Slackware Now Available For The Alpha

keskoy points out that the top blurb on the Slackware site reads: "The Slackware Linux Project announces the public availability of the -current tree for the Alpha! This is a port of the developmental tree of Slackware Linux to Alpha-based machines. It is currently available at our ftp site (ftp.slackware.com) under the /pub/slackware/alpha directory. It may also be coming to a mirror near you." Further down the Slackware front page, there's also the welcome news that both "[OpenSSL and] OpenSSH, the free encrypted remote shell program, are available in Slackware-current."

Comments

This is great, but why?

[Gendou]

I am wondering why the slack team is putting so much effort into porting slack to more esoteric platforms. The way I see it, most people that own these kinds of boxen are most likely in a corporate setting. As far as I can tell, companies don't like distros that aren't RedHat because most others don't already have "corporate acceptance." So, would any sys. admin actually be able to install slack on Alphas at their company? Most likely not. Other than for Alpha enthusiasts who can never give up slack - which I'm sure there are plenty, why bother otherwise? Especially since the Debian project has done this for us (and with Debian, you have just about no branding in the distro and everything a lot nicer with SystemV scripts as opposed to slack's BSD style).

Being a slack-to-Debian convert, I really don't see the point of this. There's many other places they could devote their energies... and somehow, this just seems to satisfy the deep-running, almost primal urge a lot of Linux junkies have to run Linux on every platform (even if it's already done). Nevertheless, I have to say "good work!" to the slack team for moving it to SPARC and Alpha so quickly!

** Gendou tosses in his $.02

Re:... so where do you get an Alpha?

[Raleel]

we;;. i got a pair of dual alphas with a gig of ram in rackmount units for $11k a pop from www.harddata.com. they are solid.

But the fact of the matter is, unless you are doing somthing that requires an alpha, or significantly benefits from an alpha, there is little point in having one. Desktop computing does not significantly benefit from an alpha.

Re:... so where do you get an Alpha?

[mikefoley]

Sigh.. Did nobody click on the banner ads we ran on Slashdot and Freshmeat for about 6 months? (Obviously not!)

You can get an EV67-based Alpha system, complete, for under $3k. Go to www.api-networks.com and check out the UP1100. Then visit our reseller page and get in touch with a reseller who'll sell you a system. Want to build it yourself? Go to the All American distributor page and order up the UP1100 motherboard/CPU combo and pull your old x86 motherboard out and drop in an Alpha. The UP1100 is an ATX board and uses PC100 ECC memory.

Compaq isn't the ONLY supplier of Alpha's.

Oh, and FWIW, we sent the Slackware folks a UP2000 to do development of Slack for Alpha on a while back.

Re:Teachers are idiots

[Enahs]

There's an excellent reason why: intelligent people don't want to teach. Intelligent people want to make money.

Sure, it's possible to make loads of money teaching. Head for a rich school district (the higher the property value, the more money a school gets, which filters down to teachers.) A former roommate of mine told me that, where he lived (Barrington, IL) an assistant coach at his HS made in excess of $100,000/yr.

Contrast that with my wife. She's in a school district in a small town. She makes $23,000/yr as a music teacher. That includes teaching music classes to students from kindergarten to seniors in high school, along with chourus (forced on junior high kids) and several extra-curricular activities a year. The manager at the local Pizza Hut makes $40,000.

Tell me. If you had to pick between teaching 13 different grades (a few hundred kids) for $23,000, or getting a dozen kids to deliver pizzas for $40,000, what would you do?

Re:Nice!

[Enahs]

Heh. That's funny. Try upgrading a Linux-Mandrake 7.1 box to 7.2. You will learn a new definition of pain.

Besides, all you have to do on Slackware now is occasionally autoslack the machine--just back up your config files. :-) And as far as compiling crap goes, many times you can use packages from other distributions with few problems (I'll cry when people stop making RPMs for RH6.x.)

Re:Slackware

[Enahs]

Heh, I was thumbing through some old Linux Journals and looking at the old Best of Technical Support columns. It's funny; in nearly every published Marc Ewing quote, it starts with something like: "Go to Control Panel..."

