Slackware 9.1 Released

9.1 Release by Accipiter · 2003-09-27 01:07 · Score: 5, Informative

ISOs for 9.1 won't be available via the main Slackware FTP site due to bandwidth limitations, so BitTorrents have been set up to distribute the load.

Torrent for Disc 1
Torrent for Disc 2

The 9.1 4-disc CD set is also available from the Slackware Store. I usually place my order for the CD set and download the ISOs so I can have it available to me immediately until the nice disc set arrives in the mail.

--

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

slackware ISO: a tip by lanswitch · 2003-09-27 01:09 · Score: 5, Informative

Note that ftp.slackware.com will not allow ISO downloads starting with this release; instead, the first distribution of the ISOs will be via BitTorrent."

1)download an old ISO (8.1 or 9.0 are just fine)

2) install and run swaret (see freshmeat)

3) you now have a Slackware 9.1 box.

Re:slackware ISO: a tip by RPoet · 2003-09-27 01:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why go to the lengths of downloading an OLD iso just to avoid BitTorrent? What's wrong with BitTorrent?

--
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Re:slackware ISO: a tip by Leffe · 2003-09-27 01:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Wouldn't that give you Slackware-current instead(9.1 for the momeny) ;)?

Anyway, that tool looks really cool - I'm going to give it a try.

Swaret
Re:slackware ISO: a tip by Slack3r78 · 2003-09-27 05:18 · Score: 3, Informative

The only time I've seen BitTorrent run slowly were for files with just about no demand. For something like an ISO from a major distro, you should be able to essentially max out your connection. I used the Torrent of the RH9 ISOs when I was visiting a friend at Georgia Tech to test their connection and got something like 880k/s out of it. =)

Slackware rules! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 01:09 · Score: 5, Informative

Been following -current and the 9.1 betas and RCs. Stable, ultra fast and simple as ever, with stacks of the latest software. The addition of two fully-fledged package management tools (Swaret and Slackpkg) is the icing on the cake; there's little to fault here (although GNOME 2.4.0 doesn't seem totally rock-solid yet).

Then again, Dropline GNOME for Slack provides one of the best and most attractive GNOME installations out there, and they'll update to GNOME 2.4.1, 2.4.2 etc.

If you're tired of all the frills in Red Hat, Mandrake and SuSE et al (good as those distros are), and want something clean, speedy and stable as hell, give this Slack a go.

Re:Slackware rules! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 01:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Cleaner? Simple boot scripts and config files, well-commented and quick to modify. Easy .tgz packages instead of some arcane binary format. I could go on...

Speedier? Boots twice as fast as Red Hat 9. GNOME and KDE are much more responsive. Doesn't start loads of services and daemons in the background.

More stable? Only well-tested stuff. Go and look for the RPM freeze/db-corruption problems in RH8 and 9 for the best example ever (still hasn't been fixed, and caused many people a lot of hassle). RH have put glibc and gcc snapshots into stable releases before (7.0 and 8.0 respectively). Mandrake throws in all manner of unproven bits and bobs (devfs, supermount) and their Control-Center is full of glitches.

Seriously, as a Linux user of five years and writer on the topic, I do have a clue what I'm talking about. I respect Red Hat and Debian, they do some good stuff and the former is ideal for newcomers, but that doesn't mean they're the best in every single area.

Re:Slackware by Rooktoven · 2003-09-27 01:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

are you implying Slack is a distro with lots of holes? I think you don't know anything about slack.

--

Acquiescence leads to obliteration

ISOs are on ftp at ftp.oranged.to by Exter-C · 2003-09-27 01:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Ive put the ISO's online at ftp.oranged.to

disk 2 was corrupt so its still on its way but if you want the discs go for it.

Benefits of Slackware? by Giant+Ape+Skeleton · 2003-09-27 01:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

Before I go and grab the ISO, Can somebody give me a general idea of what sets Slackware apart from other distros?

I've tried just about all of them except for Slackware, and am wondering if it offers a significantly different experience than, say, Debian

or Gentoo - from an administrative as well as end-user perspective. Thanks!

--
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

Re:Benefits of Slackware? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 01:20 · Score: 5, Informative

Slackware is solid and well-tested. Gentoo is fun for the bleeding-edge, but if you want an ultra-reliable, secure and simple system, Slack is the way to go.

Most Slack stuff is compiled with -march=i486 -mcpu=i686, so it's optimised for more recent boxes. Equally, that article not long ago showing that Mandrake and Debian were faster than Gentoo says a lot; I like that Slack uses sane optimisation options to keep things zippy but retaining stability.
Re:Benefits of Slackware? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 01:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

slackware is faster and tighter.

