Slashdot Mirror

I've got a better idea. Or rather, Pat Volkerding does. Never mind dependency checking, just let the user sort them out for himself. Slackware's package system is beautiful: a simple *.tgz or .txz file, with a note saying "and BTW, you'll need foo and bar as well". No need for separate directories full of statically linked packages, and it just works.

Of course, I have to admit that Debian packages work too, but if that nice Mr Shuttleworth thinks otherwise, then (sadly) there's another reason not to use Ubuntu.

While I can admire Shuttleworth's passion, he isn't doing anyone any favours by pursuing this "Not Invented Here" ideology. Everyone would benefit if he would just act like a part of the community, instead of trying to railroad it.

yes, FUD ! trying to show the worst case possible as a normal, everyday thing is FUD.

1- you CAN compile anything... but that doesn't mean that anyone must do it. Again, only people that really want to do it (developers and gentoo users) will ever do it. Most ubuntu users dont even know what compile is and they use a linux system just fine.

2- a) i'm a slackware user since 1995 and slackware DO have repositories! You have the main ftp for distro packages, you have alienbob packages, you have the slacky repository, rlworkman repository, linuxpackages.net and finally, the slackbuilds repository, where you have build scripts for many softwares (but yes, you can still compile manually if you like!)
  b) if you have a package that need a different lib version that you are using, then you are doing it wrong! binary packages are build for one distro/version, should be used on that distro/version. Trying to mix distros or version packages is a great way to have a broken system. Please note that i'm not saying that it doesn't work, most of the time it works fine, but one should ALWAYS prefer distro+correct version packages, and if not available, a source compiled. The above repositories for slackware have many programs compiled for the correct slackaware versions and if not, have the slackbuild ready to quickly compile things.
Downloading a random binary from the internet and trying to use it on a random distro is the "windows way", not the "linux way".
ps: if you are talking about gnome, forget it, that is a dependency hell... on slackware you need to use a gnome repository (like GSB or dropline) to have matching libs. For other distros its the same thing... binary packages build for set of libraries. NO MIXING... if you mix versions, its a user problem, not distro nor linux problem

3- Linux have 2 "clipboards", that work in different ways... if you dont understand then, its better to install some clipboard management, like klipper, glipper, parcellite, etc and enable the clipboards sync. It will make copy&paste more useful and consistent, specially for windows users. If you are talking about feel and use consistency, try to use the same platform for all apps (kde, gnome, xfce, etc), but as linux have more GUI libraries and no central management, the GUI is more fragment than on windows and mac... but those systems also have different GUI frameworks and so, the exact same problem . For some people that is a problem, for others is a good (promotes competition)

Well, for those of us who don't like the way distros are going these days, there's always Slackware. Apart from the installation media, the installer process hasn't changed much in 20 years. It's fast, simple and easy. Sure it's text-only, but since the whole process is so quick, who cares?

It does somewhat, yes.

You must be very young, then. History is replete with cases where distributions have been marketed on a non-free but freely-downloadable basis. So far, it seems the survivors have been either the One-Man Show or those such as Suse and Redhat who offer enterprise versions.

On the other hand, there are dozens of community-based distros out there that have been going for years, such as Debian, Arch (my preference) or Gentoo.

Ubuntu could disappear off the planet tomorrow (yes, I know that's unlikely) but that doesn't mean Linux will just drop dead.

Also, bear in mind that Linux itself is a kernel, and one could argue that by far the biggest distribution of all is Android, and that has all the clout of Google behind it, so is in no danger of dying.

The Slackware documentation has a summary on what makes it stand out:
http://docs.slackware.com/slackware:philosophy

In other words, it really doesn't have a lot of inconveniences after all. I think the biggest reason I moved to Slackware in the first place was the glut of dependencies that were installed whenever I installed a package in Ubuntu. With Slackware, you start out with a good portion of the packages you need, and manage the rest when you do third party installs. And while that may seem challenging, it ends up being fairly easy, since once you have your install set up and customized the way you like it, you can run it for years without having to make any drastic changes.

Also, the packages are all plain vanilla software, with very few distro-specific patches. While this tends to make the distribution seem less "uniform" out of the box, you also end up with more stability.

Full version upgrades also tend to be easier and more stable overall. Granted there's more work done under the hood, and there's always a chance you can mess up, but I've found that every time I've made a mistake, I've been able to rectify it using some simple method.

And that brings about the most important aspect of Slackware. It's the distro that puts you the closest to working with Linux, without having to delve through layers of "convenience" UI. It may seem harder at first, but after a bit of learning, you'll know Linux better than just about any other distro. (Excluding Linux from Scratch.)

That said, Slackware isn't for everyone. If you just want a distribution that takes the minimum effort to get going, you're probably better off with some of the other big names. But if you have the time and a bit of spare hard drive space, I recommend giving it a try nonetheless. Just be patient.

Torrent files are now available here: http://www.slackware.com/getslack/torrents.php

Thanks, put both 32 and 64 bit DVD ISOs up to seed on the 100mbit box.

Torrent files are now available here: http://www.slackware.com/getslack/torrents.php

There's a lot of reasons to switch distros. Everyone usually finds one that fits their way of thinking after two or three. People also find that the different distros work better at different tasks - you don't (generally) use Ubuntu for servers, for instance.

As far as what I run on "my" computer, it hasn't changed much: Slackware -> Debian unstable. I knew Slackware inside and out (back in the 3.x days) and now I know Debian very well (you have to, if you run unstable). I've hit a comfort zone, and I'm unlikely to change.

I switched from Slackware to Debian because Slackware was very, very far behind on switching from the libc5 C library to glibc (the second major change in Linux, the first being the switch to ELF executable format). A lot of software was being written that didn't work with the old libc5, and Pat (the maintainer of Slackware) was being stubborn on the point. He had his reasons, but I wanted new software, so I switched.

I tried Corel Linux back when it came out. That lasted about two days. It didn't live up to its promises, and when I found myself replacing the Corel repositories with Debian repositories, I knew it was in vain (BTW, doing apt-get update && apt-get upgrade from Corel to Debian is... interesting. It worked, after a lot of fixing, but I finally wiped and reinstalled Debian). It's just as well - there was only the one version of Corel Linux.

I've had to use Red Hat (not Enterprise, but old school Red Hat Linux) on a few occasions for work-related reasons. This was back in the RPM dependency hell days, and it turned me off of any distro that doesn't maintain a decently large package repository. I used Fedora Core 4 and found it to be just as bad. Same goes for Mandrake (before they became Mandriva - I had friends who ran that because it was "user friendly" - I did not find it so. It might be better now, of course.

I've used Gentoo for shits and giggles on a server I run. I was just curious about it. I've since replaced it with OpenBSD because a) I didn't have the time to learn to admin it properly and b) compiling every package in the system on an Intel Atom chip is painful. (I already knew how to admin OpenBSD.) I liked Gentoo and if I ever replaced Debian as my main distro, it would be to go to Gentoo. I just don't have the time to learn a new system anymore.

I've done LFS. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to learn more about the underpinnings of Linux. It reminded me a lot of my Slackware days, back when you had to compile everything.

Ubuntu works, and I've run it on a few machines, but doesn't fit into my way of doing things. I like to customize my system a lot, and I like to log in as root when I'm doing admin stuff. You can do that with Ubuntu, but it's just easier with Debian.

Of course, there's the BSDs and Solaris as well, and these days I mostly do server stuff on OpenBSD (or FreeBSD if it's a fileserver). The BSDs make excellent servers and don't feel as "hacked together" as Linux does. I wouldn't use one as my main system, but if I had a technical job again I wouldn't mind a FreeBSD desktop.

