Slashdot Mirror
Why Slackware Still Matters
An anonymous reader writes "In a rebuttal to the recent opinion column "Does Slackware still matter?" at Linux Watch, cRaig Forrester provides insight into Why Slackware DOES still matter--and not just to "hard-core group of hobbyists" or "highly professional" Linux server administrators--but desktop users and newcomers too."
Slackware was my very first distro. After Slack, I tried suse and mandrake, but found that when I had problems with using the GUI or configuration tools, that the experience I had gained in Slack was my most useful tool in solving the problems. No, I'm no Linux guru. I use XP on my box for various reasons: particular software availability being the primary reason, and ease-of-use quite honestly being the second. I just don't have time to learn a new OS as well as I know Windows. I use the tool that works best for my situation. Frequently, this means OSS. Sometimes, it means Microsoft. Oh well. But anyway, just gauging from my own experience, Slackware definitely has a place, even for new Linux users.
In all seriousness though, I will always feel that Slackware (and others like Gentoo, or home-rolled linux) will matter because installing and using these sorts of distros really do give you an understanding into how Linux works(tm), and maybe more importantly, how to change how it does something. You can't make improvements to something as complicated as Linux without first understanding how it works.
Pete/Petri "damn, my chainsaw is clogged with 1's and 0's again." --clyde
The idea that Slackware is hard to install and use is just insane. I began with Slackware eight years ago and I am still using Slackware today. It's so straight forward and simple to configure and use. I really don't understand why people complain about Slackware, frankly I find all those so call "easy" distro like Redhat and others confusing as hell. Why do people continue to perpetuate this Slackware myth?
In my opinion, many things are simpler in Slackware. Since there are no (or very few) GUIs to use to administer your machine you can go right to the configs and make things the way you want. Red Hat, like Microsoft, hides the configs behind layers and layers of GUIs. It also doesn't seem to do things in a standard way. (I ran RH from 4.2 to 7.2)
/. is for geeks. I run Slackware 10.2 on my Dell Inspiron 5100 with everything working, even suspend--the wireless doesn't restore, though.
I'm a geek so my opinion might be skewed toward text-based configs, programs, etc. But then again,
Just a disclaimer, I started with Slackware. I ran it for three years before switching to Red Hat 4.2. I stayed with RH through 7.2. I did it mainly because the company i worked for used RH. I switched back to Slackware in late 2003.
Bottom line: Slackware is very fast, very stable, and very useful. What more could I want?
You don't get it. It's all about some clueless individual writing some uninformed inflammatory comments, with slashdot blessing. The name of the game is "Ad money".
Slackware doesn't suffer from all the bloat the "other distros" seem to suffer from. From the simple but sufficient text installer, to just the right number of packages - its not bloatware. They also tend to stay a step or two behind the other distos with respect to upgrading libraries and such so your applications tend not to break as often...
Besides, what other distro has aSmoking Tux Logo?
-everphilski-
It's all about package management. Slackware has long since been replaced as the hobbyist distro-of-choice by Debian and Gentoo, and the casual users who simply want a "basic distribution that works" have turned to Ubuntu, Fedora, Knoppix, etc. Slackware has not evolved.
My roommate, I suspect, is the typical Slackware user... using it because it's what he was using in the 90's, when he chose Slackware for its laid-back, non-commercial attitude and for its geek-chic. More power to him, but I think that the newbie-hobbyists of today are not choosing Slackware as their first distribution crush... it simply doesn't offer the compelling technical advantages of Gentoo or Debian.
(note that the author of the linked article doesn't even mention Gentoo... -1 credibility...)
I stumbled into Slackware out of dumb luck. It was the first distro that actually installed on my laptop with no huge problems. I seem to remember the RedHat installer choking on something and failing to get the SuSE net install working for some reason or other. I had to put in my own ethernet and battery support, but once I found the drivers and some FAQs, it was no biggy. (For the record, I was working with a Dell Inspiron 2200 and with Slackware 10.)
Maybe this is the minority case, but Slackware seemed to work right off the CD with few problems. Why does Slackware have the reputation for being tough to use? It seems most Linux distros have their ups and downs, and whether you're farting around with YAST or rpms or source tarballs, it doesn't seem to make that much difference, IMHO.
I'm by no means a Linux guru, and I use my laptop for fairly mundane things - OpenOffice, GIMP, development stuff. Maybe people that are having huge problems with Slackware are doing something more fancy?
