Slashdot Mirror


Slackware 11 Has Been Released

CCFreak2K writes "Slackware 11 has been officially released, just over a year after Slackware 10.2 became available. Software available with Slackware 11 includes KDE 3.5, Mozilla Seamonkey 1.0.5 and X11R6 6.9. As usual, ISOs are available through BitTorrent and FTPs, packages can be synced through FTPs, and you can always buy a copy."

220 comments

  1. 2.4 kernel vs 2.6? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone know why they stuck with making 2.4 series kernel default over 2.6? (They do, however, provide 2.6)

    1. Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? by MobyTurbo · · Score: 4, Informative
      Anyone know why they stuck with making 2.4 series kernel default over 2.6?


      It's more stable, and uses less memory. Slackware however has been 2.6 ready since 9.1. Now they provide not one but two 2.6 kernels, one 2.6.17.x in /extra and one bleeding-edge 2.6.18 kernel in /testing, if that's what you prefer. (I wish however that Slackware still came on four disks (with two installation ones) rather than 6, I guess that'd be impossible if it provided less kernels. 8-) Of course, a lot of people complained when it went past one installation disk, thanks to KDE and (then-included) GNOME getting more bloated.)

    2. Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? by hcob$ · · Score: 1

      It can still be on a single disk... Just it's gotta be a DVD.

      --
      Cliff Claven
      K.E.G. Party Chairman
      Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    3. Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? by Denney · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have heard that 2.4 kernel is better for older computer systems while 2.6 is better for the new systems. Thus, it might be that Slackware folks decided that their distribution was installed on more older computer systems than on newer ones. I, for one, am definitely glad they stuck with the 2.4 kernel because I have a really old system (100MHz cpu) and I have Slackware installed on it and use it as a file-server. This means I can upgrade to Slackware 11.0 without worrying about the effects of 2.6 kernel on my old system.

      Just my $0.02.

    4. Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? by valen · · Score: 0


        2.4 is *NOT* more stable than 2.6.

        The 2.6 VM is an order of magnitude better, as far as I can see, based on some stats I've gathered on a few thousand hardworking 2.4 machines and a few thousand 2.6 machines. Only reason to go 2.4 is...less stuff to change.

      john

    5. Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? by fuzzix · · Score: 2, Informative
      Anyone know why they stuck with making 2.4 series kernel default over 2.6?

      I'd guess because there's no 2.7 branch - 2.6 is open to a lot of experimentation. If I'm looking for stability 2.6 isn't it... It might be functionally stable but as far as dev goes it could be broken at any time.

      That said, I install a 2.6 kernel on all my Slack boxes (Which is not a subset of all my boxes now that I think about it...)
    6. Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish however that Slackware still came on four disks (with two installation ones) rather than 6, I guess that'd be impossible if it provided less kernels.

      Back when I downloaded Slackware, it was already six disks, just for the base system. X added something like ten disks to that, as did the development packages.

      To get down to four disks for the entire distro, you would be in 1992 or somesuch.

    7. Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? by zlamma · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's Pat's view on the issue:
      From the ChangeLog.txt from Fri Jul 14 18:31:20 CDT 2006
      "I'm probably going to leave the bare.i 2.4.32 kernel as the default kernel (or perhaps sata.i?) as it has very good performance and probably better security due to the simpler and longer-tested design."

    8. Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? by thc69 · · Score: 1

      Did I pass?

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    9. Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? by Type-R · · Score: 1

      2.4 is *NOT* more stable than 2.6.

      Oh really? how many disruptive changes (changed API's, ABI's, etc) have there been to the 2.4 kernel in the last few releases? How many subsystems scheduled for and removed? How many in the 2.6 series? Depending on what stable means in your environment, 2.4 has been much more stable, and 2.6 has been a lot more like a development series (which it should ... I mean that's where they are doing the development :-)

    10. Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's with these rumors that the 2.6 kernel is a memory hog? I'm not seeing it. About 2 months ago, I put Slackware 10.2 on a 166 MHz Pentium (no MXX) with 48M of ram and a 1G hard drive. Made a 75M swap partition. I compiled a kernel from vanilla 2.6.16.4 source. And, for the heck of it, I made the root file system Reiser4. (The Reiser4 patch for that kernel version is now labelled as "don't use", sigh.) And you know what? Running XWindows, with a lightweight window manager (jwm, used in Puppy Linux, which is where I learned of jwm), and only an xterm running, "free" reported 20M of RAM was free. Then I tried Firefox. Firefox ran a little slow, but the system was not thrashing-- "free" reported that swap was not even being used! Further, that old computer's BIOS was not capable of booting from CD, but at under 1.1M for the bzImage file, that 2.6 kernel easily fit on a boot floppy.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    11. Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      The math is somewhat different when the disks in question are 700MB instead of 1.44MB. ;)

  2. But how by kelvinq · · Score: 0, Troll

    long is Pat going to live before all hell breaks loose and Slackware becomes another Debian? Slackware is ancient enough already...

    --
    http://kelvin.quee.org
    1. Re:But how by Spookticus · · Score: 4, Funny

      What is this debian in which you speak of? It must mean devil....and must be slayed

    2. Re:But how by kelvinq · · Score: 5, Funny

      How APT a reply! I thought all our minds have gone all woody reading /.

      --
      http://kelvin.quee.org
    3. Re:But how by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Its OK, Partick had some incompatible hardware.
      Once he had aquired the components he recompiled himself from source and is now read for the next few years.

      In other news, police are looking for the persons responsible for chopping of the wings of a penguin at the local zoo.
      Patrick was in a flap about the whole situation.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    4. Re:But how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the Debian install 15 Cd's? And whats all this about last decade's software. what is stopping people from adding the current version to slackware?

    5. Re:But how by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1
      Isn't the Debian install 15 Cd's?
      Yes, for all 13,000+ packages. If you have a decent network connection you can do a network install with the first CD. The installer sets up a small base system and then can install anything else via FTP, HTTP, or another method.
      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    6. Re:But how by moco · · Score: 1

      I prefer the "living on the etch" approach.

      --
      moi
  3. package manager? by mdew · · Score: 0, Troll

    I remember Slackware back in the day, apart from updated packages, has it got a decent official package manager yet?

    --
    http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/
    1. Re:package manager? by Ravenscall · · Score: 0

      What? Too good for FTP?

      --
      You say you want a revolution....
    2. Re:package manager? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember Slackware back in the day, apart from updated packages, has it got a decent official package manager yet?

      PMEBCAK as ever.

    3. Re:package manager? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, it's called "the System Administrator." ;)

    4. Re:package manager? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Short answer: No.

    5. Re:package manager? by Trigun · · Score: 4, Funny

      Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

    6. Re:package manager? by DD32 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I only deal with CLI installs of slackware, its been damn stable throughout -current.

      I use Swaret for my package manager, Its cli-only, does dependancies, etc..

      swaret :: The Essential SlackWARE Tool
      swaret.sourceforge.net/index.php

    7. Re:package manager? by CatsupBoy · · Score: 3, Informative
      I remember Slackware back in the day, apart from updated packages, has it got a decent official package manager yet?
      If by decent you mean bloated and riddled with cyclic dependancy verification: then, no it does not.

      However, the package management solution that comes with Slackware (and always has) is durable, functional, and flexible. It has versioning information, so you can upgrade by package name. You arent stuck with hunting down un-necessary prerequisites because the author says you need them. And they are very easy to create and maintain (using a standard tar/gz format).

      Above that, Patrick does a wonderful job from release to release by specifying every package naming changes, obsoletion, and addition in order to make upgrading easy.

      Now, true, with checkinstall package creation is much easier in redhat/debian. And debian/ubuntu release updates are super easy. However, you cant diss a tried and proven solution just because its not feature ritch. It will allow you to do what any package management solution is designed to do: install, upgrade, remove software packages. Enough said.
    8. Re:package manager? by ronadams · · Score: 2, Informative

      It always has had a package manager. pkgtool. It doesn't do depenedency checking, but that doesn't make it not a package manager, any more than a lack of point and click interface makes vi not a text editor.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    9. Re:package manager? by neersign · · Score: 1

      Slackware was the first linux distro that I used in depth. As with eveyone who uses Slackware, the lessons I learned about software and Linux itself I will take with me to every distro I try. The philosophy of Slackware Package Management is that nothing gets installed behind your back. You control every single aspect of the package build/install process. You control exactly what is installed and with what options. The SlackBuild Scripts help automate the compilation of a single package and keep consitency in the system. One important project that everyone should know about is slackbuilds.org. This site is run by several regulars of ##slackware on freenode, and is a repository of quality SlackBuild Scripts. Anyone can submit a script, but each is tested before it is posted for quality assurance. I have since moved on to Gentoo for the more automated build process, but I am glad I spent time learning the basics with Slackware.

    10. Re:package manager? by MikeDawg · · Score: 1

      Yes, it has always had one (at least as long as I remember), its called pkgtool. It works great!

      --

      YOU'RE WINNER !
      Another lame blog

    11. Re:package manager? by z4pp4 · · Score: 1

      update tools: slapt-get? swaret?
      paahhh.... does not come close to emerge, yum, apt-get or synaptic.

      Better keep a close watch on those vulnerability bulletins....also don't forget dependency hell.
      The moment you have to worry about package updates is the moment you lose your night life.
      Ubuntu! Ubuntu! Ubuntu!
      -- I'm a fan.

    12. Re:package manager? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      update tools: slapt-get? swaret?
      paahhh.... does not come close to emerge, yum, apt-get or synaptic.

      Better keep a close watch on those vulnerability bulletins....also don't forget dependency hell.
      The moment you have to worry about package updates is the moment you lose your night life.


      What a wuss. And slapt-get has been just fine, thankyouverymuch.

      Ubuntu! Ubuntu! Ubuntu!
      -- I'm a fan.

      "Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me"

      Just remember, some day you'll move out of your mother's basement and be required to exhibit actual skills on the job... even if your daily gig currently is making my daily cup of Starbucks which I pick up every day on my way to work as a real *NIX admin. Extra whipped cream on there please!

    13. Re:package manager? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hayden Christensen? Is that you?

    14. Re:package manager? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Now, true, with checkinstall package creation is much easier in redhat/debian.

      Err... actually... *nudge nudge* Look in /extra. Slackware has checkinstall, too.

    15. Re:package manager? by Muramasa · · Score: 1

      checkinstall creates crummy packages within no dependencies. Please don't encourage people to use it.

    16. Re:package manager? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I have and will continue to encourage people to use it for just that reason, actually.

  4. Glad to hear it by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Congratulations, and kudos to Pat Volkerding. Many distributions have tried to convert me away from Slack in the past decade: none managed. Debian got close at some point, but with slapt-get in place Slackware's package management has become much easier (updated my laptop from 10.2 to -current with ease). Vanilla rocks.

  5. Theoretical question by Morrigu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So let's say I'm a relative newbie to Linux, and I've just finished installing Ubuntu 6.06.1 LTS Dapper Drake on my laptop. I've read through the forums and have apt-gotten my way to a nice-looking Gnome or KDE desktop with 3D accelerated drivers for X, a bunch of useful apps and some games.

    What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?

    Let's say I've been using Linux for years, and I'm a compulsive downloader and installer. I like trying out different OS's and desktop environments, everything from FreeDOS to CentOS to OpenBSD. I'm familiar enough with different package systems and administration styles to figure out how stuff works, but I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on something tedious and unrewarding.

    What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?

    Just curious, not trolling.

    --
    "We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - Major Mike Shearer, UK
    1. Re:Theoretical question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Slackware offers newbies the ability to learn a lot about how Linux works.
      It offers the experienced user a beautifully simple experience: no dependencies, no installing 'dev' binary packages and the fantatic and rare ability to easily mix and match self-compiled applications and binary packages on the same system without making yourself cry.

    2. Re:Theoretical question by Skater · · Score: 5, Informative

      Distrowatch used to have a great comment about Slackware:

      "If you want to know how Linux works, ask a Slackware user." :)

    3. Re:Theoretical question by shudde · · Score: 4, Informative

      What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?

      A learning experience that will stand you in good stead throughout many distributions.

