Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the duck-and-cover dept.
tiny69 noted that Slackware has
announced 7.1 is out of beta and now officially the Real Deal.
Here's the ChangeLog and a mirror. 2.2.16 Kernel, Gnome 1.2, and others. Remember back when everyone ran Slack 'cuz thats all there really was?
In February, i *finally* obtained a box to play with Linux on - an old 486/50 with a 1.2GB hdd. The big thing that finally make me go with Slackware is the the size of the installation. The default Red Hat installation would have completely crammed my hdd. With slackware, though, they put together a package of really good, useful software, and fit it into a ~600mb installation. For running on low-end hardware, it was awefully nice to get such a powerful yet efficently assembled distro.
Plus, i mean, "Slackware"... that just sounds cool. =^) -legolas
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
If youre running it off of a 50 mhz computer, chances are you won't be installing X, or anything that has to do with X, so you can kiss about 9/10 of the extra software good bye.
No, dude. This was my point - i had a full install, with X and programs, in the small installation. (X runs ok on a 486/50 if you're careful to optimize). And it's easy to install slackware bit by bit. Just my experience. -legolas
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
Re:Good for small installations.
by
pabs
·
· Score: 1
I have a Red Hat 6.0 install running on a 486/25 with a 300 meg drive. Space is a bit tight (~20 megs free normally), but it does what it needs to do(web and ftp server).
But I do agree that Slackware is a better choice for space conscious installs.
-- odds of being killed by lighning and
--
Odds of being killed by lightning and
winning the lottery in the same day: 1 in 2^55
Re:Bring the hammer down on *nix.
by
MadPhatTim
·
· Score: 1
Pretty serious. I am venting on the lack of recent innovation. I haven't seen a feature released in any recent OS candidates that has made me mutter, "Wow, thats fraggin' cool".
Come on. The encrypted swap space support of OpenBSD 2.7 definitely has the "Wow, that's fraggin' cool" feel. It also has the "Wow, I have absolutely no need for that" feel, but that's beside the point.
Conversely, it is not a negative thing to use a system where you don't have edit these settings manually (even though you know how to do it). Like I said, what prevents the poster from totally ignoring the advice in block letters and proceed to edit/etc/resolv.conf,/etc/fstab,/etc/inittab or whatever his li'l heart wishes?
And it is not a negative thing to learn and to avoid doing mistakes. I learned how to swim without ever having to drown, what about yourself?
-- Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
I got it now! When my car runs out of gas it is "rock solid" too: its position in my garage is "stable" and it is not prone to crashes or accidents. Glad you clarified that for me...
A wise man once said, and I think it entirely appropriate for your comment, "Don't be a dick.
In this instance, referring to software, "rock solid" means "stable." A "rock solid" piece of software is robust, bug-free, and fault tolerant. A "rock solid" program can handle bad user input with grace, doesn't have memory leaks or security issues, does not crash at random, and is capable of handling any problems that come up during the use of the program (traps errors before they become problematic enough that the program can't continue).
When referring to cars, "rock solid" means that the vehicle in question is of high-quality, can run for a very long time (years) without things going wrong with the car, and capable of performing feats that lesser quality cars could not - hauling sailboats three times its size, filling a truck bed with several tons of rock and moving it up 45-degree-incline hills, and so on (hence the line of Chevy truck commercials that end with the tagline, "Chevy - Like A Rock").
Kudos to you, Alan (nice name BTW,:-) you summed up my toughts and experience about this whole distro war shenanigan.
I too have tinkered with Slack and a miriad installation floppies, and having a boot floppy and a root floppy and manually configuring PPP, X and compiling a thousand packages over and again. These days, I like the fact that when I insert a CD in the drive it is automounted and a file manager window pops up.
That leaves me more time to compile and configure Emacs to my heart's content:-)
-- Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
How does Patrick determine when a new release is needed? Anyone know?
I have been using slackware for several years now and it is still my favorite distro. I like the way you can edit the config files each individually without having to worry about screwing up an autoconfig tool. I have tried redhat and debian but they both seem to over-complicate basic system initialization. I like the *BSD style system init in slackware. It is very straight forward and easy to understand what is happening and in what order.
I never had a problem when I first installed slackware. It has never bugged me with a utility I thought was crap(linuxconf) and package management is the Changelog file and and 33.6 modem.
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Re:We all remember slashdot..
by
finkployd
·
· Score: 1
That would really throw me off, I've only read the first book:)
Finkployd
Re:Slackware is the best alternative to *BSD
by
haggar
·
· Score: 1
Fight fire with fire, I say. If people spout FUD and what is essentially meaningless words ("rock solid" this, "UNIX like" that) why should I retract from spreading FUD about *BSD and Slackware?
You know, I think this is really the scum of the world. Fight evil with evil? Risking to be offtopic, but I think Jesus' words contain a big lesson for you (and anyone else, for that matter).
Not really, I was just warming up. The expression "rock solid" doesn't mean robust, bug-free and fault tolerant per se, if you read/. carefully. It usually conveys a judgement of value of one piece of software (say, Slackware) in comparison to another (say, Redhat). As such, it is simply a propaganda term not any more meaningful than the lower TCO that is built from the ground up in NT, according to the Micro~1 marketing machine.
Thus, and to the same effect, proponents of Slackware (and the Slackware creators themselves) parrot this and similar expressions whilst comparing both distributions, solely for their propaganda value. Sure, an argument can be made that Slackware packagers are more careful in their package selection and the testing of said packages, but considering that most of what is shipped by each distribution is composed of the same software packages (which incidentally are not created by either Slackware or Redhat), this is really a moot point.
So what is really fair when comparing distributions? IMHO it's what they aggregate (package management systems, new packages etc), and in that respect, Redhat produces more and better software than Slackware.
So, how's that for a dick, eh?
-- Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Dude, who cares? An older distro is better than a newer distro when it comes to old hardware (except for known security holes).
This is true; Slackware 4.0 might not be a bad choice. That's what I'm running on my 486 right now, although I may change (I haven't really decided yet). For even older systems, Slackware 3.6 might not be bad (2.0.x kernel).
If I were you, I'd just install an old copy of slackware 4.0 and update with some of the newer packages form Slackware 7.1
Dude, are you trying to make him hate life? Not cool. Or are you just not a Slackware user?
--
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Slack vs Debian
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
Personally, I use Solaris and it owns the fuck out of Linux, the non-conforming piece of shit (not even "real" UNIX anyway).
I agree with you on the point on linux not being a "real" unix. But to put Solaris in the same category as FreeBSD is definately LARTworthy. I'm forced to use Solaris at work (Though I've got 2 other machines, with Linux on one and FreeBSD on another). Solaris has got to be the most bloated and buggy OS next to Windows. There are patch releases for Solaris about every 2 days (I have a cron job with downloads and installs the recommended and security patches when they're available). The "Patch Clusters" for Solaris are about as big as a small installation of Slackware (30Megs and up for older releases of Solaris).
For security reasons, I've put my FreeBSD box as the gateway to all my computers. This is because I don't fully trust Linux security, and I don't trust Solaris security at ALL.
FreeBSD is better for security and stability, making it a good server / router.
Linux has far better multimedia support, since thats where the development is being done. This makes it good for a personal desktop system
Solaris sucks at everything, except being bloated, slow and buggy.
Only slackware would do a stable release when kernel 2.4 is right on the horizon:)....
You don't think this means they're done, do you? Personally I'm not terribly interested in running kernel 2.0.0; I'd much rather wait for, say, 2.0.4 or thereabouts.
--
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
So *nix is the glue. But everyone (except Windows zealots) knows that the banking system runs on IBM. The standard text ATM runs OS/2, and the database back end is probably also OS/2 or in medium to large banks OS/400. You don't need *nix. As for the internet, we all know it existed long before Linux and could run just as well on many other operating systems. For example, andover.net.
I work at a $600 mill bank and we run Unixware on our Unisys mainframe and a lot of other banks do to. But it isn't Linux so maybe your point is valid on that part.
Re:Bring the hammer down on *nix.
by
sneakcjj
·
· Score: 1
Then write one yourself:). What kind of innovations do you want? If everything one needs to use their computer has already been written then why innovate? Writting a better word processor is not innovating, that's just building a better mouse trap. Innovation means coming up with something truly bleeding edge. Something COMPLETELY unique and I haven't seen that since win95 (as far as OS's and their features go and before I started using Linux). Rather than complain about the lack of innovation, why not say "hey, wouldn't it be cool if b, c or d feature could be included in x, y or z OS?" Get off the bandwagon.
Re:Slackware is the best alternative to *BSD
by
Phroggy
·
· Score: 1
When I can't run *BSD (i.e. need vmware at work) I run Slackware!
I tried running the demo of vmware. The installer hated Slackware with a passion. Have they fixed the installer, or did you have to do some major hacking? I hacked with it for 20 minutes getting it to install, then when it refused to run I gave up and hacked with it for another 15 minutes getting it to go away. Not a pleasant experience.
--
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
However, I have run into Slack users and they have stated that most hard core linux users run Slack. I am curious as to what would be the advantages of Slack over Debian, and visa versa.
No, serious. I would have expected more hard core Linux users to install their system themselves. Is there something that is too hard to do yourself that prevents LFS from becoming as popular as e.g. Slackware?
Re:Bring the hammer down on *nix.
by
nd
·
· Score: 1
hmm.. nice troll i guess.
or are you serious?
Re:Bring the hammer down on *nix.
by
SoulStriker
·
· Score: 1
Pretty serious. I am venting on the lack of recent innovation. I haven't seen a feature released in any recent OS candidates that has made me mutter, "Wow, thats fraggin' cool".
Ha, glad you took in good humor the "spouting BS" thing, I got a little carried away. The trouble is that I get really annoyed at this hardcore Slackware macho thing, all people who use other distros are weenies... It's all free, it's all Linux, GNU etc after all.
To answer your question: do I really need all 706 packages? Not really, but:
I got disk space to spare (13G, baby!);
I install a lot of things just to check them out (Kdevelop, Gnapster etc);
It took me less time to install 706 packages on tonga than it took you to compile 227 on farside (unless it is a Bowulf cluster:-)
Even though I really don't use ed(1) all that much, it's nice to know it is there if I need it (God forbid!)
The irony of all that, is that the piece of software I use the most (by far) is Emacs, which I pluck from the CVS tree, configure and compile by myself. Go figure. It is, at least, a lot more fun than compiling and configure sendmail:-).
-- Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Not really so. OK, I agree, I have only one body to use as a learning workstation and a production system). Bu why can you not be able to learn that rm -rf/ is probably a bad idea without ever having to actually do so (as another poster suggested)? To prove that, you will have to prove that screwing your system is the only to learn how not to screw your system. A difficult proposition, at best.
After all, the point of RTFM is to learn how to do what you have to do, and not recovering from a shot in your foot, after a misguided attempt at doing it.
-- Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Sure, an argument can be made that Slackware packagers are more careful in their package selection and the testing of said packages, but considering that most of what is shipped by each distribution is composed of the same software packages (which incidentally are not created by either Slackware or Redhat), this is really a moot point.
There are a couple of problems in your statement here which render it "not a moot point."
For one thing, while the type of software that Red Hat and Slackware (since you use this as a comparison) ship may be similar (both, for instance, ship XFree86, GNOME, KDE, etc.), the specific software varies. Slackware may ship slightly older software, or may in fact wait a much longer period of time before shipping a specific version of software. Such was the case in the libc5 vs. libc6/glibc. Red Hat jumped into the fray with libc6/glibc, and to their detriment found it was not quite ready for primetime use. As a result, the perceived quality of Red Hat's software was lowered in the eyes of many users, because the library was not fully tuned, tested, or debugged. Slackware, up until 7.0, continued using libc5 because it was a tried, tested, and debugged library. Only when libc6/glibc was finally quality, dependable software did Slackware switch over. For some, Slackware's reluctance to switch was a hindrance because they couldn't use the latest-and-greatest software that was compiled for other platforms like Red Hat. Others, however, saw that the libc6/glibc libraries were more prone to problems and wanted to avoid them until they were ready.
For another thing, you'll find that because Slackware takes their time in shipping bleeding edge software, the distribution is less prone to security faults than Red Hat's distribution is. While Red Hat has the latest and greatest software, and as a result can offer somewhat more features than Slackware can (depending on the software), Red Hat issues security updates/patches for their distribution more than Slackware does. A significant number of people value security/stability over features - and Slackware is more to their taste. Is this to say Red Hat is crash-prone, or "bad" software? No. It's simply catering to different tastes.
For a third thing, your statement ignores the qualitative differences between distributions that having nothing to do with software. The style of Red Hat's init scripts versus Slackware's, for instance. Some prefer Slackware's init script style because it's more BSD-ish than Red Hat. Does that make it bad? No - it's just catering to a different taste. Some people also like the fact that Slackware has a very minimalistic package management system, because it forces them to learn more about the system and because it offers them more control over their software (whether it actually does or not is an arguable point). Does this make SysV scripts and RPMs bad? No - it just offers a different way of doing things that some people might find less to their taste. Others, as can be witnessed on this thread, find RPMs to be the greatest thing since sliced bread!
So what is really fair when comparing distributions? IMHO it's what they aggregate (package management systems, new packages etc), and in that respect, Redhat produces more and better software than Slackware.
Quantity vs. quality as a valid metric? Shove as much into the distribution as possible, and you're guaranteed to be considered "the best?" That's a spotty judgement call at best.
You're right when you say it's fair to judge distributions on what they aggregate. But relying *soley* on that aggregative factor is ignoring everything else that makes distributions unique. It's just as much propaganda to claim that Red Hat is better because it has more to it as it is to claim that Slackware is better because it is "rock solid." It's just different, not better.
Further, judging which distribution is "best" involves knowing who you are judging it for. For desktop users who want an install-and-go Linux experience, Red Hat is overwhelmingly the better choice. However, for those users who want to delve into the system and not have their hand held by GUI utilities, or who want a slightly more "generic" Linux experience (and, admit it or not, Red Hat provides an awful lot of custom utilities for administrating their distribution), or who don't want to become dependent on a packaging system, Slackware is probably the better choice.
Don't be a distribution bigot. Choose the distribution because it's the best for you, not because some Slashdot hack says so. (It's kinda like those Sprite commercials. You wouldn't listen to some moron spout off his mouth about other things; why listen to them do it about distributions?) Just be content that what you use is the best one for you, and let everybody be free to choose their distribution based on the merits of those distributions.
Failures doesn't have to be fatal. If I screw up my resolv.conf by trying something bad, all I have to do is restore my old resolv.conf from backups. If I try to strip all the libaries in/usr/lib while running the system (did that a couple of weeks ago) bad things will happen. It's not worse than SysRq-U, SysRq-B, wait for reboot to complete and then you continue where you left. I do read manuals, I don't whine when something's fucked up. I just learn from what I did and avoid doing it again.
Yech....I got Yggdrasil free with some other software purchase from Programmer's Paradise many years ago (gosh, what was I buying...an editor? Can't remember). I was using SCO at the time, so I figured, can't be much worse.
After much install pains, I tried to get X working, and it failed miserably, on a relatively generic video card (Trident, I believe). I basically gave up.
The one nice thing I remember about Yggdrasil at the time was that it was the first dist. of anything I had seen that you could actually run the OS off the CD without installing. Incredibly slow on my double-speed CDROM, of course, but still a neat idea.
Slackware's a good dist., but then again I haven't had any real issues with RH either. Personally, though, I run Sol x86 anyway.
Good for you, I prefer the overzealous approach of avoiding fucking up the most I can (though I sure have done my share of it). I just think it is more prudent, but different folks, different strokes. The notion of the fatality of a failure is very realtive also, the system you just rm -rf/ the living soul out of, may be an unimportant spare box that nevertheless has a complete, recent backup, who knows? Not every cat has nine lives, though.
-- Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Idiot. VMS can run the Internet just fine without any *nix at all. And VMS was the first POSIX compliant system while *nix was splintering into the fractious and fractured community it is today (huh? a non-unix system was the most unix-compliant system at one time? That's right, kid, now go suck your pacifier). Just because DEC stabbed itself in the heart by firing Olsen, just because the drones that ran him out couldn't sell ice in the Gobi desert, doesn't mean that VMS wasn't technically superior. I have personally built an Internet node using nothing but VMS and a single Cisco router (didn't need the router, either - it was just easier that way). And it was fundamentally more secure than any *nix system can be, because there is no concept of a "root user" on VMS. When the Morris worm blew down two thirds of the *nix variants, the VMS-driven portions of the Internet did not crash, did not become unuseable, did not fail from lack of "*nix glue" they kept right on running. And I still got my Email. Linux & the BSDs are better because they are free, and open source. That's the whole ticket. They are technologically imperfect, flawed at the root so to speak (and hey, don't take my word for it - ask Denis Ritchie and he'll tell you the same thing) but they are useful and nearly free. Punk kids think they know everything.... long live free open source! --Charlie
eh...i did NOT mean diffrent architectures, i meant the ports-collection. f.ex cd/usr/ports/graphics/gimp make install And then, it downloads gimp and all other libs it depends on. REEEALLLY nice thing. I just cant figure out why Redhat or Suse or Slackware has implemented that. The Ports-collection is why FreeBSD is better than Linux. (i still use Linux, but i try to go over to FreeBSD instead.)
--
"If you loved me, you`d all kill yourselves today"
Spider Jerusalem
Well, it couldn't be done for linux per se, since the distros differ greatly, but it could be done for individual distros. In fact, slackware would probably be the best distro for this, due to its tarball-->compile-->install nature.
Most folks nowdays don't compile their own stuff, so the binaries do fine for them. apt-get is a wonderful tool.
-- Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
I've seen a couple that didn't boot properly the first time after the install...
Why would you call that an advantage? SysV init scripts are much less of a pain when you need to add some service automatically...
I know where everything is, and I can comment/uncomment what I need to in the appropriate scripts, or just add my own scripts (like rc.firewall to set up IP Masquerading).
No distribution has that - you can just take Red Hat, Debian, or whatever and compile stuff from source. All you lose when doing that without doing it properly is dependency checking for other packages that depend on the stuff you installed from source.
Um, I was under the impression that if you installed a library from source, then tried to install another package that depends on that library, RPM wouldn't work and you'd have to do everything from source. This is a pain. If I know I've got a library installed properly, I should just be able to use it, and if I install an app on top of it, it should work. Slackware lets me do this.
--
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Despite your calling me a dick, it's been really interesting debating with you, dude. But I still remain unconvinced. For one thing, most of the posts one see following this article are of the "Slack rulez! Redhat suck0rz" chest-thumping nature that is really content-free and annoying to grown-ups. Let me just add incidentally, that I used a lot of distros in my time (Slack, Redhat, Debian, SuSE, Yggdrasil for chrissake!) and the only things that bother me about Slack (apart from the attitude of its evangelists) are its BSDish nature (but that is mostly a question of taste), its lack of a decent package management facility and its tendency to be on the conservative side, rather than on the cutting-edge side.
I guess that's because I'm mostly a programmer, not a sysadmin. I like new features. I like keeping track with the latest and greatest, even if it means it's still a little on the buggy side of the spectrum. Do you think the linux kernel was born stable? Do you think if people's reception to bleeding edge was so timid as Slackware advocates it would have progressed so fast? No, right?
You got me totally wrong on the "quality vs quantity" debate. It's not that I think Redhat is better because it provides more packages, but rather because it provides more new things. RPM is just one example of it, but RH still pays Alan Cox to do kernel development, at one time employed Rasterman of Enlightenment fame, and contributes a lot to GNOME and a lot of other packages. In all good faith, I see no commitment of Slackware to new developments and advancement, but boy, sure they deliver a rock solid system.
All in all, I'm against distro holy wars as much as yourself, but we have to concur that the most childish attitude (as can be seen from a number of posts here) is generally shown by the Slackware camp.
Getting back to "moot" points, the contention that Redhat somehow makes it difficult to delve into the system is really bizarre. A GUI program can do the editing for you, but what's to stop you if you want to do so? What's to stop you from upgrading and recompiling your kernel (which I do often)? What's to stop you from installing the source RPM and modifying sendmail to your hearts content or installing the offensive fortune(6) cookies that the powers that be at Redhat (TM) left out for the sake of corporate prudence? What's tying your hands? What is a more "generic" Linux (or as another poster put UNIX-like) experience? You don't even have to use the graphical intall if you don't want. How's that for freedom of choice?
To finish it off, I don't consider myself to be a distribution bigot. Instead, all my ranting is directed at fighting bigotry and ignorance. I ran Slackware once. Today I run RH (at the office) and Debian (ah, the joy!) at home. How many Slackers can claim such lack of prejudice? So be consistent with your unbiased way of thinking and blow the horn when you see another AC claim that "RH is for lamers".
-- Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Sure, you can load them in to vi and make any changes you want. But next time you do anything even vaguely network related in yast, your changes will be lost. That's what I mean by "you can't edit them". And that's why the files say "DO NOT EDIT". Uhh I have edited my/etc/resolv.conf manually in SuSE many times and I get another file called resolv.conf.SuSEconfig if I then use YaST to configure something (this being the file it thinks/etc/resolv.conf should look like but it has never overwritten my changes in resolv.conf)
yes i learned alot from using slackware for several years... but it gets too darn complicated with all the different lib versions and gtk releases and other horror... i still have a libc5 slackware box running so i still get my compiling kicks (i've become very fast in installing apache+php+mysql straight from the source:) ) for servers @ work i use debian... it's great... need a webserver? just do the basic 60mb install and apt-get install apache and other stuff and you can be sure it doesn't include any other software you really don't need on it (except for telnet of course:) )
If you *really* want to learn Linux, rewrite the whole kernel and gcc library in assembly while counting backwards from 1000 in binary one's complement.
Exactly what is *learning* Linux? Knowing how to compile the sources? ./configure make make test make install or knowing how to bring up your machine from a broken install? or is it configuring X? You can do this under numerous distributions.
If its knowing "Essential System Administration" in & out then I don't think this is limited to slackware.
IF YOU really want to learn linux, try contributing to an open source project using your linux machine and administrating a few others at work in a heterogenous network, and install whatever distro you please. (for extra credit, bring it up on a laptop using a dev kernel)
And then maybe you can say you scratched the surface.:)
-- I need a TiVo for my car. Pause live traffic now.
I've been running slackware for several years now, and am currently running it on my Compaq Presario 1800T Laptop
I've been running Slackware 7 with the 2.4.0-test series of kernels and have generally had good results with it.
One thing I don't like about Slackware though is that it's never had much of a concept of upgrading from a previous version, and so won't automatically delete files it is replacing during an upgrade. This once resulted in filling my root partition during an upgrade and made my machine unbootable.
For that reason I've gotten Debian to use on the server I'm building. But I expect I'll put 7.1 on my laptop.
Maybe because binary works better for some things? Maybe because a binary file is easier to edit from a program than a text file? Just because it is the way windows does it, doesn't mean its not the best way.
-- A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The problem with doing that for the RPM database is two fold. 1) RPM is complex enough already. Adding the extra overhead of having to write to a text database makes it more complex than I'm willing to put up with. (More complexity==more bugs) 2) The RPM database doesn't need to be user editable. Anything that you can do with a text file, you can do through RPM. Additionally, if the database gets corrupted, the average RPM user will not know how to fix it anyway. The problem is that RPM was aimed at you. While it is a decent package format, it wasn't meant for the advanced user when it was designed.
-- A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:Longtime slackware user
by
lscoughlin
·
· Score: 1
There needs to be a new version of RPM sometime soon, the RPM database needs to be in XML.
So there.
-- Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
Re:Longtime slackware user
by
iCEBaLM
·
· Score: 2
One thing I don't like about Slackware though is that it's never had much of a concept of upgrading from a previous version, and so won't automatically delete files it is replacing during an upgrade. This once resulted in filling my root partition during an upgrade and made my machine unbootable.
Thats why you remove the packages you're about to upgrade first...
> Maybe because binary works better for some things?
Yes, it does. Graphic images for instance, are usually best not formatted in ASCII:) But I don't think this is an example of one of those things.
> Maybe because a binary file is easier to edit from a program than a text file?
Making the software use text files is a little harder for the programmer, but only has to be done once.
Making the user edit binary files is very, very much harder, and if often impossible in practice. And it often has to be done over and over again in the life of a system. Why else do you think files like resolv.conf and inittab are human readable?
Anything that takes administrative control of your system away from you and gives it over to unreadable binary files and over-complex software (hello, RPM) is a Bad Thing (tm).
Slack 7.1: A Nice Security Update
by
VB
·
· Score: 1
I've loaded it on a couple systems, but, there's little compelling reason to upgrade if you're at 7.0. Anything <= 4.0, though, go for it.
Couple gotchas that may save people some hair-pulling, is the scsi support. Not, just scsi, but, also ide-scsi appears to be broken in kernel 2.2.15-2.2.17. I tried it on a dual with 3 different Adaptec Ultra-Wide cards (aic7xxx.s) and, none would boot/install correctly. Ended up having to load Slackware 7.0 to get it installed.
Bottom line: On a generic ide-based system, it's probably a streamlined way to implement the security fixes of gpm, fdmount, et. al., but, then, if it's just a workstation, these aren't gonna open up any gaping holes, anyway.
That is of course, unless you have some port-forwarding enabled to your workstation through your firewall. But, then, again.... who would do that? >:)
I remember when the SLS distro was the only one and you had to download it from either tsx-11.mit.edu or sunsite.unc.edu. 5.25 inch boot disks.... yea those were the days.
Uhh I have edited my/etc/resolv.conf manually in SuSE many times and I get another file called resolv.conf.SuSEconfig if I then use YaST to configure something (this being the file it thinks/etc/resolv.conf should look like but it has never overwritten my changes in resolv.conf)
So then you have to look to see where you have *.SuSEconfig files scattered around/etc and manually merge them back into the real config files? That doesn't sound much fun.
--
-- $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$]; $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
No FTP install in Slackware?!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
I was VERY disappointed in the whole slackware series. It's version 7.1 now (not on any FTP yet) but they STILL don't support FTP installs.
In *BSD, this is a _standard_ installation method. What is wrong with Patrick? Make an FTP install option part of the base install!
Re:No FTP install in Slackware?!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
How about being such an asshole and supporting these projects. I totally agree with Theo not making ISO images of OpenBSD. For alot of these people, what they do _is_ their lively hood. So just throwdown $30 bucks or whatever the amount is, install it on as many computers as you want, and once you're done with it, pass it off to a friend.
Re:No FTP install in Slackware?!
by
Moxon
·
· Score: 1
for people behind firewalls, a http-install would be even better.
Slackware 7.1 = glibc2.1.3 with 2.0 and libc5 runtime compatibility.
Pkgtool will seriously fuck you up if you try to upgrade, it also hoses when you do it by hand. Search the slackware.com/forum archives for tales of sorrow.
--
Lars -...I could always phone Linus when I had a problem.
Exactly. I am running Slackware and its great. The only problems I have with it is that the package system sucks and there is virtually no upgrading to a newer vers of the slack. Those two points are basically the same though. 1 thing that sucks is that I just reinstalled Slackware 7.0 on my machine (dont ask) and I will be getting a new computer in 4 or 5 days so. I will most likely want to reinstall Slackware on my new comp, it sounds like the most rational idea possible, i would rather just upgrade but Nooooo!!! I cant! The first thing that will happen when I install slackware 7.1 on my machine will be a kernel recompilition, and with my luck 2.4 will be released 10 seconds after I am fully configured and have an acceptable system! Sorry about my long rant which, undoubtedly, you will not read because it makes no sense whatsoever. To save you the guilt of moderating me down I now authorize you to do so, to the best of your ability (PLEASE!).
--
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
It may have been. SLS also used gzipped tar files to distribute if I recall correctly. It wasn't terribly difficult to install, for such an early release. I remember building an entire system with a C++ compiler from 7 diskettes. It was rock solid too. I used my SLS system from 1993 to 1996, doing upgrades of the compiler, libraries, kernel, X, etc. by hand. That's the best way to learn how a system works.
I sometimes get the impression that where debian attracts politically hard-core users, slackware attracts kinda "history-hard-core" users. The ones that really want to run an old mainframe and really don't care what the licence is...
'Course, I could be dead wrong.
BTW, I do use slackware. Dunno why. Redhat irritates me, and I haven't tried Debian yet. I will someday. Maybe I'll swich, and maybe not...
"I'd say most slackware users' systems arent too similar to the base install."
Aside from the odd manually compiled Apache, or other hotfix upgrade to deal with a security issues, most Slackware systems (IMO) are just the base + whatever the person downloaded from freshmeat.
My workstation setup is Slackware 7 + Gnome 1.2 packages + a few things from freshmeat (gnapster, xmms, etc). I'm also not running a "stock" kernel (testing 2.2.17pre6 here). The two servers powering my personal domain are fairly "stock" Slackware systens, aside from configuration tweaks, some replaced or upgraded daemons, and the odd kernel upgrade to deal with an issue (such as the TCP locking problem recently squashed in the 2.2.17 pres).
If you consider the "base" system to be only what comes with it package wise (a reasonable view consider Debian seems to have millions of packages in deb format), then you're correct. But if you consider that most people don't replace anything beyond the kernel, and that they probably just add some userland software, I'd say you're wrong. ---
-- -- Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Re: cure for yellow teeth
by
Tiny+Ant
·
· Score: 1
Go to a bikers bar. Knock over all the bikes in the parking lot. Use a sledge hammer to pound on the bikes.
This too will remove your yellow teeth. (Use a new hammer, as this will likely be used to remove your yellow teeth.)
What is "rock solid"? I keep hearing this expression a lot, mostly from people of the BSD persuasion (or pseudo-BSD in the case of Salckware) but I fail to perceive its real meaning?
Does it mean immutable? Static? Impossible to move or change?
-- Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
I like my trusty hammer, thankyouverymuch.
by
achurch
·
· Score: 1
>You'll always use your trusty hammer--until it breaks.
And then you'll just get another one and keep on keepin' on.
If Slackware, or any Linux distribution, doesn't fit your taste, there's no problem with that. Linux itself isn't for everyone--I'm perfectly happy running a well-hacked Slack 2.1 box at home, while I wouldn't think of giving that box to my mother (who uses Windows and is happy with it). But that doesn't mean Linux is intrinsically "bad". To each his own, after all.