So the rite of passage isn't to find the most obscure distro, but to find the distro that suits both you and your use case best. Experimentation never hurts, and you can learn a lot from running different distros.

Somebody needs to put together a developer-centric distro...

Your wish is granted.

10959 http://en.opensuse.org/
11772 http://www.slackware.com/
11189 http://qa.mandriva.com/

What on earth could they have against Slackware, OpenSuSE and Mandriva? There are other entries:

11304 http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/
11312 http://torrent.ubuntu.com:6969/

but these could be explained by being torrents. No Debian, CentOS or Mageia in the list. Strange.

That is the -stable version, released more than one year ago... check the -current version instead:

http://www.slackware.com/changelog/current.php?cpu=x86_64

usually there is a -stable release once a year, but this time the 13.37 version is taking longer to be replaced. many people use the -current directly, it's almost just as stable, as long you read the changelog before updating things

the -current is using firefox 12 (and the new firefox 13 should go out in a few days) and kernel is 3.2.13 and the kde is 4.8.2

finally, the $SLACKWARE_VERSION.$KERNEL_VERSION is just a joke, for people like you (that take things way too seriously) to accept the 13.37 version number without protesting :)

slackware always have fun with version numbers, it jumped from slackware 4 to 7 (to joke about version race from other distros) , slackware 13.37 , with RC 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716. and RC 4.6692. (the first Feigenbaum constant)
Pat and many slackers are believers of the Church of the Subgenius :}P

I visited Slackware's website, and things there seem really dated. Kernel 2.6.37.6? Seriously, if they are updating it now, what's wrong w/ going w/ 3.4, or 3.3 if they don't think it's stable? Also, the new $SLACKWARE_VERSION.$KERNEL_VERSION naming system doesn't make sense - if that's how they're doing it, why not call it Slackware 13.2.6 or something like that, so that users can, from the numbers after the first decimal point, figure that that's the Linux kernel version that it's based on. (Incidentally, does Linux use more than 2 decimals anymore? I though it was just 2.6, 3.4 and so on.

Also, they're on Firefox 4.0 That's what they think - the browser will become version 13 before they know it. Wonder which version of KDE are they using?

Honestly, I wish them well, but they seem to be lagging far behind.

I've pointed out the solution often enough.

1. Change from the GPL to the BSD/MIT/Apache family of licenses. This will attract real investment in real products. Enough code will filter back up the food chain to benefit everyone, same as the *BSDs continue to benefit, and maybe there will be fewer "but I can't switch because I have one program that won't run under linux."

2. Freely commingle open and closed code. Accept that if someone can make something good enough that people are willing to pay for it, it may be a "good thing."

3. Cull the deadwood distros. Ultimately, the forks that can't compete will die off, same as slackware did over the last year. And please don't say it's pining for the fjords - if you follow this link to the updated package browser it has been dead for a year.

4. Take a break from the race to see who can implement more stupid features quicker, and spend the time necessary to fix existing bugs. Products like Firefox, that continue to leak memory like crazy, are a good place to start. If it takes a year, so be it. Consider it a down payment on the huge code debt that this silliness has accumulated.

5. A stable ABI that people can develop against - one that won't be removed or broken every few years/months/every update.

6. Take a lesson from Steve Jobs - "For Linux to win, it doesn't mean that Apple and Microsoft have to lose."

There is a link to donate (left side -DONATE-). Why not just send the cash, and let him determine the hardware?

So that he would not choose a Celeron or some bullshit hardware again.

There is a link to donate (left side -DONATE-). Why not just send the cash, and let him determine the hardware?

Although there is a recurring theme of "What would happen if Patrick Volkerding got hit by a bus?" in alt.os.linux.slackware, AFAIK he recovered a looooong time ago. It was one of those oddball ailments you only get from, like, kissing double-agents on the lips or something. They gave him an antidote almost immediately, but it I suspect they didn't pay him to shut up, so tossing him a bit of coin couldn't hurt.