    4. Re:Theoretical question by arun_s · · Score: 1
      What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?
      A newbie's reply here, so please be kind if I'm wrong :)
      You learn quite a lot if you use Slackware. I was totally new to Linux more than a year back, and after trying Mandriva, Ubuntu, and a few others, it was Slackware that I finally stuck too.
      It doesn't hide the underlying workings behind poorly made GUI wrappers (IIRC I struggled somewhat with Mandriva because of this).
      Its basic package management is easy too, an installpkg filename.tgz almost always works for me. And since my (default?) installation put gcc, perl, python etc, I didn't come across dependency problems either. The 2 CD set of 10.2 also came with a surprisingly comprehensive bunch of apps (lots of small windowmanagers especially!), and there's always linuxpackages.net for the rest.
      Give this distro a try, for its sheer simplicity and cleanliness its worth it.
      --
      I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
    5. Re:Theoretical question by Ravenscall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I concur here. It is not easy, but hell, if you want easy there is OS X and Windows. Using Slackware, customizing and tweaking it, you will learn, because, well, you HAVE to. However, it also allows you unparalelled customization without locking you into a specific format package manger. And if you cannot get a package to install, you can always just Use the Source.

      It is funny, Using slackware, I always wondered what the big deal was with Gentoo users compiling thier own programs and such, until I tried Ubuntu one day and tried to compile something...

      --
      You say you want a revolution....
    6. Re:Theoretical question by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Insightful
      What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?

      The thing is (as far as I know) with Ubuntu (and many other distributions), you can use Linux just like you can use Windows: without knowing much, and without having to learn how to use a command line. It's nice, smooth, and not too hard. But you don't learn that much.

      (Please note this is not to criticize Ubuntu, or any other distribution : Ubuntu is a great answer to a tough problem, how to make Linux useful for complete newbies).

      With Slackware, you will have to learn . Sure, it will be tough, at first. But what you learn, you will be able to use on any Linux distributions, and on many other UN*Xes. I started with Slackware and I am today managing 10+ Solaris servers, as well as 12+ SuSE server. IMHO, what I learned under Slackware has been invaluable to the job I am doing today. YMMV, of course, but everyone I know who uses Slackware credit it with .

      What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?

      Slackware is interesting for hard-core Linux Geeks because:
      1. You have to learn. See above.
      2. You get to compile tons of stuff, which is also a great learning experience. Plus, you learn how to be independent from one distribution.
      3. Everything is open, everything is readable, everything is understandable. All configuration files and utilities are simple text and shell files. All the software compiled on Slackware, including the kernel, is vanilla: no annoying distribution-specific patches.
      4. Slackware is your distribution, your way. Except you don't have to waste countless hours to compile everything, like you have to do under Gentoo or with LFS. It's usually faster and simpler to install than either of these Linux distributions. Install it, and you have the basis of a rock-solid Linux system, ready to go, and ready to go your way , not the "Debian", the "Red Hat" or the "Mandriva" way. That's a big difference.


      Try Slackware, you may find yourself hooked!

      And, again: this is not an attack on such-or-such distribution. I love all distributions, but Slackware always had -- and always will -- have a special place in my heart. And on my computers.
      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    7. Re:Theoretical question by Like2Byte · · Score: 1
      Let's say I've been using Linux for years, and I'm a compulsive downloader and installer. I like trying out different OS's and desktop environments, everything from FreeDOS to CentOS to OpenBSD. I'm familiar enough with different package systems and administration styles to figure out how stuff works, but I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on something tedious and unrewarding.

      This is me! That being said, I'm no guru. I've collected a lot of older systems through the years and I have two boxes I like to test distros out on. One is a very tempermental beast - I think there's a problem with the bios. This PC is from 1996-97. I've tried many distros out on this box to no avail. Most recently I tried Debian 'Sarge' and it puked on the first install and I'm going to put Slackware 10.x or 11 back on it later. However, when I installed Slackware 10.1 on this box it too failed. None-the-less, I eventually got it up and running and it runs quite well.

      What's my point? I guess my point is, is that slackware is notoriously effective/stable on older systems. When I got semi-serious about linux I turned to Slackware because of its reputation. I was not disappointed and I remember learning so much. My first install with Slackware on this system did not go smoothly - it was rather rough - but, it went on and I learned *a lot* about linux, permissions and its filesystem.

    8. Re:Theoretical question by Bandman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some friends of mine have a saying.

      Use RedHat for a year, and you know RedHat really well.

      Use Slackware for a year, and you know Linux really well.

      It works, and requires that you learn. It's not a distobution for someone who wants to use a desktop and doesn't care how things work. It's for the person that says "I wonder what that file does".

    9. Re:Theoretical question by wolf369T · · Score: 0

      I tried, as a newbie, many distros. Red Hat 8, Mandrake 8, then came the Knoppix-on-HDD times and now Ubuntu. They are nice. SuSE looks nice too, Ubuntu is very simple, so for a newbie they are OK. Still, my true love is Slackware. It's the distro I'm stick most of the times. I install and remove distros and always come back to Slack, because this is a true Linux ditro. If you want just another WindowsXP clone, try Fedora. Try Ubuntu. Try Mandriva. Try SuSE. Sure, they are nice (and slow), but their main mission is usability. If you want to use them easily, try one of them, you'll like it. If you want to learn to use Linux, try Slackware. My first ./configure, make, make install were in Slackware, my first make bzImage make modules make modules_install were here too. One big point for Slackware is it's speed (and stability, let's not forget). After FreeBSD, it is, by far, the fastest Linux on my machine (wich is not a brand new one). With slackware you feel like you control your system, you feel like using Unix / Linux trully. With Ubuntu it's just a true strong XP feeling. Eben the new theme has bumpy buttons like Aero. I like it flat. BSD init scropts vs System V 1-0.

      No package manager? Rarely I feel the need. Just download the .tgz or, even better, the full sources and compile them. It's part of the learning process. Error? Google it. Never (or rarely) fails. Now, if you really need to compile stuff, choose Gentoo, but that one is a little to extreme for me. If you really insiste, there's always slapt-get with linuxpackages.net as repo. Works fine for me.

      I find Slackware the best Linux balanced distro. A true Linux one, without trying to copy features from corporate OSes.

      Thank you, Pat.

      (Ok, I know, Debian is close to Slackware in stability, security and simplicity, but choosing Slackware may be just a personal option. Just for the record, don't want to start a distro-war here. In another Everett world, maybe I am a Debian fan. And a cat :)

    10. Re:Theoretical question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are tired of configuration tools not doing what you want?
      You want to have full control?
      You want to look behind the scenes?

      Get Slack!

    11. Re:Theoretical question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?

      A learning curve. Maybe not everyone's cup of tea, and if you want a distro that will install-and-go, fine, there are plenty of good ones. Ubuntu is great for that.
      However, if you learn Ubuntu, that's all you know. Learn Slackware, and you learn Unix.

      > What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?

      You can dig right in under the bonnet and not worry about breaking a 250mb dependancy database written in martian heiroglyphs and thereby turning your shiny distro into a Black Screen of Gibberish, just by doing something a bit clumsy.

    12. Re:Theoretical question by baboonlogic · · Score: 1
      Try Slackware, you may find yourself hooked!

      And, again: this is not an attack on such-or-such distribution. I love all distributions, but Slackware always had -- and always will -- have a special place in my heart. And on my computers.

      As they say, once a slacker always a slacker! :)
    13. Re:Theoretical question by caluml · · Score: 1, Troll

      Gentoo more so.

      Cue uninformed trolls saying that watching gcc output scrolling doesn't teach you anything....

    14. Re:Theoretical question by gothfox · · Score: 1

      It will, most likely, teach him a valuable skill to convert any distribution to Slackware using sufficient number of make installs.

    15. Re:Theoretical question by jazman_777 · · Score: 3, Funny
      Cue uninformed trolls saying that watching gcc output scrolling doesn't teach you anything....


      But, but, don't you need to know how to speed read _before_ you start with Gentoo??

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    16. Re:Theoretical question by vtcodger · · Score: 2, Interesting
      ***What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?***

      Nothing much except for few small sets of users. For those who want to understand Unix, it offers a straightforward system. For those who can't burn/boot CDROM, it offers a UMSDOS based subset ZIPslack that can be installed via network or even via floppies (lot of them) from MSDOS on a FAT32 drive.

      What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?

      It's comprehensible and pretty much mainstream Unix.

      ==========

      I suspect that Slackware is popular with those who couldn't care less about GUIs and just want to build custom servers of one sort or another that work. Before I retired, I had Slackware 9 running on a 486SX33 that backed up the Netware files on a big hard drive every night. It was vastly more reliable than the DLT tape drive in the Netware Server, and infinitely easier to restore files from than (explitives deleted) BACKUP EXEC..

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    17. Re:Theoretical question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      make.conf, USE flags, emerge and etc-update have nothing to do with anything other than Gentoo. Slackware has a zen-like simplicity and everything you learn can be applied to any other unix, Gentoo is gentoo and... where is /etc/hostname configured this week?

      I use gentoo because it allows me most of the control I enjoyed by building manually and automates it for me (sometimes). I'm still learning gentoo even though I'd done LFS, 5 years of slackware and 3 years FreeBSD before I installed it.

    18. Re:Theoretical question by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Sorry - I'm not uninformed, having run Gentoo for better than 3 years (not sure why I keep beating my head against *that* wall) and Slackware for over 12. Gentoo doesn't teach you "more" of anything, except perhaps how to appreciate the stability and QA process Pat provides for Slackware.

      Slackware doesn't have some automated wrapper that downloads and builds all of the unstable software you could want - you learn to do that on your own. It doesn't have a wrapper that takes care of updating config files - you do that on your own. It doesn't have a bunch of 'leet kids who mark things as stable or unstable on a whim - it has actual tested stable software that works.

      Gentoo is a pain in the ass, and some people justify it by saying "it teaches you things". It teaches you how to make things difficult on yourself for no reason, and it teaches you that some really noisy people have no idea what compiler "optimizations" actually do - but they post on forums anyway. It teaches you to expect your distro to provide packages for every piece of software under the sun, instead of learning how to install and resolve dependencies based on ./configure's output. Oh, and I guess you can edit some config files in Gentoo if you want - just like in *any* other distro.

      Portage is a very nice source and binary package manager, and etc-update (and similar) are nice config management tools. The idea of not having release versions is nice too. It's too bad none of those things are used in any really good distros, though...

    19. Re:Theoretical question by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Slackware (and to a lesser extent, Debian and Gentoo) offers you the chance to poke about under the bonnet while the vehicle is in motion.

      Other distributions use GUI tools to configure everything. Sometimes these read their settings from the actual configuration files they are supposed to be editing; sometimes they use a separate database and recreate the config files either on boot, or when exiting. In the first case, you run the risk by manually editing a file that you might make it unparseable to the GUI config tool. In the second case, your changes might only be temporary -- the separate, "hidden" database won't be changed, and either at the next boot, or the next time you run the config tool, your changes will be lost.

      Package managers (apart from Gentoo's Portage) generally work with binary packages -- as though the maintainer has done the configure and make, and then you just do the make install. And for historical reasons, "development" files -- those files not needed for everyday use of a package, but which may be required when you try to build something else that will work with the package -- have been packaged separately. This made good sense in the days when target systems had limited RAM, disk space and CPU speed; people who just wanted to use software did not need to spend time compiling it (nowadays, compiling is much faster) nor clutter up their systems with files they were not using (nowadays, they would barely be noticed). On the negative side, it meant that a distribution was limited by design to certain architectures; but the world was already standardising on 80386 by then. Also, in order to resolve dependencies correctly, a package manager needs to keep a database of which files belong to which package -- and can get horrendously confused by the presence of files that it did not put there.

      Slackware eschews unnecessary complexity. It doesn't try to do things for you, so you never feel you are fighting with it for control of your system. If you have an irrational aversion to the command line, forget it -- stick with Mandriva or Ubuntu. If you are comfortable with manually editing text files and sometimes having to sort out dependency management for yourself, you won't have problems with it. However, if you're already happily running Debian or Gentoo (both of which have huge package repositories, support many architectures and can easily be extended with home-compiled packages if you need something that is not in the repositories), Slackware can't offer you much. (And that's pretty much true whichever way around you arrange the three.)

