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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why oh why?

It seems only myself posts here any more. I have no idea what is happening in the world of this blogs creator as he does not reply to my emails anymore. He is based in the U.S.A. while I reside in the U.K. so it is not as easy as popping across the road when trying to contact him. I am sure he will pop up here eventually but right now it seems I am alone in providing content.

Oh well.

So, what is this "Why oh why" all about? Well, as many Linux based applications compile and run fine on Mac OSX why don't creators of certain software create said software for the Linux platform when they create it for MAC OSX?

Now that the venerable MAC uses a BSD base system under all that pretty GUI-ness there is little to seperate the Mac platform from a Linux one. They can use Xorg on the Mac so the differences are less and less so why don't they allow their software on the Linux platform? I really do not know. They do though so email them and ask them. Every day for ever until they release their games and applications on our platform. They create MS Vista and XP ones so why not Linux based ones too?

Old timers.

Are being forgotten.

As I transverse around the Internet it becomes clearer and clearer. Those trailblazing old timers are being what can only be described as forgotten.

Look at some of the once nail-on-the-head web sites that offered up free advice and information. Then look at some of the new kids on the block web sites and you will see lots of the advice, information, scripts etc etc on the new kids web sites looks remarkably similar to those old timers web sites. Plagarism in all but name is what it is.

Oh yes, I know all about how the Internet is supposed to be in that everything bar very little is avaialable for others to copy etc but I am not whining about that. I am whining about how these new kids totally ignore and have utter disregard for other peoples work and by extention the authors of those old time web sites.

Take my own web site which has been available to all since 1998. Since that time it has gone through several redesigns but the basic premise always remained. That is to give the reader advice on some of the problems they may be having. Well, problems they are having else why would they search a solution that ultimately brings them to my web site. I have not done much work on the web site since around 2004 and it shows. It looks dated, it has information pertinant to 2.4.x kernels and little to nothing about 2.6.x kernels. But, the information offered is as valid now as it was when written. Some, if not all, of the scripts and coding bits are just as useful now and it is those bits I find eleswhere on the Internet apparently written by someone else! Line for line stuff that cannot be mistaken. Slackware build scripts written some 4 or 5 years ago have been slightly reworked and put out as someone elses work.

It is downright annoying to find my own code and information elsewhere on the Internet with not so much as a cocked hat in recognition. People who one would assume are fine upstanding individuals who should know better but apparently don't.

As far as people accessing my site goes I get, give or take a few either way, approx 4000 uniqute hits a week even now. I know that is not many but still for a web site that has not been updated for going on 4 years that is not bad, but that is not the point of this whiney rant. The point is that all us old timers want is the recognition we deserve.

Oh how laughable!

In other blog posts here and here I have derided new, new as in springing up on the Slackware scene in the last 2-3 years, Slackware users for their attitudes. So, it was with much laughter I saw on one web site "Approved by..." as if that approval means anything to anyone except the person who deems him, or her, self important enough to give it.

I mean. Who gives a rats arse if some web site administrator deems him, or her, self important enough in the Slackware world that he, or she, gives his, or her, approval to something someone else has done.

What the fuck is that all about huh? Approval? Eh?

This particular web site administrator bursts onto the scene a couple of years ago pimping his web site at every given opportunity. Even today he pimps and pimps and pimps o such an extent that it is bloody annoying. Up until the time he came on the scene no-one had heard of the guy and now here he is giving his approval for something that someone has taken from elsewhere, adapted to fit in with this guys way of doing things then he deems it okay by giving his approval to it?

I do not give a flying one and I strongly doubt many long time Slackware users do either for his approval and that is why I will never, ever, submit anything to that web site even though I have hundreds of scripts that would expand his web site a hundred times over. I will never, ever submit anything because:

1) I don't like the way the his scripts are designed and I will not change my scripts to suit.
2) I don't need anyones approval to know my scripts are suitable for the purpose they were written and
3) I seek approval from no-one.

Damn Americans, not all of them obviously, seeking to dominate everything they touch. It does my head in it does and it is totally, utterly and laughably laughable in the extreme.

Emulation.

Or as the wine blarb goes "Wine Is Not (an) Emulator". Which is certainly true of both the Wine project and the Qemu project. Both can use full blown MS Windows installs and that is where the problem lays. As GNU/Linux adoption via a collection of a kernel and several applications commonly known as distributions continues almost unabated we have wine and Qemu which in my honest opinion are fighting the good fight and slowing down Linux adoption in several areas. How and why are wine and Qemu slowing down Linux adoption? Well, the answer to both questions are basically the same. Because people who install a distribution then go on to install wine and/or qemu and then go on to install MS Windows within one or both of those and then go on to install whatever MS Windows application they see as being unavailable under their choice of Linux based distribution are simply stopping the improvement of applications in the same field from growing as the good folks who create these programs don't see the need to create further as people who use wine and qemu are settled on whatever application they used under the MS Windows operating system. And that is the why and how answered. If only these people who dogmatically insist on using applications designed for another operating system on their distribution of choice used whatever search engine they prefer, or look at web sites like this one which shows The table of equivalents / replacements / analogs of Windows software in Linux they would see that in almost every single case there is an equivalent application that runs natively under a Linux based operating system. They could then remove the baggage known as wine and qemu and quite possibly at the same time have a more stable system.

Phoronix

That is a nice web site you have there with Linux users well catered for with some interesting articles. But, I have to ask one question regarding your choice of distributions.

Ubuntu? I mean why?

