Slackware 12.1 Released

SlackFan writes "Slackware 12.1 has been released, with kernel 2.6.24-5. 'Among the many program updates and distribution enhancements, you'll find better support for RAID, LVM, and cryptsetup; a network capable (FTP and HTTP, not only NFS) installer; and two of the most advanced desktop environments available today: Xfce 4.4.2, a fast, lightweight, and visually appealing desktop environment, and KDE 3.5.9, the latest 3.x version of the full-featured K Desktop Environment.'"

Comments

ok and?

[Anonymous Coward]

same stuff as in every other distro. the same "most advanced desktop environments available today" can be found in hundreds of other distros too. Why not advertise based on what makes slackware different from the rest than taunting the software that everyone else has?

Re:ok and?

[gambolt]

Slackware isn't different from other distros. Other distros are different from slackware.

slackware:linux::Rolling Stones:Rock&Roll

Re:ok and?

[Inner_Child]

That's actually a fairly apt analogy - the Stones are one of those bands that people either love or hate, regardless of the band's longevity.

So thank you. Thank you for the first good analogy Slashdot has ever seen.

Re:ok and?

[Jurily]

Cool ad. Is the "STAY AWAY!!!" logo on the booting screen too?

Re:ok and?

[Chris Mattern]

"Welcome to Slackware. Now go home."

Que pasa? Nada.

[DarrenBaker]

According to their home page, this is the first interesting thing to happen to Slackware since 2005. It's the most boringest of all distros!

Re:Que pasa? Nada.

[Pommpie]

Which is why it works so boringly. No crashes, no wacky untested software with potentially unrealised bugs, no fancy memory-sapping 3D effects... where's the fun in that?

Re:Que pasa? Nada.

[zappepcs]

To some it is boring, yet to others it's a sign that not only is Linux not going to go away, but it is available for any business, government institution, school, person etc. to modify and use it as they please. There is no single church around the globe despite the rather vigorous efforts of several groups. There should be no single OS. The simple reason for this is Born out by your comment. We simply cannot all play nice together and agree on what an OS is supposed to be and do. For that reason alone there should never be a single OS. Vive Slackware! Vive la difference.

You never know, one day next year (around March 15th or so) you will find that you have the perfect application for the use of Slackware. All of a sudden, it will seem like a cool OS for that application and you will have a moment of de ja vu and silently thank me for this moment.

Re:Que pasa? Nada.

[celle]

Another name for boring is rock solid stable. Been using it since 1994. I haven't lost data yet even after my home was struck by the biggest tornado in the United States (2 1/2 miles wide)(it had friends). I was doing a backup and cleaning out the interior of the case when the tornado struck. I went back to what was left of my town(three tornados went through it)(obliterated) and my house(struck by two tornados) the next afternoon. Put the covers back on and removed the server to my fathers. I then cleaned out the case and powered her up. No problems and thats after the server running for six years straight. She's still running strong four years since that day.

Re:Que pasa? Nada.

[Cairnarvon]

``Tornado resistance'' is probably more of a hardware feature than a software one, wouldn't you think?

Re:Que pasa? Nada.

[Anonymous Coward]

Slackware was the first distribution I used, a fairly long time ago (3.0? when 1.2.13 was the current kernel). I stuck with it for years until 7.0.0. My problem, I suppose, is that for me it was sort of in no man's land.

I compiled everything myself, for two main reasons: not everything was available as a Slackware package, and I patch a large number of packages to tweak them in a way I like. The issue with Slackware was package management: it has a package system, but not a terribly sophisticated one. I wrote a little Perl script that works similar to checkinstall, meaning I created all my own packages from source. But Slackware's package management just was not enough for me. No dependency checking, really no features at all, apart from recording the output of tar xfvz.

I could have, probably, gone with a distribution that does everything for you, and learned to appreciate that. Instead I wanted more control, and with Slackware, that would have been too haphazard. So I created my own distribution, with my own package system, init scripts, and so on. It really is from scratch, and it scratches an itch (hah!). I even ported over a lot of BSD tools to replace GNU coreutils, gzip, findutils, etc. It's been great fun.

Slackware was a wonderful learning experience for me but in the end it wound up either doing too much, or not enough, you could say. I'm glad it's the one I picked up first, but I've outgrown Slackware and can't see a need to use it again--I sure did defend it for a long while, though!

Re:Que pasa? Nada.