I might also point out that there haven't been any really major OS advances in a long time. The two most recent ones that come to mind are multitasking and the GUI, both of which have been around for many, many years now. Sure, there's the Windows Registry, capabilities in Linux, or whatever, but I would argue that neither Windows nor *nix have made any eye-popping innovations in recent years. If anything, we ought to be looking at things like BeOS (which I personally haven't used so I can't say one way or the other).
Now, if Microsoft can beat *nix to a realtime idiot detection/elimination feature, I may just have to think about switching...
--Andrew Church// achurch without spam at dragonfire spam net
I never issued an rm -rf/ (why the useless '*' in your example, BTW? Conditioned reflex from your DOS days? So much for Slackware "learning") and I don't think it has hampered my knowledge of UN*X a single bit.
-- Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
I have three machines which run Linux (two 24/7, one whenever my wife gets sick of Windows for a while). It's very convenient to throw RH on a box, suck down packages I want from my locally-packaged RPM repository, and have a working system.
Now, I've been using Linux since 1994, had the obligatory completely-replaced Slackware system, rebuilt bootdisks to work on wonky laptops, and was putting together my own distribution at one time. That level of tinkering can be very interesting, but right now I want to spend my time in different ways. That's all.
PHP error indicates a server-side error. I have used (and do use) Lynx on the Slackware site (ditto for/., and K5, etc). I just tried it now, and I could read things fine. Maybe it was just some cosmic rays:) ---
-- -- Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Re:Slackware is the best alternative to *BSD
by
llzackll
·
· Score: 1
This is because vmware modifies your init scripts and slackware's init scripts are different than most distributions. personally I think they are easier to follow. Anyways, if you look at the forums at slackware.com there are many posts related to getting vmware to work. I'm not sure exactly how but it's pretty easy. You just need to make a few extra directories in your/etc.
Re:Slackware is the best alternative to *BSD
by
afc
·
· Score: 1
Ah, flamebait at its best! And how easily we fall for it...
About the only portion of your post that is right is that Slackware is good for people who can't (for one reason or other) do it with BSD (need Netscape? StarOffice perhaps?). The "build as you go" approach can be used with distro I know of (I use Redhat at the office and Debian at home). There is no need for you to install the full 500M that come in a Redhat CD (and incidentally are also present in that Slack CD). Also, many people that like UN*X actually prefer SysV, so don't go presuming that being more BSDish is a win.
-- Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
"Um, I was under the impression that if you installed a library from source, then tried to install another package that depends on that library, RPM wouldn't work and you'd have to do everything from source."
'rpm --nodeps packagename.rpm ' works just fine when you have a library rpm doesn't know about.
Your idea of the horizon differs from mine... nonetheless, I think Debian still reigns supreme at invoking major releases from other projects by making their own distro freeze.
Slackware isn't my choice, but AFAIK it hasn't changed much from the days when I did use it (because there were few, but not zero (CT!), other choices 5-6 years ago) and it's very much a DIYers launchpad, so if you want a different kernel, go for it. Besides, slack has the shortest release cycle of all, so 8.0 (I'm guessing here) won't trail Linux 2.4 by more than a couple months.
Because I don't feel like I've sold out...
by
devphil
·
· Score: 2
...when I use Slackware. The other distros feel heavily commercialized to me. It's not that I think Debian is/bad/; I like it too. Both of them certainly irritate me a lot less than RedHat.
-- You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I remember when I first got into Linux, I bought a CD set including Slackware, a very early version of RedHat (when it sucked less but still sucked nonetheless), and (*gasp*) Yggdrasil. I'm surprised I can still spell it!
Now, I got into linux about 5 years ago. Bought my CD set, took it home, and installed Slackware (the only distro with installation instructions in printed form). I created a partition on my 500mb harddrive using partition magic, keeping enough space to run my BBS under OS/2 on it. The machine, a 486sx-33 with 8mb ram, should be more tha sufficient. So, I get it installed and after much fooling around, I could never get X to run properly (damned S3 video card), so I just dug around in the command line. It was a bit strange at first but eventually, I started loving it. People wonder why I'm so comfortable with the console (people I work with) and this is why. I had no other options back in those days.
And now, mostly because Slack remained so stagnant for such a long period of time, I'm using Debian and haven't had a single problem with it. Maybe I should try Slack for old times sake...
Dont get the distro just yet, ssh/rsync services onthe mainserver died before it was fully uploaded, hence it is incomplete, as the file "THIS IS NOT DONE UPLAODING" says. You should not have announced this yet. Please people wait a week so i can get the packages first!:)
Re:We all remember slashdot..
by
finkployd
·
· Score: 2
Yes, Slackware wasn't as good as the latest distros are today, but it has come a long way since it was the only game in town and carved out it's own nitch.
I suggest you try it again, it has a packaging system, nice BSD style rc scripts and a nice 'no bull' install.
I don't know, but it seems to be a problem with their application - Phorum - that's incompatible with Lynx or just misconfigured. Trying to reply to a post at the forum I get the following:
Warning: File upload error - no name component in content disposition in/var/www/slackware/forum/post.php3 on line 0 Warning: Cannot add more header information - the header was already sent (header information may be added only before any output is generated from the script - check for text or whitespace outside PHP tags, or calls to functions that output text) in/var/www/slackware/forum/post.php3 on line 13
I wrote to the webmaster some days ago but got no reply. Note that I always get this error. Got today, one week ago, and trying at different hours. Using Lynx 2.8.4dev.4. 2.8.3rel.1 gives the same error.
-- How to contact me - http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html
dunno if yggdrasil existed way back then, but it did exist. They sold the linux bible, prolly the first linux book (may be wrong, I'm just guessing). I saw their website a few months ago it seems, it's still up, but their distro is still REAL old. They haven't upgraded.
-- Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
Re:Is this really "news for Nerds" ?
by
spauldo
·
· Score: 1
I do.
I run slackware. I'll probably download the iso of this tomorrow at work, if the CD writer feels like working.
Good news for me. This isn't just news for you, ya know, news for other people as well.
-- Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
Re:Bring the hammer down on *nix.
by
legoboy
·
· Score: 2
Uhh... Innovating means no such thing. Innovation refers to building on top of foundations, and refining methods/techniques.
Invention is advancement by giant leaps, the favoured method in the US. Innovation is advancement via baby steps. Japan has been doing this since the Second World War.
What kind of car do you drive? What brand is your tv? Your VCR? Your stereo?
I'd be shocked if more than two of the above were made by an American company. Most people would have zero. I know that this wasn't your point, but you needed correcting.
Microsoft does make billions by innovating. Is Office 2000 really so much better than Office 97 (7, 6, etc) to be worth $US 800 for the upgrade, $1400 for the full version? But if people will pay for it...
------
-- If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
Pray tell us, how does the comment above (which incidentally doesn't appear in my Redhat system) prevent you from totally butchering it, as I'm sure you did plenty of times in your Slack box (just to "learn", you know)?
-- Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Re:It is appropriate to hold off on 2.4 kernel
by
Surak
·
· Score: 2
And remember some wisdom a customer passed to me when I was working tech support in a bygone era: Don't buy version 1.0 of anything.
Its not version 1.0, its version 2.4. What cave have you been hiding in?:)
Uhm, no, you just don't know how to properly use Debian. If you knew _anything_, or even bothered to do some research, you would find by editing/etc/apt/sources.list and changing the word 'stable' to 'unstable', then running apt-get -u dist-upgrade, you would have a system fresher than the newest red hat release. Not to mention if you installed a base system first, then installed only what you needed, you'd have a lean, mean, debian machine.
Re:Slackware is the best alternative to *BSD
by
tiocsti
·
· Score: 1
About the only potyion in your post that is right is that many people prefer SysV. Many people also prefer windows98, perhaps many of the same people...
BSD lacks Netscape? Hmm/usr/ports/www and/usr/ports/editors tells a different story. Maybe before you make claims, you should bother checking to make sure you arent spreading fud
There is no doubt that redhat tries to be all things to all people, and fails being anything to anyone. There also is very little doubt that slackware is closer to freebsd than it is to solaris.
That you can work around redhat's misfeatures is not really relevant.
I am with you on this one. As a 6 year Slack user, I have little need for more package management.
I have been working on our new web server for our LUG. The box is RHAT and I had to set up Apache, PHP, and MySQL. I found it to be far easier to install tar balls than binary only RPMS that were installed by the SysAdmins. Of course, the binary only package of Apache had PHP, but the binary only PHP package did not have MySQL. Recompile of PHP (to include MySQL drivers) forced recompile of Apache. In short, it took me 1 hour to do this on my Slackware workstation (for test purposes), but 3 hours on RHAT (mostly spent trying to figure out why the source of Apache and PHP was not around and a half-hearted attempt to use rpm -rebuild (or whatever) instead of the standard configure && make && make install).
BTW - I ended up installing tar balls in/usr/local on the RHAT box and configured it using the standard configure && make && make install.
--
-- "You're gonna need a bigger boat."
- Chief Brody
I have tried ever distro from here to catmando and I have to say I like slack the best. Just because it is easy to setup, I did it my self which makes me feel good and proud of it and its stable and super fast. Other distros are good but they dont have the "I did this myself" feel to it. Maybe one day I will try debian but right now I dont see that in my future because Patrick V. is a stud...
-- The Beaver
The Best Things In Life Are Free And So Is Linux!
"why on earth you would go back to slack is beyond me.. "
The benefits of Slackware Linux are many:
Stable out of the box.
Easy to configure (for the average Unix guy).
Rarely has software which contains security holes.
BSD style init scripts
No RPM locking dependancy. If there's an issue, you can upgrade from source quickly.
You might also want to read about why Kuro5hin.org runs Slackware (article written by me, so this is a bit of self-promotion:)).
If you'd grown up on it, or come from another Unix-alike (such as OpenBSD, etc), you'd find Slackware as comfortable and well fitting as a very nice pair of boxer shorts. Whereas I find something like Red Hat restrictive and holey (like very old briefs which haven't been taken care of). Why anyone would run Red Hat (or derivatives), or even Debian, is "beyond me"...
To each their own. ---
-- -- Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
No RPM locking dependancy. If there's an issue, you can upgrade from source quickly
Whereas I find something like Red Hat restrictive and holey (like very old briefs which haven't been taken care of). Why anyone would run Red Hat (or derivatives), or even Debian, is "beyond me"...
WTF are you smoking? A distro based on RPM, DEB or whatever isn't locked into that format. You can install/upgrade or do whatever you like to any program using standard source tarballs (just dont expect the packager to keep track of it). If you prefer to use RPM/DEB for package X and not package Y, just uninstall package Y using the package manager, then install from source..
I'd think that's true of virtually all Linux distributions - some are even easy to configure for non-Unix guys.
BSD style init scripts
Why would you call that an advantage? SysV init scripts are much less of a pain when you need to add some service automatically...
No RPM locking dependancy
No distribution has that - you can just take Red Hat, Debian, or whatever and compile stuff from source. All you lose when doing that without doing it properly is dependency checking for other packages that depend on the stuff you installed from source.
-- This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
It's a great time for a new version!
by
Tumbleweed
·
· Score: 3
Now is a great time for it - get a nice stable version out there before all hell breaks loose. Also, I believe Patrick is working on a new installer, etc, for the next major revision of Slackware, so there's a lot more that'll be new in v8 (or whatever version it is) than 'just' a new kernel. At least, that's the impression I get.
Better than yet another distribution, I find the Linux from Scratch project quite interesting...
Re:It's a great time for a new version!
by
PurpleBob
·
· Score: 2
I tried Linux From Scratch. It was a fun learning experience - I got it to the point where I could run TinyFugue. But after a while of trying to actually USE that system, and failed attempts to set up sendmail and X, I gave up and installed debian on that partition. -- No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
-- Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Re:It's a great time for a new version!
by
maligor
·
· Score: 1
I've also followed the instructions from Linux from Scratch, the system actually worked quite normally.. Just had some problems with devel kernels and something else I can't remember. But sendmail and X worked fine:)
Installed Slackware 7.0 after that, didn't really feel like spending endless hours searching for that one problem, that always eludes you.
When my friend and I spent a whole weekend downloading the disksets one by one over a 2400bps modem from the AOL filebases (of all places) back in '93 ('94? can't remember..), slackware was slackware (unless i'm having a major brainfart).
Yep, Slackware did exist in 1993... I also remember downloading it with my 2400 modem:). I don't remember much from these days, but I do remember that I did see SLS somewhere when I was searching for my first Linux distro, but I rejected it for some reason... Maybe it wasn't being maintained anymore. Wasn't there a Yggdrasil (spelling probably very wrong) distribution back then?
Re:I Didn't Run Slackware...
by
Evangelion
·
· Score: 1
I agree. I probably had that same distro (on the back cover of the massive Using Linux). I was installing it on a 486/66, and, well - i had this new fangled thing called an 'ATAPI IDE CD Drive', which Linux didn't quite support yet. Alot of good that CD did me. So, reading the slackware documentation, I found out that the directories on the CD mapped to floppy disks.
Guess what I used DOS (this was before Win95 existed) for? Copying package by package to floppy disk, rebooting, installing, then rebooting back to DOS, copying a few more floppys over those, and then rebooting back to Linux. Eventually, I managed to get pppd up and running with my ISP (do you have any idea how good that felt after struggling with it for days?), and haven't looked back.
Ahh, the memories...
It is appropriate to hold off on 2.4 kernel
by
goingware
·
· Score: 4
A lot of people are griping about how SlackWare 7.1 is being released just before kernel 2.4.0 is.
I think it is important to understand that a widely used distribution should not use a kernel until it has been used in widespread production for several months.
Anyone who knows what they are doing can download the kernel source and compile it themselves. I've been using the kernel 2.4.0-testX-acX series on my Slackware 7 installation for some time now, and it works well.
But there is a huge number of combinations of configurations out in the world, and there really is no way that the kernel can be adequately tested by the people who presently are testing it.
Once the 2.4.0 final kernel is released a lot more people will download and compile it than have been using it yet, and guess what? Bugs will be found.
That's why we have minor releases.
But a commercial distribution gets used by a lot of people who do not want to be testers, or would not be competent to diagnose their own systems if there was a problem.
You may say that Slackware is for the hardcore sorts (does that make me one? Gee, but I write MacOS GUI code for a living!.) but the fact is a lot of people will get Slackware for their very first experience with Linux just because they see it on a store shelf somewhere and decide to try it out.
Give Patrick a break.
And remember some wisdom a customer passed to me when I was working tech support in a bygone era: Don't buy version 1.0 of anything.
Re:It is appropriate to hold off on 2.4 kernel
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
This person makes a very valid point. Putting a 2.4.0 kernel on a STABLE-RELEASE distribution would've been like installing FreeBSD 4.0 on your mission critical servers the day it came out, instead of sticking to 3.4. Big releases like these are not meant to be used for people who rely on their servers to be stable. Releases like this are so people who are fans of whatever they're releasing can test out the new stuff and submit bug reports. Sure, a good amount of people using Slackware will be using it as their workstation or just fooling around, but think of the people who rely on Slackware and its' reputation for being rock-stable. This was a very wise move by Patrick IMHO.
