I never watched Meet The Press until I got married, as it was a Sunday morning staple of my wife’s.  Tim Russert immediately got my attention as an honest and trustworthy reporter.  Capable of cutting through the lines of crap politicians love to dish out, Meet The Press quickly became one of my favorite shows.

Today, Tim Russert died of an apparent heart attack while at work.  Our hearts go out to his family.  He will be sorely missed in our lives.

This article will try to provide a contrast between ‘the Debian way’ and ‘the Slackware way’ when it comes to distribution management. The idea is to really attempt to illuminate people on why Debian, and many other distributions may not be ideal, and why a classic approach such as Slackware still has merit in this world of modern feature-crazy distributions.

I start this article knowing full well that it will offend people, even so, I think this needs to be said.

Now, for some background, I started using Linux sometime in 2000, my first distribution was Mandrake 7.0, and I eventually switched to Slackware 7.1 in order to try and accelerate my learning curve by forcing myself to use a more ‘pure’ environment, this worked fairly well. In the first year, my knowledge of the various modular components and how they fit together grew rapidly. At some point in 2004 I believe, I started using Gentoo on my laptop, and it quickly became one of my favorites. Several months ago, I realized I no longer wanted to spend valuable time waiting for various software packages to compile, I also grew very frustrated with their masking ‘feature’, and decided it would be time to look elsewhere.

And here finally, is the crux (no pun intended) of the story. Out of all the options out there, I figured my best bet would be Debian; after all, if there is one distribution that could be considered a ‘flagship’ of the Linux community, it would have to be Debian. Furthermore I liked the idea that like Gentoo, the base system came in a minimal configuration, and you added packages as you need them. Of course, because of various factors, I didn’t get the chance to do my migration right away, and it ended up being put off for a few months.

Then one day, while googling around for some info on XULRunner, I stumbled upon Mike Hearn’s blog, where he was discussing Debian’s controversial method of forking software; it is old news, but still important to evaluate I believe. I have to say that this shocked me immensely. Despite not using the distribution yet, and therefore not being a ‘fan’ per se, I held a lot of respect for the project and it’s leaders, for fighting the good fight and standing strong when it came to software freedom. The notion that Debian could do any evil was alien to even a non-user like me. I read on and I found myself agreeing with Mike on pretty much all his points. I googled for more details on this controversy and discovered this which explains some more details about the whole incident. As near as I can see, the Debian maintainers feel that Mozilla’s linking strategy is not ‘unixy’ enough, and have decided to ‘correct’ that by changing the way the software functions on their distribution. This has the potential of breaking compatibility as noted by both Mike and Benjamin. And I would add that this is just a total slap in the face to the hard work of the Mozilla developers. Bottom line is, if you want to get all patch-happy on some piece of software, then change the name; the upstream developers do not deserve to suffer all sorts of support headaches simply because you decided to do your own thing.

The fun doesn’t stop there however. On May 13th, one of the most severe and critical security problems in years was discovered in Debian’s version of OpenSSL, and this problem affects Debian forks as well such as Ubuntu, Mint, DreamLinux (unconfirmed) and MEPIS. All of those are in the top 10 of DistroWatch as I write this (with Ubuntu in 1st place), except for MEPIS which is #12. The issue arose because once again, one of the Debian package maintainers decided to go their own way without including upstream developers in the process. The short of it is that Valgrind, a well known memory debugger, was coming up with “uninitialized data” warnings in code linked to OpenSSL. This apparently is a well known issue, and there have been discussions about why the issue comes up and what to do about it. It is related to the fact that Valgrind and IBM’s Rational Purify usually view “uninitialized data” as a bad thing, when in the case of a random number generator, it is actually necessary.

The Debian ‘patch’ essentially removes the ability for OpenSSL to generate random numbers properly, the result of which causes keys generated with OpenSSL on Debian (and it’s derivatives) to be extremely easy to guess in a short amount of time using an amateurish brute-force attack. Worse yet, this Debian ‘maintainer’ didn’t alert upstream developers to his ‘patch’ and therefore the problem went uncaught for years and has now put many unsuspecting users at risk.

