Slashdot Mirror
Ask Patrick Volkerding, Slackware Founder
Ask him what? About the Walnut Creek/BSDI merger? Sure. About what's happening with Slackware in general? Go ahead! Boxers or briefs? The moderators probably aren't going to let that one through, but almost anything else is fair game. Questions will be selected (as usual) slightly after 12 noon EST Tuesday; Patricks's answers are scheduled to appear Friday.
...because slack upgrades are not the most successul upgrades compared to some of the other disributions. With slack, you either get used to recompiling a lot of things to keep your system up to date or you move on. I moved on to debian, great do it yourself slack feel with none of the hassle. Debian is a lot like emacs, a little bloated, lets you be lazy, and just good software.
if you read the docs for redhat, there is a method for customizing the rpm install list. If you don't want to download everything, you don't have to. You just need to rerun a script on the desired RPMS directory to set up the new list of available packages. (make your own rpm distro in one script. =)
No FTP install is the biggest problem I have with slackware. When you have a laptop with only a floppy drive and a pcmcia network card its either a floppy install or nfs install. I'll hand it to slackware its the only distro that could get a module loaded and working with my pcmcia network card (Red hat crapped out with errors everytime). An ftp install would be heaven for slackware. Why does Slackware not have a FTP install? It's got networking loaded for NFS. Is an ftp install or an option to transfer the files to your HD that much of a problem? ...pantz
I've used Debian. I really want to like Debian. But that damned draconian package manager really makes it a hard distro to love. With Slackware I can hang myself if I want to, upgrading whatever it is that I want to. Such as when I needed a newer version of X to support the video adapter that was in my system. There wasn't a deb of it. So I was SOL. I had to delete the X on the system, build X from source, then that package manager wouldn't install anything that had anything to do with X. Because it figured I didn't have the dependancies. If you can do it all with debs then Debian is great, I guess. I've never been in that position though. For me I find it a lot easier to hand install and customize whatever it is I want to do in Slack. To me Slackware *IS* Linux! (not Redhat=Linux, or Debian=Linux) And as far as upgrading goes if I really want to play the upgrading game I can keep Slack more current than any distro out there. I've done things such as running glibc2 as a cross compiler on a Slack system, and installing the 2.2.X kernel into a Slack distro before any other distro was shipping with the 2.2.X versions. Also running the latest XFree the day it was out the door too. As far as Slackware not being upgradable between versions I find it a good excuse to burn CDs of whatever data I have (I think this is called backing up one's data. A good idea to do from time to time) then getting a fresh, unfragmented start.
Hey Pat, Slack 7 kicks. Keep up the great work man! Because of you I have no questions, you've already supplied an excellent answer. Slackware, the real distribution of Linux. Sorry to all of you also rans. I've tried a bunch and I always go back to the Slack.
U.T.S.L.
lol... sorry made me laugh in the middle all of these serious comments and complaints
The question that even Rob "Roblimo" Miller is afraid to ask: Boxers or briefs?
They seem to be topping the sales, AFAIK.
Huh? I'd say Slackware is the *least* "download friendly" distribution. They don't even provide an FTP install. I can install RedHat, Debian, etc. with at most 3 floppies (one for that "oh-so-commercial, we don't want anybody to install it any way but official, purchased cdrom" RedHat, but enough sarcasm). For slackware, I'd have to download each fscking floppy set individually....
I'm all for slackware, but you're severely lacking in clue if you think it's easy to install slackware via download.
There's already an effort underway to port Slackware to Alpha.
What is your opinion on the deplorable state of slashdot moderation?
Even RedHat comes with rmp2cpio - had to use it when my /var partition died (along with rpm database), and haven't used rpm since.
If I need something quick off my distro CD, rpm2cpio is there, else I just use the old tarball method 8?)
Think OpenBSD.
This is due to a known bug in the 2.2.7-2.2.13 kernels. It's fixed in 2.2.14, so the new Slackware-current Zipslack kernel should work. Otherwise, see:
http://pages.eidosnet.co.uk/~rdw/home.html
and the UMSDOS homepage:
http://www.voyager.hr/~mnalis/umsdos/
Debian!
Too quarrelsome and, without a way to leave anything out without libelling it, too bloated to release more than once a year, committed to self-destruction when KDE2 and KOffice come out, no credit to anyone who tries to hold them together and support their users...
Bob Dobbs != Patrick ??
When i saw the penguin with the pipe i knew all had been revealed. e-pluribus-unum
It seems to me Slackware has a very closed development group. I'm a fan of Slackware, yet I have found it very difficult to get involved. You can send patches straight to the developers, but you don't have the same sort of development community as with some other distributions/OSes (Debian and the *BSDs certainly come to mind). Do you plan on making any efforts to include others into the distribution's development? Say a tech@slackware.com or developers@slackware.com mailing list for example? I enjoy using the distribution because I feel its very solidly built, but the lack of communication definetly diminishes it IMHO. Your thoughts on the matter if you would? Brian rajak @ cerias . purdue . edu
Why do you people fight so much with yourselves. I hear so many complaints on how one distribution is awesome and the other sucks, when they're basically the same thing. When something good is released to the community, I see complaints on how its "not good enough", etc. open source software will crumble with that kind of attitude.
Moderators, please moderate up the parent to this. This is very useful information; this very problem confused the hell out of me and my LUG when I was first starting out.
Can't have it both ways -- widespread acceptance and full geekiness. Gotta make some compromises... But I'd hate to see Linux end up like Windoze.
For three years, I was a dedicated Slacker. I loved that it didn't insult my intelligence, and it was the first distro I'd ever used. But compatibility got to be a big problem last year for me -- most stuff required technologies that Slackware was very slow in implementing, such as glibc. I ended up switching to Red Hat, merely for the sake of compatibility. I didn't like it. It felt like another Microsoft kind of situation. Don't get me wrong -- Red Hat is a good distro, and I love it, but I hated being forced to switch. How is Slackware going to fit into the plan of distro compatibility in the future, and what efforts are going to be made to keep Slack up to date?
Sorry. Pet peeve.
I tried slack3.4, it refused to mount ex2 volumes created under caldera which several other distro could see fine. Very annoying error message say the mount point didn't exist when it definatly did!. A few days ago I thought about giving it another try and had a look at their site. Acording to the FAQ they still havn't found that damn bug! I am not impressed!
Why would anyone come up with a package system identical to /ports of FreeBSD?
Will people then update their entire OS, running make install, from their current partition?
Would there be more Linux users who read the source of which distributions includes binaries from?
robert
with ways to port to new hardware from source.
i don't want to choose between 400 different versions of dough and sausages. and gawd i hate it when pizzeselect tells me that pepperone 2.43 is dependent upon dough 1.26. the only reason i use debian is because slackware doesn't run on my alpha. -E
Dear Mr. Volkerding,
My first Linux install was Slackware. I can't remember which version, exactly. I do remember my first Red Hat install as being 5.2.
When I think of all of the Linux distributions, I think of the logo. The Red Hat logo is kinda cool and it made me notice the distribution and prompted me to investigate it... since others had good things to say about it, I gave it a shot. I've been using Red Hat ever since, primarily, but use Slackware on a second computer just for experimenting.
I think it would be beneficial to Slackware for you to come up with a nice catchy logo. Seriously... that's what draws people's attention. Once you have their attention, you can win them over with Slackware's better (in my opinion) overall quality.
I'm sure you would have your own logo that you would like to use, but I have a suggestion of my own. I think you can't lose with it. Imagine this:
A web-surfer is quietly floating along on the net. S/he has been hearing a lot about this new operating system, "Linux." This person has even done some preliminary investigations and realizes that Linux comes in different distributions.
The net-savvy web-surfer decides, after getting a DSL connection, "what the hell" and sets out to find the perfect Linux distro.
The web-surfer finds a distro-comparison web site and begins to browse. The info on each distro is marked by a picture of the distro's logo.
There's a cool red hat, a powerful chameleon, a magical top hat and wand. Then... our friend sees something that really catches his eye. S/he knows this is the distribution for him/er. S/he clicks on the logo, a page comes up with a long list of Slackware's benefits over the other distributions. At the top of the page is an enlarged version of the logo: It's a beautiful lithograph of Natalie Portman!! You can't lose with this distribution!!!!
If you need further help with the concept, please let me know and I will shoot you an email.
thank you.
-osm
Natalie Portman, or a big bowlful of hot grits?
Actually, my real question is, do you think that Slashdot has an actual problem of too many trolls, or are just a whole lot of people too uptight sometimes? Don't you think that people take life too seriously a lot of the time?
A case sensitive filesystem, for one...
Slackware doesn't use outdated software because it isn't *diplomatic* to do a release until every dipshit that was erroneously placed in charge of a single fucking program is "ready" to put his (*already*) old version of the software into the main tree.
Slackware doesn't cater to the whims of whatever god-like figure the groupies and zealots place at the head of the "movement". Ooooh, we can't include *that* piece of Free Software, because it isn't strictly part of the GNU project, and might offend RMS!
Slackware *doesn't* include 4500 packages. It doesn't *need* 4500 packages. I mean, Jesus Christ, do we need to differentiate so much between foo.bar.1.4 and foo.bar.1.4.joeschmoesfix?
Patrick please don't listen to those "make slack easier to use" questions! Every other distro is making linux easier and easire to use but what about those that enjoy running a bloatless system, like me? Slackware is one of few distros that remain "pure" unix. I played with mandrake,suse and redhat distros and I've never seen something so bloated outside of windows. Christ! I need a new system just to get a comfortable speed. With slack my old system feels faster. Please don't go down that "user-friendly" route. My opinion is that Slackware should focus on developement and production platforms. Forget the desktop. This is where slackware gets its strength. Leave the desktop to those that know how to install one. Now, the only thing that I want in my slack box is the FreeBSD ports system.
Don't change anything. It's great the way it is! I also agree that Patrick also ROCKS!
Typical Debian user, can't even use a form correctly...
Is Moxie the finest bottled soda ever created or simply the first?
>>> Why does Debian need 50 support lists? Slack gets by just fine with only one. How does one know which list to ask? Somehow I suspect that the most common reply in the Debian lists is "Wrong list, RTFFAQ!" *wrong* The debian lists are very helpful.
For what its worth, my second account ever was on a PDP-10 back in 1980. Ive been around a little, you could say. Once upon a time I got a little job trying to fix a Slack box that was rooted. I was a Slack zealot. After 3 days of shit, I tried Debian in desperation, since I was sick of finding _another_ exploit in Slack. Two days later I started to convert my little farm of Slack boxes to Debian. Never looked back. Mind you, that was in the bad old days of Slackware 1.2. AFAIK it hasnt changed that much though :-) Go with what works for you.
Slackware has a perfectly controllable "hands on" install system, so down to earth and UNIXy that you can change just about anything. It's this control that is allowing the BBC to build Linux realencoding systems on soley DiskOnChip 1U solid state boxes as we can compile the kernel support and alter the color.gz disk image for device nodes, then continue in a tar zxf based install from setup! The ability to switch to another console to mount a drive/format a floppy insmod netdrivers..etc.. then vi the setup shell scripts and carry on is VERY complex for a begginner, but utterly invalueble to long time UNIX users. Thanks Patrick. Now the question.. This would seem to me to lend itself _very_ well to being the perfect multi-platform distribution. Yet there is only an intel (386 compat) version, while many of the other distributions have sparc, alpha, arm and PPC versions. Are you planning on supporting other architectures, or is this simple something a long time UNIX user should be able to do himself from the slackware src ?
