VectorLinux

The Vectorian Lounge => The Lounge => Topic started by: kukibl on November 12, 2008, 02:14:36 am

Title: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: kukibl on November 12, 2008, 02:14:36 am
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/improving-slackware-based-distros-all-to-one-new-slackware-based-distro-620009/
 (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/improving-slackware-based-distros-all-to-one-new-slackware-based-distro-620009/)

Second part of thread is quite interesting since it is concerning with Slackware "forks" and opinions come from hardcore Slackware users. What do you people think? :)
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: tomh38 on November 12, 2008, 06:06:55 am
I have never understood the problem that some people have with others "forking" their beloved Linux distribution.  All people are doing is taking a given distribution, adding/altering some things, and aiming the new distribution at a new and/or different user base.  I personally have two reasons for using Vector Linux as opposed to Slackware.

1) Vector Linux has some things which Slackware does not; there are quite a few of them now, but the first thing that comes to mind is VASM/VASMCC.  I've found this set of tools very helpful many times.

2) The VL community is (and has been as long as I've been using VL) very helpful, very open to new users, and generally friendly.  I haven't found this to be so in the main Slackware community.  As great as Slackware is, many of the devs and "hardcore users" are grumpy and unhelpful.

Consider this post from rworkman from the LQ thread linked by kukibl:

Quote
Another attempt to ride on the coattails of Slackware - that's all.
If most of these "forks" were so damn good, they wouldn't have to throw around the "based on Slackware" stuff.

I'll leave open the possibility that there's a rare exception to this, but as I see it, the "fork" distributions aren't truly even forks. They "re-branch" with every stable Slackware release, and one even issues point releases at various spots based on the -current development tree. Essentially, they add/remove/modify a few things, rebrand it, and pull mindshare/marketshare/users/whatever from Slackware. A parasite that is too effective kills its host, and then they both die.

It's not the kind of thing that gets people excited about a distro.  I'm not saying that the attitude displayed in rworkman's post is typical of the Slackware community ... but I do think that it may be fairly common.  I never see that sort of thing around here at VL.

Tom
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: Triarius Fidelis on November 12, 2008, 07:48:12 am
(http://i35.tinypic.com/262th0y.jpg)
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: tomh38 on November 12, 2008, 07:54:04 am
ROFL
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: Triarius Fidelis on November 12, 2008, 07:58:48 am
I found this guy's personal website (http://rlworkman.net/). Look around, he is almost a template Linux nutter.
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: tomh38 on November 12, 2008, 08:30:47 am
I found this guy's personal website (http://rlworkman.net/). Look around, he is almost a template Linux nutter.

Did you look at his "Random Thoughts" page?  I think "nutter" is even more operative in this guy's life than "Linux."

Anyway, back to the original topic (the LQ thread).  For years I used to cringe at the idea of posting a question or suggestion in a Linux IRC chatroom, forum, etc., because I knew there was a good chance that I was going to get flamed, no matter what I wrote.  I think things have changed somewhat.  Linux still isn't mainstream, but I think things have changed enough that you don't automatically get smashed to pieces for asking a newbie question.  Apart from the VL forums, the various places where you can get help with Ubuntu seem pretty friendly and helpful.

Tom
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: Triarius Fidelis on November 12, 2008, 11:00:53 am
Almost nothing is as bad as #lisp on freenode. Most of the regular users always have a bug up their ass about one thing or another.

I found this guy's personal website (http://rlworkman.net/). Look around, he is almost a template Linux nutter.

Did you look at his "Random Thoughts" page?  I think "nutter" is even more operative in this guy's life than "Linux."

(http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc201/tpmunro/RonPaulTinFoilHat2.jpg)
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: rworkman on November 15, 2008, 02:41:00 pm
Ah yes, let's just resort to (baseless) personal attacks rather than addressing the actual words, concepts, and ideas by me.  I can't say I blame you - at least you appear to be a "winner" this way.

