Web host.

The one I use in this instance is excellent at everything they do. Excellent in their service. Excellent in that their uptimes are better than most in their category. In fact they are quite simply brilliant. Maybe not the absolute best in a big market but they are the best for the market they aim for and that is people like me who just want their hosting to work.

But, (isn't there always one of those?) the one single thing they fall down on. The one single thing that shows a total lack of security nuance. The one thing that makes a Linux or UNIX user spit out his or her coffee. The one single thing that I personally could never use and that is they offer telnet as a connection service. That is right. Telnet. No SSH at all.

When I tried to prompt them about this I got some garbled reply about how to use the telnet service. In my reply to that I asked again why they offer the much maligned and insecure telnet over the much vaunted and secure SSH. This time I got an answer and that answer was "telnet comes preinstalled on most computers so we offer that as a service." Or words to that affect.

Now, colour me blue and call me Mandy but that smacks of pandering to their Microsoft Windows using customers and being Windows users this sort of makes sense in a perverse sort of way.

In case you don't get that let me explain it to you. We all know how insecure Microsoft Windows is and we Linux users know how insecure telnet is. So, the fact that my hosting provider says telnet comes preinstalled on most systems and those most systems are Microsoft Windows can you see why their is a sort of perverse irony going on in that? And can you see how it all makes sense in a perverse sort of way? Good. I knew you would get it in the end.

They are really very good and cheap to boot for a casual hosting needing person/company. I guess if your site is getting millions of hits per week then they will not be for you. They offer one, yes, just one, package in the true meaning of "one package fits all" mode but what they actually offer is very very good for the price. But telnet? Come on Web Mania you know better than to offer a telnet service over an SSH one, fix that and you will be by far the best of breed.

Oh and my (preferred by far) hosting company is Web Mania. I will let you Google that rather than give you a link to click on.

Linux support.

I am thinking about hardware, be it and internal card or external thing. It is becoming rarer and rarer for anything to be plugged inside a tower box not to be working. Sometimes one has to hunt down a driver but that is a rare event too these days. External hardware, especially in the printing area is as bad now as it ever was for us Linux based operating system using folk.

My wife went out and bought a Lexmark 6550 all-in-one printer thinking that Lexmark were like Epson or Brother who either do have a Linux driver for their printers or the PPD file is included with Cups or the foomatic collection. Lexmark however do neither.

On some of their printers Lexmark use some proprietory thing that they have never released the specifications for so that some bright spark in the Linux collective can write a driver. When emailing Lexmark customer service, if it can be called that, and complain about owning what openprinting call a brick then you get a boiler plate replying that basically says we know but we don't care. Lovely.

Avoid Lexmark stuff that is not known to the openprinting database of working printers. Oh and do not bother Lexmark customer service with Linux queries of any kind as they simply do not care and a growing band of users.

Oh it does annoy me!

For the last 12 or so years I have created a mariad of bash scripts that do all manner of tasks. Some are very simple while others are huge and complex monsters but the underlaying theme across them all is that i have shared almost all of them.

This can and does create problems when other people with less scruples than myself take some script I have done and rework it claiming it is all their own work. Now, given the time span over which these scripts have been written it may be that those people assume the script to be a lost work where the author of has long since disappeared. Even so, that should not mean the original author should not get at least a nod for his original code and even a cursery nod if the idea behind the original and new is used as a basis for the new work.

Instead what I see is various people who simply create a new work either based (forked) off the original script or a new work that is simply a stolen idea behind the original idea. This goes completely against the ideals of the GPL a license I use for all distributed works, but does sadly show the times we now live under where theft, of any kind, is considered perfectly acceptable.

It does bloody annoy me all the same.

A simply attribute that says "this script is based on a script by <blah> called <blah> which can be found <blah>" or  even as simple as "the idea behind this script came from <blah> by <blah>". But no, instead there are no such attributes and instead either the idea or actual code chunks are lifted and called their own.

It sucks but is a part of all those aged under 20 who see everything as being free even when it so clearly is not. And that goes for every country on this lump of rock we call Earth. And, it really does annoy me.

Oh dear.

With some web sites now offering up Slackware build script it is disheartening to see they are including dependency information.

A few years ago an American mate of mine and a bunch of people from another long standing binary only web sites offering slackware compatible packages started to work on improving the information about how slackbuild scripts are done and done properly. After a few weeks it soon became clear they wanted to do more to 'improve' the slackware package management system. One of these 'improvements' was depenancy awareness. My American mate and I dropped out due to this single thing which we could not agree to.

The Slackware author is also opposed to dependency awareness within the SLackware package management system so why on earth are these 3rd party people insisting on adding dependency awareness to their build scripts? Worse. Some of the people offering this crap are now part of the Slackware developement team. Does this mean they are now leaning on the main creator to have this shit part and parcel of the package management system?

What next? Some crap like RPM and apt-get where sources have to be hacked to Hell and back to make them fit in with that distributions layout?

I sincerely hope not. While I cannot see SLackware gaining any more momentum than they have right now I honestly think such a thing would be the final nail in Slackwares coffin. Stop this crap now before it catches on!

Script usage

This is a bit of a rant as well as being a perplxed question.

I have written and released to the Linux using public at large several scripts via my web site at http://www.jeepster.org.uk. Amongst these scripts was a large one that I created purely for the Linux port of AmiKit. Not once has anybody emailed me to tell me if anyone is using any of the scripts I released. Not to tell of any bugs they may have come across. Not to tell me about of any changes they may have made to any of the scripts. Not to tell me of any additions they would like me to add or that they have added themselves.

I put my contact email address in a README or some such file and even in the script itself so it cannot be said the email address canot be found anywhere.

It is slightly annoying to have written these scripts and released them for others to use/expand upon etc and not knowing if anyone has used them and what their experience using them/it was.

It is, of course, entirely possible that no-one has ever used my scripts, but my web logs show that some of the scripts have been downloaded more than 1 million times so I can safely assume that one of those more than 1 million downloads was used. Can't I? So, why is nobody telling me?

I find this lack of contact somewhat irritating. How can I improve any script if people do not tell me what they want or expect from them? I can go on added features I want to see but for all I know others may see my additions as simply bloat.

Come on all you downloaders of my scripts give me some feedback. Good or bad I d not care!

For crying out loud

When I read rubbish like this http://www.zenofnptech.org/2008/06/linux-desktops.html I have to question that users ability. From reading his less that truthful rantings one must question which distribution he used. If it was one of the Ubuntu family then I can understand why he writes what he does. My wife and eldest lad both use Ubuntu so I can testify to how unstable they can be, unless, one has a sysadmin around that has years and years of experience, such as myself, who can tame the beast so that EVERYTHING works as it should. Wireless, video, software integration all work just fine as long as one has the ability to tame it, which I do. The same applies to just about every distribution out there.

One has to realise the machines that come pre-installed with MS Windows are setup by professionals so that every piece of hardware that comes with the machine works perfectly. A linux based install however rarely has that luxury. Instead people who try a Linux based distribution usually install it themselves on hardware that was designed for the Microsoft operating system and they wonder why something do not work? Well, do not work out of the box but can be made to work with a little ability in hand. Perhaps, that is the authors reason for writing his FUD? He has a machine designed for the Microsoft operating system and then goes on to complian things do not work out of the box with a Linux based operating system.

For what it is worth i have never, ever, bought a pre built machine. I have always cobbled my own together from hardware bought on a whim and I have yet to find any hardware, wirrten to specifications, that has failed to work. My current machine is an AMD x4 Quad Core Phenon with an nVidia 8600 GT and 4 GIG odf RAM. Sound is via a Creative Audigy LS. My mobile telephone connects via USB and is instantly recognised by the running kernel and udev automatically sets up the devices (yesm two of them, one for the MicroSD card and the other for the internal operating system layout. With a 2.6.x.x kernel and the relevant backend tools installed it all happens automagically. I honestly have never hit the problems that author claims to have hit, no matter what I have plugged into the machine. I do not go out of my way to find only Linux compatible hardware either. I buy hardware I want to use and 100% of the time within a matter of seconds I am using said hardware. So,  what he claims is pure FUD aimed squarely at the Microsoft fanboys and girls.

So, I read that rant above, and his others on the same topic, and come to the conclusion it is yet more FUD spread about by paid Microsoft shills. I do sometimes wonder what Mcrosoft are scared of. It cannot be the fact that Linux on the desktop is almost there for normal users could it? It couldn't be that people like the guy above takes backhanders to spread Microsoft FUD, could it? It couldn't be that the Linux Desktop is now so usable that even Granny Smith could use it, could it?

Sure there are things that could be better but that does mean they are broken.

I have to question the authors ulterior motives in writing what he wrote. All I see on page after page is FUD. Pure, unadulterated FUD.

Microsoft are running scared that is for sure and as long as people like that author are willing to help Microsoft spread their FUD then Linux on the desktop will struggle to gain wider acceptance. With more and more box shifters selling machines with a Linux distribution pre-installed   Linux on the desktop will make more and more inroads into former Microsoft territory.

Slackware free.

In times past every single one of the 12 machines in our house had Slackware, or a port of it, in use. Only one of those machines was set up to dual boot MS Windows XP and Slackware, the rest where pure Slackware machines. The dual booting machine is our middle sons machine. He is learning about a Linux based operating system but loves to play the odd MS only game, as he learns and I show him Wine/Cedega and KVM's abilities to play his favoured games on he is finding that he is using the MS side of his dual booting machine less and less. One area that is not yet fully doable on the Linux platform that he likes to play is Silverlight embedded on-line games and it is those, and those only now that Wine/Cedega play his favoured games as they play under an MS operating system, that makes him keep MS around just a bit longer until Mono's Moon shines in a fashion that makes the Silverlight experience not just an MS Windows one. My eldest lad, now 10 years old, started on slackwae 3 years ago and last year he made his own choice to move to Ubuntu "because on Ma's machine it looks easier to administer". So, he too smelled the coffee and after I watched him install Ubuntu so he made no mistakes as he went along he now administers his own machine. My wife has used Ubuntu since 6.x or something and she too now administers her own machine. The rest of the machines are servers that serve up such as email, local intranet, files etc. Each one has a specific task as I still believe in the age old doctrine of one machine, one task. And so it is.

But, I digress...

Slackware, or a port of, was on every one of those machines. That is no longer the case. Over the course of several posts to this and other blogs I have complained and moaned about the direction Slackware is taking. That direction appears to be steered not by the main author, who seems to have less and less influence on his own distribution, but the ragbag of people he has taken on-board to help him maintain the distribution. As their influence, which can be so clearly seen, is foisted on the distribution, more and more problems are cropping up at post install time. The fact that Slackware has become so KDE centric,to the detriment of other Desktop Environments ("DTE") and Window Managers ("WM"), does not warm my appetite either. My personal dislike of KDE/QT is partly the reason I have moved away from it. Sure it includes XFCE4 which is excellent in its own right but as shipped with Slackware it is so bare bones it is almost useless. To get anything close to a nice, useful XFCE4 DTE one must dwnload the XFCE4 goodies, compile them and install them one by one. There are scripts out there to do exactly that but still the process is not something most users, and almost all new users, to the Linux platform do not want to do. It looks like a halfhearted attempt to get another DTE in the distribution. The rest of the Window Managers are old hat now so are not worthy of commentry. No offense meant to those who still use such as Window Maker or FVWM2 etc but they are old hat in todays world of flashy windows and glitzy shiny bits and a bobs users expect to see on ther Desktops.

