Slashdot Mirror
Slackware Updates
Joey Lawrance wrote to us with an updated announcement from the fine folks from Slackware with the news that the wait is over: slackware-current has been updated with the 2.2.14 kernel, XFree86 3.3.6, and a few minor fixes.' Kudos to Patrick Volkerding [?] and the Slackware team.
I can't wait anymore for that damn potato stable release... all other distros are on kernel >= 2.2.14 and X >= 3.3.6, all working well with glibc2 and nice support to everything and Debian is still on dark age with ker 2.0.36 and X 3.3.2.
ROOT=foo installpkg bar.tgz
/var/adm/packages/* and sift through the list for yourself.
... that'll get it installed where you like it.
As for cruft, there's always removepkg. Or you can open
I bestow the highest honors I have available to me upon Slackware by showing it that I trust it - running it on production machines with a good load.
I have tried e, gnome, kde, afterstep, and fvwm2. FVWM2 is the best windowmanager i have ever used. On my Pentium 233 w/64 megs of ram it is extremely fast. It is also very easy to configure. Therefore i use slackware as my desktop all the time. -stimpy
Slackware is the best Linux distribution for a variety of reasons:
Straight-forward Sys IV ./etc/rc.* init scripts.
Vastly more stable distribution than RedHat "linux," or other distributions.
The only distribution to show restraint in terms of adoptation of the totally not ready for prime time Glibc abortion.
The full compliment of standard linux tools; not the latest selection subject to the whims of the fools at RedHat.
Reliance on standard linux configuration tools, ie., vi. linuxconf does not make a "linux administrator."
In the past, I've had my comments removed from this forum. They expressed my strong dislike for the RedHat distribution. My guess is that this is related to the fact that Slashdot uses RedHat.
Bigotry and ignorance are alive and well in the information age.
Hey, if you're like me and don't like editing the raw Makefile, there's another way to do that:
/boot, and you don't have to change the Makefile. The reason I avoid this is that changing the source file occasionally screws up patches. Bandwidth is plentiful here, but patches are faster, so making them work is definitely a Good Thing.
INSTALL_PATH=/boot make bzlilo
Then it'll do the normal bzlilo stuff, but vmlinuz and System.map will go into
Speaking from experience, here are some data points on why FTP installs don't seem to be supported.
.tgz files themselves.
First of all, let's think about it in terms of installing from a URL instead of just FTP. You should be able to say ftp://foo or http://foo and have it work equally well. Anyway, on to why it may be lacking:
I actually managed to make a URL-based version of color.gz around the time that Slack 4 came out. It was anything but trivial to do. See, fdsetup or whatever it's called on the disk (big-ass shell script) *really* wants to find those files right there on the disk. I'm talking about the disk* files, the install.end, the taglist files, and of course the
The only thing to do was to make it call wget (my URL-grabber of choice) right before it tried to open a file. So you'd be sitting there, see an attempt for diska1 in the web server logs, then the menu would pop up. You'd pick something, and it would fetch various TGZ files and install them. Then it would try to get install.end, fail, and then continue on with diska2 and so on.
Hacking this all into a shell script with many levels of indention was a serious chore. I only did it for general amusement and haven't touched it since. I figure that a *proper* "install from URL" procedure is going to require a substantial rewrite of that script or even a compiled program to get it right.
Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see this happen and would definitely use it - it's just a LOT of work to get right. Too many paths through fdsetup = a lot of regression testing.
What I see as the main advantage of Slackware is that you can get a fairly usable system (compilers, networking, TeX, a little bit of X) up and running on less that 100 Mb. I am a bit biased on this though, since my first Linux system was Slackware A.C.
Slackware is a more simple (kiss = keep it simple stupid) UNIX like distro which is known for stability. Im a newbie and Slackware rocks. I can always learn RPM in a pinch later.
I've used slackware since around 1993 and it's always been a stable performer. I've tried Redhat, Mandrake, Debian, and even something called "Linux Universe", but I keep coming back to Slackware. Perhaps it's because it doesn't hide as much of the background processes. (i.e. I prefer standard transmissions over automatics) I find its always easier to learn by doing than to sit back and watch someone else do it for you.
You have a great control over which apps get installed. There's no such things as "server", "development" or "multimedia" preset. You install what you want. However Slackware includes less applications than other distros such as Mandrake. As another guy said, you can get a usable system that takes little disk space.
To port Slackware to SPARC you'll need the following:
That should get you started.
Basically, it's simply a matter of re-compiling the applications on the SPARC platform. Of course, you may need to adapt certain applications, as many C programmers do not write POSIX compliant source code.
