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."

Comments

2.4 kernel vs 2.6?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6?

[Denney]

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.

Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6?

[bzipitidoo]

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.

Theoretical question

[Morrigu]

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.

Re:Theoretical question

[vtcodger]

***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..

Die Hard

[slummy]

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.

Re:Allow me to reprhase that

[megabyte405]

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

Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question

[rainman_bc]

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...

Re:Official 64 bit support?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Will Slackware ever officially port to x86_64?

[Andronicus]

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.

Fedora user - worth converting ? (Not trolling)

[wintermute000]

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