Slashdot Mirror
Slackware 10.0 Officially Released
BRTB writes "Slackware 10.0 is out! X.org 6.7.0, kernel 2.4.26 (2.6.7 optional), KDE 3.2.3, GNOME 2.6.1, GCC 3.3.4... it's all new, and just as stable as you'd expect from Slackware, if RC2 was any indication. There's an official announcement, as well as some ISO BitTorrent links, and a mirror list. Of course, the non-cheapskates among us should go buy the CD-set to support the project. Have fun, everybody..."
Damn, and I am going home now too. Wait, I know...
Me: Hey, can you go grab slackware 10 for me?
My GF: Sure.
Me: They have bittorrents...
My GF: I know. Already downloading...
Oh yeah. Tech girlfriends...the only way to download distro's. =)
Jason Lotito
You do realize that Linux itself is a "garage basement project"?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Slackware 9.1 gave me a great few days setting it up. I'm definately going to have to try Slack 10.
ok... so I'm a total nerd... so what?
Bah. Not Slackware X, not Slackware XP.
;)
C'mon! Where's the marketing, folks?
-PM
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Just what Linux needs... Yet Another Distro
Please, keep these garage basement projects out of the news... we already have enough distros. Thanks.
Yep, that's right, the distrobution that was out before kernel 1.0 is now considered Yet Another Distro. Oh how the times have changed.
fdisk
"If you actually cared to read the release note"(that's slashdot for you), you would realize that it is a released with two kernels compiled with different configurations. This was the same during the previous kernel change and was probably the same before that. Slackware 10 comes with 2.4.26 default with 2.6.7 selectable during install I believe.
What do slackware users perceive as its strengths? My perception is that slackware is the distro where you install everything from tarballs, with no automatic system for satisfying dependencies (as you'd have in Debian, Gentoo, or FreeBSD, for instance).
Actually I'm starting to feel that automatic systems for installing software and satisfying dependencies are more trouble than they're worth. In FreeBSD, I often feel like a prisoner of the ports system. If I want to run application A, it forces me to upgrade library B. But then the new version of B breaks application C. Oops! Try recompiling C. No, that doesn't work. Oh, it's because C depends on library D, which then depends on B, so you really need to recompile D. Note how the whole story started because this automated system felt it was so important for me to upgrade library B, when in fact I would have probably been fine not upgrading it.
The real issues are (a) software needs careful testing, and (b) open-source hackers are sloppy about making changes that break stuff. If slackware is really thoroughly tested, that could be great...
Find free books.
>>In the end, I might save some time if I archive the config files and just reinstall everything.
you'll save a lot of time doing that.
don't forget to visit
http://www.linuxpackages.net/
for your precompiled slack addons.
good luck...i'm off to download.
You mean something like Swaret? http://www.swaret.org/
I have been a Slackware user since 1996. I've seen it grow all through these years, and even though it didn't get as popular as Redhat, Mandrake, SuSE or Debian, I stuck with them. It's been Slackware from the first Internet server I've installed in 1996 to my new personal server this year. I've never been so proud of my distribution of choice! My thanks goes to Patrick Volkerding for all his effort. He actually replied to my emails years back...however minor my concerns were. Thank you for taking care of your Slackware users.
Slackware has always been releasing the latest software, although this time they sounded 'too Debian' by releasing a 2.4 kernel claiming it was more 'stable' than 2.6. This is a first. They still don't have a packaging tool to match apt. Well, maybe someday... Nonetheless, viva la Slackware!
-
slackware-10.0-iso/
- slackware-10.0-install-d1.iso
- slackware-10.0-install-d1.iso.asc
- slackware-10.0-install-d1.iso.md5
- slackware-10.0-iso/ (subdir with same name as parent dir!)
- slackware-10.0-install-d2.iso
- slackware-10.0-install-d2.iso.asc
- slackware-10.0-install-d2.iso.md5
- slackware-10.0-source-d3.iso
- slackware-10.0-source-d3.iso.asc
- slackware-10.0-source-d3.iso.md5
- slackware-10.0-source-d4.iso
- slackware-10.0-source-d4.iso.asc
- slackware-10.0-source-d4.iso.md5
Not the prettiest layout for the disks, IMO.Nevertheless, I'll leave it running for the next few days (got to use my 1mb upload for something, right :-)
This may be an artifact of linux, as I've noticed it before with a few pieces of code I wrote where a directory already existed, and it created another with the same name under it ...
