Your Distro Sucks!

[shn]

Originally posted by ck-uk@7 April 2004 - 01:55
shn u like this topic yea,or ami bein slightly para as usual

wha u doin n where

Maybe some day chickenscratch will become an official language. Until then even google can't translate that shit!

[ck-uk]

just curious abt u shn thats all

n if i was bein paraniod or not,

cu

mark

[shn]

Originally posted by ck-uk@7 April 2004 - 02:06
just curious abt u shn thats all

n if i was bein paraniod or not,

cu

mark

No you were not being paranoid.

Btw, all your pm's were deleted since I'm a bitch IYO.

[LSA]

Originally posted by shn+6 April 2004 - 16:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shn &#064; 6 April 2004 - 16:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-LSA@6 April 2004 - 10:44
Slackware Myths

Also, your reasons were from 1998

http://www.luci.org/luci-discuss/msg00071.html

Which proves the initial point. Wether it was from 1998 or 1898 it does not matter.

Speaking of copycat, to this day Slackware still uses a similar "BSD" style setup. If you don&#39;t believe that then try installing VMware under slackware and see if it compiles your vm modules with the default setup. The answer is............it will not.

In a nutshell... the VMware installation script assumes &#39;System V&#39; style startup directories, scripts, etc... and Slackware just doesn&#39;t come setup that way since it has adopted something closer to a BSD scenario.

Source

Slackware packages are plain ol tarballs and they do not handle dependency issues. For an experienced user that would be just fine since it gives a bit more control. However, for someone with just basic Linux knowledge it can be a dreadful nightmare.

And I do not need to explain why it does not follow Linux Filesystem standards because the fact that it uses a similar BSD style setup pretty much makes that self explanatory.

One other note. The slackware advocacy site is relatively old. Slackware is up to version 9.1 currently and I do not see any mention of any version higher than 7.0 on that site. [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m using Slackware right now, and i&#39;m running swaret, it&#39;s installing mplayer and resolving deps.

About the init scripts, I can&#39;t really say much about that. After seeing BSD style init scripts, I have to say I like SysV better, but i&#39;ve only been using it for about 3 days so my mind may change.

[shn]

Originally posted by LSA@14 April 2004 - 19:00
I&#39;m using Slackware right now, and i&#39;m running swaret, it&#39;s installing mplayer and resolving deps.

swaret looks like a neat tool. However, I think it&#39;s best to compile mplayer from source. There are a lot of options you can pass to configure that a pre-built package won&#39;t. That tunes the program to better run on your system. If you rely on pre-built binaries and packages or a tool that resolves all your dependencies for you then you will never learn anything.

[LSA]

I haven&#39;t used swaret too much. I used it for mplayer because when I tried to install it on RH/Fedora it gave me all sorts of errors, so I just used swaret.

I usually compile things and use checkinstall () now.

[Monkster]

I can&#39;t think of a reason why Linux sux&#33;

[shn]

This thread sucks.

[4play]

Originally posted by shn@7 May 2004 - 22:06
This thread sucks.

I agree who started it

and mplayer is an obsolute bitch to install took me ages but lives and learns,dont ya.

[shn]

Originally posted by 4play+7 May 2004 - 16:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (4play &#064; 7 May 2004 - 16:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-shn@7 May 2004 - 22:06
This thread sucks. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

I agree who started it

and mplayer is an obsolute bitch to install took me ages but lives and learns,dont ya.[/b][/quote]
The one and only I.


Mplayer is a must have. Which is why I never have a problem compiling it from source if pre-built binaries won&#39;t install for your so-called distro.