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    20. Re:Theoretical question by shudde · · Score: 1

      Gentoo more so.



      While I agree that you learn many things playing with Gentoo, I don't think the skillset necessarily translates to other distributions... which was kinda my point. Besides if you think compiler optimizations (often redundant) and learning to build things from source (always useful) are worthwhile things to learn, people would be better off reading/building LFS than just running automated Gentoo scripts.

    21. Re:Theoretical question by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      >What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?

      A series of valuble lessons learning the necessity of Reading The Fine Manual.

      Apart from that, the time spent learning, tweaking and using slackware gives a good experiential base to go to probably any other Unix-akin and not be completely lost; or at least -having been stuck in slackware and figured out how to get unstuck- provides a good learning background which will put them in a better stead than your wannabe 'click click click you're installed' distributions.

    22. Re:Theoretical question by molnarcs · · Score: 0, Troll
      You don't learn more by using Gentoo. I'm a FreeBSD user, and got a friend of mine interested in unix. Being a pragmatist, I recommended gentoo (pragmatist as in being curious on one hand, and wanting him to help me with linux if I ever needed it on the other).

      I watched him struggle building up his system from scratch, even though he began with stage 3. Than I had a good chance to compare portage with ports, and I was amazed at the primitive way it handles dependencies during package removal, and the miriad options you have to set to have a sane system (midnight-commander pulling in xorg by default??). A month later, he had everything up and running, by following the FAQs, wikies, howtos, etc. And he had still no idea what filesystem permissions are.

      You don't learn anything by using gentoo. You basically follow - badly written - documentation, and you might think that oh, I'm sooo cool, I built something from scratch, I must be learning something, but in reality, you were blindly typing in commands without learning the basics behind those commands. My friend was clever enough to realize that despite "doing everything by hand" he didn't learn much about unix in general. Because the documentation sucks, and the whole concept of gentoo sucks, because it is misleading. It misleads people to think that the point of building from source is "optimization". On modern hardware, there is absolutely no reason to spend hours, days, weeks for "optimizing". There are very few packages that benefit from optimizations, and I expect a modern package/ports management system to take care of those packages, ie. I don't want to spend hours setting compiler flags, I want ports maintainers doing that for me. That's how it works in FreeBSD. You set -O (or -O2) in make.conf, and those packages that might benefit from further optimizations, automatically override these defaults, because the good folks at freebsd-ports tested them, and deemed them safe (example: mplayer/mencoder will be built with -O3 -ffast-math, etc... without you having to muck around config files).

      Anyhow, the point is, you only learn if you want to learn, and if there is helpful documentation. Any distribution is good enough if you are motivated, and if it is properly documented. FreeBSD beats every single linux distro on the documentation front, but if you want to stick with linux, slackware is a much better choice than gentoo. Another good choice, probably even a better one for the Ubuntu user grand-grand parent is probably Archlinux, which comes as close as any distro to the simplicity of slackware (or FreeBSD for that matter) with nice package management, good documentation, and an opportunity to learn about unix like systems in general. FreeBSD is another good choice for noobs, because it is one of the easiest to learn unix like systems. Even if you want to learn linux, I still would recommend the FreeBSD handbook, because it is not just a howto, but it explains the concepts of unix in great detail. The unix basics chapter is a good introduction to anyone who wants to actually learn something (not just blindly following howtos and spend time on useless "optimizations" in gentoo).

    23. Re:Theoretical question by Assassin_for_Atari · · Score: 1
      The nice thing about slackware is that there is no "admin tool" or "yast" or what ever to get in the way. Everything is vanilla so you learn alot about your linux/your system in general. I would have to say that if I had started on something like ubuntu I most likely wouldn't know half of what I know. If there was no package for the software, I had to complile and troubleshoot the issue if one came up. If I wanted to new kernel, no worrries, just download and install without fear of disto tweaks that will have an adverse effect when trying to update.

      I have moved to xubuntu for my Desktop and Gentoo on my server because I really would like Pat to just move to 2.6 by default since IMHO, what you gain in 2.6 trumps 2.4 and I haven't had stability issues for sometime now since using 2.6. Also, I would love to see a lvm/raid opiton in the installer as doing the whole install/setup/copy jig gets annoying. Just 2 minor things and I would would go back in a heart beat. I still talk up SLackware to people are thinking of trying it and squash people that bad mouth it. Slackware and its "forks" like Zenwalk and SLAX are are awesome

    24. Re:Theoretical question by gsmraxe · · Score: 1

      It's not for a newbie. It's never been meant for a newbie. It makes a great server, fast, stable, all boot scripts are in /etc/rc.d/ really easy to figure out for an "experienced user".

      Run it and write your own thesis

    25. Re:Theoretical question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In one sense, slackware is the Heathkit of Linux.

      Back in the day you could buy plans and parts to build a radio from Heathkit, and by the time you were
      finished with it, you would understand some things about modulation, soldering, and debugging circuits.

      Today, you can buy a $5 radio from Wal-Mart that works and sounds just as good as the Heathkit radio.

      I for one have learned a lot about linux already, and I don't want to be a sysadmin anymore than I have to in my free time. In one sense I can understand JWZ's switch to the mac, he wanted something that just works.

      For me, and I'm speaking for me alone here, I don't want a heathkit system anymore. I want it to install correctly, detect my hardware automatically. I don't want to spend time in help forums or irc channels. I don't need or want to understand the semantics of sendmail.cf. I just want it to work.

      Slackware is your distribution, your way.

      That's marketroid speak. Slackware is your distribution the slackware way. Ubuntu is your distribution the ubuntu way. Fedora is your distribution the fedora way. Gentoo is your distribution the gentoo way, etc.

      *My* way aligns itself the ubuntu way. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just different. All distributions let you peek under the hood to see the way it works. Slackware gives it to you all at once -- kinda like drinking from a firehose. Fedora and ubuntu lets you see if you want to, but they also put a nice shiny chrome wrapper around it too.

    26. Re:Theoretical question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's bullshit. I used Slackware for over a year before I tried Gentoo which I then used for several months until I broke my install after which I felt it was too much effort to reinstall so I moved on to Arch Linux.

      From my experience I learnt a lot from using Slackware, when I moved on to Gentoo most of what I learnt was just specific to how Gentoo works. Should I have started with Gentoo instead I surely would have picked more up from it, however I still feel Slackware provides the better learning experience because it does less for you and it keeps things simple so it is easy to understand how they work. Gentoo does have its good points and reasons for using it, but IMO it does not provide a better learning experience than Slackware.

      Personally I'm not going back to Slackware because I got tired of it's limited package management and lack of packages, meaning I had to build a lot of packages myself or get them from Linuxpackages.net (which are of variable quality).

    27. Re:Theoretical question by dbc · · Score: 1

      I use Slack because it doesn't surprise me. It doesn't try to "help" me in mysterious ways that sometimes break in extremely mysterious ways. It is sometimes called the most "unix-y" of Linux's. The amount of package management done by Slack is just enough. Go look in /var/log/packages if you have a question about what is on your system or what you need.

      In short, Slack is simple and straightforward. It gets out of your way.

    28. Re:Theoretical question by brendanoconnor · · Score: 1

      As many have already said, Slackware makes you learn. I started using linux on and off about the time Slack 8.0 came out. I read up on all the different distros and this one was said to be stable, straight forward, and probably the hardest to learn. I figured, hmm, lets try.

      I found that everything I just typed was true, except the hard part. It is so straight forward and on the main slackware site, there is an entire book done in html (which you can buy, I did later on just for reference) on how to go from nothing to a fully running system with different services running and everything. I found that because it was so straight forward, it was infact easier in the end becuase the software only did what I wanted it to do. If I couldn't tell it what to do, it just did not happen.

      In other distros of the time, many wanted to do it for me, or would try and stop me froming doing something potentially harmful. Nothing is worse then being in X, opening a console, su over, and you still get access denied when trying to do something. This will not happen in slack. It does what you say, and does not try and baby you or pretend your stupid.

      I highly recommend anyone that really wants to learn linux to give slack a real honest try.

      Brendan

    29. Re:Theoretical question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another two-cents:

      To add to other's points: (and again, not to criticise Ubuntu) Ubuntu is a good desktop system. If you just use a computer to surf the web, listen to media, edit some office files, etc., Ubuntu is your ticket to worry-free heaven. Slackware is, pardon the cliche, a "hackers distro". It is widely regarded as the top choice for software developers. You can code on this system like there's no tommorow, and it's fast as lightning and stable as iron. I also use it for heavy graphics work, and it serves me well there.

      I have three computers: Mandriva is for the family and is great for mutimedia and games, and a Debian derivative, grml, is my writing and web maintenence box. The Slackware one is what I use for anything coding-related.

    30. Re:Theoretical question by johansalk · · Score: 1

      I really question the need for this. I got into slack last year and ran it for a little while. Yes, I learnt some stuff and I'm quite fond of it for that reason, but, with all honesty, after a while I just felt that any deeper learning than that was unwise. I'd rather let an easy installer like ubuntu deal with the installation issues and a package manager like apt-get deal with all software management while I learn, instead of all the low stuff and tedious detail of system management, perhaps something higher level and more useful for me, like lisp, ruby, python or whatever.

    31. Re:Theoretical question by marvinglenn · · Score: 1

      What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?

      Not too much, IMO, except an experience that will cause you to learn the fundamentals... if becoming an uber-linux-geek is your goal.

      What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?

      Just last night I started building another firewall/router/fileserver/VPN box for a friend. I've been using Kubuntu on all my desktops for about the last year, so I was going to try to put a strip down Ubuntu on this little (processor/memory wise) machine. My machine was too small for even a non-X Ubuntu. I went back to Slack for all my server type (non-X, non-desktop) machines. With Slack, I can still make a usable machine out of a 486 with 16M ram.

      The only bummer for me is that I started this install last night with 10.2 and woke up this morning to see the post that 11.0 had been released.

      --
      The whores get mad when the sluts give it away for free.
    32. Re:Theoretical question by h8macs · · Score: 1

      >> What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?
      * My first question would be what is the purpose? Is this new user running it as a replacement OS on a home computer as a hobbie? Or is this person actually attempting to add Linux usage and administration to their skill set for employment!? Slackware is great for both, though more appropriate for the person that wants to add Linux to his/her professional skill set.

      Ma & Pa will probably gravitate toward M$ Vi$ta... Crack away black hats... crack away...

      >> What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?
      We'll... from my experiences thus far it seems that Slackware admin tend to make better enterprise admin than say... redhat or mandrake admin. I am not pissing on either company though both distros are basically redhat. The fact that Slackware is more open and versatile when it comes to package management and simplistic yet advanced scripting, tends to provide a more vanilla base with which to continue to grow your skill set.

      In truth, I do not recommend Slackware to friends and family unless they show a true affinity toward learning. Why do I want more gumbas like me in the mix f#cking up my favorite distro!? ;-) Seriously though, when people ask me I do not allow my preferences to get in the way. I ask them what they are attempting to accomplish and what their skill level is and how much they want to learn or not.

      >> Just curious, not trolling.
      * No worries, slackers, slacking through the void exuding slackitude are less likely to flame a new user than other "Distro-Gods"... in my most humble experience anyway...

      --
      :-( --- argh. Despair, I owe again. :-b
    33. Re:Theoretical question by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      After using slackware, Linux begins to make sense, and the skills you gain are applicable to all distros. It was a very good starter distro for me, better than RedHat was, with all its smoke and mirrors to let me get by without learning what I ought to know.

      That said, I currently tend to use Ubuntu on the desktop and CentOS on the server.

      Where I last worked, I planned to install slackware on our first Linux servers, but it turned out that the hardware we bought wasn't well supported, and I tried several distros before finding one that supported everything, CentOS.

    34. Re:Theoretical question by blanchae · · Score: 1
      I found that Slackware (been using it since 1994) is the closest to other versions of Unix. I've been able to troubleshoot SCO (bad word), Sun, HP, and a few other versions based on my knowledge of Slackware's initialization scripts. I found it less painful to migrate to other mainline Unixs.


      I tried Red Hat, Suse and a few others but kept coming back to Slackware. Mainly because of the text based installation scripts which are scary at first but are part of the learning curve.


      All the other Linux distributions have GUI based configuration menus, when they go South what do you do? I had a problem with Red Hat, knew what the problem was, fixed the initialization script manually, rebooted the system and when the configuration menu popped up, it said the initialization script had changed and it was reverting back to the old broken one! That was the last time I used Red Hat.

    35. Re:Theoretical question by Iron+Condor · · Score: 1

      what you gain in 2.6 trumps 2.4

      What do you gain in 2.6? Just curious. I've been running 2.4 since it became available and never really thought that there was a good reason to switch from 2.2. So now I have a fine working system that happens to use 2.4. Is there something wrong with 2.4?

      (No, this isn't sarcasm or anyting, I really am that naive.)

      --
      We're all born with nothing.
      If you die in debt, you're ahead.
    36. Re:Theoretical question by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

      My first experience with Linux was when I tried to install Slackware 96 for the first time. I was 13 at the time and knew nothing about linux, but I wanted to learn. I couldn't get debian installed, but slackware installed successfully. I remember that I needed a slackware boot diskette and a slackware root diskette in order to install and get it to run. I figured the root diskette needed to be inserted in order to login as root, so I never set a root password. After I got slackware installed, I went on IRC (as root) to brag about my new linux box and my system was "hacked" in less than 1 minute. Turns out telnet was enabled and of course I didn't set a root password, so someone just logged in as root and hosed my system. That was the only time I ever had my system hosed by someone other than myself, and technically, I allowed it to happen by thinking I was secure with a "root disk".

    37. Re:Theoretical question by molnarcs · · Score: 1

      I see some gentoo zealots use moderation instead of arguments if they don't agree with my opinion. Congrats.

  6. 2.4.33? Ob. Futurama quote by radu.stanca · · Score: 5, Funny

    Welcome to the World of tomorrow!

    1. Re:2.4.33? Ob. Futurama quote by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Everyone blows this out of proportion.

      Slackware isn't Fedora or Gentoo... It's not okay if the system is untested, unstable, buggy, etc. Besides, 2.4 is just the default, you can select a 2.6 kernel just as easily, during the install.

      Kernel developers decided not to even try and keep the mainline 2.6 line stable. So, it's no surprise that distros which want ridiculously stable systems would stay with the 2.4 kernel as long as practical.

      So why does nobody have the same complaints about Debian?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  7. Die Hard by slummy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I will use Slackware until it's demise. Even after it's long gone I will build a LFS installation that mimicks Slackware's simplicity.

    1. Re:Die Hard by Bandman · · Score: 1

      I'm with you. I've thought about that too... "What if Pat kicks the bucket and no one takes over?" "Well, I guess I'll just have to do it myself".

      I'm a slackware user since 1996/97, and I couldn't live without it. I'm a sysadmin and I current have it installed on over 40 production servers. It's terrific.

    2. Re:Die Hard by newt0311 · · Score: 1

      you might want to look at Gentoo stage 1. faster to do and with useflags and custom compilng, is basically the same as the LFS install that you suggested.

    3. Re:Die Hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BUUuuuuHHhuguhuuuuUURRRRRRR MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Bbrbrbrbbrlllllrlblllllll MMMMM YESSSSS oh baby gentoo I LOVE IT spurt your jizz all over my fat face URURURUURURURUURLLLLLHHHHHHHHH

    4. Re:Die Hard by SaDan · · Score: 1

      Gentoo from stage 1 would be a quicker start to a running distro than LFS, but it would still be Gentoo based, and not what a lot of people want.

      I'd rather do LFS and mimick how Slackware is set up than bastardize a Gentoo install.

      Slackware user since 1995, and I've tried a lot of other distros for work and play. There can be only one.

  8. download mirrors by arun_s · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've been checking the changelog twice a day for a helluva long time, and its finally come.

    Here's the full list of mirrors from where you can download it!
    (Or you can get the torrents)

    --
    I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
    1. Re:download mirrors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been checking the changelog twice a day for a helluva long time, and its finally come.

      I've been checking at least twice a day. I jumped right out of my chair when it finally said "Slackware 11.0 is released".

      My hard drive died a little over a month ago, and I'd misplaced my Slack CDs from moving in June. Reading up on the changelogs and whatnot it seemed like a new version was going to be out "any day now", so I figured rather than download and install 10.2 again just to upgrade it to 11 right after, I'd just wait until 11 was released and use good ol' (ahem?) Win2k in the meantime. Well as days turned to weeks I've been getting antsier and more impatient... but finally, it's back to Slack!

  9. And there was much rejoicing... by Noryungi · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yep, finally we got Slackware 11, and the list of changes and improvements is impressive.

    Just as an aside: Patrick Volkerding is one of the unsung heroes of Open Source. Slackware is after all the oldest Linux distribution still in operation, and it is also one of the most stable and well-managed. And this is quite an achievement, considering it still is a one-man operation, and that Patrick went through some tough times recently, with his health problems and the birth of his cute baby... Hey, I am a dad, too, and I know how tough it is wih a new-born in the house!

    So, thanks for everything Patrick! You are "The Man" and Slackware rocks!

    And, yes, I am a (very) satisfied Slackware customer. How did you ever guess? :-)

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  10. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by uncleFester · · Score: 5, Informative

    What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?

    a more hands-on approach to the unix operating system. slackware isn't flashy, isn't what some would even call 'refined' but it is a stable, well-balanced hands-on distro. it's a little more 'primitive' in some things like package management (*whine* dependencies *whine*) but this also works in your favor when repairing a system (reliance only on tar if absolutely necessary). This is only one thought i came up with right quick..

    What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?

    rock-solid stable. if you stick with distro-only packages, you can expect to have practically no problems with it. that's part of the reason the package versions are older; they're tested. pat doesn't go latest-n-greatest unless a large demand exists or a security vuln is found. fwiw, i had a slack3 mailserver at my 1st job acting as corporate email router/gateway for our entire company (~150 ppl). except for the kernel and sendmail itself*, the system was vanilla slack. ran like a top.

    i've tried a number of distros for short periods (longest non-slack dabbling was gentoo).. but i keep drifting back to it. i'm also a unix admin by day, if that matters. for me, slack is just plain and simple the easiest distro i've dealt with.

    -r

    * only reason i went more current with sendmail was this being the time ~sendmail8 started adding antispam bits and it was overall easier than going back and trying to hack the stuff in v7.. and i always love dabbling with the -current kernel, whatever it is.

    --
    -'fester
  11. Slackware Taught Me Linux by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1

    Slackware taught me Linux. I had used distros before and after Slack (I'm on SUSE now) but none forced me to understand Linux more. I learned how to compile a kernel, modify X*.conf files, load driver modules and ./configure, make, make install. I switched to SUSE for laziness reasons, but because of Slack I've yet to have a problem that was too much for me to solve.

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
  12. You... you... by TransEurope · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... can read my mind !!!??!

    I use Slack since 1999, no other distribution of Linux
    wowed me like Slack did. Nothing comes close, other
    distributors try to overload their distros with lot's
    of slow and bloated administration-services like YAST2
    and so on. But Slackware just runs, and runs and runs...

    1. Re:You... you... by legojenn · · Score: 1

      I use Slack since 1999, no other distribution of Linux wowed me like Slack did. Nothing comes close, other distributors try to overload their distros with lot's of slow and bloated administration-services like YAST2 and so on. But Slackware just runs, and runs and runs... If I was going to write a post, it would probably read the same except that I starting using Slackware in 2000. Thanks again Pat. I will be ordering the new set today.

      --
      I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
  13. Re:Obligatory by onegear · · Score: 0

    why do you say that? is it because of the 2.4 kernel? if so, your comment is not needed. the 2.6 kernel is included if you would rather install that.

  14. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

    I'm just curious, but what made you leave Gentoo?

    I have used it for years and everytime I try another distribution they all just annoy me too much.

    The only time I ever considered Slackware I took one look at the docs, read the bit about 2.4 kernel and threw the disk in the bin. I think that was Slackware 9.?? but everyone else was just releasing the first 2.6 kernels even then.
    Why do they still go 2.4 by default now?

    How does Slackware work with modern hardware? (Wifi, SATA, etc)

    I am never likely to use Slackware and answer these questions myself as I am a sucker for running the most recent stable versions of stuff.

    --
    I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  15. Torrent clients? by Channard · · Score: 1

    On a related subject, are there any linux distros that come with a built in torrent client? If not, they're so widely used it seems like it'd only be a matter of time before one does crop up. Followed by a suit from the RIAA.

    1. Re:Torrent clients? by pjbgravely · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ummm, Gnome has a built in bittorrent client, so a few Distro's must have it already

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    2. Re:Torrent clients? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slackware has a package for bittorrent in the extra directory, which I'm using in a slack10.1 system right now to download the slack11 dvd iso.

    3. Re:Torrent clients? by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 2, Informative

      I suppose some might have a Torrent client on their installation CDs, but the closest you can get with Slackware, if you have slapt-get installed:

      echo "SOURCE=http://ftp.scarlet.be/pub/linuxpackages/Sl ackware-10.2/" >> /etc/slapt-get/slapt-getrc
      slapt-get --update
      slapt-get --install ktorrent (assuming you have a functional KDE)

    4. Re:Torrent clients? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KTorrent is supplied with the Slackware 11 release (only since version 11), it's in extra/ktorrent. Also, a command-line client has been supplied since at least 10.2.

    5. Re:Torrent clients? by notanatheist · · Score: 1

      Azureus runs just fine. Opera has it's own built in client. There's a few command line clients. As stated, Gnome has one. So, find one and start seeding! My download rate is climbing ever so slowly. Thanks!

  16. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey....no one asked me.... I must be # 29

  17. Re:Obligatory by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I was looking for a new linux distro a few months back, and quickly turned away when visiting their front page yielded the most recent news as september 2005. I know they're probably spending all their time coding and therefore have no time to update their website, but I seriously thought they had stopped developing slackware because of the lack of news.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  18. Dropline Gnome by pjbgravely · · Score: 4, Informative

    For a better slack experience, if you are using a GUI that is, I recommend Dropline Gnome http://www.droplinegnome.net/

    You may have to wait to use it on Slackware 11, but if you like Ubuntu you will like it.

    --
    Star Trek, there maybe hope.
  19. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by Ravenscall · · Score: 1

    The only time I ever considered Slackware I took one look at the docs, read the bit about 2.4 kernel and threw the disk in the bin. I think that was Slackware 9.?? but everyone else was just releasing the first 2.6 kernels even then.
    Why do they still go 2.4 by default now?


    Well, you could always just compile your own Kernel. Takes maybe an hour all told.

    Or, even better, you can actually RTFM and see that you can easily select a 2.6 kernel during install, but I prefer compiling my own.

    How does Slackware work with modern hardware? (Wifi, SATA, etc)

    See the 'compile your own kernel' comment.

    --
    You say you want a revolution....
  20. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from the Linux Counter
    Distribution
    153638 registrations entered 156607 values
    distribution Count Percent
    conectiva 769 0.50%
    debian 31966 20.81%
    diy 840 0.55%
    fedora core 10480 6.82%
    gentoo 13760 8.96%
    knoppix 830 0.54%
    kubuntu 782 0.51%
    mandrake 11951 7.78%
    mandriva 2073 1.35%
    red hat 16238 10.57%
    s.u.s.e 16159 10.52%
    slackware 15754 10.25%
    ubuntu 10812 7.04%
    Others 24193 15.75%

    shure, just 28 then.

  21. Re:I see... by RangerElf · · Score: 1

    BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Thanks for the laughs, you really made my day.

