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?"
And just cos a couple of apps are no longer going to be developed, the distro doesn't end. It'll keep on going for as long as the project developers want to, simple as that.
Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
There will always be slackware fanatics to keep it alive.
;-)
There will always be linux hobbiest that will have slackware installs.
There will always be one developer working on some part of it.
It might not always stay up with the rest of the distros (especially large ones like debian, redhat, and SuSE), but it won't "die".
This ask slashdot sounds a touch like the *BSD is dying troll
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
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
Slow down moderators. Perhaps he IS offtopic but the above post had a valid question, and I'd like to know the answer. I've noticed it too. He said:
" in my haste to get a first post, i clicked the logout link...when i went to the front page to try again, this story wasn't here.
do different stories show up for anonymous/logged-in users? or anonymous ppl don't see stories with under a certain number of comments?"
slackware was the first distro i used as well and in my prolific distro trying out faze i got very used to the standards used in most other distros for things like /etc/rc.d/init.d symbolic links.
now i have it (slack) running on my router because i wanted it to be simple and "bare knuckle" as one user expressed it. and it is. everything seems like a huge deal to get it going over there.
cron is not working properly, and has no default logging. (they don't use vixie).
but most other problems i have worked out.
it's just not as shiney, but as a DIY kinda guy i gotta say i like it that way. for all the power and ease of the big distros they have stuff that is big and just gets in the way sometimes.
I don't think Slackware is quite dead. I switched to Slackware 7.0 after Red Hat screwed up my partition tables. I now use Slackware 8.0 and haven't looked back since or regretted my dicision. Sure Slackware takes a little more time to maintain, but the people who use Slakware aren't above using ./configure; make; make install to get the programs they need/want.
I've never had a problem with the stability of a Slackware distro because Patrick Volkerding puts out a quality distro with out a ot of bloat.
Thanks for such a good distro Patrick.
Adam
Patrick Volkerding is a very resourceful man. Besides... To some people, Slackware is the only real Linux distribution. I seriously doubt that this will cause any major problems for Slackware.
Hi,
:)
I've been using Red hat 5, then Red Hat 6, then Mandrake 7, then Debian 2.2, and now I'm using Slackware 7.0, which I of course upgraded a bit.
To answer to your question, I would say that slackware is the most easy-to-configure distro of all the above. But I mean this for people like me, who like to know in which file which information is stored, and dislike the graphical interfaces that write in dozens of different files without you knowing it. The slackware structure is simple, efficient. If you're seeking for something in the rc.d directory, you'll find it much easier than with Debian, not to speak about RH or Mandrake. If you can handle a console-based configuration, it's just great. The negative point for certain people is of course the quite bad packaging system, but hey, it's possible to install rpm. Or checkinstall, which I personally use. IMO, the best one.
From the: But-we-need-you-around,honest! dept.
Slackware has been a stalwart distro for me ever since I discovered Linux, and continues to be the #1 distro I run on my machines. Now, I have many, many vintage machines, as I'm into collecting and restoring older machines. Slackware works very well for this, as well for various servers that I maintain.
Mind you, the setup and interface has never been stellar, and leaves most normal users coughing in the dust. However, for those who need max flexibility and a thin system (like these 386 machines and such need), this is an excellent one. I personally don't see any huge loss by not having these tools....come to think of it, I've never used them anyway.
On the other hand, if Slack exists because of commercial sales, then the loss of these tools and others will be its demise from lack of revenue.
Blog,Twitter
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.
There's an article here explaining why one site runs Slackware, which you might find interesting.
If you'd grown up on it, or come from another Unix-alike (such as OpenBSD, etc), you'd probably find Slackware quite friendly... most Slackware-heads would find Red Hat or even Debian restrictive and unfriendly.
To each their own.
We just need to figure out if it will rise again. Basically, Slackware is a great distrobution for nerds and intelligent novices. However, the lack of package management holds it back. Consider a large installation base. If there's an update in one of the packages you use, you can publish that onto an ftp server, and then have the debian boxes patch themselves. Slackware can't do that, to the best of my knowledge. I used slackware intensively up to and including 7.1. It is a GREAT distrobution. Really. You're on your own, and if you fuck up it's usually you fucking up, not some inconsistent package management system. Use it if you want to learn Linux the hardcore way.
Again, you end up spending a lot of time just keeping the system up to date. The major distrobutions are becoming easier to maintain. Basically, Slackware has an ever decreasing market niche. Too bad.
Oh - I write this from a slack 8 desktop.
Stop the brainwash
"i had to prepare my own dinner, and found the process quite time consuming and unfriendly, compared to various fast food chains i later sampled"
'nuff said...
I have to say I'd still consider myself a newbie when it comes to linux, well not quite but definetly not an expert. I love slackware because it's what you make of it. It isn't bloated like many other distros (Mandrake SuSE, etc...). It comes with a good assortment of apps and doesn't take 2 gigs of your drive installing things which A) aren't documented, B) aren't referenced and C) you have no clue they're there till you go digging and find out they are just peices of crap. It's simple, and it is configured exactly how you want it. People say it's dying because it doesn't cater to the brand spanking newbie like windows does or mandrake is trying to do. I did not start out on slack and would like to thank mandrake for giving me that start in linux life, but at some point you have to take off the training wheels, and move to that 10 speed.
