Slashdot Mirror
SlackWare 4.0 is available
crunge writes "SlackWare 4.0 is now available. It is based on the 2.2.x kernel. It is still libc5-based (but glibc 2.0.7pre6 compatibility libraries are available for those who want/need to run glibc2 applications. (My understanding is that the next release will be glibc2.1-based).
Grab it from the usual usual places.
Hi - too lazy to log in... (actually am RAK)
:)
I thought you might find mc useful. Just take
your generic RPM, open it up with mc (or an
equivalent tool) and copy the tarball that's
inside it to anywhere you want... then procede
manually, unhampered by the RPM "install"
procedure.
Yup... there is a tarball in each of those RPMs.
Cheers,
RAK
I remember back when Slackware was first announced, and he was going to charge like $30 for a set of floppies that you could install off of.
:)
And the flame war which resulted at the nerve of some guy suggesting that Linux should be anything other than totally free.
Even if it did take you 2 days to download with a 2400 baud modem...
Ahh the good ole days.
I tend to agree with this person that Linux as a product wasn't ready for the sudden infusion of newbies. Linux has historically required you to know your machine inside and out to get everything working okay. Red Hat, however, changes that. This does 2 things. First, unfortunately, it empowers a lot of people who really have no business using Linux *YET*, before it's ready for them. This is bad, not so much for us ( I LOVE to answer questions and help people along ) but for them and their lost productivity, data, etc.
But the other effect it has is a good one. It enables those of us who know what we're doing to have an easier time of managing our systems, so we can concentrate our efforts on more important, bigger jobs like security, coding, or advocacy, etc. I remember when I ran slackware (Which I loved then and still do), and 5/6 of my time was spent keeping up-to-date on all the latest libraries. I never got ANYTHING pre-compiled.
But now, with RPM, I can let somebody else sweat the small stuff. The way I see it, I've already mired through the learning process, I already tore my hair out tring to make QT install where I want it and still link right, I already read all the docs on how to compile X, I already know that I CAN do everything I need to get my system working like a charm. Now, I don't have to anymore and can concentrate on other things.
One of my wiser fellows once said "You use Slackware when you're starting, until you know how to do everything yourself. Then you go to Red Hat so you don't HAVE to do everything yourself anymore." To that I would add, you don't have to with Red Hat, but you still can if you choose. I use RPM, but I don't use any form of GUI like GLINT or LinuxConf. I know my system as well as I did when I was a Slackware user.
Not all Red Hatters are lame, I guess is the short version of my point =)
Long live Linux, and may distribution wars never cease, for they make us all stronger.
~ Josh Litherland (fauxpas@cc.gatech.edu)
(Sorry for long post)
As a newbie using linux, slackware, patrick, offered some of the best support i have ever had and as a result i was able to get slackware running in one evening and get connected to the net, (mind you i had never touched linux before in my life). I would hate to see it go the way of the dinosaur's, like the previous message seems to imply.
There is nothing stopping anyone from installing from source on a system that uses package management. There is a lot more to package managers than just the simplicity of pre-compiled binaries.
For one, it makes distibution of software on a farm really easy. I build my own apache rpms, then distribute and install them automatically onto my web farm using autorpm.
Second, package mangers offer a good layer of security. It is very easy to see if any trojans have replaced one of your core files simply by comparing the file to the hash stored in the package manager's database.
Finally, it offers a consitency check and a built-in software inventory system.It is also nice to know that you won't do some braindead thing that will break some important software, overwritting a key file with a 'mmake install'. It is also good to know what software depends on what software so you don't accidentally uninstall something, or install a commercial package only to learn afterward that it requires something you don't have.
The effort involved in building and maintaing one's own set of home-grown rpms has been, at least for me, much less than maintaining and administering a bunch of disorganized tar files.
I love Slackware. I used Slackware for several years, but switched to RedHat. The folks who think that RedHat or Debian is uncool because it is too easy are missing the point of Linux. Linux is great because it works, it is stable, and it is easy. It is this system administrator's dream come true. I for one am not going to go out of my way to be "cooler" if it makes my job harder.
I have fond memories of using Slackware. The first install I did past 1.0.99plwhateveritwas. A fine distribution, for the time.
A few more versions... then I got tired of, basically, having to reinstall linux. I guess as a newbie I should have learned all the intricate steps involved in upgrading each tarballed package but somehow something was always left out of the FD.
Then I heard of something called "Red Hat". And some Slackware folks commenting about the low technical expertise of people running and actually _using_ Red Hat's absurdly simple RPM system, and still _not knowing things_. I ran for Red Hat. Hey! Where'd that webserver come from! Whee!
Now, most of those particular folks I know have followed, and an IPO is anticipated. I sincerely hope that the result is that Slackware spur ahead of Red Hat and spur them forward as well, viva competition. I wish both factions well and will stay with or switch to the best IMO.
