I've been using slack for 6 years now and love it. We have to run a product
called CPanel (www.cpanel.net). It runs on redhat, mandrake, and FreeBSD.

Which of these three will be the easiest for me to work with coming from
slack?

Thanks!

begin quote: no body wrote:
> I've been using slack for 6 years now and love it. We have to run a product
> called CPanel (www.cpanel.net). It runs on redhat, mandrake, and FreeBSD.
>
> Which of these three will be the easiest for me to work with coming from
> slack?
>

I have to agree with mayhem on this one. Being a *BSD-head before moving
my main box to linux (from windows. BSD doesn't do multimedia well
enough for me, yet), I was thrilled with Slack.

If you're going TO FreeBSD from Slack, you're gonna love the ports
collection.

--
This, my simpering little friend, is the fabled 'Broadsword of Duodenic
Clue Insertion.' Forged by the System Administrators of Hell, and
quenched in the blood of a thousand AOLers.
But you, my precious luser, can call it "Momma."

In article <0yyTa.114368$wk6.29903@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> ,
no body wrote:
> I've been using slack for 6 years now and love it. We have to run a product
> called CPanel (www.cpanel.net). It runs on redhat, mandrake, and FreeBSD.
>
> Which of these three will be the easiest for me to work with coming from
> slack?

Slackware.

You must have missed the part of Slack training where we learned that
GNU/Linux is GNU/Linux, and anything that will run on other flavours of
it can certainly be persuaded to run on Slackware.

You are dealing with a company which apparently also lacks this
understanding. Or, they're just too cheap to pay someone to develop
generic Linux instructions, and they're too dishonest to admit this, so
they just tell people (who don't know any better) that "it only works on
Red Hat," et c.

Compare Ximian. These people KNOW GNU/Linux, but they don't want to pay
to support lots of distributions. Their answer to the FAQ about running
Ximian desktop on Slackware was clueful and honest: of course you can,
but it's up to you to figure out how.

I would not buy software nor services from a dishonest or clueless
company, In the former case, how do you know they didn't put in some
kind of back-door? In the latter case, how good do you suppose is the
quality of work, and what will they do when their flaws are found?

I haven't dealt with a lot of commercial / proprietary products for
Linux ... 2 to be exact. In both cases the companies are exactly like
this one of yours! IME it seems that clueful companies do not deal in
proprietary software for Linux!

Does this thing do anything that can't be done -- and probably done
BETTER considering the company -- by existing free software projects?
Just say "no" to non-free software.

> Thanks!

You're welcome.
--
/dev/rob0 - preferred_email=i$((28*28+28))@softhome.net
or put "not-spam" or "/dev/rob0" in Subject header to reply

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

/dev/rob0 wrote:

> You are dealing with a company which apparently also lacks this
> understanding. Or, they're just too cheap to pay someone to develop
> generic Linux instructions, and they're too dishonest to admit this, so
> they just tell people (who don't know any better) that "it only works on
> Red Hat," et c.

To be fair to any company developing for linux, once you get away from the
tech people in their air-con'd server room, things get very difficult
support wise. i.e User manuals reading "To install use rpm or apt-get or
pkgtools or ports or... etc etc etc" plus the added bonus of testing all
these diffrent packages. Its one of the last big hurdels for linux on
everybody's desktop.

Speaking as a windoze developer I know the distribution/support part of the
job is the biggest problem of them all. Sometimes the app has to be closed
source or the competition would be all over you. I haven't seen a
multi-platform binary installer yet that Joe 'dumbass' User could run (no
they don't RTFM they ring up and whine).

Real life sucks and sometimes that means only supporting the 'popular' linux
distros in binary form. I can't wait till its economicly viable for me to
start making linux apps, but the above problems will be a headache for me
when I do (at least if I do in my current position, I'd much rather be
doing OSS).

Blumf

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/HyX2Mid3IcxolsoRAsUgAJ9V23v76r5m1dBBW+6cWwjRjhrVcw CggvCY
5XZGCA2rxGa8F8swNtmH1kY=
=Oc1z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:19:02 +0100, Blumf wrote:

> I haven't seen a
> multi-platform binary installer yet that Joe 'dumbass' User could run (no
> they don't RTFM they ring up and whine).

