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."
E-mail Print r 8   · Read More · 42 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 313004
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Packages, packages...
by OddFox on Tue 6th May 2008 00:51 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Packages, packages..."
Member since:

Mayhaps, like George W. Bush, I should've chosen my words more carefully. Crusade is not an apt description, however you cannot deny that you are ultimately making an argument on the false premise that just because something is capable it is more subject to faulty operation and a noticeable slowdown. The only thing keeping the up-to-date distros from operating relatively problem-free (As far as what's supposed to work) is that they are just that, up-to-date.

I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from, but really, I just had gotten fed up with reading comments like this: "I know people who use Ubuntu/Debian, but, really, unless you constantly install and uninstall applications, dependency handling is not that big of a deal." That is a flat-out misinformed statement and it's really pretty incredible that you believe true library dependency resolution concerns stem from a desire to simply easily add and remove packages. You act like nobody wants an easy way to update the system a-la Windows/Microsoft Update. You are wrong, so very wrong, because what these big desktop distros provide is an easy way to provide an experience people are used to with computers. Dependency resolution is only logical, why can you not see this? Why should people be expected to memorize their system in order to maintain it? Give me a break! This is no problem for me but I understand it is a severe problem for others.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: Packages, packages...
by garymax on Tue 6th May 2008 03:26 in reply to "RE[9]: Packages, packages..."
garymax Member since:
2006-01-23 you say that you must choose your words more carefully then go on a rant using the same techniques as before.

I am NOT saying that those who want dependency resolution are wrong or are looking for an illogical way to administer their system.

You are setting up strawman arguments and then knocking them down when I never said what you claim to begin with.

Since you seem to be having some problem reading let me state what I believe in short sentences so you can grasp what I am saying. OK?

1) Automatic dependency resolution is not a bad thing. Those who use it are not bad people.

2) Automatic dependency resolution adds layers of abstraction to the system. This is a fact. Get over it.

3) When you add more features to a system, it *can* add bloat and performance penalties. Don't say it doesn't because I saw it when I ran different distros over the years. And this is the testimony of many others. Are we just imagining this? I think not.

4) I agree that there are practical uses for automatic dependency handling, but I believe that there is systemic overhead that goes along with it.

5) My remarks are aimed at those who mistakenly say that Slackware has no package manager, is "outdated", "hobbled" and "has the charm of newly-discovered pumice." I never said this about Ubuntu. My comments were based on generalities not specific distros although Ubuntu is a good example of what I have covered.

6) Dependency handling is NOT that big of a deal on Slackware because most of the libraries are included in the system out of the box. This is not misinformed, this is fact.

7) It's not that I can't see dependency handling as "logical"; I am stating that doing it yourself *in most instances* is not a big deal. Now, if you're juggling 100 servers and have specific needs that must be administered then automatic dependency resolution is not a bad thing nor an undesirable thing. What I AM responding to is the notion that by *not* having auto dependency resolution it makes a distro bad, complicated or a stone-age holdover.

8) If you are constantly installing and uninstalling apps then something like apt-get is great. It allows one to easily sample a wide variety of apps at their pleasure. But as one matures in their Linux usage and settles into using a set of applications, apt-get is only one method of getting those apps. Compiling from source is another and allows the one doing so to get the freshest bits when they want and how they want.

Does this make my position clearer? And please do not take my "mature" remark to mean those who install a lot of packages are somehow immature. (I just want to head off another strawman).

Edited 2008-05-06 03:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1