My distribution of choice is customer driven. More and more of my customers are leaping head first into the X/K/Ubuntu world and because I must support them to maintain my business I had no choice but to use one of the ubuntu family myself. One cannot offer support is oneself knows nothing, or not a lot, about the very thing one is offering support for. So, my hands, and machines, where somewhat tied on this.

It has to be said though that the fact that Slackware, and the ports of, are going in a direction well away from where I think it should be heading, and even further away from its root philosophy, to which I bought into all those years ago and now find myself stranded in a KDE world I have so much disain for, is something I have had to deal with. And deal with it i have by moving away from my most cherished distribution.

I have sat by over the years and watched as new distribution after new distribution have slowly but surely eaten away at the Slackware insall-base. This is especially so on the Desktop but also happened in the server rooms around the world. When Ubuntu came out and with the strides in consumer usage and experience rising with each new release it had and has killing just about all other distributions in the Desktop area. CentOS has the server rooms just about all to itself. As these two have come to dominate those areas distributions like Slackware have become ever more marginal. It used to be said that real Linux users use Slackware but outside the Slackware specific places on the Internet I have no read that for some 5 or so years.

Does Slackware still matter in the current distribution world? Yes, I say it does, but not to any great lengths it held a few years ago. Slackware will always have a userbase, at least for the forseeable future, just like Gentoo, Mandriva etc will. But, it will, like all the others, play a side role as the Ubuntu family slowly, release by release, take over the Desktop install-base. It is also making strong inroads in the server space once upon a time dominated by Slackware.

It is a shame to see such a great distribution fade into a shadow of its former self but that is exactly what it is becoming and that is exactly where its future lays.

Usenet trolls

They have always been around. Since the dawn of Usenet itself. Well before the term Internet became common usage. They are so easy to spot. Here is a good example of what a troll will say.

"I'm looking for the best Linux distro in terms of user interface that requires none or a minimal amount of command line work. One that has a lot of working applications including a good web browser, office suite, email, games, programs that will playback music (mp3, lossless, ogg, MIDi, etc.,) no hassle drivers for all-in-one printers, will accept external usb hard drives and DVD drives, external usb modem - basically as complete an OS as possible without having to hunt down a lot of drivers and hack the system to work. I had enough of that with the Amiga. I will most likely be running this on a PC laptop without any other OS installed. I don't like crowds on a single computer when it comes to op systems."

Now, all of those things he/she demands have been standard on Linux distributions for the last 3 or 4 years. The fact that he/she covers such a wide range of hardware and software requirements spells out he/she is trolling the newsgroup. If he/she had done even the slightest bit of googling he/she would get the answers he/she seeks. Instead he/she has trolled a Linux newsgroup.

Why is this particular bit of text labled trolling? After all, isn't he/she is merely asking which of the numerous distributions has everything he/she demands? Well, no. For one, he/she asked in a Linux newsgroup. For two, he she covers a wide range of requirements. For three it simply smells foul. For four it has troll written all over it.

From time to time we Usenet stalwarts see posts with content like this and simply ignore the poster. Unfortunately, we have some amongst our number that cannot resist such posts. That particular post will see one of two things happen. One, a distribution war will start. Where a number of people will be sucked in and start saying "this or that distribution is best" without even considering the original posters intents or wants/needs. Two, the poster will never post again as everyone else smells troll too and ignores the original poster.

I hope, in this case that the latter prevails.

old age creeping up.

It has to be that. I can no longer bother to build all the programs I use and have a need for that is missing from the main Slackware, BLuewhite64, Slamd64 etc distributions. It can only be old age creeping up on me making me think like this.

While there are plenty of faults with Slackware and it's ports this can be fairly and squarely laid at my own door. There are a few slackbuild places on the Internet but even there one needs to get the slackbuild, get the sources, in some cases rejig the buildscript to match a newer version and finally, assuming all it's prerequisite's are met, build the damn thing. I can no longer be bothered with this age old dance just to get some program working.

While I don't like Ubuntu because of its Debian roots my evermore demanding customers are forcing my hand. I have seen first hand the power that apt-get and friends offer the user. Some programs are ancient but they function within that environment. No need to get or create a build script, get the sources and with luck and the phase of the moon end up with a working package that can then be installed.

There are some places that offer Slackware and friends binaries but they are not guarenteed to work.

My time with Slackware and friends, is drawing to a close. As mentioned elsehere i have some 12+ years experience with Slackware and friends. Tons upon tons of notes nutured over the years. Hundreds upon hundreds of bulld scripts. All are soon to be consigned to the dustbin of yesteryear.

Long may SLackware and friends survive. It will certainly be without me.

The feature creep continues

Once upon a time Slackware users could rely on the maintainer to keep a nice, lean distribution, Amongst these aims was the removal of Gnome2 from the main distribution. There was always room for improvement in this area but that ideal seems well and truly dead with the latest release of Slackware-Current. Feature bloat has crept in. I don't know why this is happening but it is. Since the maintainer gathered a few 'helpers' this feature creep has gathered apace.

In -current there is the latest abomination from the KDE guys, KDE4. Along with the packages for KDE4 they have added all manner of bells and whistles. No doubt KDE4 will properly replace KDE3 in the main body of the distribution at some point in time which is leading me more and more to leave Slackware behind.

