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."

42 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. 2.4 kernel? WTF by LordKazan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously.....

    --
    If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
    1. Re:2.4 kernel? WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      1999 called, they want their kernel back...

    2. Re:2.4 kernel? WTF by FreonTrip · · Score: 5, Informative

      Slackware's always been designed with maximum stability and reliability in mind. Patrick thinks that 2.4 is still the safer bet, so he's gone with it as a default. The option to install with a new 2.6 kernel is also available, for those who'd prefer something a touch more modern.

    3. Re:2.4 kernel? WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Come on its Slackware you should know better ;-p. besides you have a choice of installing either 2.4 or 2.6 its not like you have to use 2.4. I have 10.2 and am using the 2.6 kernel that came with it and its fine. THe kernel really is the only thing thats old but even then its a recent version thats stable.

    4. Re:2.4 kernel? WTF by owlman17 · · Score: 4, Informative

      2.4 is old but by no means 'dated'. 2.4 is significantly leaner than 2.6, runs on old hardware and has a lot of backports from 2.6 http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/ChangeLog- 2.4.33

      Even DSL uses 2.4. I still use 2.4 on my old PIIs and newer hardware myself.

      Slack aims to run on as many types of hardware as possible. Besides, you can always compile your own 2.6 kernel into your slack system.

    5. Re:2.4 kernel? WTF by farrellj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because it's considered more stable, and supports things that haven't been up-ported to the 2.6 kernels.

      Patrick aims at the most stable distro...not the latest, flashiest distro. That is why it is used on a large variety of servers...in fact, it has the probably more server installs than any other Distro still built by one person, and his wife. Debian is probably closest, but it is now a large team that works on it.

      Slackware just works...and works...and works...it's sort of the Energizer Bunny of Distros!

      ttyl
                Farrell

      --
      CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
    6. Re:2.4 kernel? WTF by tylernt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I have 10.2 and am using the 2.6 kernel
      I tried using the bundled 2.6 once, and I encountered some problems. I ended up getting the vanilla source from kernel.org and it actually worked better.

      I love Slackware, it runs all of my servers, but man... I wish 2.6 was the default. 2.6 has some things that 2.4 doesn't, so sometimes I have to upgrade, which is a PITA. What does 2.4 have that 2.6 doesn't?
      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    7. Re:2.4 kernel? WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I tried using the bundled 2.6 once, and I encountered some problems. I ended up getting the vanilla source from kernel.org and it actually worked better.

      What are you talking about? Slackware is the only high-profile distro that uses Linus' tree. It's all the other distros that patch the kernel. Slackware doesn't.

    8. Re:2.4 kernel? WTF by tscheez · · Score: 4, Funny

      and their boot loader

      --
      Supplies!
    9. Re:2.4 kernel? WTF by legojenn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't you mean 2001? Anyhow, what difference does it make what kernel they ship with (within reason)? If the hardware and software does not require a newer kernel, wouldn't it be more prudent in an environment where reliability is important to have the most reliable kernel out there?

      --
      I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
    10. Re:2.4 kernel? WTF by Kingrames · · Score: 2, Funny

      latest, flashiest distro?

      There's nothing flashy about linux kernels. You sir, need to go outside and light a sparkler. It will blow your mind.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  2. Stone Age by Jacek+Poplawski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was using Slackware for few years before I switched to Arch Linux.

    I don't understand why it still uses xorg 6.9. Maybe the reason is that nobody has the time to make so many packages for xorg7? IIRC that was the reason why there is no full GNOME in Slackware.

    Kernel 2.4 - OK, as long as it is 2.6 ready (and it is).

    But guys... what's the point to use so old software? If you don't want to put new desktop stuff, then just remove all desktop packages from distro.

    1. Re: Stone Age by slummy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gnome was dumped in 10.2. You can still find a nice release of Gnome from Freerock Gnome built specifically for Slackware.

    2. Re:Stone Age by narfbot · · Score: 5, Informative

      Argh... don't make assumptions.