On my wifes machine it was as unstable as an unstable thing can be in a land called unstable. At least it was until I replaced it with another distribution.

If you don't want to lose the head of steam you have made for yourselves then please lose Ubuntu.

Use a distribution that carries little to no patches in its wake. Ubuntu, being Debian derived is, just like Debian, patched to Hell and back and carries all the baggage as well. Lose it. Seriously.

Stealing

That is the only word I can think of that hits home how I feel about this particular thing.

In the latest slackware-current changelog there is a reference to someone who is not averse to stealing scripts by other people and calling them his own. In this particular case it is the build script for XFCE4.

I put up my own build script for XFCE4 when XFCE went from the older XFCE to the newer XFCE and labled it XFCE4. In fact, I was building every new XFCE4 as and when they came out upstream. I would build it, put up the package, build script and slack-desc. For one or two releases I was prompted by users as I was slow in catching the upstream release. However, as soon as I was notified I went and downloaded it, built it etc etc.

The similarities between my own script and the script in slackware-current attributed to a particular person who has been noticed by others for stealing other peoples scripts is disappointing at worst and downright annoying at best.

Time rolls on.

Indeed it does. Time rolls on and the dinosaur's disappeared. And so it is. With the above line stated I think some explanation is required, especially its deeper meaning as well as to what it is I refer to in the present tense. Many years ago some Slackware users placed many nuggets of information relating mainly to that Operating System but sometimes to every GUN Linux based Operating System. They put on to web sites information such as how to 'properly' build Slackware packages. How to get around some of the quarks that distribution had. How to change the start up scripts to make them faster at boot time. Etc, etc, etc. All this and more was put out there for public consumption and people used that information. Then other Slackware users came to be and they too put such information into the public domain. These users collected the information scattered on many web sites put there by the previous generation, updated to fit new releases and then put it all together in one place for other people to view and use. Fast forward to today and yet again a newer set of users came to be who collated information out there on the Internet, gave it a new twist, called it their own and placed the result on the Internet. The different between the three generations of Slackware users, while all had or have good intentions, follows the same path and attitudes each generations general public had or had. Lets call the generations Gen-1, Gen-2 and Gen-3. Gen-1 built the foundations the Gen-2 built on top of. Gen-2 attributed Gen-1 for the work Gen-2 created off the back of what Gen-1 created. In otherwords Gen-2 acknowledged Gen-1. Gen-3 however is a different beast all together. They took the work done by Gen-2 and called it their own. They changed the smallest bits. They give no attribution at all to Gen-1 and Gen-2. They created web sites in a mirror image of web sites created by Gen-2 and then added or edited scripts then gave no attribution to Gen-2. So, today we have a situation where Gen-3 users are coming across, and they do everything possible to put that in the minds of other people, as being the first and only generation of Slackware users that have put information and slackware build scripts on the Internet. They give not the slightest nod to all those who have gone before them doing what Gen-3 users are doing right now. I reckon there are one or two reasons for Gen-3's attitude. Reason 1 is mirrored in how todays society at large acts. Reason 2 is that most of the Gen-3 web masters are American and we all know they think they rock andthe rest of the world does not exist in their minds and that they are hellbent on ruling the world. That is my take on the current generation of Slackware users. It is bad enough to make me want to change distributions for the first time in 12 years or so. Attributes people. Attributes. Deep deep down you know I am right.

Gnome2 >2.20.0

I am unsure when Gnome2 started using PolicyKit which itself relies on SELinux and/or PAM but in my honest opinion this is a bad bad move.

I don't know how people who are building third party Gnome2 packages for Slackware are going to build it without PolicyKit. Every man and his dog knows that Slackware's author, Mr Volkerding, regards PAM as a huge security hole so does not and has said he will not include PAM in his distribution.

I have liked Gnome since its first incarnation many years ago. While I currently use the always improving without adding bloat Xfce4 I often revisit Gnome2 to see what is going on there. KDE simply does not get a look in because I have never liked QT.

But, this new reliance on PolicyKit which in turn relies on PAM and/or SELinux to be able to do its work is going to prove to be a massive turn off for me and no doubt a lot of Slackware users and for that reason alone unless I, and others, can find a way to build the latest version of Gnome2 without PolicyKit then Gnome2 will simply fall by the wayside as so many other DTE's and WM's have done over the years. Xfce4 will be the only DTE (DeskTop Environment) left on my system for those times I load up X.

Time and time again I have dabbled with PAM. Built it, installed it, configured it for my needs but always I have felt that PAM is simply a security bolt on that is not needed on a properly configured system. Because it is a bolt on this alone makes it a security hole. Look at PAM's record on vulnerabilities and you will see just how poor a record PAM has in this area. After a week or two usage with PAM running on my systems and adding a patch or 3 to cover some hole within it or updating it yet again because of a vulnerability I get fed up with it and remove it. Look around the Internet and you will see problem after problem regarding PAM and now we have parts of Gnome2 relying on it. If I feel this way how many others out there feel the same?

I downloaded the latest, at time of writing 2.21.2, Garnome (that is how I have tested various versions of Gnome2 for quite some time. Garnome itself is a wonderful tool as it allows you to test Gnome2 without actually installing it system wide) and because I have no PAM or SELinux installed it will not build. I have edited various files within the Garnome environment to try and eliminate the need for PolicyKit, PAM and SELinux but every effort resulted the same. It simply will not build.

This reliance on PolicyKit, PAM and SELinux is a shame as I said earlier on, Gnome2 has been one of my favourite DTE's and because of these reliances I will soon be consigning it to the bin.