On the subject of flaming "noob" users, how about actually checking my posting history on LQ?  How about looking through IRC logs?  Not only do I respond sans flames for the most part, I actually take time to try and explain the *rationale* behind the solution in most cases.  I know it makes better "sound bytes" to throw out the tired argument of Slackware users being unhelpful, but it's simply not true.
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: nightflier on November 15, 2008, 03:34:28 pm
I'm with rworkman on this one. He made three posts in this board last year, all respectful and appropriate. Nothing controversial or flameworthy.

We are all entitled to our personal opinions, but not to impose them upon others.

I suggest reserving the rest of this thread to discussing the merits of forks, or apologies.
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: caitlyn on November 15, 2008, 04:08:50 pm
The resorting to personal attacks above is so unlike the VL community.  It's what we are known for NOT doing.  I hope a couple of people will think better of what they wrote and modify or remove the posts.  I may not agree with what rworkman posted in the LQ thread but attacking him personally here is completely uncalled for.

Where do I disagree with him and others in the LQ forum?  The better Slackware derivatives end up looking nothing like Slackware.  Vector as an example has solid dependency checking, user friendly graphical admin tools that go way beyond VASM, and a fairly large repository of extra packages, none of which are included in Slackware.  VL has better hardware detection than Slack and includes a fair number of drivers also not included in Slack.  Beginning with 6,.0 VL adds a graphical, user friendly installer and nice, easy graphical localisation/internationalisation.

VL, Zenwalk, Wolvix, the now abandoned Tukaani, and others have added tools and apps that have been picked up by other distros, in many cases ones that have nothing to do with Slackware, and have benefitted the Linux community as a whole.  wicd, which we now also include, is an obvious example for Zenwalk.

I personally think Vector his head and shoulders better than Slackware.  I also think if Slackware ever disappeared VL could pretty easily continue as a truly independent distro.
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: rbistolfi on November 15, 2008, 04:28:56 pm
I didn't say anything because I knew rworkman is a member of this forum ;D. I did find something offensive in the LQ thread,
it should make a list with the offending SW derivatives, and not make accusations without names. I didn't feel VL was being attacked in that thread because VL, for good or not, is not a SW re-branding, maybe some of our friends did. VL 6.0 deployment started the day after SW 12.1 was released iirc, and 34 alphas were produced since then. It doesn't look just as a SW re-branding to me.
The topic "are the forks in general a good or a bad thing" is useless, a good fork is good, and a bad fork is bad. I know it
sounds stupid, we call this "a tautology", but the point is that we can't say anything about the merit of forks in general.
Even more: the sole fact of trying to make something good has some merit, even when the goal is never reached. Therefore, is
possible a "bad fork" with some merit ;D
About contributing to mainstream, VL is gpl'd, so Patrick can take whatever he likes, if he wants to.

PS: as a complicated guy, I always feel that my English is not good enough when the topic is also complicated. I offer my
usual, ritual, apologies.

PS2: @rworkman, I liked your KDE4 packages
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: rworkman on November 15, 2008, 04:53:14 pm
added tools and apps that have been picked up by other distros, in many cases ones that have nothing to do with Slackware, and have benefitted the Linux community as a whole.  wicd, which we now also include, is an obvious example for Zenwalk.

I'm in agreement that wicd is good inclusion; however, I'm curious as to why I haven't seen any contributions from you guys to make it integrate better into Slackware and derivatives?  There was a lot of low-hanging fruit that was relatively easy to address; I know this because I personally have at least 20 or so patches included in upstream wicd.
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: Triarius Fidelis on November 15, 2008, 05:09:06 pm
I didn't remember rworkman; after all, he only has four posts. Since it seems few people know he posted here, the remarks Tom and I made were not intended as 'personal attacks' anymore than knocks on Steve Ballmer would be intended as such. No one would expect him to be reading.
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: rworkman on November 15, 2008, 06:13:13 pm
I didn't remember rworkman; after all, he only has four posts. Since it seems few people know he posted here, the remarks Tom and I made were not intended as 'personal attacks' anymore than knocks on Steve Ballmer would be intended as such. No one would expect him to be reading.