I am a Gnome2 guy and watching this KDE4 rubbish force its way into Slackware via the 'helpers' is a cause for crying. My once much preferred distribution is going ghe same way as many others as the feature creep creeps ever forward.

To get a fully working Gnome2 desktop is no harder than getting a KDE one. I prefer GTK2 over the much disliked QT. Yes, this comes down to personal preference but at the end of the day is my distribution of choice cannot or will not offer me what I want to use then the time has come, after some 12+ years of usage, to say goodbye to it.

There are many like myself who do not like some of these 'helper' and are considering moving distributions. Some moved as soon as Gnome2 was dropped, others moved when they learnt who the 'helper' are. More will move as time goes on.

It is a shame but the reality of my work situation dictates how I am viewing the latest developments in Slackware and my situation is to view these developments with the distaste they leave in my mouth.

Bye bye Slackware. You where once, rightly, the best distribution around. You maintained this level of best of breed for many years, but now the time has come to do what many before me have done and say bye bye.

The feature creep continues

Once upon a time Slackware users could rely on the maintainer to keep a nice, lean distribution, Amongst these aims was the removal of Gnome2 from the main distribution. There was always room for improvement in this area but that ideal seems well and truly dead with the latest release of Slackware-Current. Feature bloat has crept in. I don't know why this is happening but it is. Since the maintainer gathered a few 'helpers' this feature creep has gathered apace.

In -current there is the latest abomination from the KDE guys, KDE4. Along with the packages for KDE4 they have added all manner of bells and whistles. No doubt KDE4 will properly replace KDE3 in the main body of the distribution at some point in time which is leading me more and more to leave Slackware behind.

I am a Gnome2 guy and watching this KDE4 rubbish force its way into Slackware via the 'helpers' is a cause for crying. My once much preferred distribution is going ghe same way as many others as the feature creep creeps ever forward.

To get a fully working Gnome2 desktop is no harder than getting a KDE one. I prefer GTK2 over the much disliked QT. Yes, this comes down to personal preference but at the end of the day is my distribution of choice cannot or will not offer me what I want to use then the time has come, after some 12+ years of usage, to say goodbye to it.

There are many like myself who do not like some of these 'helper' and are considering moving distributions. Some moved as soon as Gnome2 was dropped, others moved when they learnt who the 'helper' are. More will move as time goes on.

It is a shame but the reality of my work situation dictates how I am viewing the latest developments in Slackware and my situation is to view these developments with the distaste they leave in my mouth.

Bye bye Slackware. You where once, rightly, the best distribution around. You maintained this level of best of breed for many years, but now the time has come to do what many before me have done and say bye bye.

x86_64 Slackware.

When the realms of the improbable become the realms of now then the time has come to make those hard decisions. There was a time when Slackware was all I saw. None of the other distributions held any level of promise for me. It was all I used, or ever have used. Now though that time of intense personal investment is closing. It hurts to say it. The 2Gb of notes I have collected. The 2Gb of scripts, some large, some small, I have created or collected. The 52Gb of source, build scripts and binary packages I have collected over the years. The 10+ years of general evangelism I have given to it. All will soon be gone.

Yes, I am fully aware Slackware does not have an official x86_64 version but still, why do the various repositories of slackbuild scripts not do x86_64 scripts? It can be achieved in two or three lines with maybe a patch to increase compatabilty and yet these dinosaurs continue to service only the i?86 clones.

Just because Slackware itself stubbornly refuses to get with the times and either do their own x86_64 port or sanction one of the ones already available does not mean these slackbuilds people need to keep their heads in the sand as well.

Given that there are, as far as I know, only 3 x86_64 ports of Slackware the choice of which to sanction is not a hard one. Knowing past issues with application selection (the dumping of gnome2 is a prime example of going against its users wishes) and the arrogance displayed in ignoring the users wishes the choice will not be based on which is the best or a closest match for Slackware itself (Bluewhite64 wins here) but will be the one least used or liked by the users of. Of ccourse the Slackware creator himself will find the creator of whichever x86_64 Slackware port that can display the biggest suck up to the Man himself.

Once upon a time I would only recommend Slackware to friends and family. Not because it was easy to use (it is) nor because it was easy to install (it is) but because of the stabilty it held so proud and rightly so because it always was and has been the more stable distribution out of the 380+ distributions now available. Now i find even my own attraction to it is waning. After some 10+ years of usage I now no longer recommend it to anyone. Not because it has suddenly become somehow unstable but because I think its relevance it waning to an all time low. While distributions like the Ubuntu family exist, and there is no reason to suppose they will disappear, it is easy to see why people coming from their MS Windows system, and with all the baggage that brings with it, are drawn towards them.

Dell, HP and a few other of the big hardware players put one of the Ubuntu family on their systems and those systems sell (apparently they are selling quite well) it is the Ubuntu family that steals the limelight and distributions like Slackware become marginal at best. There will be those who say "So what." I used to have those thoughts as well. But I can no longer say it. For over 10 years I have been a staunch Slackware user but nowadays I find myself looking evermore and what else is available. I am looking to switch distributions because I am sick and tired of waiting for an officially sanctioned x86_64 port of my (once) favourite distribution.

Slackware will not die anytime soon but the writing is on the wall. If they do not bring out their own x86_64 port or sanction one, if not all 3, of those x86_64 ports already out there then that writing may very well come true.

