Slashdot Mirror
Is Slackware Fading Away?
A reader writes "I just read over on userlocal.com about how David Cantrell announced he is no longer actively developing protopkg and autoslack (these are 2 apps that could have brought slack out of the stoneage but still kept to slacks philosophy of K.I.S.S.). So is it almost "game over" for the first commercial linux distribution which used to be the heavyweight champ?"
So, the other day i'm trying to install linux (a linux with some sort of package management abilities) onto a firewall (486sx, 40meg HD, 8 meg ram).
:)
The kernel killed debian's setup program shortly after startup.. But trusty 'ol lightweight slakware rose to the challenge to breathe new life into that machine.
I was impressed.
dave.
...which is fine as long as quality is the only determinant of a successful OS.
I could even suggest that K.I.S.S. is, in part, a decision to pursue quality. But it does mean a less comprehensive product - 'right out the box'.
Linux will likely never die, because those want control over the lower layers of their OS, AND who have the skills to manage it, will always choose Linux-like systems.
But lots of non-technical people want to install their OS once, and never have to worry about recompiling the kernel because they didn't have SCSI support and wanted to plug in a new device they just brought home.
Perhaps, in the absence of a single first choice of a distro among the Linux users, there heeds to be a single *second* choice.
....cjs
With slackware, I was able to poke, prod, and tweak everything about the system to do anything I wanted.
Installing new software usually consists of:
And I was HAPPY with that... it was cool, and I didnt have to wait for an RPM to show up, I could easily use pre-final release software, and configure the build options to whatever I want. If the build didn't work, I went in and tweaked the make file or even the source to get it to compile.
But now with SO MANY shared libs and other dependencies, it gets to be a major pain in the ass to get one package then have to go get 15 other libs to get it to work. RPM solves all that, and I've come to accept binary distributions as making sense
Times have changed I think. But if you still want to work with linux at the lowest level (excellant for learning) go seek out the Linux From Scratch (LFS) project. It's where you take a kernel and assemble your own distribution from scratch, making it work how YOU want it to, sort what slackware did for me back in the day.
My company uses Slackware exclusively on all our servers all over the world, and on the desktops of the technical department (apart from me, I use RH). Nothing gets us worked up more than the release of a new Slack version.
Part of the reason is habitual, but Slackware's simplicity and UNIX-ness is also very appealing for a large, complex network that needs a lot of work to operate. Its lean install (if you don't want it, you don't have to install it, if you do, put it on yourself) is perfect for mission critical stuff where security is important.
That's why Slack will always have a place in our hearts and on our boxen.
When I got a new computer, I just decided to run it root-initrd against the old one (now the server), instead of taknig the opportunity to install a new Slackware. So I don't know what's happened to it over the last five years, but I really don't care: Slackware as it was five years ago was absolutely PERFECT!
BTW the "packaging" things which apparently brought it out of the "stoneage" are rubbish (install_pkg or something like that?). The first thing you should do after installing a Slackware machine is remove them. I made a script (complete with ncurses/X menu-ing system) to automate the './configure && make && sudo make install' process (useful for remembering 'configure' options, too), and it's much nicer and much more versatile than that glorified 'cp -a' install_pkg garbage.
As I'm now playing with the Hurd, I'm playing with Debian (since Debian is the only distro available for the Hurd right now). I must admit I do like apt-get (especially since I don't know what I'm doing in the Hurd yet!), but there's so much that's very un-Slackware-like, and it annoys me. If I ever get comfortable with the Hurd, I'm going to have to rearrange the file system and init scripts and whatnot just to get rid of that icky Debian feel :)
I'm not against package management tools. I'm just against braindead package management tools. dpkg and apt-get are the lonely exceptions to braindead package managment tools.
The Slackare package stuff is like the rest of the system, simple, bare bones, and assumes you know what you are doing.
When I want to upgrade, I want it done quickly.
You can do the same with Slackware.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I started with Slackware, moved to RedHat at version 4.1, tried to move to Debian when Hamm was released (gave up in frustration), and then moved to Debian sucessfully when Potato was released. I am definately happy with Debian. I still use Slackware for rare installations (I certainly use it more than I use RedHat).
:-)
Reasons I prefer Debian over Slackware for most systems:
* Fastest path from bare metal to rock-solid stable server
* Easier to maintain, particularly security updates
* Well thought out system configuration files and scripts
* Debian puts more development manhours into making sure the packages are debugged and working well together
* I prefer modular System V-style init scripts to Berkeley-style huge rc files
* Closer to LSB and FHS standards
* Lots of stuff (both good and fun) for my GNOME Woody desktop without a lot of work
I use Slackware instead of Debian for the following:
* Floppy-only machines that have little or no internet connectivity
* Excellent for fire-and-forget machines that will never get maintained
* UMSDOS installations (Remember UMSDOS? Slackware still supports it well)
* I need a quick root/boot disk combo for an obscure legacy system
The rest of the time, I use TomsRtBt
----
Open mind, insert foot.