Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd May 2008 05:47 UTC, submitted by ZacharyM
Slackware, Slax One of the oldest Linux distributions, Slackware, has pushed out another release. "Well folks, it's that time to announce a new stable Slackware release again. So, without further ado, announcing Slackware version 12.1! Since we've moved to supporting the 2.6 kernel series exclusively (and fine-tuned the system to get the most out of it), we feel that Slackware 12.1 has many improvements over our last release (Slackware 12.0) and is a must-have upgrade for any Slackware user."
Thread beginning with comment 312777
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Packages, packages...
by garymax on Sun 4th May 2008 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Packages, packages..."
garymax
Member since:
2006-01-23

You are not making any sense.


Nice try at polemics but I made perfect sense. My point was and is the fact that unless you are installing massive amounts of apps, resolving dependencies is not that big of a deal.

When you have source code ANY application is available.

I left it in 1997 due to its... lack of proper package management. But I have seen nothing to indicate that the situation has changed much.


This further proves my point. You're looking for something easy. It's not a matter of whether apps are available or not. It's whether you can get them onto your system in a perceived "easy" fashion.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing but it underscores the crux of the issue.

Also, it appears your idea of a "proper" package manager is one that resolves dependencies or, in other words, is easy...

I still say the cleanliness of the system and the relative ease with which dependencies are resolved in Slackware are well worth the minimal extra effort to get a great system that performs well with no bloat.

Reply Parent Score: 3

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I would agree that for very simple systems with well defined requirements, Slackware's lack of package management might not make much difference. Ditto for embedded use.

For my own personal and professional needs, I require something which handles software installation and dependencies more efficiently than does Slackware. I support some 60 or so machines in various configurations, and that "small amount of effort" you refer to adds up fast. What you somewhat disparagingly refer to as wanting something "easy", I refer to as wanting something scalable, managable, and face it, modern.

Edited 2008-05-04 17:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Packages, packages...
by garymax on Mon 5th May 2008 04:30 in reply to "RE[3]: Packages, packages..."
garymax Member since:
2006-01-23

I did not mean to disparage your user needs by the word "easy"; I meant to point out that those who want dependency resolution want that convenience and that is not necessarily a bad thing as I stated.

But the extra effort a Slackware system requires yields far greater benefits than having pre-compiled packages.

Any automatic dependency resolution will almost always create bloat. Convenience? Yes. But also bloat.

There are other systems like Gentoo which are used as build servers to custom build packages and then roll them out to the other systems when ready.

Your needs will vary from others to be sure. But the amount of time you want to spend on your configuration efforts and the resulting system will determine your choice of distribution and your choice of package manager.

As to your comment about wanting a "modern" package manager, it's not really worth commenting much on.

Convenient != modern. It's simply a choice of package manager made by the administrator of a system.

Since others have used the car metaphor I'll do the same.

A manual transmission does not make a car a "classic" or outdated. It is usually a sign of sportiness and class. More work? Maybe. More fun? You betcha. Shift when you want, how you want.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Packages, packages...
by garymax on Mon 5th May 2008 20:05 in reply to "RE[3]: Packages, packages..."
garymax Member since:
2006-01-23

I would agree that for very simple systems with well defined requirements, Slackware's lack of package management might not make much difference.


You have made the classic mistake of equating dependency resolution with package management. Your statement that Slackware lacks a package manager is just not true. It has one. It's name is pkgtool.

pkgtool performs flawlessly with the installation, upgrading and removal of Slackware packages. The one thing it does not do that you seem to always emphasize is "dependency resolution".

Please do not confuse "ease of use" with package management. Or, in other words, if it isn't easy, if it doesn't resolve dependencies, or if it doesn't "scale", then it doesn't have a package manager.

This is flawed thinking.

But that's OK. Those who use Slackware are the only ones who need to know.

Reply Parent Score: 1