For myself, I have decided that if this sanction is not given by the end of this year (2008) then I feel I have no choice but to move to another distribution. The main part of my work is distribution agnostic but when support is needed then more often than not it is one of the Ubuntu family mentioned. If I want to continue my work then I feel I should use what those i am supposed to be supporting use. I don't care what the AOLS (alt.os,linux.slackware) Usenet faithful say nor any of those who have already made the switch (one can see the handles in the various distribution specific newsgroups and on various forums that have at one time or another posted to AOLS or had some web page somewhere with Slackware specific information on it or posted to some Slackware forum. The time for Slackware on my systems is drawing to a close. I have decided that for myself that close will be at the end of the current year (2008).

I don't expect any Slackware faithful person to see what I am seeing nor do I expect them to agree with me but my decision is my choice to make and I have made it.

The Ubuntu family.

As i read many news groups, all almost exclusively related to a Linux distribution, as peruse around the Internet it has not escaped my, nor many others, attention that some are starting to refer to Linux as Ubuntu, or one of the Ubuntu family). This is a scary trait that used to belong to Redhat. One would often hear talk of Linux 6 meaning Redhat 6 etc etc.

It is scary because of the sheer number of idiots who use Ubuntu. Most are refugees from MS Windows. Some are refugees from other distributions. The latter should know better but the former is overwhelming them with their talk of Ubuntu being 'Just like Windows'.

I am sure this is the Ubuntu creators aim. To get people to think of Ubuntu are a complete MS Windows replacement. But the reality is that no Linux based distribution currently comes close to MS Windows not least because of the fact that hardware manufacturers do not write drivers for any Linux based distribution. Sure, some of them do but the little guys who churn out thousands of new products every months it is just not a viable option for them. Then we have the bigger guys who try to stick as close as possible to a given standard which may work once plugged into a Linux based system and others that are lucky because a coder on the Linux based platform bought one and decided to write a driver from him or herself which was good enough for others to use. Finally, there are the big guns. Here too, some write drivers, some good, some bad, some simply unusable. Others do not and probably never will. It is this reality, this state of affairs that will ensure adoption of a Linux based solution will not be for everyone. Therefore, the belief of the Ubuntu creator is unlikely ever to fully take hold and yet we still see people who have the mistaken belief that Ubuntu equals an MS Windows alternative. As I said. Scary.

Instead of bleating on about how 'Ubuntu ate my drive. How do I get rid of it and get my MS Windows back?' Or. 'How do I use <insert random hardware> with Ubuntu?' etc etc people should be complaining to the various and many hardware manufacturers that the 'standards compliant' device is nothing like compliant. But they will not. They will instead complain that 'Ubuntu sucks'. Yes, I know it does but in this instance I am not talking in literal terms.

Those of us who have been around the Linux scene for a long long time have seen this phenomenon happen before with Redhat. Then with Mandrake (now Mandriva). Then with <insert a distribution name>. On a slightly different level we saw it with Gentoo. Now it is the Ubuntu family of distributions turn for a year or two in the spotlight while us lot with the nous to use it use what we have always used. We see the same issues hardware wise as every other distribution user does except that when we have some hardware that has no support whatsoever instead of bleating about it or blaming the underlaying distribution for the lack of support we sit and patiently wait for that support to turn up. It may never do so of course. If that worse case situation ever happens then we shuffle said hardware to one of our MS Windows using friends or family member.

Ubuntu is not the only distribution in town and it certainly is not the best. Get over yourself.

ArchLinux

Once upon a time deep down in my past I used Arch Linux. Back then it was one Hell of a distribution. The people involved were good knowledgeable people. So enamored was I with Arch Linux I created some 300+ PKGBUILDS for it in what was then called the 'community' repo. Over time I left that distribution as it was fast becoming clear that the philosophy upon which it was build was less and less adhered to and more and more we original developers where overlooked in favour or newer souls. Before any nastiness began by haggling over details that affected end users I left. After a short time I returned hoping to return back to those earlier glory days (why is the beginning of anything always the best times?) but alas that was not to be. My return to the fold lasted at most two weeks. This second time around was a sour, very sour, experience so bad I have not been back since.

Arch Linux holds a niche for itself as it clings precariously to the ladder rung it sits on way down there with all the other niche distributions. I was never in it for the glory. I truly believed back then that how things where was how it should be. Unfortunately, that was supplanted with bogus people with bogus ideals that killed the whole experience and stopped Arch Linux from ever moving up that ladder of distributions.

All the good people are gone now which is a shame as they were good people with masses of knowledge between them. Their forums are full of people that, well, lets just say they try. Up at the top I have no clue who is there now. On the back of the 300+ PKGBUILDS I created they have a large and expanding package set. But the quality is lacking. I have no idea, nor care, if the attributes from the original PKGBUILDS are still there is the scripts. It would not surprise me one bit if they have been removed.

Arch Linux was good in the pre 0.3 days. Now it is an also running in the sense that it makes up the field.

Hardware review web sites.

Does anyone rely on hardware review web sites' output when they have done a review of some hardware?

Some hardware reviewing web sites have been around on the Internet for a long time and some newer ones pop up all the time but the premise of them all is the same. That premise to to give an unbiased review on the hardware before them. However, most all of them are anything but unbiased.

If you take a look at any one of them you can see a pattern emerge from the text written. That pattern usually goes something like this. AMD/ATI send a bit of hardware in for review. On some web sites the hardware is slated as a good thing while other state it is not so good. This follows in every review done by a given hardware review web site. AMD/ATI's main competitor nVidia send some hardware to the same web sites and the exact opposite can be seen. Those who like AMD/ATI hardware invariably do not like nVidia hardware and so it goes for every hardware manufacturer across the hardware spectrum.

Are these people paid shills? Who knows. It sure looks that way.