I can make a slack install that fit's in 8 meg or take a full 5 gig....

you CANT do that with redhat. (you cant install redhat without installing X either)

you have ultimate control over your install... Gentoo is very close to slack except that I am up an running in 20 minutes after inserting the CD for install, Gentoo REQUIRES a broadband connection to install it, slackware can be installed without a connection to the internet.

Slackware is the only "correct" linux as far as software installed where it belongs. they dont do stupid things like install apache somplace else.. everything is installed where the app want's to be by default.

making upgrading to the latest a snap... redhat or debian you HAVE to wait for someone to make a package
Re:Benefits of Slackware? by Jameth · 2003-09-27 02:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Slackware gives you a lot of power, since it doesn't fuck with much.

Although there are occasionally packages that are patched, you can find out what the patches are and change them. If you order the source CD, you don't get the patches sources. You get the original sources and the patches. If you need to administer a system and ever need to customize something, that can be a life-saver.

Also, stuff is installed as it wants to be. That means you can compile anything from source and it will work right. (Okay, it might not, but it almost always has for me. The biggest change I've ever needed was to add something to my path variable).

In addition, you can usually get up-to-date programs with Slack. Although Slackware is usually fairly close to bleeding edge in Current, it isn't really buggy. The only bug I have encountered in all of Slackware 9.0 is that Qt Designer has errors when inserting widgets from KDElibs, and that can be fixed by rebuilding from source or redownloading just that package from Slackware Current (I don't know when they fixed it, but it didn't take long).

Furthermore, all of the configuration is essentially done by hand. I know, that sounds bad, but it's really kinda nice. For most important configurations, it has a configuration script. You can re-run it whenever you want, and it makes a fully readable config file. If you ever want to change how it configures things, you can just edit a script and its done. No fancy configuration tools which are broken half the time (the only tools I've found to work reliably are the proprietary Yast ones from SuSE).
Re:Benefits of Slackware? by bobbuck · 2003-09-27 03:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've tried the others and I keep coming back to Slackware. The advantages are:
1) Speed
2) Speed
3) Standard setups for most things.
4) Simplicity (Well, simple for a potentially >2G Linux installation.)
5) Source tarballs almost always install with nothing more complex than "./configure; make; make install"
6) RPMs can usually be installed using rpm2tgz if you need binary packages.

The disadvantages are:
1) Most configuring is done by editing configuration files.
2) The included software list is short compared to SuSE or RedHat. (When will Patrick come out with a Slackware DVD with all the freaking software that ever was?)

I tried SuSE and it was nice, but getting the nVidia drivers for XFree86 made bad things happen. The SuSE configuration tool Yast runs a long time for even small changes. I didn't understand what was going on under the hood. I just didn't like it.

The reason Slackware has been around so long... by Rooktoven · 2003-09-27 01:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is that Pat keeps it simple. Slack has made adminning my boxen so much easier than Red Hat, Suse, etc.

I advise anyone searching for a distro to try Slackware out, once I found it a few years ago, it's all I run-- including on my home pc.

Thanks again, Pat, for making my life easier.

--

Acquiescence leads to obliteration

Re:Why Slackware ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 01:23 · Score: 2, Informative

Slack now has an apt-like tool: Swaret. There's also Slapt-get if you search for it. What makes Slack special over Debian, you ask?

Debian (stable) is immensely stable, but very var behind the times. Slack uses recent, proven and reliable releases to make an up-to-date distro which still won't fall over.

Equally, the filesystem layout, installer and general administration is much more straightforward than Debian.

What makes Slack different or special? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 01:29 · Score: 5, Informative

A lot of folks in here have been asking why Slack still has suck a cult following. It's a fair question; Slack doesn't get a great deal of exposure with the mainstream distros taking all the column inches now.

In a nutshell, Slack delivers Linux as it should be. Whereas distros like Red Hat and Mandrake deliver an "experience" (which is certainly good for newcomers), Slack says "Here's lots of great Linux stuff, packaged up and guaranteed to work out the box. Now make yourself a cool system!".

Slack's focus is on stability and simplicity. Instead of massively-patched packages, complicated init scripts and wizards galore, Slack goes all out for an easy to administer installation. It's very reliable; 99% of the time, only tested and stable releases are included.

Additionally, Slack's bootup time is half that of Red Hat 9. In general use it's much snappier too.

Above all, Slack isn't ideal for newcomers but if you've got some Linux experience under your belt, and want a system you feel YOU'RE in control of, download and give it a try.