Really? I have. In fact, there's one right here.

http://wwws.sun.com/software/star/st.../beta/get.html

There's not a version of GNU/Linux that won't run on. I haven't tried
running it on FreeBSD with linux binary compatability yet, but Staroffice
is multi-platformed, requires no special software to install and setup,
and just works. That's right, it just works. You'd think it was a Mac or
something. The requirements for the linux installer are:

* Linux kernel version 2.2.13 or higher
* glibc version 2.1.3 or higher
* 64 MB RAM
* 250 MB available ard drive space
* X server with 800x600 or higher resolution with 256 colors

You can download the 6.1 beta in the form of one single executable, with
you run, and you're whisked away to a Windows Installshiled-esque wizard.

--
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <bfn8kt$uga$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Blumf wrote:
>
> To be fair to any company developing for linux, once you get away from the
> tech people in their air-con'd server room, things get very difficult
> support wise. i.e User manuals reading "To install use rpm or apt-get or
> pkgtools or ports or... etc etc etc" plus the added bonus of testing all
> these diffrent packages. Its one of the last big hurdels for linux on
> everybody's desktop.

Of course, if you're packaging a binary package that's not an RPM, then
you should just be able to list the basic requirements and let techies
decide for themselves whether their linux will support it. They can
still say "Runs on RedHat" without saying "Doesn't run on others".
They can also say "Unsupported on others" and let folks decide for
themselves.

> Real life sucks and sometimes that means only supporting the 'popular' linux
> distros in binary form.

There's a difference between officially supporting and unofficially
letting users get it running themselves.

- --keith

- --
kkeller-mmmspam@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
alt.os.linux.slackware FAQ: http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAj8fMFMACgkQhVcNCxZ5ID8fJgCglkOss32sH/8i0Gn39BDVNAEE
cPsAnjxvKIzo2VfIJ5k9VMBK+kv+GKDd
=Gk74
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

no body wrote:
> I've been using slack for 6 years now and love it. We have to run a product
> called CPanel (www.cpanel.net). It runs on redhat, mandrake, and FreeBSD.
>
> Which of these three will be the easiest for me to work with coming from
> slack?
>
> Thanks!
>
>

FreeBSD

The older package management for Slackware was very similiar to the
FreeBSD packaging tools. I went from Slackware to FreeBSD and found the
install for Slackware 8 was almost identical to FreeBSD.

But, Linux is Linux is Linux.

Daniel

In news:0yyTa.114368$wk6.29903@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att. net,
no body <no-one@no-where.com> rambled:
> I've been using slack for 6 years now and love it. We have to run a
> product called CPanel (www.cpanel.net). It runs on redhat, mandrake,
> and FreeBSD.
>
> Which of these three will be the easiest for me to work with coming
> from slack?
>
> Thanks!

At $1400 a licence, I'd be asking them to make it work on Slack.

Billy

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <bfnko4$5e$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, Billy Watt wrote:

> At $1400 a licence, I'd be asking them to make it work on Slack.

$1400??!?! For $1400 they should send their staff to install
it and take you out for a fancy dinner afterward!

- --keith

- --
kkeller-mmmspam@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
alt.os.linux.slackware FAQ: http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAj8fXowACgkQhVcNCxZ5ID+2AwCfV46Rp8hlDb aVAETotCEjpq/m
imgAniwKxexMhY5xcP46qWuGIaaFTL+Z
=MNVE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Keith Keller wrote:

> Of course, if you're packaging a binary package that's not an RPM, then
> you should just be able to list the basic requirements and let techies
> decide for themselves whether their linux will support it. They can
> still say "Runs on RedHat" without saying "Doesn't run on others".
> They can also say "Unsupported on others" and let folks decide for
> themselves.

True, but that only really works when you're not selling the package and
also assumes the customer has access to tech support people. Think one or
two man sized companies, middle of nowhere.

>> Real life sucks and sometimes that means only supporting the 'popular'
>> linux distros in binary form.
>
> There's a difference between officially supporting and unofficially
> letting users get it running themselves.

And you still have to support them it if problems occur, paying customers
remember (dumb, stubborn and always 'right').

Blumf

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/H55/Mid3IcxolsoRAr8RAKCNW2XPC/OC3cinz8s3UTR1HkXEDwCfQejU
+JoReZOsl3ePcGQSqYA76X4=
=caOp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----