And as I've pointed out in the past, this was a reaction to Pat getting tired of people thinking Slackware was out of date compared to some other (ahem) popular Linux distros, who were shipping basically the same software but with a much bigger number slapped on it.

> I think it's clear that some other distributions inflated their version numbers for marketing purposes, and I've had to field (way too many times) the question "why isn't yours 6.x" or worse "when will you upgrade to Linux 6.0" which really drives home the effectiveness of this simple trick. [...]
> Sorry if I haven't been enough of a purist about this. I promise I won't inflate the version number again (unless everyone else does again ;)
http://www.slackware.com/faq/do_faq.php?faq=general

I'd say that if anything's the grand-daddy - it's Red Hat.

Bitch, please! ;)

Why run linux version 6 when you could run linux version 13?????
Thats right, YOU TOO could be running the latest and greatest, instead of an ancient, dinosaur version of linux! ;)

For the bearded folk:
Slackware Torrents

and for the rest of you:
Ubuntu Torrents

Proof that bittorrent can be used for legit purposes. Hopefully as a side benifit, this will make it harder for the MPAA crowd to villify these types of file sharing networks.

Yes, we know.

The MPAA/RIAA/BPI etc. have chosen to ignore the established legitimate uses for BitTorrent and other P2P technologies. They would also prefer to pretend the Free Software, Open Source, Creative Commons and all of those other free-as-in-speech, free-as-in-freedom, independent, do-it-for-ourselves-thank-you-very-much stuff does not exist.

They think that by not mentioning any of this that "normal people" will remain ignorant.

Sure do.
http://www.slackware.com/faq/do_faq.php?faq=general#0

Q: Why the jump from 4 to 7?
. . . I think it's clear that some other distributions inflated their version numbers for marketing purposes, and I've had to field (way too many times) the question "why isn't yours 6.x" or worse "when will you upgrade to Linux 6.0" which really drives home the effectiveness of this simple trick. . . Sorry if I haven't been enough of a purist about this. I promise I won't inflate the version number again (unless everyone else does again ;)

"PCs come from the microcomputer world. Security was never an issue with them. I mean they where single users systems and almost never networked. ... On the PC side it just was never a feature" worth putting any effort into until recently."

Unless when you say "recently" you mean since 1993 then you are quite mistaken.

This is exactly the problem. By and large, distributions try to be all things to all people instead of creating a whole OS; in my view the point of a distribution should actually be to limit the available software to a reasonably maintainable level. Nobody, though, wants to be the bad guy—or is even in a position to be the bad guy—and say "No. MyLinuxDistribution 3.14 has standardized on ThisApp. I don't care how much you love YourFavoriteApp; it's not going in." The difficulty is of course compounded the larger the committee making decisions gets, which is why Debian contains everything under the sun.

Slackware is the obvious exception, but then it's also a project headed and (to my understanding) largely done by one man.

Consider that Windows 95 was a commercial success, but it set the wrong direction for Microsoft's software for a decade. Windows 95 was considered "easy and intuitive" and that users didn't really need to understand what they were doing. They only needed to ask themselves "where do you want to go today." This has led us to where we are today- a mess with literally one half million known computer viruses- all designed for the Windows platform. I blame Windows 95. As long as you make a lot of money, then all is forgiven. People chose the supposed "easy" and new look of Windows 95 over Windows NT 3.51. It's ironic that '95 was based on DOS guts; whereas, NT was actually the new architecture. It wasn't as "pretty" because it was based on the older Windows 3.1 interface. People chose cuteness over stability. It took until NT4 for it to get the same "look and feel." In the meantime, Microsoft didn't really know what to do with NT given '95's runaway commercial success. They chose to market it as "for business only." This vision continues at Microsoft to the present day.

Along the way, some of us got tired of their abuse and gouging and jumped off their sinking ship.