Interesting interpretation of what does and does not constitute a personal attack - I guess your nickname is very appropriate.
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: Triarius Fidelis on November 15, 2008, 06:29:05 pm
I didn't remember rworkman; after all, he only has four posts. Since it seems few people know he posted here, the remarks Tom and I made were not intended as 'personal attacks' anymore than knocks on Steve Ballmer would be intended as such. No one would expect him to be reading.

Interesting interpretation of what does and does not constitute a personal attack - I guess your nickname is very appropriate.

A remark is not a personal attack when you believe the object of said remark is not aware of it, and thus unable to argue against it, because the only point of a 'personal attack' is to score points in an argument. (This, for instance, is not a personal attack: 你是白痴.) We were not arguing with you.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go over some mail from a university that just accepted me. Good evening.
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: bigpaws on November 15, 2008, 07:02:17 pm
Quote
I didn't remember rworkman; after all, he only has four posts. Since it seems few people know he posted here, the remarks Tom and I made were not intended as 'personal attacks' anymore than knocks on Steve Ballmer would be intended as such. No one would expect him to be reading.

If there is a name attached it should be expected that they may read it which
is where the problem is. There should never make any comments that may
be somewhat questionable as far as the intent. They can haunt you in the future.

There is an interpretation that asking a question on LQ or maybe irc would be flamed.

I have in the past had the same fear about posting questions on LQ or irc. I took the time
to read things like how to ask a good question, another was how to really become involved
in a community. One of those things being to contribute back to the community in any form.
Why should anyone expect to continue to answer the same question time and time again?
Most users are now expecting that without even so much as doing a search.

I guess that it is a lost cause. I stick with Slackware for several reasons, one is that the installs
have not failed including X. The attacks that Slackware gets for not updating the installation
is flawed. When a tool works and it works well why make it a be all end all.

Rworkman has made alot of contributions to the Slackware community. All of the assistance
I have seen him make to users has been with respect. Not that it means much but he has my
respect.

Bigpaws
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: Triarius Fidelis on November 15, 2008, 10:18:58 pm
Quote
I didn't remember rworkman; after all, he only has four posts. Since it seems few people know he posted here, the remarks Tom and I made were not intended as 'personal attacks' anymore than knocks on Steve Ballmer would be intended as such. No one would expect him to be reading.

If there is a name attached it should be expected that they may read it which
is where the problem is. There should never make any comments that may
be somewhat questionable as far as the intent. They can haunt you in the future.

If rworkman has been a boon to the Slackware community and to n00bs, more power to him. I never said he wasn't. However, I don't feel particularly "haunted" when someone who doesn't think the government should support infirm old people finds out what I think about his opinion, even if I didn't know he was looking. I meant what I said and there's no point in taking it back now.
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: tomh38 on November 16, 2008, 04:00:37 am
I want to be clear that I have nothing against rworkman personally.  I quoted his post from the LQ thread for a few reasons.  That particular post, in itself, certainly looks to me like an attack on Slackware-based distributions in general.  If it wasn't intended that way, then perhaps I misunderstood it.  If that is the case, then I apologize to you, rworkman.  The post also seemed somewhat harsh to me as a response to the original post in the thread.  I used it as an example of how it's possible to get bashed in various Linux forums.  If it is the case that in the overall context of rworkman's overall contribution to Slackware and to the Linux community in general that the post in question was warranted, then I admit I could be mistaken about that as well.

As far as the comment I made regarding the "random thoughts" section of his personal web site, all that I will say is that this forum is not the place to discuss political ideas, and that it was wrong for me to place that comment here.

Regarding everything else I wrote, especially the things about how easy it is to get slammed by various members of the Linux community who are hostile in various ways, I stand by what I said.
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: caitlyn on November 16, 2008, 10:40:23 am
In regard to being slammed by members of the Linux community, well... some of you know I've had some interesting experiences related to my writing for O'Reilly.  When I posted a very mixed review of VL 5.8 nearly two years ago the response from the VL developers and VL community was to treat it as constructive criticism and to focus on the strengths in VL I did point out.  I was so impressed I started volunteering. 

