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."
I used to use Slackware, and I'd imagine it hasn't changed that much since then. Granted it was fun while it lasted, I think it was too high caliber for me. When I finally switched to using distros with package management, everything felt alien. Recently I've been using Ubuntu though which I'd like to say is absolutely amazing so far.
$fortune
Tomorrow has been canceled due to lack of interest.
easy to customize using vim
Come again?
I didn't hear about this newbie distro "Slackware" since I'm using SLS and I'm happy with my kernel v0.97.1 (a.out)
I guess I'll look into upgrading.
I still need to have a "boot" floppy and a "root" floppy for my system to IPL, right?
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.
I don't think most people would agree with the following: "So, does Slackware matter? Simply put, YES. Slackware matters because Slackware IS Linux." The reality is that many people who are experimenting with Linux for the first time now use Fedora or Ubuntu.
I will say this though. I definitely harbor fond memories of using Slackware from 1995. I remember vividly those Boot and Root 1.44MB floppies and trying to install from their extremely early packaging system. Ah the memories...
--
Free 411! 1-800-411-SAVE
Free Conference Call -- No Spam, High Quality
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
Throw me in the "newcomer" camp.
As it happens I just installed Slackware on an old PC I had lying around. Though I had installed and used other distributions before my experience with them was quite limited and I've been mostly a Windows user.
I chose Slackware merely because it was the easiest to acquire. They offer the torrents right from the official website and they're always well-seeded. I got both CD's in what seemed like no time at all.
After about a week of usage, it's been holding up fairly well, even with the ancient specs my old PC has. It was even able to support a wireless adapter I stuck in there after I installed madwifi. However I definitely needed a lot of outside help in accomplishing that task, and overall though I was able to get it installed and running fine, a total newbie would have gotten nowhere. If Slackware wants to appeal to that demographic at all (which it very well may not) it needs to fix that.
audioLibre - freedom of music
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?
As an admin of a dozen of boxes that handle almost anything from webserver, Tomcat/SQL Server to mail/OpenXchange Server and since last weekend a Samba Domaincontroller to name a few, I must say I am the most happy Slackware User in the world.
;)
Stability, flexibility and sanity are the main reasons for me to use Slack.
Personally I like my uptime in the three digits and a straightforward configuration. This is where Slack delivers for me. Combined with Dropline Gnome it also makes the most lovely Desktop box.
Keep slackin, Pat!
I could go on.
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
I started with RedHat 5.0 back in the day, but didn't feel like I really "got" linux until I started with Slackware. Learning the real way of doing things got me more in line to handle things like Solaris, AIX and FreeBSD. While I don't use Slack anymore (ubuntu on my desktops, freebsd/openbsd and gentoo on my servers) I'm glad it's still around, and have sent newbies (ones that WANT to learn) slacks way.
fak3r.com
For me it was the ELF migration. I managed to get halfway through recompiling everything, then I gave up and switched to Red Hat. I may even have the hard drive around somewhere, in its half-way a.out/ELF state. Stuck with Red Hat ever since (Fedora now, of course.)
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
AFAIK, He seems to think that, because he is some sort of entrepreneur, Patrick Volkerding should abase himself in front of his intelligence and follow his every advice. Since Patrick Volkerding avoids this Usenet newsgroup like the plague, Alan Canton is very unhappy and disses him, and his distro, every chance he gets. In short, he behaves in a very unprofessional and immature manner, criticizing and belittling everyone who disagrees with him.
As an aside, if you haven't tried Slackware, give it a spin. Its simplicity and power are enough to shame many other well-established distribution...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
http://www.slackware.com/~fizban/ftpinstall.php
I use Slackware tarballs to extract libs needed for Linux compatibility on NetBSD. This way I don't need to install a full-blown Linux tree including rpm tools when I just need some library.
.tar.gz!
Yay for
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
Quote from Arch's wiki:
I'd planned to submit an Ask Slashdot about the article this one rebutts, but decided that it was really too childish to spend any time one. I suppose that since it's come up now I can go ahead and ask.
Does Slackware really still matter? The author of this article seems to think so, but he also doesn't seem to be the most partial. So, what do you guys think? (No need to be partial, but it sure would help.)
What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
which is based on slackware.
Not really...check this http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ArchLinux out.
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.
The author makes some really good points that apply not just to Slackware, but to distros in general, and I wish more people would realize them.
