Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Slackware 11 is Coming

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the tarballs-and-more-tarballs dept.

ejd3 writes "In the slackware-current changelog Pat has stated that 'Although there's still quite a bit in the TODO queue here I'm making my steps carefully as -current is very stable, and I think it should ship as a stable 11.0 soon so that we can get back to the business of breaking things in -current. :-)' How much longer will the slackers have to wait?"

41 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. No need to wait by iiiiiiii · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Slackers just run what's in -current

    1. Re:No need to wait by ejd3 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Slackers just run what's in -current
      Quite right, its certainly it is stable enough. There even many many unofficial ISOs of the current tree you can grab at various sites including slackware.no
    2. Re:No need to wait by the+unbeliever · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or just install 10.2, then install slapt-get and add your favorite slackware mirror's -current as a source.

    3. Re:No need to wait by tsa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I usually run the distribution I installed for years and years until I can't run new programs on it anymore, because of library issues and such. Then it's time to upgrade.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    4. Re:No need to wait by goarilla · · Score: 3, Informative

      that's a bad idea
      swaret and slapt-get can bork your install very easily
      unless you know exactly what slapt-get does

      it's much wiser to rsync the current tree
      then following the instruction in UPGRADE.TXT
      which is basicly go to init 1
      upgrade glibc shared libs, sed and pkgtools
      then the rest: for i in a ap ...; do cd "$i"; upgradepkg --install-new *.tgz; cd ..; done; updatedb && ldconfig; init 3

    5. Re:No need to wait by Skater · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of my problems with Slackware is that -current isn't really what I want in many cases. I recently updated my laptop to Slackware 10.2, then searched for all of the security updates to install. I did those, but things broke, like apache (well, php, actually) because I didn't have the new-since-10.2 Cyrus-imap library, updated libpng library, etc. installed. Those weren't updated as a result of a security problem; they were updated for other reasons. I know this because I searched the changelog for "security update" and grabbed all of those packages that I use.

      It's like we need a -stable-security that is security updates ONLY to a given release. I know that's a lot more work for Patrick but it's frustrating otherwise. (I've never gotten around to using a dependency management system under Slackware.)

      Ideally, when a given package has a security issue, it would be compiled against what was in 10.2 AND -current. And yes I do subscribe to Slackware so I get the CDs automatically, so I feel I have some right to complain. :)

    6. Re:No need to wait by Slayk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pat already does that.

      Change your slapt-get sources over to the stable branch, and you'll get security updates.

    7. Re:No need to wait by sgt+scrub · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or you can pre-order 11 here http://store.slackware.com/cgi-bin/store/slack11.0 ?id=7qg7pUeb:mv_pc=27 support the project, and look forward to 12.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    8. Re:No need to wait by joedoc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Heh, this reminds me of the web server I managed at my last job. When we finally went on line locally, I demanded that we not use Windows, but Linux, and specifically Slackware. I installed version 8.0 and ran it with literally no changes (expect for occasional security patches and application updates to Apache, PHP and MySQL) until this past January. I shifted to a new box due to some hardware issues and installed 10.1. That site has now closed. I often wonder how long I could have run that Slack 8 box if the hardware had held up.

      --
      Joe Dougherty, Florida, USA
      The words I thought I brought, I left behind. So, never mind.
  2. 64-bit official? by Spydir+Web · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are we gonna see an official 64-bit release this go round? I had to switch to gentoo then ubuntu just to use my AMD64...

    --
    www.netsyndrome.net -- designs.netsyndrome.net -- www.mobileasses.com
    1. Re:64-bit official? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I doubt that... Never tried Slamd64, but maybe Patrick could make it some sort of "official port" or something like that... I've heard Slamd64 was rock solid and very "conservative" (maybe that's not the right word to use, but what I want to say is that it follows Slackware's path/philosophy).

      - English is not my native language, so please excuse me if I mess things up -

    2. Re:64-bit official? by troll+-1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I had to switch to gentoo then ubuntu just to use my AMD64...