Re:It is appropriate to hold off on 2.4 kernel
by
iCEBaLM
·
· Score: 3
You may say that Slackware is for the hardcore sorts (does that make me one? Gee, but I write MacOS GUI code for a living!.)
I'm not to sure I'd be putting on my resume that I was the one who debugged MacOS 7.5.(2|3).:P
-- iCEBaLM
Re:It is appropriate to hold off on 2.4 kernel
by
Zaaf
·
· Score: 1
... but the fact is a lot of people will get Slackware for their very first experience with Linux just because they see it on a store shelf somewhere and decide to try it out.
I noticed some posts in this story about that issue and I have to say AOL! AOL! (== me 2)
The reason I use slack is 'cause Suse 6.2 just wouldn't install. Even the naked installation of aaa_base failed on this particular PC. On other pc's everything went very smooth, but on this particular Kompack Pressario it just kept on producing segmentation error upon segmentation error.
So I got me 2 cd's from the net with slack and it worked. I can find everything, I get to know lots and lots about my hardware, etc...
Sorry for the Me2! amount in this post, but Slackware is the distribution for me!
---
--
--- "Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a sick mind." (Terry Pratchett)
The Linux PAM implementation code waffles in quality between horrible to ungodly.
Patrick has stated this is the reason for not including it. Go read the Slackware devel forums and post if you want new packages. A fellow posted asking for sgml tools, I seconded, and a package appeard in contrib within 24 hours. Ditto for when I found that the ypnis tools were missing a binary, the upgraded tcpip2.tgz came within a few hours.
Slackware is about quality, tested code, not features (that's Red Hat).
Feel free to write a *clean* version of PAM for Linux. I'd love to see one, and I'm sure Pat would toss it into Slackware:) ---
-- -- Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Re:I Didn't Run Slackware...
by
LLatson
·
· Score: 2
Does anyone remember when, while installing, you couldn't touch any keys on the keyboard because it would corrupt the files it was writing to disk? Ah, the good old days!
Ah, but the real challenge of the job was that part of the MacOS test suite was to try it out with a few hundred application programs.
Sometimes it happened that an app would fail on a new system build - and then it would come to me.
Without source code to the app and usually no cooperation from the vendor, I'd use MacsBug to determine whether the problem was a real new bug in the system, or an old latent bug in the third party app that we just happened to stimulate.
I could tell some stories but probably shouldn't. More than a few developers were suprised to get calls from me detailing how they should fix their old code.
Unisys mainframes run Unixware/MCP. I wonder if that is anything like Unix(duh). Their Clearpath mainframes also have an NT enviroment that run simultaneously (cool if you have to run NT for some reason). There are more than just S/390's out there.
Patrick has always walked on the side of caution with the Slackware distrobution, for this I aplaud him. Slackware has always been quite stable as a result.
The 7.1 release looks quite nice, lot of really good updates. GNOME 1.2 and the 2.2.16 kernel release look to be the best of them.
No, serious. I would have expected more hard core Linux users to install their system themselves. Is there something that is too hard to do yourself that prevents LFS from becoming as popular as e.g. Slackware?
I'd guess it's primarily because even hardcore Linux users want to utilise their time more efficiently. I know how to build a system from scratch, but have absolutely no desire whatsoever to do so. The same applies to packages - sure, I could spend ages downloading and compiling source, or I could just install the package. This is why I use Debian, which has a packaging system that works without randomly conflicting (or, at least, tells me it will before installing anything) and has packages containing most of the software I want to use.
Same reason why they still stick to the stupid *.tgz packages.
Re:Has Slashdot become too political?
by
PurpleBob
·
· Score: 2
Insightful?! Who the hell did that? <p> I'm sorry, should he have listed every single package that was in the system? You're the one being political, or else you wouldn't have cared which packages he listed. <p> Anyway, I'm sure that KDE will get talked about on Slashdot when it comes up with a new stable version. 1.91 isn't. -- No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
You are mixing up your facts big time; the 'do not edit' is usually put in files which are edited by a proces. For example; editing RedHat's/etc/issue doesn't help you out one bit because its generated from/etc/rc.d/rc.local.
No I'm not. I'm absolutely 100% factually correct. The SuSe/etc/resolv.conf contains the line:
# PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE
> The 'do not edit' is usually put in files which are edited by a process
Yes, that's right. That's what I'm complaining about. These files are designed to be edited by a system administrator. What's more, if you learn how to configure DNS by editing resolv.conf, that knowledge will stand you in good stead on BSD, Solaris, AIX, Dynix etc etc etc. Learning how to do it with yast will be of precisely no use to you.
I don't mind processes altering these files where appropriate; but if they're written in such a way that they can't cope with changes made by the system administrator, they are broken.
For those wanting to use linux on their system at home or at work where they (think) they don't have to worry about software licences, use redhat or corel linux. For anybody who wants to learn linux, they start with slackware. Read manpages, join irc channels and ask questions, avoid the installpkg command whenever possible... compile everything yourself. Don't know how? Read the manpages.
Rules to Live By:
Have an hour free? rm -rf/* as root to see what it does.
Oops, did that hurt the system? Go through the installation again. Familliarize yourself with the purpose of all the packages.
If it can be done in windows, it can be done better in linux. Do it. Prove to the world there is hope after microsoft.
freshmeat.net is your friend
It dosen't matter if you need to or not, just do it. It's perfectly normal to have several unfinished projects going at any given time.
Compile it your own damn self.
Good things come with time. I installed slackware using floppy disks made on a windows system with a 28.8 modem.
The real benefit of running a slackware system is that the system you are running is yours. There is no generic install, you can take pride in your accomplishments. One thing that slackware has accidentally taught me over the years is how to solve problems as they arise... a real life skill. Cheers to Patrick for keeping slackware the distro it was meant to be. =)
Re:Has Slashdot become too political?
by
nicky_d
·
· Score: 1
KDE 1.91 certainly isn't stable in Slack 7.1, by any sense of the word, but then again it isn't advertised as being stable... it gets crash fever when you dig into the interface settings. It's still very nice, but not as nice as the GNOME/Sawfish duet 7.1 also offers. I hadn't used GNOME for months, tending to stick with E, but now I might just be converted... I can truthfully say, as many other users seem to, that I've tried a variety of distributions, and I *always* come back to Slack. No muss, no fuss.
Re:Off Topic - Another Slashdot DOS attacK?
by
Iconoplast
·
· Score: 1
The only thing I don't like about Slack is that a few useful packages are not available - like docbook. Installing docbook by hand is not a trivial matter.
A full set of SGML tools including the DocBook DTDs are included in the/contrib section of Slackware 7.1. Enjoy!
One of the many reasons i'm using slackware, is just that there is no definite package system.
I feel more comfortable compiling everything myself, and that's _everything_ by myself. When installing slack i usually choose packages A, D and N, narrow those down to the most necessary packages, and go from there. I guess the only reason i'm not going www.linuxfromscratch.com (or was it org), is that i really like the/etc and init scripts of slackware.
Call it slow and alot of extra work, but i'm a console-wh*re anyway:)
scar - slack since '96
Re:We all remember slashdot..
by
VWswing
·
· Score: 1
Ummm... I will kill you -
I could get really annoying and quote from the last 7 books, and then the new prequel "house atreides"..
All I really remember about slackware anymore is that the install always worked and was no frills.. but was a hassle to do a good custom install compared to redhat.. but i was admining slackware boxes when I was 14 and didn't know anything..
Hmm wtf.. slashdot was down for 2 hours looks like they lost a few posts.. wonder If they will admit it
I used slack from version 2 to 3, then switched to debian because someone where I was working recommended it. I've not looked back.
If you use packaging systems, debian is better, however, if you want to make everything from source, just do a minimal slack install, and make your own distribution.
Slack is a good place to get parts for a distribution, I'd say most slackware users' systems arent too similar to the base install.
if you buy a box of arm and hammer baking soda, and brush your teeth with that once a week, your yellow teeth will go away.
If you buy a bottle of phosphoric acid and brush your teeth with that once a week, your yellow teeth will go away.
Rich
We all remember slashdot..
by
VWswing
·
· Score: 1
Blindly searching forthat missing library you kne was installed, but knew not where. Adept use of the find & slocate commands begging you deleted all known instances of whatever package it is you wanted to remove.. Painful/etc/rc.timewasting files without one central location for easy and consistent configuration..
God it was great!
I couldn't imagine using it on a couple of systems.. it was just too messy... needed package management desperately.. but back then.. it was all there was.. sigh.
yeah, I should have said something like "much of the banking system". Sorry 'bout that, that was very zealot-like.:-) Even better, I'll actually post a link.
Yes, it would seem like a good thing to do that in theory. But doing packages from another version of Slackware probably would cause problems. I wasn't really thinking ahead at the time:-)
--
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
Dude, who cares? An older distro is better than a newer distro when it comes to old hardware (except for known security holes). If I were you, I'd just install an old copy of slackware 4.0 and update with some of the newer packages form Slackware 7.1
--
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
Well I tried to install debian.. but the install really wasn't as intuitive. Maybe because I've been using Slack since the 3.0 series, and I'm so used to the method of install now. But all in all, if you know what you're doing Slackware might very well be your best choice for a server or even a desktop. I've heard about apt, getting stuff from ftp sites etc to update stuff, kinda like the cvsupd, on freebsd.. which sounds really nifty. If slack had something like that.. it would make my life soooo much easier. I've timed myself, I can get a slackware installation customized to my needs, with X. up and running from scratch in about 25 minutes. The debian install I spent a lot of time figuring out all the options etc it gave me. If for somereason slackware went stagnant and no new releases were planned, I'd prolly switch to debian..but so far Patrick's been kickin ass, and thanks a lot to the slack team. PS: I've tried redhat.. 4 times.. I just keep goin back to slack.. too bad there's no Slack Certified Engineer:).. but I guess the LPI's linux certification is good.
Suggestion to make Slackware more upgradeable
by
InfiniteReality
·
· Score: 1
I used Slackware 3.5 - 4.0 for a while (until I switched to FreeBSD), and it was a small hassle, reinstalling every time a new release comes out. An idea would be to incorporate something like FreeBSD's CVSup code upgrade tool, which downloads all changes to the source tree that you do not have already. This would make for painless upgrades to new releases.. CVSup, then make world. Another idea is to incorporate a FreeBSD-like ports system, to make package management much easier. Packages can still be used, but with the ports system, programs are still compiled from scratch. CVSup can be used to upgrade the ports list when new ones are released.
And before that there was H.J. Lu's boot/root floppies...
And before that there was, well, one 5.25" floppy that more-or-less kinda booted to some kind of prompt.
Ah, the good old days. Does anyone remember when Erik Ratcliffe, now of Caldera fame, wrote the very first text on how to get Linux to boot from your HD back in mid-1992? I bet it was probably one of the first pre-HOWTO's ever.
---
--
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
Because (for instance), it has an/etc/resolv.conf which does NOT contain the line: # PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE..as in SuSe (and similar annoyances in RedHat). Anything that doesn't let you edit your own/etc files (or if you do, you can never ever run the distro's configuration tools ever again...) just plain sucks. Slackware forever!
I don't mind processes altering these files where appropriate; but if they're written in such a way that they can't cope with changes made by the system administrator, they are broken.
Thats why I said that you are mixing up your facts, these files can be edited directly. In your example; take a close look at resolv.conf. Nothing special there. And if you read the appropiate manual(s) you will come across a section which tells you to use either Yast or a text editor. iirc it will even explain to you why some files have a "do not edit" header. But its not because you can't edit 'm manually. You seem to forget that its all Linux we're talking about.
> it will even explain to you why some files have a "do not edit" header. But it's not because you can't edit'm manually.
Go on then, I'll bite.
Why do they have a "DO NOT EDIT" header if it's not because you can't edit them?
Sure, you can load them in to vi and make any changes you want. But next time you do anything even vaguely network related in yast, your changes will be lost. That's what I mean by "you can't edit them". And that's why the files say "DO NOT EDIT".
Of course, you could just never use yast again. That's pretty much what I do.
Let's analyze a day in your life, with regards to Linux, shall we?
You check your email. Chances are your ISP is on a *nix server, quite possibly Linux.
You make a withdrawal from an ATM. The network that serves the ATM system is also probably *nix, possibly Linux. You USE THE INTERNET AT ALL!!!! Without Linux, and *nix in general, the Internet would not exist. Period. I can write/. comments at 3am because Linux doesnt need to be rebooted every 6 hours or so.
Without those "shitty tiny webservers", your life would seem positivly archaic (well, archaic from the point of view of a/.er).
Josh Paulik "This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time"
--
Josh Paulik
"This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time"
-Edward Norton, "Fight Club"
That's very true. I've been a Linux user, for I'd say, about two years now, and it's become very _boring_, and extremely annoying. There's a few things I don't like about Linux: 1. There's a Linux patch out about every day. 2. Not a lot of time goes into fixing bugs in the kernel. 3. The security issue. On the securityfocus poll, Linux was only second to NT concerning exploits/insecurity. That's why I'm moving to OpenBSD. Right now, I have OpenBSD on my 486, which acts as a gateway/router for my internal lan, and I also have it on my Sun IPC. While I have FreeBSD on my laptop, and Linux on my desktop computer. I love *BSD for one main reason: security, and stability. (no frequent kernel patches here.)
I just would like to know, why is that? What is so special in debian slink or potato?
the fact that you had to wait an eternity for them to be released.
Re:Slack vs Debian
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2
Slackware is not into all this user-friendly BS that is attracting the Windoze swine. Debian *was* cool until the packaging system got like totally fucking out of countrol and tried to do every fucking thing for you. Basically, Slackware is the only dist. left if you call yourself a hacker. Most of the hardcore Linux users have given up Linux actually. They've moved onto better quality systems like FreeBSD and Solaris. Personally, I use Solaris and it owns the fuck out of Linux, the non-conforming piece of shit (not even "real" UNIX anyway).
Dunno, but Slackware does aim to be the most UNIX-like of the Linux distros.
=================================
--
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
I Didn't Run Slackware...
by
suwalski
·
· Score: 1
My first experience with Linux ~4 years ago was with Slackware 2.2.0. Let's just say it didn't leave me with a good impression of Linux. I knew it was supposed to be difficult, but not this difficult. I had an old 486/66 and the thing would take 6 tries before installing properly. Then it still wouldn't work properly.
Then my father got ahold of RedHat 4.2. It installed instantly in 30 minutes or so, no errors, very easy install, really got me going.
Since then I haven't tried SlackWare (although I'm sure I could tackle it now). So that's my story of SlackWare leaving a bad impression on me.
Re:I Didn't Run Slackware...
by
Vladinator
·
· Score: 1
Youch! Is that what kept happening to me??? After all this time, NOW I find out?!?!?!
I got it now! When my car runs out of gas it is "rock solid" too: its position in my garage is "stable" and it is not prone to crashes or accidents. Glad you clarified that for me...
-- Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
For those who constantly install from sources
by
Wolfier
·
· Score: 1
Anyone tried the Encap package manager? It is like the GNU Stow, just being around for longer and works a few times better. Keeps installed software in its own directory and create simlinks for you in/usr/local/bin, etc.
I found it extremely useful, especially when I install stuffs from source - I used to keep source tarballs or makefiles because of one reason - "make uninstall". With encap I don't have to - just a "epkg -r" and a "rm -rf" and you are done.
