On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 19:57, Ian C. Sison wrote: > I believe your reluctancy to consider the advantages of package managers > and dependencies stems from this statement you made above, so i need not > rebut your other points below. Dependencies are there for a reason and if > one cannot appreciate its advantages, then a discussion of its merits or > demerits on the same level cannot be done. >
building from source (of course reading the README, INSTALL, etc. files and knowing what to do beforehand) is still the best way of installing applications IMHO. and i believe that during the part where you try doing './configure' on the command line tells you that YES, there are dependencies. but then like i said, you could see them even before you even try to configure the application you are about to build from source. maybe i am stressing the obvious, but then... ;) > Allow me then to just rebut some really FALSE claims: > please do. ;) > Mandrake comes with its own kernel and a plain vanilla linux kernel, > and i believe debian ships a plain vanilla linux kernel as well. > and which one does it install for you? i know that the modules you dont need for hardware you dont have are included upon installation. yes, the vanilla sources are there, but then i wouldnt go on saying how mandrake didnt function right when i correctly configured and made a lean vanilla kernel for my system. so i wont. ;) > > Any bad experience may mean several things, and certainly DOES NOT > automatically mean that the particular technology is broken or > fundamentally flawed. Most of the time it means it was not used properly. > i dont remember saying that the technology is broken or flawed. yes, it [referring to rpm] has more features like dependency checks, etc. but i again would like to say that no thank you -- i do not need them. why? because i can work without them. and i _personally_ do not think that on the basis of merit such as ease of use, that i will want to use it -- because i primarily do not see it as an advantage, rather a mere complexity (which i might say is for me, unnecessary). > > ever wondered why the slackware packaging system is still around? yes, > > there are fancy dependency checks, and auto-install features in some > > packaging systems which i may repeat -- I (personally) DO NOT NEED. that > > which i do not need is bloat to me. > > Yes, as i said many people do not appreaciate the benefits therefore claim > that they do not need it. Unfortunately, many people also do not > understand the technology, use it incorrectly, experience catastrophic > failure and then knock it down later claiming it to be not useful to them. > what benefits are there that i can achieve using rpm over tarballs? i fail to see the merit such as 'ease of use' be a factor to me - but then i might be alone on this one. another is like i have earlier stated these features (like dependency checks that i can do myself) are complexities that to me are not necessary, and not an advantage. of course, this is personally speaking. ;) > Let it be clear that i am not accusing you nor anyone, and even i myself > am guilty of that on occasion so bato bato sa langit... > me too. i am just up for discussion, and since we're at it, im sorry if i have hurt anyone's feelings. ;) > > > but ill face it. sure, slack doesnt offer these services so its just > > mandatory that i not need it in my current situation. but i've been able > > to work without it, which goes to show that yes, i can live without > > automatic dependency checks. sure, i'm a bit masochistic you may say, > > but then that's me. ;) > > People can live without a lot of things. In some areas of the country, > there is still no electricity or phone service. But they are alive, and > their existence in the planet is not threatened. People adapt to the > environment they are used to. And you can't blame them for not being able > to experience, use, and appreciate better technology. And you can't > blame them either for NOT WANTING to use better technology as well. > i wouldn't consider a more complex technology as better. take the pencil -- why can't we get rid of it? because it works. sure, there's the ballpen which runs out of ink, but then the pencil still works. which technology is better? well, i would say neither because they're two ways of serving the same purpose -- but i would go on to say that theoretically speaking, the ballpen in a more complex technology than lead in the center of a wooden stick. that doesnt make it [the ballpen] better. > > best practices says who? pkgtool is mature. but if some dumb know-it-all > > would try to do something which he has no knowledge about, then there > > we'll have problems. > > Any technology in the hands of novices is dangerous. Any technology in > the hands of the closed minds is knocked at and ignored, and later > criticized to be not useful. > im not saying that pkgtool is the most mature packaging system there is, but it works. that's what i am saying. i am not discounting the fact that the best gun in the hands of a vegetable is useless -- but then what i mean by this is that you need to know what you are doing in order to do it effectively or be able to do it at all. sure, rpm in the hands of an imbecil may be comparable to the above example. ;) > > slackware 8.1 is up to date, have you seen one working already? it is > > very maintainable, and easier to administer IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE > > DOING. > > Ehem, i started learning linux with Slackware back in 1994, i owe > slackware my roots as a linux professional, but i know how far the > primitive package management system can take me, and moved on to RPM based > distros since. > yes, tarballs have been the first ways of packaging in linux. but why dont we get rid of it? well see the pencil argument. ;) > > The difference between us - i respect, since you've obviously made up your > mind already, however there must be someone who can explain to the list > the other side of the 'slackware advocacy' thread. There are others on > this list who can benefit by knowing both sides, and leave it up to them > to make a sound decision. > i happen to think that yes, rpms are a big convenience to use. please take note, _convenience_. just like the shower, which is a better implementation of the debu system; only that the former employs a lot of other complexities which may otherwise not be found on the latter. having this said, it is great if you get a feel of both technologies, and see which one suits you. ;) chill sire... ;) this after all, is for the sake of discussion and all in my honest opinion. :) -- -=[mikhail]=- _ 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]
