Slashdot Mirror
Slackware 7 Beta Out
Anonymous Coward writes "Check the current tree changelog and you'll notice that Slackware 7.0.0-pre1 beta is out. Seems it won't be too long before the next major release; now completely based on glibc2."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I first installed slackware with the release that came with the kernel 2.0.29 I can't rember what
version. About a year later I bought 3.5 and I downloaded 4.0 last may.
I just found it easier to update slackware all at once then have to do each little seperate library, binary etc by itself it was just getting to time
consuming for me.
I (a little pervert) am using SW 4.0 with kernel 2.0.37 (hey, see that dork? A downgrader!).
Use The Source, Luke!
Great, so next year it will be RedHat 00R1, or SuSE 00R1, or Debian 00R1, etc., etc. Version 00, sounds like a great marketing scheme (NOT!).
Actually, who cares. Version numbers are just that, numbers. I'm more concerned with the individual software packages that make up the distribution. I don't care if the distribution is labeled version 1.99.5.6.8. (or whatever). Get a life people, don't you have anything better to do than discuss version numbers ??
Reminds me of right after I installed RH6, and thought 'Hedwig' was such a dumb sounding name that I changed it to Red Hat 2000 (Fuck You).
Most likely this individual has no idea why machine code is, or he wouldn't be compensating by trying to make his trivial skills look good to those who were not around back then. There was a step by step howto out for upgrading your slackware 2.x to ELF. It took some time, but you could have trained a monkey to do it. This person wants to make it look hard, because they have no other accomplishments.
What Dean did with Media Ecology was the equivalent of putting GPL'ed software in a commercial release and ignoring the GPL. Very bad thing...
--
"HORSE."
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
Please elaborate on how, precisely, Debian evolves at a "snail-like pace". Debian is rather conservative with what it labels as "stable", but the unstable branch (which, despite the name, is quite stable) is almost always up to date. It has been using glibc2.1 for quite a while now. Slackware, OTOH, hasn't even managed to support non-intel platforms yet.
I disagree.
Yesterday was the first time I had ever upgraded a Linux box, or any operating system really, for that matter. Before, I always backed everything up, reformatted, and reinstalled. Windows taught me that lesson (How can I upgrade and have my sound card not work, but fresh install it works fine? Grrrr.)
I was upgrading a server from RH 5.2 to RH 6. Nothing could have been easier. I popped in the CD, told it to upgrade, and 15 minutes I was (almost) modern again. It was literally that easy.
The problem most people have with RedHat is they don't use RPMs. The whole secret to working with RedHat is to use RPMs for anything you install that isn't something trivial. Then your life is infinitely easier. Mixing the RedHat stock RPMs with a bunch of tarballs is a recipe for nightmares and headaches (I learned the hard way 8 months ago.)
Note that I'm not advocating anyone jump on the RHAT bandwagon. I just felt that a good, comprehensive package management system like Debian and RedHat have make things a LOT easier. Especially compared to the Windows world...
I use Slackware on my Laptop I like two things
about it. First is Zipslack, which is a very easy
way to install on any playform, and a good way to
install if you don't have a CDROM drive. The other
is that it comes with a selection of kernels,
including one which has APM built in, save me the
trouble of building one.
RPM's and their dependencies have caused me more problems than they are worth. I can make my own RPM and then upgrade the specific package (i.e. from python 1.5.1 to 1.5.2 with RH 5.2). RedHat has a nasty problem of making everything depend on the current version, instead of the the current or later version (i.e. >= 1.5.1). This causes much extra work.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks!
I started with SW 3.0 and am now running 3.6. Everything works so why upgrade?
-- Cheers!
How about an .ISO image? Any of those out yet?
(I won't even ask if cdrom.com will provide one, of course. . .
I've been using slack for ages, probably the last 6 years - I forget the version I started on. :&) /usr/src; for a in *; do cd $a; make clean; cd /usr/src; done` then another `df` - I had abour 400Mb in .o's! It's something you don't think about till you run low on disk space. :&)
I've always found it a nice distrib, with the only niggle being upgrading from one version to the next - I only did the upgrade from a muchly upgraded 3.2 to 4 the other month.
