I've been using Slackware from pretty early on as well. It's always been my distribution of choice, mostly because I'm not into RPMs and love to compile stuff on my own -- and what better than to have a distribution that FORCES you to compile your own kernel because they don't have your Ethernet driver compiled in by default, or have it available as a loadable module?;-) [By the way, this changed only at Slackware 7.1 where the 3com and other network drivers were insmod available from the initial kernel on the CD]
Damn, I wish I would have known about this release earlier -- I just installed 7.1 on three new servers which are now lacking the glibc-2.2.3.
But back to why I dig Slackware -- every article I've read that compares distributions always pegs Slackware as the one to choose if you don't mind compiling things on your own -- and well, I guess that's me. I also like it because of its consistency. The installation process has remained consistently simple, non-GUI, and I can install faster than any Solaris/Redhat/Mandrake GUI installer.
Long live Slackware. Now its on to tips on upgrading, or is it still recommended to just dust the old installation and install anew? I mean, what are the REAL advantages of upgrading past 1.2.13?:-)
C'mon -- the F15/F18 was designed like in the 60s or 70s. That's still our "current" air combat technology. Stealth bombers were designed and flown decades ago. Don't you guys already think that the g-men already have been cloning people in the deep depths of black ops?
I for one (or two, or three) think that it's been going on -- so hell, I'm with Taco, give me another Neil.. there's work to be done!
Now that was as useful as the classic IRC response, "read the man pages" -- of course, emanting from the brain that didn't know the real answers to begin with.
Well, on the same note, business that use FreeBSD are not necessarily all FreeBSD companies.. a list of 967 commercial firms that use FreeBSD. Some which are ZDNet/Aus, Yahoo!, and Siemens -- who also require mission-critical second-to-second reliable running of their business. One may argue that these are just web-servers; however, with the multitude of transactions that just Yahoo! handles, c'mon -- it's a real mission-critical OS.
I don't see the compelling advantage of SCO that you mention; however, if you really do have a point, please drive it home. I may just use it for my new Linux startup.;-)
We've been taking our "risks" for years on Linux -- just rolling the dice, Russian roulette, really. [sarcasm]
Lord, if they only would have learned that the open-source model of Linux has indeed had quite a predictable evolution: increasing stability (in both operation as an OS and in market position).
Isn't it funny (+sad) listening/reading the stuff that OS companies say about Linux (and other open-source operating systems)? Shouldn't they really should just shut their holes, study the open-source, and learn something?;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I've been using Slackware from pretty early on as well. It's always been my distribution of choice, mostly because I'm not into RPMs and love to compile stuff on my own -- and what better than to have a distribution that FORCES you to compile your own kernel because they don't have your Ethernet driver compiled in by default, or have it available as a loadable module? ;-) [By the way, this changed only at Slackware 7.1 where the 3com and other network drivers were insmod available from the initial kernel on the CD]
Damn, I wish I would have known about this release earlier -- I just installed 7.1 on three new servers which are now lacking the glibc-2.2.3.
But back to why I dig Slackware -- every article I've read that compares distributions always pegs Slackware as the one to choose if you don't mind compiling things on your own -- and well, I guess that's me. I also like it because of its consistency. The installation process has remained consistently simple, non-GUI, and I can install faster than any Solaris/Redhat/Mandrake GUI installer.
Long live Slackware. Now its on to tips on upgrading, or is it still recommended to just dust the old installation and install anew? I mean, what are the REAL advantages of upgrading past 1.2.13? :-)
C'mon -- the F15/F18 was designed like in the 60s or 70s. That's still our "current" air combat technology. Stealth bombers were designed and flown decades ago. Don't you guys already think that the g-men already have been cloning people in the deep depths of black ops?
I for one (or two, or three) think that it's been going on -- so hell, I'm with Taco, give me another Neil.. there's work to be done!
Get Site Search - let us clone your site.
Now that was as useful as the classic IRC response, "read the man pages" -- of course, emanting from the brain that didn't know the real answers to begin with.
Well, on the same note, business that use FreeBSD are not necessarily all FreeBSD companies.. a list of 967 commercial firms that use FreeBSD. Some which are ZDNet/Aus, Yahoo!, and Siemens -- who also require mission-critical second-to-second reliable running of their business. One may argue that these are just web-servers; however, with the multitude of transactions that just Yahoo! handles, c'mon -- it's a real mission-critical OS.
;-)
I don't see the compelling advantage of SCO that you mention; however, if you really do have a point, please drive it home. I may just use it for my new Linux startup.
We've been taking our "risks" for years on Linux -- just rolling the dice, Russian roulette, really. [sarcasm]
;-)
Lord, if they only would have learned that the open-source model of Linux has indeed had quite a predictable evolution: increasing stability (in both operation as an OS and in market position).
Isn't it funny (+sad) listening/reading the stuff that OS companies say about Linux (and other open-source operating systems)? Shouldn't they really should just shut their holes, study the open-source, and learn something?