Printable View
http://laclefdespas.free.fr/img/speak%20english.jpgQuote:
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! :)
just curious abt u shn thats all
n if i was bein paraniod or not,
cu
mark :)
No you were not being paranoid.Quote:
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 :)
Btw, all your pm's were deleted since I'm a bitch IYO. :)
Which proves the initial point. Wether it was from 1998 or 1898 it does not matter.Quote:
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 @ 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
Speaking of copycat, to this day Slackware still uses a similar "BSD" style setup. If you don'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.
SourceQuote:
In a nutshell... the VMware installation script assumes 'System V' style startup directories, scripts, etc... and Slackware just doesn't come setup that way since it has adopted something closer to a BSD scenario.
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'm using Slackware right now, and i'm running swaret, it's installing mplayer and resolving deps.
About the init scripts, I can't really say much about that. After seeing BSD style init scripts, I have to say I like SysV better, but i've only been using it for about 3 days so my mind may change. :)
swaret looks like a neat tool. However, I think it's best to compile mplayer from source. There are a lot of options you can pass to configure that a pre-built package won'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. :)Quote:
Originally posted by LSA@14 April 2004 - 19:00
I'm using Slackware right now, and i'm running swaret, it's installing mplayer and resolving deps.
I haven'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 (:wub:) now. :w00t:
I can't think of a reason why Linux sux! :o :D :01:
This thread sucks. :angry: :D :D :lol:
I agree who started it :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by shn@7 May 2004 - 22:06
This thread sucks. :angry: :D :D :lol:
and mplayer is an obsolute bitch to install took me ages but lives and learns,dont ya.
I agree who started it :rolleyes:Quote:
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 @ 7 May 2004 - 16:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-shn@7 May 2004 - 22:06
This thread sucks. :angry: :D :D :lol:
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't install for your so-called distro.