I may not be a developer, but even I can see the absolute stupidity behind the OpenSSL debacle. And it is all because of their absolute refusal to respect the wishes of upstream developers regarding their software. This is nothing new of course; distributions have been doing this sort of bullshit for years. I recall back in the day when Red Hat ended up shipping a CVS version of GCC known as “GCC 2.96″, which broke compilation with many packages, the official stable GCC release at the time was 2.95.3, and this newer 2.96 version was actually a development snapshot for the upcoming 3.x releases. Then there was the whole controversy with various distributions shipping broken copies of MPlayer due to patent fears; SuSE and Debian (yep, them again) were two notable offenders as I recall.

Essentially, for whatever reason, some distributors seem to think that their Linux distribution is a proper place to dump all their dirty hacks and patches, and to completely spit at the hard work that upstream developers put into their stable releases. It is heartbreaking to see the community in this sort of uncooperative state.

Many years ago I read an opinion article titled “Does Slackware still matter?“, I remember being pretty miffed about the whole thing, but at the same time I couldn’t really produce a comeback. Over the years of course I’ve gained more insight into these matters, and I can now definitively say that, YES, it matters perhaps more than any distribution currently out there.

Patrick Volkerding started Slackware back in 1993, and the first release came on July 16th of that year. Originally not intended to be a serious project, it eventually grew, and exists to this day as the longest living Linux distribution ever. The philosophy behind the project very much obeys the “Keep It Simple, Stupid” philosophy, or KISS for short. The idea is that the system should shy away from over-reaching complexity and abstraction layers, and instead keep things clean. In following this philosophy, most of Slackware’s packages are often sparsely modified compared to their upstream counterparts, and given that this is a one-man project, it would be pretty difficult to go around patching everything and then having even more testing to deal with. There are some exceptions I would imagine, perhaps some security issues and so on; also, back when the Gnome environment came standard, Patrick would often have to clean up after the upstream Gnome, and make sure it doesn’t essentially ‘take over’ the system.

I truly believe that the Slackware way of distributing, is the right way, with minimal changes from upstream, and very few abstraction layers for configuration (bash scripts like netconfig are all that come to mind), as well as an easy to work with BSD init script set up, it is easy to see that Slackware does not ‘hide’ the system from you like many others do.

I mean let’s be clear, when you use Gentoo, with it’s bizarre init and config system, you don’t learn Linux so much as you learn ‘Gentoo’, and when you use SUSE, you don’t learn Linux so much as you’re just learning ‘SUSE’, and so on with every distribution. Now of course I may be exaggerating; after all there are more similarities than differences, and truly, experienced Linux users can easily pick up another distro and understand what’s going on. Besides, often many of the ‘default’ usual configuration files will point you in the right direction, like when editing resolv.conf on Gentoo, a note will mention how you have to add your DNS servers in /etc/conf.d/net instead. Even so, it does mean that there are serious challenges in administering many boxes with different distributions.

Of course, the first natural riposte to my article will probably be “are you against freedom of choice or something?”, and the answer to that question is no, I am not. I fully understand that everyone has the freedom to do things their own way, and of course, to the “Windows user” that joins the Linux community through Ubuntu, they probably don’t care whether resolv.conf is edited directly or whether there is some abstraction layer; but to people who want to learn system administration, it can be a pain in the ass to move between distributions if you haven’t learned how the system really works behind all the abstraction. And of course, it is a slippery slope; there are configuration hacks/abstractions, and then there are actual source code patches that change the behavior of the program in question; and we can see that this patch-happy attitude can often have some serious repercussions, like in the Debian OpenSSL case. If anything, I am not suggesting we all become robots and obey one standard ‘method’ of doing things, however I think there needs to be a more conservative attitude when it comes to breaking consistency with upstream. Let us remember that upstream projects develop the applications, and distributions are supposed to distribute.

To conclude and sum this up, when I download a package from a distribution’s repository, I think it is not unreasonable to expect the package to be the same as the one I would download from the upstream maintainer’s website. If it isn’t, then there isn’t really much of a point to pitching the idea of online package repositories as an alternative to traditional methods of software distribution. I think Mike Hearn’s example of a distribution mirror altering a package is a very good example, because in such a scenario, many individuals would be outraged and angry, and yet Linux distributions get away with this kind of thing all the time.

And that is pretty much all I have to say about that.

