Linux.com takes a look at Dropline GNOME 2.14, and concludes: “I have to admit that dropline GNOME satisfies a very basic itch. I get to keep using Slackware, a distribution I have come to rely on to provide a fast, stable, and full-featured Linux, and I get a cutting-edge GNOME desktop. This allows me to see where GNOME is heading, and since it’s still Slackware, I can easily add all the programs I want by downloading and compiling the source. Dropline GNOME is not Ubuntu, but then Slackware is not Ubuntu. It’s not the easiest distribution to install or configure, but it just works.”
…”Dropline GNOME is not Ubuntu, but then Slackware is not Ubuntu. It’s not the easiest distribution to install or configure, but it just works.”
That’s rather ironic. Not easy to install/configure, yet at the same time it “just works”? Is this buzzword day or something? Latch onto the success of Ubuntu’s marketing with “it just works” or some such nonsense?
Other than little discrepancies like this, it was an “ok” article, although I would say it was mostly stating the obvious. GNOME is GNOME no matter how you bake it, and after the 10830383 screenshots of GNOME desktops we’ve all seen to show how “good” different distributions are (…) I think we’ve all got a pretty good idea what GNOME is and how GNOME works, and what GNOME can do.
Not easy to install/configure, yet at the same time it “just works”? Is this buzzword day or something? Latch onto the success of Ubuntu’s marketing with “it just works” or some such nonsense?
I first installed Slackware years ago, having downloaded the installation disklettes over a 14.4 modem. The thing that I remember about Slackware was that there was no overhead, no bloat–you got exactly what you wanted, and it worked quite well. Even compared to other distributions of the time (RedHat and later on Mandrake come to mind), Slackware was much faster (on a 486) and it was clean. Having something that works well doesn’t always mean catering to the largest crowd of people. I left Slackware when I discovered the FreeBSD ports system, but I can imagine current incarnations of Slackware still live up to the standards imposed by the name. Distributions like Corel, Stampede, and Ubuntu come and go, but Slackware has been there through it all and I don’t doubt it will be around for another ten years. Slackware doesn’t need buzzwords to survive.
> Slackware has been there through it all and I don’t
> doubt it will be around for another ten years.
> Slackware doesn’t need buzzwords to survive.
Perhaps, but don’t forget that Slackware, itself was derived from an even older distro called SLS. Slackware wasn’t that much better than SLS, and SLS was the most popular distro at the time. What gave Slackware all of SLS’s market share was simply that Slackware was better maintained. AFAIK, Slackware is a one man distro and it takes a good deal of his time to maintain it. If Patrick Volkerding loses interest (or becomes sick as he did in 2004), it would be hard to find someone to fill his considerable shoes. If that happens, Slackware may disappear on favour of a distro that’s more easy to maintain as a community. It’ll likely still be TGZ based (since most people who want package management have already moved on to Gentoo, Debian et al, RedHat, or SUSE), but it might piggy back off the hard work (and security patches) of the Gentoo distro to build the packages from. Or it might be something else quite entirely. But it wouldn’t be the same distro, no matter what it’s called.
…”It’s not the easiest distribution to install or configure, but it just works.”
Actually, thats an Oxymoron!
You’d have to use Slackware to understand that statement. Slackware takes more effort because nothing is automated, but as long as you have an idea of what you’re doing, you’ll very likely succeed. With other “just works” distros, there’s a tendency for things to only “just work” if you stick to official packages, don’t compile anything yourself, and don’t try to change low-level defaults too radically.
Nonetheless, the statement is a sort of for insiders-only. I haven’t used Slackware much in the past half year or so, so I had to think for a second 🙂
Still, it’s not what “it just works” is supposed to mean.
I look at it this way. I buy a car with wipers, I switch the wipers on, they better come on. I buy a car with automatic wipers, when it rains they better come on automatically. If I have to manually turn on the auto wipers, then it “Doesn’t Work” If I have to manually turn on the manual wipers when it rains, it “Just Works”. If If the auto wipers come on when it rains, it “Just Works”. See where I’m going with this? Just because Slackware doesn’t come with everything and the kitchen sink enabled and fully functioning at first run doesn’t mean that it don’t “Just Work” The fact is, when I install Slackware and want to enable a service, feature, or whatever, I flip the switch and voila!! It Works!! Like I said before, that really cannot be said for other distros. Can a user automatically mount a device they have no permission to do so since pam isn’t installed? no they can’t, but then again slackware don’t come with pam. Does the moonroof on your new car work even though it didn’t come with one?
Slackware itself may not be the easiest distribution to maintain and install, however once it is, dropline is intended to “Just Work” in the same way other GNOME-centric distributions do. Disks mount automatically, avahi discovers network services, and other things work without further configuration on the part of the user.
Irony? Oxymoron? How do “Just Works” and “Not easy to configure/install” related? What exaclty does “Just Works” mean? When I install Slackware and reboot, everything seems to work. Does it have a desktop initially? no it doesn’t, but then again does the user want a desktop? Maybe they do but initial boot for another distro takes them to a desktop. Wha!!!! I think the whole idea behind “Just Works” comes from the fact that it’s completely stable, darn near everything you need to enable is enableable within the install by uncommenting something in a config file unlike other distros, compiling can be done without installing 30 other pieces of a pack that should be there in the first place, etc… Yeah, Slackware does “Just Work”. Im sure I can come up with a million more examples to head off the rediculous arguements that might pop up, but I don’t have that kind of time. Slackware users have a standard they have come to expect and with each release and install and those standards seem to be met. From experience, that cannot be said of most the other distrobutions out there.
I agree. Slackware doesn’t have any hard-to-make out, obscure config files with stupid, MS-like comments like “ugly hack, but it works” a la Redhat. Nothing in Slackware will mysteriously stop working and take 5 hours to diagnose and fix the next time you turn it on, like some other OS’s.
I believe that this phrase was thrown around carelessly by the author. “Works well” would have been more accurate.
“Just works” is when I open the lid of my PowerBook and it’s instantly on. “Works well” is the confidence that I have in FreeBSD or debian, in their predictable behavior and reliable performance.
As for: “I can easily add all the programs I want by downloading and compiling the source.”
Well, that really is really only the next step up from writing the program yourself first, isn’t it? It’s not exactly on the “easy” side of the scale. I’m sure that slackware is awesome, but “just works” and “easily add programs by downloading and compiling” just sound funny.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not dissing slackware in any way. I am just pointing out that there’s no need to try to pass it off as something it wasn’t meant to be and does not claim to be.