So what if one developer is stopping work on some tools? It's opensource right? Isn't part of the point that if they are needed and people want them someone will pick it up and finish them? 2 tools don't make a distro, and 2 tools stopping development by their primary guy doesn't kill a distro. GO SLACKWARE!
WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
Just another Sys5 drone, nowadays.
...somewhere in between the "full desktop" linuxes and "build your own linux." Slack doesn't need fancy apps or installations to justify its existence. All it needs is, every few months, to:
-Upgrade to the newest kernel, make sure everything is compatible
-Upgrade to the newest compiler and basic libs, and make sure everything is compatible
-Make sure the system is compatible with the latest, greatest hardware.
A bonus would be up-to-date GNOME and KDE, but is it really necessary? For Slack fans like myself, it's better to get a simple, basic OS and then add whatever desktop stuff I see fit. It's build-you-own, without most of the pain of build-your-own.
Redhat, Mandrake, and SuSE have been pissing me off lately with installs that take 1800 MB of disk space, and 10,000 background daemons that eat up 80% of the available RAM. If I want to install a useful system with X and FVWM to do Web browsing, check e-mail and log into remote UNIX boxen, all on a Pentium-90 with 16 MB RAM and a 600 GB hard drive, the ONLY current distribution good for the job is Slackware.
Slackware is for folks like me, who remember when Linux was *Linux*, and not a Windows wannabe.
dinner: it's what's for beer
Slackware goes through its slow times (more like lulls), but overall it's a distro that's best suited to server admins and people with a Unix background. Slackware isn't a distro for people who love RPM or apt-get, but if you prefer downloading tarballs and building the app yourself (and the extra control you get by DIY), it's the stuff.
Autoslack was cool, but not essential to the "mission" of Slackware. And perhaps someone will pick it up. I've been using Slack 8 since release, and I prefer hand-building anyways (then again, it's stable enough that all I've done is upgrade kernels and Mozilla so far). If you want it all done for you, you can always use Mandrake or Red Hat, and if you love apt-get, then go ahead and use Debian.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
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.
I've used Debian, Red Hat, Mandrake and Caldera, but I far prefer Slackware for avoiding bloat. My old Firewall machine used to run Mandrake, and it was a dog. The poor little P120 had disk space problems and performance issues, so I 'upgraded' to Slack and it's been no problem ever since. Now I have Slackware on 3 out of 5 machines. I've never had a problem with the install, and I think the package management is just fine the way it is. Sure, it's not as convenient as apt, but with tools like rpm2tgz, I've never had a problem finding and installing packages even if they're not available as a Slackware package.
I hope they can keep up all the good work they're doing going forward.
Every once in a while slashdot comes up with a story that says things like "the distribution that just won't die" (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/07/01/13162 22&mode=nested), as if it should have died long ago!
I fail to understand why there is such an attitude against slackware.
It is a really good distribution. It is simple, it is smart, and it is up to date!
The only thing that is not present in slackware are things for which MS windows is (in)famous for). Fancy installs, dumb control pannels, etc.
Slackware is as close to unix you can get using linux. There are no fancy 'linuxconf' like security holes, and wverything works as advertised.
I use Slackware 8, and have switched to it AFTER trying Redhat 7.1 and Mandrake 8. Before this I was using Redhat for many years, and I regret the time I have wasted with it.
And oh yes, like MANY others, I started linux with slackware... back in the days of kernel 1.2!
Don't Panic
Even if they stopped developing it, made it illegal in the lower 48 states, systematically jailed or impounded Slackware users or fed us to ravenous wolves, I'd not stop using this distro. It has everything I want on the CD, plenty of office suites and window managers, no shortage of development tools, and a small/fast enough footprint to still work on an i386 with 16 megs of RAM. That's not half bad for software I started using six years ago.
Lacking really ultra-advanced package management has never been much of a problem either. While the setup programs weren't quite as "saleable" as the pretty GUI frontends, they were colorful, used an easy-to-follow menu system, and gave a very detailed description of what they were doing, when, at all times. Compare that to, say, the Corel setup wizard, which kept crapping out on even slightly non-standard hardware.
"Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
*Flame on*
I've noticed the majority of posts on this topic seem to be against distro's that use package management. I say wtf is wrong with package management? I use Debian for one reason, I like to use my computer, and not spend time compiling and configuring. When I want to upgrade, I want it done quickly. Call me lazy, I know I am...but I just feel I should spend more time enjoying my computer, and less time trying to get the software to work.
*Flame off*
...As long as my cd-rs don't delaminate or oxidize.
I started out with zipslack because it was the only way i could try out this new Linux thing without destroying my happy little compaq term-paper writing machine. Of course I discovered FIPS a few months later. (College kids living on air and sunshine don't have the privilage of buying a new hd just to learn how to fsck.)
Since then I've tried several other distros but none gave me the flexibility of Slack. Even the latest greatest Mandrake sucks the bilges when it comes to compiling a new kernel and configuring oddball hardware. With slack all the config files are easy to find and in plain english.
And besides, this is just a message posting of one guy saying he's too busy to maintain one nifty program. bring on the tarballs!