By contrast, when I posted a review of Slackware 12.1, also very mixed, I had some in the Slackware community who wanted to flay me alive.  After being hounded by some members of the Puppy Linux community for a review I finally wrote a post stating why I couldn't do it. (The distro wouldn't run on my hardware).  It went beyond personal attacks into threats and intimidation as well as notes to my editor demanding that my posts be pulled.  (My editor stood by me, BTW.)

What I've learned is that there are good, helpful communities in the Linux world.  The Vector Linux community is usually a shining example.  There are also some noxious communities.  It only takes a few loudmouths and no controls to turn a community into something unpleasant.

@Epic Fall Guy:  I probably have as much distaste for rworkman's politics as you do.  As others have pointed out this isn't a political forum so I decided to not comment on that.  OTOH, you really aren't a shining light either.  I resisted the temptation to flame you some months back when you referred to something as "gay" in a perjorative way.  The post, probably unintentionally, came off as homophobic.  I am **NOT** accusing you of that or any other form of bigotry.  What I am saying is that we all can be attacked for things we once said or wrote or views that we have which may not be popular in certain circles. 

I don't agree with your definition of a personal attack.  Saying something nasty behind someone's back is still saying something nasty about them.  You have to assume, both IRL and online, that it will get back to them.

Oh, and congratulations on being accepted into university.  I hope it was the school of your choice.
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: newt on November 16, 2008, 11:56:08 am
Off topic:

Every occasionally, when something reminds me of it, I find it interesting to look at a timeline like THIS (http://futurist.se/gldt/gldt76.png).
Is it totally accurate? No, but it gives a generalized impression of where some distros came from and it's fun to look at.

BTW, I thought VL was from 1999 not 2000  ???
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: tomh38 on November 16, 2008, 12:40:48 pm
@ newtor:

Wow, really cool, even if not totally accurate.

Tom
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: Triarius Fidelis on November 16, 2008, 02:46:26 pm
By contrast, when I posted a review of Slackware 12.1, also very mixed, I had some in the Slackware community who wanted to flay me alive.  After being hounded by some members of the Puppy Linux community for a review I finally wrote a post stating why I couldn't do it. (The distro wouldn't run on my hardware).  It went beyond personal attacks into threats and intimidation as well as notes to my editor demanding that my posts be pulled.  (My editor stood by me, BTW.)

They threatened you over not reviewing Puppy Linux? That's just sad.

OTOH, you really aren't a shining light either.  I resisted the temptation to flame you some months back when you referred to something as "gay" in a perjorative way.  The post, probably unintentionally, came off as homophobic.

To call something 'gay' in a pejorative sense is no more homophobic than to say 'nitty-gritty' (from 'nits and grits', the vile bilge that collected at the bottom of a slave ship) should be considered offensive to blacks. Believe it or not, someone actually tried banning that one:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10352592

When I say something like "administrative gayness" or "we got gayed", it very obviously has nothing to do with homosexuality.

I don't agree with your definition of a personal attack.  Saying something nasty behind someone's back is still saying something nasty about them.  You have to assume, both IRL and online, that it will get back to them.

Calling someone a 'nutter' barely registers on the vitriol meter.

Also, I called someone 'sha3 zi' in earshot twice and she never found out what it meant.

Oh, and congratulations on being accepted into university.  I hope it was the school of your choice.

Not exactly. I got mail from Cornell after all, and it looks like I could transfer there. But it's an outrageously expensive school. At most, I could go there for two years of postbac studies. I would not be ashamed of going to SUNY @ Buffalo, however, and am waiting to hear back from Temple and Drexel as well.
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: caitlyn on November 16, 2008, 03:20:10 pm
When I say something like "administrative gayness" or "we got gayed", it very obviously has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Errr... yes, it does, and it is considered offensive.   Even though I am not gay I recognize it for what it is.  Just like I had to stop myself from going ballistic when someone said "Jewed me down" in front of me.  That is definitely offensive to Jewish people and I happen to be Jewish.  Has to do with a very old stereotype about Jews being cheap.  Expressions that reinforce negative stereotypes are or at least should be really beyond the pale.
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: Triarius Fidelis on November 16, 2008, 04:37:28 pm
When I say something like "administrative gayness" or "we got gayed", it very obviously has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Errr... yes, it does, and it is considered offensive.

Then why isn't 'nitty-gritty' offensive? Meanings of words change. Terms like 'nerd', and, hell, even 'Christian' used to be slurs until the target groups took them and started wearing them. I remember when I was in primary school, calling someone a 'nerd' was something you could be disciplined for. Now it means next to nothing. I don't think it's my job, or anyone else's, to define the connotations of words.

Even though I am not gay I recognize it for what it is.  Just like I had to stop myself from going ballistic when someone said "Jewed me down" in front of me.  That is definitely offensive to Jewish people and I happen to be Jewish.  Has to do with a very old stereotype about Jews being cheap.  Expressions that reinforce negative stereotypes are or at least should be really beyond the pale.

On the season finale of Real Time with Bill Maher, he mentioned a Catholic priest who wouldn't administer the sacrament of Communion to people who voted for Obama, saying that "cracker wouldn't give them the cracker". The use of 'cracker' as it referred to the priest reinforced the stereotype of white people being lame and possibly racist sticks-in-the-mud. I and most of the people in the live audience were whites. However, we found this remark funny. Do you know why?

Please, let's not take too hard a line against demographic humor. It only pushes it underground, e.g., http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/LotR_Ethnic_Stereotypes. (And notice that whoever wrote this article has some detailed understanding of the groups of people he is talking about, and might even aim for a Master's in Geography.)
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: GrannyGeek on November 16, 2008, 05:16:51 pm
I agree with caitlyn that "gay" used as a pejorative is offensive to gay people--and those of us like me who aren't gay but are disgusted by anti-gay prejudice.  Epic Fall Guy, you don't intend an offensive sense when you call something negative "gay," but I dare say that as commonly used, "gay" does depend on scratching that anti-homosexual slimy underbelly that is one of the last socially acceptable prejudices (see Proposition 8 approval in California).

Much as some want to deny it, words can hurt very badly, which is why thoughtful people modify their language out of consideration for the feelings of others.
--GrannyGeek
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: Triarius Fidelis on November 16, 2008, 05:35:43 pm
I agree with caitlyn that "gay" used as a pejorative is offensive to gay people--and those of us like me who aren't gay but are disgusted by anti-gay prejudice.  Epic Fall Guy, you don't intend an offensive sense when you call something negative "gay," but I dare say that as commonly used, "gay" does depend on scratching that anti-homosexual slimy underbelly that is one of the last socially acceptable prejudices (see Proposition 8 approval in California).

The bottom line for me is that actions speak louder than words. I railed against Prop 8. In fact, I find all that rhetoric about "redefining marriage" very silly when you consider that documentation dating as early as the 8th century in the Vatican, Paris, Constantinople (now Istanbul), etc. indicates sanctification of same-sex unions by the Church. There is even church art that depicts men married with men.

(http://www.colfaxrecord.com/uploads/inline_medium_2/1219563031_6df3.jpg)
[St. Sergius and Bacchus, who were definitely gay for each other. Notice that the best man is Jesus himself.]

I figure if all the people in California who got that ban passed want to revert to the Middle Ages, I will agree with them this one time: they might as well do it and let gay people get married!
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: rbistolfi on November 16, 2008, 06:07:06 pm

"Meaning just is use" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations)
Ludwig Wittgenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein)
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: tomh38 on November 17, 2008, 04:48:13 am
On one episode of The Simpsons, Jimbo and Kearney confront their friend Nelson Muntz:

Kearney: Aw, man! You just kissed a girl!
Jimbo Jones: That is so gay!

...

I'm all for fighting discrimination against gay people, but can't we go back to the real purpose of this thread, i.e. bashing people who bash people in Linux threads?
Title: Re: Interesting thread at LQ. What do you think?
Post by: Triarius Fidelis on November 17, 2008, 02:07:22 pm
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v607/amongtheomegas/NO_U.jpg)