P.S.: As I said when starting out, I know some folks will be offended by this, and I know how articles and posts like this can easily cause flame wars, I hope there are no hard feelings. Also, it seems that one of the first instincts when reading an article like this is for people to question the author’s competency and so on, I hope you can manage to keep it civilized despite any disagreements you may have with my opinion.

Hillary Clinton had several opportunities throughout this campaign to make her headline.  Unfortunately for her, it was the headline that as a Clinton, she could not allow herself to make.  She couldn’t concede, and still cannot.

Listen to her speech tonight.  Pay very close attention to every word she uses, because the Clintons pay attention to them.  Will she use the word “concede”?  Will she admit that she’s given up?  Or will she remain stubborn?

As it has been throughout the campaign, I really hope that she will make the headline.  If anyone has read my articles before, you will know that I started this campaign as a Hillary Clinton supporter.  The only headlines she has made, though, have been negative ones about Barack Obama.  I started this campaign as a supporter of both candidates.  I end it having a clear favorite.  It makes me sad, really.

If Hillary doesn’t make the headline soon, she will run out of time.  The headline will make her.

The Associated Press has now reported that Barack Obama has clinched the Democratic nomination for President.  This report is based on their own tally of delegates and superdelegates, a minimum estimated number of delegates that Barack will earn in tonight’s primaries, and the private endorsement of a handful of superdelegates.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is giving mixed signals about whether she will concede the nomination tonight.  Obama’s campaign is giving mixed signals about whether he will declare victory tonight.  Today is shaping up to be one hell of a day.

Dalton Hatfield is an 11-year-old boy who sold his bike and his video games to raise money to support Hillary Clinton.  That seems crazy to me.  Why did she take it?

Nevermind that, some local politicans raised the money to replace his bike and video games with better ones.

That doesn’t sound ethical.  I’m sure there’s a campaign finance violation there somewhere.  Effectively, these local politicians are hidden donors.

If I have 10 children, can I now donate $23,000 additional to a campaign, $2,300 in each of their names?

Taking money from a child.  Bragging about it.  This is not Presidential.  This is not leadership.

Hillary Clinton has lost her chance to secure a majority of pledged delegates.  Barack Obama’s lead is going to continue to grow.  She needs to limit this growth if she has any chance of securing the nomination.  This means she needs to be in South Dakota, Montana, and Puerto Rico.  What is she doing in Florida?

Is she telling those voters that they should feel disenfranchised because the DNC isn’t going to seat their delegates?  Is she leaving out the detail about the state itself being responsible for the scheduling of the primary?  What could she possibly be saying that would have any positive effect on the Democrats’ chances in this race?

Hillary Clinton has no business in Florida.  If she doesn’t care about the races in Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico, then she needs to concede and drop out of the race.  Moving the goalposts is not a fair way to proceed.  If she does care about those races, then she needs to be spending her remaining time there, fighting for the only remaining votes that matter.

It’s time for the superdelegates to end this.  There are 212 of them left, and only 63 of them need to come out for Obama to end this charade.  Come on, Rahm Emanuel,  Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Jim Webb, Dennis Kucinich, Jim Clyburn, Donna Brazile, we know who you’re supporting.  Make it official and get this superdelegate movement going, before Hillary disenfranchises our voters any more.

Hillary Clinton has claimed the popular vote lead. It’s true, if you count Michigan and Florida, states which do not count, and you do not count the “Uncommitted” votes in Michigan, which were largely protest votes by people who wanted to vote for Obama but couldn’t because he removed his name from the ballot.

Edit: You also have to disregard the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington where their valid political system does not count individual voters.  These numbers are not even included in Hillary’s popular vote count.

Does anyone else think this is ridiculous? After having a President who makes his way by misleading us, the American People, do you really think it’s good to elect a woman who is already doing it?

Barack Obama has more delegates. That’s the only count that matters, because that’s the one we will use to determine the nominee at the convention. Michigan and Florida do not count, according to the DNC rules, because they scheduled their primaries too early. They had an opportunity to reschedule them, but these were blocked at the state level, not by either candidate. It is the responsibility of each state to hold these primaries, and each state chooses the date, and each state has to operate within the rules of the DNC for the primaries to be considered valid. Michigan and Florida’s primaries are not.