What's really great about it, is that it doesn't try to do anything to dependency. Keeping programs in their own directories and managing symlinks are all it does. It even doesn't delete your files when you do an uninstall - "epkg -r" merely removes the symlinks. I sometimes think it is designed for Slackware - and if SL makes use of this packaging system it'd become the best distribution ever. Features like apt-get would be trivial to implement on an each-program-has-its-own-directory system.
Going to work soon. I'm usually not up this early. It is that F****** earwig that crawled onto the backside of my earflip that waked me, and I'm now too frightened to get back to bed I guess. Gotta get some fix for these and the sowbugs...wish me luck.
You can stop SuSe generating it's own and annoying versions of config files by setting "ENABLE_SUSE_CONFIG" to "no" in/etc/rc.config.
Turns SuSe into a very usable system when you do that:) All the rc scripts still read the rc.config file on boot which has always annoyed me though.
Regards
Re:Bring the hammer down on *nix.
by
Mamoth
·
· Score: 1
Ummm... that is probably why it went from 7.0 to 7.1. When it jumps to 8.0, THEN look for those "innovations" you request.
Re:Slackware is the best alternative to *BSD
by
afc
·
· Score: 1
About the only potyion in your post that is right is that many people prefer SysV. Many people also prefer windows98, perhaps many of the same people...
Like Sun, IBM or SGI engineers? Like all the rest of the Linux distributions?
BSD lacks Netscape? Hmm/usr/ports/www and/usr/ports/editors tells a different story. Maybe before you make claims, you should bother checking to make sure you arent spreading fud
Fight fire with fire, I say. If people spout FUD and what is essentially meaningless words ("rock solid" this, "UNIX like" that) why should I retract from spreading FUD about *BSD and Slackware? Anyways, I'll pull the Netscape mention, but I stand by StarOffice...
There is no doubt that redhat tries to be all things to all people, and fails being anything to anyone.
I fail to see how Redhat tries to be all things to all people. They simply try to to package the easiest, most featureful distribution in the Linux world, and try to "play nice" with the community. Not that I think that they deliver the best distro IMHO, my preference leans towards Debian, but I think they do a good job of it.
There also is very little doubt that slackware is closer to freebsd than it is to solaris.
My thoughts exaclty, but that doesn't mean it is good or bad. Make of that what you may.
That you can work around redhat's misfeatures is not really relevant. That you can work around slackware's misfeatures is not really relevant, wait, you can't. Need to upgrade packages? Sorry, no can do! Need to uninstall first.
Pray tell us, what exactly are Redhat's misfeatures? A buggy package? You can download the source RPM and apply a patch, just as you would with a Slackware package. Ooh, sendmail and a chuck load of services are started by default! Like its great trouble to shut'em.
Ah, I got it! I don't know how to use rpm. Well, whatever happened to good ole RTFM?
-- Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Slackware does The Job(R) and saves the day!
by
haggar
·
· Score: 1
Really, I LOVE Slackware! Everything is so clear, you exaclty know what each script is doing, and you really don't feel the need for any automated configuration utility (which sometimes just messes up everything). It's not SysV, but I don't care. As long as I can do absolutely EVERYTHING Linux is good at, I am happy. If you want a desktop Linux, go with Caldera 2.4 eDesktop or Corel Linux. But if you need a fileserver, webserver, router, FTP, DHCP, DNS etc etc look no further but Slackware.
My history with Slackware dates about 5 years back. I installed it without any problem (even though I have never worked with Linux before) and I have found the install rather simple. Then I installed it on several other computers, and it everytime went fine. And then, they gave me this "best Linux distro of all" RedHat 4.1 and one guy even told me it had a "graphical install". Well, it was disappointing as hell, it wasn't graphical, as you all know, and it wasn't any easier than Slackware, at least not for me.
I dunno, Slackware just clicks with my brain the right way. Way to go, Patrick!!!!
(as for those that criticize Slackware 7.1 because it won't have kernel 2.4.0, let me say that I don't give a friggin dime about it. I prefere a stable 2.2 kernel. I don't think my MASQ box at home would urgently need USB support, huh?)
-- Sigged!
It's not done uploading - watch this file
by
goingware
·
· Score: 3
If you're wondering where the new version is, watch for the file THIS_ISNT_DONE_UPLOADING at slackware-current to disappear.
There's a note in the file that says it will disappear when the upload is done. Apparently the Slashdot article got posted when the release was announced, but the loading of the files is still in progress!
When my friend and I spent a whole weekend downloading the disksets one by one over a 2400bps modem from the AOL filebases (of all places) back in '93 ('94? can't remember..), slackware was slackware (unless i'm having a major brainfart).
Only slackware would do a stable release when kernel 2.4 is right on the horizon:)....
"Hey guys, new release! Uhm, but there's no USB or Firewire support, i2o is right out, and don't even think about the new devfs."
Slackware is the best alternative to *BSD
by
pschmied
·
· Score: 1
When I can't run *BSD (i.e. need vmware at work) I run Slackware!
Seriously, Slackware is very BSD like. It doesn't quite have all the niceties that I have come to love in FreeBSD or OpenBSD (haven't tried NetBSD... yet.), but Slackware is a very solidly built distribution. Any for BSD converts such as myself, it really does try to conform to BSD standards where possible.
That being said, I've really come to dislike the shear size of other distros. I know harddrives are cheap, but it seems that I cannot install in less than 500 megs with RedHat or SuSE.
I really like the "build as you go" approach that FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Slackware use. You can install a very minimal system and add *exactly* what you need as you need it.
Bring the hammer down on *nix.
by
SoulStriker
·
· Score: 2
Looking through the changelog for this release, it occurred to me that slackwear is simply another *nix release candidate that clears a few more problems. I didn't see anything in the changelog that made me say, "By god, I have to have that."
These *nix clones are starting to remind me of the hardware store. You walk into your local hardware store and move directly towards the hammer section. As you step down the aisle you salivate at the big hammers, fiddle with the tiny hammers, and practice with the hammers that fit you best.
The concept of the hammer has been around since our earliest days. The concept of the Operating System has equally matured. These two have very similar conceptual models.
Your big hammer is the microsoft OS, dominating the field. The tiny hammers are your experimental operating systems that you keep a keen eye out for on FreshMeat. Those hammers that fit you so well? You know what they are.
These releases of OS are losing momentum, because Microsoft is actually doing something that no other Open Source project seems to be able to pull off. Masked Innovation.
Microsoft is building the powered jackhammer while the unix community debates and flames each other over balsa or oak. You'll always use your trusty hammer-
Slashdot Mirror
Plus, i mean, "Slackware"... that just sounds cool. =^)
-legolas
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
Pretty serious. I am venting on the lack of recent innovation. I haven't seen a feature released in any recent OS candidates that has made me mutter, "Wow, thats fraggin' cool".
Come on. The encrypted swap space support of OpenBSD 2.7 definitely has the "Wow, that's fraggin' cool" feel. It also has the "Wow, I have absolutely no need for that" feel, but that's beside the point.
And it is not a negative thing to learn and to avoid doing mistakes. I learned how to swim without ever having to drown, what about yourself?
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
I got it now! When my car runs out of gas it is "rock solid" too: its position in my garage is "stable" and it is not prone to crashes or accidents. Glad you clarified that for me...
A wise man once said, and I think it entirely appropriate for your comment, "Don't be a dick.
In this instance, referring to software, "rock solid" means "stable." A "rock solid" piece of software is robust, bug-free, and fault tolerant. A "rock solid" program can handle bad user input with grace, doesn't have memory leaks or security issues, does not crash at random, and is capable of handling any problems that come up during the use of the program (traps errors before they become problematic enough that the program can't continue).
When referring to cars, "rock solid" means that the vehicle in question is of high-quality, can run for a very long time (years) without things going wrong with the car, and capable of performing feats that lesser quality cars could not - hauling sailboats three times its size, filling a truck bed with several tons of rock and moving it up 45-degree-incline hills, and so on (hence the line of Chevy truck commercials that end with the tagline, "Chevy - Like A Rock").
Now, are you through being a dick?
I too have tinkered with Slack and a miriad installation floppies, and having a boot floppy and a root floppy and manually configuring PPP, X and compiling a thousand packages over and again. These days, I like the fact that when I insert a CD in the drive it is automounted and a file manager window pops up.
That leaves me more time to compile and configure Emacs to my heart's content :-)
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
How does Patrick determine when a new release is needed? Anyone know?
I have been using slackware for several years now and it is still my favorite distro. I like the way you can edit the config files each individually without having to worry about screwing up an autoconfig tool. I have tried redhat and debian but they both seem to over-complicate basic system initialization. I like the *BSD style system init in slackware. It is very straight forward and easy to understand what is happening and in what order.
Just my $0.02
--Donald
www.rdex.net
Amen Brother global!!
I never had a problem when I first installed slackware. It has never bugged me with a utility I thought was crap(linuxconf) and package management is the Changelog file and and 33.6 modem.
Three Cheers for Patrick V.!!!
--Donald
www.rdex.net
farside:/var/log/packages# ls | wc -l
:)
227
And that's complete install
Chances are you wont read this, but if you do, tell me, do you really need all those 706 packages?
scar - spouting BS all over Slashdot while compiling in tty2-tty5.
Well, no need to wait! You can go grab 2.0.38 right now! Or, just install Debian, same thing...
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
That would really throw me off, I've only read the first book :)
Finkployd
Fight fire with fire, I say. If people spout FUD and what is essentially meaningless words ("rock solid" this, "UNIX like" that) why should I retract from
spreading FUD about *BSD and Slackware?
You know, I think this is really the scum of the world. Fight evil with evil? Risking to be offtopic, but I think Jesus' words contain a big lesson for you (and anyone else, for that matter).
Sigged!
Not really, I was just warming up. The expression "rock solid" doesn't mean robust, bug-free and fault tolerant per se, if you read /. carefully. It usually conveys a judgement of value of one piece of software (say, Slackware) in comparison to another (say, Redhat). As such, it is simply a propaganda term not any more meaningful than the lower TCO that is built from the ground up in NT, according to the Micro~1 marketing machine.
Thus, and to the same effect, proponents of Slackware (and the Slackware creators themselves) parrot this and similar expressions whilst comparing both distributions, solely for their propaganda value. Sure, an argument can be made that Slackware packagers are more careful in their package selection and the testing of said packages, but considering that most of what is shipped by each distribution is composed of the same software packages (which incidentally are not created by either Slackware or Redhat), this is really a moot point.
So what is really fair when comparing distributions? IMHO it's what they aggregate (package management systems, new packages etc), and in that respect, Redhat produces more and better software than Slackware.
So, how's that for a dick, eh?
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
This is true; Slackware 4.0 might not be a bad choice. That's what I'm running on my 486 right now, although I may change (I haven't really decided yet). For even older systems, Slackware 3.6 might not be bad (2.0.x kernel).
If I were you, I'd just install an old copy of slackware 4.0 and update with some of the newer packages form Slackware 7.1
Dude, are you trying to make him hate life? Not cool. Or are you just not a Slackware user?
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Personally, I use Solaris and it owns the fuck out of Linux, the non-conforming piece of shit (not even "real" UNIX anyway).
I agree with you on the point on linux not being a "real" unix. But to put Solaris in the same category as FreeBSD is definately LARTworthy. I'm forced to use Solaris at work (Though I've got 2 other machines, with Linux on one and FreeBSD on another). Solaris has got to be the most bloated and buggy OS next to Windows. There are patch releases for Solaris about every 2 days (I have a cron job with downloads and installs the recommended and security patches when they're available). The "Patch Clusters" for Solaris are about as big as a small installation of Slackware (30Megs and up for older releases of Solaris).
For security reasons, I've put my FreeBSD box as the gateway to all my computers. This is because I don't fully trust Linux security, and I don't trust Solaris security at ALL.
FreeBSD is better for security and stability, making it a good server / router.
Linux has far better multimedia support, since thats where the development is being done. This makes it good for a personal desktop system
Solaris sucks at everything, except being bloated, slow and buggy.
That's a really bad analogy.
Great man, you just had to bring "real" religion to a religious war :-)
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
You don't think this means they're done, do you? Personally I'm not terribly interested in running kernel 2.0.0; I'd much rather wait for, say, 2.0.4 or thereabouts.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
So *nix is the glue. But everyone (except Windows zealots) knows that the banking system runs on IBM. The standard text ATM runs OS/2, and the database back end is probably also OS/2 or in medium to large banks OS/400. You don't need *nix. As for the internet, we all know it existed long before Linux and could run just as well on many other operating systems. For example, andover.net.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Then write one yourself :). What kind of innovations do you want? If everything one needs to use their computer has already been written then why innovate? Writting a better word processor is not innovating, that's just building a better mouse trap. Innovation means coming up with something truly bleeding edge. Something COMPLETELY unique and I haven't seen that since win95 (as far as OS's and their features go and before I started using Linux). Rather than complain about the lack of innovation, why not say "hey, wouldn't it be cool if b, c or d feature could be included in x, y or z OS?" Get off the bandwagon.
I tried running the demo of vmware. The installer hated Slackware with a passion. Have they fixed the installer, or did you have to do some major hacking? I hacked with it for 20 minutes getting it to install, then when it refused to run I gave up and hacked with it for another 15 minutes getting it to go away. Not a pleasant experience.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
However, I have run into Slack users and they have stated that most hard core linux users run Slack. I am curious as to what would be the advantages of Slack over Debian, and visa versa.
Hard core Linux users run Linux From Scratch :-P
No, serious. I would have expected more hard core Linux users to install their system themselves. Is there something that is too hard to do yourself that prevents LFS from becoming as popular as e.g. Slackware?
Monkey sense
hmm.. nice troll i guess.
or are you serious?
Pretty serious. I am venting on the lack of recent innovation. I haven't seen a feature released in any recent OS candidates that has made me mutter, "Wow, thats fraggin' cool".
SoulStriker
SoulStriker
Am I wrong? Prove it.
To answer your question: do I really need all 706 packages? Not really, but:
The irony of all that, is that the piece of software I use the most (by far) is Emacs, which I pluck from the CVS tree, configure and compile by myself. Go figure. It is, at least, a lot more fun than compiling and configure sendmail :-).
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
After all, the point of RTFM is to learn how to do what you have to do, and not recovering from a shot in your foot, after a misguided attempt at doing it.
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Sure, an argument can be made that Slackware packagers are more careful in their package selection
and the testing of said packages, but considering that most of what is shipped by each distribution is
composed of the same software packages (which incidentally are not created by either Slackware or
Redhat), this is really a moot point.
There are a couple of problems in your statement here which render it "not a moot point."
For one thing, while the type of software that Red Hat and Slackware (since you use this as a comparison) ship may be similar (both, for instance, ship XFree86, GNOME, KDE, etc.), the specific software varies. Slackware may ship slightly older software, or may in fact wait a much longer period of time before shipping a specific version of software. Such was the case in the libc5 vs. libc6/glibc. Red Hat jumped into the fray with libc6/glibc, and to their detriment found it was not quite ready for primetime use. As a result, the perceived quality of Red Hat's software was lowered in the eyes of many users, because the library was not fully tuned, tested, or debugged. Slackware, up until 7.0, continued using libc5 because it was a tried, tested, and debugged library. Only when libc6/glibc was finally quality, dependable software did Slackware switch over. For some, Slackware's reluctance to switch was a hindrance because they couldn't use the latest-and-greatest software that was compiled for other platforms like Red Hat. Others, however, saw that the libc6/glibc libraries were more prone to problems and wanted to avoid them until they were ready.
