SEO

There's a review of 9.1 beta over at osnews.com.

'Get to Know Slackware 9.1'
<URL:http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4637>

Overall, it's very positive, with the author preferring Slackware over
other distributions she has tried.

--
Mark Hill <usenet@mark.ukfsn.org>

Mark Hill wrote:
> There's a review of 9.1 beta over at osnews.com.
>
> 'Get to Know Slackware 9.1'
> <URL:http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4637>
>
> Overall, it's very positive, with the author preferring Slackware over
> other distributions she has tried.

mmm... i have mixed feelings:

"(...) I would like to see more graphical administration tools to be included on
Slackware, (...)"

ugh... luckily, she refers mainly to admin tools for specific programs,
(for which the slackware philosophy is of course DIY) but she also mentions
the Gnome System Tools. (no idea what that is, but it sounds like it is
meant to configure the system itself, not just Gnome.)

-----

Installation: 6/10
Hardware Support: 7.5/10
Ease of use: 7/10
Features: 8/10
Credibility: 10/10 (stability, bugs, security)
Speed: 8.5/10 (throughput, UI responsiveness, latency)

-----

of course the only one of these points that is truly relevant is what she
calls credibility. luckily its 10/10 for that one! ;-)

--
Joost Kremers
since when is vi an editor? a discussion on vi belongs in
comp.tools.unusable or something... ;-)

Mark Hill wrote/ecrivait:
> There's a review of 9.1 beta over at osnews.com.
> 'Get to Know Slackware 9.1'
><URL:http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4637>
> Overall, it's very positive, with the author preferring Slackware over
> other distributions she has tried.

"slackware effect"(C):

you hear anywhere that it is a complicated system, because
you have to read plenty of manuals, deal with unix subtleties - then you free
three, four hours of your time highly motivated, with printed docs etc.
After ten minutes it is simply installed, and *well configured* (laptop w.
nvidia GeForce, no additional configuration, it works).

The feeling I had, with debian and others is that you have to read docs to
understand the _distribution_ system first, and then the software specific doc.

I must say, I don't like the dependencies-pkg systems. Makes life easier? not
sure. Coders should do simple code, simple code does'nt mean linking a library
for one call - so simple codes don't require plenty of dependencies with
different version levels etc.

Slackware is a concept!
a very good one for computing.

Note: about the link you post, I am happy.. and sad to see that the author
receives as much spams as I do

N

Mark Hill wrote:

> There's a review of 9.1 beta over at osnews.com.
>
> 'Get to Know Slackware 9.1'
> <URL:http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4637>
>
> Overall, it's very positive, with the author preferring Slackware over
> other distributions she has tried.
>

Funny that she found multimedia support "not so great" in Slack, and I'm
using my Slack boxes precisely for video capturing (via a v4l capture card
-- it fails miserably under Mandrake), video/audio editing and burning
DVDs. Go figure... :-)

Best,
Merl

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

On 2003-09-24, Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> wrote:
> -----
>
> Installation: 6/10
> Hardware Support: 7.5/10
> Ease of use: 7/10
> Features: 8/10
> Credibility: 10/10 (stability, bugs, security)
> Speed: 8.5/10 (throughput, UI responsiveness, latency)
>
> -----
>
> of course the only one of these points that is truly relevant is what she
> calls credibility. luckily its 10/10 for that one! ;-)

I disagree--installation is also unique to Slackware, and its ease
should be judged against other distros (unlike hardware support, for
example, which is done by the kernel). Now, we can disagree with her
rating all we like (I know I do!), but if Slackware were extremely
difficult to install compared to other distros--for example, if it still
required 14 floppies!--I'm not sure how many of us would still use it.

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=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

iEYEARECAAYFAj9xwRoACgkQhVcNCxZ5ID92WgCeN2b1VNMOSh 5swgW6fn0CFnsu
LIEAnie9j5Wa4mZ72imYikQq2+ZxCJuR
=NuFl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Merlin wrote:

> Mark Hill wrote:
>
> > There's a review of 9.1 beta over at osnews.com.
> >
> > 'Get to Know Slackware 9.1'
> > <URL:http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4637>
> >
> > Overall, it's very positive, with the author preferring Slackware over
> > other distributions she has tried.
> >
>
> Funny that she found multimedia support "not so great" in Slack, and I'm
> using my Slack boxes precisely for video capturing (via a v4l capture card
> -- it fails miserably under Mandrake), video/audio editing and burning
> DVDs. Go figure... :-)
>
> Best,
> Merl

Well,
I had to do it myself and install MPlayer because there was no movie player in
Slack 9.0. OTOH, lots of MP3 players. All in all, Slack is pretty stable,
secure, and easy to use once you dwell into the *nix concept. I pretty much love
it after 9 months of enjoyable playtime, coming from Mandrake.