It doesn't take as long as you'd think to get things back how you like them, and if anything, it clears out the drive a bit - you have no idea how much space you have tied up in programs you never use!
Just do `df` then `cd
In short - slackware has always installed like a breeze for me, upgrades from one distrib to the next might be a bit more of a pain, but let's see how we go
Keep it up Pat!
The problem I have with RedHat is all the handholding they code into all those Python scripts. I am NOT interested in any of it. I used Redhat 4.2 and 5.1 for awhile. Then ripped it all out and went back to the Slack.
Slackware is not for the pink. (Bob reference)
freebsd != big corporations.
Yes it does. Nobody else could possibly afford to pay what that freebsdcon is charging.
Slackware 3.9 includes 2.0.36 as it's default kernel. It's not a beta or prerelease, but 4.0 with a 2.0 kernel and probably 2.0-specific tools.
Its funny how experiences differ. My first install was Slack 3.3 and there wasn't any problem. Now that Slack is glibc based I'm gonna change back from Mandrake, which I've had no end of small problems.
n/m
I simply love Slackware! I started out on Slackware back in v3 days. RedHat and Debian are nice, but too complicated to admin without the GUI... And I don't like to admin through a GUI. Slackware is SMALL, very simple, and easy to manipulate to get what you want out of a Slack based system.
Keep up the good work, Patrick!
to sync up with visual studio 6
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
not to sound like I'm Microsoft-bashing, but having their software version numbers be the (supposed) year of release was icky and gross.
it doesn't give you any idea of what sort of development activity has gone on since the last release, like a "normal" versioning system does.
> Sun Solaris went from 2.6 to 7.
well, not exactly.
Solaris 2.x was really SunOS 5.x. and I think perhaps SunOS 6.x as well. so, going from Solaris 2.6 to Solaris 7 wasn't quite the leap that it seems.
Well, when companys change version numbers just cause no one is buying/using their product, is a very sad statement to me. Slackware never had very good management, no wonder they are always 2 steps behind all other distros.
The linux world has really fallen apart - I remember upgrading my Slack 2.x box to ELF binaries manually (everything was still AOUT back in 1995.) Nowadays, you guys want everything easy... It's so sad. Go back to Windows, where you belong.
Is the moderator on crack?
Slack 4.0 *does* include support for running glibc2 binaries, and support for compiling with glibc2 is available as an add-on package. (In the "contrib" directory.)
--
All Glory To The Hypnotoad!
Contrast with libc5, which has not been maintained for years.
They have the tgz packages. Which are extremely easy to install. And I have been running this beta for some time now and it actually has a RPM. I haven't used it yet. I always just use 'rpm2tgz' to convert rpms then install them.
I love slack so much I am mirroring the site myself. I have a little script in my root crontab that checks cdrom.com every hour and downloads anything new. So everyday I rush home and check to see whats new and use 'upgradepkg filename.tgz'. So I am as current as they get.
sorry forgot to post the ftp site. my site is ftp://129.118.188.81. check it out. Im on an 10mb/s ethernet so downloads shouldnt be too bad. expecially if you happen to be on Texas Tech campus. then I have seen 600kps downloads.
slack is wasy to upgrade. maybe not from 4.0 to current. cause those are completely different. but i use 'upgradepkg' everyday to upgrade to the new packages taht are released
Me thinks that you are confusing apples and oranges here. Slackware ain't two steps behind the others, the others are two steps to the left (or right if you prefer). I have used Debian, RedHat, and Slackware. Slackware has been the most stable and trouble free distribution of the three. If their distribution happens to be based on libc vice glibc, so what. I am running Netscape 4.7, StarOffice 5.1, WordPerfect, Apache 1.3.9, nmap2.3beta6, Emacs 20.4, Vim 5.5, lxdoom 1.4.0, Heretic 1.1, Gimp 1.0.4, KDE 1.1.2, Linux Kernel 2.1.12, RealPlayer G2, the latest version of Blender, perl 5.005_3, Python 1.5.2, etc., etc., etc., Please tell me why I should have to sacrifice stability and quality when I can run everything that I want on a libc system ??