"I want peace on earth and good will toward men." "We're the U.S. government. We don't do that sort of thing!!"
protopkg and autoslack were interesting concepts, but really little more that than in my view. As a long time (5 years) user of The Slack, I have come to know how to maintain the package database with simple tools like ls and grep, how to build new packages from source with only 1-2 minutes overhead on the normal build time, and how to use rsync and wget to keep my package store current. David's tools were just a way of automating what I do automatically anyway.
I don't mean to down-play his work, just emphasise that these were tools to make life a little easier -- especially for those with a little less time and/or experience. They were not there to bring Slack "out of the stoneage", and the are not necessary for the continued vitality of the distribution.
(By the way, what stoneage is the poster talking about? The lack of framebuffer eye-candy in the install? The lack of a package management system that can't handle alien packages? The lack of non-standard compilers, kernel and C library?)
I don't see Slackware dying any time soon. Things have surely slowed down on the official development front since the developers stopped being paid to work on the distro, but security patches and updates to important packages (kde, vim, emacs) are still coming out.
Slack has gone through some slow periods before, but often there is work going on behind the scenes. Just recently there was a long but very active "unstable" cycle, with many updates and improvements, leading up to the release of 8.0 (which contrary to popular belief DOES contain recent versions of core software). I think it is understandable that the distro is now in a "maintenance" phase, keeping important thing up-to-date but not embarking on major changes or attempting to keep every package at the bleeding edge. I'm confident that development will begin again when Patrick sees value in it.
Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
Why must every linux distribution be for the mass, and if it is not designed for the mass or stops heading towards that direction, it is labeled as dead or fading away? I am a geek, not your average internet geek. I dislike Redhate for the same reason I dislike MSWindows, made for the mass. The same reason I loved slackware is the same reason I like netbsd/openbsd. It kind of defines my geekiness, not most people use it, it might be more painful to others but it is more exciting for me. I do not think Slackware is dying or is fading away cuz it is not trying to appeal to the mass. For the hardcore geeks, it will always be a favorite. I only run 2 linux distributions, slackware & SuSE. Just my 2 cents. :-)
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
Slackware is an excellent distribution, which I hope never goes away. I prefer it over anything Red Hat, Mandrake, or SuSE have to offer.
However, it's not the qualities of the distribution that have me worried about its future (so what if it doesn't do RPM?). After the "layoff" Patrick's helpers (David, Chris, Logan) have been forced to get paying jobs elsewhere and only help out on a part time basis, leaving Patrick to handle the bulk of development by himself. He's started a slackware-current which has a few package collections in there, but nothing close to a new distribution tree. I'm also concerned that the latest patches put out for 8.0 were in August.
They've always been on time with security patches, but they've yet to release a patch for the kernel issues found a couple weeks ago. While, I don't mind so much downloading the new kernel source and recompiling it myself, I imagine there are many out there who don't know to do that. And yes, the newgrp exploit thing doesn't work in slackware because it uses shadow passwords instead of PAM, but the kernel bug is still there for exploitation by other means (su perhaps).
The fact that David is no longer developing autoslack and protopkg is unsettling, but it doesn't concern me as much as the seeming lack of activity at the slackware site. Please, Patrick, tell me I'm wrong and that you've got something big cooking up back there...
+++
NO CARRIER
...but you learn from using and installing windows 95.
You learn how to turn a computer into a door stop.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
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.
I started with Slackware too, but only because that was the only distro that I could find buy in my small town (didn't have net access at home at that time). Since then I've tried Debian and Mandrake, and have come back to Slackware. I'm happily running 8 right now.
:) A real nice way to put Linux on old 486's with no cdrom.
And Zipslack fucking OWNS.
As long as there's a few hackers somewhere on the planet who want the Slack tradition to continue, it will.
I myself have almost a dozen boxen installed with Slack, and it's about to be one more.
I've used Slackware off-and-on for a couple of years; it's one of three distros I've installed on a regular basis. Right now, though, I'm trending toward two distros: Debian and Mandrake.
I use different distros for different purposes. My laptop, for instance, has a Mandrake 8.1 install, because I didn't want to spend lots of time making exotic hardware working with Debian or Slackware. Mandrake installed perfectly the first time, enabling all the laptop's devices without even a hiccup.
My servers and cluster, however, run Debian-testing, because I can install a simple, tight, focused Linux for Beowulf or web hosting. I don't need KDE or X or any exotic drivers on my cluster nodes; I do need a reliable and concise install. Mandrake is too "fluffy" for my cluster... ;)
As it stands now, Slackware is fading from my systems because it doesn't give me anything I can't get from Mandrake or Debian. If Slackware is going to survive, it needs to provide a unique value not found in other distros.
All about me
(with apologies to Barry White)
Slackware was the first Linux distro I installed, more than 6 years ago. Since then, I've flirted with the GUI-package-oriented distros (Red Hat and Mandrake in particular), acquired disks of several others (tradeshow giveaways and the like), been exposed to Debian on servers someone else installed, but I've come back to Slack, to stay.