I realize (and I used Linux-Mandrake from the day their distribution became available until two weeks ago) that it's possible to administer a Linux-Mandrake box (or a Red Hat box, for that matter) without the GUI tools...it's certainly not very well documented. I recall the first time I started up Linuxconf after having done some changes by hand...yay, it stored a backup of my previous setup, and gleefully changed everything back! I never did figure out why the system would change the permissions on /dev/dsp0 at random. The last Linux-Mandrake release, for some reason, used some wrapper app to call xmms, which I never bothered to figure out. Was it documented? Not really.

Re:Whats the big deal about different distribution

[Rob Kaper]

> So could someone please tell me why people > really care about distributions?

It's more than a different installation procedure and package management system. While what I am about to say is not true for all distributions, it certainly is true for Slackware: most distro's have their own attitude and philosophy.

Red Hat for example, tries to be user-friendly and bleeding-edge. Mandrake is a nice demonstration of different attitude: it used to be (still is?) based on Red Hat, but with some enhancements to remove some of the shortcomings of Red Hat.

Debian's philosophy includes that every package must be open source. You won't find Netscape there and until recently KDE wasn't in their either due to a possible QPL/GPL license conflict between KDE and Qt. There is a non-free repository, but the main Debian distro will never contain any software not completely open source.

Slackware has another attitude, for which it is hated by some and loved by others including me: "do it yourself". Slackware is very traditional with scripts, not too bleeding-edge for software (and thus stable) and very friendly for users wanting complete control.

Yes, compiling a lot yourself takes longer, but Slackware users have that mentality and to be honest, applications compiled from source simply seem to run more stable - at least for me, on Slackware - possibly because Slackware is - by its philosophy - a great environment for compiling your own stuff.

I guess that's why people care: some distributions have character.

That's great

[dragonfly_blue]

I think Slackware is pretty sweet. I use OpenBSD for my servers and VPN gateways, and I've grown fond of it's minimalist tendencies. Finding a Linux distribution that shares that characteristic is difficult, but Slackware is perfect in that respect. I also like the fact that they appear to be moving towards incorporating better security features than most Linux distros.

It's too bad I don't have a couple Alphas lying around the house. One of the Slackware guys has done some fascinating MP3 encoder optimizations using the Alpha, which leads me to suspect that some cool things may have been done to the OS files as well.

Congrats to the team

[morzel]

I have a couple of alphas here, waiting to be installed with the best distribution ever ;-)
Seriously: kudos to the slackware team for their efforts on the sparc and the alpha platforms. I've been playing around with Buildslack - but so far I'm too faint of heart to actually get it all up and running on my machines.

I was wondering which would be easiest: replacing the debian SysV-style init with a BSD-style init, or trying to build a homegrown slack/alpha distro. alpha-current will be on my test machine before the end of the day :-)

I do hope that Patrick and his team can keep slackware clear of the "release fever", so that we can trust their next/first release to be as stable as the slack reputation promises. If necessary, we'll just jump from 7.2 to 9.0 ;-)
It should be better than this anyhow ;-)

Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.

RedHat 7.0 bashing

[morzel]

" They take the bullet for all the other distros and people like you show no respect for them."

I have a lot of respect for the things that Red Hat pulled off on the desktop market, and the work they are doing to pave the road for linux into the corporate world. But that doesn't make their 7.0 release any better.

My point is that I expect any official slackware release to be of the same quality: I prefer stability over features for my production machines. No matter if it's a .0, a .2 or a .whatever.

There are lots of people who have other wishes, and for which Red Hat is probably a better solution, but I'm not one of them. "Release early, release often" is a good credo - that's why the 'current'-branches exist.

Anyhow - I don't dislike RedHat, but I do think that their 7.0 release shouldn't have passed QA.

Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.

Good strategy

[crow]

Slackware has lost the market for x86 to Red Hat and others. Now they want to revitalize the distribution, so they're going after the architectures that Red Hat and friends are ignoring. That way they can be the default installation for non-x86 systems. That will lead back into the x86 market, starting at sites that use a variety of hardware.