For another thing, you'll find that because Slackware takes their time in shipping bleeding edge software, the distribution is less prone to security faults than Red Hat's distribution is. While Red Hat has the latest and greatest software, and as a result can offer somewhat more features than Slackware can (depending on the software), Red Hat issues security updates/patches for their distribution more than Slackware does. A significant number of people value security/stability over features - and Slackware is more to their taste. Is this to say Red Hat is crash-prone, or "bad" software? No. It's simply catering to different tastes.
For a third thing, your statement ignores the qualitative differences between distributions that having nothing to do with software. The style of Red Hat's init scripts versus Slackware's, for instance. Some prefer Slackware's init script style because it's more BSD-ish than Red Hat. Does that make it bad? No - it's just catering to a different taste. Some people also like the fact that Slackware has a very minimalistic package management system, because it forces them to learn more about the system and because it offers them more control over their software (whether it actually does or not is an arguable point). Does this make SysV scripts and RPMs bad? No - it just offers a different way of doing things that some people might find less to their taste. Others, as can be witnessed on this thread, find RPMs to be the greatest thing since sliced bread!
So what is really fair when comparing distributions? IMHO it's what they aggregate (package management systems, new packages etc), and in that respect, Redhat produces more and better software than Slackware.
Quantity vs. quality as a valid metric? Shove as much into the distribution as possible, and you're guaranteed to be considered "the best?" That's a spotty judgement call at best.
You're right when you say it's fair to judge distributions on what they aggregate. But relying *soley* on that aggregative factor is ignoring everything else that makes distributions unique. It's just as much propaganda to claim that Red Hat is better because it has more to it as it is to claim that Slackware is better because it is "rock solid." It's just different, not better.
Further, judging which distribution is "best" involves knowing who you are judging it for. For desktop users who want an install-and-go Linux experience, Red Hat is overwhelmingly the better choice. However, for those users who want to delve into the system and not have their hand held by GUI utilities, or who want a slightly more "generic" Linux experience (and, admit it or not, Red Hat provides an awful lot of custom utilities for administrating their distribution), or who don't want to become dependent on a packaging system, Slackware is probably the better choice.
Don't be a distribution bigot. Choose the distribution because it's the best for you, not because some Slashdot hack says so. (It's kinda like those Sprite commercials. You wouldn't listen to some moron spout off his mouth about other things; why listen to them do it about distributions?) Just be content that what you use is the best one for you, and let everybody be free to choose their distribution based on the merits of those distributions.
Score 0?!?!?!?! what the fuck?!!?!?! this piece would have to be the best damn piece of prose i've ever read on /. since i started 2 years ago!
hot grits!!! beowulf cluster!! NATALIE PORTMAN!!!!!
thankyou.
Failures doesn't have to be fatal. If I screw up my resolv.conf by trying something bad, all I have to do is restore my old resolv.conf from backups. If I try to strip all the libaries in /usr/lib while running the system (did that a couple of weeks ago) bad things will happen. It's not worse than SysRq-U, SysRq-B, wait for reboot to complete and then you continue where you left. I do read manuals, I don't whine when something's fucked up. I just learn from what I did and avoid doing it again.
one word: yggdrasil...
that brings back memories!
Ricardo.
Good for you, I prefer the overzealous approach of avoiding fucking up the most I can (though I sure have done my share of it). I just think it is more prudent, but different folks, different strokes. The notion of the fatality of a failure is very realtive also, the system you just rm -rf / the living soul out of, may be an unimportant spare box that nevertheless has a complete, recent backup, who knows? Not every cat has nine lives, though.
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Idiot.
VMS can run the Internet just fine without any *nix at all. And VMS was the first POSIX compliant system while *nix was splintering into the fractious and fractured community it is today (huh? a non-unix system was the most unix-compliant system at one time? That's right, kid, now go suck your pacifier).
Just because DEC stabbed itself in the heart by firing Olsen, just because the drones that ran him out couldn't sell ice in the Gobi desert, doesn't mean that VMS wasn't technically superior.
I have personally built an Internet node using nothing but VMS and a single Cisco router (didn't need the router, either - it was just easier that way). And it was fundamentally more secure than any *nix system can be, because there is no concept of a "root user" on VMS.
When the Morris worm blew down two thirds of the *nix variants, the VMS-driven portions of the Internet did not crash, did not become unuseable, did not fail from lack of "*nix glue" they kept right on running. And I still got my Email.
Linux & the BSDs are better because they are free, and open source. That's the whole ticket. They are technologically imperfect, flawed at the root so to speak (and hey, don't take my word for it - ask Denis Ritchie and he'll tell you the same thing) but they are useful and nearly free.
Punk kids think they know everything.... long live free open source!
--Charlie
The one thing slackware needs is the ports-collection which FreeBSD has. Why havent anyone done that for linux?
"If you loved me, you`d all kill yourselves today"
Spider Jerusalem
SysV init scripts are much less of a pain when you need to add some service automatically...
How frequent are your service changes that you need to be able to do this automatically? I'm really confused as to your whole point here.
"Hang on, it's Three O'Clock, time to change runlevels again..."
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I've seen a couple that didn't boot properly the first time after the install...
Why would you call that an advantage? SysV init scripts are much less of a pain when you need to add some service automatically...
I know where everything is, and I can comment/uncomment what I need to in the appropriate scripts, or just add my own scripts (like rc.firewall to set up IP Masquerading).
No distribution has that - you can just take Red Hat, Debian, or whatever and compile stuff from source. All you lose when doing that without doing it properly is dependency checking for other packages that depend on the stuff you installed from source.
Um, I was under the impression that if you installed a library from source, then tried to install another package that depends on that library, RPM wouldn't work and you'd have to do everything from source. This is a pain. If I know I've got a library installed properly, I should just be able to use it, and if I install an app on top of it, it should work. Slackware lets me do this.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I guess that's because I'm mostly a programmer, not a sysadmin. I like new features. I like keeping track with the latest and greatest, even if it means it's still a little on the buggy side of the spectrum. Do you think the linux kernel was born stable? Do you think if people's reception to bleeding edge was so timid as Slackware advocates it would have progressed so fast? No, right?
You got me totally wrong on the "quality vs quantity" debate. It's not that I think Redhat is better because it provides more packages, but rather because it provides more new things. RPM is just one example of it, but RH still pays Alan Cox to do kernel development, at one time employed Rasterman of Enlightenment fame, and contributes a lot to GNOME and a lot of other packages. In all good faith, I see no commitment of Slackware to new developments and advancement, but boy, sure they deliver a rock solid system.
All in all, I'm against distro holy wars as much as yourself, but we have to concur that the most childish attitude (as can be seen from a number of posts here) is generally shown by the Slackware camp.
Getting back to "moot" points, the contention that Redhat somehow makes it difficult to delve into the system is really bizarre. A GUI program can do the editing for you, but what's to stop you if you want to do so? What's to stop you from upgrading and recompiling your kernel (which I do often)? What's to stop you from installing the source RPM and modifying sendmail to your hearts content or installing the offensive fortune(6) cookies that the powers that be at Redhat (TM) left out for the sake of corporate prudence? What's tying your hands? What is a more "generic" Linux (or as another poster put UNIX-like) experience? You don't even have to use the graphical intall if you don't want. How's that for freedom of choice?
To finish it off, I don't consider myself to be a distribution bigot. Instead, all my ranting is directed at fighting bigotry and ignorance. I ran Slackware once. Today I run RH (at the office) and Debian (ah, the joy!) at home. How many Slackers can claim such lack of prejudice? So be consistent with your unbiased way of thinking and blow the horn when you see another AC claim that "RH is for lamers".
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Sure, you can load them in to vi and make any changes you want. But next time you do anything even vaguely network related in yast, your changes will be lost. That's what I mean by "you can't edit them". And that's why the files say "DO NOT EDIT". /etc/resolv.conf manually in SuSE many times and I get another file called resolv.conf.SuSEconfig if I then use YaST to configure something (this being the file it thinks /etc/resolv.conf should look like but it has never overwritten my changes in resolv.conf)
Uhh I have edited my
yes i learned alot from using slackware for
several years... but it gets too darn complicated
with all the different lib versions and gtk
releases and other horror...
i still have a libc5 slackware box running so
i still get my compiling kicks (i've become
very fast in installing apache+php+mysql straight
from the source
for servers @ work i use debian... it's great...
need a webserver? just do the basic 60mb install
and apt-get install apache and other stuff and
you can be sure it doesn't include any other
software you really don't need on it (except
for telnet of course
'rpm --nodeps packagename.rpm ' works just fine when you have a library rpm doesn't know about.
It sure didn't for me when I ran Red Hat, ignoring dependencies just made things worse when it came to installing programs.
And don't even think about using rpm on slackware, but at least there's good ol' rpm2tgz...
If you *really* want to learn Linux, rewrite the whole kernel and gcc library in assembly while counting backwards from 1000 in binary one's complement.
:)
Exactly what is *learning* Linux? Knowing how to compile the sources?
./configure
make
make test
make install
or knowing how to bring up your machine from a broken install?
or is it configuring X?
You can do this under numerous distributions.
If its knowing "Essential System Administration" in & out then I don't think this is limited to slackware.
IF YOU really want to learn linux, try contributing to an open source project using your linux machine and administrating a few others at work in a heterogenous network, and install whatever distro you please. (for extra credit, bring it up on a laptop using a dev kernel)
And then maybe you can say you scratched the surface.
I need a TiVo for my car. Pause live traffic now.
I've been running Slackware 7 with the 2.4.0-test series of kernels and have generally had good results with it.
One thing I don't like about Slackware though is that it's never had much of a concept of upgrading from a previous version, and so won't automatically delete files it is replacing during an upgrade. This once resulted in filling my root partition during an upgrade and made my machine unbootable.
For that reason I've gotten Debian to use on the server I'm building. But I expect I'll put 7.1 on my laptop.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
I've loaded it on a couple systems, but, there's little compelling reason to upgrade if you're at 7.0. Anything <= 4.0, though, go for it.
Couple gotchas that may save people some hair-pulling, is the scsi support. Not, just scsi, but, also ide-scsi appears to be broken in kernel 2.2.15-2.2.17. I tried it on a dual with 3 different Adaptec Ultra-Wide cards (aic7xxx.s) and, none would boot/install correctly. Ended up having to load Slackware 7.0 to get it installed.
I checked Deja and found I wasn't the only one. I would have written it off, but, I upgraded my Athlon over the weekend (with 10 Gbytes drive) and, it was the smoothest upgrade I've ever done. It's very slick. No changes of init scripts, whatsoever. It just worked out of the box (or, off the ISO, whichever way you wanna put it). However, my Goldstart RW wouldn't read the CD, so had to do an NFS install from my Dual Celey, and, turns out this is likely related to the ide-scsi issue. In order to see my CD-RW after the load, I had to revert to kernel 2.2.13, and, all's well.
Bottom line: On a generic ide-based system, it's probably a streamlined way to implement the security fixes of gpm, fdmount, et. al., but, then, if it's just a workstation, these aren't gonna open up any gaping holes, anyway.
That is of course, unless you have some port-forwarding enabled to your workstation through your firewall. But, then, again.... who would do that? >:)
Linux rocks!!! www.dedserius.com
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
Wasn't slackware derived from the old SLS distro?
I remember when the SLS distro was the only one and you had to download it from either tsx-11.mit.edu or sunsite.unc.edu. 5.25 inch boot disks.... yea those were the days.
So then you have to look to see where you have *.SuSEconfig files scattered around
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I was VERY disappointed in the whole slackware series. It's version 7.1 now (not on any FTP yet) but they STILL don't support FTP installs.
In *BSD, this is a _standard_ installation method. What is wrong with Patrick? Make an FTP install option part of the base install!
Slackware 4.0 = libc5 with glibc2.0 runtime compatibility (cant compile glibc2 apps)
Slackware 7.1 = glibc2.1.3 with 2.0 and libc5 runtime compatibility.
Pkgtool will seriously fuck you up if you try to upgrade, it also hoses when you do it by hand. Search the slackware.com/forum archives for tales of sorrow.
Lars -
Exactly. I am running Slackware and its great. The only problems I have with it is that the package system sucks and there is virtually no upgrading to a newer vers of the slack. Those two points are basically the same though. 1 thing that sucks is that I just reinstalled Slackware 7.0 on my machine (dont ask) and I will be getting a new computer in 4 or 5 days so. I will most likely want to reinstall Slackware on my new comp, it sounds like the most rational idea possible, i would rather just upgrade but Nooooo!!! I cant! The first thing that will happen when I install slackware 7.1 on my machine will be a kernel recompilition, and with my luck 2.4 will be released 10 seconds after I am fully configured and have an acceptable system! Sorry about my long rant which, undoubtedly, you will not read because it makes no sense whatsoever. To save you the guilt of moderating me down I now authorize you to do so, to the best of your ability (PLEASE!).
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
It may have been. SLS also used gzipped tar files to distribute if I recall correctly. It wasn't terribly difficult to install, for such an early release. I remember building an entire system with a C++ compiler from 7 diskettes. It was rock solid too. I used my SLS system from 1993 to 1996, doing upgrades of the compiler, libraries, kernel, X, etc. by hand. That's the best way to learn how a system works.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
'Course, I could be dead wrong.
BTW, I do use slackware. Dunno why. Redhat irritates me, and I haven't tried Debian yet. I will someday. Maybe I'll swich, and maybe not...
Sure, close enough! He wants 2.0 series Kernels, so Debian is a good distro since they're still using them!
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
"I'd say most slackware users' systems arent too similar to the base install."
Aside from the odd manually compiled Apache, or other hotfix upgrade to deal with a security issues, most Slackware systems (IMO) are just the base + whatever the person downloaded from freshmeat.
My workstation setup is Slackware 7 + Gnome 1.2 packages + a few things from freshmeat (gnapster, xmms, etc). I'm also not running a "stock" kernel (testing 2.2.17pre6 here). The two servers powering my personal domain are fairly "stock" Slackware systens, aside from configuration tweaks, some replaced or upgraded daemons, and the odd kernel upgrade to deal with an issue (such as the TCP locking problem recently squashed in the 2.2.17 pres).
If you consider the "base" system to be only what comes with it package wise (a reasonable view consider Debian seems to have millions of packages in deb format), then you're correct. But if you consider that most people don't replace anything beyond the kernel, and that they probably just add some userland software, I'd say you're wrong.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Go to a bikers bar. Knock over all the bikes in the parking lot. Use a sledge hammer to pound on the bikes.
This too will remove your yellow teeth. (Use a new hammer, as this will likely be used to remove your yellow teeth.)
No need for brushing.
And in what way, pray tell me, is it more UNIX-like, whatever that means? More specifically, which UNIX is it like?
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Does it mean immutable? Static? Impossible to move or change?
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
>You'll always use your trusty hammer--until it breaks.
And then you'll just get another one and keep on keepin' on.