Why? Several reasons really:
I think I'll go along with what others have said about this: even if Slackware, by name and/or business, were to go away, there are plenty of people in the Slackware community (myself included) who have the wherewithal, interest, and capability to "roll-our-own" Slack-like distros. I would expect, if it were to happen, to see all sorts of "children of the Slack" proliferate as a result, perhaps none with the singular momentum of the parent, but all with a specific niche to fill.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
Some of us here remember SLS 1.02 of the 100+ 5 1/4 inch floppies, and SLS 1.03 of the broken jewel cases. And we also remember the broken promises for an update for SLS, as well as the outright fraud of taking advance orders, and then claiming that the computer with the CD masters and the payment records had been stolen out of his car.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
That story seems to just be trolling. i mean, the slackware forum at www.slackware.com is always buzzing. doesnt seem like its dieing to me. i use slackware 90% of the time on my workstation to do just about everything i want. it runs the apps i want, i can install them no problem. the slackware community has been going fine for years without a package manager and still keeps its userbase.
what does that tell you.
Just because some apps are no longer being actively developed by the lead maintainer doesnt mean the distro is dead. thats the beauty of open source. if alan cox or linus decided that they no longer had time to work on the kernel, would people shout that linux was dead?
i think not. as many people have said here, they are still using slackware, lots of people are. just because it isnt keeping up with the 'latest and greatest lindows distro' doesnt mean its dieing.
As another poster said, slackware's goal is not to ipo, make a huge amount of money (although im sure patrick wouldnt mind that, heh), and take over the world. its to have a linux distro based on KISS. and it works.
slackware lives on, and always will.
While i think Slack will always have its place, i do believe it is fading...
.rpm and .tgz) to actually freakin install on it.
I just downloaded Slack 8 last week, hoping to replace Caldera on my main system. I couldnt get Caldera to install very lightly, and after that i couldnt get a whole lot of programs(both
So load the ONE cd into the drive.. go through the install. Not quite as nice of an install as other distros, but i managed to get it going.
To my amazement, it seemed to install everything i wanted, KDE, XMMS, X, sound support, usb support, mozilla, and the latest and greatest versions of the kernel, libraries, etc. So i thought: Great! this'll be perfect, everything i need, nothing i don't!
Then i rebooted, WOW what a fast boot time. Logged in, typed "startx". Nothing.
Basically none of my hardware was set up, except my NIC. Now i do like Slack's KISS philosophy, however, if i want to install an OS, i want it to actually use the hardware i install it on.
Every other current distro i've thrown on that machine(Athlon 1.2, SBLive, Geforce2, USB mouse, Linksys NIC) like RedHat, Mandrake, Caldera, SuSE... all the basic hardware worked after the install (granted to get 3d accel on the geforce i had to set it up with the detenator drivers, but at least X came up)
So if slack is going to stay fairly used, I'd say it has to have better hardware detection at least.
It has everything else going for it, but i'm not spending an additional 4 hours setting up my hardware post-install, its not worth it.
However, I didnt waste the CD-R i put slack on, I had an old k6-300 i put it on to act as a router. So, yes, Slack still has its place, so i dont think it should just dissapear, but its not my first place for a workstation machine.
I always thought SLS and Yggdrasil were prior to Slackware, or at least very close contemporaries.
Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that Slackware was a modification of SLS.
Anyone remember? Does anyone have SLS disks anymore?
I've been running Slackware for quite a long time, and have tried Debian several times over the past couple of years. It seems like a decent distro, but I absolutely hate distros that are built around package systems like Debian and RedHat (and all the variants) are.
:-)
All I want in a distro is a basic install with a simple package system to get me running. After that, I never want to see a package again.
I did like Debian more than RedHat, though. I'd have to say that Debian reminds me of other SysV style Unix distros, while RedHat reminds me of penguin dung.
I'll use Slackware until the very end because it suits my needs and my administration style more than other Linux distros. If Slackware were to go away at some point, I'd roll my own distro, or try to take up the Slack.
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 :)
Well, it wasn't that many 3 1/2 disks :) Luckily the university had a computer lab next door to my dorm and I had to run back and forth with 5 floppies while installing the system :)
does anyone still have a copy of SLS laying around? It might be interesting to show to these newbies how far distributions have come...
I'm assuming userlocal.com is alluding to /usr/local. They're wrong. /usr is not "User", it's "Unix System Resources", and is pronounced "Yew Ess Ar"
Sorry, you are wrong. "Unix System Resources" is a retro-nym for /usr, much like "Packet InterNet Groper" is a retro-nym for ping; both are incorrect 'explanations' for for terms who's origin and meaning have been hidden by time.
In current Unices, /usr is where user-land programs and data (as opposed to 'system land' programs and data) hang out. The name hasn't changed, but it's meaning has narrowed and lengthened from "everything user related" to "user usable programs and data".
So, you are wrong. Deal with it.
"values of beta will give rise to dom!"
Agreed (kinda)...This will keep Slackware updated with the new "bells & whistles" upgrades. But how about the boring security patches and bugfixes. I think that is one thing that has a few long time Slackers shaking in their boots. (The fact that no security patches have been updated since August is something to be worried about maybe....)
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
I've used many different distros over the years - Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, Storm, Caldera, etc. While they all had their good points, I didn't truly like any of them as much as I like Slack (although Debian did come close). Why?
