Thanks for sharing and good luck with your distro!

Hmm.

1. To start off, I fully believe that you tried to do the right thing and sent patches to the Slackware security team.
2. I also fully believe that the Slackware security team didn't know you from Adam when you submitted those patches.
3. In my opinion, they didn't know if you were trustworthy or not.
4. I'll agree that examining your patches should have resolved how trustworthy your patches were.
5. I'll mention that the Slackware security team isn't paid (to my knowledge) to do what they are doing.

Nice bunch of bullet points. Where the hell was I going with them?

Hmm. Nowhere. (OK, dick move on my part. [I chose my handle for a reason, after all.])

You decided after you were ignored several times (despite my nick, I'm not making light of your experience) that Slackware didn't fulfill your requirements for fixing security issues.

I honestly cannot say what an unreasonable SLA for security updates would be when that is handled by unpaid volunteers.

I wish good luck to you and your distro. Maybe I'll be using it after Pat throws in the towel. Maybe he will use your distro as a baseline for security updates.

You never know.

Thank you very much for responding here!

If you want still want to submit them I would suggest doing so in this thread.

https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...00/page42.html

Getting a reply through e-mail can be tricky.

What is the difference between your distro and all of the rest? If you ask me, they are all technically the same. Just different defaults. One distro will have xfce for default, another with gnome. Another distro will have vlc, or smplayer or whatever they choose. Some with newer kernels and some with old. I see nothing special in any distro that offers any advantages over the others. Then people end up with 4 browsers 3 media players 6 text editors etc... Do your distro resolve dependencies? If not, it just slackware clone and a headache for newbies. The only way to be a great leader is not follow the trends of other. If your distro doesn't stand out from all the rest, what is so special about? I wish you well through your journey though. The way my system is customized it could be considered a distro as well. I don't follow the slack motto, "I have to have a full install or else".... I don't do it on Windows so what make any other operating system any better?

What is the difference between your distro and all of the rest?

Simple it is the result of a lot of hard work and sweat and perseverance so that is the difference - total respect for anybody creating a distro.

Do your distro resolve dependencies? If not, it just slackware clone and a headache for newbies.

Great way to learn.

Question(s) for Scot: do Cucumber repositories work with slackpkg+ and, if so, how compatible are the Cucumber packages with Slackware?

I ask this because some users like to expand the Slackware base system with packages from Salix, which are mostly compatible with Slackware, and I'm wondering if they could do the same with Cucumber.

Good questions. Most Cucumber Linux 1.0 packages should be largely compatible with Slackware 14.2 and current. I haven't ever tried using Cucumber Linux packages on Slackware myself, however the Cucumber Linux 1.0 ABI is quite similar to the Slackware 14.2 ABI, and newer Slackware ABIs tend to be quite backward compatible, so it should (in theory) work for the most part.

The Cucumber repositories do not work with Slackpkg+. Cucumber Linux uses its own package updater called Pickle, which uses its own repository format. However, Pickle is effectively just another front end for pkgtools (like Slackpkg+ is). This means that it should be possible to use Pickle on a Slackware installation to install/update Cucumber Linux packages. If you're feeling adventurous, you can install the Pickle package (http://mirror.cucumberlinux.com/cucu...4-noarch-1.txz) and give it a try. The documentation for Pickle can be found at https://z5t1.com/cucumber/wiki/packa...ate_management.

Again, this is all in theory; I haven't actually tried any of it. Please keep in mind that none of this is officially supported by Cucumber Linux or Slackware Linux, so it's probably best to give this a try in a VM or on a testing machine first.

The mount point for your swap partition should be just 'swap', not '/swap'.

Linux is a wonderful thing. It allows everyone to make a completely customized version that best suits their needs. Windows allows this too, however, due to licensing and a mostly closed-source model and all that jazz, it prevents people from distributing their customized version to others.

So, what makes this distro different to the one you have installed to your computer? In reality, not much. But, the driving force behind it may be completely different. We each have packages that we require that others may not. We have to install those onto our computer. Others don't have that need. But what makes this different than what you're running is that Z5T1 is willing to upgrade all the core packages that most of us will just wait for others to do for us. Ok, that may not be that much different than somebody using LFS... but Z5T1 is also willing to share his work to others.

The beautiful thing about Linux is it is fully customizable. The other beautiful thing is those customizations can be shared. Sure, Cucumber may not have what you're looking for in an OS, but it may be what *someone* is looking for. The fact that Z5T1 is willing to share his work to the community is a great thing.

As for the lack of resolving dependencies, why does that automatically make it a Slackware clone? There are other distros that don't do dependency management, just Slackware is one of the big names. If you look at the security issues that Z5T1 brought up that have been patched on Cucumber, it should be obvious that this isn't a Slackware clone.

Just as kikinovak was able to make a great distro that could be considered a "slackware clone" many people found it better than Slackware because of the limited choices of applications. As you state, why do people need "4 browsers 3 media players 6 text editors etc"? Certain distros cater to that by deciding for the user what programs they should use. The so-called "One application per task" method is great for some and horrible for others. I look at some of those "what do you use" threads and realize that I may be in the minority on quite a few things. If Slackware catered to the "One application per task" method, there would be a lot of annoyed people. It's great that we're provided many options, but some would rather have those options decided for them.

TL;DNR: Linux is great because someone can tailor their installation to their needs. It is also great because Linux allows sharing those customizations in a complete distro that others may install. Not everyone may be interested in that new distro, but it may be perfect for some. I'm plenty happy with Slackware, but there might be some who would be happier with Cucumber. It's great that we have a choice :)

Cucumber doesn't use pulse audio, did you fork bluez so cucumber still has bluetooth audio support or is that missing?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/bluet...328cb0b1ab0818
Or do you use BlueALSA
https://github.com/Arkq/bluez-alsa

Cucumber doesn't officially support Bluez, however we have a plan to add unofficial support for it in the near future.

Thank you for the answer.
I rather use BlueALSA with Bluez then being forced to pulseaudio.
I like the non PA and systemd mentality.

Agreed.

I can't do nothing more but respect what you posted. Kudos and people like you and a few others are the reason Linux can be great. I'm glad you read and actually understood my post. Continue to be who you are, a very good person. Thanks again.
Hell, I might give it a shot just to see......

Excuse me. I miss something?

What is the sense to discuss about a (stand-alone) Linux distro into Slackware official forum?

I know, I know, some confused it with a Slackware derivative, which is NOT.

At least according with its maintainer claims, even the supposed compatibility with Slackware 14.2 of the particular 1.0 version looks dubiously in this case...

So, how about this wonderful thread to be moved in a more appropriate section of Linux Questions?

PS. For gods sake! BDFL is a title given by community, not a taken one. I can consider this guy as the Maintainer, or Creator, or Author of this obscure distribution, but his claims to be some sort of BDFL of something is just pitiful arrogance!

When you seen Patrick Volkerding recommending himself as The BDFL of Slackware ?!?