I mean, would You want to trust every program to something with the version number 2.0.7pre6?
I've seen a lot of problems with people who say ``I can't run that, I've installed glibc2.1'' or ``That's compiled for 2.1 and I just have 2.0.''
What I suggest is have your server run libc5 with linuxthreads and then add your glibc runtime of choice. When things settle down in the 2.1 series of libc, then switch to that.
Hmm... that's what slackware does.
Anyway, I like slackware, it feels like home. Isn't the nice thing about free unicies is that we can all get along?
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Basically, the command line will look like:
mkisofs -J -r -o output-filename root-directoryThis will create a an ISO9660 image file. You then use cdrecord or other similar program to burn the image to the disk. (In a pinch I've used Adaptech EZ-CD Creator on a Win95 box to burn an image created this way. You might also want to look into a program called xcdroast which is a nice graphical front end for mkisofs and cdrecord.
And, of coarse, you can always add more options - like bootable CDs, volume names, etc - when you are more comforatble with it.
...is the day I eat my socks. (I will, of course capture a video of it and stick it on a publicly accessible site somewhere.)
Please note also that Slackware 3.9 is available as well. 3.9 is just 4.0 with the 2.0.37pre10 kernel for those who are hesitant to use 2.2. Check http://www.slackare.com for more info.
Yes, I ran slackware. I was a real hacker. I singlehandedly installed gnome from source 4 or 5 times, in its entirety, because of how often I nuked my partition and started over.
Then, I realised that I was wasting far too much time compiling things. My Pentium 166 with 32 MB of RAM, which used to be state-of-the-art, now was taking an awfully long time compiling things.
So, for a while, I ran Red Hat. I liked it, too. Its printer management meant I didn't have to futz around with magicfiltres and linuxconf meant that, generally speaking, I didn't have to worry about much.
Then, I found Debian, and my saviour - apt-get.
Simply put, apt-get makes things absurdly easy. I don't have to worry about upgrading to glibc2.1 - apt does the worrying, the downloading, and the installing for me. With Debian I've finally set up the production box I knew Linux could be.
While Slackware will always hold a special place in my heart, for "where I started," Debian is where I am, and where I'm going in the future. Even though something still tells me it's a bit too easy, I just ignore that part of me. It's just too easy to tell my box to upgrade everything on my system to ignore it.
Check out www.slackware.com for more information on Slackware 3.9/4.0.
--
All Glory To The Hypnotoad!
That may be the impression presented by the glibc 2.0.x documentation, however, glibc developers recommended that distributions use glibc 2.0.x, and 2.0.x was on ftp.gnu.org (pre-releases are not allowed there).
-- Joel, Debian package maintainer for glibc
I for one am very pleased to see this distribution (that I run) continue to thrive. Way to go Patrick. :-)
http://gabrielcain.com/
But you're entitled to your opinion.
I origionally started with slackware 3 years ago, tried redhat, tried debian, tried susi, tried stampede...
:)
./configure ; make ; make install ... it just give you much more control with exactly as to what is installed on your system.
still using slackware today!
Part of the reason why i enjoy it is that it doesn't have all the 'automation' like rpms and deb files, i like having to go
I learned on Slackware. I still think it has one of the easier install interfaces, especially against things like dselect. I don't think I would have learned as much about compiling my own stuff if I had started on another distribution. It had and still has problems, but what distro doesn't? Here's to the distribution that also has the coolest name ever.
I am not sure what you are talking about. Most ( almost all) linux software is open source, and the author almost always makes a source tarball available.
After obtaining it, with some difficulty (after all, it comes preloaded, so there's not as much demand), I tried to install it, and found I needed glibc2.
glibc2 is currently used by all of the distributions except for slackware. The problem is that slackware is not binary-compatible with the other distributions. Since no-one makes binaries for slackware, this means you usually have to compile it yourself.
You are off base blaming redhat for your problems, just as I would be off base blaming redhat because I can't install the binaries from kde.org on Solaris.
RPM does make life easier for people who havew an RPM based distro. Of course, it doesn't make life easier for win95 users ( duh! ) or anyone else. It certainly doesn't cause win95 users any problems though.
Most of your problems are a result of the fact that noone makes binaries for slackware because not so many people use it. If you can't handle the idea of compiling something from the source, then you need an easier distribution. OTOH, If you don't mind compiling, then slackware might be suitable for you.
Don't get me wrong, I love Slack... it's what I installed way back when I started with Linux, and it hasn't once left my system. However, I'm a little worried about it keeping up with Redhat and Debian and the others. Without most of the newer trinkets like GlibC and Gnome/KDE, I think it's really losing out. I hope Patrick reconsiders and adds these things in soon... I've always liked Slack's way of doing things (install, config, etc) and I'd hate to see it die on us
-"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." -EH
Sorry, this is the correct url for the slackware / gnome howto.
http://www.ncal.verio.c om/~hakker/slackware-gnome-HOWTO.txt
For those that keep complaining about Slackware not being a modern system, wise up. It is a base point for a completely customized distro and as fast as linux can possibly be on an intel machine. If your willing to put in the time (if you know what your doing, its not a lot of time), you can make Slack do whatever you want. Glibc2, sure fine. Changed directories, filesystems, etc. Sure fine. Compatibilty with RPM, DEB, tar balls, SLP etc. Sure, no problem. Run any program, compiled to your liking for optimum speed or install some stupid binaries. Ok. Run anything Xwise, including GNOME ( see link) and everyhing else. No problem. Have it be a bleeding edge work station or a server/switch that you throw in the closet or install from floppies. That is the whole point of slack. Start behind, do what you want to get current the way you like it. They didn't leave out glibc2 because they are lazy. There is so much complaining, you can probably expect to see it in next distro, but it is not in Slackware's style. This is also one possible reason why you don't see to many updates of the distro. I hope this one makes some of you happy. Slack kicks ass. /rant
I have been using RedHat for a few releases, but with RedHat 6.0 I have had real problems. The PCMCIA install seems to have serious bugs, and for them to use glibc 2.1 seems to have been premature (it breaks Java and Netscape, among other things).
I'll probably install Slackware again on my other laptop; the combination of 2.2 kernel and pre-2.1 glibc could be quite good, and their install procedure has a better chance of working.
I hope that the market is big enough that three or four distributions with such different characteristics will be able to co-exist. It would be sad indeed if Linux only came as RedHat or Caldera. More hands-on distributions like Slackware and Debian are needed.
Again, it's tempting. But Slackware doesn't have the ability to install no non-freed packages {grin}.
Cheers,
Joshua.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
Cheers,
Joshua.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
I am fairly new to Linux (about 18 months)and have to admit I still do not understand pro's/con's of glibc and libc.. I don't really understand what the difference is, except that most of the disto's seem to lean towards glibc. Anyone willing to post a somewhat objective comparison (I am not a progamer,obviously) thnks
Can't sleep, clowns will eat me....
and dam proud of it :)
...
... Let the market determine the standard. If RedHat controls 90% of Linux market, then Redhat will become the standard.
Over the past 3 years I've supported/admin;
HP-Unix, ATT SysV *really*, and currently
SunOS/Solaris. What my point simple
If all you want to do is get Linux up and running
then it doesn' make any difference which disro you use... on the other hand if you want to learn UNUX
then Slackware is you best choice. More of what you learn will transferr over the UN*. The why Patrick uses the rc scripts and ~/.* scripts in home director mirrors what I see and work with everyday.
Parting shot - Linux Standard Base
Ha, ha, you know what the funny part is? You can do exactly the same thing with Slackware. Get the sources from ftp.cdrom.com (which, BTW, isn't some obscure and remote site), then rebuild everything with a single command. You can go have lunch meanwhile. You don't have to take my word, just check this:S lackBuild
ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/linux/slackware/source/
I'd really love to know why you think why ease of use is bad for Linux. IMO, ease of use = more users = more software = good. Oh wait you don't like lam0rz. Elite.
- libc5 - older, proven to be robust in very "traditional" areas, lacks modern features. It is maintained only for bug fixes.
- glibc 2.0 - has many new features such as NSS and completely thread-safety, the latest release is 2.0.7pre6. That is the release you want on your server
- glibc 2.1 - the latest and greatest; glibc 2.1.0 contains some "issues" which make it unuseable on production machines. The next release (we are already at 2.1.1pre3) will fix most obvious bugs, but I wouldn't swear on this one within the next weeks (maybe months).
In my administrator job I don't count on bleeding edge software - it bites too often. IMHO the ideal Linux server will run currently 2.0.36 (2.2.x will mature) together with glibc 2.0.7pre6 as primary C library.Have a good night.
There are no Slackware ISOs. However, it's only trivial to generate them. Download what you want from the ftp site (I recommend bootdsks.144, contrib, docs, install, kernels, modules, rootdsks. and slakware, though you can leave out docs, kernels, and modules safely) and add in anything else you may want to throw on the CD, WordPerfect, StarOffice, etc...
You can use mkisofs to generate the iso which you can burn on any machine (I ftp it to my brother's win machine which has a burner on it and use Adaptec software). Here's the command I used to generate an ISO which is bootable:
mkisofs -a -b bootdsks.144/.eltorito/eltorito.img -l -r -v -c bootdsks.144/.eltorito/boot.catalog -o slak40.iso -V "Slackware 4.0" slackware-4.0
This command generates a bootable ISO called slak40.iso from the contents of the slackware-4.0 directory.