If Slackware, or any Linux distribution, doesn't fit your taste, there's no problem with that. Linux itself isn't for everyone--I'm perfectly happy running a well-hacked Slack 2.1 box at home, while I wouldn't think of giving that box to my mother (who uses Windows and is happy with it). But that doesn't mean Linux is intrinsically "bad". To each his own, after all.
I might also point out that there haven't been any really major OS advances in a long time. The two most recent ones that come to mind are multitasking and the GUI, both of which have been around for many, many years now. Sure, there's the Windows Registry, capabilities in Linux, or whatever, but I would argue that neither Windows nor *nix have made any eye-popping innovations in recent years. If anything, we ought to be looking at things like BeOS (which I personally haven't used so I can't say one way or the other).
Now, if Microsoft can beat *nix to a realtime idiot detection/elimination feature, I may just have to think about switching...
--Andrew Church // achurch without spam at dragonfire spam net
I never issued an rm -rf / (why the useless '*' in your example, BTW? Conditioned reflex from your DOS days? So much for Slackware "learning") and I don't think it has hampered my knowledge of UN*X a single bit.
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
hahaha rde or pmci?
How to contact me - http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html
I have three machines which run Linux (two 24/7, one whenever my wife gets sick of Windows for a while). It's very convenient to throw RH on a box, suck down packages I want from my locally-packaged RPM repository, and have a working system.
Now, I've been using Linux since 1994, had the obligatory completely-replaced Slackware system, rebuilt bootdisks to work on wonky laptops, and was putting together my own distribution at one time. That level of tinkering can be very interesting, but right now I want to spend my time in different ways. That's all.
Go read the Slackware devel forums and post if you want new packages
Yes, but they should fix the forums to allow posts via browsers without javascript support. Using Lynx I get a php error.How to contact me - http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html
And I bet you compile all the software you run on that Solaris box, or install it with tar and gzip. Really...
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
I'm starting to hate this attitude...
It's not enough to run linux, but it's necesary to run 31337 linux...
I bet this guy got into linux to be more l33t than windows/DOS users, and now needs a new goal...
ack.
***
~
~
:wq
PHP error indicates a server-side error. I have used (and do use) Lynx on the Slackware site (ditto for /., and K5, etc). I just tried it now, and I could read things fine. Maybe it was just some cosmic rays :)
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
This is because vmware modifies your init scripts and slackware's init scripts are different than most distributions. personally I think they are easier to follow. Anyways, if you look at the forums at slackware.com there are many posts related to getting vmware to work. I'm not sure exactly how but it's pretty easy. You just need to make a few extra directories in your /etc.
About the only portion of your post that is right is that Slackware is good for people who can't (for one reason or other) do it with BSD (need Netscape? StarOffice perhaps?). The "build as you go" approach can be used with distro I know of (I use Redhat at the office and Debian at home). There is no need for you to install the full 500M that come in a Redhat CD (and incidentally are also present in that Slack CD). Also, many people that like UN*X actually prefer SysV, so don't go presuming that being more BSDish is a win.
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
"Um, I was under the impression that if you installed a library from source, then tried to install another package that depends on that library, RPM wouldn't work and you'd have to do everything from source."
'rpm --nodeps packagename.rpm ' works just fine when you have a library rpm doesn't know about.
Adam
Your idea of the horizon differs from mine ... nonetheless, I think Debian still reigns supreme at invoking major releases from other projects by making their own distro freeze.
Slackware isn't my choice, but AFAIK it hasn't changed much from the days when I did use it (because there were few, but not zero (CT!), other choices 5-6 years ago) and it's very much a DIYers launchpad, so if you want a different kernel, go for it. Besides, slack has the shortest release cycle of all, so 8.0 (I'm guessing here) won't trail Linux 2.4 by more than a couple months.
...when I use Slackware. The other distros feel heavily commercialized to me. It's not that I think Debian is /bad/; I like it too. Both of them certainly irritate me a lot less than RedHat.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I remember when I first got into Linux, I bought a CD set including Slackware, a very early version of RedHat (when it sucked less but still sucked nonetheless), and (*gasp*) Yggdrasil. I'm surprised I can still spell it!
Now, I got into linux about 5 years ago. Bought my CD set, took it home, and installed Slackware (the only distro with installation instructions in printed form). I created a partition on my 500mb harddrive using partition magic, keeping enough space to run my BBS under OS/2 on it. The machine, a 486sx-33 with 8mb ram, should be more tha sufficient. So, I get it installed and after much fooling around, I could never get X to run properly (damned S3 video card), so I just dug around in the command line. It was a bit strange at first but eventually, I started loving it. People wonder why I'm so comfortable with the console (people I work with) and this is why. I had no other options back in those days.
And now, mostly because Slack remained so stagnant for such a long period of time, I'm using Debian and haven't had a single problem with it. Maybe I should try Slack for old times sake...
Dont get the distro just yet, ssh/rsync services onthe mainserver died before it was fully uploaded, hence it is incomplete, as the file "THIS IS NOT DONE UPLAODING" says. You should not have announced this yet. Please people wait a week so i can get the packages first! :)
Yes, Slackware wasn't as good as the latest distros are today, but it has come a long way since it was the only game in town and carved out it's own nitch.
..."
:)
I suggest you try it again, it has a packaging system, nice BSD style rc scripts and a nice 'no bull' install.
"And how can this be? For he is the
...Kwisatz Haderach
That was fun, give us another one
Warning: File upload error - no name component in content disposition in /var/www/slackware/forum/post.php3 on line 0 Warning: Cannot add more header information - the header was already sent (header information may be added only before any output is generated from the script - check for text or whitespace outside PHP tags, or calls to functions that output text) in /var/www/slackware/forum/post.php3 on line 13
I wrote to the webmaster some days ago but got no reply. Note that I always get this error. Got today, one week ago, and trying at different hours. Using Lynx 2.8.4dev.4. 2.8.3rel.1 gives the same error.How to contact me - http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html
dunno if yggdrasil existed way back then, but it did exist. They sold the linux bible, prolly the first linux book (may be wrong, I'm just guessing). I saw their website a few months ago it seems, it's still up, but their distro is still REAL old. They haven't upgraded.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
I do.
I run slackware. I'll probably download the iso of this tomorrow at work, if the CD writer feels like working.
Good news for me. This isn't just news for you, ya know, news for other people as well.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
Uhh... Innovating means no such thing. Innovation refers to building on top of foundations, and refining methods/techniques.
Invention is advancement by giant leaps, the favoured method in the US. Innovation is advancement via baby steps. Japan has been doing this since the Second World War.
What kind of car do you drive?
What brand is your tv?
Your VCR?
Your stereo?
I'd be shocked if more than two of the above were made by an American company. Most people would have zero. I know that this wasn't your point, but you needed correcting.
Microsoft does make billions by innovating. Is Office 2000 really so much better than Office 97 (7, 6, etc) to be worth $US 800 for the upgrade, $1400 for the full version? But if people will pay for it...
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
Pray tell us, how does the comment above (which incidentally doesn't appear in my Redhat system) prevent you from totally butchering it, as I'm sure you did plenty of times in your Slack box (just to "learn", you know)?
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
And remember some wisdom a customer passed to me when I was working tech support in a bygone era: Don't buy version 1.0 of anything.
:)
Its not version 1.0, its version 2.4. What cave have you been hiding in?
My journal has hot
If you haven't tried 7.X Slackware, you're in for a treat. I'm off to download 7.1. Thanks, Patrick!
afc@tonga:~/src/stage$ rpm -qa | wc -l 706
You sure you wanna compile 706 packages yourself? Go on, do it, but I'm afraid you won't have much time left to spout BS on Slashdot then :-)
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
afc@tonga:~/src/stage$ rpm -qa | wc -l
706
Preview button, here I go...
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Uhm, no, you just don't know how to properly use Debian. If you knew _anything_, or even bothered to do some research, you would find by editing /etc/apt/sources.list and changing the word 'stable' to 'unstable', then running apt-get -u dist-upgrade, you would have a system fresher than the newest red hat release. Not to mention if you installed a base system first, then installed only what you needed, you'd have a lean, mean, debian machine.
About the only potyion in your post that is right is that many people prefer SysV. Many people also prefer windows98, perhaps many of the same people...
/usr/ports/www and /usr/ports/editors tells a different story. Maybe before you make claims, you should bother checking to make sure you arent spreading fud
BSD lacks Netscape? Hmm
There is no doubt that redhat tries to be all things to all people, and fails being anything to anyone. There also is very little doubt that slackware is closer to freebsd than it is to solaris.
That you can work around redhat's misfeatures is not really relevant.
I am with you on this one. As a 6 year Slack user, I have little need for more package management.
I have been working on our new web server for our LUG. The box is RHAT and I had to set up Apache, PHP, and MySQL. I found it to be far easier to install tar balls than binary only RPMS that were installed by the SysAdmins. Of course, the binary only package of Apache had PHP, but the binary only PHP package did not have MySQL. Recompile of PHP (to include MySQL drivers) forced recompile of Apache. In short, it took me 1 hour to do this on my Slackware workstation (for test purposes), but 3 hours on RHAT (mostly spent trying to figure out why the source of Apache and PHP was not around and a half-hearted attempt to use rpm -rebuild (or whatever) instead of the standard configure && make && make install).
BTW - I ended up installing tar balls in /usr/local on the RHAT box and configured it using the standard configure && make && make install.
--
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
I have tried ever distro from here to catmando and I have to say I like slack the best. Just because it is easy to setup, I did it my self which makes me feel good and proud of it and its stable and super fast. Other distros are good but they dont have the "I did this myself" feel to it. Maybe one day I will try debian but right now I dont see that in my future because Patrick V. is a stud...
The Beaver The Best Things In Life Are Free And So Is Linux!
Compared to LSL (or was it SLS?) and MCC, slackware was much more solid.
Yes.. everything had to be done by hand.
So.. slackware was where you really learned what went where, and that anything can really go anywhere. You had to get really familiar with it.
Now, of course, once you know such things.. why on earth you would go back to slack is beyond me..
Now is a great time for it - get a nice stable version out there before all hell breaks loose. Also, I believe Patrick is working on a new installer, etc, for the next major revision of Slackware, so there's a lot more that'll be new in v8 (or whatever version it is) than 'just' a new kernel. At least, that's the impression I get.
Better than yet another distribution, I find the Linux from Scratch project quite interesting...
Yep, Slackware did exist in 1993... I also remember downloading it with my 2400 modem :). I don't remember much from these days, but I do remember that I did see SLS somewhere when I was searching for my first Linux distro, but I rejected it for some reason... Maybe it wasn't being maintained anymore. Wasn't there a Yggdrasil (spelling probably very wrong) distribution back then?
I agree. I probably had that same distro (on the back cover of the massive Using Linux). I was installing it on a 486/66, and, well - i had this new fangled thing called an 'ATAPI IDE CD Drive', which Linux didn't quite support yet. Alot of good that CD did me. So, reading the slackware documentation, I found out that the directories on the CD mapped to floppy disks.
Guess what I used DOS (this was before Win95 existed) for? Copying package by package to floppy disk, rebooting, installing, then rebooting back to DOS, copying a few more floppys over those, and then rebooting back to Linux. Eventually, I managed to get pppd up and running with my ISP (do you have any idea how good that felt after struggling with it for days?), and haven't looked back.
Ahh, the memories...
I think it is important to understand that a widely used distribution should not use a kernel until it has been used in widespread production for several months.
Anyone who knows what they are doing can download the kernel source and compile it themselves. I've been using the kernel 2.4.0-testX-acX series on my Slackware 7 installation for some time now, and it works well.
But there is a huge number of combinations of configurations out in the world, and there really is no way that the kernel can be adequately tested by the people who presently are testing it.
Once the 2.4.0 final kernel is released a lot more people will download and compile it than have been using it yet, and guess what? Bugs will be found.
That's why we have minor releases.
But a commercial distribution gets used by a lot of people who do not want to be testers, or would not be competent to diagnose their own systems if there was a problem.
You may say that Slackware is for the hardcore sorts (does that make me one? Gee, but I write MacOS GUI code for a living!.) but the fact is a lot of people will get Slackware for their very first experience with Linux just because they see it on a store shelf somewhere and decide to try it out.
Give Patrick a break.
And remember some wisdom a customer passed to me when I was working tech support in a bygone era: Don't buy version 1.0 of anything.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
We get a "Damn! I just finished downloading an older version!" rant every single time a GNU/Linux distribution update is announced on /.
Will I retire or break 10K?
if you buy a box of arm and hammer baking soda, and brush your teeth with that once a week, your yellow teeth will go away.
The Linux PAM implementation code waffles in quality between horrible to ungodly.
:)
Patrick has stated this is the reason for not including it. Go read the Slackware devel forums and post if you want new packages. A fellow posted asking for sgml tools, I seconded, and a package appeard in contrib within 24 hours. Ditto for when I found that the ypnis tools were missing a binary, the upgraded tcpip2.tgz came within a few hours.
Slackware is about quality, tested code, not features (that's Red Hat).
Feel free to write a *clean* version of PAM for Linux. I'd love to see one, and I'm sure Pat would toss it into Slackware
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Does anyone remember when, while installing, you couldn't touch any keys on the keyboard because it would corrupt the files it was writing to disk? Ah, the good old days!
LL
"If you are falling, dive." -Joseph Campbell
Sometimes it happened that an app would fail on a new system build - and then it would come to me.
Without source code to the app and usually no cooperation from the vendor, I'd use MacsBug to determine whether the problem was a real new bug in the system, or an old latent bug in the third party app that we just happened to stimulate.
I could tell some stories but probably shouldn't. More than a few developers were suprised to get calls from me detailing how they should fix their old code.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
"Remember back when everyone ran Slack 'cuz thats all there really was?"
how is that much different from today? =]
It's not a negative thing to learn by mistakes as long as the mistakes aren't being done on a production box.
Patrick has always walked on the side of caution with the Slackware distrobution, for this I aplaud him. Slackware has always been quite stable as a result.
The 7.1 release looks quite nice, lot of really good updates. GNOME 1.2 and the 2.2.16 kernel release look to be the best of them.
No, serious. I would have expected more hard core Linux users to install their system themselves. Is there something that is too hard to do yourself that prevents LFS from becoming as popular as e.g. Slackware?
I'd guess it's primarily because even hardcore Linux users want to utilise their time more efficiently. I know how to build a system from scratch, but have absolutely no desire whatsoever to do so. The same applies to packages - sure, I could spend ages downloading and compiling source, or I could just install the package. This is why I use Debian, which has a packaging system that works without randomly conflicting (or, at least, tells me it will before installing anything) and has packages containing most of the software I want to use.
Most Linux distributions include Linux-PAM. Why Slackware refuses to use it in place of... shadow?
How to contact me - http://www.pervalidus.net/contact.html
Insightful?! Who the hell did that?
<p>
I'm sorry, should he have listed every single package that was in the system? You're the one being political, or else you wouldn't have cared which packages he listed.
<p>
Anyway, I'm sure that KDE will get talked about on Slashdot when it comes up with a new stable version. 1.91 isn't.
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
You are mixing up your facts big time; the 'do not edit' is usually put in files which are edited by a proces. For example; editing RedHat's /etc/issue doesn't help you out one bit because its generated from /etc/rc.d/rc.local.