      Xorg 6.9 and Xorg 7.0 are functionally the same. The only difference is installation methods in that 7.0 is modular, puts things in /usr, and will break many apps. The distros that adopted 7.0 so fast were foolish and likely caused problems for their end users. So when you call Xorg 6.9 so old, you are so wrong. Xorg 6.9 and Xorg 7.0 are essentially the same code and released the same time.

      I'm not going to detail the other things people have done, but I will also state, that slackware has supported 2.6 for a long time now. Not only that, I've been running it with 2.5/2.6 since about 2003.

    3. Re:Stone Age by pwrtool+45 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wish I had mod points. Your comments about X.org are spot on. The resultant binaries are the same. X.org 7.0 is just the modularized source for X.org 6.9. I mean, geez. It's the second item on their web page!

  3. Slackware Screen Shots by neonprimetime · · Score: 4, Funny

    Granted, I don't use Slackware. But when I saw a link stating "Slackware Screen Shot Tour", I fully expected to see a bunch of shell prompts :-P I wasn't entirely wrong!

  4. Re:Screenshots? by Lispy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Am I missing something here?

    Well, besides that its KDE, I dont think so.

  5. All hail... by Ransak · · Score: 4, Insightful
    --
    "Powers. I have them."
  6. Re:99% ready == *not* ready by neonprimetime · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's kinda like in Windows when you copy or download a file. Where 99% doesn't really mean 99%

  7. Re:wonderful screen shots... by Ransak · · Score: 2, Funny
    (the OSX folks have that wrapped up)

    Turn on Xgl. Seriously. I run it on every one of my workstations now, and I've gotten so use to the enhanced interface I feel like I'll get eye cancer if I use a 'non Xgl'd' system for more than five minutes.

    --
    "Powers. I have them."
  8. Re:Seamonkey vs. Mozilla? by IHSW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    SeaMonkey, the code name to the Mozilla Application Suite, an internet suite maintained by the Seamonkey Council. It is no longer maintained by the Mozilla Foundation.

    source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seamonkey

  9. Re:Screenshots? by Masa · · Score: 5, Funny
    Why do I need screenshots? It's Gnome.
    and still you failed to see that it's not a Gnome, it's KDE. Maybe few more screenshots would help?
  10. Many Kudos! by farrellj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To Patrick Volkerding, his wife and Volkerding 2.0!

    This is the oldest existing Linux Distro! Possibly one of the most stable as well. It retains the Unix philosophy that it does a few things really, really well, and gives you the tools to add on to it. It's tanj simple to maintain and update, no "RPM Hell". And it's one person's vision, which gives it a consistancy that is lacking in other "art by committee" Distros.

    And I am biased...I moved to Slackware from Soft Landing Systems (SLS) Linux, and although I have tried many different Distros over the years, I keep on comming back to Slackware...and not just for religious reasons, either!

    Thanx you Patrick and Co for keeping the vision!

    ttyl
              Farrell

    --
    CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
    1. Re:Many Kudos! by JoeF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Many Kudos! by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

    3. Re:Many Kudos! by spauldo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.
  11. Are you sure this is Slackware? by DiscWolf · · Score: 3, Funny

    XOrg 6.9, 2.4 Kernel ... are you sure this isn't Debian?

  12. Gotta love Slackware... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... for its venerability as well as its stability. It was my first, and still favourite distribution. It's not on the bleeding edge, but it has other virtues. 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. Great for turning a bunch of old mismatched PCs into a Beowulf Cluster.

    Semi-automatic package management has taken awhile to evolve, but for some time now it has been very good indeed. There are several good PM clients; I think slapt-get has the edge right now. And if you can't find what you need in the distro, there are several sites (such as http://www.linuxpackages.net/) that offer lots of additional packages and goodies.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    1. Re:Gotta love Slackware... by Jack+Action · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  13. Patrick, maybe the time's come by buffoverflow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Patrick, maybe the time's come by KillerBob · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I disagree. Slackware is what it is: stable. It's also one of the fastest distros I've ever used. There's a reason it's running on all of my servers. There's *tons* of other distros out there that specialise in bleeding edge. Let them do it.