"non-cheapskates among us should go buy the CD-set to support the project"
If you want to support the project you dont need to buy anything, donate directly and all the money you wanted to donate (not just part of it) you reach the end you wanted.
If memory serves (may be a bit rusty on the dates)
X11R6.2 - XFree86 3.2 (c 1996)
X11R6.3 - XFree86 3.3 (late 96-early 97)
The xc changed the license for R6.4 so XFree86 stayed based on 6.3 for a while, until they backpedal sometime in 1998-1999.
X11R6.4 - XFree86 4.0
dunno about 6.5
6.6 was merged into XFree86 4.2 or 4.3 if memory serves.
X11R6.7 IS X.Org 6.7 as X.O is the xc's reference X distribution now.
You're doing it wrong.
RedHat was the very first distro I ever used, which was several years ago. Eventually, I tried out several other distros once I was comfortable with RedHat and once I came to Slackware, I hated it more than life. It was so hard to configure and was much different than RedHat.
Eventually, I did get it working and I am so happy that I did. Slackware has been my favorite distribution of Linux ever since, and I continue to use it today on all my linux pc's. Gentoo was ok, but something about Slackware keeps me coming back. I'm currently on my P4 3.2ghz Laptop running Slackware 9.1, while my server upstairs which hosts all my projects and work is running Slackware 9. At my parents' house (I live with my gf in an apartment at college), my mp3 server still runs to this day running some oooold version of Slackware from 1998. It still is just as stable and just as good. It's a 486, so it has no reason to upgrade anything. The system runs stable and fine for all the hardware and all the tasks it needs.
Eventually, I'd like to have my desktop upstairs running linux. It's hard to part with MS Flight Simulator though and I need Macromedia Flash for development.
Either way, this is my thank you to Patrick for giving me a beautiful and stable distro.
The greatest experience we can have is the mysterious.
- Albert Einstein
I'm running it right now with a 9700 pro. No problems. Runs beautifully.
Why are some linux releases still hanging onto the 2.4.26 kernel
:)
The 2.4 kernel has had 26 revisions in it fixing bugs.
The 2.6 kernel has had 7.
That's why
The greatest experience we can have is the mysterious.
- Albert Einstein
When I started out, I cut my teeth on Mandrake. It was easy, but I did nothing for two weeks but say, "Man! Look at all these fractal programs!" A week later I installed slack...that's when I began to love *nix. The curve went from a slope of zero to exponential. The slackware installer even has a good intro for a newbie. It's nothing to be afraid of.
because the other one left?
Slackware is a nice distribution, its easy to understand its package system for example. But it has bad binaries/package support.
You can live happily with it if all packages you need are in the distro, which include all packages needed for servers and small offices machines, but it can be a nightmare if youre a home user.
Slackware is a "one man" distribution, the reason for that is its low number of official packages.
And if you need some other software outside of that its better you compile all yourself or youll be in a jungle of amateur made packages.
People with different software and hardware configurations generating packages and spreading it around.
That lead to missing libraries messages (even when you have them), missing new versions of libraries that are on the official distro (but not yet updated), complaints about not finding your remote control (even when you dont have one), binaries compiled with strange options (some missing other unuseful) and so on.
A slackware zealot may say "compile your own", but sometimes you cant, because of time restrictions, or just dont want to waste a lot of time compiling a "one task application" and its dependencies.
And in that situations youre SOL in the jungle, and is not a good experience at all.
Does Slackware have an apt/"windows update"-style auto-update tool yet?
Check out slapt-get. It can be found on freshmeat at http://freshmeat.net/projects/slaptget/. I used it to keep my Slack 9.1 install up to date and was pleased with its performance.
Time was, this was real. I had The Linux Bible, which had an old Slackware based on kernel 1.2.13. I took notes for 3 hours before I ever did a thing with the CD. One week later, I was online. No GUI yet, so Lynx was my friend. Another week to get XFree86 up and running (I learned more about video timing than I ever wanted). Two more days, and I had Netscape loaded and running. That's when I knew I had taken the first steps of that fateful journey...
Personally, I prefer distros that still support X in some manner ;).
E actly. It would seem a rather pointless and e treme measure to fail to support in some manner, at least lower case.
The Window System is also nice to have around, but if you at least have support you can always still work at the console, although that might suck on an Window System oriented distro like andros.
KFG
Slack appeals to the "traditional UNIX" group of people. I actually started on Slack 3.(5|6) that came bundled with a book. The book said it came with a complete UNIX system. I didn't really believe it - I was assuming it was some sort of trialware - and learning about people who actually shared code with each other freely really changed my perception of the field of computer science while I was in college.
.tar.gz formats
:)
Slackware today still has a lot going for it:
* it doesn't assume much about you, except that you know what you're doing
* it is built for speed - it attempts to be cruft-less (and from what I've seen it succeeds quite well)
* it's packages are backwards-compatible w/
* BSD-style init for those who like it (I'm a SysV guy, myself)
* a competent community
It's kind of a do-it-yourself kind of environment, which, for some reason, Linux people often enjoy
Engineering and the Ultimate
I've using a 9600XT with X.Org 6.7.0 and the ATI binary driver 3.7.6 (3.9.0 was making mplayer crash or at least refuse to do usual operations). I'd say it works well. If only ATI could beef up there Alternative OS drivers it could be alot better.
--tarballedtux
After trying many different distributions I have settled on Slackware. The BSD-style configuration is, I find, straightforward and powerful (even though I wasn't a BSD user before Linux). Slackware does not impose specific configuration styles, layouts, interfaces or layers on you and I enjoy the resulting flexibility and freedom. I like the "EZ"
Security notices are rapid, accurate, and to the point thanks to Pat himself. Things in the Slackware installation work properly, without embarassing-looking glitches. It is intelligently put together, and tested to perfection.
Overall the distro is the lean and the easiest to tweak in the least amount of time. I personally found it the easiest to install of all Linux distros. Slackware is a winner.
I'd tried Debian, Mandrake, and a few minor distro's. I don't know why everyone says that slack is hard to configure. Atleast in the newer versions , it isn't. I installed slack 9.1 I think it was. It went without a hitch, not at all confusing compared to debian, although a graphical install would have been nice for anyone new. It finished the install and then restarted. I typed startx. On most computers, it would have been fine. I looked in the file and it was configured, except for my integrated graphics, which I no longer used (put in a GeForce but never disabled integrated). I changed that one line in the file to NV, and X worked. Network worked, CDRoms worked, etc. I don't get why people say its hard to install. Although nongraphical, the install is still menu driven and straight forwards. The configuration is minimal, and its fast and rock solid. I never looked back after that. Swaret works great, and for things not in a slack package, they will usually compile perfectly. GO SLACK!
Help Fight SPAM today!
"I bet with Windows, I can add my friend's music collection to my playlist! Oh... DRM."
If you can't afford the songs, then you don't really want them, do you? Borrow an album, sure, but do you think fair use should really include "permanently borrowing" thousands of songs?
"I bet I can create a wireless network without an access point! Oh... Need Linux for that."
Linux and roughly twenty pages of howtos. Which wireless cards work with which distros? Oops, I meant which revisions of which wireless cards works with which distros?
I really wish I could use some sort of "wizard" in XP to "share" my connection. Oh wait, I can.
"I can't even change the MAC address on my ethernet cards."
Gosh, I wish there was an item for around $100 or so that allowed me to "route" all of this "internet" traffic. Guess I'll just have to read the howtos and learn how to use all the unix commands.
"And my sound card skips and crackles, because it's older and not well supported. Same with my old video card, damn. No solution except to downgrade to Windows 98, huh?"
I would have tried downloading drivers, but you sound like you've got better ideas.
"To install a sound card: plug it in, hope it works, swear if it doesn't."
It sure is easier to look for modules, compile them, and then add them to the kernel, isn't it?
"Then buy a new card, but be sure to buy a brand name card, or the drivers will suck."
Gosh, you're right. I've never heard of anyone trying to make sure pieces of hardware worked with linux.
"I think I'll write some software!"
I do it every day, honest. Oh wait, I'm 95% of computer users. I don't think I write software, do I?
I think it's simple. Slackware is the most simple of all distros. It doesn't have SysV scripts, just the basic /etc/rc scripts, which are incredibly simple, easy to configure, etc.
It has the simpliest package manager of any. It doesn't get in your way, and it's trivial to make a package. In fact, it's trivial to install a slackware package without the package manager.
All packages come with the dev files (headers, libs) so you don't need to mess around with all the roadblocks other distros put in your way that make it harder to install the dev files for your programs.
There's plenty more reasons, but I find that to be a good run-down of the biggest reasons to use it.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant