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.

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.

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.

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.

Ubuntu sufferation.

My wife uses a Ubuntu desktop and it is fine for her. After a few days tutorial by yours truly she is now very adept and upgrading/installing and removing applications by herself.

And that my friends is where Ubuntu should stay. On the desktop. It is great there for those with minimal Linux knowledge. My wife loves the way automatic updates just works "like it did in windows".

So, why on earth do Linux hardware sites use Ubuntu as their OS of choice? It is, by design, unstable. It is, by design, a desktop OS. Sure one can get a Ubuntu server OS but come on. Using it as the OS of choice for benchmarking is just plain stupid. Ubuntu has layers and layers of useless crap between it and its users which slows it down. The guys who run and work on these hardware sites have tons of Linux knowledge so, surely they are capable of using a real Linux OS inplace of that toy OS and still provide the articles their users love to read.

Use Slackware or one of the x86_64 derivatives. Use CentOS. But for crying out loud don't use bloody Ubuntu and then claim Linux is unstable when it bloody crashes. It may even raise your profile in the eyes of us geeks that have years and years of Linux usage under our belts.

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?

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.

Optimise.

Having used SLS (Soft Landing Systems an ancient now defunked distribution. IIRC SLS was the first 'packaged' distribution), Slackware then when moved to an x86_64 system, Slamd64 before finally settling on Bluewhite64. I currently have over 500 packages of my own creation. That is, I download the sources and configure, compile and install a lot of stuff myself, usually with a Bluewhite64 package of the result. It never ceases to amaze me how people claim optimisations over and above the stock -march=i486 -mcpu=i686, or in some cases -march=i386, Slackware uses or the stock i386 debian is built with, results in faster load and execution times.

Gentoo users are the biggest culprits for doing this. They claim, and worse some even think and believe, that because their systems are built from the ground up (this is no longer completely true as even stage1 comes with a pre-built base install last time I checked) with some semi insane GCC settings that their OS somehow, magically, is faster than all the other Linux distributions that come pre built via packages.

As an aside, the myth that says Gentoo gives you more knowledge than other distribution is just that. A myth. Portage does all work with the user giving some, often ignored, flags to it. Portage then goes and downloads the sources, builds then installs it. No black magic there at all.

Gentoo users through this mistaken belief can be seen on various mailing lists, web forums, blogs and Usenet arguing over little known, little useful, hidden GCC flags again in the mistaken belief that these flags offer them optimisations over and above what every other OS uses.

Gentoo users are not alone in this belief but their userbase is way over and above the most vocal about it. There are other distributions that make the same claims. Sourcemage, Rock Linux are two others that come immediately to mind at the time of writing.

I cannot find the link now but a while ago there was a binary speed comparison of Gentoo, Mandrake (now Mandriva) and Debian. Debian was compiled for i386, mandrake for i586 and Gentoo for i686. I don't recall what GCC flags where used but I do seem to recall that the flags used where pretty ordinary. It turned out that Debian's i386 compiled binaries were faster in every way. The report was vilified by Gentoo fanboys at the time but what the report did show was that setting insane GCC flags does not always mean one will get a faster system load time and execution time.

The truth is that most optimisations for GCC have nothing whatsoever to do with speed but do have something to do with the resultant binary size(s). This binary size can and does give the illusion that the binary can and does load and run faster.

My foray into the murky world of Operating Systems.

Or, A potted history of my computer usage.

This blog post can also be found elsewhere. They where both written by myself.

While this blog host is worldwide the stuff at the end is for local to me people and companies. That said, if you are located somewhere far away from my locality, which is Hull, UK, then we can still talk via email, ICQ and even MSN and who knows, perhaps I can offer you or your company some remote services, which are incidentally something I excel at. Read on then decide for yourself which way you want to go.

I have used the Linux kernel and the same GNU based distribution since 1991. Yes, I was one of the masochists back in those days who saw Linus Torvalds work and the associated GNU tools as something radically different from what was quickly emerging as the default operating system ("OS").