      If you want bleeding edge out of a Slack-based distro, btw, you should check out Zenwalk (http://www.zenwalk.org/). Slack packages are compatible, though they have their own package manager and custom-compiled packages that support dependency checking )while still maintaining compatibility with pkgtool and install/removepkg). The real advantage is when Zen doesn't have a package for what you're looking for... then you can just pop over to slackware.com and grab Pat's version, or over to linuxpackages.net and grab one of theirs.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    2. Re:Patrick, maybe the time's come by freshman_a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No.

      I'm a long-time Slack user. One of the reasons I love Slack and use it everywhere I can is because of it's versitility. I can have a super stable server and a super stable desktop with the same version of the same OS. As it stands, Slack is quick to install, lean, stable, and it just works. Patrick's whole philosophy is Keep It Simple Stupid. Moving in the direction of enterprise-class servers would not be KISS. Also, the people behind Slack consist of Patrick and... well, pretty much just Patrick. How would one person maintain a distro aimed at the enterprise market? I like the fact that one person is behind the distro. Patrick makes the decisions, and that's it. There's no need to fear a split with the maintainers or delays in releases due to arguments about what should or shouldn't be included. I fully agree that Slackware makes a great server OS, but I would be really sad if Patrick re-focused Slack's direction and made it a pure server OS aimed at the enterprise market.

      That's my $0.02

  14. We are Slackers... by Nichole_knc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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....

  15. Re:Sweet Shots by MikeDawg · · Score: 5, Funny

    I choose my linux distro (read: flavor of the month) based upon screenshots, and the pure number of fanboys. That is why I am Ubuntu until I die (or until the lemmings march themselves into the water), and I have to choose a new distro, 'til I die.

    --

    YOU'RE WINNER !
    Another lame blog

  16. But what I really want to know is by suitepotato · · Score: 3, Funny

    when is the next Yggdrasil release? Oh, right, I was thrown back six or seven years by seeing the name Slackware and the list of specs. Never mind.

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    1. Re:But what I really want to know is by evilviper · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Oh, right, I was thrown back six or seven years by seeing the name Slackware and the list of specs.

      Right. Sure does suck, doesn't it, that there is a Linux distro out there that is extremely stable, and doesn't just jump to the latest version of everything without testing?

      All Linux distros should just be random collections of the latest packages, leaving the users to figure out why nothing works...

      The people that are saying "It's only one guy" are completely off the mark. Slackware is the most stable distro I've come across, no matter how many maintainers are involved.

      Not to mention it's the only distro I've seen that includes full headers with every single package (no extra configuration, no hunting -dev packages down, no need to compile from source programs you've already installed binary packages from, etc). It has a fully working and effectively bug-free development environment, which you probably can't say of any other distros.

      I know the attration to shinny new distros, and all their hype. But use them for a few months, and think of all the hassles and work-arounds you put into it, and ask yourself which of those features is worth an OS environment you continually have to tweak to get basic stuff working.

      But what do I know, I've only had Slackware up and running on my DVR machine for about 3 years now, with not one problem to speak of, even across several changes of TV tuners, sound cards, video cards, etc. I've never even needed to recompile the kernel.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  17. Re:wonderful screen shots... by Ransak · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, since it's makes heavy use of your video card. I run SuSE 10.1, the list is in a package called xgl-hardware-list which installs a file to /etc/X11/xgl-hardware-list. I'm not sure of other distros, but Google should have the answers you seek.

    --
    "Powers. I have them."
  18. Re:2000 called, they what their kernel back by tjw · · Score: 3, Informative
    Kernel 2.4.33? Is that serious? What is wrong with 2.6.x?

    Nothing is wrong with 2.6, but for some of us having the 2.4 option is essential. For example, certain applications built for 2.4 LinuxThreads will tend to be very unstable running on the new POSIX threads in 2.6.

    People are looking at this the wrong way. It's not that Slackware doen't included the 2.6 kernel (it does), it offers the versatility to run either 2.4 or 2.6 which is a major advantage over other distros. Especially for us poor bastards who have to run expensive closed-source proprietary software at work.