The 32 bit libraries were installed according to the instructions found at http://connie.slackware.com/~alien/multilib/

After installing them, I found that when installing some new packages from source slackbuilds, I would get a link error that clearly reflected the fact that linker was trying to use an identically named library from the wrong directory (from /lib instead of /lib64). I can't recall the exact error message, however. Not being too keen on wanting to fix problems in other people's software, I decided to abandon multilib at the cost of not being able to use acrobat reader.

ftp://ftp.slackware.com/pub/slackware/slackware-3.3/ :-) Floppies!!!!

If crapware won't install on your computer, don't install the crapware. I'm sure there's plenty of other choices out there.

If you want to try something that works almost all the time, get slack.

If you can get that up and running, it gives you a baseline. It usually works even with machines that are somewhat funky due to, for example, bad cpu clockings.

Let us know how it went, either here or via email. Hope this helps.

If you really want to learn how to use Linux, then (my personal opinion is that) the currently most popular distro, Ubuntu, isn't the best way to go about it. There's quite a lot of machinery under the bonnet (or hood in the US), and scraping a few lines out of a cookbook or forum post without taking a bit of time to understand what you're doing can lead to the kind of frustration you describe. It does sound like you bit off a tough chew.

If you've got lots of time to spare (and an otherwise unused machine), you could try Linux From Scratch, but a gentler approach might be to try Slackware which will give you a world to stand on while you get your shit together. My current preference is Arch Linux, which has lots of similarities to Slackware, with a number of improvements, but assumes that you have some experience with editing things like init scripts.

You don't mention if a floppy is accessible, but if it is, here you go. DSL is just about the most minimal functioning distro I have found. Of course there is always slack, but you'll have to go a few versions back to install using floppies and network. And there's always a way to get usb but I doubt you'd be able to boot from it...

Let me introduce you to Slackware. Slackware requires:

        * 486 processor

        * 64MB RAM (1GB+ suggested)

        * About 5GB+ of hard disk space for a full install

        * CD or DVD drive (if not bootable, then a bootable USB flash stick or PXE server/network card)

Let me introduce you to Damn Small Linux. Damn Small Linux requires:

  * i486
  * 24MB RAM
  * 50MB of hard disk space for install with X-Window environment
  * CD or DVD drive, or USB flash stick, etc to install.

Let me introduce you to Slackware. Slackware requires:

* 486 processor
* 64MB RAM (1GB+ suggested)
* About 5GB+ of hard disk space for a full install
* CD or DVD drive (if not bootable, then a bootable USB flash stick or PXE server/network card)

My favorite example of a prediction retroactively corrected (albeit more tongue-in-cheek than most) is the Subgenii, who, when the world didn't end in 1998, decided that they'd gotten the date upside down! The correct date, they now proclaim, is 8661. :)

(Actually, they apparently now have end-of-world celebrations every year, just in case, but I remember when the 8661 date was on the front page of the Subgenius website, and that date is still commemorated in the ddate man page as above, and is mentioned in lots of related material.)

Ironically, the page you linked to includes the original Subgenius date with no commentary on either the nature of Slack, er, Bob, er the CoSG, nor any mention of the updated 8661 date.

Yes, because release numbers actually mean something.

Since we know that Wikipedia lies all the time :-) I've included the link straight to the FAQ on Slackware.

I think the next move will be to start making the release versions match up to the date it was released. Slackware 13.10.04. However, I'm a big supporter of Hexadecimal release numbers: Slackware D.A.4 FTW! However we should make it a point to avoid a 190.11.10-13 release, just too cheesy.

Squatter, or just extreme slacker?

When I first reached out to google for the definition of squatter, I got a bit confused as to where the illegality lay[gr.?]. The definition of squatter hereseems to express two types, those with legal, and illegal. When I switched the search to cybersquatter, I then understood more about where the laws start, (though seems a amendment may be needed) here in the United States, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act passed in 1999, an amendment to the Trademark Act 1946 also known as the Lanham Act.

