Finally switched to linux... what now?

[enorbet2]

Warning Funky Quote ahead - I'm still heavily under antihistamines and feeling drowsy yet somehow feisty

QuoteQuote:
Originally Posted by enorbet
also known as threads EndQuoteQuote

Quote - Alexander - i've never heard them called that, and i wont argue that they might be called that, but generally when someone refers to threads, its a completely different thing they are referring to (Threading) - EndQuote

HaHa! Yeah I figured you'd call me on that one Alexander and certainly I'm guilty of oversimplification but it does functionally illustrate the point. I hadn't wanted to get into a full discourse on the vast differences between how different and supposedly multithreading OpSyses handle sharing of libraries or even really how amazing Linux is, having evolved from Unix, built from the ground up as a multi-user, and it's extension, networking environment, in that, unlike Windows which requires that some files be placed in the Windows directory (or within it's subdirectories) and described in the "all eggs in one unwieldy basket" Registry, Linux apps are much more stand-alone. Anyway technically, shared libraries are not threads, they just make calls for them.

An example of this, albeit a consciously decided upon one designed for market domination rather than function since it actually slowed it down, was how M$ divided up Explorer dependencies and placed them within numerous DLLs to theoretically make it impossible (actually just a pita) process to remove Internet Explorer. If one simply removed all of IE's dependent libraries, other stuff wouldn't run. In order to remove IE one had to replace said DLLs with older pre-spliced ones. Incidentally "98Lite" and "Revenge of Mozilla" did make for a pretty awesome gaming platform - reasonably lean and fairly mean. I still have such a box to play "Terminal Velocity", original "Quake" and derivatives, "Duke Nukem 3D" and "Road Rash".

I actually am quite familiar with multithreading since anyone who noticed I still run OS/2 (v2.0 was my first ever GUI back in the day) which was the very first pre-emptive, multi-tasking, multi-threading, fully 32 bit OpSys and which incidentally was completely written in Assembly, right on-the-metal and just blazingly fast and incredibly scaleable. After v2.2 , v3 came out, also called Warp 3, the split with co-partner on the project, Microsoft (tiny and limp?) occurred because Billy and the Boys wanted to violate "pre-emptive" and give programs direct access to Hardware. IBM reacted in horror since that was in no way acceptable in mission-critical work so M$ renamed "MicroSoft OS/2 v3: New Technology" to "Microsoft Windows NT V 3" and the BSOD was officially born. As Alexander's linked wiki page notes, different OpSyses handle them differently. Please note that both OS/2 and Linux are POSIX based systems.

So while I know the actual mechanics I'd still rather answer functionally and simply in a thread that is obviously for those new to Linux which inherently means to people less accustomed to having to know how their systems work since Windows "chauffers them around" rather than "handing them the keys". So, while it has gotten rarer, package management systems that handle dependencies for you can break systems NOT in the sense of requiring total reinstall like Windows but broken enough that many recent Windows migraters will think they have to reinstall. But the more important issue is that if you use such package managers that handle dependencies for you, not only have you relinquished control but you are guilty of trying to make Linux identical to Windows but better, an impossibility. It can't be equal to and greater than at the same time.

It is not true that Slackware has no package management. "Pkgtool" is the manager and "Slackpacks" are the packages. It's just that Slackware's system expects you to have a properly functioning system as installed (especially if you install everything as recommended) or better, labels the packs for Slack version (even though many will work on many versions and trying them out will break absolutely nothing and are easily removed). Many distros employing the same basic packaging system arbitrarily make them proprietary by virtue of making them incompatible with other similarly based systems. Example - Mandake, now Mandriva, started essentially as RedHat compiled for 586 instead of 386 by default. Soon they changed what directories were used, and invented new ones for no good reason other than marketing. Haven't you seen how software companies offer apps for free for a limited time to suck you in and then go pay only or cripple the free version?
Slackware has no ambitions at the very least at this time, to become the next get rich Windows.

Slackware has been my main OpSys for several years now, getting roughly 70% of my computer time, and if not for gaming 90% with the last 10% only due to experimentation and information gathering so I can know what I'm talking about. I use my computer(s) a lot and love to install new stuff as much as anyone. It is common that I will install numerous apps that do essentially the same thing ie: Amarok, Aqualung, XMMS, Xine, NoAtun, MPlayer, etc , etc and it is indeed very rare that I have to go through more steps than ",/configure&&make", su "Checkinstall". Those few times are most often only on cutting edge stuff, often unavailable yet as packages for any distro, and well worth it considering it earns a more compatible, more stable system and one which does only exactly what I tell it, no more and no less, forcing me to be knowledgeable where it counts. It is absolutely untrue that in Slackware compiling a dependency for one thing will break anything else. Can't happen in Slack! Period. Dependencies? What steenking dependencies?

I rarely even use Slackpacks, preferring to build them but they work just fine.

So if you want some "modern" SUV with automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes, an engine hidden by cowls you can't work on or tune and live at the mercy of factory callbacks, that's cool. I'll still prefer a 427 Cobra with four-on-the-floor, rack & pinion steering, disc brakes, all of which I can tune, repair, upgrade and/or replace knowing every nut and bolt. If you think Slack is a pita you still haven't either tried it recently or at least just scanned "Packages.txt" to see just how much comes in it.

Alexander, I feel certain that you have sufficient resources to install it and likely know what to do when first boot takes you to the far safer CLI instead of directly to X, bypassing login, and depending on "sudo" so I challenge you. Try v12.2 and benchmark whatever you like and see if Gentoo really is superior. Even though I tried Gentoo in 2006, I'll happily install the latest this coming weekend, and honestly report my findings here after whatever timeframe of usage you prefer as long as you do the same. What say you?

[Southtown]

LOL! Go easy on the dude, enorbet. He owes me a kernel tut.

[enorbet2]

Whoa! Southtown Maybe the antihistamines are htting me even more than I realize since I in no way meant to be harsh or hard on Alexander, just the notion that Slackware is all "old school" and a constant recursive fight to compile anything. My point is simply that it is actually easy even if one doesn't use Slackpacks exactly because it is designed from a single man's coherent viewpoint to make it a fertile development platform.

Seriously, please look at Packages.txt to see all that comes stock in Slack. Conversely I am not backing off here, I meant this as a friendly challenge since I actually trust that Alexander is quite competent and will be happily surprised should he install Slack. I might even be happily surprised by Gentoo, despite the fact that all distros look pretty much the same from command line.

The only area left for real stand out differences is in package management, all of which now work reasonably well, but I just hate it when one company makes Blue paint just like another and just changes the name to Azure so they can say they're different. There is just no good justification for screwing up the directory structure and to do it solely to be different at the expense of compatibility and stability is a bad purchase, imho.

[Southtown]

No, that's not what I meant. I was just joking around. (And I wanted to remind him of that tut cuz I'm looking forward to it.)

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

just the notion that Slackware is all "old school"

What's wrong with old school

[enorbet2]

Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

What's wrong with old school

IMHO Nothing, in and of itself. Things are not good because they are old or because they are new (despite the Pavlovian Mantra of "new and improved") They are good because they work well and superior if they work in exemplary fashion under a wide range of circumstances or uses. It's that I often see people "write off" Slackware based on perceived "school" without ever even looking at it let alone trying it out.

Probably the greatest reason that people perceive it as "old school" is because it actually utilizes runlevels and by default boots to CLI and root login instead of user in X. I contend that this has nothing to do with "old" but everything to do with safe, stable, and convenient especially for power users since the deepest level stuff should not be run from X. Most newbs are so put off by being bewildered at what to do because of their programming by Windows (done because it was designed and evolved from a single user, non-networked environment where insecurity seemed to be a non-issue.

For those wishing to try escaping such programming there are two steps that should be employed on first boot, after which it will begin to be clear.

1) Type "adduser" to follow the step-by-step menu to create a non root user.

2) You can simply type "startx" but most will benefit by "kdm" which launches the XWindows display manager and delivers one to a menued login screen for both root and user where normally "user" should be selected. Since several window managers and desktops come built in to Slack one can select others byt the default was selected during install so nothing needs be done beyond logging in and beginning to customize and enjoy.

[enorbet2]

I should have mentioned that there are actually 3 display/login managers - kdm, gdm, and xdm. I prefer and recommend "kdm" because it comes default with a keyboard shortcut, "Alt-N" that will drop one back to CLI for installing accelerated video drivers, deep config and kernel work. The CLI also acts as a safety net if you screw up "xorg.conf" as most will soon desire to tweak it.

[arkain101]

Help me.

I installed ubuntu.. thinking everything was great and I'd be able to get online and start testing. That is untill I learned the most recent ubuntu 9.04 installation does not support "modems", which in my case is 56k dialup.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by arkain101

Help me.

I installed ubuntu.. thinking everything was great and I'd be able to get online and start testing. That is untill I learned the most recent ubuntu 9.04 installation does not support "modems", which in my case is 56k dialup.

Ok...first, why are you using a 56k modem? (just teasing)

That sux dude. Have you tried researching to see if others have found a solution? Can you post your lsusb and lspci info? What type of modem do you have?

https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+question/68680

[enorbet2]

Doesn't support modems? AFAIK modems are supported even at kernel level, easily done since they are primarily seen as simple serial ports (eg. tty0, tty1). The story is only different if you have a so-called "win-modem" since they offload duties to the motherboard via software that is OpSys dependent. Some of those are supported anyway (even if they do sux - no where near the performance of a real modem) and one can either Google or look in the kernel config file, often "/boot/config-'kernelversion'" to see if yours is supported -OR- now that they can be found in junk bins for little or nothing, get a real modem. You'll be glad you did even in windoze.