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 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
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.
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-
....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();
(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
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)
Quote from Arch's wiki:
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 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.
I tried Ubuntu also, but I found that it was just too difficult to install software. There is limited community support with sites like ubuntuguide.org but the descriptions on that site are just too difficult to follow for me. The other thing I really hated about it were the overly bright colors and useless eye candy, it gives me a head ache. I with I could change it to something a little more earthy and easy on the eyes. It is out of my price range.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
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 totally agree with you. I've always been wary of RPMs, probably due to the same ignorance that people claim that slackware either doesn't have or has inferior package management. There have been situations where my RPM database said that an RPM wasn't installed but it was, and I didn't have the patience to sort it out. Also, the RPM dependencies insistence, only defeatable with --nodeps (which maybe caused my RPM db issue) always interferes with a project. Slackware now has slapt, although one can easily do an upgradepkg ./* from a directory of packages. The dropline and freerock management systems make keeping your windowing system up to date a breeze.
And most importantly, Slackware has actually prompted me to _understand_ what all the bits are for. I have an edge now, because I never started with magical RPMs or a magical up2date (although those tools are available now in various carnations for both RPM and tgz packages). I still recommend slackware to people who want to learn about linux.
It's also considered a conservative distribution, which tends to mean it will stay with a stable version for longer before upgrading. That's official though. You can always compile your own from source and then CREATE a package.
There are great home-made packages available from www.linux-packages.net and various other sites.
I love slackware, and hope Pat's healthy and having a good time.
Yeah!
"When the solution is simple, God is answering." -- Albert Einstein