, I have a very
clear and simple picture of my system in my mind. 
This set of files for this functionality and
nothing else. Reminds me of the DOS days where
you know that after deleting certain directories
and perhaps files, you have cleanly removed all
traces of a certain program and its side effects. 
The good old simple days before all this Windows 
registry and shortcuts nonsense came along.

> Mandrake is for my desktop/multimedia machine

I've had good success using Slackware for 
multimedia. Almost all the functionality is 
taken care of by KDE's arTs server. I just 
figure out which few lines to uncomment in 
rc.modules (to enable the devices) and the very 
kewl arTs server automatically does the rest.

I like the fact that under Slackware you are
required to have at least a token understanding
of what's going on vs. just clicking on a GUI to 
enable certain devices. This gives you a very clear 
view of where the kernel's responsibilites lie,
which jobs X does, and where KDE takes over.
Once you figure those out, you'll be pleasantly
surprised at how clean the design exposed by
Slackware really is, how easy it is to tweak
and how much a GUI-based setup actually slows you 
down, most especially during the times when 
something is not working and you need to figure out 
why.

I see the niceties that other distros provide
as similar to bike training wheels. Once you know 
how to ride a bike, you're better off without
them as they actually end up being impediments.

I'm not someone who's fond of complexity for its 
own sake. I don't like Emacs, would rather not have 
to use vim, think that bash is a monstrosity, and 
consider Windows to be more ergonomically designed 
than Linux in certain important ways. Yet I never 
find myself wishing for additional user-friendly 
GUI stuff in Slackware. The packaging tools in
Slackware that already work on the command line 
have the best flexibility/usability ratio in my 
book. You put those on a GUI and it may seem to
make them easier at first, but you might lose a 
lot of flexibility in the process.

_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph

To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to