Part of it is simplicity. With distributions like, say, Mandrake, you get a lot of decisions made for you. That's the whole idea behind Mandrake and its kin. To hide the complexities underneath from the average user. But in so doing, they weave a tangled web that can be quite annoying for a power user to undo or modify to their needs. This is the opposite of Slackware - it gives you a powerful base of core software, with a few extra goodies thrown in. But if you really want to only install 50MB of stuff, you can do that. Don't want X? Gone. No KDE? No problem. And so on, and so on.
For people like me, Slackware is a wonderful distro. It allows one to start out with a very functional system with more than enough to get started, and build their system from there. Unlike the other newbie-ized setups, KDE and GNOME are not thrust down my throat. I happen to like WindowMaker, and even before the installer nicely offered that as an option, Slackware was more than happy to oblige my choice of window manager. And while many would cite the fact that Slack is a non-RPM distro as a weakness, I don't miss it. In the past, compiling things would be a more worrying prospect for me, especially during the turbulent times when glibc wasn't yet standardized across the distributions. But honestly, I'm not bothered by compiling my software, and I generally don't have the problems I occasionally had with RPM systems (ever try to upgrade RPM itself? how many times have you had to upgrade tar or gzip?).
All distros have their place - Slackware's place is with the power users, who don't want to be stuck with a Windows-wannabe setup. Slack harkens back to the day when men were men, installers were text, and Linux was Linux. And that's just the way I like it. ;)
Mozilla's a nice operating system, but it needs a better browser.
Yup, one can really trim down an install of Slackware to run on pretty much anything with a couple megs of RAM and about 40megs of HDD space.
I installed Slackware on a 486DX-33 w/12Megs of RAM and a 100meg hard drive to act as a print spool for an old laser printer on our network. Shut down all services except what was needed for printing, installed SSH for remote admin, and let it loose.
You can pretty much shape Slackware for whatever job you need a Linux machine to do, and you can do it easily.
We don't hear much about Slackware very often, that is true. In the last couple of years we've seen Linux IPOs, the domination of Red Hat, and many other flashy distros with neat logos and nice web sites (Corel, Mandrake, and so forth). Slackware has kinda stayed in the background of the Linux world, so to speak.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
You must be talking about their menu based front end (deselect?) to apt... Nobody really uses that, just get out of it as fast as you can and use apt. It's got no menus and is the best apckage amnagement program I've ever seen.
If the submitter had bothered to even glance at the slackware forum, he would have seen that David Cantrell and Chris Lumens have gone back to school now that Windriver dropped slack. Pat (who has always been the main man) has been busy shipping slack 8 and other business details he didn't have to worry about when wccdrom/bsdi was doing the publishing. He still updates -current occationally, and other than the latest fancy kernel, it's still one of the most up to date distros out there right now.
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).
One word, baby. NetBSD. I ran a web/file/mail server on a Quadra 700 with a 200 meg drive for months.
The hardware has since been changed over from the Mac to a Dell 486. Seamless and fast.
--saint
Actually, I've seen less and less -1 trolling lately.
I doubt this is from lack of trying. They (yes, the people that give you "Your Rights Online") are censoring them pretty hardcore. So what do the trolls do? Work harder and come up with articles like this.
To quote Princess Leia (I'm paraphrasing so don't flame the quote):
The harder you squeeze, the easier it is to slip through your fingers!
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
So what do the trolls do? Work harder and come up with articles like this.
Or like the one about "Cesium". Or the "How ESR built a bad motherfucking computer." Or the "Look how quiet my ThinkGeek(tm) computer is" article.
There's tech news happening every day. Are the readers here really more interested in this trivial shit? It's like a site for professional carpenters reprinting the instructions for a birdhouse kit from a craft store, for crissake.
Oh, and many thanks to the fuckwit who modded my last post "Overrated". When you're finished eating oatmeal and shaking on the short bus, you might want to look up what the Score +1 Bonus is, you grannyfucking slophound.
--saint
All I want in a distro is a basic install with a simple package system to get me running. After that, I never want to see a package again.
Out of curiosity, why do you dislike package systems? If it's becase you like to build your apps locally, have you ever looked at FreeBSD's ports collection?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
No you can't (there, I didn't bite). Theo is OpenBSD, not FreeBSD (OK, so I did) [scratches armpit, chases tail, extends wings, and flies away].
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
How does RPM solve all that?
Part of the reason I switched from Mandrake to Slackware was because RPM wasn't solving all that, and I just couldn't keep my system up-to-date. I was spending lots of time hunting for RPMs and finding out about new dependencies (which restarted the cycle). And then half the time, there just weren't any RPMs for the stuff I wanted, so I had to build from source anyway. Then the RPM database would gradually start drifting away from what was really installed on my system, and then I got into the habit of force-installing every single RPM, because 99% of the time, the dependency messages were false-negatives. Then the 1% case would bite me in the ass, as some program crashed because something it needed wasn't installed. ARGH!!! I HATE RPM!
(How do Mandrake and Red Hat users get by? I really don't know!)