Man. Get a fscking grip. And yes, I compiled KDE on a 486. But I didn't spend all weekend doing it. I wrote a script and when I came back to it the next day it was done.
Any plans for a secure-by-default installation option alongside the regular Linux 'root-me-when-you-like' installation ?
...because slack upgrades are not the most successul upgrades compared to some of the othert disrobutions. With slack, you either get used to recompiling a lot of things to keep your system up to date or you move on. I moved on to debian, great do it yourself slack feel with none of the hassle. Debian is a lot like emacs, a little bloated, lets you be lazy, and just good software.
Yes, you do need to make the distinction, because Joe Schmoe might know that foo.bar.1.4 had a buffer-overflow vulnerability which he fixed in his fix.
can we expect more bob stuff from you guys at slack. lusers and pinkness. stark fist!!
is that your head or did your neck throw up?
No interview is complete without the input of a NINJA.
im the most ph33rsome troll there is!!!
go ahead mod me down you jackasses
Slackware has, imho, the greatest boot/root disk pairs of all time. The ones from Slackware 4.0
completely rocked. I keep a pair around at all times.
However, I was extremely dissapointed when I saw that Slackware 7 didnt have a rescue.gz.
Will you ever start with the rescue.gz again, or have you called it quits with that vital image?
A modified 4.0 image thats compatible with the latest scsinet.i / bare.i will be just dandy!
I heard somewhere that ftp installation is in development. Is this true? If it is true is it coming in the next version or some later one?
Hello, Patrick!
Thanks for Slackware... It's groovy. Here's my question:
You are walking down the sidewalk. It's a lazy day, you don't have much to do. It's warm. You pass by a building. A man is standing in front of the doorway to the building. He's leafing through some papers attached to a clipboard. He looks up and sees you.
When you draw near the man, he pats you on the back and makes conversation. After a few minutes, he convinces you to come inside the building to participate in an experiment.
the man leads you inside and into a large, white room. The room is empty except for a table. At the table sits a georgeous blonde. She has a large, juicy hamburger sitting on the table next to her.
the man sits you down at the table, next to the gorgeous blonde. you are happy to see him leave. The gorgeous blonde smiles at you, bats her eyes and twirls her hair with her finger.
Suddenly, you hear a voice over a speaker mounted on the wall behind you, "You can have whichever you want. Which do you choose, Heather or the Wendy's triple cheeseburger."
You aren't sure you heard that correctly, "huh?"
The voice seems agitated, "You can have either one, but not both! Which is it?! Heather?! Or the Wendy's triple cheeseburger?!"
You look at Heather, smiling at you as she twirls her hair.... mhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhm.
You look at the Wendy's triple cheeseburger, succulent and dripping with juices.... mhmhmhmhmhmhmhm.
My question for you, Patrick, is: Which would you choose? Heather, or the Wendy's triple cheeseburger.
NOTE: "Natalie Portman" is not a valid response. Responding "Natalie Portman" will bring about a severe beating with a two-foot long, processed spiced-meat stick. After which, you will wake up naked, pale and quivering on the sidewalk.
thank you.
$10 says this question will be moderated down because the moderaters mostly seem to be humorless assholes.
Just out of curiosity, where did the name come from? 'Slackware' originally made me think that it was meant to be easier then the other distributions out there, but, I'm just crazy :)
>Codifex Maximus ~ It may hurt my pride to be wrong once in a while, but I'd rather be flamed
>with better information than to be left blissfully ignorant.
Well, since you insist:
The actual interjection is "hear, hear," not "here, here." As in "Hear what the person I'm agreeing with has to say."
Just FYI.
--
Do you feel that you have the resources you need to keep up with all the work that must be done in maintaining the distribution (keeping up with new versions while ensuring the stability and security that Slackware is known for, etc.), or must sacrifices be made because of limited time, manpower, money, etc.? Will the spin-off of Slackware change that? How so?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
When I'm installing an app that didn't come with the distro, I prefer to compile from source. It really doesn't take that long, and I get to see all the documentation in case there's something weird. Often, the app in question isn't avaialble as an rpm or deb package anyway.
If it came with the distro, but it isn't already installed, I head over to http://www.slackware.com/ and click Packages (or hit the right arrow key, if I don't happen to be running Netscape). I can either download it from there, or find it on my CD.
If it came with the distribution, no, I don't like compiling from source (with exceptions like Apache), simply because I don't want to mess with it. If it didn't come with the distribution, why not?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Typically grits just take salt, pepper, and butter. Some people like to add stuff like crumbled bacon, cheddar cheese, and chopped green onions, but we make fun of those guys down here in da south.
I have a copy of the 4 cd Slakware 3.4 set from Nov 1997.
Also I actually have a 4 cd set with Slack 2.2, Debian 0.91, kernel source 1.2.1 and a few other things from march 1995.
I'd be willing to make some images for a site looking to make early versions availiable.
Actually he DID just make changes to SLS to start...eventually it evolved into what is now slackware. Originally it was just SLS with modifications...then the installation scripts were re-done ( they WERE from SLS ).
Have a look at this interview with Patrick from 1994 in Linux Journal
Click here for the article
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
I think many choose Slackware because they are insecure in their Unix masculinity. I know how to compile a kernel, make World for XFree, build and rebuild gcc, debug with gdb, build my own packages with autoconf, libtool et al.
Real geeks don't want to spend all day compiling some new toy, and the next few days trying to wipe it from their system. When I'm really hungry, I don't make my own dough, grow my own veggies, slaughter my own pigs and press my own sausage--I pick up the phone and call Pizza Hut.
Real geeks use Debian.
--
#19845
Kiss my hot grits.
I don't care what my Karma score is, I just hate seeing a bunch of buttwipe kiddies strut about like they're master hax0rs, sucking the effigial penii of every icon put forth by the slash pipers.
This place is billed as a community. A community doesn't always talk seriously. Get a mob together, they scream, yowl, tell jokes, butt-rape each others' pets, talk, pour grits.
Me, I learned something about grits from the Defiler, and for that I am very grateful. If it weren't for him defiling my sweet puckered assnubbin, I might not give hot grits another try. Next Sunday, I'm doing it.
If I cared about being moderated down, why would I post this with my primary account?
Compiling something isn't a hassle to you? I guess looking at archived issues of Danish Seventeen on Usenet on your Athlon 1000 leaves you a lot of time to do that. Some of us have work to do, and aren't running on supercomputers with cycles to waste on finding intelligent life in Carol Channing's buttcrack, sunshine.
I compile things when there's not a package to deal with it just as well, but doing so when I can just apt-get a package that suits me just fine for my DESKTOP is JUST PLAIN STUPID.
Your post is offtopic. Someone moderate this guy down.
--
#19845
Yeah, I can use alien to convert to and from all three major package formats. That still isn't as convenient as apt-get.
/wrote/, thanks.
Notice I said "convenient", and not "easy."
Sometimes we do things because they are "convenient." Doing things the long way is only valid if you're getting paid by the hour and want to waste a lot of time.
System administrators are like Scotty, always estimating something will take six times the actual so they can spend the rest of the time playing Quake or whacking off the Port bow.
If I want to compile something for fun, I'll compile something I
Go ahead. I'll have some HOT Ad Hominy down my PANTS, SPANKS.
--
#19845
I have been using Linux as my primary desktop for about three years now, and using Unix-ish systems from the command line since 1990. Many have been around longer than myself, of course. I'm not trying to be studly.
:(
You didn't have to be so mean.
--
#19845
point taken, and a good one at that. Of course, Patrick's other statement also is /very/ true...if he changed the major version as often as some other distros, he would be up to around version 24.
In the name of Goddess, I will personally smite whoever answers "strip Her naked and petrify Her."
Slackware's already got a mascot: Bob! Come on, he's the perfect mascot.
Huh? He's not Slackware's mascot? Damn. He'd make a good choice, though.
The point is not install all the packages, it's to install the right one, and keep it up to date.
The last Slackware box I had, got rooted because of a old daemon, now before you say it's my fault, it was not, bugtraq was a day late and a dollar short for me, the version was several version older, then at that time the current release.
To update and compile would of taken more time then I had. Much less know that there was a buffer overflow (I do read Bugtraq); I was far from a expert on that daemon (IMAP4).
Now I leverage Debian package system(With apt-get update and apt-get install), and the maintainers expertise (Someone who knows more about IMAP then I ever want too), and read Bugtraq.
As config files go, knowing at least how config is two thirds of the battle.
Much less I admin much more then just one box try compiling for 10 and tell me your current and configured correctly.
"Think of it as evolution in action."
Well, you don't need 4500 packages but it sure is convenient. It is somewhat overwhelming to install, but basically you just install what you need and do the rest over time as you need things.
After spending a lot of time compiling programs, I am quite sick of doing it, and I would far rather have a binary ready for me.
Besides, when I am really bored I'll go through dselect looking for interesting programs.
support gun control: take guns from cops
Actually, if you think about it, all commercial Unices are either not based on BSD any more or they all are. SYSV contains a lot of BSD code. Otherwise, there is not commerical Unix (except BSD/OS and they just merged with FreeBSD) that is strictly BSD-like.
However, DEC Unix and BSD are not that similar. At least not in my opinion. Please go into more detail, if you would like.
Hey Patrick, What do you see as the single largest difficulty you have had to overcome or are still overcoming in the process of creating Slackware Linux?
# wrote sig.txt, 23 lines, 31337 chars
First, thanks for your hard work. Slackware was my first distro, back at the 1.2.8 kernel. It ran on a discarded 386 for quite a while as I was learning Unix-like OSes.
These days, I'm a bit more cosmopolitan, and run Mandrake, RedHat, and OpenBSD. I haven't run Slackware in quite some time. Mostly for the package management of other flavors (RPMs and the FreeBSD ports tree that OpenBSD has adopted), but also partially for appearance of greater innovation -- whether real or imagined.
Every distro and flavor seems to have it's own "hook": security, OpenBSD; end-user friendlyness, RedHat; nerd-factor, Debian. Slackware can be all of those things, but I can't really identify what Slackware's "hook" is.
As a derivitive question, do you think you would increase Slack's appeal if it did find a "hook" or a niche and filled it faster and better than the other distro, and what would you like for that "hook" to be?
My vote would be for Slack to become the graphic professional's distro of choice. (of course, I'm very, very biased, as that is what I do) If there was gamma control in X, better, cleaner, easier font integration and support (Postscript only, please!), and color matching APIs, Slack could give OSX a run for it's money.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Patrick,
Slackware was my first distro of Linux and has been by far my favorite. Thank you for all your hard work.
My questions all really wrap up into one but here goes... What is the current structure of the new company? Are you looking to expand? Bring on new people? Go public with all the other IPO craze around linux?
Thank...menelaus
What do you see as the greatest challenges for slackware as more distributions come out? Will it be public acceptance? commercialization? support from the programming community? All the above?
This is slightly OT, in that it's not a direct question for Patrick (though it could be, but it's not as important a question as some of the others...). Why do you like the BSD style of init scripts so much more than SysV style?