With absolutely no prior experience with linux, except for a failed experiment with Debian that I gave up on after about 10 minutes, I installed Slackware 3.6 with absolutely no trouble at all...
I have installed SW 3.6, 4.0, Redhat 4.2, Redhat 5.1, and Mandrake 6.0 on different systems, and have found as well, that with Slackware you have much more control over exactly what software is installed. Also with configuring and upgrading, the 'do-it-yourself' attitude comes into play. You learn more about what does what and what is on your computer. A note on the install of SW... you can even pick what size inode you want... Mandrake and Red Hat don't even to bother asking you.
Did even slackware get too popularfor ya? At least now you can jump to NetBSD when too many other people start using FreeBSD. When the same thing happens to NetBSD, there is always OpenBSD. When OpenBSD starts getting popular, you'd better hope HURD is runnable; I doubt you have the knowledge to splinter off your own BSD. On the off chance that you do, may I suggest a name? "EliterThanThouBSD"
I too feel that Y/Q releasees would be better for distributions. That way, security patches and updates could be easily picked up for those not on highspeed network connections. Seriously, 6 months is way too long between releases, especially when working on linux time.
I'll second that. Slack was my first Linux. I liked the install, but gave up when I couldn't get the kernel to work properly. I shelved it for a couple months. It was only after a lucky guess that I got it to work, and now I feel silly because I'd just installed the wrong kernel. I needed SCSI, somehow I'd installed the IDE kernel. Which goes to show that Slackware doesn't make everything obvious. But it was worth it. I'd never learned so much from or had so much fun with a piece of software. I either didn't realize I could or was too lazy to do all the work to (probably the latter) upgrade to ELF, so I picked up Slackware 3.3. Then 3.2, cause the 3.3 was from Linuxmall and wasn't official. (I wanted the archive CDs...). And then I heard about SuSE and I thought, gee, maybe wussy distributions aren't so bad after all. Turned out they were. Hated it. Went back to Slack. Tried SuSE again later. Still hated it. Went back to Slack. Third time was a charm though, and I've been running SuSE pretty much ever since. Nevertheless, I've never had experience with a distribution working perfectly on install (except Slackware of course) or at least some things weren't immediately obvious. I know what I'm doing, though, and it's because of Slackware. OK, I may not use ed. And to be honest, I never even took the time out to figure out sed. Or even perl (although I've tried... I just never took ENOUGH time out...). And I never really needed to use complicated regular expressions with grep, so I use regexps inexpertly. I'm not a vi expert, though it's still my favourite editor. And I never even tried hacking my kernel. Nevertheless, I thank Slackware for what I do know. I wouldn't know half of what I do now if I hadn't turned my nose down at RedHat. I'd heard it was easy to install, and popular. So naturally it wasn't even an option. :-) Praise Slackware.
childhood - this was a system were you had to really "learn" Linux, only having at hand your favourite text-editor and the config-files - atleast this is how I remember it..
Now I am running Mandrake, and happy with that, especially with easy to use packagemanager (rpm) and neat config-scripts...
And about just suddenly taking the jolt to version 7 is something to be expected from this lot, remember they did (or do have) a small icon of "Bob" on the cover of their CD
Anyway, it's a pitty the whole ordeal with glibc took too much time - I think it kinda died with struggling with libc.
=-kiOwA
=-kiOwA-> EOF
My first Linux install was Slack (don't remember the number now) but the kernel was a 0.99.x release... Mind you I'm a bit of a gearhead so I always liked the down-and-dirty that slack provides. RPMs I loathe with a severity unseen by mere mortals. Never tried Debian's package tools but I've heard great things of them.
:-) However, that experience really gave me a good understanding of shared libs and how things acutally were put together on a unix-style system.