Re:... so where do you get an Alpha?

[Jeffrey Baker]

I know you said "other than a Multia", but the Multia can be perfect if all you want is a taste of the architecture. For example, if you wish to simply learn to program Alpha assembly, you can pick up a Multia for under $100 and teach yourself. Those assembly optimizations will be more appreciated on the underpowered Multia :)

Also, the Multia makes an amazingly capable network appliance. Because of its 1 PCI and 2 PCMCIA slots, and its external SCSI bus, you can hang several networks and a lot of storage off of it, and use it to do almost everything. I had one hooked up to two ethernet segments and one wireless ethernet segment (via the PCMCIA slot), routing, NATing, and firewalling all of that traffic across a T1 line, and hosting the DNS, email, web, LDAP, and file service for a small company. Not bad for a machine I bought for $200!

Of course, the Multia is quite slow. It requires hours to compile the kernel. But as a first Alpha, it is a good choice.

Re:Too bad Compaq will not sell you an Alpha

[Jeffrey Baker]

That method of sales is just so backwards, though. I don't want to have to wade through their list of resellers, trying to find one I want to deal with. Look at their list of resellers on their web site. Some of the links are broken. There is no differentiation between resellers that sell Alpha machines and those that don't. There is no guidance as to which one might be in my area. None of the linked-to resellers sell equipment directly from their web site.

In my business, the last thing I need is to spend time dealing with an opaque sales process. Show me the configurations and the prices, let me pick the one I want, and ship it to me. That's all I want! Every other manufacturer gives me that, except maybe NCR and Unisys. Guess what: I don't buy anything from NCR or Unisys either.

Too bad Compaq will not sell you an Alpha

[Jeffrey Baker]

Compaq will not sell me an Alpha. I checked to make sure I wasn't on a list of known terrorists or something, but I still couldn't get one. I don't think Compaq wants to deal with individuals and small businesses, only giant government entities that buy in lots of 1000.

I've emailed their sales people, I've called their sales people, and I've filled out forms on the web. I have never, ever, not ever once been called or emailed by a Compaq sales person. I even once decided to lie and say I was interested in buying a loaded 4-way 833MHz ES-40, and I *still* didn't get anyone to call or email. I guess I would have bought four or five Compaqs by now for the businesses I've been buying for, if their sales people were alive, but instead we have all Intel stuff from VA.

I know you can get Alphas from API and others (not to mention Ebay), but WTF is up with Compaq? Are they just carrying the long DEC tradition of not actually selling anything?

Re:But they give you a great compiler

[PeterM from Berkeley]

Redhat 7.0 for alpha provides ccc and cxx with a "hobbyist" license, i.e., no cost for non-commercial and non-institutional work.

ccc and cxx do indeed provide huge benefits over gcc/g++ on Linux/Alpha. They compile programs quicker and the resulting programs run faster.

Licenses cost about $500, which is a reasonable price for boosting your alpha's speed by 30-70% or more.

PeterM

bout time

[Kento]

but i wish i had one... damn nice machines
slack's my favorite distro... always been the easiest to mess with, the least buggy, and the simplest. started out with it with slackware 3.1, and i just keep coming back

Re:bout time

[GypC]

Yes, the simplicity is the key. Once you know your way around *nix, and you realize that you can accomplish anything system management wise with (ls, cp, grep, awk, sort, etc.) you just want all the cruft out of your way so you can comprehend how the entire system works (at least I do). Slackware is the only major Linux distro that accomplishes that for me (the BSDs are also nice this way).

And Slackware doesn't pull any of this "Let's just put in the library binaries and leave out the header files" crap that causes so much grief for newbies trying to compile under RedHat, et al.

Plus, it doesn't require Perl... heck even FreeBSD requires Perl nowadays (I think).

"Oh twap!"

Re:Whats the big deal about different distribution

[mrdisco99]

Actually, there are plenty more differences than just an installation procedure...

