way back 1999 when mandrake become the hype linux distro and infact won best distro, but some linux community worried about mandrake's direction (http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~dranch/LINUX/TrinityOS/cHTML/TrinityOS-c -6.html).
On 13 Dec 2002 22:48:32 +0800 Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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] -- Jimmy Lim Operation & Support Team Leader Tricom _ 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]