I have never trusted hardware web sites for reasons stated above. My friends and family follow my lead on this one and do not trust these web sites either.

Once again into the breach.

And so it goes. Once again the Usenet alt.os.linux.slackware ("aols") faithful were drawn, or rather sucked, into an argument based on Slackware Linux relevance in todays world of ever growing Linux distributions. Some of which are aimed squarely at new users to the Linux distribution experience and have all manner of tools to aid those new users. Is this a bad thing? Well, yes and no. Yes because with every new 'helper' tool created it fragments the market further. No because the more users we get the more prolific our favourite operating system becomes. So, it is a double edged sword.

But, back to the issue raised. Those aols faithful cannot see passed the fact that, to them, Slackware is the only distribution that does the right thing. That, of course, is obvious because aols is, after all, a newsgroup for Slackware users. However, seeing a distributions faults is something we should all readily admit to so we can all aid its creator in making it a better product and if that creator is not open to that help then some 3rd parties can do it themselves, then if people want it they can have it, those that don't want it can leave it alone. The aols faithful however can not, will not or simply do not see any faults in Slackware nor do they think its creator can do anything wrong, bad or poor. Wrong as in the init sequence. Bad as in package choices. Poor as in who he decides should be among his secondhand men or women.

I have said before some of those he deigns suitable to help him are very unpopular people within the Slackware user-base. One or two of them have managed to make former Slackware stalwarts move to other distributions. Of course, not all of them are bad people with zero management skills, just a couple of them are.

The choice of init sequence, while out of step with just about every other major, and minor, distribution not based on Slackware, is something to be proud of. It is simple, easily understood by new users (if they ever look at it that is). While the old timers are comfortable with it. The rest of the Linux distribution vendors moved on to either their own creation or SYSV style inits while slackware stuck to its guns.

The creator of Slackware removed the ever popular Gnome2 from the distribution citing difficulty and lack of time building it. Building it while not the monstrosity it once was is time consuming if one wants a complete working Gnome2 desktop but to cite difficulty as an excuse gave the impression he lacked the skills to do it which of course he does not, but that was and still is the impression people got and are still getting. I have built Gnome2 since Slackware dropped it many times and can testify to the fact that to do it properly one must have lots of time. Time to suss out and build all the prerequisites, which is the bulk of the time used, then the time to build the actual Gnome2 desktop that gels the whole thing together. It certainly is not difficult. Time consuming yes. That abomination (because it relies on QT which is an even bigger abomination) called KDE by contrast is very easy to build, especially the minimal KDE offering Slackware utilises is. Even KDE has external to the project 3rd party programs and library requirements if one wants to leverage the full in all its glory KDE experience. Plus there are many extra programs and libraries that can be added to the base KDE set which enhance the user experience but there Slackware ships only the very basic KDE upon which one can build a more rounded experience.

Apart from having QT/KDE as the main desktop, with many smaller insignificant peripheral window managers available, when each new shiny version ships there are no further issues that I find significant show stoppers. Those, like myself, who like, nay prefer, a Gnome2 desktop , like myself, can do one of 3 things. 1) create ones own scripts, or script, to build it oneself. 2) use one of many 3rd party build scripts to build it oneself and 3) use one of the 3rd party binary sets that are available. So, all is not lost in the continuing QT/KDE GTK2/GNome2 saga for Slackware users.

Personally, I would not care one iota if KDE and QT disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow. It would not impact on my computer usage in any way whatsoever as I am steadfast in the care I take to make sure I use nothing I use uses QT and KDE. I said at the time when Gnome2 was removed from Slackware that it would result in smaller user base and from what I have seen that is exactly what has happened. Slackware on the desktop is a rare beast to find. Slackware on a server while not the numbers it once was is still there in some areas. In the server market stability is the keyword and once the QT/KDE pairing are removed Slackware remains, as it has almost since its first appearance many moons ago, stable. On the desktop however the number of Slackware installs is ever dwindling.

So, while those in aols 'tilt' every time Slackware's relevance in today's overcrowded Linux distribution market place comes up I have to say my findings is that it is becoming less and less relevant in that market place. The decision to drop Gnome2 was a poor one. The choice of some of the 2nd lieutenants is unwise at best and is having an adverse affect on the distributions current market penetration. Slackware is however an excellent base from which to create something else. Zenwalk is one such example of making Slackware better. If only Slackware's creator would stop listening to his underlings/helpers and his own reluctance to touch his own creation and incorporate some of of the good things Zenwalk has to offer then Slackware's relevance in todays market would show signs of improvement but that is an unlikely scenario to happen as is the chance of the creator writing his own similar improvements.

Is Slackware still relevant in todays market? No. For reasons outlined above, I honestly do not think it is.

(I personally use Bluewhite64 which is a one for one rebuild of Slackware for the 64 bit CPU and after trying all the 64 bit Slackware distributions I have to say BLuewhite64 is by far the best of that limited bunch. I highly doubt I will ever move away from it. Mainly because I am so comfortable with it and at my age learning something different becomes harder with each passing day. I have no QT/KDE stuff installed prefering instead my own Gnome2 builds. I have used Slackware since its first public release. Once I moved into the 64bit CPU world and after rebuilding everything for my own use I tried all of the available 64bit compiled Slackware derived distributions, settling in the end on BLuewhite64.)

I wish...

That the main, apparently, hardware review web site for Linux users called Phoronix would NOT use that abomination for an operating system Ubuntu as their main, and seemingly only, operating system when reviewing hardware and doing tests.

The reasons for this wish are plenty.

