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.

Comments

woohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

RedHat and Debian remove no options

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Ah, Slackware, I knew them well...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Cool - Glibc vs libc

[Erich]

2.0.* aren't necessarily compatable or stable. 2.1.* is compatable with each other.

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?

Slackware runs everything

[hakker]

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

it's good news that Slackware keeps on going

[jetson123]

I think it's great that Slackware keeps on going. Their install disks are very useful with any Linux distribution. And their low-level approach to installation works when others fail.

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.

Re:gnome / kde

[jfunk]

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.

RPMs vs. tarballs -- Redhat makes things easier?

[Garpenlov]

Running a Slackware 96 system for quite a while,
I've been constantly annoyed at finding software I want and then seeing it only comes in .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).

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...