I just would like to know, why is that? What is so special in debian slink or potato?
(And this is not meant to launch any distro war!)
No I'm not. I'm absolutely 100% factually correct. The SuSe /etc/resolv.conf contains the line:
# PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE
> The 'do not edit' is usually put in files which are edited by a process
Yes, that's right. That's what I'm complaining about. These files are designed to be edited by a system administrator. What's more, if you learn how to configure DNS by editing resolv.conf, that knowledge will stand you in good stead on BSD, Solaris, AIX, Dynix etc etc etc. Learning how to do it with yast will be of precisely no use to you.
I don't mind processes altering these files where appropriate; but if they're written in such a way that they can't cope with changes made by the system administrator, they are broken.
Rules to Live By:
- Have an hour free? rm -rf
/* as root to see what it does. - Oops, did that hurt the system? Go through the installation again. Familliarize yourself with the purpose of all the packages.
- If it can be done in windows, it can be done better in linux. Do it. Prove to the world there is hope after microsoft.
- freshmeat.net is your friend
- It dosen't matter if you need to or not, just do it. It's perfectly normal to have several unfinished projects going at any given time.
- Compile it your own damn self.
- Good things come with time. I installed slackware using floppy disks made on a windows system with a 28.8 modem.
The real benefit of running a slackware system is that the system you are running is yours. There is no generic install, you can take pride in your accomplishments. One thing that slackware has accidentally taught me over the years is how to solve problems as they arise... a real life skill. Cheers to Patrick for keeping slackware the distro it was meant to be. =)KDE 1.91 certainly isn't stable in Slack 7.1, by any sense of the word, but then again it isn't advertised as being stable... it gets crash fever when you dig into the interface settings. It's still very nice, but not as nice as the GNOME/Sawfish duet 7.1 also offers. I hadn't used GNOME for months, tending to stick with E, but now I might just be converted... I can truthfully say, as many other users seem to, that I've tried a variety of distributions, and I *always* come back to Slack. No muss, no fuss.
A full set of SGML tools including the DocBook DTDs are included in the /contrib section of Slackware 7.1. Enjoy!
One of the many reasons i'm using slackware, is just that there is no definite package system.
/etc and init scripts of slackware.
:)
I feel more comfortable compiling everything myself, and that's _everything_ by myself. When installing slack i usually choose packages A, D and N, narrow those down to the most necessary packages, and go from there. I guess the only reason i'm not going www.linuxfromscratch.com (or was it org), is that i really like the
Call it slow and alot of extra work, but i'm a console-wh*re anyway
scar - slack since '96
Ummm...
..
I will kill you -
I could get really annoying and quote from the last 7 books, and then the new prequel "house atreides"
All I really remember about slackware anymore is that the install always worked and was no frills.. but was a hassle to do a good custom install compared to redhat.. but i was admining slackware boxes when I was 14 and didn't know anything..
Hmm wtf.. slashdot was down for 2 hours looks like they lost a few posts.. wonder If they will admit it
"And how can this be? For he is the
I used slack from version 2 to 3, then switched to debian because someone where I was working recommended it. I've not looked back.
If you use packaging systems, debian is better, however, if you want to make everything from source, just do a minimal slack install, and make your own distribution.
Slack is a good place to get parts for a distribution, I'd say most slackware users' systems arent too similar to the base install.
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
If you buy a bottle of phosphoric acid and brush your teeth with that once a week, your yellow teeth will go away.
Rich
Blindly searching forthat missing library you kne was installed, but knew not where. Adept use of the find & slocate commands begging you deleted all known instances of whatever package it is you wanted to remove.. Painful /etc/rc.timewasting files without one central location for easy and consistent configuration..
God it was great!
I couldn't imagine using it on a couple of systems.. it was just too messy... needed package management desperately.. but back then.. it was all there was.. sigh.
"And how can this be? For he is the
What is "rock solid"?
Stable. Very, very stable. Not prone to crashing, bugs, or security holes.
yeah, I should have said something like "much of the banking system". Sorry 'bout that, that was very zealot-like. :-) Even better, I'll actually post a link.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I just finished downloading 7.0 ISO, and setting it up on a OLD 486.... ARRRG!
Well I tried to install debian.. but the install really wasn't as intuitive. Maybe because I've been using Slack since the 3.0 series, and I'm so used to the method of install now. But all in all, if you know what you're doing Slackware might very well be your best choice for a server or even a desktop. I've heard about apt, getting stuff from ftp sites etc to update stuff, kinda like the cvsupd, on freebsd.. which sounds really nifty. If slack had something like that.. it would make my life soooo much easier. I've timed myself, I can get a slackware installation customized to my needs, with X. up and running from scratch in about 25 minutes. The debian install I spent a lot of time figuring out all the options etc it gave me. If for somereason slackware went stagnant and no new releases were planned, I'd prolly switch to debian..but so far Patrick's been kickin ass, and thanks a lot to the slack team. PS: I've tried redhat.. 4 times.. I just keep goin back to slack.. too bad there's no Slack Certified Engineer :).. but I guess the LPI's linux certification is good.
I used Slackware 3.5 - 4.0 for a while (until I switched to FreeBSD), and it was a small hassle, reinstalling every time a new release comes out. An idea would be to incorporate something like FreeBSD's CVSup code upgrade tool, which downloads all changes to the source tree that you do not have already. This would make for painless upgrades to new releases.. CVSup, then make world. Another idea is to incorporate a FreeBSD-like ports system, to make package management much easier. Packages can still be used, but with the ports system, programs are still compiled from scratch. CVSup can be used to upgrade the ports list when new ones are released.
And before that there was SLS...
And before that there was TAMU...
And before that there was MCC...
And before that there was H.J. Lu's boot/root floppies...
And before that there was, well, one 5.25" floppy that more-or-less kinda booted to some kind of prompt.
Ah, the good old days. Does anyone remember when Erik Ratcliffe, now of Caldera fame, wrote the very first text on how to get Linux to boot from your HD back in mid-1992? I bet it was probably one of the first pre-HOWTO's ever.
---
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
Because (for instance), it has an /etc/resolv.conf which does NOT contain the line: # PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE ..as in SuSe (and similar annoyances in RedHat). Anything that doesn't let you edit your own /etc files (or if you do, you can never ever run the distro's configuration tools ever again...) just plain sucks. Slackware forever!
You check your email. Chances are your ISP is on a *nix server, quite possibly Linux.
You make a withdrawal from an ATM. The network that serves the ATM system is also probably *nix, possibly Linux. You USE THE INTERNET AT ALL!!!! Without Linux, and *nix in general, the Internet would not exist. Period. I can write /. comments at 3am because Linux doesnt need to be rebooted every 6 hours or so.
Without those "shitty tiny webservers", your life would seem positivly archaic (well, archaic from the point of view of a /.er).
Josh Paulik
"This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time"
Josh Paulik
"This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time"
-Edward Norton, "Fight Club"
Yes every serious Linuxer should use Slackware
I assume you never really tried Debian Slink nor the Potato, right ?
If you did, you probably wouldn't say that.
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
That's very true. I've been a Linux user, for I'd say, about two years now, and it's become very _boring_, and extremely annoying. There's a few things I don't like about Linux: 1. There's a Linux patch out about every day. 2. Not a lot of time goes into fixing bugs in the kernel. 3. The security issue. On the securityfocus poll, Linux was only second to NT concerning exploits/insecurity. That's why I'm moving to OpenBSD. Right now, I have OpenBSD on my 486, which acts as a gateway/router for my internal lan, and I also have it on my Sun IPC. While I have FreeBSD on my laptop, and Linux on my desktop computer. I love *BSD for one main reason: security, and stability. (no frequent kernel patches here.)
I just would like to know, why is that? What is so special in debian slink or potato?
the fact that you had to wait an eternity for them to be released.
Slackware is not into all this user-friendly BS that is attracting the Windoze swine. Debian *was* cool until the packaging system got like totally fucking out of countrol and tried to do every fucking thing for you. Basically, Slackware is the only dist. left if you call yourself a hacker. Most of the hardcore Linux users have given up Linux actually. They've moved onto better quality systems like FreeBSD and Solaris. Personally, I use Solaris and it owns the fuck out of Linux, the non-conforming piece of shit (not even "real" UNIX anyway).
Wasn't slackware derived from the old SLS distro?
Dunno, but Slackware does aim to be the most UNIX-like of the Linux distros.
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
My first experience with Linux ~4 years ago was with Slackware 2.2.0. Let's just say it didn't leave me with a good impression of Linux. I knew it was supposed to be difficult, but not this difficult. I had an old 486/66 and the thing would take 6 tries before installing properly. Then it still wouldn't work properly.
Then my father got ahold of RedHat 4.2. It installed instantly in 30 minutes or so, no errors, very easy install, really got me going.
Since then I haven't tried SlackWare (although I'm sure I could tackle it now). So that's my story of SlackWare leaving a bad impression on me.
I got it now! When my car runs out of gas it is "rock solid" too: its position in my garage is "stable" and it is not prone to crashes or accidents. Glad you clarified that for me...
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Anyone tried the Encap package manager? It is like the GNU Stow, just being around for longer and works a few times better. Keeps installed software in its own directory and create simlinks for you in /usr/local/bin, etc.
I found it extremely useful, especially when I install stuffs from source - I used to keep source tarballs or makefiles because of one reason - "make uninstall". With encap I don't have to - just a "epkg -r" and a "rm -rf" and you are done.
What's really great about it, is that it doesn't try to do anything to dependency. Keeping programs in their own directories and managing symlinks are all it does. It even doesn't delete your files when you do an uninstall - "epkg -r" merely removes the symlinks. I sometimes think it is designed for Slackware - and if SL makes use of this packaging system it'd become the best distribution ever. Features like apt-get would be trivial to implement on an each-program-has-its-own-directory system.
Going to work soon. I'm usually not up this early. It is that F****** earwig that crawled onto the backside of my earflip that waked me, and I'm now too frightened to get back to bed I guess. Gotta get some fix for these and the sowbugs...wish me luck.
You can stop SuSe generating it's own and annoying versions of config files by setting "ENABLE_SUSE_CONFIG" to "no" in /etc/rc.config.
Turns SuSe into a very usable system when you do that:) All the rc scripts still read the rc.config file on boot which has always annoyed me though.
Regards
Ummm... that is probably why it went from 7.0 to 7.1. When it jumps to 8.0, THEN look for those "innovations" you request.
Like Sun, IBM or SGI engineers? Like all the rest of the Linux distributions?
BSD lacks Netscape? Hmm /usr/ports/www and /usr/ports/editors tells a different story. Maybe before you make claims, you should bother checking to make sure you arent spreading fud
Fight fire with fire, I say. If people spout FUD and what is essentially meaningless words ("rock solid" this, "UNIX like" that) why should I retract from spreading FUD about *BSD and Slackware? Anyways, I'll pull the Netscape mention, but I stand by StarOffice...
There is no doubt that redhat tries to be all things to all people, and fails being anything to anyone.
I fail to see how Redhat tries to be all things to all people. They simply try to to package the easiest, most featureful distribution in the Linux world, and try to "play nice" with the community. Not that I think that they deliver the best distro IMHO, my preference leans towards Debian, but I think they do a good job of it.
There also is very little doubt that slackware is closer to freebsd than it is to solaris.
My thoughts exaclty, but that doesn't mean it is good or bad. Make of that what you may.
That you can work around redhat's misfeatures is not really relevant. That you can work around slackware's misfeatures is not really relevant, wait, you can't. Need to upgrade packages? Sorry, no can do! Need to uninstall first.
Pray tell us, what exactly are Redhat's misfeatures? A buggy package? You can download the source RPM and apply a patch, just as you would with a Slackware package. Ooh, sendmail and a chuck load of services are started by default! Like its great trouble to shut'em.
Ah, I got it! I don't know how to use rpm. Well, whatever happened to good ole RTFM?
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Really, I LOVE Slackware! Everything is so clear, you exaclty know what each script is doing, and you really don't feel the need for any automated configuration utility (which sometimes just messes up everything). It's not SysV, but I don't care. As long as I can do absolutely EVERYTHING Linux is good at, I am happy. If you want a desktop Linux, go with Caldera 2.4 eDesktop or Corel Linux. But if you need a fileserver, webserver, router, FTP, DHCP, DNS etc etc look no further but Slackware.
My history with Slackware dates about 5 years back. I installed it without any problem (even though I have never worked with Linux before) and I have found the install rather simple. Then I installed it on several other computers, and it everytime went fine. And then, they gave me this "best Linux distro of all" RedHat 4.1 and one guy even told me it had a "graphical install". Well, it was disappointing as hell, it wasn't graphical, as you all know, and it wasn't any easier than Slackware, at least not for me.
I dunno, Slackware just clicks with my brain the right way. Way to go, Patrick!!!!
(as for those that criticize Slackware 7.1 because it won't have kernel 2.4.0, let me say that I don't give a friggin dime about it. I prefere a stable 2.2 kernel. I don't think my MASQ box at home would urgently need USB support, huh?)
Sigged!
There's a note in the file that says it will disappear when the upload is done. Apparently the Slashdot article got posted when the release was announced, but the loading of the files is still in progress!
Eagerly,
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
When my friend and I spent a whole weekend downloading the disksets one by one over a 2400bps modem from the AOL filebases (of all places) back in '93 ('94? can't remember..), slackware was slackware (unless i'm having a major brainfart).
ahhh, memories =)
Only slackware would do a stable release when kernel 2.4 is right on the horizon :)....
"Hey guys, new release! Uhm, but there's no USB or Firewire support, i2o is right out, and don't even think about the new devfs."
Seriously, Slackware is very BSD like. It doesn't quite have all the niceties that I have come to love in FreeBSD or OpenBSD (haven't tried NetBSD... yet.), but Slackware is a very solidly built distribution. Any for BSD converts such as myself, it really does try to conform to BSD standards where possible.
That being said, I've really come to dislike the shear size of other distros. I know harddrives are cheap, but it seems that I cannot install in less than 500 megs with RedHat or SuSE.
I really like the "build as you go" approach that FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Slackware use. You can install a very minimal system and add *exactly* what you need as you need it.
Keep up the excellent work, Pat V.!
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
Looking through the changelog for this release, it occurred to me that slackwear is simply another *nix release candidate that clears a few more problems. I didn't see anything in the changelog that made me say, "By god, I have to have that."
These *nix clones are starting to remind me of the hardware store. You walk into your local hardware store and move directly towards the hammer section. As you step down the aisle you salivate at the big hammers, fiddle with the tiny hammers, and practice with the hammers that fit you best.
The concept of the hammer has been around since our earliest days. The concept of the Operating System has equally matured. These two have very similar conceptual models.
Your big hammer is the microsoft OS, dominating the field. The tiny hammers are your experimental operating systems that you keep a keen eye out for on FreshMeat. Those hammers that fit you so well? You know what they are.
These releases of OS are losing momentum, because Microsoft is actually doing something that no other Open Source project seems to be able to pull off. Masked Innovation.
Microsoft is building the powered jackhammer while the unix community debates and flames each other over balsa or oak. You'll always use your trusty hammer-
-until it breaks.
SoulStriker
SoulStriker
Am I wrong? Prove it.