More Confessions of a non-Enthusiast

[raymac46]

As many of you know, I've used Linux a fair while. But the majority of that time I've stuck to what are generally called "mainstream" distros - Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Mageia. The reasons for this are threefold:

• Laziness I guess. Once you get familiar with something that works for you, you don't want to change unless the distro itself does.
  
• Convenience. Other family members use my Linux machines and I want them to just work.
  
• Advocacy. I don't want to install a Linux system for a friend or neighbor that I don't use and know myself.
  

The sole exception to this until recently was some experimentation with Slackware a few years ago - that I didn't do well and didn't enjoy. No criticism of Slack as many here swear by it. However in my case:

• I installed it on a crappy old desktop with no wifi so my wife was already complaining about cable snaking up the stairs to the router.
  
• I got good advice on the install but I didn't follow up with Bruno's tips to smooth out the final product.
  
• The desktop was KDE which I didn't want to use.
  
• There was a great Slack based derivative called Vector Linux which to my taste was nicer and fully featured, so why not install that?
  

So that was the sum total of my "enthusiast" phase until I started playing round with netinstalls of Debian in VirtualBox last year. Debian probably isn't an enthusiasts distro but it certainly is more of a purist's one than say Linux Mint. Those experiments went well so recently I decided I'd jump into Arch - in VBox again.

In actually installing Arch I found out I really had learned a lot over the years and there was nothing foreign about partitioning, chrooting, mounting, generating fstab, locales, time and date etc. I'd seen an installer do it in the past. I did understand the majority of the steps.

The major issues I had were just basic VBox ones after updating. Although I could mostly fix these I still felt that Arch deserved a better trial on the rails.

By now I'd acquired a great test box - a Dell Pentium D with 3 GB of RAM - best suited for 32 bit, but a formidable piece of hardware. It also had wifi capability via a little thumb sized USB dongle.

So the past few days I've been playing around installing Arch, getting the wifi working, checking out the software and hardware.

Some things are the same - great advice here. But other stuff has changed - excellent wifi tools, superb documentation online, many more options for desktops. I hadn't tried Bridge or ArchBang so I didn't hesitate to get right into Arch itself.

So now I've got a real working system set up with wifi just the way I like, I can update to my heart's content and I don't think I'll have the same issues with VBox simulation. I'm impressed with what I see so far.

I'll still stick with the mainstream stuff for family and friends but I really like what this old Dell Optiplex is doing when Arch is calling the shots.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

To each their own, of course. Just so you know, though, Ray... Slackware has come a long way since you played with it last. Download a copy of 14.1 and install the entire shebang onto some machine you have lying around collecting dust. Run the Xfce4 desktop (note: you'll still have menu access to all those good KDE apps, though). You won't need to do any of that fine tuning and tweaking that Bruno recommended back then. That's all mostly obsolete these days and not needed.

 

Slackware is much different than it was when I first started using it (10.2 - I still have the disks ) back in 2006.

 

It don't look too bad, I don't think...

 

[raymac46]

I am sure it can look great. I don't think the problem was with Slackware at all - more my inexperience.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Yeah... I remember those days. Debian 3.1 (Sarge) scairt the beejeezus out of me the first time I saw that ncurses installer.

 

Everything is easier once you know how to do it.

[Guest LilBambi]

Yes, it is amazing ... the fear of the unknown can keep us back from much fun in life.

 

Too many distros ... too little time and hard drive space LOL!

 

There are not really too many distros ... it's just a saying.

[raymac46]

In my case it wasn't the installer, as I had already used a version of it to install Vector Linux. It was post installation glitches because I didn't know Bruno's tips and tweaks plus KDE that eventually did me in. Also I always had the fear of getting into dependency Hades.

It's probably time for me to give Slack another try. I'm a far more experienced Linux guy today.

Edited April 17, 2014 by raymac46

[raymac46]

There are not really too many distros ... it's just a saying.

 

There are a lot of distros, but you can classify them easily enough so it's manageable.

The classification would have to be on the technical side though like what package manager is default. Trying to classify as "geek" or "mainstream" would be really an exercise in fuzzy logic.

When I came to join SNF, here at BATL there were distros I thought I could label as geek - and I wanted to stay away from them. However I forgot that even something as "mainstream" as Ubuntu needed you to geek it up adding codecs and video drivers, plus getting wifi to work.

My own needs at the time were mainstream as all I wanted to do was get an old second computer online and secure with wifi, without spending a lot of $$$. As I've acquired my stable of junkers I have testbeds now to indulge myself more in the technical side of Linux. And of course there's VirtualBox.

I guess I've become a geek by induction. Scary thought huh?

Edited April 17, 2014 by raymac46

[sunrat]

I like to keep my distro choices simple:

- Must use apt

- Must have KDE (main system only, have LXDE on netbook and soon to try RazorQT there)

- Must be called siduction

Of course I still occasionally install others in VBox, got Makulu downloaded for a sticky beak.

[abarbarian]

In my case it wasn't the installer, as I had already used a version of it to install Vector Linux. It was post installation glitches because I didn't know Bruno's tips and tweaks plus KDE that eventually did me in. Also I always had the fear of getting into dependency Hades.

It's probably time for me to give Slack another try. I'm a far more experienced Linux guy today.

 

You might find this interesting then.

 

http://www.absolutelinux.org/about.shtml

Edited April 17, 2014 by abarbarian

[saturnian]

I'm pretty happy with what I'm running here... basically, it's Debian, Arch, Ubuntu LTS, openSUSE, and Sabayon.

 

For me, Debian and Arch are "The Great Ones." For someone like me who doesn't like to stick with only one distro, having both of those installed is very nice. They complement each other quite well, in my opinion. I could get rid of everything else, but I'd keep those two.

 

I could live without Ubuntu LTS and openSUSE, but I continue to have an interest in those projects; and, once installed and set up, they both run nicely (for me). Ubuntu LTS is good for a few years, and an openSUSE release comes to its EOL after about 18 months. I like that part. Something else I really like about Ubuntu: Great repos, great documentation.

 

Sabayon, I don't know, I might not be running that one for much longer. It annoys me a bit that updating the system takes so much longer than with other distros. And I've had a few times when updates left me unable to boot into the system. Overall, it's a very nice distro, but if it breaks again -- and if I can't figure out how to fix it without reinstalling -- I'll be finished with Sabayon.

 

The other distros installed here are CrunchBang, ArchBang, and Bridge; they mainly use either Debian or Arch repos, and I did those installations mainly because they were quicker and easier to do than their respective "parent" distros. There are situations when "quicker and easier" is good. But otherwise, I don't prefer them over their respective "parent" distros, and I don't know how long I'll keep running these derivatives. MX-14 (the "special edition" of antiX) and Tanglu fall under this category; they're both Debian-based, and I haven't done hard drive installations with either one, but I have them both on flash drives. MX-14 looks like it will prove to be very useful to keep on a flash drive as a utility tool, for live sessions.

 

I suspect that I'll eventually get around to Slackware; and, if/when I do, perhaps that'll change everything here! (An eye-opening thread, for me, at LinuxQuestions: "Want To Try Slack - Afraid Of One Thing.....") But that might not happen for awhile.

[raymac46]

Well I downloaded a Slack install DVD but I had trouble with it in VirtualBox. Wouldn't boot at all (kernel panic.) There were some suggested workarounds by Slackware users but they didn't help. Since I don't have a free machine right now, I'll wait and see if VBox fixes this bug in a future release. The iso was OK as far as MD5 goes and obviously I didn't have to burn it to try in VBox.

Edited April 17, 2014 by raymac46

[Reynaldo]

Well the last year i was using Ubuntu but i felt i was not using real linux, i mean i didnt even know my system... then i tried a gentoo derivative - Sabayon, it was nice but too heavy. I did my research and i really wanted that rolling release model after asking here and there, It came down to 3 (since i just wanted a BASE distro not derivatives): Debian, Gentoo, Arch; I didnt want to trouble to be compiling every package but i didnt want to use APT so i went to Arch, it was easy and thanks to Security breach its been a real pleasure, i can also thanks the IRC. Anyway after i joined the forums i saw Eric was using Slack and i was thinking around it, perhaps i should try it some day. Eric could you give me a good comparison btw Arch and Slack?

Gonna try that Vector Linux you said Ray

[raymac46]

Well guess what - the VBox bug that caused the kernel panic is in the Linux version of VBox. The host program on Windows 7 works fine. I was able to install Slackware no problem at all. Chose Xfce as my desktop. Here's how it looks.

 

 

I was able to build the guest additions the usual way, so I have full screen and all the VBox bells and whistles.

Edited April 18, 2014 by raymac46

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Also I always had the fear of getting into dependency Hades.

 

My only issues with Dependency Heck (where all naughty penguins go when they compile) in all my years of Linuxing has been with Debian, believe it or not. I can't even remember what I was trying to compile, it's been so long, but yeeeeesh! Did I ever step into it that time. I was lost in Heck for quite some time before I just repented (gave up).

[abarbarian]

Surprisingly enough I have had less problems with Arch and Window Maker than I have had with any of the main stream distros.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

@ Reynaldo... Some often overlooked Slackware derivative distributions that are excellent choices for those not wanting the full-Slack experience:

 

Today's Featured Distribution - Salix OS*

 

Today’s Featured Distribution – Zenwalk*

 

Info on Slackware package management and SlackBuilds:

 

Slackage Management, Baby!*

 

Let’s Build a SlackBuild*

 

*All links lead to articles on my Nocturnal Slacker blogs.

 

Slackware support:

 

The Slackware Documentation Project

 

As to your question about a comparison between Arch and Slackware, well...

 

For starters, Slackware is a much more stable operating system (not that Arch isn't stable) than Arch due to the fact that Arch is a rolling-release distribution that stays quite near the bleeding edge software-wise.

 

When it comes to support, though, I think Arch has the edge; mostly due to their outstanding wiki.

 

While Arch uses the Pacman package management system for their distribution, Slackware currently uses a much tamer, but not necessarily less capable Slackpkg. Ray mentions dependency issues above. It's true that Slackware doesn't have the dependency tracking like Debian (apt). However, I've never had an issue with this. With the robustness of Slackware's own repos, the SlackBuilds repos, and many community repositories, such as Robbie Workman's or Eric Hameleers' (both Slackware devs), you can almost always find any app you need already packaged into a nice .tgz(older), .txz package or a Slackbuild. Note, though... Arch has the edge in package availability, too... the repos are HUGE!

 

Slackware is leaner than Arch, possibly faster.

 

Arch uses newer kernels... that bleeding edge thing again.

 

Slackware is easier to install.

 

Arch uses the newer systemd init system.

 

Slackware still uses the stable and much easier (in my opinion) to maintain SysVinits system.

 

I'm sure there are many other comparisons that can be made, but my cats are hungry, so I'm off to go feed the kitties.

 

Have fun!

[abarbarian]

Oooooooooooops I forgot to put the link in me post 9.

 

http://www.absolutelinux.org/about.shtml

 

This looks an interesting Slackware derivative.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Yes, Absolute is another very good Slack baby.

[raymac46]

Slackbuilds are wild, man! I wanted to add Abiword and Gnumeric to my install and could not find them in Slackpkg or in the list of packages online. So I had to build them. Right away I got into dependency issues although the documentation told me I needed to have wv and goffice. Had to build both of them and install before I started on Abiword. It was a long strange trip but sure enough both Abiword and Gnumeric are installed.

I tried to make separate file folders for every package I needed to build and put these all in a Slackbuilds folder in my ~ directory. @Eric I don't know how you keep all these files organized.

ETA: Read your links and now I know.

Edited April 18, 2014 by raymac46

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Yeah. SlackBuilds get easier the more you use them. Eventually, you'll be compiling from binary and making your own SlackBuilds. It's really not that difficult.

 

About the organizing... I have a directory in my /home/vtel57 called .build-vtel57. I build my Slackbuilds in there and then once the compiling produces the app_name.SBo.tgz in the /tmp directory, I copy it to an apps directory on my /vtel57_common partition on another drive for archiving/storage purposes. This way, I have my own custom repo to install from when reinstalling or when installing Slack on another system. I just ssh into my main system and install my custom builds from my own repo.

 

COOL, huh? Believe me... it ain't rocket science. It's just a combination of experience, organization, and laziness. I don't want to have to build stuff over and over again, you know.

 

Be aware, though... SlackBuilds do NOT update like regularly installed repo apps. If your super-dooper_app2014.SBo.tgz is built from version 1.1 of super-dooper and its dev updates to v1.9, you'll have to re-execute a SlackBuild using a modified script and the new version source code. Not difficult, just tedious.

[raymac46]

Makes sense. I was wondering what to do with the collection of .tgz packages that were accumulating in the /tmp directory. Seemed a waste to ignore them after the work of packaging them. I assumed that a SlackBuild would not update without a rebuild, but thanks for letting me know. About the only place this might get annoying is updating a browser like Google Chrome.

[raymac46]

Probably a bit too early for a final comparison but here are my thoughts of Slackware versus Arch Linux. I'm not an advocate of either distro since my production machines use Windows 7 and Linux Mint 16.

• Neither one would be my choice for a casual user who just wants to start up the PC and head over to Facebook - especially if that user also runs Windows. They are just too different in look and feel.
  
• I would not have wanted to start out in Linux with either one. Both require some in depth knowledge of Linux file systems and command line usage. Now of course any distro needs some of that, but you can get started with Linux Mint or Ubuntu without as much of it as you need for Slack and Arch.
  
• That said, no experienced user should feel intimidated by installing and running either one. I certainly did not feel out of my depth at any time.
  
• Slack has the edge in installation. The installer works fine and gets you to a GUI in a few minutes.
  
• Arch has the edge in maintenance and customization based on pacman and its extensive repos.
  
• Slack feels more like a monolithic distro than Arch - of course, at first Arch feels like a server distro till you get going on it. With Slack you are solidly in KDE-land and if you want to get out it's a lot more difficult. Slackbuilds are your friend here, but you have to be aware of dependencies and personally I found this burdensome. However if you enjoy KDE and its many apps Slack gives you these in spades right out of the box.
  
• Both are a lot of fun and both can teach you stuff you never thought about before - like how to structure a command line prompt in your terminal.
  
• Neither one is particularly solid in VBox if you are using a Linux host. Sadly VBox seems to have its act together better in Windows. I didn't have any failures with Windows 7, but both Arch and Slack gave me problems in Linux installs in VBox. This is a VBox problem they need to fix.
  
• Too early to establish a preference so I'll keep both around to play with. I'm leaning a bit to Arch because it's easier to create my little GTK-centered universe with it. If I had started out with KDE years ago and liked it, Slack would get my approval from the start. It has come a long way since my early experiences with it. But then again, so have I.
  

Edited April 18, 2014 by raymac46

[securitybreach]

I would not have wanted to start out in Linux with either one. Both require some in depth knowledge of Linux file systems and command line usage. Now of course any distro needs some of that, but you can get started with Linux Mint or Ubuntu without as much of it as you need for Slack and Arch

I started with Slackware (well technically Mandrake but only for a week before moving to Slack). Of course, I was never your typical user.....

 

Slack has the edge in installation. The installer works fine and gets you to a GUI in a few minutes.

Yes and No.... It is easier because unlike Arch, Slackware actually has an installer but at the same time; there is less control. So both have their advantages.

 

Arch has the edge in maintenance and customization based on pacman and its extensive repos.

That is one of the reasons I started using Arch: It felt like Slackware but with a better package management system (IMO)

 

Slack feels more like a monolithic distro than Arch - of course, at first Arch feels like a server distro till you get going on it.

That is because it is.. Slackware is the oldest surviving distro (1992) and has had the same lead developer since the beginning. Good ole Pat, a god among men

[Guest LilBambi]

Yep, and Debian not far behind.

 

1.1 In the Beginning

 

The Debian Project was officially founded by Ian Murdock on August 16th, 1993. At that time, the whole concept of a "distribution" of Linux was new. Ian intended Debian to be a distribution which would be made openly, in the spirit of Linux and GNU (read his manifesto provided as an appendix to this document for more details). The creation of Debian was sponsored by the FSF's GNU project for one year (November 1994 to November 1995).

[raymac46]

Since I'm not running Slackware as a production distro but rather in a Virtual Machine on Windows hosting, I decided to make my life simpler. So I've reinstalled the whole system and got rid of the SlackBuilds for now. I can use Firefox and the KDE office stuff for what little needs I have. Even Flashplugin has a Slackware package already built so I didn't need to do anything but download and install.

I'm going with KDE as it seems to me Slackware is built that way. Xfce works but with all the KDE stuff available in the menus I'd rather run the whole enchilada. I'll see how badly I can screw up the plasmoids.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Good synopsis, Ray. I'd have to comment on one item, though...

 

With Slack you are solidly in KDE-land and if you want to get out it's a lot more difficult.

 

While Slack does lean toward favoring KDE as a desktop/windows manager app, it's not chiseled in stone by any means. When I became angry with KDE (v4.0) and decided to boycott all things KDE, I would install Slack without the KDE apps, language packs, or libs. I ran a 100% pure KDE-free Slackware. I ran (and currently still do) Xfce. The only thing I really missed from KDE was Konqueror and K3b.

 

Later, after KDE worked out the worst of their bugaboos in v4.x, I tried it again. It was better. I ran it for a year or so. Recently, though, after upgrading to Slack 14.1, I decided to go back to my old love Xfce4. I didn't do this because I was having issues with KDE. I did it because KDE is just too "full-featured" (read as bloated) for my tastes. The customization options available are mind-boggling. I found myself spending more and more time customizing and tweaking the interface and individual apps. It became tediously addicting.

 

Back with Xfce4, I can still do quite a bit of customizing. The desktop/windows manager is much leaner and meaner than KDE. It's also faster on my machines. KDE is a beautiful experience for those interested in eye-candy computing. For me, though, Xfce will always be my first love with old (before v3.0) Gnome a close second. I first met Xfce when I experimented with Zenwalk, my favorite "Slack Baby" distribution. Ahhhhhhmmmm... Ahhhhhhmmmm...

 

=====

 

Off topic:

 

I commend you once again, Ray, for starting a very interesting and compelling topic. Most of the ones you start like this really spur all of us into piling on more and more information and personal experience. That's a really good thing on a tech forum like this. Please keep it up!

[raymac46]

I am a huge fan of Xfce myself and I have been ever since I used it with Vector Linux. The desktop with Slackware 14.1 is very nice but I still get the feeling that Slack would be happier as a KDE distribution. Even with Xfce as your DE you still have all the KDE apps and configuration options in its menu. Xfce has always been a Gtk type of desktop in my mind and it seems bolted on to a Qt environment with Slackware.

Slack does KDE particularly well but I agree about the difficulty of configuration.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

When you install Slack next time, untick the KDE and KDE Language apps during the installation process and you'll have a Slackware that is 100% pure KDE-free.

[raymac46]

Yep I did that the first time but then you miss out on a lot of cool little apps like the system monitor. Also you don't get any kind of office software. That's how I ended up installing Abiword and Gnumeric via Slackbuilds. Now if you *do* install KDE you get the KDE office equivalents and you don't have to worry. You can then run Xfce if you want - or KDE.

I'm not complaining - as I said before Slack has come a long way in my estimation since I tried it back in 2008.

I'd like to "like" KDE - I really would. It's just that I never really seem to have control of it. Icons appear and disappear at random - right now I have a Konqueror launcher on my lower panel that just appeared for no particular reason. I can delete it but it'll be back. I always manage to delete or move the start button too. When I try to add my favorite apps to the lower panel they always end up way over on the right side about 20 inches away from the Start button.

With Gnome Shell it's Death by Boredom and with KDE it's Death by Customization. No wonder Xfce is so popular.

[saturnian]

Back with Xfce4, I can still do quite a bit of customizing. The desktop/windows manager is much leaner and meaner than KDE. It's also faster on my machines. KDE is a beautiful experience for those interested in eye-candy computing. For me, though, Xfce will always be my first love

 

I love Xfce, too, but one of the nicest things here is when I add Openbox to a KDE installation. Right now, I've got Openbox with Wheezy KDE, and also with Kubuntu. So I've got all the KDE apps available, and I can log into KDE if I want to, but everything seems so much faster if I log into Openbox instead. That kind of set up, Openbox on top of KDE, rivals Xfce, in my opinion. I don't know which I like better. Xfce might be easier to set up and customize, but the thing with Openbox is that the config files are easy to work with, and if you make a copy of them it's pretty easy to use them again in later installations. When I set up Openbox in Kubuntu, I simply copied the Openbox (and tint2) config files over from Wheezy KDE and made a couple of edits and then I was done. Beautiful.