Where am I going with this? How does one determine good faith? How do you differentiate between a person who might struggle to get it up (specially if a deadline looms overhead, further if that deadline is tightened) and one who is squatting maliciously, awaiting a time when they can resell the slot to someone else who has developed the application, put in the sweat, time, thought, tears, hours, etc...
To end with a wee bit of entertainment amidst all this legal jumbo-gumbo, figured I might throw a little head-nod to J.R. Bob "Dobbs" (not MS's failed project). Slacking is an artform, a religion, one that many take quite seriously. So much so they used it in the naming of a Linux distro. Slacker? Or Ill-memes willful disconsolation?

but WAIT. It's not Y2K compatible!!

Um...the fifth link down in the site's navigation menu - General Info just so happens to contain sections titled "What is Slackware", "The Slackware Philosophy", and "Slackware Overview".

If it is easy enough for you to find the about page and the FAQ page then there is no reason for you not to find the information page that conveniently lies between the very pages you mention. May we suggest you look closer next time.

Slack is great but overweight.

Slackware, overweight? You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

Usually, you only need the 1st CD to install a minimal Slackware system, including fluxbox if memory serves well. CD2 is usually KDE and XFCE. CD3 are optional packages. CD4 through CD6 is source code.

Since I have installed Slackware on countless servers, I hope Slackware 13.0 still follows this simple rule.

And "Everything plus the kitchen sink" is precisely the opposite of the Slackware philosophy (= KISS).

http://www.slackware.com/getslack/torrents.php

Since when did you need TPB for this kind of sharing. Ain't best place for torrent of sotware on its offical pages? Thou, http://www.legaltorrents.com/ really could use linux / opensource section.

Or you could just use the torrent page.

But, if you want to download your operating system from a completely unknown and untrusted source, go right ahead.

Granted, TPB would probably link you to the same torrent, but why would you take the risk? Because you find searching, poring over a search list, and deciding on one that looks safe is a more efficient use of your time than just going to the source's torrents?

If you would like to play ATC outside of emacs you can look for the bsdgames source, which includes ATC.
http://packages.qa.debian.org/b/bsdgames.html
ftp://ftp.slackware.com/pub/slackware/slackware-current/source/y/bsd-games/

Slackware Linux skipped from 4.0 to 7.0, because they wanted number parity with RedHat and other popular distros.

As opposed to, say, Linux distributions?

You mean... there's more than one?

If you are going to upgrade, get the good stuff

Utterly painless dual boot on my 900HA. wireless was the only thing I needed to tweek.

Ah, an old-timer who still keeps up with us; I like that three-digit id. ;-)

Just FYI, slackpkg is now in the main tree (AP series).

-Robby

http://slackware.com/~rworkman/

Have you been keeping up with the change log? He is credited 5 times. ftp://ftp.slackware.com/pub/slackware/slackware-current/ChangeLog.txt

Point 1 - I don't know how much room is on the DVD, so I can't speak to that. Slackware packages only take up 4 CD's though, the last two are source. A SlackBuild script for i386 and x86_64 could be provided with all the source still fitting on 2 CD's. You would probably then have to add 2 more CD's to hold the rest as I don't believe the rest of disks were full, I believe CD 5 or 6 is just KDE. The current filesystem layout that existed since Slackware 3's floppies might need to be revamped to make more efficient use of space though.

Point 2 - Slackware upgrades are braindead simple and are indeed supported. UPGRADE.TXT always details how. As upgradepkg is simply remove the old package and install the new one (while being intellegent with config files) I don't see why you couldn't simply remove the old i386 packages and replace them with x86_84 ones. In a perfect world anyway.

Point 3 - I have used Slackware for a bit and I know the release cycle. I can however still wonder.

http://www.slackware.com/announce/1.0.php