[mrbluze]

To some it is boring, yet to others it's a sign that not only is Linux not going to go away, but it is available for any business, government institution, school, person etc. to modify and use it as they please

I just read some reviews on Slackware, then Gentoo. I run Ubuntu at the moment. I think people bash Slackware because it's difficult to install and maintain compared to others. But if someone gave me the job of installing Linux onto a computer that will later be difficult to physically access and must work no matter what, say, for example, in an operating theatre, then Slackware is a worthy choice. Seems like it's possible to get exactly the features you desire with slackware and nothing else.

But it seems to me that everybody is thinking that every Linux distro's big wish is to pass the wife-test. Not everybody wants to design, build and maintain their own car. Most people just want a car that works and gets fixed for them, but it would be a sad day if we had no alternatives like slackware.

Re:Que pasa? Nada.

[MightyMartian]

And it's the fastest. I tried Ubuntu's server edition and found it a royal pain in the ass. Part of it, I suppose, is because Slackware was the first distro I installed (way back in 1993 or thereabouts), and has remained very conservative in its setup process, as well as maintaining all the default paths, so that a good deal of software can compile with little or no pissing around. It's packaging system isn't as pretty as Debian's, but is functional.

Re:Que pasa? Nada.

[MightyMartian]

I still do quite a bit of work building routers, mail gateways and file servers, and while I've tried everything from Mandriva to Ubuntu server edition to FreeBSD, I keep going back to Slackware. I'll admit that, after fifteen years of playing with the distro, I just feel more at home, but still, I feel more like I'm configuring the system I want, rather than working around the system someone else decided I should have.

Re:Que pasa? Nada.

[Baseclass]

My wife and my 11 year old son use Slackware.
Sure Slackware may be slightly more difficult to install than some other distros, but when it's all said and done, Slackware is incredibly lean and stable.

My son recently got a new PC for for his birthday and came pre-installed with Vista. He told me he wanted to keep Vista installed so he could do some gaming.
A week or so later he was so fed up with the bloat, the pop-ups, and restrictions he said "dad, can you put Linux on this for me". Made me very proud indeed.

Re:Que pasa? Nada.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm kind of annoyed by all this "teh Ubuntu is for newbies" talk. I came up on Slackware, and I'll always have a place for it in my heart. That said, I run Ubuntu on my desktop now, because I can't be bothered to check a fucking mailing list for security updates or write a script to fetch them for me. I don't want to have to compile dozens of packages I use that aren't part of Slackware, and then keep track of security issues for that software. I just want a platform to run my apps that I don't have to think about, and the more "bloated" distros like Ubuntu and Fedora do that.

As for Gentoo... hey, you're entitled to your lifestyle choices. Just don't expect the rest of us to follow suit. :)

Hooray for slack!

[lambent]

The first distro I ever installed, and the one that's changed the least over the years. You may say that is a bad thing, but Slack is the only distro i can think of that hasn't succumbed to bloat, rot, ego, or the all-things-to-all-people syndrome. It may have stagnated for a while, but it's good to see it get back to a more regular release schedule.

Fix URL, please - s/org/com/

[robw810]

The official Slackware site is at slackware.COM, not slackware.ORG. (and it's already dead as of comment #3).

All hail Pat and the Slackware Team

[stox]

They just keep going, and going, and going!!

Bittorrents ...

[ClickOnThis]

... are listed on this page:

http://www.slackware.org/getslack/torrents.php

Re:Bittorrents ...

[notamisfit]

Seed you bitches! Rescue me from Ubuntu hell!

Re:Bittorrents ...

[MollyB]

Unconvincing username? Check. Better than AC by a long shot.

Obscure referential sig? Check. Can't say. I disable sigs like many here. Who cares?

Playing to current popular /. groupthink? Check. Since when is that a hanging crime around Slashdot?

UID around the one million mark? Check. Again, who cares? Nobody decides when they will be born. Lots of high-UID's are brilliant contributors.

Do the world a favor and kill yourself. Any of us could take that advice, but you won't find many volunteers. How about yourself? Exactly what do you offer the world that your absence would be missed?

(yes, I fed the troll. Got my Irish up...)

Re:So tell me...

[Nimey]

Patrick (the maintainer) is a SubGenius.

excellent question

[goombah99]

What exactly does go into making a "distro" anyhow. My only experience with this is making my own custom Knoppix CDs that woke up as apache servers. Seemed pretty freakin easy. it was sort of a chinese menu of what you wanted to leave in and leave out.

But of course I was standing on the shoulder's of giants. Someone created the look and feel of that and made all the config files work. But how much of that is what goes into a distro and how much is pretty much set by the packages them selves. e.g. choose gnome and is basically the look and feel set?

these days everything seems like it comes down to four looks, KDE or gnome in user interface and redhatish or debianish in directory layout and packages.

THe only distro I've played with that felt amazingly original in every aspect is Damn Small where everything is different and very tight. (never tried Puppy).

So what exactly goes on to make a "distro". What makes say ubuntu different than one of the four chioices (kde,gnome, debian, redhat)

Re:excellent question

[notamisfit]

Really, any distribution boils down to package selection, package management, and release engineering. As per your example, Ubuntu uses Debian unstable for packages and apt for management, but only supports a small subset of unstable, and releases every six months. Yeah, just about every GNOME and KDE distro looks the same (well, scratch that for KDE, considering how much Mandriva, SuSE, and Kubuntu patch it all to hell and think they're actually *improving* it). Slackware's more of a throwback to the days when a Linux distro was just an easy way to get a system up and running, as opposed to an all-inclusive software library.

Re:excellent question

[Ian Alexander]

If you think DSL is amazingly original then you should try SliTaz. ( http://www.slitaz.org/en/ ). They've crammed a working desktop into half the space of DSL, and it's a damn sight more functional, too. It's one of the most unique distro's I've tried so far.

Re:excellent question

[Anonymous Coward]

>(well, scratch that for KDE, considering how much Mandriva, SuSE, and Kubuntu patch it all to hell and think they're actually *improving* it)

Actually Mandriva has one of few distros what use upstream version of KDE. KDE developers like it when distribution builders works with KDE project together and does not "fork" own version from it as Kubuntu does.

There was story about this when KDE4 came out on dot.kde.org where KDE devels "thanked" Mandriva.

Re:excellent question

[turgid]

Making a distro is quite an involved software integration exercise.

It's not just about selecting a bunch of packages. It's about selecting the right versions of the source, configuring, compiling, testing, debugging, patching, testing, packaging, installing, testing, testing and more testing.

A lot of bugs in core utilities get found in this way, and obviously they have to be fixed. Whether that's the disto maintainer, the developers or random community members depends on the individual circumstances.

Bugs pertaining to architecture (big- vs. little-endiam, 32- vs. 64-bit etc.) get found. Bugs in shiny new cutting-edge versions of applications, obscure kernel bugs caused by very particular combinations of configuration parameters, you name it.

As the complexity of GNU/Linux and unix systems increases, it's an ever-increasingly difficult job. That's why large, diverse communities of testers and developers are important.

As for Slackware, it's simple, conservative, very high quality and very useful/usable.

It's a shape Pat hasn't done an official AMD64 version. I've moved to SLAMD64 for my newest machine now. I should really make a donation to Fred.

Re:excellent question

[farrellj]

I built a custom distro, MfxLinux, based upon Slackware, so I have rooted around the innards of it, so think I can give you a much better answer...

Yes, a lot of a distro is the packages and release engineering...but a huge portion is making sure that everything works together, that all the libraries a program needs are installed, that if those libraries need other libraries or utilities that they are installed as well. It's also making sure that everything is working OK with the versions of libraries, compilers and utilities that are installed. Add to that testing everything with the kernel version. This is the real heart and main work of a distro builder.

This is the real core of an operating system, and it is something that Patrick Volkerding and company do very , very well.

ttyl
          Farrell, architect of MfxLinux

Re:Difference in .org and .com

[robw810]

Yes, there is a difference. Patrick controls one of them, and has no control over the other. Just because it's a mirror right now does not mean that it will be a mirror in ten minutes.

Re:is it still painful to install?

[aaronbeekay]

If you considered it "painful" to burn the CD, maybe Linux wasn't the best choice in the first place.

Re:Xfce ?

[notamisfit]

WTF? 12.1 ships with FVWM 2.4.20. Along with blackbox, fluxbox (my personal fave), windowmaker, and twm, the REAL man's window manager.

Slackware doesn't fuck with upstream.

[karmaflux]

And that's why I use it.

Incidentally, "taunting" is not the same word as "touting."

Re:is it still painful to install?

[Colonel Korn]

If you considered it "painful" to burn the CD, maybe Linux wasn't the best choice in the first place. He meant that he placed the CD in a fire.

Re:So tell me...

[gambolt]

ask Bob

Congratulations, Pat!

[hitest]

Congratulations, Pat! Thanks for your dedication:-) I'll always be a Slacker!

What makes Slackware different...

[Tumbleweed]

It's Slacktastic, and chock-full of Volkerdingliciousness! Slackware - part of a well-balanced breakfast.*

* Notes: Not to be used as a flotation device. May stick to certain types of skin. Do not taunt Slackware.

Illness

[Tragek]

Whatever happened with Patrick's illness?

I thought this was news for nerds....

[Skylinux]

WTF is going on here? I have been reading through the comments and it appears as if most "nerds" have been pussy wiped by other distros and don't understand the point of actually knowing your OS.

If you learn Slackware, you know Linux! Why is that you ask?
Because Slackware does not come with a bunch of highly modified packages, Slackware is build using tested and known to be working code. Configuration and partition is done by hand. Slackware does not crash if setup properly, it is a perfect OS for any server or Desktop.... if you know what you are doing but it is not for you grandma. It is an Operating System for "real" nerds :)

With all the bitching about lack of features in Slackware, it may be time for you "nerds" to go and load up Vista for the ultimate hand holding experience.

You all remind me of that computer technician we have at work, he thinks he is the freaking king but knows nothing about computers. He fixes issues by running every GUI tool on his thumb drive and hoping that one of them sticks. When I ask him how he fixed it, he has no clue and says that "Tool xyz" fixed it. When I ask him to run "regedit" his eyes open wide and he starts to sweat.... cold sweat.
Dude you are not a computer tech, geek, nerd, hacker .... whatever. Go home and learn something.... almost forgot, he is A+ certified, uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Same goes for Slackware, use it, learn it, know Linux or use openSuSE and stop the bitching.

Re:I thought this was news for nerds....

[Dusty101]

Although the parent post's a bit... overcaffeinated, he has a point: maintaining a Slackware box teaches a lot about Linux overall. As a stepping stone for those who find it "as user-friendly as a rattlesnake", might I suggest they try out VectorLinux ( http://vectorlinux.com/website2/ )? It's a Slackware-derived distro that's easier to get to grips with, & runs nice & quickly on old boxes (which is why I often use it). Not totally pure in terms of 'free' (as in speech), but rather usable.

Re:Will it like my Hauppauge PVR-150 TV card

[julesh]

It's my hope that someone can tell me that "Yes, Slackware will work for you."

Slackware will work for you if you know how to make it work. Slackware is a distribution for experts. Slackware is a distribution for people who don't mind^W^Wwant to get their hands dirty.

System Requirements

[dotancohen]

The slack site lists these as the system requirements:
        * 486 processor
        * 16MB RAM (32MB suggested)
        * 100-500 megabytes of hard disk space for a minimal and around 3.5GB for full install
        * 3.5" floppy drive

Does one really need a floppy drive to install it? Of my two desktops and single laptop, none have a floppy drive anymore.

Re:System Requirements

[beej]

Does one really need a floppy drive to install it?

No! Slackware supports punchcards.

"sudo apt-get build-essential"...

[SEMW]

Distros like Ubuntu are not developer friendly because ... you will have a hell of a time compiling anything from source unless you get all the right development libs after install Yes, I can see how running "sudo apt-get build-essential" can be hell. I mean, at 28 characters it, umm, really puts a strain on my RSI. Or something.

ISOs are bootable - no floppy needed

[Steve Hamlin]

No, you don't need a floppy. The ISOs are bootable.

In addition to keeping with the spirit of Linux distributions circa 1995, Slack seems to keep actual documentation from that era as well. The system requirements you list, plus:

Q11: Is it possible to install this operating system without a floppy drive?

The only answer involves using LOADLIN to jump into a linux kernel from DOS. Wow! I appreciate the simplicity of Slack, but their main FAQ could include at least reference bootable CDs - it has been 14 years.

Re:Will it like my Hauppauge PVR-150 TV card

[kv9]

Simply put, Slackware is a distro for people who have plenty of time to waste.

simply put, Slackware is a distro for people who have plenty of time to invest in something that they really like/care about and dont have a constant need to whine about the smallest thing that "breaks". but I guess that's a novell concept for you spoonfed motherfuckers.

I find the constant bashing of Slackware for being hard to use and arcane quite ironic (situational irony). simple is not hard and arcane. simple is efficient.

(disclaimer: I am no longer a Slackware user, but I still can appreciate something of real quality)

fuck em if they can't take a joke