      All you need to do is rebuild your kernel. A Linux distro is just a bunch of programs and config files, its not 64-bit specific.

    3. Re:64-bit official? by badfish99 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You could use Slamd64. But regular Slackware will work fine on an AMD64: I believe that Pat is using one as his development machine. He wrote somewhere that he tried compiling 64-bit versions of various things, but he didn't see any performance improvement from it, so he abandoned the experiment. Of course it would be a different matter on a high-end server with lots of memory, but that's not Slackware's target market.

    4. Re:64-bit official? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I *have* been using slamd64 (from the beta versions onward) on a bunch of dual opteron (pizza ;-) ) boxen as number crunchers,
      and it is indeed rocksolid. *All* of the slamd64 versions up to now.

      I wish Pat would bless it as the official slack for AMD64.

      Also, yes, stock slack runs on these well as well, only you lack 64bit stuff. Which comes in handy once in a while, if you develop your own machine learning algorithms, and test them on huge datasets. There are probably other applications where you don't miss 64bit ...

    5. Re:64-bit official? by 1369IC · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are a couple of slack-based AMD64 systems besides SLAMD64. I liked SLAMD64, but haven't found it as trouble-free as some others apparently have. Frugalware claims to be pretty much Slackware with Pacman bolted on, and I liked it a lot. I also just downloaded something called Bluewhite 64 Linux, another unofficial port. That goes on my testing partition this weekend (replacing STX Linux, another Slackware derivative I was testing for installation on a friend/potential convert's older laptop).

      So if Slackware is a niche player now (which I don't believe), then one part of that niche is as a base for new distros -- the excellent Zenwalk (which I run on my laptop), STX, Frugalware, Voltalinux (Slackware with pkgsrc?), Slax and Vector, just off the top of my head. Not as many derivatives as Debian, perhaps, but certainly a healthy number and probably indicative of a healthy distro.

      I think Slackware's biggest "problem" is that it has little to no "community," at least as far as vocal fanboys (you know, the kind who visit Distrowatch to click through and drive up its numbers). I think it tends to attract and keep a self-sufficient, quieter crowd, and therefore its presence isn't as great as its numbers, if that makes any sense.

      And text, of course. As soon as I boot up and people see text instead of a pretty splash screen I see that sphincter-tightening look come over some of their faces.

      But beyond the entertainment value it's probably a bad thing.

    6. Re:64-bit official? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I think Slackware's biggest "problem" is that it has little to no "community," at least as far as vocal fanboys (you know, the kind who visit Distrowatch to click through and drive up its numbers). I think it tends to attract and keep a self-sufficient, quieter crowd, and therefore its presence isn't as great as its numbers, if that makes any sense.


      It makes perfect sense, as I'm one of those of whom you speak. I'm a UNIX professional who works with Solaris, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and Redhat AS. I run Slack on my workstation and on a couple of smaller servers because it is about as unobfuscated (at least from my perspective) as you can get. No glittery anything, just a very solid Linux.

      I need to send Pat money this time around as well as I think I purchased 10.1 but not 10.2. Anybody who seriously uses Slack should do the same if they can afford it. He puts out solid distro, and he's a nice guy.
    7. Re:64-bit official? by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think Slackware's biggest "problem" is that it has little to no "community,"

      there is a huge slackware community, it's just very much like the BSD community. WEare simply too busy using it in embedded systems, and other places to take the time to run around posting to all forums "S1ac4war3 0wnz joo!" messages.

      Slackware is the absolute best distro for doing really advanced things like stuffing it in an embedded device or making a super stripped down machine that makes an old useless 486 scream like a monster for a single important task... makes the best OS for a homebrew firewall that fits on a 8meg CF card.

      I use it for developing apps for the gumstix embedded platform. installing the cross compilers for alpha processors is painless compared to a rpm or deb based distro.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:64-bit official? by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 2, Informative

      you have the a.o.l.s usenet newsgroup and more importantly
      the ##slackware channel on freenode :D

      Don't forget the wiki!

      --
      I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
  3. Marketshare? by Noodlenose · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Having huge respect and sympathy for Patrick Volkerding I nevertheless wonder whether Slackware is (after being one of the groundbreakers for Linux) is becoming a niche - distro. Shame, really.

    1. Re:Marketshare? by Jason1729 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IMO Slackware is still the best Distro. I've been using it since 2.3 back in the 1.0 kernel days. I love its simplicity; it's designed so you can edit the config files yourself, none of the GUI tools so many distros like now with the actual config files hidden all over the place.

    2. Re:Marketshare? by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's been a niche distro for many years now. The only reason slack is mentioned on /. at all is because of its important place in Linux history.

      Slack is for hobbyists. It's rarely used in production environments because where money counts, slack is almost always out of the question for being way too labour intensive. Even in the hobby market it's filling a niche. Only a few die hard nerds like to be exposed to the inner workings of their system as slack does. Most others will just use a more automated distro and custumize the parts of the system they're really interested in.

      However, slack still serves a purpose. It's about as bare a distro as can be, and as such it's nice learning material when you like to explore the innards of a linux distro.

      --

      This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

    3. Re:Marketshare? by drange_net · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I love its simplicity; it's designed so you can edit the config files yourself, none of the GUI tools so many distros like now with the actual config files hidden all over the place.

      Well, I use Debian at servers, Arch Linux at my private desktop, Kubuntu at my laptop and Ubuntu at work. Please tell me I can't manually edit my config files and that the "GUI tools [...] with the actual config files hidden all over the place"...

      I call BS

    4. Re:Marketshare? by Poppler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's true that you don't need a GUI to configure Ubuntu. However, in my experience, if you're used to Slackware, the location of some config files in Debian-based distros can seem counterintuitive. Slackware is very simple once you understand it; I especially like the BSD style init system, it just makes sense.
      Don't get me wrong, Ubuntu is great too (I'm using it right now), and I haven't had much trouble configuring it the way I want. But after using Slackware regularly for a while, I can understand why he feels the way he does.

      --
      What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
    5. Re:Marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hate to disagree with you, but you must be both misinformed *AND* smoking pretty powerfull shit ...

      Slackware is _THE_ most rocksolid stable distro there is. Which is why slack fanboys can give mac fanboys a run for their money on sheer loyalty.
      And also why a *large* proportion of slackware installs are servers. It is most definitively *not* just a hobby system, although you can learn a lot using Slackware.

      If you really insist, you can automate Slackware just as well as any other distro (slapt-get?).

      Somehow I start wondering what you mean by 'custumize'-ing ...

    6. Re:Marketshare? by SmurfDaddy · · Score: 2, Informative

      well i can only say that we use Slackware at our company...and guess what we, are in the train control business and yes we handle ppl safety. Train control itself is done with propriatary solutions but sopport servers run slackware. regards SD

    7. Re:Marketshare? by jibjibjib · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You are obviously just trolling and have no idea how the BSD system actually works. It's just as simple as in SysV to restart a daemon. For example:

      /etc/rc.d/rc.httpd restart

    8. Re:Marketshare? by wed128 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think you've ever used slackware, it's not as scary as you think. Everything is much easier to configure if you're willing to read the documentation.

    9. Re:Marketshare? by frinkacheese · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bollocks. I use Slackware ina very production environment (Telecomms) where money counts and have never had a single failure or any issues whatsoever accountable to Slackware. Our RedHat servers often break and to fix them you either compile yourself and RedHat usually breaks or you call RedHat and get their official patches (for which you need to pay support). I know what I'd rather be using.