Re:What makes Slack different or special? by Lumpy · 2003-09-27 01:58 · Score: 2, Informative

The best example I could give was the one that was given at the last LUG meeting here....

Redhat and Mandrake are like a top of the line Caddilac... all the features, a dream to drive, comfort everywhere and the dealer gives you excellent service and instant oil changes.

Slackware is like a ricer car. you can make the install from a small economy box that will run on anything easily, or a luxury Sedan with all the options, all the way up to the every option, powerhouse that will blow everything else away on the road... you have to change your own oil, but you get to completely tweak every aspect of it easily by ripping out a component and replacing it with the high performance version without having to fight the car's computer system (redhat RPM system)

if you are a tinkerer and a tuner wanting every drop of power out of your box? use slackware...

if you want to use linux without having to think about the guts? use Mandrake,Redhat.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:What makes Slack different or special? by Jameth · 2003-09-27 02:20 · Score: 2

Actually, Slack is often great for Newbies (gimme a second to explain).

I started on SuSE, then Mandrake, then Redhat, then went to Slack. All in the span of two months. Why? I have a tendency to break systems. I like to do whatever the hell I want with them, and all those other ones seemed to expect some sort of default behavior. Mandrake's common menu system was so difficult to make work Exactly as I wanted that I pitched the Distro (no, that wasn't the only problem).

In general, if you are just starting with Linux and want to Really LEARN about Linux, not just use it, Slackware is great. The big advantage is that everything Does work in Slackware. With the others, I would try something and it wouldn't work, so I thought I had fucked up.

However, it was just as common that they had some custom setup shit which made normal changes not work properly. You HAD to use their tools, and their tools didn't do everything. Slackware doesn't do that.
Re:What makes Slack different or special? by adamjaskie · 2003-09-27 05:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

What admin stuff is Slackware missing? Ive never had a problem with vim, pico, or any other text editor. For remote admin, use those over ssh.

--
/usr/games/fortune

The Only Distro by GNUALMAFUERTE · 2003-09-27 01:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Slackware is a distro that has been made by just one developer, and you can notice that (for good).
We you should use Slackware:

1) Free Beer: You can just download it.
2) Free Speech: Run Only GNU.
3) Free Mind: Many Distros install the software and then install themselves!!, Slackware install the software and then you can forgot you are running it, 'cause it won't get on the middle. You can use your GNU System without stupid modifcations or distro-specific bullshit automagic config tools. (But if you want them, they are just there, and they are the best).

I Think an important concept in Slackware is this:
Slackware config tools are basic. They do a minimal setup; if you need a config tool, you will be happy with them; some people think that just making a front end to configure a config file just wrapping the options from the Option=Value Format to the input/check/click/etc format; and that is just stupid. If someone doesn't know what an option means, he won't be able to configure it, doesn't matter if it has colors and graphics all around.
So Slackware keep it simple. Their config tools asks you for the minimal. That is enough for people who require a config tool. And if you need to go further, I think you will be more confortable using vi.

I think the only thing missing in Slack is ports and other kernels (It would be nice to run Slackhurd ; )

--
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?

Re:The Only Distro by melonman · 2003-09-27 02:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm getting a bit bored with this "my distos is cooler than yours" discussion every week, but I can't resist taking you up on the graphical tools thing.

I can do that stuff from the command line, and sometimes I do, but there are occasions where a graphical interface makes more sense, even if all it does is prepare and execute a command. GUIs are generally good for picking from a large and possibly dynamic list of options for example. Command line is good for tasks with a richer syntax, and it's good to have it there in all cases, but some things are easier to click on than to type correctly in full.

--
Virtually serving coffee

Re:Cant... Resist... by 11223 · 2003-09-27 02:05 · Score: 2, Funny

Aaah, minions! I've waited so long for this. Thank you Slashdot!

Very timely by Evil+Pete · 2003-09-27 02:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

I remember starting on Slackware in 1995. Not hard to install, well it was fun so I guess I didn't mind the effort ... but X let me down cos I was using some weirdo video card that must have been handcrafted by a bunch of orcs. Ahem, anyways, I've been using Redhat since 4.2 with the occassional digression to Mandrake ... and you know ... the more bells and whistles the harder it seems to be to do anything constructive. I just spent way too much time trying to figure out how to customize the menus ... I gave up ... the obvious way of using the "add menu item" just plain doesn't work. And then I went to change the names of the workspaces and it didn't work .. because it seems that when you make the changes it is not stored in the same xml file that it reads from ... sheesh ... yeah I know this a gnome problem not redhat (or maybe I should just go back to KDE) ... but you'd think Redhat would check these things. All I kept thinking was , if this was Enlightenment (may it rest in peace) or WindowMaker it would be simple. And I started thinking very wistfully of Slackware. Hmmm.

I would've gone Debian, but since I'm on a dialup I can just imagine how little time it would take me to hate apt-get. And I've tried Suse, nice and consistent ... but I dunno irritating.

So I'll probably give Slackware another go.

--
Bitter and proud of it.

Slackware versus the rest by mst76 · 2003-09-27 02:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

Slackware is above all a very focussed distribution. It aims to give you a fairly complete, simple and stable operating system for 486+ computers, that can be easily customized by yourself. In the past, there were also Alpha and Sparc versions, but now I think only Intel is officially supported. Slackware does not attempt to include every open source software package under the sun. There is sendmail, but not postfix, qmail, exim etc. There is mysql but not postgre, firebird, etc. There are a few window managers, as opposed to dozens. It does include the usual development tools and the most common libraries. If you want something not provided in the default distribution, you are expected to download and compile/install it yourself. The result is that the complete distribution can more or less be managed by a single person. Of all the major distributions, Slackware has probably the smallest development team. If the Mandrake or Gentoo company (yes folks, Gentoo is not a non-profit org like Debian!) were to fold next month, it is not easy to continue the distributions, because they need a reasonable amount of supporting infrastructure and developers. If Patrick Volkerding quits next month, I can maintain my own Slackware tree reasonably well, because I have a reasonable overview of how the entire distribution works.

Volkerding by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 02:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

What happens to slack if Pat dies?

IIRC slack is Pat's HD image

Re:Slackware by Jameth · 2003-09-27 02:23 · Score: 2, Funny

I suggest you save this joke for the next Mandrake of Redhat release. It doesn't fit so well with Slackware, Debian Stable, or SuSE.

Re:Cant... Resist... by Xpilot · 2003-09-27 02:37 · Score: 2, Funny

I, for one, welcome our new Slackware 9.1 using overlords.

Wow. That's the first time anyone ever referred to me as an "overlord". Now fetch me some refreshment, peasant.

I could get used to this... :)

--
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds

Re:slackware sites?? by brank · 2003-09-27 03:24 · Score: 2, Informative

A quick rundown:

LinuxPackages (formerly LinuxMafia), for user-contributed binaries not in the base distribution
UserLocal is a 100% lynx compatible user community for Slackware.
LinuxQuestions has a Slackware forum.
Dropline Gnome, which packages GNOME stuff for Slackware. For a while, this was because Pat didn't include any GNOME 2 stuff. Now Dropline's packages are a replacement for the base Slack GNOME. Sometimes they're more up to date.

Of course, there is the infamous alt.os.linux.slackware. It's not as hostile as some people say, as long as you try Google first.

--
it's green.

Re:Problem --isn't one by Rooktoven · 2003-09-27 03:41 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually you don't even need swaret-- though it makes things easier I'm sure. Just download everything you need from slackware-current, and
upgradepkg --install-new *.tgz (the install-new gets packages that you may not have earlier versions of installed.)

Voila-- you're done, and you have a totally current system. And done more easily than any of the rpm based systems, IMO.

Remember, the version number in Slackware is just a snapshot in time. Unlike Redhat where the rpm version names of different programs vary from each release, you can pretty much upgradepkg any named package and /var/log/packages will reflect your new version.

--

Acquiescence leads to obliteration

Life's Too Short for Packaging Schemes by reallocate · 2003-09-27 04:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

There'e enough to learn and use in Linux without getting bogged down in learning about a particular distributions proprietary packaging scheme.

I've tried and used several releases of all the major RPM-based distributions (RedHat, SuSe, Mandrake), installed Debian more than a few times, spent a l-o-t of time on Gentoo installs.

What has caused me the biggest headaches in each of these distributions? Problems with their packaging systems. Every blasted one of them has managed to put my machines in a broken state.

Yes, sometimes chasing down and compiling some obscure piece of code can be frustrating if I'm using Slackware and installing from source. But, I know how to do that, the concept is simple, and if it goes wrong, I know I can trace the problem and fix it.

If RPM or apt or emerge or whatever goes belly-up, fixing the problem means I have to take time to learn about that packaging system. Why should I?

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"

Re:Cant... Resist... by zoloto · 2003-09-27 05:49 · Score: 2, Funny

You may kiss the royal hand now.

*stretches hand*

Come on Microsoft by sh0gun · 2003-09-27 06:48 · Score: 2, Funny

Perhaps Microsoft will catch on and release official torrents for Windows from now on :)

That would make it a lot faster for us.

33 of 241 comments (clear)