Like football and religion, don't waste your time replying to this )

An OutSider

(Another Slack lover)

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

Mark Hill <mark_usenet@yahoo.co.uk> is thought to have
typed the following text on 2003-09-24:

> There's a review of 9.1 beta over at osnews.com.
>
> 'Get to Know Slackware 9.1'
><URL:http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4637>
>
> Overall, it's very positive, with the author preferring Slackware over
> other distributions she has tried.
>
<quote>
Slackware is my new favorite operating system along with FreeBSD,
Windows Server 2003 and Mac OS X
</quote>

Only considering the major ones, that leaves only AIX, Solaris and
HP-UX to not like?

<quote>
Hardware Support: 7.5/10
</quote>

And there I was, thinking hardware support was in the kernel, not the
distro... <shaking head> ...silly me... <shaking head>

- --
Bartosz Oudekerk

Play Rogue, visit exotic locations, meet strange creatures
and kill them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/ceFx256ZyNYAOpkRAvFFAJ4nQ8yDSTPCn1LRi7FwbjqPfThHhg Cff3Y7
k+lWMH5EeIYPNFoC/X2YZik=
=hP//
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Bartosz Oudekerk <tyranas@Lappie.bartosz.xs4all.nl> wrote:

> <quote>
> Hardware Support: 7.5/10
> </quote>
>
> And there I was, thinking hardware support was in the kernel, not the
> distro... <shaking head> ...silly me... <shaking head>

Hardware support _does_ differ between distributions, depending on the
choices distributors make when they compile their base kernels. IOW:
Yes, the support's in the kernel. But has the support been enabled in
each distribution you may be talking about?

- --
George Georgakis - geeg AT tripleg net au - http://www.tripleg.net.au/
SlackBuild Central - http://slackpack.tripleg.net.au/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBP3FXnklp3nJf7PixEQLRvQCguEQ6MK2AcBWHBLdy31CWwp 9Gc3EAoNgR
QfVrr/hj8WIs2o+Trbo1kpGH
=l4Yh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

George Georgakis <geeg@tripleg.GO.AWAY.SPAMMERS.net.au> is
thought to have typed the following text on 2003-09-24:
>
> Bartosz Oudekerk <tyranas@Lappie.bartosz.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> <quote>
>> Hardware Support: 7.5/10
>> </quote>
>>
>> And there I was, thinking hardware support was in the kernel, not the
>> distro... <shaking head> ...silly me... <shaking head>
>
> Hardware support _does_ differ between distributions, depending on the
> choices distributors make when they compile their base kernels. IOW:
> Yes, the support's in the kernel. But has the support been enabled in
> each distribution you may be talking about?
>
Yes, but most standard kernels are pretty much the same, only more
exotic hardware usually requires a kernel recompile. I don't think
bare.i differs much from RH base kernel (apart from their 2.5 back
porting), could anyone actively using RH confirm that?

Plus, hardware support *is* equal, it just might be a bit harder to get
it to work, through a kernel-recompile for example.

- --
Bartosz Oudekerk

Play Rogue, visit exotic locations, meet strange creatures
and kill them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/cegF256ZyNYAOpkRAqESAJ9JxnazrZNZX9trkBKK+OGM556WtQ CdGs9S
N3az8g+sSyT+VA4cCComHdI=
=CFgb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Having some kind of wizard thingy to set up hardware is nice, to an extent.
I've yet to see Redhat, Mandrake or a few other smaller distro's I've
tried pick up and identify my SB16 PCI card properly. Granted, it's a bit
dated but isn't a SB16 kinda like STANDARD? Having your Generic-as-all
-get-out NVIDIA GeForce 2 picked up as some wacky other card seems odd
too.

Anyhow as a Slackware user I know where to go to fix those kind of things.
When I use alot of other distro's, you have to look for some boxes
somewhere to point and crunt on to fix these little things. Geez, Mandrake
did'nt even have MC installed as default in a "gimme it all" install.
What do you do when the Wizard cant cast a proper spell?