🚀 go-pugleaf

well ill add my 2 cents wrth, i nstalled slackware 3.3 from from infomagic and its easier
than NT40

Manfred Bartz wrote:

> nick@zeta.org.au (Nick Andrew) writes:
>
> > In <m2sot8e41w.fsf@reddwarf.aup.com.au> Manfred Bartz <mbartz@werple.net.au> writes:
> >
> > >I disagree on this point.  While all distributions have their own
> > >idiosyncrasies, the ones relying heavily on package management are
> > >much more problematic.
> >
> > Can you give an example of where the idiosyncrasies are problematic?
>
> I gave two examples in my previous post.
>
> My objections are against proprietary and non-standard package
> systems.
>
> I don't have any objections against tar-balls in binary or source
> form.  All tar-balls I am aware of can be used and/or built on many
> different UNIX systems based on many different architectures.  All of
> these systems are readily supported in the relevant news groups and
> mailing lists.
>
> The two examples I gave highlight proprietary features of RedHat
> packages as encountered in ``comp.os.linux.x'' and on the ``fvwm
> mailing list''.  The generic news group and mailing list support does
> not work there anymore, and users are dependent on RedHat's support.
>
> > I'm running almost all systems on RedHat prepackaged code now and have
> > probably saved hundreds or thousands of hours of building, testing,
> > copying and installing stuff. Most ``raw'' packages (e.g. .tar.gz files
> > in the GNU ftp archives) are packaged for reasonably easy building and
> > installation -- on a single host. They don't readily lend themselves to
> > being built on one host and installed on many; you then get to invent
> > your own duplication mechanism.
>
> I already said that I believe package management is a useful system
> administration tool, especially if you have many computers and you are
> the sys-admin.  However, I object to promoting package management
> along the lines of:
>   ``Use xyz distribution, it's so easy to install that you don't need to
>   know anything.  Everything will be done for you.  The xyz distribution
>   is so good that you can stay completely computer illiterate while
>   getting at least some use out of the system.''
>
> > >For a
> > >newbie it is hard enough to determine where the problem is without
> > >package management.  Packages introduce an additional layer of
> > >complexity or, for a newbie, shroud of fog.
> >
> > Actually they simplify things. Scenario: ghostview doesn't work. Why?
> > It's not installed. So install it. Ghostview works. Problem solved.
>
> Any user who expects to run something that is not installed and needs
> some sort of package management to figure that out probably should not
> be in charge of a computer.
>
> No doubt, it serves a lot of people to have interfaces that allow them
> to get some work done without knowing anything about computers.  And
> there is nothing wrong with that.  But those users are not required to
> be in charge of their computers; they have a sys-admin to rely on or a
> computer dealer who (hopefully) fulfills that role.  I see promotion
> of the Windoze way of doing things as counter-productive, at least in
> the long term.  In short: Mollycoddling promotes dependency.
>
> I firmly believe Linux is about promoting computer literacy and to use
> computers to their full potential, thus truly empowering people.
>
> Cheers
> --
> Manfred Bartz <mbartz@werple.net.au>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely
> foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
>                                      -- The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy