Slashdot Mirror
Slackware 11.0 Almost Done
linuxbeta writes "DistroWatch reports that the development process for Slackware Linux 11.0 is almost over. OSDir has some sweet shots of Slackware 11.0 RC1 in the Slackware 11.0 RC1 Screenshot Tour." From the article: "'There are still a few changes yet to happen, but let's call this Slackware 11.0 release candidate 1.' Other recent changes include upgrade to stable kernel 2.4.33; upgrade to udev 097, and rebuild of glibc 2.3.6 for both 2.4.33 and 2.6.16.27 kernels. The new release will ship with X.Org 6.9.0 and KDE 3.5.4, and will provide SeaMonkey instead of Mozilla."
Seriously.....
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Will Slack 11 include the CIFS patch in the 2.4 kernel? I need CIFS at work to talk to the Windoze boxes at work :-(
Being a dedicated Slack user for the better part of a decade, I've rarely questioned any of Patrick's decisions in the maintenance of HIS distro. (Most people who piss & moan about Slackware being dated don't realize that it's one of the few distros that is still maintained, for the most part, by a single individual).
However, with great trepidation, I must say that perhaps some changes are in order.
Slackware has had a dedicated following for a long time because the distribution filled an industry need. The need for a truly rock solid stable distro that was a fairly easy transition for those coming from a pure Unix world. It seems now that those days are, for the most part, gone. The majority of the engineers out there now days have been brought up on other Linux distros, and many have never touched an actual Unix system. (No need to start any "What is Unix really?" flame wars).
While I do still prefer the structure and stability of Slackware, I do think it's time to make certain changes. I'm not saying it's time to jump on the "Latest and Greatest Everything" bandwagon. I think it's time for the distro to be re-focused. Possibly into a pure Server OS, with a strong focus on commercial grade clustering & virtualization. All of the other distros that have done this (i.e. RedHat, SUSE, etc.), did not have the right base for it. They were based on bleeding edge, sometimes alpha code, and everything had to be stabilized (which hasn't seemed to work out very well). Slackware does have the right, truly stable base for a dedicated server OS. If Patrick were to shift things to this direction, build in the right set of truly enterprise-class server features, I think he may very well see a new found following.
The other area that I believe a re-focused version of slack could be very successful is the embedded systems market. Slack is known for is lean, fast, optimized code. I think it would fit well into this segment.
I think either of these markets are perfect for Slack. Neither is looking for the latest, most newfangled, gui-based, anything. They want lean, fast, stable code, & steady release cycles. Just my $.02.
IF you have not used Slack then you should not be a bashing it.... Slackware 10.# + is the rule at this house. Six boxes total (2 are daily "drivers", 2 are servers with 2 backups). This box here (mine) is a custom built box on a Soyo Dragon mobo that came out of a dumpster. You heard me... a Dumpster.... It started as a Slackware 10.1 stock with a 2.6.10 kernel, not very stable... Went back to the 2.4.28 kernel and had no problems... I have tons of custom apps buolt on this box. It has also been updated beyond Slackware Current and I have been running KDE 3.5 since early last year (self built). Slack is solid and if you prefer a more stable platform not loaded with a bunch of "eye candy" than it is what you want... Oh and Slack is very fast..... on any box....
Cool. Somebody else who remembers SLS ;-)
When SLS vanished I too moved to Slackware, since the first Slackware distro was derived from SLS.
I have been using Slack since then on my main Linux box, currently running Slack 10.2 with a 2.6.17 kernel. I play with other distros on a spare machine, but none has come close to Slack in stability and ease of maintenance.
Hear! Hear!
Slackware is still my distro of choice. It's utterly stable, and it just works. I actually like the text-based install: it's the right technology for what it does. What more do you need? Besides, it really will run on anything.
Slackware is one of the few distros that realizes that it's OK for a Linux box to look and feel like Unix. And, yes, I have used real Unix, back in my VAX days. I still have a Solaris box in my cubicle, and I do real work with it.
Keep up the good work, Patrick. Thank you.
...laura, typing this on a Slackware 10.2 box
One is that it can be scaled easily to install as much or as little of it as you need, and run on machines with very different CPU and memory resources and amounts of disk space.
That's the essence of Slackware.
I use Slackware on my home network. Its runs the gateway on an old 486, my desktop/file-server on a 3.4 Ghz Intel, and on the 32MB Ram Pentium laptop I use to read mail on the couch.
Like the name says, its the distro for the good kind of lazy. All hail J.R. Dobbs.
Linux giving new life to old-PCs is a myth. It is in fact a lot slower at common tasks than f.e. Windows 98 with Office 97 - so why bother?
I've got four pentium 1 class machines running right now, all running linux. One's a laptop, and I just can't afford a new laptop to replace it right now, and it does suck for office stuff, although it's fine for coding. Java's kind of slow on it, but it does the job.
The other three machines are all headless and are in my cabinet. One runs my DHCP, DNS, and IRC. Another was originally set up for VOIP, although I don't really use it for anything right now. The third is my firewall, which runs nothing but the iptables scripts and raccoon. It does things most cheapo routers won't, since it has the full flexibility of iptables, and it does come in handy.
Why would I want to pay good money for fast machines for stuff that doesn't require them? I'm not worried about reliability - backing up drives smaller than a gig isn't a problem, and I've got about fifty more of those exact machines in storage - and I've got a nice athlon xp mobile box acting as a server for my database server and webserver. I'm a hobbyist nowdays, along with some small-time contract work, so I don't need anything more.
If you don't have a use for old PCs, that's fine. There's plenty of us who do.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.