Enjoy!
What if all you have is a good net connection?
What if you don't have access to a second machine?
What if you don't have a CD-R or RW?
What if you don't want to waste time downloading extra software you don't even need to install? Notice before I said good connection, not necessarily great!
I agree that getting the official Slack on CD or even a cheap CD from Cheapbytes etc would be a couple of options, but why not have ftp install as an option. I agree the NFS is just fine for a number of people but unless someone wants to start NFS mirrors and start listing them somewhere, NFS just isn't an option. If there are NFS anonymous NFS servers out there I would certainly like to here about it. And hopefully more than one. You know what would happen if there was just one posted here. In any case, Slack is mirrored via ftp in many places, and allowing the installer to figure out what packages are needed would be very helpful for someone trying it for the first time. Just model it after FreeBSD's ftp installer. It installed great when I wanted to give it a try. For a really minimalist install it takes under 100Meg. Just select the stuff you want from a list with descriptions instead of figuring out package names like aaa0001.tgz Heck even OpenBSD allows ftp install. Redhat, Debian, Mandrake all have this option. Actually there was a rumor that FTP install would be included in a future version of slack (7.1, 7.5??) I for one how the rumor is true.
Uuu00 L3meR. It Rocks solid because of its REAL simplicity and stability. It is the least hyped and yet most UNIX-like (BSD-style however) Linux distro. I've been using it since 1994 and keep using it because of the overly lame extra stuff on RedHat and friends...
I found that instmon and installwatch, together, let you extend Slackware's package management tools to your own compiled programs (installed via make install).
/var/log/packages, and write a small program to strip the leading slashes and to add "FILE LIST:" as the first line of the log file (I use an awk script), and you're set. You can use removepkg to uninstall the resulting package.
Just place the log file generated by instmon into
How about adding FTP install as an install method? No ones exports slackware via nfs so its a total pain in the ass to install.. Seems like slackware has the same exact interface when I first used it like 5 years ago.. Go Debian!
Insightful ... nah. BSD inits a disadvantage in what way pooky?
Slack has had access to glibc since 4.0 and when glibc became stable enough to use it was one of the main features of 7.0.
Slak Rules Really ... you'll find it is dedicated to being really stable and that's why the latest thing (including the very broken glibc as it was) will prolly not be there till' it's solid.
CC who quit his account cause this place is now 80% windows users ;).
>So yes, Slackware uses glibc2
:-)
And, as an even better fact, they waited until the last moment (Slack 7) to release a fully Glibc2 version. That's good - glibc2 wasn't ready for primetime (according to it's authors) for a long time after most all distros switched to it - except Slackware, which in the name of stability stuck with (stable) libc5 until the glibc2 pressures overwhelmed them.
Keep up the good work, slackware people! I love slackware. So easy to customize, it's like building something from lego!
Here at work we're branching slackware as it is and interest has been raised in obtaining alphas to port to so we can provide ourselves with more rock solid servers even if our customers want x86 with redhat.
.spec files and arcane rpm options.
The reason we're actually branching slack internally is that we dont use sendmail at all. nor do we want wu-ftpd on the systems at all. With this by default inetd is turned off as is rpc and just about everything that isnt started by its own rc.blah included in its own package. I still have to work out how i could configure the host name in the various configs during setup as sed and awk arnt guarenteed to be working.
I love the package format too. Its alot easier to deal with makepkg (front end to tar) than it is to deal with
ZipSlack oopsing in /dev is a kernel bug, if I remember correctly... Compile the latest kernel, that should fix it.
--
All Glory To The Hypnotoad!
So why don't you port it? I'm sure it can't be
I have to return some videotapes...
Well, I started with Slackware back in '95 because it came free with a very big book (Que Special Edition Using Linux 1st ed.)
.rpm packages and it's very strange package manager. I prefer .tgz
I've stuck with it ever since having looked at RedHat because Slackware is relatively easy to set up (the set up program _is_ good) and very easy to reconfigure/frob with onece you've got it up and running.
Being a cantankerous old git I am very suspicious of RedHat's new-fangled (in those days)
In my experience, rpm's are a bit cumbersome (I think they expect to find dynamic libraires in certain [redhat-default?] directories instead of just letting ld get on with it).
I like the way the packages in Slackware are split up into categories, there are loads of HOWTO's etc, you get many window managers, Gnome, KDE nowadays, many apps etc.
The versions of gcc supplied and the dynamic libraries are all pretty rock-solid and mature.
Most of the default configuration files are "right" etc.
The distro just "feels good", it's uncomplicated, it's flexible, it's solid and I find it easy to install and maintain.
Best of all, the GPL'd version (2 CD's) does just about everything you want.
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
Great to see an improvement.... even though we don't see the improvement.
Ehhh, hundreds of files and symlinks, what are you smoking.
:)
I might have to ask you the same question. this is not meant to start a flame war, just to be a little informative.
I can't say anything because I don't know your experience with Slackware, but I have used it since '96.
I'm not really sure what symlinks you are talking about because Slackware doesn't really use them in it's init scripts. RedHat/SuSe/etc seem to use a lot more, especially with the whole init.d symlink thing. Slackware init is very simple:
rc.S - Startup Initialization
rc.K - when going into runlevel 1
rc.M - when going into multi-user run levels
rc.4 - if you use xdm/gdm/kdm
rc.6 - for reboot/halt
rc.0 - the ONLY symlink I can find. it points to rc.6 for logical reasons...
rc.inet1 - for bringing up lo and eth0
rc.inet2 - for bringing up services
rc.modules - for loading modules
rc.local - for anything else you want to start up.
and just for conversion purposes
rc.sysvinit - to start any SysV init scripts you
might bring with you if you change.
I dunno, but to me this is much more simple than init.d symlink'ing to a bunch of other scripts and having six rcX.d scripts...
btw, that *dialog* based install doesn't require 32MB of RAM for installation like Mandrake and RedHat.
I'm sure however that it is all a matter of opinion
I started with slack 3.0 back in 96, but eventually moved to redhat for the upgradability. This is the biggest stumbling block as far as I'm concerned. You can't up grade the entire diistribution like you can in RedHat. You have to either constantly upgrade pakage by package, or reinstall. Sure, the REdhat upgrades don't always go smoothly, but they always work eventually.
Pan
As an ex-Windows user I have been running Forte Agent with wine for some time. But Pan has just about reached the point now where it replicates almost every feature of Agent that I liked, and introduces some new ones I like even more (such as very easy filtered display of news items). Bye bye Agent... just as I was getting out of Usenet.
Just bear in mind that you need to have GNOME installed to build and run it. However, you don't need to be running GNOME as your 'desktop' in order to run Pan.
I use Slackware as a desktop OS as well as a server OS (2 machines).
:-)
Slack 7.0 has many of the latest Window Managers and Gnome and KDE should you want them. I only use WindowMaker so I can't comment on whether they have the latest versions of the above.
I tried Suse on the desktop machine for a while, but completely and utterly failed to get it to start any different services on boot despite following everything it said to the letter.
I had only tried it for glibc which Slack 7 now has anyway.
I can't see myself running another dist ever again.
Hmmmm, except for Debian perhaps...
The ONLY reason people think that Slack is hard to set up is because it is text/menu based and you have to use the keyboard instead of a mouse. The setup is so well explained that many people get it up and running on the first try, often quicker than RedHat.
-- toolie
What in God's name would you update in the installer? The graphics, just to make it prettier, slow it down, kill the stability? The documentation, because its too well spelled out and you really don't have to guess at anything? Make it so you HAVE to use a mouse instead of the keyboard?
Slack's installer is as close to perfection that I think I have seen...
-- toolie
I've been using my LinkSys EtherFast 10/100 since Slack 4.0. You just need to get the drivers from www.linksys.com.
The reason that Slack will never be a 'desktop OS' is because it is too easy. Its quick, really stable, and depending on the wm/dm too damn intuitive. People wouldn't know what to do if they didn't have to wait for the machine, watch it crash, etc.
-- toolie
That, and the fact that the clueless kept asking him 'when he was going to upgrade to Linux 6.0'. Its a marketing ploy that RedHat started, and it succeeded, and Pat had to give in to it.
-- toolie
I don't believe there IS an .iso image for slackware-current. I believe the guys at slackware only release .iso images for full CD releases. The latest .iso would be the one for Slackware-7.0.
I hope they don't, because that will be the day I stop using slackware....... Hmmm maybe start a distro of my own...
Count me in!
Take a peek inside the sources directory of the Slackware tree. You'll see a bunch of SlackBuild scripts inside each directory, all you have to do is run the script on your alpha, it will untar the source into a directory in /tmp, patch all necessary files, build the package and conveniently put it into a slackware package, also in /tmp.
The only thing requiring any effort I can think of off the top of my head would be the kernel and modules, you're going to have to tweak the sources.