``What Slackware advocates are telling you is that in order to truely appreciate Slackware for what it is, you must learn how Linux works first, because Slackware is just unadulterated Linux.''
Right! Slackware is a very good distribution to learn how GNU/Linux really works. Very little is automated, so you have to figure out how to do it yourself. This is useful even if you later switch to a different distro, as you may be able to understand and fix problems better, because you've already been in similar situations.
``I would assert that a distribution's viability is based on its usefulness to a user-base, regardless of the size of that user-base.''
Indeed. Just because something isn't your cup of tea, doesn't mean it's not anyone's. Multiple paths lead to enlightenment.
`` Canton: I think Slackware has a lot going for it... but not enough for it to sustain itself should Linux become as popular as the pundits say it will. To those who run and who love Slackware, that's fine. To the rest of us, well, it doesn't matter.
That may be true, but then, that could be said of any other distribution as well. SUSE makes no bit of difference to me... or Mandriva, or Linspire, or.... but this is what makes Linux so great! CHOICE!''
Right again. It's all about choice. Some people feel it's bad that not all distros are compatible, so that binary software can be easily installed on all of them. Well, who cares? If you want a distro on which binary software X works, then use such a distro. If you don't care about software X, but you like a feature of some distro that happens not to work with software X, then you can pick that distro. To each their own. It's through the many choices that Linux can be all things to all people - everyone can adapt it to suit their needs, with no regard for anyone else's need.
``I chose Slackware because I disliked other distributions' bloated installs.''
That tops it off. Here's a great example of why Slackware still matters. Where all other distros in the DistroWatch.com top 10 try to attract users by adding ever friendlier features, creating ever larger installers and base installs, Slackware stays slim. And guess what? People appreciate that. That's why Slackware still matters.
This post brought to you by a long-ago Slackware user, who has since switched to Debian to get quick and easy package installation.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
You do realize that you can use rdev to set the root filesystem on your kernel, don't you? That way, you can copy your "root" floppy contents to a hard drive partition, stick your boot disk in the drive, and "rdev /dev/fd0 /dev/hda1". Now, next time you boot from that floppy, it will mount your hard drive partition as it's root filesystem. :-)
(ok, I'm really showing my age here
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!!
Slackware was the first distro I was successful using (had trouble making SLS work) and despite trying 'the big three' (Red Hat, Debian, Mandrake) over the years, I'm still a dedicated Slackware user
I recall once upon a time when Slackware was considered part of the 'big three', which also included Red hat and Debian. In fact my introduction to Linux came in the form of a $3.99 CD that I purchased that included all three of those distros. Back then they were all small enough to fit on a single CD -- yet large enough that I didn't feel like downloading any one of them on my v.34+ modem :)
I installed Slackware and never looked back. The few times I've tried forks of the others (tried Conectiva once, Stampede while it lasted, and Fedora) it seems too alien to me. A lot of the fun stuff is hidden behind package managers and I always thought that the boot script layout was a little over complicated.
To each their own.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Ubuntu froze during the disk partitioning program on my PIII 700MHz, 64MB Thinkpad. SuSE spelled it right out, "You have too little memory to run the installation program, please activate a swap partition." (Sure, if you would just let me run fdisk!) Slackware installs and runs without a hitch. Slack matters to me.
Will Al Canton sign an official piece of paper saying I'm a "highly professional" with a Ph.D because I love slack?
FLR
Personally, I think Gentoo is a godsend for everything from teaching beginners step-by-step how their system is structured to creating a quick and powerful system 100% designed around YOUR machine.
Back in the day I used Slack because I didn't want bloat - just wanted barebones install with working network. Even when it came to installing packages... selecting from a list of pre-compiled bloated binaries is still bloat.
It's not truly optimized for YOUR system.
But there was a downside - say you wanted KDE, you'd have to compile by hand ALL the dependencies. Not fun. But I wasn't gonna sacrifice performance with the pre-compiled binaries.
I'm not bashing Slack, it was a great distro back in the day, but now that Gentoo exists, which gives you infinitely more control over your system not to mention automatic compile/emerge for anything you choose to install, why would you stick with the former?
It just seems counter productive to run a production based system on pre-compiled packages OR compiling everything yourself by hand and dealing w/ the dependencies.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
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 to add my kudos to Slackware also.
While it does not use a slick GUI for installation, and (arguably) does not have the "latest-and-greatest" package manager, it does have A LOT going for it. It installs cleanly. It puts packages where the originators expects them to be -- this means that I can download a source tarball, build it, and have it actually work. I can download the latest kernel directly from "www.kernel.org" and build it without it borking my system. There are no surprises with weird directory structures from one release to the next, and there is no "backporting and patching" shenannigans that have me waiting for the next official (distribution) kernel release. If there were ANY linux distribution that were to be elevated to be the model for "Standard Linux", Slackware would take my vote without question.
Slackware is the only distribution that I have tried that I could support SCSI||IDE and RAID and XFS using the 2.6 kernel without scrounging around on the net for patches and missing libraries. It just works.
There are also unofficial ports in ISO format for the UltraSPARC, the Mac PPC, and a real 64-bit version for AMD-64.
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.
My late post will likely go unseen, buried on page 2, but here it goes...
/etc/slackware-version
As many others have stated, Slackware is unadulterated Linux, and this is what cRaig means by, "Slackware matters because Slackware IS Linux."
Slackware was my first install of Linux about 1996, and I, too, have tried all the distros over the years, and have come to love Slackware. It IS easy to install and maintain, and I have no idea where some of the "Slackware is only for gurus" opinions originate. I work in a company supporting many "Enterprise" and free Linux distributions, as well as all of the BSD's and some commercial UNIX's. Slackware makes up a small number of our customers, but we never hear from them for support because the OS is so stable, and security updates simply don't break the server, as other distributions have been known to do. If a user wants bleeding-edge, then they can track slackware-current - or just track the stable versions. Updating and the package management tools work perfectly. Period.
I think the relatively small number of Slackware installs is simply due to marketing. Patrick does not dole out dollars for advertising or "push" for enterprise level adoption. BUT! Once users and Linux admins become aware of Slackware and try it out (and I mean *really* use it - not just bitch about, "I can't find..." and give up), I think there is only a tiny percentage that throw up their hands and resort to the big names. (I had a hard time, just now, writing 'big names' - Slackware has always been one.)
And not to just post a male-member extention, but it just keeps on ticking for me:
michael@aesop 17:00:05 ~ $ cat
Slackware 9.1.0
michael@aesop 17:00:07 ~ $ uptime
17:00:08 up 402 days, 16:05, 3 users, load average: 0.15, 0.12, 0.13
"It puts packages where the originators expects them to be -- this means that I can download a source tarball, build it, and have it actually work."
This is a *major* advantage to Slackware. Why do the other distros put things in weird places for all of their packages? Drives me nuts.
To be fair though, I have had troubles with Slackware's Berkely DB files being "in the wrong place" or missing libraries or being the wrong version, most notably with OpenLDAP and Cyrus SASL. It could just be OpenLDAP and Cyrus that are the ones messed up, I'm not sure... but other than BDB issues, I can't recall any other programs that won't compile from source and just work.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
Not all Linuces are descended from those two. Gentoo, for example. But you're right in that many of them are.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Looks like Slack is outlasting many a distro. If Slack weren't important, this guy wouldn't be writing an article about why it's not important. Long live Slack.
Penny - plain text accounting
The most extreme box I have ever built uses Slackware 8.0 the most recent 2.2 kernel and upgraded apache,ssl,ssh, mysql, php and mod perl. On a P2 300mhz 256MB memory and 1 8 gig hard drive.
System is an email server (qmail) with pop3 and clamAV for virus scanning, a web server (LAMP) with large 100MB file uploading,
a file server with Samba and NETATALK for access to uploaded files from the local net, an ssh and webmin server for remote management, a DHCP server for local network, an ntp time server for local network. It is also the firewall/NAT box for the internal network.
Why all this on one underpowered box? It is in a small business with limited resources and was the only box not used for anything.
It has been in use for 3.5 years so far with a max continuous uptime of 9 months. Box has come fairly close to 9 9's uptime. As of the first of the year I get to move it to a 1.2GHZ P3.
When first putting this box together I chose Slackware due to it's very straight forward and simple bootup scripts.
The fact that it starts out as a fairly light weight system when first installed and started allows for easy customization.
So Yes Slackware matters to me. I use it on just about every box I build. It also runs my personal systems.
I have tried others but I always seem to wind up using Slackware.
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.