....slackware does matter. I am seeing a trend of ppl who try out linux first with either Mandrake or Fedora core. Nothing wrong with that, but as n00bs the do the usual thing such as install everything and turn everything on. Nothing wrong with that either-
-however-
Instead of going the classic route of tuning a 'big' or 'bloated' installation to fit their needs, they seem to be tossing it all aside and jumping on the Gentoo bandwagon. Not a bad thing in itself, but by comparison Gentoo will *seem* faster to them because the only experience they had was their Mandrake box running KDE, Apache, Samba, et all and having all these background services running. It perpetuates the Gentoo Myth and creates some zealotry. (or maybe the zealotry is unavoidable regardless, i dunno).
Very "straight forward" distros like slackware and debian will always have a place for advanced users to build the linux they need. It also serves as a good demonstration that the benefits of linux aren't unique to Gentoo. Whether Gentoo's model is good or bad is up for debate, but it is good to have different philosophies and different development strategies.
Besides, Slackware is classic.
do() || do_not();
It's been a long time since i've installed linux from scratch so things may have changed but Slackware will always have it's purpose. I understand the reasoning behind dumbing down Linux for the masses since the more users the more relevant and main stream Linux will become. But there will always be the need for a distribution who's purpose is only to provide a framework (scheduler+filesystem+[IP stack]) for services or specialized applications to run on and Slackware is the best way to get there short of building a custom dist. IMO.
Again, it's been maybe 4-5 years since i've installed Linux from scratch rather then recompiling/patching so maybe the modern distributions can be stripped down but in what experience i have with them they're all aimed at setting up a home computer.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
(1) I like technology X, Y and Z.
(2) I don't like technology A, B, and C.
(3) A,B, and C shouldn't exist, because by existing, they distract people who don't know they really shouldn't like A,B, and C, and if I could just force them to see things my way, they'd do as I do.
I find it amazing that people bother reading the original article, to which this article responds, and dignify it by any response at all. Slackware will exist as long as at least one slackware developer/maintainer finds it useful, pleasant, or in some way desires for it to continue to exist, and thus Slackware, or something very like it, is likely to continue to exist. It's the oldest surviving linux distribution, with a longer history that even RedHat or Debian, if I remember correctly.
I'm a Debian fan. I like their packaging, I like their stable/unstable/testing partitioning. I like the community and the debian process. That doesn't mean I feel any need to impugn the Fedora/RedHat fans, or the Slackware, or any other Linux distro fans. Guess what guys, it's splitting hairs. I have compiled thousands of tar.gz (tarballs) containing thousands of software packages, on over 100 different versions of over 20 different distributions, and the differences are so vanishingly small, compared to amount of things that are the same, that any kind of "my distribution is better than your distribution" discussion ends up mostly moot. If Ubuntu has some better feature than basic Debian, or if Slackware people invent something neat, chances are most of the rest of the Linux world will borrow, adapt, and absorb whatever they can into the environment they prefer.
These people who claim it should be otherwise should go to Apple, or Microsoft, and say, "here's my money, now control everything and make it uniform, and make sure everybody does things the same way, all the time". Those who are attempting to do this in the Free Software World, suggesting that something is irrelevant, dead, unimportant, or detrimental to the free software world, because it exists, are idiots. Ignore them.
If technology really has become irrelevant, it requires no commentary to establish it. Anybody remember Yggdrasil Linux? I can now dare to say that Yggdrasil Linux is probably pretty close to dead. Anyone want to disagree with me?
Regards,
Warren/Franciscan
Slackware has package management. If you read either of the articles, you would have noticed that. In addition, you can choose between package managers. From the article:
On Slackware, you have a choice of package managers! Swaret? Slapt-get? SlackUpdate? Take your pick! In fact, I would venture to guess that given its agnostic design, more packages are installable on Slackware than any other distribution.
Personally, I like Slackware because it is clean, simple (once you understand it), and easy to administer. With Slackware, I can understand everything going on in my computer, and that makes me feel happy.
Qxe4
I find Slackware the easiest distro. I use it on servers, desktops, and laptops. Granted, I came to Linux from FreeBSD so I had no fear of text files. Doing everything in a GUI can only take you so far, especially when the GUI tools do not fix the problem. I find it is also the easiest install for selecting what you want and do not want based upon what you intend to do with the computer. I also tend to be very eclectic in the software that I run. I like to pick and choose the best file manager, text editor, etc. for the job. I use fvwm for my window manager. I use Linux because it affords the best choices. I try to get new Linux users to try Slackware because once they understand how to do things they learn that they can do almost anything with their computers. I have heard of people that use Linux for a year and still don't know how to do anything with it because they are limited to what they can point and click in the default menu.
Slackware is probably the best Linux Distro I've used. I got started on Fedora. Tried what was then called Mandrake. I got frustrated with Red Hat when they stop producing the free version which became fedora. Mandrake seemed like a crippled version of red hat to me (i.e not everything was available unless you purchased the full version). Then I tried Slackware. I honestly have to say that was when I dove into linux. I personally learned more about Linux running slack then when I was running any previous version. Yeah it still comes with the 2.4 kernel. For most people that is still sufficient. However if you want the 2.6 you can choose to install it. Or you can grow up and learn to recompile the kernel and intall from source. Slackware HAS PACKAGE MANAGEMENT!! God I can't say that enough. To those that say it dosen't have it, have you tried using it for more then an hour. I however perfer to compile from source. That way i'm sure it will work on my system and i'm generally getting the lastest version. I can not emphasise the fact you will learn more about linux running slack in my opion then most other distros. Does Slack Matter Give me a break. Pat keep up the oustanding work!!
This is not meant to be a flame, but a simple observation. As a windows user, I've noticed that every so often a story comes up that attempts to justify the importance of a particular flavor of *nix. Are different flavors in danger of dissapearing into irrelevance overnight if stories are not done on why they are still valid?
I use windows because that's what my employer has on the network and there is no room for nix. At home I've used FreeBSD, Slack, and Mandrake. For the desktop I don't really see much difference. They all do pretty much the same thing. I can surf the web, write my emails, and chat to my friends on Yahoo. Why is it then that we must continually justify the existance of one flavor or another? Is there some piece of Slack that I missed that makes it a n00b flavor or something? I'm just not really understanding I guess.
Slackware is good, simple, robust and efficient because it works exactly like a BSD : you set it up using your brain, then you definitely forget it because it works and does never play magic tricks under you. It does what you want. Recently, I installed FreeBSD on a machine, and felt as if I was "at home" on my slack. Same philosophy, etc...
It's the best distro to start Linux for people coming from the BSD world (including those of the old SunOS 4.1.3 era), and probably for anyone too. It can be hard to setup uncommon hardware, but when you manage to do it, you understand how everything works and that matters.
I have been using Slackware since kernel .9x. and I am running Slack on every box that I install. Slackware is elegant, powerful and gets out of the way so you can do your job.
No stupid GUI, no RPM nightmare. It is simply the best.
Does Patrick make money out of this? I don't know. I hope so. I always buy my Slack copies so I do my part.
Alan Canton: Who asked you if Slackware matters? Go on with your miserable existence and leave the
real Linux work to the pros.
I think you are running Windows and don't know a fucking thing about Linux. That would explain your stupid patronizing attitude. It would also explain your lack of knowledge.
Oh, Sorry... Did I just call you an asshole? My bad.
There I said it. Mod away.
I don't know when you last took a look at Gentoo,
I'm staring at a Gentoo on my AMD64 laptop right now.
but recent changes have sped up package selection and descriptions have always been available. A new query tool, equery, can list all the build options for a package and is also improving with each release.
I tried that too, but still slow. I have no idea why, whether it's because of Python, or because it has to search more than a hundred thousand little files, or because of some design/implementation mistake, whatever. The thing is that FreeBSD's ports, with a ports tree of size comparable to Gentoo's portage and nothing fancier than a couple of clever makefiles and an utility to sync the tree (syncing per se is not the problem with Gentoo; rsync is just fine) is much faster.
At most, the "slowness" of Gentoo's portage system wastes only a couple seconds of my time each day, and who of us isn't multitasking anyway when we are updating stuff. As far as I'm concerned, Gentoo is about as close to perfect as you can get between automated updates and total control over a Linux system.
You don't seem to care about software bloat, and I hate that. It's unbearable to think that my fancy new multi-gigahertz processor coupled with a gig of ram performs as fast as a glorious 386-25 with 8 megs of ram. Portage takes MINUTES to find a list of package if I tell it to search by description. Wasn't running FAST one of the biggest selling points of Gentoo?
Bah, I think I'm getting old.
Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
A couple of years ago I converted an old desktop into a server. My younger brother, who happeneded to be 10 at the time, wanted to help, so I gave him my Slack install disks (I believe it was version 9.0, but I could be wrong). Aside from some trouble figuring out partitions, I just told him the general idea of what needed to be done and he figured out pretty much everything. At least for me, that was proof enough that Slack has a good installer.