I keep hearing that Debian's apt-get is so easy, and I've been tempted a couple of times. But fear will protect me: Fear that someday I won't be able to get something I need in package form, so I'll install from source, and then the package database will be wrong and I'll have the same problems I had with RPM. As long as I keep that fear in my mind, I'll be safe from Debian's temptation.
I'll steer clear of package management systems, thankyouverymuch. It's not "eliteness" or that I enjoy watching gcc do it's thing, justifying the cost of my Athlons. It's purely because of convenience and a desire to keep my hair instead of pulling it all out.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
As a historical note, Slackware won because it was more extensive (it had far more package series which allowed distribution of "precompiled/preconfigured" utilities) and had a far better installation routine (you could install Slackware packages at a later date). Also, its X configuration documentation was much better (but still pretty poor). SLS was also falling behind at maintaining things current. My first Linux was SLS downloaded on 1.44MB floppies at the campus computer lab the night before leaving college freshman year (better than 9600bps at the dorms) in spring 1993. I moved to Slackware the next fall. Slackware was introduced, spread like wildfire via word of mouth and in just a few months SLS was no longer in general use (in those days you upgraded your distributions monthly because many common device drivers and utilities were just being written/ported). SLS didn't really seem to be interested in the "distribution" market, they were just a guy who'd stumbled into a key role in Linux. One thing good about SLS was it had carefully documented update logs so you could upgrade individual floppies as programs changed. Since dialup networking was very hard to use and rare in Linux at the time, downloading the disk images with xmodem was a way of life if you didn't have an Ethernet connection.
True, but I didn't have a spare nic at the time. :) *grumblegrumble small town grumble goddamn shipping delays *grumblegrumble*
:)
Oh well. Now it's a very nice little firewall. Even put copies of Slash'em and Nethack on it, for those times when I'm on a windows machine somewhere else and need entertainment.
Look at NetBSD's packages collection.
/etc/make.conf and every port (and even the OS itself!) will be built with those options from that point on.
Then you can build from the same source for all your packages and your kernel on your Macintosh, Your Sparc, Your Intel, and your Vax boxes. You can use the same config files.
I think you meant "ports" collection, rather than "package" collection. A "package" is a archive containing the results of compiling a "port". However, yeah, I agree with your sentiments. Whether I'm on Intel or Sparc, I can compile the same program in the same way, and expect it to work identically. I'm isolated from having to manually configure everything I want to install, but still have the flexibility to do so if I wish. As a bonus, on FreeBSD at least, I can set preferred compiler optimization options in
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I can't see how anyone can assume Slackware would "fade away" because two applications cease development. That is similar to saying that if Netscape and IE decided to stop development, the Internet would "fade away." Slackware was not built or marketed for its new and innovative package management system, but for it's similarity to a truly GNU/UNIX environment and it's ability to show the user/administrator what goes on "under the hood" of a linux box. There are no bloated and clunky interfaces to hide the operating system from you, what you see is what you get. Some of the distro's out there (I'm not mentioning any names) are beginning to take on many of the aspects that keep users/administrators in the dark about the inner workings of Windows.
I was recently very grateful for Slackware. I wanted to install a modern, up-to-date distro on an ancient 486 laptop with a ~300MB hard drive. Red Hat, which is what I use on my desktop and on all my machines at work, just laughed at my naivete, thinking that I could install Linux on a drive so small. Slackware, however, worked without a hitch. See http://www.sonic.net/~rknop/linux/canonib150c.html .
-Rob
No RPM locking dependancy. If there's an issue, you can upgrade from source quickly.
Bah. If you absolutely can't wait for an errata package, this is what you do to make the latest source release work:
wget http://package.org/package-bugfix.tar.gz ../SRPMS ../RPMS/i386
mv package-bugfix.tar.gz SOURCES
rpm -ivh package.src.rpm
cd SPECS
vi package.spec
rpm -bs package.spec
cd
rpm --rebuild package-bugfix.src.rpm
cd
rpm -Uvh package-bugfix.i386.rpm
SPEC files aren't exactly dark magic, you know. It's painfully straightforward and the only problem is when you have specific patches (isn't that common of a problem, too).
If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
Now if you already have "users", what do you call /usr?
/usr can still be called "user" as it should be.
Well, since there is a difference between "users" and "user,"
Dinivin
> 'unix-like' ???
huh? pico? You can certainly say this about vi, but pico is *very* recent. Pine didn't start until the late 80's, and then pico came out of thaqt.
hawk, who used the True Editor on unix long before pico was conceived
I remember when the book Linux for Dummies came out. My first thought was "well, now I have to make the switch to BSD". While that may not have been bad in and of itself, I did then come to my senses and realized "Oh wait, I use Slackware, never mind".
Uh Oh! There's a Slackware for Dummies now, too. Maybe I'll have to switch to BSD afterall? Well, as long as Patrick doesn't try to make Slackware be the replacement for Microsoft Windows, then it will remain my choice.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
All this talk about packaging and update pains gives me an idea.
.tgz files instead of RPMs would give this autopatching ability to slackware, or at least distribute the files properly. If the boxes are fairly homogenous you might even be able to get away with auto-configure'ing and make'ing the packages.
Does anyone remember the old Fidonet-technology file echos? They were automated distribution networks of shareware and other public-domain files that BBSes would carry to always offer new files to users. You would dial up to your master server, it would download the files to you, then you would run a program called a file tosser to import them into the file areas of your BBS.
Something like this that passes around
Just a thought..
hawk
Could it be that the Slaktool project has a better system, and thus he gave up? Here is what the Slaktool people have to say about themselves:
.tgz format. It does this by way of a generic library that links into the various GUI (or textmode) package managers.
"Slaktool is a project to improve the Slackware package manager with all the features of the more advanced package managers while retaining the classic
The library handles all the package operations transparently, and does not base around any GUI or text console."
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
I believe they mean it was the first distribution available as pre-made disks from a commercial entity (in addition to being able to download and build your own set of disks). In that case, what was being sold was "the pre-made disks", not the Linux-based system itself.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
By almost veryone's definition these are methods of installing software but not packaging systems, Packaging systems (that is EVERY one I know of with the exception of Slackaware's) are designed to manage software in small chunks with some kind of metadata describing how packages relate to eachother - i.e. dependencies.
I've been sold the slackware `packagaing system' doesn't have dependencies. If that's true, it isn't a packaging system. Nothing wrong with that, but less call a software install method a software install method.
It's not losing steam. It's just changing the structure of the vent pipes. As more and more people come into the Linux community, they may well be the ones who shouldn't be using Slackware. But just because it's not the preferred distribution for the masses doesn't mean it's losing steam. For those of us into working with how our systems are put together, even Slackware sometimes is too much. I've even been tempted to go the other way to one of the minimalist Linux distributions, or build it myself. But Slackware is pliable, so I really don't need to. I've replaced the entire init/rc script startup system with my own design built from scratch, and Slackware didn't even blink.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
does slackware have any relationship/roots in the church of the subgenius and their encouraging people to get slack?
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Maybe we should understand just what "package" means...
package
n.
b. A commodity, such as food, uniformly processed and containerized.
SO uhh.. yeah, under definition 2, these things do qualify as packages. Terribly sorry to ruin your soapbox. Do go on though, it was *almost* interesting.
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
How can any distro that dosn't even include pico be considered 'unix-like' ???
If you want pico, you might try nano. It's a GNU clone of pico. Debian doesn't include pine because it's license violates the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG).
Under definition 2, PKZip is a packaging system.
/etc/shadow is filled with some sort of intoxicating resin, chopped meat, or something chopped into pieces.
/me wets himself.
If you ask anyone whose remotely familiar with packaging systems, they'd naturally tell you it wasn't.
Lets follow this logic, and look up a non computer dictionary for more computing terms.
Oer, apparently my
Is it possible, just possible that non computer dictionaries don't know anything whatsoever about specific technical terms with well accepted meaning?
Keep your own special definition of packaging system. I'm just letting you know that everyone else who makes packaging systems doesn't agree that appending `pkg' to an application makes it a packaging system.
Terribly sorry to ruin your soapbox. Do go on though, it was *almost* interesting.
Oer, feel the provocation!
Terribly sorry to ruin your soapbox. Do go on though, it was *almost* interesting.
Wait, hold up. Stop everything here.
I really have to ask a question. When is the last time the moderators of this site actually posted anything remotely positive about Slackware? I have used Slackware for something around 7 years now. I have tried Redhat, Suse, and Stormix. Nothing against any of them, but they are not for me. I was taught BSD style UNIX, and I find Slackware fills the functionality I need. Yet it constantly gets negative press from this news site. I haven't even HEARD of the tool that was mentioned in the headline. Alot of Slackware users haven't either. It just simply amazes me, that, because a developer of a tool that isn't even very known amongst the users of a distrobution is some how the equivilant to the distrobution dying, or fading away.
This shows a severe lack of responsibility on the part of the person who posted this story, not to mention, it's extremly insulting to the thousands of people who use slackware. I honestly think that there should be a public apology posted. This is utterly rediculous, and I am getting sick and tired of having to read about how Slackware is old, dying, useless, or whatever. It is still one of the largest used Linux distrobutuins in existance, especially in an enterprise/server market.
This is specifically the sort of infighting that is causing problems with any sort of possible true unification of the GNU movement. If people could at least pay a little respect to other peoples methods and thinking, than I think that Free Software as a whole would go considerably further. Who cares whether or not a certain distro does something the way you want it to? It's more important that the code is free. And since Slackware, like a considerable amount of other distrobutions is GNU, through and though, it should be celebrated. So for the love of god, Download Slackware, Red Hat, or whatever, play with it to your hearts content. Crack open a beer. Smile. That's what it's all about, isn't it? You have the Freedom to do so.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s: a-- C++ UL+++ P+ L+++ E--- W+ N+ o K- w-- O M V PS+ PE Y+ PG
Slackware's packaging system includes the capability to add and remove packages (without removing files and directories shared between packages), which I'd have thought is pretty much the basic functionality that would define a "packaging system". PKZip, tar, etc, are not examples of this. Your definition is pretty useless in any case. Dependency checking is pretty much pointless unless it includes dependency fetching which is much more difficult. Using both Slackware's packaging system (which you don't think is a packaging system, because while it manages packages, it doesn't ring a bell if the user installs something without installing something else.) and RedHat's (which does), an installation will fail if you haven't installed a dependency. The difference is merely when you find out that the installation has failed. Is RPM also not a packaging system? Or is your definition really dependent on when an installation fails? Personally, I don't think something should be called a "packaging system" unless it has a command line flag to tell you the time. After all, what's the point of installing something if you don't know when you installed it? (Sarcasm BTW)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Dependency checking is pretty much pointless unless it includes dependency fetching which is much more difficult.
That's a seperate issue - see below.
Using both Slackware's packaging system (which you don't think is a packaging system, because while it manages packages
Archives. And the level of management is doubtful
and RedHat's (which does), an installation will fail if you haven't installed a dependency.
By the common definition downloading dependencies is not part of a packaging system. By common definition discovring and recording those dependencies is. Neither Red Hat or Debian or Solaris packaging systems (nor any other I know of) include the ability to automatically download packages. Instead, higher levels tools like up2date, APT, or pkg-get perform these functions. However, the packages in each contain dependency information, and dependencies must be met before software in installed, enforcing a well maintained and cohesive system.
I didn't mean to imply it was a minimul install. I meant to imply that it was smaller than the "full install" size by far and was a fully running system without any excessive stripping of files (IE: trying to get as small an install as possible).
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.
Anonymous Coward writes:
/usr/bin/vi is a link to /etc/alternatives/vi, which is itself a link to the vi-compatible binary of your choice. There's a tiny bit of overhead to bounce through the two symbolic links, but no extra processes are generated and you run a binary executable directly.
and here is a gem for the minimalistic: did you know that "vi" in debian is a script that runs a version of vi accordingly to the user's preferences? Really. When you type 'vi' you fork another bash!
I don't know if that was the case ages ago, but in Potato and later vi is not a script, and doesn't fork an additional bash.
Debian does give people a choice of vi's (vim, nvi, elvis and elvis-tiny, possibly more). It does it with simple symbolic links.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Under definition 2, PKZip is a packaging system.
/var/adm/packages. The Slackware packaging system can then use this metadata do upgrade or remove the package.
No, it's only an archiver. The key word is system. A packaging system actually installs the package. The Slackware packaging system unarchives the package, installs the contents, runs any postinstall scripts that happen to be in there, and records the metadata for the package under
Including dependencies in the metadata would be nice, but they aren't the only metadata. (actually, dependency information is useless for installing packages if it won't fetch the dependencies, but it's quite handy for removing packages)
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
for older machines.
I needed a linux distro to go on 4 486's with no CD-ROM, 12MB of RAM each and with around 300MB of HDD each. They just needed to run Apache behind a P-75 running IPVS - this was a test rig for a clustering setup.
My main server and desktop distros, Redhat and Mandrake wouldn't even think about installing on a machine with 16MB RAM, but Slackware fitted perfectly.
I could download a basic Slackware install in 100MB, install via NFS and it only took 3 floppies and an afternoon.
Slackware is a great example of an easy to install and elegant flavour of Linux for the user who knows what they want from a simple server appliance, it's worked flawlessly and seems very consistently and logically arranged.
I don't want to see Slackware disappear, it's one of the only 'mainstream' distros left that is really focussed on providing a 'no-frills' setup, which is often exactly what is needed.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
It would seem you met up with some opposition, hey? Slackware people tend to be a very patriotic bunch, and loyal to boot. But more importantly, they're well informed about things... especially when it comes to their computer and the processes that run on it. Including package management. That said, why dont you read the following...
.rpm, Debian .deb, and (funnily enough) slackware .tgz
"Package Management" is not a computer term... its a label given to the process of managing packages. I can go look up meanings of words for you again, but you'd probably ignore them anyway, so you can deal with my paraphrased versions. (Real definitions available from dictionary.com).
Management is the act of supervising something and ensuring that everything is handled correctly. Management does not have to ensure integrity of the final outcome, only ensure that the work gets done. Now maybe you might say that GOOD management ensures outcome integrity, but that would just specify the quality of said management, and what *you* expect from it.
I dont know about you, but I've had some pretty terrible job managers in my time, and that certainly didnt stop them from having "Manager" in their job title.
Packages are a group of something, wrapped up in a convenient holder. Like a box, or a baggie, or any other of a huge number things you put something in.
so a package manager (following definitions) is something which manages the process of packing and unpacking a group of things wrapped in a convenient holder. Ie: Redhat
Listen to reason. You are defining the extra features that a package manager ought export, but that doesnt mean that they HAVE TO HAVE THEM by definition. Definiton defines a purpose, not an implementation of that purpose.
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
I was using unix before the mac came out (but not by much). When I bought my first mac in 84 (the 128k, but with the second drive), the other alternative was building my own AT (and not from a pre-made motherboard). I decideed I'd had enough of that.
I went back from mac to Unix over lyx (and there were several things I still missed), and actually toyed with the idea of a Mac with OS/X for my next worstation--but it wouldn't match the raw horsepower I can get with dual athlons on the budget, and this is a pure number cruncher. I still see X as a way to manage my xterms and the only way to display lyx.
Still, though, it seems a bit odd to want the absolute, bare-bones control, and at the same time want hte eye candy
hawk