That's it, burn it and boot it!
Why is everybody claiming that Slackware doesn't have this/that?
It has Glibc2. It has KDE by default, but I just installpkg Window Maker. Gnome is also there along with AfterStep, FVWM, OpenLook, etc..
I tried Gnome and couldn't stand it at all. It was too much like windows (I installed SuSE to try out Gnome, in order to try out the new MC. I was incredibly disappointed. But I like SuSE anyway, it will update packages like Debian, and is fairly easy to use install/use) and was horribly unstable. I'm not a KDE fan either but it's half stable and fairly straightforward to the new user.
Patrick has had to defend his insistence on basing the distribution on libc5 (remember, glibc2 is also there) for a long time. I wondered, he explained, I now agree. Slackware is meant to be *stable*. It always was, it was the whole philosophy from the beginning. Glibc2 still has a lot of trouble but is pretty much out of it now (with the notable exception of 2.1, ouch). The next release will definitely be glibc2 based though.
I actually enjoy installing a distribution and having all of the software I installed actually work reliably, a feature which the other distributions, especially Debian, severely lacks.
And besides, compiling software isn't *nearly* as scary as it once was.
./configure;make;make install
If a required lib wasn't there, get it and install that, too.
Now how hard is that? It could get even easier, if the process was wizardised like those nice win32 installers. Generally, if you can compile a kernel, you shouldn't have trouble compiling other software, if it uses autoconf. You don't even have to edit makefiles anymore.
Slackware is what I started out with when I first tried Linux. A friend told me what packages I should get and I downloaded them all at school, put them on floppies and installed at home. Since then I've tried both RedHat and Debian but I still prefer Slackware! These days I'm actually running FreeBSD but I have Debian 2.1 on a partition here. (despite the fact that it didn't even configure LILO right, like slack does.)
:-)
:-) Happy days are here again...
I prefer installing everything manually, although that makes for a messy system after a while. (That's why I like FreeBSD, you have full control over the sources from the ports collection, and yet you have a nice uninstall function.)
I don't use Debian though, because I really can't stand dselect. Now that slack 4.0 is out it seems like the perfect time to wipe that partition and start over.
It's really good seeing that the distro is still going strong and I'm looking forward till my CD's arrive.
Way to go Patrick, keep slack going!
needlejaw@angst:~$
>It has been a long time since I have seen anyone use this distribution
I think this means you haven't gone over to a friends house and watched them use Slackware.
I don't think you'd be so ignorant as to mean that people haven't used Slackware in "a long time". Come on, Linux is less then 10 years old. What the heck does "a long time" mean? And what makes you so special as to think that anyone might care if you have "seen" anybody use it. It's been a long times since I've seen anyone use any product by Microsoft. Should I therefore conclude that Microsoft has gone out of business? Or should we conclude that I need to get a job at a Windows shop? Or that I need more friends? and on and on and on
Regards,
Tim Moran
Running a Slackware 96 system for quite a while, .RPMs. So one day I decided, ok, I'll just install RPM. So I started about doing this. After obtaining it, with some difficulty (after all, it comes preloaded, so there's not as much demand), I tried to install it, and found I needed glibc2. So, ok, fine, I'll upgrade to that. Found a FAQ, read it, got the binaries, started upgrading all my various utilities to the right level. Unfortunately, some of these utils could only be found as .RPMs! At this point I said to hell with it, and gave up. Granted, I'm sure that with enough perseverance I could have gotten things working. If it had worked smoothly, I wouldn't have learned anything anyway. But, for everyone who says that RPMs make everything so much easier than plain old tarballs, I can only reply, "for RedHat users.. and even then maybe not." When I was actually using a RedHat 5.2 system, even though I told it to install EVERYTHING, it seemed to not have c++. So I said, fine, I'll just re-install it via rpm. Only rpm already thought it was installed. So I had to force it to install with some strange flags (I don't recall, someone more familiar with redhat helped me out).
I've been constantly annoyed at finding software I want and then seeing it only comes in
Of course, I'm sure that all my problems could have been resolved with enough time and perseverance. And I don't mind spending that amount of time on something I really want -- it's a learning experience anyway. But all I've found is that RPMs definitely do NOT, overall, make my linux life any easier, and in many cases tend to shut out non-RedHat people...
--- Where's my X.400 protocol decoder?
Nice to see Slackware surviving. I'm a little
leery of automation, like to know what's going on
behind the screen. Patrick's distros are ideal for
me so have kept on using it in the face of the
"improvements".
I'll be buying it. Voting with your money is the only sure way to keep your favorite distros going, whatever they be. Downloading is nice but they need to make a living too.
I'm still on 3.2.