Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
Free music from Jack Merlot.
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.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
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.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
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
Different distros may also include different sets of libraries or versions thereof. This can result in binary incompatibilities.
The list goes on and on...
+++
+++
NO CARRIER
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.
 
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.