    -gca

  22. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by Cothol · · Score: 1

    I agree, I've also been running Slack and Gentoo, but now I'm running Arch Linux, it's like Slackware but up to date (for desktop use) and with a great package manager called Pacman that is everyting I liked about portage but with no need to compile. Ofcourse if you want to compile everything you can do it with ABS.
    www.archlinux.org

  23. cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using Arch for the last year, i much prefer it to slackware ,they are both simple yet extremely powerful distros, arch won out because it has a very good package manager (pacman) and i love the BSD init script style. This is not to diminish pats achievement. I spend a lot of time at linuxquestions.org which is home to the official slackware support forum, a lot of people (much more than 28) swear by it there. 2.4 kernel isn't really my thing but then i've heard reports of it being a little faster than 2.6 (less modules?)

  24. Re:I see... by cp.tar · · Score: 1

    Now, I have never used Slackware; it never came my way when I started using Linux, then I got hooked on Gentoo and don't see a reason to look back.

    However, I do find your comment a bit... strange. Inflammatory, even.
    It may be because you just didn't bother to provide any kind of proof for your claims.

    I have never heard anything but words of praise for Slackware (barring the comments on the still-default 2.4 kernel, which is still a very valid option in Gentoo as well), and now you have nothing but derrogatory words for it. I would very much like to know why exactly you find Slackware so lacking.

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  25. Re:I see... by Ravenscall · · Score: 1

    pwnd!

    --
    You say you want a revolution....
  26. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    I'm the same way, except with Mandriva. I've been using Mandriva since Version 7 (which came out in 2000, back when it was Mandrake). I find that all the other distros annoy me too much. With Gentoo it's the installation process. I know you just have to read through the installation docs, but it's 2006, and I don't feel like printing out the docs, and they're too hard to memorize. No other distro I've seen requires you to follow website instructions to install it. With other distros it's other stuff. I find that Mandriva has a straightforward installation process, and usually all the hardware is working right after you install it. Software is also braindead easy to install, either from the command line, or with their nice admin tools.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  27. Re:Allow me to reprhase that by megabyte405 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I like both Gnome (and Ubuntu) and Slackware. How? Specialization. Ubuntu on desktops, Slackware on servers. Each has their place.

    --
    I recognize people by their sigs. Is that a bad thing?
  28. It's ok, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1999 keeps calling, they say they want their default kernel back...

  29. Re:Obligatory by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's more to a web site than its front page. Slackware keeps development news where it belongs:

    http://www.slackware.com/changelog/

  30. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Actually, I consider Slackware to be the best linux distro for a server. My order of preference is this:

    1. Slackware
    2. FreeBSD
    3. OpenBSD
    4. Debian

    The only thing Slackware is good for is learning a little about how Linux works, then you move on to a distro that allows you to get things done.

    Au contraire, if you can't "get things done" using slackware then you haven't learnt anything about *nix!
  31. Re:I see... by trezor · · Score: 1

    2 things. 1: Lack of proper package management (want to uninstall that package?). Want those dependencies resolved? Want those packages automaticly updated to get the latest security patches? Tough shit. This is a "hands-on OS" and damned if you'll get any assistance getting work done efficiently.

    2: Lack of configuration tools. Want to get things done? Want that thing setup now? Go to your favorite text editor and edit those config files by hand, even though it's utterly brainless work that any decent distro should have automated.

    Multiply these factors by your amount of servers and tell me you want to manage that piece of shit. Seriously. Some people work in the real world and needs to get things done, not tweak with custom builds and config files. And in this respect Slackware is 100% certified useless.

    When I see people praise Slackware it's usually because they got things working, at last, after tons of work. They seem to think this is something special that other OSes doesn't do. Or something. Debian on the other hands... Users praise Debian for getting things done, no hastle, just like that, and that was 2 seconds ago.

    I might be biased, but I have used Slackware, and my bias is mostly made up of that experience and my encounter with other Slackware users.

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
  32. Re:I see... by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 1

    Oh yay, troll time! The only difference between a Gentoo troll and a Slackware troll is that I only have to put up with Slackware trolls every couple of years when a new release comes out.

    Some people have different needs, hence different distros for different people. You wrongly assume that your needs are the same as everone else's. I know I'm going to regret this, but I'm very interested in knowing why you feel so strongly that Slackware is shit compared 'everything else.' And please don't bring up the 2.4 kernel. There are reasons for that, and 2.6 is included if you want it anyway.

  33. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Yeah, I was looking for a new linux distro a few months back..."

    If I had any mod points I'd give you +5 Insightful. You've encapsulated almost the entire problem with the Linux community, and you didn't even need a whole sentence to do it.

  34. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by cerberusss · · Score: 1
    it's a little more 'primitive' in some things like package management (*whine* dependencies *whine*)
    This also makes admins lazy. I know of one admin that found package management in Slackware a hassle, so he installed basically everything. He avoided installing packages later, however, all that software that can contain vulnerabilities makes a box less secure and less targeted for a single purpose.
    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  35. Re:I see... by cp.tar · · Score: 2, Insightful
    1: Lack of proper package management

    What about slapt-get etc? Sounds like package management to me... one of the posters here stated he'd upgraded from 10.2 to 11 without a glitch.

    2: Lack of configuration tools. Want to get things done? Want that thing setup now? Go to your favorite text editor and edit those config files by hand, even though it's utterly brainless work that any decent distro should have automated.

    That, really, is a matter of taste.
    I like manual configuration; you have to learn where things are, but once you do, no automated confiuration is that quick and flexible.
    Of course, I do not despise automagically created defaults that work...

    Anyway, thank you for the explanation.

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  36. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I am a devoted slackware user (been checking the Changelog in excess of 3-4 times daily) and you ask why people use slackware?
    1. speed it might be possible to get slightly better performance with Gentoo or *insert source distro here* however it also doesn't take days to install.
    2. It will run on just about anything. it is nice when I can run the identical base system on my brand new desktop, all the way down to my 486 based linux firewall.
    3. A sane design. In slackware you will find everything from a software package where the software package would normally install it. in redhat/fedora you really never are quite sure where the config files might turn up.
    4. Redhat. I started out back in the good old days with a fresh Redhat installation (9 I think) and just trying to use that for a week forced me to find a better alternative. the distro I actually found was vectorlinux (slack based) I liked it so much that I simply never looked back. I've tried all the latest SuSE, Fedora, and UBUNTU. and non can perform in comparison to my slackware box in terms of speed, or ease of use.

  37. Re:I see... by trezor · · Score: 1

    It's not as much trolling as a statement of facts, but anyway... See this post where I replied to exactly the same.

    Take a decent Linux distro, remove any useful tools and strip it down to the binaries (and the binaries only). This is essensially a harddrive image, not a distro.

    I fail to see what impressive or useful qualities this removal of tools reaps.

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
  38. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by bigpresh · · Score: 1

    I like Slackware and Arch, I used to use Slack for everything, now I use Slackware for servers, and Arch for workstations, that combination suits me down to the ground, they're two top distros.

    Arch has a lot of software ready to roll, a quick 'pacman -S <package>' away, and plenty more in the (quite active) Arch User-community Repository, and if you fancy rolling your own packages of anything, compiling and producing a package with abs (the Arch Build System) is easy enough too.

  39. Re:I see... by ColdCoffee · · Score: 1

    Seriously...all 28 of us are really happy you feel that way. We wouldn't want an asshat like in the Slackware brotherhood. Go play with your Mac, you lemming.

    --
    Sig? - yeah, whatever.
  40. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by rainman_bc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With Gentoo it's the installation process. I know you just have to read through the installation docs, but it's 2006, and I don't feel like printing out the docs, and they're too hard to memorize.

    Download LiveCD
    Burn LiveCD
    Boot LiveCD
    Run through Wizard.

    What's the problem? Gentoo now has an installer

    Or you can always use Vida Linux which is a binary distro built on Gentoo...

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  41. old packages...? is there a reason? by chroot_james · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Judging from http://www.slackware.com/announce/11.0.php it looks like slack is still using a lot of old packages. Is there a reason? Apache 1.3. Kernel 2.4. Etc...

    --
    Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
    1. Re:old packages...? is there a reason? by slummy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      STABILITY

    2. Re:old packages...? is there a reason? by megalomaniacs4u · · Score: 1

      They just work

  42. Seeeeeed by jitterysquid · · Score: 1

    1200 peers and I'm only getting ~100k/s?

    C'mon people, increase those transfer rates. This is one of the few things you can share via bittorrent that won't get you named in a lawsuit (unless it's against your AUP, of course).

    1. Re:Seeeeeed by failure-man · · Score: 1

      I'll be putting a couple megabits on over the next few hours (as soon as I have the bits to throw.) I assume others will do similar.

    2. Re:Seeeeeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting ~3KB/s, probably some of the bitter losers who posted here are trying to sabotage dl's.

  43. Re:I see... by spiderbitendeath · · Score: 1

    Hey, don't insult us Mac users like that. I use Slackware and Mac OS X as my two main OSes. Slackware for Server and Desktop, OS X for laptop. Tell him to go back to drooling over the latest screens of Vista.

    --
    Sometimes when I'm working on projects things disappear, I suspect gremlins.
  44. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is essensially a harddrive image, not a distro.

    It's only a "hard drive image" if you don't know what you're doing. It takes me around 20 minutes to do manual package selection on a fresh install and I end up with exactly what I need for a base system.



    I fail to see what impressive or useful qualities this removal of tools reaps.

    There is no "removal of tools", slackware users generally don't want or need these features. I fail to see what your problem is, if you don't like the distro then perhaps Slackware isn't for you? I don't feel the need to bitch about SysV init every time an update to some other linux distro is announced.


  45. 64bit Support by rojebrio · · Score: 0

    I love slackware, I've been using it for more than a year without changing distributions or installing windows. However, I'm planning to update my machine, and add an Intel Dual Core. My question is: Why doesn't slackware have support for 64bit architectures yet? There might be ports like Slamd64 or BlueWhite64, but IMO 64bit support should be included in the main distribution.

  46. Re:I see... by goarilla · · Score: 1

    jezus even

    ##slackware channel is populated with +230 people atm ...
    which is a normal number in that support channel ... granted ##gentoo got 3 times
    that number easily, but you sir are just trolling!

  47. Re:Allow me to reprhase that by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

    Does Slackware have the same commitment to timely security patches, easy upgrades, and stable version numbers (no breaking configuration files) that Debian does? If not, I'd rather keep running Debian stable on my servers.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  48. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

    One thing that I always loved about Slackware (I sadly have switched to Gentoo now but used Slackware for years before I switched) was specficially the lack of a lot of customizations (and the lack of a clear package system). I never was one for grabbing distro-specific packages (or waiting for them); as soon as the source was available for a new app I wanted to install it :). Slackware's barebones nature made that very easy to do without having to worry about breaking the package management system or replacing some uber-customized Redhat package with the plain vanilla version (and often hosing something up).

    It was basically a tinkerer's dream come true ;).

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  49. Slackware & Mac OS X by McDutchie · · Score: 1
    Hey, don't insult us Mac users like that. I use Slackware and Mac OS X as my two main OSes.

    Nice to see someone else who does that. I thought I might be the only one who felt that Slackware and Mac OS X are both transparent and user friendly, each in their own very different way.

    1. Re:Slackware & Mac OS X by adamjaskie · · Score: 1

      Third person here.

      P233MMX router/mailserver running Slack
      Dual Athlon 2600+ desktop running Slack
      1ghz iBook G4 running Tiger

      --
      /usr/games/fortune
  50. Re:I see... by ibbo · · Score: 1

    30 here anymore?

    --
    Linux user #349545 (GNU/Linux)iD8DBQBAzWjX+MZAIjBWXGURAmflAKCntuBbuKC WenpmXoA7LNydllVQOwCfdjyzXscd
  51. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by bigpresh · · Score: 1

    This also makes admins lazy. I know of one admin that found package management in Slackware a hassle, so he installed basically everything. He avoided installing packages later, however, all that software that can contain vulnerabilities makes a box less secure and less targeted for a single purpose.


    That's not the fault of the distro though, that's the fault of the lazy admin. If you choose to bang in a nail with a sledgehammer, it's not the sledgehammer's fault that you've made a mess of everything. Slackware allows you to do things your way. It's your own judgement call as to whether your way is sane or not.
  52. Re:hold on there buddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    *Many* people want computers they can use like appliances. Most people, even. But in case you hadn't noticed, there are also a lot of people who actually love computers for for their own sake, who love to dig in deep under the hood and learn, because they're curious, because it's fun, because they want more control than an appliance allows, and/or because they want to build better ones. Those people explicitly don't want appliances. For those people, Slackware isn't "broken", it's almost the only operating system that is completely unbroken, utterly perfect.

    If you disagree with me you are simply wrong. By your reasoning everyone should have switched to a Mac a long time ago, and there would be no programmers, no progress, no one who knew how fix anything, no one who could do anything but stupidly *consume* and *use*.

    Your preferences are fine for yourself. But don't tell me that my curiosity and ambition make mine wrong. You're wrong, not because you want a dumbed down appliance but because you see no legitimacy in anything else, for anyone else.

  53. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go to your favorite text editor and edit those config files by hand ...
    Multiply these factors by your amount of servers and tell me you want to manage that piece of shit.

    You just totally contradicted any argument you may have been attempting to make.
    Have you ever heard of a script? You only have to do these things once no matter how many servers you have. Maybe you never understood that because you grew up with GUIs.
    A system that concentrates on making the user learn to do things manually is perfect for allowing the user to do automation.

  54. Re:I see... by slack-fu · · Score: 1
    (want to uninstall that package?)

    yeah i suppose the "pkgtool" and "removepkg" commands escaped your all emcompassing knowledge.
  55. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take a decent Linux distro, remove any useful tools and strip it down to the binaries (and the binaries only). This is essensially a harddrive image, not a distro.

    This shows complete lack of knowledge of slackware. Slackware has package selection during installation and source code in the standard distribution.

  56. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by cerberusss · · Score: 1
    Slackware allows you to do things your way. It's your own judgement call as to whether your way is sane or not.
    Well, I prefer to explain this to people as: "Slackware its package management tools don't have anything like dependencies, as yum and apt do."

    And of course, the admin has the final say, however, Slackware doesn't make it easy to quickly install this-or-that tool on demand.
    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  57. I've been using Slackware since 3.2 by sdaemon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've tried other distros over the years, and have found the package management systems unwieldy, untrustworthy, and no less time-consuming to get things set up like I want than manually building from source and editing config files. I've learned details about system operation and file system layout through working with Slackware that have helped me debug problems on a variety of systems.

    I'm a big fan of what I like to call Fire-and-Forget computing. I like to set up a system right the first time, then never have to touch it again (or as little as possible). Slackware has been very good about letting me do exactly that. My firewall/NAT box has been running happily without any unexpected reboots since sometime in 1998. For the most part it was only getting rebooted every time I moved from one dorm room/apartment to the next.

    Slackware's also better at running on older hardware than any other distro I've found. I've just tried to get Ubuntu installed on some bare-minimum-specs HP e-PCs, without success, and there didn't appear to be any sort of lowmem option there.

    I do miss the base floppy set for installing a minimal working system, done away with somewhere around slack9. I do miss that awesome little booklet that was tucked inside the 4-cd set (the first Linux book I ever read, and the most useful IMHO). I've always disliked the lack of a ftp/wget-based installation option on the stock install disk. And I've never been able to get the slack-build scripts to build new openssl-libs and openssh for me. Those are pretty much the only complaints I've ever had that were slackware-specific.

    If you don't like the minimalist attitude of slack, use something else.

    1. Re:I've been using Slackware since 3.2 by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Look for the "alternative installer" disk if you give Ubuntu another try on the old hardware. While I generally prefer Slackware on low-end hardware (my Slackware firewall + DNS server was up for better than two years before I decided it needed updating), the newest Ubuntu with the alternative installer works ok on a machine with 64MB RAM. Less than that and you may well still have problems - but I had problems at 64MB RAM with prior releases... :)

  58. Re:I see... by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 1

    Just because you see it as 'posting facts' doesn't make it not trolling. If I go into an Audi car forum and start posting facts and figures about how much Audi cars are shit compared to every car made in the last 6 years, that is trolling, or maybe flamebait. The line is kind of blurry, I suppose. Either way, you could have picked a more constructive tone in your post... you likely wouldn't have been modded down, you still would have gotten your point across, and it might have led to more mature discussion.

    I do agree, dependancies can be a pain. slapt-get was a giant leap, but most packages still don't have dependancy info. Frankly, it's only been a problem for me once or twice in the last few years, although that's probably due what I use slack for.

    Frankly, your complaint of lack of configuration tools is just silly. If you're managing more than two servers AND you don't have scripts written up to do all these config changes, which are contained in simple text files for this very purpose, than I think you need to rethink your admin strategy. No offense, but this holds true for almost every distro. I don't care *how* snazzy the configuration GUI is, I don't want to do it more than once.

  59. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
    a more hands-on approach to the unix operating system. slackware isn't flashy, isn't what some would even call 'refined' but it is a stable, well-balanced hands-on distro. it's a little more 'primitive' in some things like package management (*whine* dependencies *whine*) but this also works in your favor when repairing a system (reliance only on tar if absolutely necessary).


    If you want to dip your toes into the BSD world (I'm a bit of an OpenBSD bigot myself, use it for my home router), Slackware is the best gateway. Of all the Linuxes it's considered the most BSD-like. So all the good things people say about Slackware, BSD is just a bit more so.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  60. Re:I see... by compro01 · · Score: 1

    and add another 20 or so here!

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  61. Re:I see... by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1
    1: Lack of proper package management (want to uninstall that package?).

    removepkg isn't for uninstalling packages? Man, I've been using it for the wrong thing all these years. Good thing I can still use pkgtool and choose "remove" on the menu there.

    Want those dependencies resolved?

    What dependencies are those? I suppose every once in awhile it happens, but the instructions for installing those packages tell you what else to install and in what order.

    Want those packages automaticly updated to get the latest security patches? Tough shit. This is a "hands-on OS" and damned if you'll get any assistance getting work done efficiently.
    Funny, I've been on a mailing list for years that informs me of all the security and enhancement package updates for slackware. I can then just ftp to ftp.slackware.com or my favorite mirror, download them, and install with upgradepkg or pkgtool. Alternately, I can install slapt-get (which admittedly is not a default part of slackware) and do a quick slapt-get --upgrade.

    I might be biased, but I have used Slackware, and my bias is mostly made up of that experience and my encounter with other Slackware users.
    You might have installed Slackware, but you clearly didn't use it.
  62. Re:I see... by Ravenscall · · Score: 1

    Funny, I did not notice the MCSE in your sig.

    --
    You say you want a revolution....
  63. Re:hold on there buddy by Noryungi · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry but I disagree with you on a fundamental level about *nix and learning. IMHO slackware and the rest of the *nixs are broken at the very core in that they require learning to be useful.

    Well, you are entitled to your opinion, just like everyone else.

    But, if this is truly your opinion, may I suggest Mac OS X? I believe it is -- so far -- the best answer that is available right now to your requests.

    Other than that, the only possibility that I see would be for something like HAL, from "2001: A Space Odyssey", or the voice interface of "Outland". Since both are science-fiction movies, I am afraid your dream OS is still somewhere in the distant future. :-)

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
  64. Or "Become a Slackware User"(n/t) by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 0, Redundant

    n/t

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  65. Yeah, let's all play the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    IMHO slackware and the rest of the *nixs are broken at the very core in that they require learning to be useful.

    IMHO English and the rest of the languages are broken at the very core in that they require learning to be useful.


    IMHO math and the rest of the sciences are broken at the very core in that they require learning to be useful.


    IMHO pianos and the rest of the musical instruments are broken at the very core in that they require learning to be useful.



  66. They're probably busy DOSing or bruteforcing me by trezor · · Score: 0, Troll

    Ever since I said my honest opinion about slackware and asked why anyone would use it, albeit in a very non-compromising approach, my server logs has exploded with poor bruteforce attempts, even lamer SQL Injection attemps and generally weak kiddie action all over my server.

    Even though I refrained from saying so directly in any of my other posts... Way to prove that Slackware is a immature platform with a immature userbase.

    You guys can stop polluting my logs now. It's honestly getting boring.

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    1. Re:They're probably busy DOSing or bruteforcing me by Kukuman · · Score: 1

      Do you seriously think those few people are representative of the entire Slackware user base? Sounds like someone needs to take a statistics course...

    2. Re:They're probably busy DOSing or bruteforcing me by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      Firstly, most of those attacks probably come from one person. Secondly, after reading that post I'm not surprised.

  67. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by uncleFester · · Score: 1

    I'm just curious, but what made you leave Gentoo?

    not really sure i really gel'd with gentoo. it never made it to my primary pc; i played with it a bunch on a secondary box. i did kinda like emerge, i liked the custom-compile twiddle-your-own-settings-to-the-nth-degree thing.. but ultimately i just liked the balance of simplicity/hands-on stuff of slackware. that, and my secondary box (lowly pII-based celery466) had a mild coronary when i asked it to build kde. it was fun to watch the smoke curl out of the case. :)

    .. 2.4 kernel ..

    yeah, i'm not sure why pat went that way with 11; i think the 2.6 series has been out there enuogh. and with the 'super-stable' 2.6.16.x kernels.. well, pat's the maintainer. since i roll my own kernels anyway, i'm running vanilla 2.6s on my main boxes (home desktop & work laptop).

    How does Slackware work with modern hardware? (Wifi, SATA, etc)

    Dunno yet on sata; i will when i finally buy my am2 mobo. wifi; i have a dell latitude d600 with the intel centrino/ipw2100 stuff, and it works fine.. again, with my vanilla 2.6 kernel & udev enabled. nary a problem. if i had any gripes with the base stuff.. it is lack of lvm tools in the install area. building an lvm-based initial install is.. challenging. :)

    it's worth mentioning slack does include a 2.6 kernel with it; it's in the /extra/. dir area and you can install it. pat just uses a 2.4 as the base install.

    il'l try gentoo again at some point, probably on one of my non-intel boxes (not many ppc or mips distros out there to pick from anyway.. compared to i386)

    -r

    --
    -'fester
  68. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The FAQs on Slackware www pages are so outdated that it is ridiculous. An example:

    Q: My large (> 1/2 gig) IDE drive reports more than 16 heads, and as a result Linux won't install on it. What can I do?
    A: See the file /docs/mini/Large-IDE for instructions on how to make it work. (Thanks to Bob DiMarco for forwarding this to me, and Patrick LoPresti for compiling the information in the first place). Note that newer kernels (> 1.1.40) will do this translation for you automatically, and thus make the workaround unnecessary.

  69. Moo by Chacham · · Score: 0, Troll

    Does anyone still use Slackware? Or is it just released for nostalgic purposes?

    1. Re:Moo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes - or Patrick wouldn't be able to make a living.
      Currently I have a Webserver, File/Print server, webmail server w/virus and spam filtering, all running on Slackware 10.2.

  70. Speed by thegoofeedude · · Score: 0

    What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?

    One of the great things about Slackware is how fast it is. By keeping it simple (fewer services running on a standard new installation), Slackware is one of the fastest distributions I've used. This is important to me when I install Linux on older boxes. Ubuntu is awesome (I use it on my main desktop where I have the hardware for it), but for project boxes, even Xubuntu feels a little sluggish. So I use Slackware :-)

  71. But wait... by r00t · · Score: 0, Troll

    I thought the developers were dying?

  72. Eh, 1995 called by marcmerlin · · Score: 0

    They'd like their distro back :)

    Marc

  73. Re:Allow me to reprhase that by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 2, Informative
    Does Slackware have the same commitment to timely security patches, easy upgrades, and stable version numbers (no breaking configuration files) that Debian does?

    Check out slackware-10.2/patches/ChangeLog.txt at your favorite mirror for timeliness of recent patch releases. Not exactly sure what you mean by "stable version numbers", but the main ChangeLog.txt files are available going back several releases, which will show the history of every package version number. Package upgrades can be done through slapt-get and upgradepkg.

    I partition my drive with a big / and reasonable /home. This way I can wipe and reinstall / periodically without losing saved data, documents, desktop settings, email, etc. It's about time for one of those again.
    --
    I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
  74. must 'unix' like by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    Or probably more correctly, most BSD like of the various linux distros.  There is very little guessing as to whats where and in general its hard to break.  But no its probably not for people who enjoy tracking down why the latest greatest of XYZ has broken or worse, caused other things to screw up.  Slack is kinda the Ronco of linux - set it and forget it!

  75. Proper package management? by cothrige · · Score: 1

    Lack of proper package management (want to uninstall that package?). Want those dependencies resolved? Want those packages automaticly updated to get the latest security patches? Tough shit.

    This really all depends on how you define "proper package management." What should it do, and what should it not do? Yes, apt will track your dependencies, but at what cost? And is it easier? I recently decided to try installing and using Debian, and then Ubuntu when the first would not work for me. I could not even get started with Debian until I spent about an hour reading help information online and then editing my sources.list. And I did this by hand. Where was the automation? Then I tried for something like three hours to install the nvidia drivers. I could not even find a concensus on this online, and had to pick an approach and go with it. When it failed there was no easy way to roll back my changes as the installer had "tracked" my dependencies for me and I had no real idea what may have been changed. I never was able to get an accelerated driver on the system. I also could not install mplayer or any dvd player, either by deb or hand. Automation? Not really, and what there was simply made things complex and harder to understand.

    Ubuntu was little better. I still had the same experience with hand editing the config files, and by the way, this involved finding what to put into them which is not self-explanatory. And, after perhaps an hour of tinkering and rebooting, I did get an nvidia driver. But, that was all. No Mplayer, dvd capabilities and so on. I never got anything working to my satisfaction beyond the nvidia driver, and that took longer than an entire Slackware install. I should mention that I spent the better part of three days tinkering with these two systems, and in the end this is not much time. However, since these are always touted as automatic and easy compared to the cryptic Slackware, surely three days to get 3D drivers or watch a movie is not too much to give?

    Now, my feeling is that apt is neither easy nor automatic. It is nearly impossible to master. The details of using this tool are very far from intuitive and documentation, as far as basics and getting started, are nonexistent. Sure, it is probably powerful, but in the end all it does is install binaries and track dependencies. What is this power for? It seems like haveing a 500 horsepower lawnmower. Why is it so overwhelmingly complicated, and in a system which users brag about being so simple and automatic? And even when it works right, you are a slave to it. You cannot easily mix hand compiled apps with debs. The debs don't recognize the stuff you install youself and so you have to work through the tool. I am doubtful that the stability which would result from this mix too, just from my small experience of trying to do so. Because of this, what you have is a very complicated and inflexible system, which doesn't sell itself to me as superior at all.

    On the other hand, there is Slackware. After the experiments I am even more certain that it is the best approach available. The package management is stable and easy. The commands can be explained fully in the man pages, and these are very brief. There are no flags to worry about and nothing to update and so on. You go to the server, download the app, and run installpkg. Want to remove it? Removepkg. Upgrade? Yep, you guessed it. Really, it is braindead simple. Of course, the complaint always comes along about dependencies and so on. True, it doesn't do it, but then is that bad? In Debian I could not manage to install Mplayer because the system seems so completely a slave to the package manager, but no such trouble exists in Slack. I can install half of Mplayer's dependencies from slackpacks and the other half from source, and then install Mplayer without issue, either by slackpack or source. And the system just won't care, and will be as stable as it was before the action. And removeing things is

  76. Official 64 bit support? by ngunton · · Score: 1

    I love Slackware, and I keep vacillating between going with Slack or Debian. I currently use slack on my workstation, and debian on the server, because the server is 64-bit and debian has a semi-official 64 bit port that works. The only 64-bit support for slack seems to come from slamd64, which is fine but I have to wonder why the "official" slackware distro is ignoring 64-bit? Is it just because of time, or is slamd64 eventually supposed to be rolled into the official distro?

    I was veering toward preferring Debian, until I had to build my own Perl. On debian, this is a bit complex and a nightmare, to be honest, when all you want to do is build the damn thing there seems to be all this other crap you have to do in order to make it fit in with the rest of the "debian way". When I built perl on my slack box, it worked like a charm. On debian, it promptly broke a bunch of stuff (e.g. apt-get). And I couldn't simply remove the stock perl, because dozens of crucial packages depend on it. I know it's possible, I know, but it's NOT easy, if you have to sit down and spend a few hours researching how to build perl "the debian way". Slackware is much simpler in that regard.

    So I remain torn. Sometimes I really like the apt-get simplicity of debian, especially for essential stuff that I really don't care about or want to spend a lot of time on, and want to "just work". On the other hand, straying off the straight and narrow in debian land can get you in a world of trouble. Slackware is much simpler - you can compile stuff from source if you want and it doesn't break everything. On the other hand, I don't like some aspects of slack - e.g. no easy way to restart crond. I really like having all those restart scripts under /etc/init.d in debian. Also, sometimes things are in weird places - e.g. who thought to put cron files under /var/spool/cron/crontabs? Why can't all config files just live under /etc? It just makes things harder to back up.

    All in all though, it seems like every distro has its pluses and minuses. For me, the lack of an official 64 bit support makes slack a second choice on the server at the moment, since I have a dual Opteron and really want to take advantage of that. But on the workstation, I have a real affection for slack's straightforward, no-crap nature.

    1. Re:Official 64 bit support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Because 32-bit is more in demand and still works on 64-bit systems?

      Honestly, I tried the 64-bit varients of slackware. They work so don't get me wrong. But they're riddled with package problems. I will wait until Pat does it right.

      So this is what I did, installed 32-bit slack. Runs like a charm on 64-bit x86-64. Downloaded kernel source and build a 64-bit kernel. Next you can procede to build a 64-bit toolchain (of course keeping slack's 32-bit libs). Finally you can recompile packages that will benefit as 64-bit. I dunno, but 64-bit true seems a bit useless. So I'll stick mainly with 32-bit packages for sanity reasons :P

    2. Re:Official 64 bit support? by thrashaholic · · Score: 1

      I love Slackware, and I keep vacillating between going with Slack or Debian.

      Check out Arch Linux. It's my distro of choice; a perfect mix of Slack's simplicity & no-frills approach with Debian's sweet ass package management and config setup.

      I was a hardcore Slack fan for years before I got fed up with running last decade's software on my desktop; I tried Arch and never went back.

      --
      militant gun owning 'liberal'
    3. Re:Official 64 bit support? by turgid · · Score: 1

      So this is what I did, installed 32-bit slack. Runs like a charm on 64-bit x86-64. Downloaded kernel source and build a 64-bit kernel. Next you can procede to build a 64-bit toolchain (of course keeping slack's 32-bit libs). Finally you can recompile packages that will benefit as 64-bit.

      Can you please write up how you did this? I'd love to know. I'm a bit short on time these days to try to figure out how to do it myself. I've been experimenting with Splack on an old Sun Ultra, and I am developing my own build and packaging system.

    4. Re:Official 64 bit support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, Arch Linux is the best of Slackware and Debian combined. Binary package management is simpler without losing any functionality. Compiling your own packages to suite your needs is dead easy. No need configure/make/make install your own kernels or programs. Everything can be managed by the package manager, even if you are compiling everything yourself. I have no desire to go back to other distros. Arch is perfect for me.

      A bit of warning, though- like Slack and Debian, it's not meant to be an magical out of the box solution for a desktop user, like Windows, OS X, or Ubuntu. You must be proficient with Linux in general and working from the command line or be willing to learn. Also, Arch is very bleeding edge. If something is updated, it is updated in Arch. Things have been consistently stable for me, but you have to be the judge if it's "stable enough". There are no "releases", per se, the CD "releases" are just a snapshot of the packages at any given time (If you choose to install, choose your source as "FTP", not off the install disc). Because of the rolling release nature, major updates could get a little tricky- You have to be on the ball sometimes and pay attention to major updates and update your configurations if nessesary.

  77. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

    Tried Ubuntu?

    I was a long time Gentoo user, but I made the switch. Ubuntu's defaults are, almost without exception, the exact settings that I would have chosen for my own, custom distro. They've got the desktop set up the way that I'd have liked to have had it in Gentoo, but I never had the time to get it just right (despite hours of tinkering and RingTFM).

    The handful of things that I don't like take a few minutes to fix after a fresh installation (mostly the ass-tastic color scheme).

    If you've never tried it, or if you havn't tried it since a couple versions ago, give it a shot.

    It's also got a fast release cycle (biannually), and you can move over to the testing version a month or so before the next release if you must, though with a little bit of risk, as always with such things :) Oh, and they've got well-configured KDE and Gnome desktops, plus XFCE if that's your thing (it was mine when I was on Gentoo, but now I'm a Gnome guy), and of course you can go for the more minimalistic DE/WMs with just a few minutes spent removing and adding packages in Synaptic.

  78. WTF is up with the torrent ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just started downloading it. I have pulled down 1.7 MB, it is going very slow, and already I am uploading more than I am downloading. Are you guys all killing the torrent client the minute you have yours ?

  79. Good to hear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just tried yet another distro and came back to slackware. This time it was Elive ( debian based OS with Enlightenment on top of it ). I couldn't even find out how to get my wireless nic to start up at boot, couldn't get a dwl650+ card driver to compile, couldn't get Netbackup client to run, etc. etc. For christ's sake I couldn't even insert a module without doing it DEBIAN's way (m-a) !.

    I've used RedHat, Fedora, Debian, Gentoo, and Suse. None, not any of them understand that it's just a kernel with a bunch of scripts and files wrapped around it. To them it's a massive production of management tools and a kernel that runs it all. Yick!

  80. Thank you, Patrick! =) by v3xt0r · · Score: 1

    Slackware is my (personal favorite) choice for distros.

    Although we don't use it @ work for our production servers, I use it @ home for my laptop, firewall/router, and building other network appliances, as well as @ work for my desktop.

    It's flexibility and minimalistic approach are very attractive reasons why I can't seem to embrace other (bloaty) distros equally, although I do use them (when required).

    --
    the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
  81. TIME TO REJOICE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody, open the bottles! It's time to rejoice! Yet another milestone release of Slackware is out! World changes, but one thing remains - Slackware! Thanks Pat and long live Slackware!

  82. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by MikeDawg · · Score: 1

    Does a MAX possible of 4 years count as "long time"?

    --

    YOU'RE WINNER !
    Another lame blog

  83. I am! by ChipMonk · · Score: 1

    And judging by the comments here, many others are.

    1. Re:I am! by Chacham · · Score: 1

      Heh. I know. :)

      I started on Slackware, but went to Debian after i destroyed my system upgrading glibc2 because pat was a tad slow on that realease. (Of course, know i know why! :P )

      Slackware evokes a nostalgic feeling in me, and quite a few others. That's all. I meant no offense. Honest!

  84. But can it run xgl?! by camg188 · · Score: 1

    and beryl?

    1. Re:But can it run xgl?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've run XGL on slack (using rpm2tgz on a set of SUSE rpm's). No clue about beryl, but I had one of the quinncvs versions of compiz (same thing more or less, right?) Not much in the way of problems.

  85. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's about 1700 people on the DVD torrent right now; god knows how many on the CD ones.

  86. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 2, Informative


    How does Slackware work with modern hardware? (Wifi, SATA, etc)


    - See the 'compile your own kernel' comment.

    I've had no problems whatsoever getting sound, SATA, USB, network, WiFi, Bluetooth working on my Dell Inspirion 6400 (six months old) on my Slackware 10.2. I upgraded to Linux 2.6, followed some clear kernel instructions for my Intel card and moved to -current because it was nearing release anyway and I already happily used -current on another system.

    A few extra notes:

    - most SATA controllers work with one of the SATA kernel images you can choose when installing. I had to use a 2.6 kernel for mine though.
    - sometimes you'll need user space add-ons to make the most of your hardware, my Intel WiFi requires a binary 2.6 driver module and daemon.
    - if you do compile your own kernel: copy your working kernel config (Slackware's default is a good start), make oldconfig to check new options, then make oldconfig your way towards a leaner kernel with fewer modules plus the things enables that you'll need. Keep dual/triple booting into working configurations to test things out. Nobody ever got fired for learning grub or lilo.
    - with Slackware you start with a vanilla setup. You have more control and responsibility when it comes to non-critical patches that add functionality. Understand this and use it to your advantage. Slapt-get and SWARET are apt-get like clones which you can also point to linuxpackages.net, this gives you access to a good amount of extras.
    - Patrick is conservative. Expect security fixes and grave bug fixes to release versions only. Even -current gets relatively few updates, you can see the entire Changelog from 10.2 to 11.0 on the Slackware site and it's a very plain and forward list of changes. Again, linuxpackages might help out.
    - Slackware does no development of its own. Report software bugs to the source and important released (security) fixes to Slackware. This is a bit decentralised but also removes bureaucracy.

    I always say: it works for me, but YMMV. Slackware has always worked really well for me and I can tell people how it behaves, but they do have to make up their own mind whether that suits them or not.

  87. Will Slackware ever officially port to x86_64? by Andronicus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I love Slackware. Grew up in Linux with it. Started in 1996. Still using it today as my primary distro.

    All my current PCs CPUs now use AMD64 instruction sets. I'm motivated to moving them toward more pure AMD64 software. I've owned Athlon 64 CPUs for three years now, and still no wide and mainstream support for AMD64. All the 64-bit options currently are not as mainstream or as polished or conflict free.

    I've been experimenting with the unofficial Slamd64 port with modest success. Fred Emmott is really a great champion and I appreciate greatly all his work. Slamd64 still has plenty of rough edges and may only approach, but perhaps not exceed, the smoothness and polish of the official distribution.

    In the meantime, I'm experimenting with Slamd64 but also branching to other distros which claim full AMD64 support (xubuntu, SuSE, Gentoo are my current areas of focus) to guage whether they seem more mainstream and have smoother support.

    Readers, why do you think there is no "official" effort to bring Slack to AMD64? Do you think this may change?

    I know Patrick has commented previously on this. To turn a blind eye to AMD64 seems to me to shortchange the future of the distro. Slack was founded on i386 and has maintained steadfast focus on that architecture, and though AMD64 isn't so greatly different, i386 won't be with us always. What becomes of Slack then?

    I would like to see Fred's fine start folded into a greater official port to lift out of the level of just being a curious project and to get the backing of a larger community.

    Please share your views.

    --
    USNG: 14TPU4605
    1. Re:Will Slackware ever officially port to x86_64? by turgid · · Score: 2, Informative

      It must be a funding issue.

      It's strange how there's an official IBM S390 port but no AMD64. The IBM ports were done by people from IBM. There are also S390 ports of a couple of other distros (RedHat for one, and maybe SuSE?). IBM's marketeers must be in overdrive.

      SPARC and Alpha ports have come and gone over the years, but never had the backing of Sun or DEC/Compaq/HP.

      Remember, Pat does most of the work himself and without sufficient motication and resources, can't do everything.

      Intel is still selling millions of 32-bit only x86 processors to the ignorant, so going to a 64-bit Slackware is not top priority yet.

      My humble £0.02.

      P.S. I've been using Slackware as my primary destop OS since 1996 after first trying it on a borrowed machine a year before. I've used RedHat, Debian, CentOS, Ubuntu, SuSE, Solaris 7, 8, 9 and 10 but I still personally choose Slack. I have 5 x86 boxes (from Pentium II up to Athlon XP) running Slackware and a Sun Ultra 1 running Splack. At work I have a dual-core 64-bit intel Dell running Slack.

  88. slackware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slackware is the greatest OS for beginners - advanced geeks.

    I've moved on to LFS since my dabblings with slack, but since slack i've become a damn good Unix systems administrator... Without any formal unix education.

    good times.

  89. Keep it coming by Azar · · Score: 1

    I'm glad to see Slackware steadily plodding along in it's development. I hope that Pat continues to produce this distro for years to come as it is a fantasitic distro, one that is too often overlooked.

    While I have since moved on to another distro, more or less out of necessity, I'm glad to know that I can always "come home" to Slackware.

  90. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

    It does when all of that time is spent compiling.

    Makes 3ish years seem like a lifetime. :)

  91. Re:package manager? qtswaret by pbhj · · Score: 1

    I personally prefer slapt-get (and use gslapt as a Front-End if I'm feeling gooey!).

    QTswaret, however, is a very nice FE and almost makes me want to switch to swaret. The thing is, I tend to use the CLI for occassional updates and probably only use an FE 20% of the time. I used to use swaret but am currently more comfortable with slapt-get.

    slackpkg is quite useful too for package management.

    When I roll my own I use checkinstall (mentioned wrt debian and redhat/fedora in a later post) to create install tarballs.

  92. DVD by dsmey · · Score: 1

    Where can we get a DVD ISO of the entire thing so we don't have to burn 4 separate CDs?

    1. Re:DVD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  93. I'm getting married but will take slack with us;) by Mike+Zilva · · Score: 1

    I've been checking the changelog more than twice a day in the last couple of months (100ths of times) and it loookts like this is *THE ONE* we were all wating for ;).

    Next I'll get married, move to a new house and take slack 11 with us inside my nest personal server (AMD GeodeNX - global warming killer) - that have also been waiting in the last 30 dayd with an empty HD ;)

    Thank you Patrick, you've make this digital world a better place to be ;)

  94. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    How does Slackware work with modern hardware? (Wifi, SATA, etc)

    I can't speak for wifi, but sata works just fine, at least with 2.6 (I haven't tested the 2.4 beyond having to use it for the install). It worked out of the box, but I had to recompile the kernel anyway (no HIMEM-enabled kernel comes with it. :()

    Sound cards are still the various iteration of the Audigy 2s, more or less (if someone can recommend an alternative that has decent linux drivers, please do. Creative drives me nuts, but the buzz on the onboard AC97 is hideous. Yes, it's an ALSA issue.)

    Pretty much the same for any network card I've used, unless you're into the really esoteric stuff. Not a whole lot of advancement in the 100Mbps arena these days.

  95. Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question by h8macs · · Score: 1

    2.6 is fine on slackware... 2.4 is more comfortable in a stability sense I think. I've been using the 2.6 vanilla kernel with slack since 2.6.3 or so...

    SATA works fine with Slack 11 and 2.6.18... My home box has 2 160G SATA's striped for fast storage. At work I have 1 server that has 4 sata drives in a raid 5 configuration. My ex-employer foolishly did not know what they had in their IT department when I rolled out Enterprise desktops running Slackware. (Hell I heard Ford is doing the same)

    My current employer knows exactly what they have in IT and provides me with plenty of breathing room. ;-)

    Slackitude... get you some!

    --
    :-( --- argh. Despair, I owe again. :-b
  96. My Slack boxen boot in about 15-20 seconds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I can go to kernel.org, D/L the latest kernel, build it and boot it no problem.

    Try those on your artsy-fartsy, oooh-look-at-the-eye-candy-while-I-masturbate RH box. Just try running a stock kernel from kernel.org on RHEL4. I dare you. I just tried last week.

    And if you really know how to get things done, you don't need some damn GUI holding your limp dick to help you do it - you can do it on any distro. Care to tell my what you need RHEL4 to help you do that you by your own admission aren't capable of doing on Slack?

  97. 2.6 kernel and glibc by pixel+fairy · · Score: 1

    theres a kernel headers warning in the 2.6 package. it tells you your going to have mismatched kernel headers from either the kernel, or from glibc. take your pick. what it doesnt tell you about is the convenient build scripts in the source for glibc. carefull to upgradepkg --reinstall, NOT installpkg if you do this.

    why not just include a set of glibc packages to go with? (to use if your not just testing 2.6)

    and, maybe, for the 2.6 kernels, not bother with the seperate alsa driver. the one in the kernel works, and one less build script to run for users.

    i was surprised to see 2.4 still default (and ill be really surprised if its default for the next release)

  98. This is very good news! by ODMahowny · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm new to the linux world. Just started using it about 4 or 5 months ago. I'm not in the I.T. business. I'm that annoying marketing guy on the phone you guys mention from time to time, but I've been a "closet case" computer geek sense I got my first Apple II. I've known about linux for a long time and I finally had some extra scratch so I decided to pick up an box and experiment with an OS I've been wanting to dive into.

    I shopped around for distributions. I used Debian, Ubuntu, and Mandriva. Those all left me wanting more, I guess you could say they just didn't do it for me. I found slackware, read up about and really liked it's history, the community, and the KISS system just made a whole lot of sense. So here I am now a few months later, I have my second computer up and running with slackware 10.2, my sound works, my video works. I can print, I can play mp3s, write documents using the provided software. Hell I even have a Samba server going so I can swap files between my systems. Some might call me crazy for saying this but it's been easy with Slackware!

    Between google, http://www.linuxpackages.net/, and the fellas at http://www.linuxquestions.org/ any obstactle I've bumped into has been easily over come. I really don't see why Slackware is classified as a hardcore linux or not for beginners. With all the excellent documentation it has been easy for me to do the things I want to do. Pretty much everything I do with my windows system I can do on my slackware system. Infact these days I use it more often because I rarely have to shut it down!

    I'll be ordering up slackware 11 asap. It's definitely an OS that I will use for a long time. Thanks Pat V, for creating and maintaining an excellent OS even a non techie noob can use productively :-).

  99. Re:I see... by Iron+Condor · · Score: 1

    1: Lack of proper package management (want to uninstall that package?).

    Type "pkgtool". Option four is "Remove". Has been in there since 1994, when I started using slack.

    Want those dependencies resolved? Want those packages automaticly updated to get the latest security patches? Tough shit. This is a "hands-on OS" and damned if you'll get any assistance getting work done efficiently.

    Huh. Let me put it this way: I upgraded to V11 by typing "swaret --update && swaret --upgrade". That ain't exactly rocket science. I think I might have had to type "A" when it asked whether to install it all. That line, by the way, is run once a week from cron and keeps my system uo-to-date. What on earth is the big deal?

    Oh, I see -- lack of "proper" package management. I guess that means management that requires a GUI or something like that. Well, in that case Slack might just not be for you, because it works just as well without one as with one. Hum. Odd.

    --
    We're all born with nothing.
    If you die in debt, you're ahead.
  100. Re:I see... by linuxbuzi · · Score: 1

    Slackware is good for those wanting to learn about Linux, but it is equally as good for those who want a system that *just works*.

    I use Slackware not only for myself, but for customers' (individual and corporate) desktops and servers. Slackware is ideal for this due to its stability: once the system is set up, customers don't have to worry about things breaking, and can get their work done. If they have problems, they call me. Needless to say, after the first month or so (when the problems have to do with adjusting to Linux applications) I don't get many calls.

  101. Re:I see... by legojenn · · Score: 1

    There are some "sisters" who like Slackware too.

    --
    I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
  102. zazaza by Therman+Merman · · Score: 1

    LOL@LUNIX

  103. CD/DVD Label? by kosibar · · Score: 1

    Is there any good source for CD/DVD label images for those of us burning our Slackware ISOs?

    1. Re:CD/DVD Label? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Take a sharpie
      2) Write "SLACKWARE 11" on the disk
      3) ???
      4) Profit

  104. Fedora user - worth converting ? (Not trolling) by wintermute000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Been using Fedora for the last year or so, FC4 --> FC5, pretty happy in general. But as I read more and more about Slack (and run into more and more redhat/fedora issues) I start wondering: is it worth switching? I'll qualify the question (yes horses for courses etc. etc... :) )

    -Usage: General PC stuff, lots of downloading, a bit of multimedia (mostly music, previewing videos I DL :) ) file server / SSH gateway. I would turn it into a full blown router but don't see the point of buying 3 more NICs when my little linksys box does the job happily, aside from having full iptables control

    -Nix knowledge: somewhere between advanced newbie and average user. Only started using Nix 1-2 years ago but I like tinkering and am not scared of CLI :)

    -Time: I used to devote a lot of time to geeking around with my box, but lately (esp. with work ramping up) I haven't been ars3d. Though a fresh challenge may increase my motivation!

    cheers all