Hillary agreed to this before these contests begin. Most people concede defeat when it is inevitable, but the more dishonorable ones instead try to change the rules.

Hillary Clinton is the only woman in the political field this year.  Eight Belles was the only filly in the Kentucky Derby.  Hillary chose Eight Belles as her horse saying “Pick the Filly!”  If I told you before the Derby that one of these would come in second and then have to be put down, you wouldn’t know who I was talking about.

I find it totally sad what happened to Eight Belles.  She didn’t try to tear down the other horses in the race.  She didn’t go negative and try to wreck the race so she’d have a better shot next year.  She just ran her heart out, and collapsed.  It’s always sad when a horse gets injured in a race, and it’s even sadder when the horse has to be put down because she dosen’t have a good leg left to get into the ambulance.

I could also find it sad what is happening to Hillary Clinton, except that she’s not a horse.  She is trying to tear down her opponent.  She is trying to go negative and wreck Obama so that she’ll have a shot in 2012.  She’s doing this willingly and with malice of forethought.

So although it’s sad, I find a lot of irony in the fact that Hillary’s horse came in second and had to be put down.  This is what I think will happen to Hillary.  She’s already lost the race, she just refuses to admit it.  She’s doing awful things for her public image.  When this race started, I was a Hillary supporter.  I thought Barack Obama was going to be her Vice President.  Now, I don’t want her anywhere near the White House.  Her kind of politics is not something that interests me any longer.  There’s a new horse in this race, and he’s running a different kind of race.

Who’s got the needle?  Hillary needs to be put down.

The President is someone who represents me, as well as every other American.  I don’t want a President who lies, deceives, manipulates, and fearmongers, because that is not who I am.  That is not I believe who we Americans are.

Hillary Clinton has attacked Barack Obama repeatedly about Rev. Wright, but this is a non-issue. Rev. Wright has said some things that appeared out-of-context to be quite un-American.  He recently said more things which insult me as an American, and Obama has called him out on it and distanced himself from the man.  I do not expect to see Rev. Wright visiting the White House when Obama is President.

Hillary Clinton has attacked Barack Obama repeatedly about Tony Rezko, but this is a non-issue.  Tony Rezko has given money to past Obama campaigns, and Obama has made matching charitable donations to offset this.  Tony Rezko is on trial for his crimes, and Obama is not even under investigation in connection with anything.  I do not expect to see Tony Rezko getting pardoned when Obama is President.

Barack Obama’s attacks on Hillary have all been about her policies.  He hasn’t gone through her past digging up unsavory figures and paraded them around.  He hasn’t piled on when others have done this.  Instead, he tries to change the subject back to the important issues.

I trust someone like this to run the country and represent me.

Whatever you do, don’t take a good look at Hillary Clinton.  Don’t look at her.  Please.

Hillary wants you to stop paying attention to her because she just messed up really bad.  CBS News has  video of Hillary’s trip to Bosnia which directly contradicts her recent report of it.  This is the kind of blunder she’s staying in the race hoping Obama will make.  She very animatedly set the record straight on video describing running off the runway under sniper fire with her head ducked.  “We just ran with our heads down,” she said.  She’s been caught in a bold-faced lie delivering prepared remarks.
Now, Hillary has responded to her mistake with this interview in Pittsburgh.  She is increasing her intensity of attacks against Obama’s pastor.  She is claiming that she misspoke because she was sleep deprived.  She’s trying to make you look at Obama.

The thing that really bothers me is this blog, which was posted on Hillary’s website yesterday, and featured on her homepage.  The first thing it says is that Barack Obama and his advisers have conducted a divisive “full assault” on Hillary’s character, asking “Why would he seek to attack and divide?” and “How can he unify Americans in a general election?”

Indeed.  Who is the one resorting to attacks in response to ones own mistakes?  What happens when Hillary makes a mistake like this while negotiating internationally?  Will she respond by attacking Iran to distract us?

I was looking forward to a Clinton-Obama ticket when both announced their candidacies.  I liked what I heard when Obama talked, and then Hillary started attacking him.  She broke her promises to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada when she lobbied to have the delegates from Florida and Michigan seated.  She is trying to change every rule she can, pull every favor, in order to win.

After seeing this, I have become disgusted with both Clintons.  I do not want either of them in my White House anymore.