My earlier post on Slack on the Alpha applies here.
Building all the packages is in fact trivial, although it's quite time consuming.
Three simple words: readable start-up scripts!
Slackware doesn't use a silly configuration tool with umpteen configuration files to keep the settings...
It has a limited number of start-up scripts which are pretty straight-forward, so that you can customize them easily at your situation.
Amen! Probably one of the things I hate the most about RedHat, and love about Slackware, is that I can actually manually edit my rc.d files, instead of trying to wade through a mess of millions of redirecting scripts trying to figure out whether or not a service will start.
To be fair, through, I was very impressed with the newest RedHat's installation procedure. But it's just not something that I, personally need. I prefer the text-based menus.
--- Where's my X.400 protocol decoder?
About 2 years ago I built a nice webserver/telnet server platform for my game system on a bootable 96MB Zip disk. It had room for several large games and a few thousand users.
;)
I've run Slackware on my main development box at home since 8/95.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Those were the days... I first installed a 0.99 something based Slackware. I had to download the floppies with a 2400 modem from a shell account with a 2mb quota that allowed me one hour a day (translation: I could only get one disk per day)... It took me a a few days before I had the base install. I couldn't do much with it other than boot and play around on the comand line, but was I ever excited about it...
That's exactly the problem, IMHO.. Look at some other distributions and operating systems, and you'll see that they don't need artifically inflated version numbers - Debian is still 2.x, FreeBSD is still 3.x, as is OpenBSD.. and none of these seem to have problems with users wanting a higher version number, from what I see. :)
--
I do remember when a Linux distro was first made available on ExecPC. Didn't feel like paying all that money to D/L it long distance at 2400bps.
--
This is not my sandwich.
If you have any pointers, I would very much appreciate it if you could contact me on bram_at_e-wareness_dot_be.
Thanks.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
I have a number of Alpha machines in production, currently running Debian, and I would love to have the BSD-style rc.d system on these...
Does anyone have experience with this?
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
I've used slakware since..well at least early
1994 (i recently stumbled on an early 1.1.x
kernel). The best part of slakware is, for me,
its stability (no I'm not talking about the
kernel). Everything works, all the time. You
pay a price for being on the bleeding edge of
every distro of c libraries and the like. I
would much rather be a little behind and not
be pulling out whats left of my hair trying to
figure out why things dont compile or work the
way they should.
A close second is that slak follows very closely
traditional unix and hence you have access to a
lot of books not just written for redhat linux.
> While I don't think I'd ever consider using Slackware as a "desktop" OS
Well, putting aside some people's arguments that Linux isn't ready for the desktop, Slackware is as ready as any. It ships with recent KDE and Gnome builds, as well as Windowmaker, enlightenment, Afterstep, right on down to fvwm2 and the ubiquitous twm. It's no more or less suited to desktop action than any other Linux.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
I've been using Slackware since 1996. I personally think it is a great OS, and would like to use it on some of my Sun hardware at work. So, my big question is: What would I have to do to make Slackware run on my Suns? How hard is this for someone who isn't a programmer? Is there a FAQ or HOWTO somewhere that could help me out?
:-)
If it is just a matter ot sitting down and recompiling EVERYTHING, then putting it all on media and making a way to boot it, then I can probably do it. And who knows... Maybe I'll learn something in the process!
NFS is a great install method, and I use it almost every time I set up a new machine. I don't have a CD-ROM for every PC at work/home!
I might be setting up a mirror for Slackware as soon as my business DSL account gets set up and I'm online... I may even allow NFS installs from the site.
My theory is that Slashdot is doing this in an attempt to pacify Richard M. "GNU/Linux" Stallman. "Look Richard, we're so appreciative of the work GNU has put into free UNIX utilities that we did a story about Linux, and we filed it under GNU!"
Just my two cents.
Abe
My reason for using Slackware is that the configuration is really nice, with all the rc.? files in one spot, unlike in Red Hat.
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
When I first got Linux a few years ago it was a fight b/w people for me to go redhat or slackware. I eventually went red hat because of support w/ books etc. However -- what are the advantages to slackware? Btw -- yey
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
I've had the exact same problem. After i made some rc.1-6 directories etc, and got the kernel right (i think), and VMWare acually loaded, when i configured it and pushed power it tryed my fd0, complained about a drive door not being closed (with an OK button, not OK/Cancel), then procedes to lock my system, solid. Have to hit the reset button, and needless to say fsck takes forever on that drive (its a tad large :)
:) Or better yet, their Promise ATA66 card working in windows or linux...
:) I assumed itwould take half an hour or so (woops, win98) so i called my girlfriend...it was finished before i could even get her on the line :) Slackware all the way baby :)
Anyone using slackware7 who has gotten VMWare working who wouldnt mind emailing me some info on how you got it working? (from tar zxf-ing the package, to pushing the power button and it booting
I love slackware, its the only distro i've tryed, mainly because i didnt have a supported cd-rom for my 486 (weee, funky sound card cdrom...) so i made a Slackware Stack-O-Floppies (See Also: my sig), and it installed the first time. I though the install was the best thing i'd seen, text based, and doesnt try to config _everything_ at once. That was in the 4.0 days...now i have 4.0 on that machine (no monitor, it runs like a rock) and can SSH to do all the configuration i need to. Then i ordered the Slack7 cd from cheapbytes and got it installed in minutes (using the full no prompting install
Erase
They have the right idea.. If they could actually get stuff released when they say, that's another story.
Besides, if Slackware numbered _their_ versions like everyone else, they'd be on about Slackware 28 by now.
Sure, I have a thankless job. That's okay. I have a lot of (non
Are there really peopel otu there running *nix who don't split up their disks that way? I usually set up a new *nix in one big slice so i can use df to check the actual disk usage and then reinstall with appropriate /, /usr, /var, /tmp, /home and swap slices. AFAIK, this is the classic, correct procedure. I haven't used any of the new Linux installers recently, since I've converted to NetBSD for most of my boxes, but don't they set up the slices automagically now?
Okay, guys, I'll just have to try Slackware when I'm mucking around with setting up a desktop Linux box again.
I do have a confession to make, though. The biggest reason I haven't switched over to Linux as a desktop operating system is because... I use MacOS! Yep, a Slackware box and NiftyTelnet (and the latest netatalk+asun afpd) was the best upgrade I ever got for my PowerMac. When I find an X newsreader that is as convienent to use and stable as NewsWatcher, and proper Japanese language support, then I'll switch.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Well, one of the main advantages of slackware, in my experience, is that the base install feels more like unix than that of redhat. Now, of course, with customization, redhat can be configured to feel more like unix. This is based on my install of RH 6.0. I haven't really worked much with a release of RH since 6.0. Older versions of RH have a different look and feel to them than the newer versions.
Eh...
removepkg is great for stuff you've put in with installpkg; the cruft I was referring to would be associated with stuff I simply untarred. I wonder if there's a way to track a 'make install' so that it can be removed later. (In many cases, 'make uninstall would work, but not if you've rm'd the source dir...)
Some packages will put a binary in, say, /usr/local/bin but insist on installing the rest of the stuff there in the /usr/src/foo/. Would one edit the Makefile to change this?
One note: I was in no way trying to put Slackware down. In the hands of an expert, it can be formidable. In the hands of an intermediate, such as myself, well, results are mixed. :) However, I've learned a great deal more about my system, I think, than if I'd gone with another distribution that provides a GUI front-end for everything -- you know, the whole "path of least resistance" thing. (Which is why I'm only partially competent in vi and just now starting to learn emacs. pico is too easy to pass up...)
--
--
We have fought the AC's, and they have won.
Incidentally, something similar is BigSlack (on the same page as ZipSlack). It is a mostly (as opposed to fairly) complete system, including a pre-configured X. It also uses a UMSDOS filesystem (a la Phat Linux), and the above statements about moving it also apply. It weighs in a little heavier, though; around 800 megs. But, obviously, you don't have to repartition or anything if you don't want to.
Let's see -- more stuff. Slackware is often considered to be a hacker's paradise because it imposes few restrictions on you, and I've heard it said that this is a sweet distribution if you like to roll your own binaries. And (like most Linuxes) it's highly customizable. FWIW, it uses BSD-style init scripts, but it also fakes SysV for those programs that insist on it.
Downsides: "Slackware package management" (that's an oxymoron, right?) is a joke. There are utilities like installpkg and pkgtool, but these are just scripts with an (n)curses-based front-end (as are the installation and configuration programs). What else? Installpkg insists on unpacking your tarballs relative to root, unless (I think) you have a certain $ENV_VAR set. I didn't bother to figure it out, so if I decide to remove some of the stuff I put in, I'll have a hell of a time tracking down all the cruft. (Yes, it My Own Damn Fault.) RPM is thrown in there, but I tried it on an .rpm I downloaded (couldn't get a tarball) and it choked and refused to run because it couldn't find some database-type (I assume) file it needed. So I used the rpm2tgz utility. And for some odd reason, the kernel would oops and dump core in ZipSlack 7.0 whenever I hit the /dev directory (while trying to copy it over or even a simple 'ls /dev'). (4.0 didn't do this.) Could be my hardware, but I don't know.