Slackware uses BSD-style initialization scripts, while many other distributions use that convoluted mess of symlinks known as SysV-style. I personally think the BSD-style makes more sense and is a lot easier to mess around with, but that's me. This can result in incompatibilities when applications try to install themselves.

Each distribution has its own directory structure, so many "Red Hat compatible" applications have trouble finding the files they need.

Some distributions have their own package management system. Many use Red Hat's RPM format. Debian and Corel use Debian's .DEB format. Slackware uses plain old TGZ's.

Different distros may also include different sets of libraries or versions thereof. This can result in binary incompatibilities.

The list goes on and on...

+++

You CAN customise Redhat (not OT, promise!)

[Codeala]

I for one prefer Slackware over these other distros of yours because I don't need all the bloated and useless crap like a fancy GUI to do everything for me.

Shock! Horror! I think a lot of desktop/GUI oriented distributions are misunderstood as bloated by some power users. Is it possible to install a GUI-less box from a RedHat CD? YES!

It is true that the default installation contains lots of GUI based tools that may not be needed by experienced users, but it is just as easy to fully customise your installation using the Expert or similar mode.

Before I am mod down to OT, here is a though about "lean" distros like Slackware: GUI-less does not necessary means more powerful. I ofen find it useful to have a single Mandrake CD (the best Desktop distro?) that I can use to setup a fullly loaded desktop box "down" to a console-only server. This is what Linux is about, customisation.

While Slackware is one of the few non-profile distro, if in the future they want to increase their "market shares" they need to pay more attentions to the Desktop market since there are more PCs out there than all other platforms combined. Not that I have anything against the Alphas :-)

====

Re:Slackware

[Korgan]

Either you are totally trolling or just plain ignorant, but I have to bite anyway.

Now it is a complete joke compared to modern distributions like Red Hat (Mandrake), Debian, and SuSE

I for one prefer Slackware over these other distros of yours because I don't need all the bloated and useless crap like a fancy GUI to do everything for me. Don't need tools like LinuxConf because if I use another Unix OS or clone, I don't have those tools to do my job for me. I actually have to have a clue and know what I'm doing. Slackware has never made claims of being a "desktop" distribution... In fact, its always maintained that it is for more advanced users who have a clue about what they're doing without needing to resort to GUI tools.

If I want to get a DNS server up and running fast, I find me a 486 with say 500meg hdd. I install a very basic installation of slackware (which effectively gives me the kernel and the necessities of the command shell) and then I install bind into a chroot'd environment. I then have a DNS that will do exactly what its required to do, has bugger all crap loaded on it (and thus reduces the chance of something being exploited and the box hacked) and the machine is able to handle the load without a hassle because all its doing is running as a DNS.

Try and do similar on a Redhat or SuSE or Mandrake installation. You get all the bloated tools, most of it stuff you'll never use, and a system filled with software that consistantly seems to be filled with buffer overflows and exploitable flaws. I get lots of security bulletins about Redhat and its off-shoots, but not very often do I get one about a flaw in Slackware.

These great modern distros of yours are more headache and bloatware than a sys-admin needs if they just want a server up and running that is going to be reliable and do the job they need. Most of them now won't even run on a 486. Half my servers are old 486's that would've been thrown out otherwise. They all run Slackware and attempts to install other more "modern" distro's fail 9 out of 10 times.

Get your facts straight before suggesting that a distro sucks. Better yet, RTFM and learn how to really run the software instead of relying on GUI's to do it for you. Maybe once you know how to work the system properly without relying on wrappers to do it for you, you might actually discover that Slackware isn't quite as backwards as you think.

&nbsp

Note : I'm not saying that wrapper apps are bad, but my personal experience is that they make me lazy and when I do use a box that doesn't have them, I find I either miss stuff I should do or just completely blank out on what/how to do it. I use the command line and manually edit the files to keep me honest and my mind awake. Its good practice because going from say a Redhat server with LinuxConf to a SunOS server without it is a lot easier when you actually know how to edit the conf files for things like sendmail, apache and bind yourself.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are purely my own opinion. Many many other people are guaranteed to have differing opinions, and thats their perogative.