My first distro was slackware, 'way back in '95. I use RedHat now for most stuff, though. I recently tried Slack 7.0 just to see what it was like these days, and found that I've gotten too used to RH's SysV init system. I like being able to /etc/rc.d/init.d/somedaemon start|stop|restart... I know I could just kill or kill -HUP, but then I have to go looking for the pid, and editing monolithic rc. init files just seems so messy instead of having the various daemon startup/shutdown foibles in their own files.
*shrug* To each their own, I guess. I am curious as to why people like the BSD style of doing things. Perhaps I'm missing something.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast...
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
Because there are a hell of a lot more idiots in the world than there are geeks. Where there are people, there is money.
It may be cleaner, but you can edit runlevels much easier with SysV-style. (It's just making or removing a symlink) It's easier for a package to add itself to a runlevel. You can edit runlevels with either system, but BSD-style requires you to parse files rather than just add/remove symlinks.
I think that it just makes sense for SysV init scripts in a package based system. Granted, slackware is more of a non-package based system. (other than the packages that come with the system, you never see a slackware tgz listed in the download options)
But.. to each their own!
-- Thrakkerzog
When will you break down and make the switch to SysV style init scripts? (If ever)
-- Thrakkerzog
this is a very good question that it think needs to be addressed with slackware.
developing a migration path between major releases of any operating system is very important for a few many different reasons.
i think that the lack of such a tool to upgrade either pieces or the whole distro is a bit of a limiting factor in not only new users trying the distro (who wants to install a new operating system and know that when the next release comes out they need to reformat?) but also for experienced users as well. maintenance is important, and upgrading software packages when there are strong motivators to do so is much more tedious manually doing it one by one than with some sort of automation.
this being said, i would like to know, what is the overall philosophy behind the slackware distribution? it seems to me that slacky is intended for the most adroit persons who are wary of new software releases (its getting better, but the install can be pretty tough, and most of the packages on slackware seem to be those versions that have been tried and tested - a contrast from some distros that throw the newest stable release of code on the system).
i can see the point in making a system such that it takes nothing for granted and relies on the administrator for everything; this is a pretty secure model to work from. but, what position do you see slackware taking in the future? unlike some other distros (debian, turboLinux, etc) there isn't a "profile" selection when installing, so what then is the overall direction that you are going, what need do you slackware filling right now, and what need do you see slackware filling in the future as some of the current needs change (administration requirements, etc)??
i have been using slackware for a long time; i like the overall distro, but think that it could be in danger of sliding into a pidgeon-hole, and never progressing further beyond that.
what do you think?
-------------- insert [signature] here
Patrick, will you ever include graphical configuration utilities that do not easily allow manual editing of config files/scripts? This is one of my biggest reasons I do not use RedHat or any RedHat derived distributions. (e.g. /etc/rc.d)
I have used Slackware steady for over three years. I must say that I love Slack. I recommend it to people that I see have great UNIX/Linux potential because slackware makes the user learn. I am not a biggot. My belief is "to each his own", that's why we should all be happy that there are so many distributions. I recommend that everyone experiment with other distributions to find one that really suits them best. I believe that the hacker spirit really exemplifies "to each his own", and outways distribution unity. Keep up the good work Patrick, we love it!
I'm sure you already know this, but for those who don't...
--------------Rev. C.C.Chips---------------- For the real truth, visit
Pat:
I've noticed that there are an awful lot of questions on this set of pages about packaging systems and what you plan (don't plan) to do about yours. My question is:
Why did you addict me to Linux? The nerve! My life is ruined! You and Stang comspired about this, didn't you? If it weren't for you, I'd still be a Microsoft Worm(R)! So, my question is, are you going ti pay for my rehab sessions or not?
--------------Rev. C.C.Chips---------------- For the real truth, visit
I would love to run Slackware on my sparcs. I have thought about doing it myself, but I just don't have enough time.
I understand that Slackware is older than most distributions. However, he could have just tried to make changes to SLS, or creat an addon (eg Mandrake). But he decided to create a new distribution. I just wonder what about SLS he didn't like.
Sam TH
Sam TH
AbiWord Developer
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why is slackware the best distro out there?
Great. Just great.
It's obvious you don't know what you are talking about with slack. Further, its obvious that you deserve to be moderated down.
What scares me is how much you care. It's a webboard. Who cares? You actually look at what your Karma score is? I sure don't.
Slashdot is a festering shithole? If so, it's because of people like you. The kind of sad, little people that inhibit real discussion. Now, instead of writing an insightful question, I am wasting my time yelling at you because your idiocy ticks me off.
- Paradox
Man of the C!!!
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
I am a debian user, but I find that I
only used the package system to get my
system out of unstable and into frozen.
Now that I have Xfree4.0 installed on my system,
I really don't want to watch every X-related package break.
I miss FreeBSD's ports system. Quite frankly, compiling something isn't a hassle to me. Nor should it be to anyone. Even Xfree only took me d2 hours. Hell, I went out, had dinner, watched the simpsons, came back and it was done.
Don't give debian users a bad name with your chest-beating. Debian is a great distro, but it dosen't need people like you doing more harm than good.
- Paradox
Man of the C!!!
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Can you really hold yourself about those "butwipe kiddies?" What makes you any different?
From the way you act, nothing at all.
Oh, since you seem to be new to linux, try "man renice." Renice is this cute command that puts commands further in the background. So you can say... compile and do something else. It's called being productive, and multitasking. Even niced, it won't take more than 5 minutes, even on an old machine, to complie most "toys". Larger packages, of course, take longer. But I bet if you think really long and hard about it, you'll figure out why.
I know you must not be used to this, because you seem like you just been converted from Bill's army. That's ok. Were here to help you learn how to do things.
Me, my computer sucks. Not an Athlon 1000. Not even a 500 mhz computer (which seems pretty standard these days). And no, I don't even go to an alt.* usenet group. I tend to spend my time programming. You should try it. I hear visual basic is great for people like you. You could make ASP to spruce up your webpage. It seems a.. little.. nevermind.
Oh. By the way. How's Timmy and Bozo doing?
Issues.
'Nuff said.
- Paradox
Man of the C!!!
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
It's so they can bloat their package numbers to sound all impressive. :P
god i hate dselect.
when i tried debian for a little while, the thing that sucked most was telling that bastard little program to shove it with it's recommendations and restrictions. if debian wants to succeed, they need to replace that P.O.S. interface and get a real package installation tool.
Why not install the new toy to /usr/local tree, or /opt or something, so that it's easy to wipe off your system if you don't like it? You don't *have* to make your system messy as hell. A little organization can save you some time in the long run.
All this complaining about nothing at all.
If you want slackware binaries, go to Linux Mafia (www.linuxmafia.org) and download from their package center. They have tons of popular software packages pre-compiled and ready to install using pkgtool.
The thing that pisses me off about Slashdot is how many people say things without using their brains first.
"I'm no zealot, man. I use what works, and what has games."
No wonder you're bitter. Mac and Linux have shit for games.
More important than LSB, I believe all Linux distributions should adopt and adhere to the FHS 2.0 spec. Nothing irritates me more than seeing tons of X application binaries floating around in /usr/bin.
=)
Let me begin by thanking you for the Slackware distro. It is the one I first tried, when I new absolutely nothing about Linux/UNIX and it is the one I continue to use to this day. I have a WC subscription (I wonder what the merger will do to that?) and use Slackware for all sorts of purposes. Right now, I am within arms length of a general-purpose PC, a firewall, a small web server, a nameserver, and a mail server, all running Slackware 7.
One additional thing that I would ask for on a Slackware CD would be a selection of TAGFILEs. It would be nice to select a tagfile suited for a specific function. Say I were building a router, or a firewall, or a development box or a web-appliance for my Granny, it would be a help if I could select from a list of appropriate tagfiles.
Do you think that the future might include enhancements to the 'setup' program allowing a selection of basic installation configurations like this?
Thanks again.....
Regards,
-BK
Chemical Blog
I'm probably going to be moderated down for this, but I'm curious...
On the Get Slack page on the Slackware web site, you only have versions as far back as 3.5.
Now, I know that no *sane* person would want to try and run anything earlier than 3.5 on his machine (though I do have a copy of Slack 3.something on a CD-ROM that came with "Linux Kernel Internals"), but I was wondering about "Historical" versions of the Slackware distribution. I'd really like to see an archive site with all the older versions available for download.
I know it isn't a big issue for you, and that it may not be practical, but I kinda think that older versions of Slackware might be cool to look at. Since Slack has been around so long, it would serve as an excellent guide through the evolution of Linux-- what version first had X? What was the first ELF version? How about the first version incorporating the 2.0.xx kernel series?
That said, is there any chance of a Slackware archive dating back further than 3.5?
----
I have come to a conclusion about life... I am more
mentally stable than any of these activists or
is all moderation done in the first five minutes or does nobody really care about security?
no, I don't want OpenBSD, I want Linux.
Linux CAN be more secure. Why NOT!!
Many Linux distros default to completely open,
insecure installations with dozens of daemons
running that never get used, telnets and ftps that
send passwords over the network in the clear, and
other such problems with known solutions.
Do you think it is the responsibility of the vendors
to provide default installations that are more secure?
Certainly it seems that Joe User can't be
depended upon to edit inetd.conf or install
SRP telnet.
Are there any plans for a "secure" slackware that
requires the user to enable ports he or she wants to have open,
and other security features (a crypto package for example).
First off, I want to say I've been using Slackware since 3.2 and I'm thrilled with it. Keep up the great coding!
My first question is deals with marketing and competition. When the average joe computer user is asked about Linux, usually he/she thinks of Red Hat, possibly Caldera or Corel Linux. Rarely does anyone think first of Slackware, yet Slackware has been around longer than any other Linux distribution still in circulation today. How do you intend to address this now that Linux has become mainstream?
My second question deals with package management. My main complaint with the Slackware is its weakness in the package management area. It gets annoying having some packages installed from *.tgz format and other installed as *.rpm files. It becomes difficult to keep track of what's installed, how it's installed, and where it needs to be upgraded. Do you intend on changing Slackware's package system to something like or compatibile with RPM?
You don't need NFS, just use a partition on your
hard disk where you put the distro. Slack supports
specifying an existing partition to install from.
The War on Drugs is just a small part of the War on the U.S. Constitution
Poke around http://www.cdrom.com and you'll find some :) Got myself a shirt and a beanie Tux-with-the-pipe.
Yes ...
Hardcore Linux users are really worried about what the version number is.
Get a grip.
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
What if you have a bare system with no operating system on it and you don't want to bother installing DOS/WIN on it just to use Slackware? What if the system doesn't even have a CD-ROM? The only real option then is a network installation. That means either using FTP or NFS. Ok now what if you don't have access to your own NFS server and don't have a machine that can be set up as one? I know that this is an unlikely set of conditions but the situation can come up. I am not suggesting dumping NFS for FTP but I do think that both options should be available or else open NFS servers should be widely available. I also realize that there are security issues surrounding NFS2/3 which is why NFS is usually not left up and running for long periods with anonymous logins available. This is why FTP is the more likely choice. One last problem with downloading the packages to a Win/DOS partition. How am I suppose to know what to download before the install starts? If the answer is GET EVERYTHING! my reply would be I have a fast network but not that fast. A minimalist ftp install of FreeBSD can take up under 100Megs. That is a lot less than 600Megs, 500 of which I may not need. I am guessing that all Slackware binaries for 7.0 take up several hundred megs.