... fun? Just last night I fought for five hours installing PAM on Slack 4.0. does anyone know where libpwdb is maintained anymore? There are no active sites! I think that this down-and-dirty nails-in-the-metal experience that Slack is centered around is a very good thing.
I personally did the great a-out to ELF conversion one night way back when... and it was painful. Utterly totally horrendously painful. I was pretty much still a Linux newbie and it showed in #linux that evening
I installed libc6 on a slack3.4 box too, but that wasn't as
If you're real used to Redhat, stick with it. In fact, that's what I advocate to anyone "looking at" Linux... if you're just there to get a feel for it, go with Redhat, as it's pretty user-friendly and support is everywhere. Personally I can't stand it and won't be of much help if you run into trouble with those blasted RPMs but it's good for the newbie.
Every system I set up is Slack. 3.6 and now 4.0. I'll take a look at 7 but really people, it's only a distro... if you don't like one, go to another. I've found what I like and will probably stick with it as long as it's around.
"Ahh its time for the man who's been using Slackware since 3.1 just came out to step up" Uhh..I was running slackware when you were swimming in your daddy's nuts.
http://www.subgenius.org
Hrm. I tried compiling glibc2.0-something. :)
It curled up and died.
Same for 2.1
Same results for 2.1
Ditto for 2.1.1
See a trend here?
It's arguable that I dunno enough to do this right. Or maybe the machine I was on wasn't quite up to it, tho it was a 486 so it -should- have been. But anyway, that's why I didn't just upgrade from source. If someone cares to share with me the trick to getting glibc2 to compile right, I'd be happy 'cause then I can consider the time I spent trying it an educational experience. =)
Sounds more to me that they wanted to compete with Red Had 6.x by making the version sound newer and greater.
Take this as a flame if you will, seems obvious to me though. (The explanation of the new version seems totally inadequate and ridiculous).
Ahh its time for the man who's been using Slackware since 3.1 just came out to step up.
.1, not by .5, which makes a big difference.
First of all, no, there are no 5.0 or 6.0 versions, once I saw them go above 5.0, I knew they were trying to play catch-up, but after all, if they had gone the way of Red Hat or SuSE or [Distributor here] then they would be by, oh, 12.0, or 13.0 by now? Because they only upped their numbers by
Next, a lot of people have many misconceptions about Slackware (and Linux, too) and what it's like and what it's all about. But, what can you do? The Red Hat and Mandrake scene is for those who just don't want to try hard enough to get something kick-ass and working on their own. However, things have changed now. It is much easier to install Slackware and get it up and running than it was with earlier versions. I really like the way things are going with this new 7.0 version.
They have more than DOUBLED the size of Slackware! They added a WHOLE lot of stuff, not to mention BETTER stuff. This includes but is not limited to Gnome with all the GTK stuff, as well newer and better versions of the Linux kernel, XFree86, and KDE. They are doing really good to keep up with the new stuff now, and it was about time.
Packaging system? Hah! I have something to say here. As soon as I got Slackware 6.3.0 beta on my hard drive, I tried to install a bunch of RPM packages, and all of them worked! From the smallest tiny utilities to even the RealPlayer G2 alpha, everything I have tried has gone smooth and flawlessly (I had to make some mods, like download the RPM packages of RPM, BZIP2, and GnoRPM as well as make a link to ncurses 5 as ncurses 4, etc...)
I also like the kernel coming with all (or most at least) modules compiled, so that its easy to just go from there. This new Slackware is glorious, and it marks a real change in Slackware as a whole. It sais "WE ARE STILL THE BEST!!!"
I am going to write a lot more about Slackware for linuxnewbie.com soon, including a Slackware 7.0 review, a comparison of exising Linux distros, and I'm also going to have a list of RPMs which work under Slackware (with enough work, we'll get every RPM to work under Slackware perfectly).
That's it.
linuxnewbie.com
--nodeps => No dependancy checking.
--force => Force the installation/removal.
I use Red Hat, after starting with Slackware,
but I still have to force RPM to install some packages, after its messed up..
Steve
Whatever happened to slackware 5.0 and 6.0?
Did I blink and miss them?
Good god, but slack was my first attempt at a Linux install. What an absolute nightmare. Is it valid to still be a bit gunshy about retying something that caused me severe emotional distress? I am real used to the Mandrake/Redhat way of doing things. Might be a good idea to broaden my experience though, and try some new flavors.
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither. " Ben Franklin
Say what you will about Volkerding, but at least he's man enough (unlike all the Slack whores I've encountered who were babbling about how great this new version will be) to admit that the new numbering is purely a marketing gimmick.
Kudos to you, Pat!
Here's what Patrick Volkerding said about it in the slackware.com forum:
;), we would be on Slackware 47 by now. (it would
:)
;)
-----------------------------------------------
I've stayed out of this for now, but I do think I should
lend a little justification to the version number thing.
First off, I think I forgot to count some time ago. If I'd
started on 6.0 and made every release a major version (I
think that's how Linux releases are made these days,
right?
actually be in the 20s somewhere if we'd gone 1, 2, 3...)
I think it's clear that some other distributions inflated
their version numbers for marketing purposes, and I've had
to field (way too many times) the question "why isn't
yours 6.x" or worse "when will you upgrade to Linux 6.0"
which really drives home the effectiveness of this simple
trick. With the move to glibc and nearly everyone else
using 6.x now, it made sense to go to at least 6.0, just
to make it clear to people who don't know anything about
Linux that Slackware's libraries, compilers, and other
stuff are not 3 major versions behind. I thought they'd
all be using 7.0 by now, but no matter. We're at least
"one better", right?
Sorry if I haven't been enough of a purist about this. I
promise I won't inflate the version number again (unless
everyone else does again
Pat
------------------------------------------------
--
All Glory To The Hypnotoad!
I think you're quite confused.
While glibc2.1 (devel version of glibc2) has been out for some time, and you can use it with slackware, as with any other distribution, the rest of the support binaries (such as bash) in slackware have been linked and compiled to libc5, until this slackware 7 beta.
Again, you're confusing glibc2.1 "beta" with Slackware 7 beta.
-- iCEBaLM
Maybe, maybe not.
He could be talking about the earlier glibc2.1 betas of Slackware. They didn't skip 5 or 6, it's just taken them a really long time to figure out how to use glibc apparently.
I have been a faithful Slackware user from my very first Linux installation, but I've been disappointed that it has always used libc and not glibc (for programming reasons). I have tried to install the packages along with it for glibc support but that only brought problems (the sort of which I don't remember any more). I didn't even bother to upgrade to Slack 4.0 just to get kernel 2.2.x, but now that this problem is changing, I'll be sure to switch first thing.
;)
The only bothering thing is 2.4 hopefully coming out before the end of the year...
Thanks, Patrick!
I doubt, therefore I may be.
Is there and FTP where I can download it from?
I use slackware, and have been using a glibc2.1 beta for quite some time now. On the abouts of 3 months. This new beta isn't that big of news, 'specially since the beta I've got works perfect and I have never had a problem. I figure this new beta is better, though. It has to be, the version went up :)
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
I missed 5 and 6 where were those release number, why the jump to 7? LAst I heard, was 4, and that is what they have at there web site what gives?
Only 'flamers' flame!
I just keep all the stuff I do in a seperate directory. Then I can just tar it up and install a new slackware version.... I did spend a lot of time upgrading my 4.0 version to glibc2. Unfortunately my hard drive recently, so I guess it is time to upgrade to version 7. I've been thinking recently it would be cool to do something like the freebsd 'make world' with slackware. I think it would be easier with slackware then with any other distro... nathan vane0026@tc.umn.edu
Is there a compelling reason to run Slackware these days? Since the slackware glibc2.1-based release is supposedly near, they are at least faster than the snail-like pace of Debian, but it's hard to imagine them ever being more up to date than Red Hat.
I'd just like to hear from Slackware users about the install experience, how easy it is to upgrade, that sort of thing.
--Last Exit To Babylon
Slack was a great distribution to learn on, I remember the fun I had upgrading 3.4 to glibc (and consequently reinstalling 3.4, and upgrading again. The 2nd time i managed to not fuck it up).. but I've learned, I've prospered, and nowdays i simply don't have the time to do all of that stuff by hand. apt-get dist-upgrade has made me incredibly lazy, as well as incredibly efficient. I remember not being able to do a ton of things when I had 3.6, that really pissed me off (things like running mozilla, compiling xmms, and compiling a kernel (?!) on my laptop). Ah well, those days are long gone, I'm quite happy w/ debian. I still think every new linux user should be *required* to run slackware for at least a year, though, so they actually LEARN something.
-dilinger (who's been up for over 24 hours now)
Alright, Slack doesn't come up on /. very often, but...am I the only one who thinks it'd be excruciatingly cool to have a Dobbshead logo for Slack posts? I was so disappointed by the generic tux logo on this one...
--
"HORSE."
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
OK, that's a good reason not to use Slackware, but there are many others.
You know, it's a myth that the other distributions don't let you reach in and tinker with things. It's still allowed; it's just not always necessary.
--
Xenu loves you!
It's not so bizarre they they all skipped version numbers, but the choice of 7 is strange.
i doubt every beta release will be announced everytime on /., its just that they want to inform the masses that changes are happening with slack, and not to give up all hope, and when its all said and done, itll be slack 7.
----------
Have FreeBSD questions?
----------
Have FreeBSD questions?
http://balambiris.ne.mediaone.net
hmmm freebsd != big corporations. what the hell are you talking about?
----------
Have FreeBSD questions?
----------
Have FreeBSD questions?
http://balambiris.ne.mediaone.net
Also I'm not sure how the newest (2.1.2) glibc reacts to gcc 2.7.x or 2.8.x, I've only tried it with egcs 1.1.x and now gcc 2.95.x
I think egcs was the only thing of importance i upgraded when changing to glibc2 from slack 3.4. You don't want to upgrade too much stuff, because after you install glibc2.1 you're going to want to recompile everything under it.
ftp://ftp.linuxberg.com/pub/distributions/Slackwar e/slackware-current/
--
All Glory To The Hypnotoad!
Remember Visual J++ 1.x? Well it's next version was VJ++ 6
I think half the reason for posting the story was to keep people up to date with where the version numbers are now... I know I had to re-read the paragraph to make sure I read it right. I even blinked a few times :)
"Version 7?? Say *what*?"
Ah well. If you're going to accelerate your version numbering, do it properly :)
Hmmm. Then you'd get the situation that they have with computer magazines now where the November issue comes out at the end of September because they don't want to appear out-of-date ... basically the version number padding is here to stay however abominable we think it is. (I'm tempted to download Slackware 7, burn it to CD and label the CD "Slackware 5").
-- Arm yourself when the Frog God smiles.
I would like to see the distributions move to a year/release versioning system instead of the current point incremental version that they are all using now. So RedHat 6.1 would be RedHat 99R2, SuSE 6.2 would be SuSE 99R3 (or is it 2?), Caldera OpenLinux 2.3 would be Caldera OpenLinux 99R2, etc... At least it would be easier to pinpoint when a given release was made and would help eliminate the current versioning problems. Of course, distributions could tarnish this scheme by slightly post-dating their version numbers a bit too...
The SlackBuild script can do it.
:)
Takes a _long_ time though
It isn't quite FreeBSD's make world, but it a hell of a lot closer to it than anything any other Linux distribution has.
too bad this comes just a little too late... i switched to BSD. i guess patrick is just one man, he really can't do as much as em "big coorporations" these days.
I've noticed a bunch of ppl saying how they started with like 3.0 and now at 4.0 or somewhat and just wondered why? I mean i started on 3.2, i'm still at 3.2, but its all glibc now with alot of upgrades from source.
Just wondering, because slackware doesn't really lend itself easily to upgrades, why restart from scratch? Doesn't it take alot of time to get it back to the way it was? I know mine would.