I had previously used the Amiga OS, which was so far ahead in what it offered that even in todays OS world it would not be out of place. I started by foray into the murky waters of computers with a Commodore-PET, carried on through the C64/128 phase then the Plus4. Then along came the Amiga 1000. I immediately saw this machine for what it was and jumped on it. Over the following few years I went through the entire Amiga range ending up with what was their finest hour, the Amiga 3000 Tower.

By now it was 1991 at which time it had become painfully obvious the Amiga was going nowhere fast. Over the next few years I started looking at what else was available. IBM, and compatibles, where everywhere but lacked something I had grown used to having with the Amiga. Apple had machines out but they too lacked that something. Eventually, around 1996 and knowing nothing about them at that time, I bought my first and only pre-build IBM compatible machine which came with the awful MS Windows OS of that time. The OS itself stayed on that machine just long enough to download a Linux distribution, Slackware as it turned out, and install it. I have never used another OS on my main workstation since that time.

I had used NetBSD on my Amiga 3000 Tower setup since around 1990. Running it alongside the Amiga OS. It wasn't until around 1996 that I sold all my Amiga equipment and went full time into the Linux world which I have remained with ever since.

And that is my potted history of computer OS's I have used over the years.

I have said I started using Linux around 1991 and that is correct. Someone had given me an IBM clone on which had, if I remember correctly, MS Windows 1.0 or maybe 2.0, I forget. I ran this box alongside my Amigas for about 5 years, never upgrading it, save for an extra floppy drive and generally not doing much at all with it as it paled in comparison to my Amiga. Anyway, that OS, on the IBM clone. was quickly replaced with what was at that time the all new Linux kernel add in some GNU tools and a new OS was born.

What did the GNU/Linux combination have that the Amiga had that MS Windows, then and now, had that made me decide to use it? Freedom. Freedom to tinker with the underlaying OS and bend it whichever way I wanted to bend it. No MS OS has ever allowed for this and that alone made using the, any, MS OS a huge no-go for me.

Fast forward to today.

Through all of those machines and OS's I have been on a learning curve. Sometimes that curve has been steep, very very steep, and other times it has been easy. I am now the proud owner of several certificates which proclaim to the world I am fit and able to do all manner of IT related work.

I build all my own machines now as they work out cheaper that way plus one gets the ability to add-in whatever hardware one wants and often needs. Plus, I can tailor the hardware to ensure it works 100% with my choice of OS, which is GNU/Linux. Of course, today that tailoring of hardware is not really required anymore as GNU/Linux works with just about everything available, save for a few hardware pieces that tie themselves so close to the MS OS the coders and hackers cannot be bothered to create code that would make them work. If a hardware vendor is so short sighted they only make hardware that works on one OS then that hardware is not worth the time of day in my humble opinion anyway.

As a final note. If you enjoyed reading this and if you are located in Kingston upon Hull or at least somewhere close to it, and you are thinking of using a Linux OS within your company or as an individual at home, but the very thought of it is giving you nightmares, then feel free to contact me and if you want I will help you install a Linux based OS of your choosing. Perhaps you need someone to explain the finer points of the GNU/Linux OS versus MS OS, and there are many plus points for GNU/Linux over an MS OS, GNU/Linux is in 99.9% of cases cheaper to run and has no license fee mess to worry about, plus there is help everywhere on the Internet plus a few good GNU/Linux users locally who can offer guidance if you so need it. But the plus and minus things are best left for another blog post or possibly put somewhere on the Internet for all to see, read, inwardly digest and finally a decision made.

To my credit I have built from scratch upwards of 50 seat networks for various companies, that have at their heart a GNU/Linux based server. So, if you are such a person of company but are afraid of what GNU/Linux offers or perhaps the installation phase bothers you for some reason then feel free to contact me and we can perhaps have a chat about it. One thing you will find, be you an individual at home or the owner or manager of a small to medium company, GNU/Linux is not hard to install and with someone like myself at your elbow it will all become easy.

The savings that your company, be it a 2,4,16,32 or 64 seat one are not something your company can ignore or at least should not ignore.

As a side note and something that is, I am sure, always in your mind. I do not charge much, in point of fact I am confident you will find my services cheaper than most, if not all, of those who offer the same services, which is surely a plus for you. I charge nothing at all for email contact so what have you got to lose? Nothing, so go on. Contact me and let me show you the cost savings you can surely make.