A little disclaimer: Slackware is the only distro I've used so far. I've been thinking of taking Debian (potato, after it's stable) or SuSE for a spin, but I haven't yet. ("Plan to throw one away" applies here, right? {g})
Overall, I'd say it has a very fun feel. And it seems that Pat V.'s taking it a little more seriously (if that's the right word -- professionally, maybe?) now, with a separate directory for updates to slackware-current, security updates and mailing lists for same, etc. And 7.0 was upgraded to one of the latest glibc2's, whereas 4.0 labored along with libc5. Take it for a spin. Put it on a spare or development box and play around with it. I consider this one to be nice to learn on, if you're a computer nerd like me. IMO, this Linux is not going to be the "Linux for the desktop," but as a hacker's distribution, it's pretty cool.
--
--
We have fought the AC's, and they have won.
No way, the BSD init scripts that slackware uses are a mess. RedHat/SuSe/Debian all use sysV style init scripts and for a good reason.
/etc/init.d you have all available services, then you symlink to these from the prefered runlevel /etc/rcX.d. is that so hard?
Ehhh, hundreds of files and symlinks, what are you smoking.
in
One other thing with slackware is that it *still* doesn't have textutils 2.x.
And don't get me started on that "dialog" based install
twm rocks!!!! It is the fastest, most easy to install and maintain window manager I have ever seen (except from having xinit start a xterm instead of a wm ;-)
Grtz, Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
I hope they don't, because that will be the day I stop using slackware....... Hmmm maybe start a distro of my own.....
Grtz, Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
slackware 7.0 has a script called rc.sysvinit, airc, and uncommenting it and adding rc.X directories to the rc.d directory allowed the automatic vmware installation script to install properly - it does everthing perfectly, except for shutdown - it dosn't terminate running virtual machines - but it's not a big deal if you actually exit vmware before restarting! -
Desperation is a stinky cologne
I really don't understand why we all, Linux adepts and soldiers, still waste our time discussing "oh, my Red Hat version is better than your Slack version..." or follish-like discussions.
Let's improve this "division" inside Linux community and work for a even better core-stuff in Linux itself (not this or that distribution). Let's apply some thinking to this stupi discussion of who is the best one.
Think about installing a BSD on your alphas. I prefer Slackware over any other Linux (started out on Yggdrasil back in '93, quickly switched to Slack). But I also prefer BSD to any Linux.
And it's great that we have so many options to choose from, so don't think that I'm slamming your choice.
There's another possibility as well. If it's something I think I may want to remove (or put onto another computer), I extract the source tarbal into /usr/src and run ./configure and make. Then I run ./configure --prefix=/tmp/[Program Name] to install it into a directory under tmp. (Note that some packages, like WINE, require that you use --prefix=/tmp/wine/usr/local or something similar.) /tmp/[Program Name]/... but they are compiled to think they go in /... /tmp/[Program Name] and run makepkg [Program Name].tgz and it makes a Slackware tarball file. I can then run installpkg [Program Name].tgz and if I later want to remove it, all I have to do is run removepkg. /tmp/[Program Name]/... and installs it, also putting the files that it's installing into the package log to later be removed if you want.
After I've re-./configured the source I do a make install. It then puts the files into
I then change to the
I do it this way because I have three system running Slackware and I want the same program on each of them. Another option is to use installpkg -m [Program Name] which takes the current directory tree
I've been using Slackware since 96 and have tried Redhat, Mandrake, and Turbo Linux, but I keep going back to Slackware. The other distributions were nice in their ways, but I like the Brute Force simplicity of Slackware. I am in the process of trying Debian and Suse and Corel Linux, just to see what they're like.
May the Source be with you...
-- Unix Wars
May the Source be with you... --Unix Wars
Here here!
I run Slackware at home on everyting from an old 386 laptop with 4mb of RAM right up to an AMD K6-2 450 desktop machine runnig StarOffice. I have always got on well with slack - it gives stellar performance on a high end machine and does not clog up my hard disc with stuff i will never use.
Superb - Keep up the good work Patrick!
I would really love to have a comparable distro for my Alphas
I know someone who has done a full SlackBuild for an Alpha. I suggest you do it yourself. As per classic Slackware tradition.
It takes under a day for a decent alpha to chew down most of Slackware completely when running at nice -19. Your only problem is that the install will be "Luke Flying to Dagobah". If you do not remember the quote about the manual watch The Empire Strikes Back again ;-)
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Is there any to change the ec.d scripts to sysvinit style? I love slackware, and I really want to continue using it, but this bsd style rc.d system is causing me and undue amount of headaches.
One of my main problems is that vmware refuses to run (and will not install without major kludges), and I kind of need NT (shudder).
Finkployd
I've been using Slack for a while. A friend who had been using Mandrake asked me about it, and soon enough I was over at his house on a saturday morning stepping him though the install.
The installation was a snap (as always), but he had some funky hardware, so the setup was a bit more difficult. I had to leave, so I left him all alone with the remainder of the fiddling.
The next morning he appeared bleary eyed. "I finally got it finished. It took me until two in the morning though." I thought he was going to dump Slack and go back to Mandrake when he continued, "I learned more about Linux last night than I did the previous two years with Redhat and Mandrake. I think I like this thing."
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
There's a good reason for this. If you download the kernel source from any of the official sources, the default for a "make zlilo" is to copy /vmlinuz to /vmlinuz.old and install your freshly compiled kernel to /vmlinuz, then run lilo. I always grab the latest kernel from ftp.kernel.org when I first install a box, and just have to do a "make menuconfig && make dep && make clean && make bzlilo && reboot" to install my kernel. That's certainly a lot easier than having to copy the kernel to the location you want and then running lilo by hand. Also, on a properly installed unix box, / shouldn't be more than about 200mb, and /usr, /tmp, /var, and /home should be seperate partitions. I generally install my boxen with 60mb for /, 75mb for /tmp, 100mb for /var, the rest for /usr, and then make /home a link to /usr/home. If I have a drive larger than 4gb, I will usually make /usr 2gb, and use the rest for /home.
And yes, I do this on my workstations too. Makes my system usable when I accidentally fill up one of the partitions (As long as it's not / that fills, as this does not make the system very happy).
When I was able to do my own spam-armoring, you got a chance to email me. Now you can only hope I see your reply.
Does anyone know where I can just get the ISO image for the updated slackware-current?
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
and none of these seem to have problems with users wanting a higher version number, from what I see. :)
And now go look at Market Share. That's what has motivated this. Just ask Patrick.
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Please, get a clue. If RedHat had numbered it's releases the same way Slakware used to, they'd still be on version 3.x or 4.x. You know damn well that the version number jump was necessary. Why stir the pot?
Also, does anyone know where I can just get the ISO image for the updated slackware-current?
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Exactly! While I lament that it was necessary, I do agree that it basically sucks. Nor do I think Red Hat will learn the lesson from this. Not that it really matters. We need a new way to date/keep track of sofware besides version numbers. I rather liked the direction we went with "Slackware 96". I kept hoping that we'd go that route. We could have had "Slackware 99" followed by "Slackware 2k". If we needed to release more than one version a year, we could use "Slackware 2000-R1" kinda like Lotus used to do with Lotus 123...
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
I *HATE* to say it, but Microsoft has it right. Software should be versioned off it's release date (not that MS actually DOES this...) It just makes more sense to download Slackware 2000.03.08. Want to differentiate between major/minor and development releases? Use codenames like Debian.
The fact is, version numbers on linux distros are so meaningless now, you have to look at all of the packages to see if they are at a level that meets your needs.
I have used Linux since kernel 1.3.15 days, and at that time, Slackware was the most polished and complete distribution. For quite some time, it languished, and only recently has seen the maintenance/updating found on more recent distro's, notably RedHat.
/etc/rc.d init scripts. I detest the byzantine SysV init scripts found in RedHat.
I've used and continue to use RedHat extensively. It is certainly the best Linux distro for Alpha architecture. It is exceptionally easy for beginners to install, yet remains very powerful via the `rpm` mechanism of package and especially dependancy updating.
Yet Slackware still has powerful attractions. It can certainly be installed on less hard-disk and RAM than RedHat. It leads to better UNIX understanding [albeit less easily] by using an editor for sysadmin rather than `linuxconf` tools. Furthermore, I find the file layout easier to understand, especially the BSD-style
Slackware doesn't use a silly configuration tool with umpteen configuration files to keep the settings...
It has a limited number of start-up scripts which are pretty straight-forward, so that you can customize them easily at your situation.
Since they are that simple and straightforward, I've learned quite a lot about how everything is arranged at boot-up, which is a lot more difficult with Red Hat, SuSe or Debian, where there seem to be hundreds of directories with files and symlinks... Especially newbies who want to go a bit further than playing with their GUI config tool find this very overwhelming.
Basically, slackware is a do-it-yourself distro, since their package management system isn't really that good. But if you know your way around, I think it has a lot to offer in system stability and insight in the inner workings.
It's a pity it's only x86... I would really love to have a comparable distro for my Alphas :-)
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
As for vmlinuz being installed into /, by default, it is, but in the Makefile in the kernel source you can change the Install Path. It has it set to /boot and is just waiting for you to uncomment it! Reading the Slackware Install Forum this question has come up all to frequently, way more frequently than any other question.
Its a small problem on an otherwise excellent distribution that I plan on using for years to come...
--
May contain traces of nut.
Well, I find this discussion helpful. I'm a relative newbie who started on Redhat 5.0 a couple years back and I'm very interested in trying out different distro's to learn, if nothing else. It is helpful here to see what people like about Slack so I can decide if it's something I want to bother with.
For example, I recently set up a new box and decided to give Debian a try. Having been spoiled by the RedHat installs, I kind of had a few quirks getting everything going, especially the network. I'm not an old-school unix expert so I was unaware of the sysV vs BSD-style init script differences, so it took a little digging and tinkering to learn how Slink is set up, but now I have a happily working box sitting in the corner running Deb, and I have a real sense of accomplishment for having gone though and learned something new instead of just installing another RedHat 6.1 box.
I'll have another opportunity soon to try out another distro, my Mom's pentium has finally run out of gas (yep, she tried to upgrade to Win98 and it barfed) so I'm building her a new machine and I'll end up scavenging her old box. Right now I've got a FreeBSD CD that came with something I ordered from LinuxMall and I might try installing that to see what it's all about. From the comments here, I'm now curious about Slack, so I might just download that and give it a try.
I agree that distribution flamewars are counter-productive, but what I read here (comments sorted by age) up until I got to your post was most positive, informative comments expressing differences and preferences. I don't see anything wrong with that. Seems to me that this is the real strength of Linux anyway, that if you don't like the way RedHat works, you can use something else... if you think that text-based install isn't for you, you can use RedHat until you outgrow it, etc.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
the new release will become version 10? I mean, after all, this is a significant change, and slack needs the upper hand on the other distributions ;) (if you don't understand, go here.)
--
This is great news for me, because I was just thinking the other day about those new cheap (but supposedly good) $25 Linksys 10/100 cards which require the latest (Tulip?) driver from 2.2.14! Now I can get one! And I've been upgrading for DSL, so I don't even have an uptime to lose!
/boot like all the other modern distros. IMHO, /boot is the only way to go when you have an enormous hard drive. So I have to move the kernel and edit lilo.conf and go back into setup and "recycle" lilo to get my machine bootable.
While I don't think I'd ever consider using Slackware as a "desktop" OS, it's a great distro for command-line hacks like me who would rather stick the box in a corner and telnet in.
But the main thing that keeps me coming back to Slackware is that I can be sure the source tarballs I download will fscking compile. I've always had a bad time trying to compile source under less-than-full installs of RedHat (ever since the time I bought a release version of 5.2 and the kernel wouldn't recompile), then I go to Slackware and things compile with no problem. I'm sorry, but I don't want to bloat my hard drive with a full install of RedHat just to be sure I can compile something without being in RPM hell trying to find the right libraries!
As far as I'm concerned, Slackware is much easier for me to install, because there are fewer packages to keep track of, which means less chance of missing a "regular" library during install. But I think the "flat" nature of the Slackware install, compared with RPM's extensive hierarchial dependencies, is the real reason I find Slackware so much easier to install.
And as a bonus, it's a floppy-friendly install, too! When I first installed it, I didn't have a CD-ROM on an Intel box, and was downloading Slackware tarball disks and installing them from a directory on the hard drive (because I was getting too many disk errors from those el cheapo HD floppies I had lying around). The install disks make a good root-boot, too. The first time I tried Red Hat, I tried downloading just the 50 or so RPMs I tought I needed to a hard drive, and it bitched about every single RPM I didn't download being missing, whether I was installing it or not. Since Red Hat uses hundreds of RPMs, I had to press the enter key a lot.
Although sometimes I wish it used SysV init, I'm not installing many services, and I can do well enough just editing rc.local. SysV init just seems to be an excuse for distros like Red Hat to start up every service they can think of. And IMHO, most people DON'T need fscking sendmail running!
The thing that annoys me most about Slackware, though, is that it doesn't put the kernel into
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }