Slackware 12.2 Released

pilsner.urquell submitted a quote from the announcement saying "Well folks, it's that time to announce a new stable Slackware release again. So, without further ado, announcing Slackware version 12.2! Since we've moved to supporting the 2.6 kernel series exclusively (and fine-tuned the system to get the most out of it), we feel that Slackware 12.2 has many improvements over our last release (Slackware 12.1) and is a must-have upgrade for any Slackware user."

Comments

Re:What's still missing

[adamjaskie]

Pat doesn't like PAM, which is why it isn't in Slackware.

This article should be tagged "nostalgia"

[Nicopa]

I started with Slackware, from my memories, Slackware is from a time when "distribution" had another meaning. The idea was: "here, I compiled the main stuff for you", and from that point you were alone, compiling almos everything (gcc, libc, making the ELF transition by hand)...

Re:This article should be tagged "nostalgia"

[trashbird1240]

Well, although I do use Slackware for what some could call nostalgia, I have to point out that you're wrong about all that: none of it is true anymore. By nostalgia I mean a system that is generic, doesn't get in my face, and is familiar to a user of older UNIX systems. That's the goal of Slackware, and Pat succeeds at providing that.

Furthermore, there are package sites like slacky.eu, Slackbuilds.org and others. Also there's slapt-get and swaret that deal with dependencies for packages downloaded from sites like slacky.eu. You can download a whole Gnome distribution using slapt-get, without compiling anything.

However, if you do want to compile something, Slackware won't get in your way.

Re:The Only Reason This Distro Exists

[multisync]

I find OSX makes a far better SSH client than Windows.

PenguiNet FTW!

Re:Will it still run on '386 machines

[xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D]

Slackware 9.0 was the first Slackware to officially not support the 386, sorry. You need a 486 now. (I know, technically all you need is a recompile to get it working for a 386, but that's a lot of recompiling. This isn't Gentoo here :P)

Re:Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now the Ubuntu forums are filled with n00b posts flaming the world because 'Ubuntu sucks' and 'it ate my computer', etc.

Have you looked recently?
After running RH9, Fedora 2/4/6/8 and now Ubuntu (because it really does 'just work' on my hardware) over the years I decided a few weeks ago to try to 'give something back' by answering 'n00b' questions on the Ubuntu forums. They seemed remarkably free of the sort of thing you mention and generally quite intelligent.

It Is Still Relevant Today

[mrpacmanjel]

Slackware was my first experience with Linux many years ago...(1997/98ish?). Especially installing from floppy disks.

However, I now use Ubuntu & Mint linux on my pcs at the moment.

The way to look at the Slackware "distribution" is to see it as a bare bones, vanilla-type system.

Not having a "package" system is a *feature* of Slackware and it still uses tarball-type packages to this day.
Slackware is based on a different philosophy from today's distributions and I think it's refreshing to see this.

As far as I know there are no "corporate sponsors" funding Slackware's development - Patrick does it in his spare time.

One thing that most people on Slashdot seem to miss is that this is the original spirit of Linux and any software associated with it.

In fact I may install it on an old 450mhz PIII laptop I've got kicking about.

Good Luck Patrick you have my utmost respect and I hope Slackware continues for a very long time.

Re:Great work!

[cab15625]

I know it's not "official" (in that it is not overseen by Pat) but slamd64 runs quite nicely. I've been running it for almost a year now on a core2 system with almost the same ease as official slackware on older systems. Just in case anyone is looking for 64 bit slack.

Now if only I could get an install that works easily on my PS3.

Re:What's still missing

[McDutchie]

Pat doesn't like PAM, which is why it isn't in Slackware.

What doesn't he like about it?

From the Slackware 9.1 ChangeLog as quoted in the alt.os.linux.slackware FAQ:

If you see a security problem reported which depends on PAM,
you can be glad you run Slackware. I think a better name for PAM
might be SCAM, for Swiss Cheese Authentication Modules, and have
never felt that the small amount of convenience it provides is
worth the great loss of system security. We miss out on half a
dozen security problems a year by not using PAM, but you can always
install it yourself if you feel that you're missing out on the fun.
(No, don't do that)

I don't know if this criticism is still valid or not, since this is old, but it's still true that nothing stops you from installing it yourself.

Re:Is there 64-bit support?

[ppz003]

http://www.slamd64.com/

Just give the maintainers a little while to catch up, but SlamD64 does include 32-bit support so you can install most normal 32-bit slackware packages if you need to.

Re:Is there 64-bit support?

[gun26]

AFAIK Slackware itself is still only 32-bit, but there is a project called BluewWhite 64 (http://www.bluewhite64.com) which is an unofficial port to 64 bit. They should have a 12.2 of their own within a few weeks.

Re:Great work!

[jonaskoelker]

By using Slack, everyone around you will know that your kung-fu is the best kung-fu.

Using Srack gives not the kung-fu. Disciprine... come from within.

Re:What's still missing

[Bandman]

It's not. Around that same time was when PamSlam came out and Cartman boxes all over the net were able to be compromised ridiculously easily.

Things are better now, and PAM is terribly useful and gives more benefits than it's complexity takes away.

Re:Is there 64-bit support?

[mishehu]

I think Fred (the Slamd64 maintainer) is usually lagged a little behind the official Slackware released do to his life outside of maintaining Slamd64. All of my x86_64 systems run Slamd64. We use it on a number of servers as well.

Distro that Just Works.

[LackThereof]

People complain about Slackware's usability all the time. What I always see neglected is the fact that Slackware, as a distro, Just Works far more often than any other distro I've played with.

Slackware will install and work on a wide variety of exotic hardware, both modern and obsolete. It can be easily installed on machines that don't boot from CD, or even have a CD drive.

I've never encountered a machine that wouldn't install and boot slackware, with a working command line and network support, just by using the scripts that come on the install discs, and following the instructions.

slackware automatic package tool

[Anonymous Coward]

slapt-get. Just as good, if not better than the others.

Re:What's still missing

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't mind using a third party package manager, slapt-get worked brilliantly for me 3 or 4 years ago when I was* running Slackware. I haven't checked lately but if its still around its a great package manager, as the name suggets its basically apt for Slackware packages.

*I don't have any linux boxes at the moment as I don't have a need for a full time nat/download/gateway box, otherwise I'd still be using Slackware.