  4. Re:slack is cool even for n00bs by jpardey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That brings to mind one of the things that I think makes linux nice. As I want to keep my laptop happy, and as I am lazy, I just run windows. I do miss linux, though, mainly because with windows, you can't see the bones, so to speak. *nixes are more like gloves you can move your fingers about in, while windows seems more like... a hunk of wood. It is the control that makes it fun to use linux. An ease of use distro can reduce this fun and sense of control/accomplishment slack sounds like it can bring.

    I tried suse, and was annoyed by the loss of control. Why isn't root's bash profile in /root? Because they want it to be easy, and not dangerous. For configure/make/install it is nice to add to path (gtklib I think it was, or something). Sure, I should stick to packages, and do things the suse way, whatever that is, but as I am not running a managed system of desktops, I just want to have fun and make it work.

    --
    I have freaks! I did something right...
  5. RSN? by User0x45 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I love Slackware. Other then a brief gentoo thing, I've used nothing
    but Slack since putting it on my 486. But shouldn't this topic have
    come out next week/month/year when Slack 11 is *actually* released?

    It'll be ready Real Soon Now. Let's really discuss it then.

    Think it'll have 2.6 as its default? Huh, huh, huh?

    --User0x45

    1. Re:RSN? by bigberk · · Score: 2

      I guess it's even exciting to wait. Slackware is THAT exciting... yes I am looking forward as well :)

  6. Health Issues by maelstrom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Was there ever a follow up about Pat's health issues? Is he ok now?

    --
    The more you know, the less you understand.
    1. Re:Health Issues by KwKSilver · · Score: 3, Informative

      Other than noting that he is recovered, none that I've noticed. A private person, which I respect.

      --
      If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
    2. Re:Health Issues by Lxcom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      --That may be part of the reason why some people feel reluctant to become too dependent on Slackware. I love it even though I use Apple hardware. I like raw simplicity. I purchased a "PC" just for FreeBSD use and installed Slackware as the secondary, Linux OS. I hope Slackware can survive in the long run.

  7. Slackware makes sense. by inflex · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've seen a few comments above from people saying that Slackware makes poor economic sense. I say it can make economic sense in many cases.

    Slackware is a distro, like any other - and just like any other distro you tend to have to be familiar with it in order to get things done efficiently. However, what Slackware does let you get away with is to update packages direct from the developers without having to worry about exploding the "package database" or maintainance system. If you want "fancy" package handling systems you can use the likes of slapt-get or similar. Slackware won't tear you apart or breakdown into a locked up mess if you install something from a "non-slackware-approved" source package.

    The default relative daemon sparseness of Slackware makes it quite easy to keep an eye on, especially if you're trying to keep an eye out for malicious things. The whole start up script system is rather simple enough too (will we get a soft-linked /etc/init.d though?).

    That said, there's a few things which I wish were included by default in slackware (and perhaps will be in the future) but no single distro is perfect. Nearly all distros require some degree of tweaking.

    Best of all though, Slackware is quick to download, quite often you only need the first ISO and you've got yourself a fairly comprehensive system ready to go, for someone who knows what they're doing.

    1. Re:Slackware makes sense. by Skapare · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why do you want a "soft-linked /etc/init.d"? Or better yet, why not just build one for yourself (and package it for others)? Slackware doesn't get in your way. I know because I actually rewrote the whole rc script system from scratch several years ago, and it's been working fine in several Slackware versions since then. My rc designs isn't based on symlinks, though.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  8. Yes, RSN, but that's news for Slackware because... by 1369IC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...it doesn't have a PR machine (even a volunteer one) behind it cranking out a steady stream of news. Look at Distrowatch Weekly's upcoming releases and announcements, and you see release roadmaps, schedules, plans, estimates and pre-order information going all the way out to December. Slackware is nowhere on there.

    Even on userlocal.com, supposedly the Slackware community site, and the top items are from February and April (and the latter's about Zenwalk). Other distros start work on their next release before the current one is final, and we hear about it from one release right to the next. Hell, we heard about the Suse and Ubuntu delays for what would seem like forever if we didn't have all that "when is Debian going to release" and "Vista delayed again" coverage to compare it to. So Slack gets a RSN item on Slashdot. Seems small in comparison to all the coverage of alpha flights, umpteen betas, RCs and golden masters some distros get all over the web.

