On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:21:18 -0400 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday, 28 June 2004, at 18:16:13 (-0400), > Bradley Reed wrote: > > > LFS is for the control-freak who doesn't mind spending a month to > > get his system compiled and fine-tuned. > > Most people I've encountered who use it are doing so to learn, much > like those who chose Slackware over RH/Debian. If you use a distro like LFS, Slackware, or even Gentoo you definitely have to want to learn about your system. In the end though, I feel someone that has taken the time to learn their system, whatever it is, will have far fewer problems than someone who trusts in third-party scripts or packaging systems to maintain their system. > As it happens, I encounter far more obnoxious Gentoo users these days > than I do Slackware users. If current and future Slackware releases > don't cause me the amounts of frustration and stress the previous > ones did, then by all means, use it. I just get fed up with people > who don't understand how their distribution functions and yet expect > us (e.g., #E) to solve their problems. Hang out on alt.os.linux.slackware some and you might meet a few obnoxious Slackware users, but probably less than a few years ago. Gentoo fans are generally much more vocal though, I agree. > Personally, I don't care what people use as long as they know what > they're doing. It's the people whose clue is in short supply and who > chose a hands-on distribution anyway that annoy me. Given what I've > seen from you on this list, you are certainly not in that category. I've asked a few bone-headed questions here I wish I could have retracted as soon as I hit the send key. :) Hopefully as time goes on I will ask even fewer. > I would like to point out, though, that at least RPM has support for > filesystem-level dependencies, like requiring /usr/bin/enlightenment > rather than the "enlightenment" package name. I was not aware of that, and that does seem to be an improvement over what I remember, but does it break if enlightenment is in /usr/local/bin/? > > Slackware is also rather unique, although one could make LFS > > similarly, in its BSD-style boot up scripts. We have no /etc/init.d > > or /etc/rc.d/rc#.d, we have no runlevel 5 for that matter. I find > > the simplified boot-up much quicker and easier to modify for my > > needs. > > Well, the SysV init is much cleaner, IMHO, and is far more package- > friendly. It's certainly not ideal, though, and has some rather > painful issues. Lesser of two evils is a very subjective > conclusion. :) Technically Slackware's init scripts are still SysV, but instead of having numerous copies and symlinks of the init scripts in separate directories for each run level, all the init scripts are in one directory. I find it simpler, but to each his own. Brad ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training. Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com _______________________________________________ enlightenment-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