First and foremost is the fact that Ubuntu is not a pure Linux operating system. They, the Ubuntu developers, just like the Debian operating system Ubuntu is based on, patch the hell out of just about every application they provide, including the kernel. This gives plenty of other problems on its own.

They must think that because Ubuntu is well used it is the only distribution worth using. Tthey could not be more wrong. This is a blind attitude that stops many old timers, such as myself, from beleiving anything they have to say on any hardware review. They complain when CPU's and GFX cards cause Ubuntu to spontaneously reboot or lock up or otherwise crash whilst at the same time making it sound like this crashing is a Linux issue when in fact the issue is down to Ubuntu only.

Take their review of the AMD Phenom quad core CPU as a prime example. They tested it and claimed it reboot or locked up or otherwise crashed the system and yet there are many, like myself, who have used the same CPU since it first came out and have not once had a single issue with it. Sure they said that an update to the kernel solved most of the issues they experienced with it but even this 32bit versus 64 bit review of the same CPU says they had problems. The problems they experienced was entirety down to the Ubuntu operating system they love so much. Myself does not use Ubuntu. I would not, ever, go anywhere near it let alone use it. I use a pure 64 bit operating system called Bluewhite64 which is a port of Slackware. Slackware itself is re-known for being a stable, rock solid stable, operating system and because bluewhite64 is a one for one port of it (save for the ia32 stuff) it too is totally stable. Oh! Look at that. Their choice of operating system is the issue. That is so obvious even my 15 month old child could see it and yet they continue to use a known unstable operating system.

The developers and reviewers etc of that web site really should get out a bit more and remove their total reliance on Ubuntu. Then, just maybe, old timers would take the web site more seriously as right now they are considered a joke. This is not to say they do not have some good stuff on there, they do. But, until they stop claiming Linux is unstable with this or that hardware installed when the truth is that it is Ubuntu that is unstable they will continue to make old timers not bother checking hardware against what this web site has to say about said hardware.

Not good.

Ignoring people is something the Americans are not alone in doing. But, my recent experience with some of our American friends shows that some, but obviously not all, of them are very well capable of doing it.

I use Bluewhite64 Linux. A 64bit port of my all time favourite Linux distribution, Slackware.

Bluewhite64 is a like for like port in that what it offers is identical to that which Slackware offers. Like for like except that Bluewhite64 offers a 32 bit compatibility layer (several packages that allow a lot of 32 bit only programs to run, but not be compiled, on 64 bit systems). Unlike its main counterpart Slamd64 that has a few added in packages, Bluewhite64 is as close as one can get to that unique Slackware experience. As you should have guessed by now I am a staunch advocate of Slackware Linux over all the other distributions, old and new, out there. Now that all my systems are 64 bit (and knowing I could run Slackware 32 bit proper on my 64 bit systems, but chose not to) I spent a not inconsiderable amount of time searching out 64 bit distributions, downloading them and trying them all one by one but every one of them at that time left me feeling that something was not quite right. In the end I found first Slamd64 and while the experience was much much better it too did not feel quite right. In the end I stumbled upon Bluewhite64 and a new love affair with a distribution was born. I never looked back nor have I installed anything else since, though I have tried a few of the newer distributions.

I have mentioned these new kids on the block before on this blog and have, rather reluctantly, mentioned how I think Slackware's relevance today is not a patch on what it once was. Even so I reckon that Slackware and its derivatives and ports will be around for a lot longer yet. Hopefully Slackware's creator will see that these new kids on the block are slowly killing, by their actions, the spirit which the author himself created and nurtured all those years ago and that has survived until now with a sharp drop starting 18months to 2 years ago. Roughly, the time these new kids on the block got their grubby fingers into the distribution.

In recent times a new web site offering Slackware compatible, but not identical, package build scripts has popped up and stolen the limelight from another web site offering the same which just happened to have been around for years. Probably before the new guys with their new web site were even born so long ago was that original web site started. They made no reference to that long established defacto web site. In point of fact it was, when the new site first started, plain for us old hands to see that the less the old web site was mentioned the sooner people would stop using it and a new defacto web site would be born. I reckon that, as unfortunate as many reckon it is, the new web site succeeded. Many of the long established web sites built around knowledge of Slackware were, in the eyes and minds of new Internet denizens, killed off in similar fashion. Instead of engaging in dialog with these older, much older, web sites and learning what those web site creators could teach them, the arrogance with which these newer ones aimed their destructive attitudes towards the older web sites lost Slackware a few long time users.

Those, like myself, who have sat on the sidelines watching all this happening noticed a sharp decline in long time Slackware users and, of course, with these long time users gone there are few left to spread the gospel according to Slackware with the ferocity the older long time users gave it. Which meant that the Slackware, and its ports, lost its relevance in todays market place. As these new kids on the block continue in their so obviously arrogant ways and keep on changing things as they grapple time and time again at lose straws in their efforts to stem that ever increasing movement away from Slackware, and its ports. Some have said that the long time Slackware users that left are defectors. I do not believe that for one second. Most of those long time users, if not all of them, left because they saw what was happening and what was happening they did not like. Many no longer use any Linux distribution preferring instead a BSD distribution which adheres to the values Slackware once did and of those long lost values the main value was based on the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle.

Recently I downloaded a set of Slackware build scripts and was slightly dismayed, but not surprised, to find that there was no 64 bit (x86_64) settings within any scripts. I have emailed them before asking them if they wanted me to add 64 bit to their scripts and where needed either patch myself or use someone else patch who got there before me but as was expected the email was ignored. Of course, like many do nowadays they may claim they never received the email but whatever the reason is/was for the email being ignored I simply chalked it up as another nail in the sinking ship.

New age Slackware.

It used to be said that Slackware was the best all round fit for both server installations an desktop systems. It was also said to be the best fit for both old, older and new systems. In the days of yore many, if not most, of its users were command line junkies. Nowadays though, almost none of that holds true.

Sure, the venerable Slackware distribution can be, and is, used on a few servers here and there with the desktop components not being installed but my own findings are that Slackware is nowadays mostly found on desktop installations. That assumes one can find anyone outside of the clique that makes up its current user base who is actively using it. This change of direction came around the time Gnome2 was dropped from the distribution and the horrible KDE became the main desktop GUI. This was a major choice by the creator of Slackware and not one that was popular. My dislike of KDE is because of its QT dependency. I dislike QT with a passion which means I dislike KDE too and anything else that depends on it.

Slackware, rightly, has a reputation for being staid in its choice of software. Some of the software that makes up the distribution is not bleeding edge. This gave Slackware a reputation for being solid in use. Slackware has always shipped with a choice of desktop Gui's but the dropping of Gnome was a minor disaster for Slackware which ultimately lost it a few users to other distributions that did include Gnome. There are also a few people that built Gnome for Slackware almost making a mockery of the Slackware authors claim that Gnome2 was hard to build and maintain.

In the latest release, due real soon now, the use of a default 2.6.x kernel, and the tools that go with it, also shows a leaning by its creator towards desktop installations. Many users, or potential users, of Slackware are now told to use an older version if the system it is being installed on is an old one. How old is old? Well, my reckoning is any CPU from the pre 2004 days. That move to a 2.6.x kernel combined with the dropping of Gnome2 excludes a lot of users.

So, with the combined dropping of Gnome2 and now the move to a 2.6.x kernel, Slackware stands to lose a few more users. I have no idea just how many installations, server and desktop, comprise of Slackware installations but my findings indicate the number has dropped dramatically in recent times, which is a shame because it is a fantastically stable distribution.

Added to this the Slackware creator has gathered together a bunch of people who he is hoping will take up the slack (no pun intended) should the creator decide for whatever reason, he has had enough and quits. Not all of these people are popular amongst its current user base and will I reckon lead to even less usage of Slackware in the next few years. Some of these people are arrogant, something the creator of Slackware has never been seen to be. They stomp all over other peoples work by stealing it. They never give attributes where due. Work that they gave away for free on various web sites dotted here and there. Web sites that in some cases have been around longer than some of these people. They jump on anyone who might have something bad to say about Slackware itself or the creator of, even if that something has merit.

I have used Slackware since around 1993 when it was born from the soon to be ashes of the SLS (Soft Landing Systems) distribution and have followed it not only by usage of it, but also with a general interest when compared to other distributions. Nowadays I have a 64 bit CPU which Slackware itself does not support but other distributions based on Slackware do. Of these ports I find Bluewhite64 to be the best fit as it directly mirrors, save for the 32 bit compatibility layer, Slackware itself. So, the transition from 32 bit Slackware to 64 bit Bluewhite64 via Slamd64 seemed to me to be an obvious one. I took it and find that Bluewhite64 with Gnome2 is the best of breed. I just find it a shame that the Slackware creator dropped Gnome2 from the distribution. Through my own scripting of the Gnome2 build process, and all its various dependencies, and the usage of other peoples scripts to build it, that the claim it is hard to build and maintain is laughable. However, it is, and was, his choice as it is after all his distribution that one assumes mirrors his own usage on the desktop at least and that is something I respect.

It has hurt to write this post because I honestly think that Slackware and the none sanctioned 64 bit ports of it are the best distributions by far, but that said, what I have said here is based around my observations of how the distribution has developed in recent times. It does not make good reading if you are, like me, a stout and devoted Slackware user but it is my view of the current state of play.

I still don't get it.

Having recently used a Mac, with the latest Mac OSX installed, on and off over a working week (that be Mon through Fri) and finding that it and myself did not get on well at all, the same old thought came back to haunt me as it has for quite sometime now. That is, why do software people/companies bring stuff out for MS Windows and Mac but never for the Linux platform?

The differences between an MS based client machine and a Mac based client is machine are massive in not only the GUI on offer but also in how the underlaying OS works. A Linux based OS and an MS based OS also differs in the same areas. However, a Mac based OS and a Linux based OS, especially one based on SYSV, do not. Sure the GUI differs but the underlaying OS does not. Well, not in any significant way that stops software people/companies from creating whatever software they create anyway.

I reckon it all comes down to 2 things. One being the openness of the GPL, v2 and 3, and similar licenses or licenses based upon the GPL and the other things being profits or more accurately what a person or company can get a way with charging for their software.

Licenses on the Linux platform almost universally say that the source code should be made available to the softwares users even if no-one ever requests it. On the MS platform one rarely sees source code unless that source code comes from a person or company who adheres by the licensing of the GPL, v2 or 3. Source code is a rare sight on the Mac platform but it does exist, again from those people/companies that license their software offering by the GPL. MS Windows is closed source. Mac OSX is closed source. An OS based on the Linux kernel is not closed source, though some closed source programs exist.

Money. This is where I think the reason lays. While it is not impossible to make money off the back of a freely given away program, most people/companies on the Linux platform simple give their programs away with no strings attached other than those governed by the license used. People/companies that create programs for the MS platform rarely give their programs away for free, sure there is growing market of free MS programs but that market is very small in the world of MS program availability. Mac OSX people/companies that keep the source code away from their users are aplenty.

Having built software on all 3 platforms I can say that of those 3 only one was problematic and that was the MS platform. Money. The root of all evil.