    Personally, I'm happy to be using a distro done by a guy more interested in getting a solid product out the door than getting a good press release out the door.

  9. Re:Slackware user by layer3switch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Personally I don't think it really matters if Slack includes 2.4.x or 2.6.x in stable branch because most Slackers tend to recompile kernel anyway. But when it comes down to it, it has a lot to do with initial boot and installation on legacy hardwares. My experience is that Linux kernel 2.4 just works on every hardware so far while I can't speak same for Linux kernel 2.6 due to quiet a few drops in legacy hardware support.

    I agree on Pat's great work, and he's such a drama queen. :P

    --
    "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
  10. Slackware: It just works by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I too am a fan of Slackware, and am typing this on a Slackware 10.2 system with a 2.6.16.9 SMP kernel (built from the kernel source), to support one of those new dual-core Pentium 4 gizmos. In other words, it goes like stink...

    Even though I can download the CD images, I always buy a copy of each new release.

    It's not a crime for a Linux system to look like Unix, and if your hardware barfs over a text-based install, you really do have a problem. I like being able to download source (including kernels), build it and it just works. I still have nightmares about the time I tried to help somebody upgrade a kernel on a Fedora Core box. Shudder.

    Slackware isn't a pre-packaged Linux system in a can: open the can and pour it out, ready to go. It's a construction set for building any kind of Linux system you want. And it's all the better for it.

    Thanks, Patrick.

    ...laura

    1. Re:Slackware: It just works by glens · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When I started reading your post I couldn't remember having submitted it! Actually, I got the (that very?) Infomagic set for myself. I installed all three systems - I believe I still have them stored somewhere - and very quickly settled on Slackware as the best way to actually learn "Linux". The other two required way too much learning-the-cruft before I could get to what was ultimately happening. Slackware just let me get right down to it.

      I heavily modified that installation through the years and still chroot to it on a fairly regular basis. The partition image has been on several hard drives and in several boxes. My Windows acquaintances can't fathom how that could be done...

      I use Slackware for all primary OS purposes to this day. I've played with some of the others through the years but they all suck in comparison. Though I have been advocating and having great success with Ubuntu for non-tech-head conversions from Windows lately.

  11. Slackware and the Easiness Factor by greatcelerystalk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I'm certainly more technically inclined than a number of people I know, I wouldn't describe myself as much more than a Linux power-user. I'm an Anthropology major with severe dyscalculia and have had little inclination to learn much more than Python, a little Lisp, and HTML + CSS; I'm not the 'typical' programmer geek or system administrator, but I wouldn't say that Slackware is any more difficult to use than SuSE, RedHat or FedoraCore. I originally started using Slackware (3.2) because I was careless with my Windows 95 installation media, and I couldn't re-install it after I had to replace the harddrive. It was pretty hellacious back then, but I was still using AOL for dialup and had never touched *nix of any flavour before. I ended up going right back to Windows. However, when Slackware 7 was released I decided to give it another go. On my circa 1997 PC, I didn't even have to recompile the kernel. Everything in the install worked out of the box (including X). Eventually, as I began to learn more about how Linux functioned, I taught myself how to re-compile the kernel and to do various other basic system administration tasks; I'm not sure I would've managed to learn quite as much about Linux had I started off using a distribution with an integrated package manager and so-called "hand holding" system administration utilities. I'm writing this post on a low-end Inspiron running Slackware-current. Yeah, it took me longer to configure the Slackware install than it did the XP install or the Ubuntu install, but Slackware is very easy to configure once you learn how. I gave my largley computer-illiterate mother an old desktop running Slackware with IceWM (I later switched it to KDE), and she hasn't had many problems with it. I doubt she could configure the system herself, beyond the options in KDE's control center, but it's certainly as easy to use as any other OS.