    --

    XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-UB E-TEST-EMAIL*C.34X
  19. Linux Is Dying by jonathansizz · · Score: 2, Funny

    It is official; Netcraft confirms: Linux is dying

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Linux community when IDC confirmed that Linux market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Linux has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Linux is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Linux's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Linux faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Linux because Linux is dying. Things are looking very bad for Linux. As many of us are already aware, Linux continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    Ubuntu is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Ubuntu developers only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Ubuntu is dying.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    Debian leader Murdock states that there are 7000 users of Debian. How many users of Ubuntu are there? Let's see. The number of Debian versus Ubuntu posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Ubuntu users. Kubuntu posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Ubuntu posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of Kubuntu. A recent article put SUSE at about 80 percent of the Linux market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 SUSE users. This is consistent with the number of SUSE Usenet posts.

    Due to the troubles of SUSE, abysmal sales and so on, SUSE went out of business and was taken over by Novell who sell another troubled OS. Now Ubuntu is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that Linux has steadily declined in market share. Linux is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Linux is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. Linux continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Linux is dead.

    Fact: Linux is dying

  20. Re:What's the proper way to upgrade Slack distros? by ledow · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've done upgrades over at least three version of Slackware that I can remember (and a lot more clean installs) but all went smoothly.

    - Follow UPGRADE.TXT to the letter (in the root of the CD for the new version) not forgetting to move any .new files over to their proper names but with your configuration details entered (use the .new because sometimes the format changes a lot)
    - Boot in single user mode and upgrade to latest kernel version (kernels go out of date too fast to rely on the default one being worthwhile for more than a few weeks or so). Don't forget lilo/grub etc.
    - Make sure that any graphics drivers/kernel modules/etc. that you compiled in are recompiled with a version suitable for your new kernel
    - Reboot and X should work just fine, then you may need to recompile or upgrade some of your software (e.g. if it's compiled against an earlier glibc or kernel).

    It's a pain in the bum, especially if you have a lot of software or driver modules that are fussy about what they compile against, but it's usually a damn sight easier than trying to transfer all your software, config, etc. over to a new clean install.

  21. Slack is the way to go by kolme · · Score: 2, Informative
    I've run Slackware on my computer for 4 or 5 years, then switched to Ubuntu. Each one has its own advantages and disadvantages, but if you know your way around, Slack is way better.
    • Slackware is significantly faster. And much faster with a custom kernel. All the system scripts are written in plain old bash, and the init system, based on BSD's, it's simpler and more elegant. It's just more Unix-ish.
    • The package system is simple, so simple it'll never break. You won't have dependency problems, because there aren't any dependencies. All the headers come with the packages, so you don't have to install any *-dev packages to compile some app.
    • All the software bundled with Slack is unmodified. It's a plain Kernel from kernel.org, with plain GNU stuff and a plain KDE. No especial artwork, nor funny shit you'll never use. Come on, everybody changes the wallpaper and theme after installing a distro.
    • Never crashes, unless you've messed up the config files. I've sometimes seen Fedora and Ubuntu behaving sluggish or buggy. In Slack this NEVER happens (or never happens to me).
    Ubuntu is still installed on my computer, and although it's a nice distro, I'll be back slackin' in no time.
    --
    $ whoami
  22. the swiss army knife of distros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Its a shame that people see slackware as dated. Slackware's stability, and flexibility, makes most other distroes look like another windows. Slackware is a stable base on top of wich you can put whatever you want. Slackware isn't an enterprise solution, but you can easily build an enterprise solution on top of it. Its basically ready to go as a simple webserver though. Slackware is like a blank canvas, just gnu, linux, and a few basic utilities. Gentoo is probably the closest linux to it, but gentoo's portage and weird init scripts are very particular to gentoo. And rebuilding my OS when I want to upgrade isn't very appealing. Slackware's package management, and configuration scripts, are so basic and unobtrusive that they never break or get broken by any modifications you may need to make. I can see why this is annoying to some. Most people would rather spend time using their OS than adding to it or maintaining it. I can see why ubuntu and fedora tend to be the OS of choice for desktop users, but I fail to see their advantage to power-users and server admins. If you're a control freak, and don't have enough time to do LFS, slackware is a great starting point. For what its worth, here is a shot of my laptop running slackware: http://home.comcast.net/~diabolix/shot.png