OK enough explanations I just think their should be more options -- isn't linux about options?
BTW, otherwise I think Slackware is a great distribution.
Isn't Debian still on a 2.0.x kernel? I think they plan to release a 2.2 Real Soon.
If you don't want to download everything, you don't have to. You just need to rerun a script on the desired RPMS directory to set up the new list of available packages.
Then the question begs to be asked, why doesn't the installer run it itself instead of making the user do it? Way to go Redhat Inc., the oh-so-million dollar IPO worthy company.
-- iCEBaLM
Huh? I'd say Slackware is the *least* "download friendly" distribution. They don't even provide an FTP install. I can install RedHat, Debian, etc. with at most 3 floppies
FTP install != Download friendly.
I'm talking about downloading it FIRST, BEFORE the install, not during. I've tried some of the ftp installs, and they are quite HORRIBLE on a modem connection, and if it screws up or you get your connection dropped you're done, gotta start over.
However, if you download the files first, you can put em on zip disk, cd, hd, whatever and not be worried about dropped connections, etc. You try downloading debian or redhat first (not ISO) before installing and if you only download the packages you want/need (enjoy looking up dependancies manually) you'll be greeted with a "Cannot find package: Packagename.rpm" msg window you have to hit enter to get by for every of the hundreds of packages you didn't download.
-- iCEBaLM
Kinda like "Slackware 7", for instance?
Hands in my pocket
These have probably all pretty much been stated by others somewhere in the humongous list of comments, but I will list them in order to emphasize that I find them important and so that moderators can see it and moderate accordingly:
:-)
:-)
1.Please don't change the bootup sequence from BSD to SysV. This is one strong reason I like Slackware.
2.Please keep the A and N disk sets installable on floppies because Slackware install is still one of the most flexible and versatile distributions that I know of. Especially when you are in a pinch with some broken pieces of hardware, eg. CDROM and need a truly safe type of install. It also makes rescue disks a possibility, which I hope will continue as well.
3.Please make Slackware also for Digital Alpha. I am now forced to use RedHat (I gave up on SuSE and haven't yet tried Debian), but would change to Slackware in a heartbeat if it existed. And my machine is a UDB/Multia so if the choice will be limited please include that one
4.I don't understand the people complaining about Slackware not having a package manager? Have they never tried pkgtool? In any case I hope you will continue using tar and gz (and/or bz2?) because they are generic and *open* tools and lets me the *user* deal with the installation as I want and not some arbitrary tool (cough*rpm*cough*cough) like in the MS/Mac world.
5.The setup/installation tool could be made so that when you get to the configure part you would have a menu to select what to configure instead of having to wade through it all every time. Only netconfig is mentioned as being possible to start up on a later time, but including xf86config and some sound config tool and let us choose from a menu would be great.
6.What I would like to be able to configure is:
A.LILO (already there)
B.Keyboard (already there)
C.Mouse (type, port, speed)
D.Serial (speed, uart, port, irq, etc.)
E.Parallel (normal, advanced, etc.)
F.CDROM (what device it is on)
G.Swap (I don't want every swap partition)
H.Better selection of partitions for install
I.Videocard for SVGAlib and XFree86
J.Soundcard (something that works, not sndconfig)
K.USB ports
L.Firewire ports
M.ISDN
N.PPP setup, eg. with ISP provided DNS host
O.Cablemodem setup
P.ADSL setup
Q.DHCP setup
R.Apache setup
S.DNS setup (apart from N.)
T.Better printer setup eg. with GS config
There is probably more if I start thinking about it
7.Don't *ever* make it a graphical install!!! I don't know how to emphasize this enough, but let the wimps choose another distribution if they want potential trouble already in the beginning.
This is all I can think of now, but all in all I want it to stay simple, versatile and flexible so I can attempt to throw it at almost any hardware I have that I want Linux on. What I miss most is help with setup and configuration of more things. Keep up the good work!
I think Roblimo really does care on the "boxers or briefs" issue. He was simply using reverse psychology to get his pet topic moderated up... which has worked.
If patrick answers this question does he get a pair of Tux undies in his favourite style?
Elivs
Note that my purpose was not to disparage Slackware in any way. I was simply refuting phrawzty's comment that Slackware is so much more geared to "the Linux user that knows what they're doing." The FAQ you pointed out says that one of the reasons they skipped major version numbers was "just to make it clear to people who don't know anything about Linux that Slackware's libraries, compilers, and other stuff are not 3 major versions behind." This does not seem to say they are geared toward experienced and informed Linux user, but rather try to make Slackware appeal more to the newbie Linux user.
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
I would first like to say that this was not a troll. I merely provided my view regarding phrawzty's comment that Slackware was geared for "the Linux user that knows what they're doing." I was not even debating any merits or dismerits of Slackware.
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
If Slackware is so "geared towards the linux user that already knows what they're doing" why did they skip three version numbers so people would think that Slackware is newer than all the other distros. Any "linux user that already knows what they're doing" knows that Slackware 4 is not 2 versions older than Red Hat 6. If anything, skipping 3 version numbers might discourage a hardcore Linux user.
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Slackware has gotten this reputation as being faster than other distributions (how could it possibly be faster than Mandrake, which is compiled with pentium optimization?), more secure (Slackware has historically been the worst offender when it comes to security), and made for power users (?? Just because it doesn't have the added functionality of a package manager?).
Why has Slackware gotten this reputation?
I think their numbering system at RedHat is a byproduct of their release schedule, by the time they go from 6.0 to 7.2 it's time for a significant upgrade. This holds true for the 5.2 to 6.0 jump, and appears to be true of the 6.2 to 7.0 Jump. We've had a major kernel release, new major XFree release. Probably a new gnome and kde. 6.0 introduced GNOME ( I think, although I have seen a version of redhat 5.2 labeled 5.2-gnome). Don't remember what was different about 4.2 and the 5's, I had just gotten started then
treke
He actually answered this http://www2.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/issue2/2750 .html . Basically he says that he started installing SLS on some computers for a professor, and ended up fixing bugs in the SLS setup. The ball started rolling, and eventually he had slackware
treke
Oh, that be poetic. :) Mind if I make that my new sig? :)
I just thought it was amusing that the answers will be posted on St. Patricks Day (since we're interviewing Patrick here ;)
Slackware isn't in the software development business. They are here to provide a good distribution of linux and quality linux software, and in my opinion, they do a damn good job. It doesn't really need to be "developed" in the sense you put it. Probably the hardest thing about creating a distribution is creating the initial distribution, and in slackware's case, it's already been done. After creating a distribution, maintaining it would be pretty easy, and shouldn't require hundreds of volunteers. This is especially true for slackware, since all the packages are simply .tgz files, with paths relative to the root directory, and if you read the man pages for pkgtool, installpkg, etc, they show you exactly how to make your own packages.
Slackware was the second or third distribution of Linux to exist.. SLS obviously didn't meat Patrick's needs ;-)
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I have noticed that in every linux-related topic someone has to bash (no pun intended) Micro$oft.
;-)
:-)
Well, please let me do the honours this time.
3.11 ---> 95 ---> 98 ---> 2000 now that is skipping...
Greetz,
MarsDude
(yeah I know... 95 is version 4, but I want to get a 'score: funny' for once...
BTW: I'll always be willing to read the documentation in order to make it work the way *I* want it to work. Thanks for a great Distro.
...I'd just like to say that Slackware rocks. Keep up the great work. :)
I just want to say that I "discovered" Linux through Slackware back in 93. Since then I have used dozens of distro's. I have to say that in the many years that have passed in between that it is freeBSD/openBSD that I like best, for a lot of reasons. The maturity of the BSD line really shows is so many ways, they have thought long and hard about all of the problems with package management, library compatibility, etc...
/usr/ports, make world, and so on, I tell my self a thousand times a day that I am going to create my own distro "LSD" Linux software distrobution, and that I will start by using the linux kernel and BSD userland and ports since it is so much cleaner.
The solution employed is elegant, "make world". Remeber the TAMU distro? I think that for years I have dreamed of a BSD style linux so that I can have the hardware compatability of linux, but have the "clean" feeling of a bsd distro,
The problem I have is that when you have a cleanly packaged distro you need package xyz and nobody has packaged it yet, or you install the package but the maintainer didn't compile with the options you need, so you fetch the source and build it yourself, and upgradability has just gone out the window... so the usefulness of all that packaging has just become mute.
I think you are in the ideal position to create just the kind of distro I am talking about, talk with Jordan. Perhaps you and I, along with the rest of the world can build the best distro that ever happened yet.
Also I am not one who goes for that "it should be so easy my grandmother can use it" crap, my grandmother doesn't have any interest in computers and never will. I think that if you have not learned to drive you should not be behind the wheel... ( ie if you don't know how to use a computer maybe you shouldn't be using one, I don't know how to fly and so I don't pilot aircraft nor should I be allowed to... just look at how the signal has been lost in the noise on the net for example )
Let's get back to the basics that Mike Gancarz talked about in his "the UNIX Philosophy"
PhreeStyle
Hi,
Does purist can still love linux in 21 century ?
After coreljoking, redhatmachination and others *underproducts*, does slackware, even if 7.0 come with 2.2 kernel and lot more new stuff, stay different than others and new linux distribution ?
Linux seems to come Win2Kv2.2, and BSD is the only alternative for purist to get a real, free and powerful OS.
So, I'm sad.
somekool
Slackware was once the obvious choice for a Linux distribution. But it has fallen from that plce, and now its only target are the old-timers who haven't switch to a more modern distribution.
People says that slackware is for power users... how come? It's not as secure as others, as its defaults are not as carefuly set as in other distros. Besides, as you need to get everything from a tgz, programs are not well integrated. It's not for the naive user.
Who is now the target of Slackware? Is it worth to continue developing it? Which are de mid-range objectives for the distro?
This will be moderated as a troll, but is a genuine doubt for me.. =)
I always wondered why Slackware didn't take advantage of gnu stow for packaging. I'd say I
/usr/local/stow
have "upgraded" about two-thirds of my slackware
installation with "stowed-in" replacements:
./configure --prefix=/usr/local
make
make prefix=/usr/local/stow/pkgname-1.2.3 install
pushd
# possible "stow -D pkgname-1.2.2" here.
stow pkgname-1.2.3
ldconfig
popd
Stow is a phenomenal tool, and it's a shame nobody
uses it to build a distro.
I've been a slacker since 1995. Thanks Patrick.
Part one:
Slackware is my favorite linux distro. FreeBSD is my favorite BSD flavor. And I would like to see the two projects collaborate, so I'm a bit disappointed to see the split. I've always thought BSD and linux should be a little closer. Are there any major/definite plans for this in the future?
Part two:
Now that Slackware is a separate company, are there any other large scale projects in the works? In the interview with the CEO of Loki on Slashdot there was a good question about the lack of "standard" APIs supported under linux. Would Slackware be interested in developing any APIs? I think this would be a good way to increase the user base without accually changing the distro.
--Drew Vogel
I am still fairly new to linux and computers, so I was a little intimidated switching to a "less user friendly" distribution. By now I've tried every major distro; and with the possible exception of Redhat 5.2 (solely because of Disk Druid, before I learned how to use fdisk), Slackware was the easiest for me to install with the least hassles. Then again, the only distribution I haven't successfully installed is Corel, so maybe its just me.
I went back to Redhat for a while because of glibc, but I can't stand not knowing what my computer is doing behind my back. I'd like to have rpm support AND control over my files. So, I spend a lot of time creating symbolic links for dependencies. My question is, what is the logic behind choosing a specific file structure?
For example, why do I find the html directory in Slackware under /var/lib/apache/htdocs, in Redhat under /home/httpd/html, and in BSD under /usr/local/httpd/html.
I know how hard it must to be to reach a consensus between all the different flavors of Linux/Unix/BSD/whatever. Having started with Redhat, I tend to look for files where they put them, and the Redhat file structure is beginning to look more and more like a de facto standard, at least to me. Is there a better way than setting dozens of symbolic links or remembering all the different file structures? Wasn't there a move to standardize this very thing a while back, and do you think there is any hope that it may happen any time soon?
Now: As every big or would-be-big or not-so-big company is hopping onto the Linux train, I see them saying "we're supporting RedHat, SuSE, TurboLinux, FooBarLinux, YouNameItLinux...." but I always miss my favourite name tag here. When I go to my customers they are first a bit reluctant to install Slackware (until after they've seen it) because they consider it nerd stuff while I point out it's the non-no-brainer Linux - I think you get the point.
Do you have plans to push Slackware via Power without the Pounds or Ninja (vs. Sumo wrestlers) Distribution into the "Major Distributions League", or do you rather prefer it staying the "insider's choice" ?
Use The Source, Luke!
Despite the popularity of "other" distros, it's good to see that your support for what is clearly the superior Linux release is going forward strongly.
In your most humble and unjaded opinion, do you think Slackware will realisticly survive against inferior releases with heavy financial backing?
-aj.
I have become, comfortably numb
I'm an part-time/full-time (depending on the computer) user of slackware, and i must say this is something i would like to see. When i went from Slack4->7 on this machine it would have been nice to have upgrade-ability. I've only been with slack since midway through 4.0 (i finished downloading it only to have 7.0 released about 2 months later :)
:)!
Slackware is the first (and only) distro i have ever used, i love it, keep up the good work (or else
Eraser_
ps: nice handle EraserMe... One of his best songs in my opinion (right after Wish and Happyness in slavery of course)
Really,
What personal hardware platform do you use for runnning Slackware?
What is the perferred hardware platform?
Technology is only a vehicle. People are the ones that drive it.
If you think about it for a moment, this is just like the /. polls.
On the polls, (especially when it is US related) the one loony answer always wins, because whenever people don't have a clue what the other answers mean, they pick the loony answer. The process of choosing questions by moderation is exactly the same, except that it is a poll of moderators instead of everyone.
Which is a bit depressing... it means that there are lots of moderators who don't understand the other questions.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Hi Patrick,
I've been a supporter of Slackware for many moons and I always buy the official Slackware by Walnut Creek CDROM (I got 4.0 and 7.0) to support your distribution. Having sayed that, my question is:
I do I resist the temptation to cross to the dark side of Linux distributions? I own a DEC Alpha workstation and a Sun Sparcstation and I am stuck running Windows NT on the Alpha and Solaris on the Sun (no way I'll install Red Hat!!!)
Is there a plan to port Slackware to these architectures?
http://www.club977.com/ - The 80's Channel!
Your source for commercial free 80's music!
first off, slack rules. where do you see slackware going? it has a reputation for being a no bloat type of distro, which i think is why most of us like it. if we want 12000 packages, we'll go to red-hat or suse. if we want a rock solid distro, with just enough to get up and running, then configure it exactly the way we want it, we use slack. my question is, what things are you looking to add to new versions of slack. what new linux progs could we expect to see in future vers of slack? with all the *linux* headlines in the news and such, what has gotten you the most excited?
Why is/was the default darkstar.frop.org? I presume it is some kind of Church of Subgenius joke (along with the name "Slackware").
I agree that glibc6 is extremely bloated (according to the Slackware install, it is ~120 mb!!). The reason that there are two incompatible version of Glibc is because version 2.0.7 was a hacked patch by Debian and RedHat to fix up a beta version so that it would work. I think. The libc6 folks have said that they intend to keep backwards compatability from now on, but since all of the binaries on my machine either came with Slackware or were compiled by myself, this doesn't really affect me.
On the other hand, libc6 comes with some major advantages for people who prefer to speak German/French/whatever else. For example, if you are bored, try this:
LANG=fr cp notexist notexist2
or:
LANG=de mc
Another thing that I dislike is that modern Linux systems tend to breed shared libraries: five years ago, there was libc and libX11 and that was it. Four years ago, libncurses, libz and the graphics libraries came along.
Now, there is libgnome_foo.so, libgnome_bar.so, libImlib.so.1.99.87, libFnlib.so, libMesa, libMesaGL, libImlib_GTK, libGTK, libgdk, libglib, libkde_draw_box, libkde_ok_button, libkde_web_browser, libkde_bloat, libkde_gui, libkde_oops_I_forgot_to_add_this_to_libkde_gui, libguile, libSegmentationFault, libBrokenWozznameThing, libquux, libOrbit, libmico, libgif_for_kde_only, libenlightenment_junk......
The only advantage that I can think of that libc6 has besides internationalisation is that it has built-in threaded everything.
Patrick,
I'm planning on setting up a Linux box this summer because this will be the first time I'll have a spare computer to mess around with. What, in your opinion, is the best distribution for a first-timer to install and learn with?
--
--
"Safety is necessary for the protection and preservation of our valuable war-fighting assets."
I used to be the same way until I found debian. I have several programs that I always configure and comile myself (apache,php,sendmail, etc). But there are so many things that get constantly updated and I don't care to track all of them down, find their site, download it, and compile it by hand. So instead of doing that, you can just type apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade. That way, I don't have to worry about running an old version of grep or something.
Hi Patrick! I'm a "not so new" Linux user (last year actually) and I have tried several Linux distributions. So far, in my opinion, of the distributions I'v tried, I think Slackware has the kind of installation program that's really cool, even as a new user. I said its cool because I it's custom installation is much more flexible than the others that I have tried. However, after a few months I've switched distribution because It really took a long time before Slackware adopted glibc2. My question is, how will you guys keep up with the frequent upgrades the competitors are doing? Will you also follow them into introducing more firendly installtion (graphical)? I just hope that when you do, it's sitll as customizable as the Slackware I've known before. :)
Take-off every
The Serious Questions: Whatever happened from Slackware 4 to Slack ware 7? This is a fairly large gap here. Do you presonally run Slackware on your computer? What other OSes do you use? Do you have any dreaded microsoft boxes? Are you a S.L.A.C.K.E.R.? (System Literate Anarchists Can Kill Everyone with Railguns) The Stupid Questions: Do you own any penguins? What color are they? What is your favorite way to cook penguins?
.cig - what you do after winning a good flame war
Why have I only ever heard of Slackware "in passing"? I haven't used it (unless Mini Linux which has pkgtool counts). I don't know anything about it. And yet, according to the Linux Count some 26 percent or so of Linux users are using it.
I've always used Debian myself, and I've always known about the "big 3" distributions -- RedHat, Debian, and Slackware. All I knew was that it had a cool name.
Why don't you attempt to publicize your distro? There are niches for each distro... Corel for ease of use, RedHat for the average user, Debian for "power users", or whatever. And some of the other posts here have said it's for Power Geek Kings.
Basically... why don't you publicize this, and who is it aimed at?
--
Slack's cool, but the advertising - T-shirts, pins etc., is still a bit geeky. How about a cool gimmick, perhaps a character like 7-Up's Fido Dido, someone to give it a bit of an edge.
How many people does it take to churn out Slackware? Do you think the size or number of people hacking at Slackware will increase once Slackware Linux, Inc. offical comes to light?
Do you see any major techinal issuses or details that will change with the distro it's self once the change from Walnut Creek CD-ROM to Slackware Linux, Inc. is completed? (or will the goals for the Slackware distro remain largely the same?)
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Slackware comes with an RPM to TGZ package converter if you're really hot to have easy packages.
rpm2tgz packagename.rpm installpkg packagename.tgz
Whoo, that's really hard.
This isn't a question, just my observations that may be worthwhile presenting for comment. If Slackware use has slowed, (as the comments here indicate)in may be in no small part due to lack of marketing savvy -and no, I don't mean commercialization. From recent trade shows - I have in my CD library free CDROMs of almost every Linux distro under the sun. At none of the recent shows (Linux Business Expo aka Comdex, Bazarre, LWE New York) did I find Slackware offering free CDs. - Just a Walnut Creek booth offering to sell you T-shirts and CD sets - without even a book for the price. While I have not installed every distro yet, I have played with several of them. Based on my experience with them I was able to make recommendations to folks who ask me "what distro should I use". In the last 4-6 weeks two friends have purchased boxed sets based on my recommendations*. I don't work for a big consulting firm, - I'm just a guy running linux. Aditionally, most people, given the choice between starting their first linux install from a CD or from FTPing a few hundred MB, will choose the CD. - If they like Linux, they will buy the full distro to get the additional applications or to upgrade when the next version comes along. Without the free giveaways Slackware has severly limited its potential growth. I know Slackware is not generally thought of as being for a first time user, but bear in mind that many first time users of _Linux_ at home are coming from a Unix work environemnt. They would be comfortable with Slackware. Thank you, Aaron Greenberg ahg@remove.me linuxfund.org (* I intentionally don't mention what disros I've recommended.)
--Aaron Greenberg
How many people work on the Slackware distro? I just wonder how that compares to the "big boys" like RedHat, Caldera, SUSE, etc...
... RedHat stole me with RH 6.1 though...
I was a solid user of Slackware up to 3.6
BlackNova Traders
I notice that Slackware 7.0 ships with GNU textutils 1.x is there any particular reason for this? Textutils 2.x is in every other distro nowadays.
What is the future of the slackware package system? Using pkgtool I was able to install some software, but any problems and I was thrown for a loop. However, in my recent switch to Debian (slack7 is still on my server, just not desktop computer), all I have to do is apt-get install/upgrade whatever.i.want and it goes out and gets it for me. So now I swear by Debian as a desktop platform over slack and anything else. Is there a future plan to change/upgrade the slack packaging system or maybe adapt someone elses?
----------------------------
--Loco3KGT
--elguapo.penguinpowered.com
----------------------------
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
Heh another question, the ability to install entire distros, just from one or two floppies is pretty nifty and handy when you dont have a cd handy. Are there any plans to add ftp install functionality to slackwares boot disks like debian and freebsd?
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
Hello Patrick, First off, let me say that I love slack and really wouldn't dream of using anything else. Slackware was the linux distro I learned on and it has served me well. I had an arguement with another person who said that all the linux distros were eventually going to move to SysV style init scripts. Are you planning to do a slow transition (if my vote counts, I really hope not) or are you going to say with good old bsd? Thanks
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
I tried slack five years ago, after I migrated to Switzerland.
I tried for weeks, couldnt get the thing to get installed properly. Took help from some experts for the installation and have had been happy since :)
I was trying on the new computer that I bought with loaned money. The old computer that I ahd was running windows 3.1. the new one I had bought off the Media Markt. was running Windows NT 3.5 (Thank GOD I never had the misforture to use Windows 9x).
Actually I didnt know anything about Linux. Infact I was a business stutent when I finished from my college.
My teachers tought me that monopoly is bad, duopoly is bad and leopoly is bad and that competetion is good.
Coming to Switzerland it made me more and more angry about each monopoly (either created by the market or by culture etc example "SwissCom" and "Migros").
When Microsoft started to play the dirty game of bringing their "BROWSER" against Netscape's "SUPERIOR" browser back at that time, it made me think.
- am I doing the right thinkg
- are all rules for the rest of the things in life but not for computers (??)
- Are we getting screwed
- Shall I acept this barging over another company just because they want to keep control of the market?
Ofcoarse not.I am so pleased to say to both you and to Microsoft: Thank you.
In particular, I would like to thank Microsoft Internet Explorer : One product that showed me light and turned me away from Microsoft for EVER-!!
--
If Microsoft is the solution, I want my problems back
One of your stated goals is to keep packages as pristine as possible. I find this to be one of the greatest features of Slackware: I don't need to wait for a package update; I can download the latest source, and pretty much *know* that configure --prefix=/usr && make && make install will do The Right Thing. You also state that you send any changes you need to make back to the developers.
What I wanted to know is, how responsive are developers to this kind of feedback? I recently built & installed something from source (Enlightenment, maybe?) that had a --fsstnd config option, and I thought that just screamed Patrick.
Run FreeBSD on the Alpha.
Run NetBSD on the Sparc.
You'll be happy you switched.
thanx 4 comment
How do you feel about sites like www.linuxmafia.org
Do you or will you include packages generated by sites like this?
Anyone who runs Slak on a compaq laptop must be a god, or unbalanced...
Venyce
remove all references to 007 to email me
I am saddened by the unprofessional nature of the Slackware distribution in comparison to the more highly evolved NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD competitors. A more organized approach at operating system development on behalf of the Slackware team is necessary if it hopes to retain a following of serious researchers and developers, and not fourteen year old neophyte happy hackers. A publically accessible CVS repository should be created, in addition to creating a ports tree and a more sophisticated, robust, and scalable packages implementation. You also need to support ftp installs (with additional DHCP support). Your software updates and security issue responses are anything but timely. You have catching up to do if you expect to play with the big dogs. Even though many feel Slackware is the best Linux distribution, do not let that go to your head. Linux is still an infant compared to the BSDs. The code is hacked together, unaudited as far as a thorough OS-wide assessment goes, and up to date documentation is virtually non-existant. Those are my gripes, and the gripes of many Unix users. What are your plans for the future to remain professional and competitive in the Linux workstation and server markets?
First of all, a rethoric question: 1) Slackware isn't dying, right? 2) Some time ago (it must have passed a year) I asked Patrick about plans for a Slackware for ALPHA cpus. He said he had some beta version running on a machine.. no news after that. All major distribution release non-Intel versions. What about us? 3) People who like slackware, like it because of its "roughness", because you can't live with it without learning, because it's BSD oriented, because it resembles to big unices, because you learn how to compile, because it fits on a 386 w/4Mb - 40Mb HD - no X11, etc. Since there's no need for Yet Another Easy to Install|Configure|Manage distribution (Slack should have changed a lot of time ago in order to catch the wave), are there plans for any structural or epochal changes about the distribution concepts? Thanks..
netbsd or openbsd might be worthwhile trying as well, in particular if you never experienced with bsd before,they both have smaller base install size than freebsd.Try y'know,your knowledge of linux also comes from trying linux right?
If not for the features of a /ports system of freebsd or netbsd (pkgsrc) or openbsd,then for the organization of the entire operating software source.cd into /usr/src and update system with one command:
make install.There may be errors,no guarantees perhaps get the latest release sets instead of snapshots...most likely you will not be interupted with prompts or questions.Next synchronize src/ with a release branch (stable) or -current (cvs checkout.Peek at stdout/stderr a tad bit...ho-hoppin' yankweeed what next,your choice,checkout sources for XFree86.Use CVSup.
I use debian too.
michael
1. What role do/must/should powerful psychedelic drugs play in becoming a skillful hacker?
2. What are the chances of spending a day doing a LinuxBierWanderrung (sp?) at X-Day this year?
And yes, both are serious questions... (sigh) They just won't listen...
Are there any plans to make a "Pentium Optimized Slackware?" We can call it "OptiSlack!" Check out a pic of me at Pat at the NY Linux Expo at: http://www.narced.com/linux/ed+pat_volkerding.jpg
Hi Patrick, I am also a Slackware lover and there is something in Slack's distr politic I have never understood. By default the logout on CTRL + D is not available. The effect of CTRL + D is to print 'Use "exit" to leave the shell' to the console.. here is the question -> Why ? thanks
Being a Mac user and using Slackware at work on our PCs, I'm always on the lookout for Linux ports on the Mac. I really like the structure and tools that you package with Slackware and I'm frustrated with the Mac ports that I've tried. So I was surprised when I came across this little site talking about porting Slackware to a 7200 and G4 Mac (slackintosh.exploits.org). Are you aware of this project and what do you think about its possibilities?
There are a couple of reasons (I feel like I can answer this, I know the guys who made the new page). First, and maybe most importantly, one of the guys who made the web page is colorblind. :-) But in general, it seemed that the grayscale seemed like slackware... simple, elegant, efficient.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
"So much longer"? Try maybe 2 years (if that) Redhat's 1.x releases had code names (ie "Mother's Day" release, "Halloween" release etc). I didn't use it back then, but as I understand it, these were NOT beta versions. They then went to Redhat 2.0 which was ELF and started using version numbers.
You can debate whether Redhat increases version numbers too fast, but they've never skipped a number. The fact that you're not even aware of Redhat before 4.x simply exposes what a newbie _you_ are (speaking as someone who started Linux with Slackware 1.0).
Background: I started Linux using Slackware 1.0, then moved to Redhat 2.0 and then Debian 2.2, so I've been around a bit.
The charges I see levelled most often at other distros (ie Redhat) generally come down to two things:
1. It's too easy to use/is too big, you don't learn
2. It's too unstable.
When I started using Slackware, (1) was certainly a complaint many people who were using SLS or MCC levelled against Slackware. As for (2), I remember the days when smail as shipped with Slackware couldn't deliver to MX addresses, when g++ shipped with the wrong path for its headers compiled in and a dozen other problems. So, it hardly seems like bugs are something Redhat has a monopoly on.
How do you view these "problems?" You've made backhanded comments about Redhat being unstable before, do you think the charges levelled against other distros are fair? Do you think that these days Slackware *is* stable (even if it wasn't) and has the "right" amount of stuff in it (even if people 6 or 7 years ago disagreed and thought it was too big)? How much difference do you think there really is between using one distro or the other?
This saves the hassle of downloading a binary version, installing it, finding I don't like the default configuration, saving any content I might have created with the misconfigured (from my view) version, uninstalling it, and putting that content back later.
Yes, given the choice I also spend a couple minutes modifying my pizza once it arrives. They just don't have all the things I like on my pizza.
Real geeks are a diverse lot.
Debian!
:)
Everyone's favorite not-a-bit-like-RedHat, completely non-commercial (well, except for spin-offs like Corel), power-user distro
When you take away the fluff of the merger/spin-off news what does this really mean for Slackware in terms of development and long-term goals? Will there be more resources working to make Slackware even better than it is today (the best damn distribution of Linux out there IMHO), will there be an attempt to go public and sell your services if so any ideas on partnerships ( this would be good for convincing stubborn bosses to use it more often ). I know this has probably been hashed out already so I'm not going to try and give the pros and cons I'm just interested in what will be happening with an OS that I use on a daily basis.
Regardless of what happens keep up the good work.
Sig--------
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
Do you find that the SubGenius religion and the Linux mindset go well together? :) In all seriousness though, what first caught your attention to linux and made you like it enough to want to distribute it?
;)
Hail Eris
Sgt Pepper
Slackware stayed with libc5 for a long time and "fell behind". It was a reasonable choice, but gave the perception it was out of date.
:-) :-)
Now with verison 7, Slack is once again at the front of the pack. Mandrake has caught up, but RedHat is still in the 6.x series, and many others are still stuck in the dark ages of 2.x.
:-)
--
Infuriate left and right
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
"Slackware" comes from the Church of the Sub Genius. They like slack.
Hello Pat!
;) i had also spoken with you about a sparc port of slackware, and you had told me you couldn't because you needed an sbus frame buffer. please let me know if you still need this!
First i must say it was great meeting you at LinuxWorld!
Now for the serious question!
now that BSDi and Walnut Creek are merging and Slackware is spinning off into it's own company, will Slackware continue to be the company where you can meet it's president/head/whatever at expos and such?
imho, that seriously gave slackware a huge edge over the "commercial" linux distro and the militant (did i say that?) debian folks.
also: any job openings?
That's the beauty of Slackware!
Has anyone actually found the time to even try all the 4500 packages in Debian? Or the thousands in Redhat, Mandrake and SuSE? I've been burned too often using the "default" installation that I choose "custom" whenever possible. But there's no way in hell I'm going to spend two hours of install time just choosing packages.
Who needs 600 chiefs? Slackware takes the smart route by only have a few chiefs, then letting the rest of Open Source take care of their own packages. Unlike Debian, it doesn't take Slack six months to make a decision. But I guess if you have 4500 packages, you have to have maintainers for them.
Why does Debian need 50 support lists? Slack gets by just fine with only one. How does one know which list to ask? Somehow I suspect that the most common reply in the Debian lists is "Wrong list, RTFFAQ!"
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Is that why it takes 50 packages in Debian to equal the one emacs package of any other distro? Hey! I'm joking! Stop the mailbombing okay!
:-)
Seriously, Debian seems to have a greater atomicity with their packages, but that's not the only reason they have 4500 packages. I mean, they have *my* applications as packages too! You can't get much more desperate than that
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Uh, if you take a look, Slack is sitting on store shelves. And it don't need a GUI installer, because the text installer it already has is far easier and robust that anything else. Yes, it's bare bones. That's the whole joy of Slack! No dangly bits of cruft or suffocating fluff.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
So why not include a single foo.bar.1.4 with the joeschmoe fix? Is there any reason to keep the broken version around?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
That's nice, but not what I was really trying to ask about (perhaps I was too delicate). The SLS/Slackware story, as I remember it, involved attempts to "close" an open source license on the SLS install scripts, accusations that somebody was trying to prevent SLS from making money...a bunch of more sensitive issues that were presented way too emotionally at the time to allow any kind of rational analysis or learning to take place. Also, I think the current interest in the story is that SLS was, in many ways, the first Linux company on earth and it went out of that line of business. Slackware was not the sole cause of this by any means, but it is a fact that doesn't seem to be very widely known right now.
Babar
I realize that the RFC's suggest using example.net for hostnames that don't exsist (Similer to the private IP's set aside for non-connected networks) but is there any chance you can change the default hostname back to darkstar.frop.org? It just seems, I dunno, more slackish. :=)
:=)
Also, I miss getting the "Welcome to Pine" emails requested by freshly installed slackware boxen.
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.
I realize that this has already been addressed elsewhere in the article and comments already, but I cannot let something so blatent go without comment.
REDHAT started this, not Slackware. If Pat had done his version numbers the way RedHat does, we'd be on version 20something already, not 7.0. Slackware has been around so much longer than RedHat, it's not even funny. RedHat (AFAIK) never released a 1.0 or a 2.0 version of thier distro. They like to go 4.1, 4.2, 5.0,5.1,5.2,6.1,6.1,6.2, etc. If Slackware did that, we would never have seen Slack 3.0, 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.9, 4.0, etc. We'd be on version 20.2 or something now. So don't start that stupid crap about version numbers, it just proves what a newbie/troll you are.
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
But according to every interpretation of the FHS I've ever read (except for yours :), that's where they should go. /usr/X11R6 is reserved for the X Window System itself, not X applications:
This hierarchy is reserved for the X Window System, version 11 release 6, and related files.
Patrick,
Slackware was also my first Linux. I keep trying others, but I always seem to come back to Slack. But, like several others have mentioned, it's always kind of a pain to upgrade.
I had always used olwm, but I recently switched to KDE. My question is, which window manager do you prefer?
Also, (obligatory dig), do you think Slashdot would have any better response time if they used Slackware?
How much cooperation goes on between the different distro makers? Do you cooperate with debian/redhat/whatever developers?
Who did your site design and what (if any) sites were the inspiration for it? It's the coolest B&W site I've seen yet.
:)
( Slackware user since 1.2.8, 8/95
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Thanks for all your work; Slackware was my first distro, and I think I learned a whole lot more about Unix than if I had pulled another distro of that CD back in '93.
--
This is not my sandwich.
One of the things about slackware that IMHO simply rocks are the BSD-style init scripts, and I would like te know what you're up to in the future. Will slackware evolve to SysV to become the next RH/SuSe/... lookalike, or will we slack-fans be able to happily hack away at our BSD-style initscripts for the rest of times?
Keep up the good work
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]
When I was first getting into Linux a few years back, Slackware the big distribution. Since then Slackware's popularity has taken a hard dive. My question, in two parts, is this: What do you beleive are the major reasons Slackware lost its place of dominance, and what do you see Slackware doing in the future to make up that lost ground?
You people must get harassed by this all the time. I'd love to see some slackware STUFF. Like ThinkGeek.net or Copyleft.com STUFF. Shirts! Ties! Clothe myself in the greatest Linux distro!
;)
I recently abandoned the filth which is RedHat for slackware and don't regret it. Slackware does everything RIGHT, and I think it's great that it's not dumbed down or pretty. That's one of the key reasons that it can be used for everything for my school work (Sr Project was done on Linux, in Slack 4, and StarOffice got me a 6 for my speech) to my ADSL connection server (firewall and gateway for the family 'doze boxen).
So, I would like to see some slack stuff. =) Keep the cool black logo. =)
--Joshua Knarr
Previous slackware professional hassler.
"If it is broken, fix it. If it is fixed, improve upon it. This becomes one helluva cycle."
Hi Patrick,
With the split from Walnut Creek, what does the future hold for the Slackware Linux Project? In the past 12 months, companies like Red Hat and Caldera have really pushed their distributions. Will Slackware be promoted more in future? (I would hate to see it sidelined.) What can I do as an individual to advocate Slack?
Also, whilst I applaud Slackware's adherance to Linux (and BSD) standards, how much of an interest do you take in the actual creation of these standards?
Thanks,
Dave H.
Slackware has always taken stability and usability over ease of use. (Thank God)
Does branching off into your own company affect the priciples behind Slackware? In other words Will this mean Slackware will have to become easier in order to compete with the other Linuces?
I personally prefer the stable over the easy. If I wanted easy I would be in another OS.
This space intentionally left blank.
I use Slackware at home and at work, and simply love this distro of Linux. I would love to be able to run Slackware on my Sun hardware at work, or even have a 64-bit version of Slackware for some of the better machines (Sun Ultra series) at work.
Do you have any plans to port Slackware to other platforms?
Slackware's a great distro, and I thank you for all the hard work you and others have done!
I think it's great that you're (Slackware) becoming your own company. Now, the questions:
1. Will you continue to be the sole maintainer of Slackware, or will you be bringing on help?
2. Are there any plans to add a more "user friendly", if you will, package management? I know there's RPM support, so this may not even be an issue, though.
3. I believe it was mentioned before, but will any work be done on upgradeability? I understand the switch from libc5 to glibc needing a full reinstall, it makes sense, but what about upgrading Slackware 7?
4. Most of the time, when I read distro flame wars, the 2 that always come out on top are Debian and Slackware. I have to assume that you do this because you love it, but do you care about whether or not the world loves Slackware?
Thanks for your time, and even moreso, THANK YOU FOR SLACKWARE!
Mike
Sure, I have a thankless job. That's okay. I have a lot of (non
Patrick, Do you still live in the Fargo-Moorhead area? I always suspected that the Internet made geography rather irrelevant, but your location, I am guessing, is fairly distant from your developers and partners. Has geography played much of a hinderance in Slackware? Has the Internet made up for this by harnessing collaboration?
according to the Linux Counter, 29.83% of all Linux machines run Red Hat and 29.06% runs Slackware
Can you explain your reasons for finally switching? Can anyone explain why libc6 is at least 6 times the size of libc5!? Why is libc6 better when almost all programs seem to link against libc5 without problems?
How does one build a libc6 based single disk Linux install? Also, whoever decided to make two incompatible versions of libc6 should be taken out and shot!
This might seem an unreasonable rant, but I didn't have any compatibility or linking problems with Linux (using since 93) until libc6 came along. I'd just like to know what the reasons behind the switch were and why libc6 is so much better that I have to waste 3mb of ram holding it?
libc6 == bloat (IMHO)
I've been a Slackware user for 5 years now. Recently, I upgraded from 3.2 to 7.0 and it's even nicer now. Is there any change that upcoming Slackware releases will come with a java development kit?
http://www.terratoday.com - Environmental news, discussions & more!
Hi Pat, There are some myths going around about Slackware: (1) "Lacks easy installation" Slack is the easiest of all distros to install. I have timed myself, and I can install Slack in 6 minutes (this includes the loading time of the boot/root floppies). I've installed around 10 other distros, and none are as easy as Slack. (2) "Lacks easy maintainability" At the factory, how many people does it take to maintain RH or SuSE, and how many does it take to (not quite) maintain Debian? Now how many does it take to maintain Slack? If far fewer people are able to produce the quality that we all observe in Slackware, then I would think that the package management techniques are correct. (question) I think the only thing lacking in Slack is promotion. Since you have some helpers now, do any of them have a flair for (and plans for) some promotion?
First off, slack has been my favorite distro for many years now; it's running a couple of our servers here (which is a medium sized .edu)
However, interoperability is now more important than it's ever been in the past, and PAM support in slackware is unfortunately lacking. We'll be rolling out linux to ~1500 public workstations RSN where we'll need either LDAP or NDS authentication. I'm not liking the prospect of having to roll out RedHat. (yuck) Of course I'll give recompiling binutils & company myself a shot (and make it into a package if I succeed) but I thought I'd just ask:
What's the state of future PAM support?
Mark Schlouse
PS Keep up the great work!
And not Debian that has 4500 packages, 600 developers, open development, 50 suport lists, bug tracking system?
Patrick Volkerding is one of the most knowledgeable members of the community. I learned alot from Slakware and consider it one of the prime LINUX distributions.
I, however, am looking forward to LSB and hope that it is finished soon; I respect Mr. Volkerding's opinion on LSB's non-application to Slakware but also believe that LINUX needs LSB. It would be great if Mr. Volkerding would lend his guiding hand toward helping LSB - maybe it would be even better than it is now.
My Question:
Will you please assist LSB even if you have no desire to adhere to it?
Till Microsoft owns it, make mine Slakware.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
First let me say this: I use Red Hat at work, my room mates use Debian, but there's always been a special place in my heart for Slackware. I stopped using it when I decided to upgrade my system wholesale (for glibc 2.0 betas, as I recall) and I didn't want to fuss with upgrading everything by hand (now I use OpenBSD and FreeBSD at home). If Slackware upgrades are now (or were with 3.4) quite safe and as easy as I describe, discount this :)
/usr/local, /etc, /home, /root, /mnt, and possibly /var alone, and then manually upgrading /etc -- as a way to add better upgradability to Slackware?
/etc. Would it be possible to add scripts in the packages so that they check for possible overwrites into protected directories and if so, install the new ones as e.g. /etc/foo.conf.new -- and throw a message to the console saying either "new config file written, it's the same file as in the last distribution" or "new config file written, it's in a new format so you'll need to migrate before using this package at all"?
Have you considered looking at, e.g., OpenBSD's method for upgrading -- installing all the base packages except etc.tar.gz, which replaces everything in the tarballs but leaves
I guess the only problem with this is that, as I recall, each individual package puts its own stuff in
--Matthew
1. When is the official Slackware book that is packaged in the boxed version going to be updated?
2. Do you feel the least bit screwed by Walnut Creek or did you see this coming?
3. How soon (if at all) before Oracle certification?
4. VMWare is great - why do they treat Slack so bad (distro = other)?
I started Linux with slackware, Late 92, early 93 for at least a couple of years Slackware was Linux to me; my informitve Linux years.
I wanted to thank you for that.
You have been involved for a very long time in Linux years. How do you feel about the meshing of th "Old days" and what Linux is now? Most Slash posters, where not around Linux back then, can you talk about what where the problems you had then and now?
I think most people forget how much of Linux was/is
the Distro and how much of Linux's early success is because of Slackware, can you comment?
"Think of it as evolution in action."
I've been a happy Slackware user forever now, and I have some questions.
1.) I've liked Slackware because it doesn't hide what it does behind pretty interfaces. You have easy access to the entire system should you decide to configure any part of it. Obviously, the version jump from 4 to 7 was to keep up with 'Competition' per se....are we going to see that same rivalry enter the distribution? (I.e.: We have to have a pretty interface because the others do!) I like Slack for what it is, and I hope it doesn't become another Red Hat. Slackware is touted for it's Stability and power, and those are two things that we don't want to go away.
2.) Now that Slackware has spun off into it's own entity, are there any changes going to be implemented into it that you couldn't do before? What I mean is, were there anyt limitations imposed on you at Walnut Creek that you are free to do now? Or are you going to need to bring on more maintainers because the main guys are busy with corporate stuff? (Hint Hint....I can work for you!)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Instead of talking about how stable the new release is, or how many new features they've included many makers of distros only talk about how the new version is the easiest ever to install.
Do you have any idea why every new version of existing distros seem to emphasize their idiot-friendliness? And do you think it's good or bad?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Now that this is years in the past, would you care to make any comments about the early relationship between Slackware and SLS, and what if anything you think this teaches us in the Free Software (or Open Source) community today?
Babar
Hi Patrick:
The default installation leave the machine open on a wide variety of services (rpc, anoymous ftp, telnet, etc.) Slackware is not alone in this, all distributions do it. But this leaves the machine open to all sorts of exploits.
Wouldn't it be better to have all such daemons turned off by default (esp. for installations geared towards home users)? The choice to open up services should be a positive choice on the part of the users, perhaps after a short warning about the security implications of running network daemons.
How about Slackware taking the lead in this area?
I have used Slackware since version 3.1. It was my first distrib and it has always heald a place in my heart. I have noticed over the years that Slackware hasn't changed much. The installation program hasn't changed in all these years. Installation is still kinda tricky. There isn't a real packaging system (tgz's don't really count). It doesn't come in a nice box with a nice manual and tech support. It doesn't come with a lot of software like the other distribs. There is no exclusive, Slackware developed software. It's a fairly bare bones, Do It Yourself distrib. Now that there is going to be more money involved, is all this going to change? Are we going to see a GUI installation, Slackware Package Manager, people working on Slackware software, a boxed distrib that one can pick up at a computer store, distribution on DVD-ROM with more bundled software, and other features some of the distribs with more money have? Slackware deserves to be right up there with the rest of them. Perhaps now Slack can get the recognition it deserves.
Seeing the success of recently IPOed linux companies (Redhat and others are still going quite strongly, more then 6 monthes after the release). Is there any plan for Slackware, now a seperate company, to persue additional funding with a public stock offering?
Spyky
Patrick, The Linux landscape has changed remarkably in recent times. We've gone from Linux being a tool soley for that subset of humanity that actually understands what happens "under the hood" of their computers, arriving today at distros that are targeted to the unwashed masses. In my experience Slackware has always focused on the hacker rather than the average Joe/Jane on the street--this is what has set Slackware apart from the rest that are moving toward "ease of use" and propritary package upgrades... Given the increasingly crowded marketplace (and the fact that it's only going to get more crowded) how does Slackware intend to continue to differentiate itself from all the rest? And how will that differentiation lead toward profitability for the comapny and its investors?
Smell that? You smell that? Burning karma, son. Nothing in the world smells like that...
I have used Slackware since version 1.0 (gosh, I'm old). I am currently a fan of ZIPSLACK. I use it to introduce Windows people to Linux. However, I'm concerned about rushing new releases out the door. I had never seen Linux crash (core dump) until I installed version 7.0. Every time I did an 'ls /dev', I dumped. Three finger salute. Only after I fixed my mouse did this stop. I do not trust this version, I fell back to 4.0. How many different pc configurations do you test on before releasing a version? Does your web site list these systems?
After Yggdrasil, there was Slackware, then the Linux distribution market segmented into niches (Red Hat for servers, Caldera/Mandrake for workstations, Corel for desktops, SuSE for Europe, and Debian for GNU). There are plenty of shops that have used Linux for years (pre 2.0), so I know that there are production boxen that are still running Slackware instead of Red Hat.
I think Slackware is still relevant, and a great "hacker-ware" environment, and fills the needs of organizations that have used Linux years before these other distributions made their mark, but is there any particular market that Slackware is targeted to?
--
E2 IN2 IE?
Hi Patrick,
I used slackware from 1996 to late 1999.
I'm embarassed to say that I swiched to
Linux Mandrake since I got tired of doing
things by hand all the time, especially with
the difficulty of keeping track of packages
that I installed by
./configure; make; make install.
First question: do you think there is an
easy way to integrate the above process with
a package handling mechanism, so that I could
use make install to install the package
and pkgtool to uninstall it? Is any work
being done on it?
Thanks,
Hari.
What do you think about the UMSDOS version's of LINUX and the many slackware spinoffs (mostly mini-distro's)?
Do you plan to release a _smaller_ (mini) version of bigslack(zipslack with X)?
* "Uncle this droid is malfunctioning" -- Luke Skywalker
Slackware is certainly known to be one of the longest running Linux Distro's. It's popular among ISP who like the advanced user interface.
However, a year ago many ISP mailing lists were commenting that Slackware releases were few and far between. Poeple wondered if Slackware was still being developed. Now there is a lot of momentium behind Slackware.
Was there this perception of Slackware no longer being developed real? Or would you say it's associated with the low key media attention Slackware gets (or doesn't get)?
-- iceburn
A sphincter says what?
Will you support the LSB? If not, why not?
Do you think the LSB is important to insure future compatibility and vendor support for all the Linux distributions?
kfort
RPM is the most-used, and often, most-hated of the options, with Debian's dpkg/dselect and BSD Ports vying for the "most-loved" status.
The Ports use of what amount to "just plain makefiles" gives it the merit of being the most "traditionally-UNIX-like" packaging scheme.
Is there likely to be any "convergence" of the sort where libraries are added/modified so as to maximize the ability to use something like Ports?
I left Slackware in about '95 in favor of what I saw then as improved manageability of Red Hat's RPMs. I have since migrated to Debian, which provides better answers than RPM. It would be interesting to see the tide turn back due to Ports providing more deeply improved system manageability...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
What will be the featureset (and projected date) of the next Slackware release? XFree86 4.0.x, Linux 2.4.x?
-- adraken
While Slackware certainly is not new, once it was. What was it about distributions at that time that caused you to create a new one? What did you think that they lacked?
Sam TH
Sam TH
AbiWord Developer
Patrick:
... but since Red Hat makes fewer big-picture demands re. dependencies, etc, I wonder if it'd be the (currently) obvious pick for such applications.
For the past few years, Slackware has steadfastly remained modular rather than go in for an idiot-savant installer package. (I'm not knocking either approach, so please, no flames!).
Does this make Slackware better suited than, say, Red Hat, for the creation of site- or institution-specific distro packages? I believe that CAEN Linux at the U of Michigan Engineering school is based on Red Hat, and obviously any open source OS *could* be made site-specific
Thanks for doing this interview!
timothy
p.s. Like many others, Slackware (from a CD in the back of some book) was the first experience I had with Linux, and though it took me much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I eventually got it going and was happy at how much smoother and cooler a Linux system with X Window was than the Win3.1 which had come on the machine. Thanks.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
If you look around right now, you'll notice that of the Linux distributions out there, most are either Red Hattish (as in, gone commercial, trying to become easier to use, etc.), really small and relatively insignificant (nothing against Linux Mandrake but....), or, well... Slackware! I'm just wondering what you see for the future. Slackware is the only distro that is relatively "major", yet hasn't given in to the commercial rush and zillion dollar IPOs (although feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Do you know if the user base of Slackware is going up or down? And what do you see for the future of Slackware and Linux in general?
Patrick,
In your opinion, how do you see the BSDi and Walnut Creek merger affecting Linux in the next few months? year?
David Hill
Slackware is my distribution of choice for two main reasons, it's powerful, and it hasn't been poisoned by 'userfriendliness'.
Why hasn't it been? Seems every Linux distro (slackware aside) that's making money has made their distribution as brain-dead as possible. Where slackware users are expected to have an idea of what they're doing. Is it laziness, or is it out of respect for those who want a no-BS distro?
---
script-fu: hash bang slash bin bash
[ approaching AI ]
Hi, I don't have a question really (unless the one below counts), I just wanna say keep up the good work lad(s).
I wouldn't trade slack for any other dist in the world.
BTW, X-Files, Simpsons or Buffy?
cheers, Per Rydström, a happy slack-user
[www.vvv.tf]
C'mon... lets see if moderation REALLY decides what gets asked of Patrick... or if Roblimo just does it himself...
If you had one wave of the wand and could change only one thing about the Linux community (in the traditional and/or the new, more business-oriented sense), what would it be?
How did you come to the name Slackware? DId it hit you during a long nights of smoking from the holy frop with bob? Did stang climb in your window and wisper it in your ear while you were asleep? Was it the Xists?
Hi Patrick!
I was an avid Slackware user in the mid-nineties, but after a few years I moved over to other distributions due to the lack of easy upgradability and package management. How upgradable will future versions of Slackware be? Are there any plans for Slack to move to FreeBSD style packagement management (which rocks imho)?
EraseMe
I have been a loyal user of Slackware for many years. I have always wondered why isn't the development process more open. For example, Debian has a very open process in which volunteers can contribute to the packaging of the distribution. Slackware does not seem to allow for that, that is, you seem to be in complete control of what goes out the door. Do you plan to allow for users to assist in development or do you wish for things to remain the same?
Now that "Slackware Linux Inc." is being spun off, are there any plans to honor J. Robert "Bob" Dobbs by designating him Chairman Emeritus? What kind of poison-pill-defenses are going to be included in the corporate bylaws to prevent being taken over by X-ists, or for that matter, anyone from Cupermond or Redtino?
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
I've always viewed Slackware as the all purpose workhorse of the Linux distributions. It's always done things better and faster in the server role. Now as everyone is pushing to get Linux on the desktop, I'd like to know what Slackware's Direction in this area. Will it remain focused on playing the server role, or will the distribution splinter into different job roles, or will it follow the crowd and push for the desktop?
Thanks and Regards,
- Nick
I've been a Slackware user since 3.4 and absolutly love it. I don't like most package management systems out there and am glad that Slack doesn't use one (well, if you don't count pkgtool). Unfortunately this seems to be a bit of a problem when it comes to upgrading, seeing as you usually have to just reinstall from scratch and hope you have a good backup of your config files. How do you plan on addressing the issue of upgradability in future releases of Slackware, and do you think a better solution can be achieved through the install scripts without having to revert to an rpm-style package management system.
-Lee
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GIT d? s: a-- C++++ UL++++ P++ L+++ E- W++ N o-- K- w--- O- M+ V PS+ P
Are you considering any packaging and dependency system, or do you consider tarballs as all a true hacker needs?
Now that you are a separate company (spinning merrily off...), what will your distribution channel be? Will it still be handled by Walnut Creek? What about the Slackware-by-subscription option?
OTOH, keep up the good work, and good luck - from a _very_ satisfied Slack user.
With the formation of your company, will this give you the resources to port Slackware to the PPC and Alpha? Are there any plans for this?
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
I was wondering if Slackware would include an ftp install method in some future version similar to FreeBSD, NetBSD, Redhat. I realize ftp has some serious drawbacks compared to NFS or CD install but I found it quite handy when I wanted to give FreeBSD and NetBSD a try. If not ftp, what about the possibility of opening up an public NFS server that will export the latest stable version of Slackware since many of us may not have an extra machine to set up NFS on. It could just run off the same machine as the ftp server for Slackware, right? Just a couple of thoughts.
Thanks Patrick
Ken J.
Hi Pat,
I've been using slackware for years now, it was my first distribution back in the 2.x era and other then my little stint with debian for about a month I've been running it ever since.
It's been my observation that slackware has been the most "download friendly" distribution, by that I mean it's segmented into disk sets and you only need to download the ones you want to install it. Other distributions seem to obfuscate this process (redhat complains during install if it cannot absolutely find every package, as do many others).
The reason behind this I think is that they want people to buy it, so they obfuscate and make it difficult to download the distribution.
Now wil Slackware apparently getting spun off into a seperate company, will there be more pressure to sell more units, and will this "download friendliness" change?
-- iCEBaLM
Hi, Partick,
I understand that you have chosen
not to participate in the LSB. The reasons
mentioned were:
a) That you prefer the old "unix" way of
doing things.
b) You feel that these ways should be
THE standard.
There must be good technical and marketing
reasons behind your preferences. Could you please
elaborate on both? Thanks.
Hari.
Most (all?) of the other "major" distributions have gone the way of commercial and public acceptance (meaning ease of installation, and ease of use). Slackware, on the other hand, is still very much geared towards the linux user that already knows what they're doing. Do you plan on making Slackware "pretty", like the others, or do you plan on honing it into a development environment for power users? Or perhaps something else entirely?
.------------ - - -
| big bad mr. frosty
`------------ - - -