Slackware 11 Has Been Released 220
CCFreak2K writes "Slackware 11 has been officially released, just over a year after Slackware 10.2 became available. Software available with Slackware 11 includes KDE 3.5, Mozilla Seamonkey 1.0.5 and X11R6 6.9. As usual, ISOs are available through BitTorrent and FTPs, packages can be synced through FTPs, and you can always buy a copy."
2.4 kernel vs 2.6? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? (Score:5, Informative)
It's more stable, and uses less memory. Slackware however has been 2.6 ready since 9.1. Now they provide not one but two 2.6 kernels, one 2.6.17.x in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's with these rumors that the 2.6 kernel is a memory hog? I'm not seeing it. About 2 months ago, I put Slackware 10.2 on a 166 MHz Pentium (no MXX) with 48M of ram and a 1G hard drive. Made a 75M swap partition. I compiled a kernel from vanilla 2.6.16.4 source. And, for the heck of it, I made the root file system Reiser4. (The Reiser4 patch for that kernel version is now labelled as "don't use", sigh.) And you know what? Running XWindows, with a lightweight window manager (jwm, used in Puppy Li
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd guess because there's no 2.7 branch - 2.6 is open to a lot of experimentation. If I'm looking for stability 2.6 isn't it... It might be functionally stable but as far as dev goes it could be broken at any time.
That said, I install a 2.6 kernel on all my Slack boxes (Which is not a subset of all my boxes now that I think about it...)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From the ChangeLog.txt from Fri Jul 14 18:31:20 CDT 2006
"I'm probably going to leave the bare.i 2.4.32 kernel as the default kernel (or perhaps sata.i?) as it has very good performance and probably better security due to the simpler and longer-tested design."
Glad to hear it (Score:5, Insightful)
Theoretical question (Score:4, Interesting)
What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?
Let's say I've been using Linux for years, and I'm a compulsive downloader and installer. I like trying out different OS's and desktop environments, everything from FreeDOS to CentOS to OpenBSD. I'm familiar enough with different package systems and administration styles to figure out how stuff works, but I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on something tedious and unrewarding.
What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?
Just curious, not trolling.
Re:Theoretical question (Score:5, Informative)
"If you want to know how Linux works, ask a Slackware user."
Re:Theoretical question (Score:5, Informative)
What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?
A learning experience that will stand you in good stead throughout many distributions.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Cue uninformed trolls saying that watching gcc output scrolling doesn't teach you anything....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But, but, don't you need to know how to speed read _before_ you start with Gentoo??
Re: (Score:2)
Slackware doesn't have some automated wrapper that downloads and builds all of the unstable software you could want - you learn to do that on your own. It doesn't have a wrapper that takes care of updating config files -
Re: (Score:2)
Gentoo more so.
While I agree that you learn many things playing with Gentoo, I don't think the skillset necessarily translates to other distributions... which was kinda my point. Besides if you think compiler optimizations (often redundant) and learning to build things from source (always useful) are worthwhile things to learn, people would be better off reading/building LFS than just running automated Gentoo scripts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question (Score:5, Informative)
a more hands-on approach to the unix operating system. slackware isn't flashy, isn't what some would even call 'refined' but it is a stable, well-balanced hands-on distro. it's a little more 'primitive' in some things like package management (*whine* dependencies *whine*) but this also works in your favor when repairing a system (reliance only on tar if absolutely necessary). This is only one thought i came up with right quick..
What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?
rock-solid stable. if you stick with distro-only packages, you can expect to have practically no problems with it. that's part of the reason the package versions are older; they're tested. pat doesn't go latest-n-greatest unless a large demand exists or a security vuln is found. fwiw, i had a slack3 mailserver at my 1st job acting as corporate email router/gateway for our entire company (~150 ppl). except for the kernel and sendmail itself*, the system was vanilla slack. ran like a top.
i've tried a number of distros for short periods (longest non-slack dabbling was gentoo).. but i keep drifting back to it. i'm also a unix admin by day, if that matters. for me, slack is just plain and simple the easiest distro i've dealt with.
-r
* only reason i went more current with sendmail was this being the time ~sendmail8 started adding antispam bits and it was overall easier than going back and trying to hack the stuff in v7.. and i always love dabbling with the -current kernel, whatever it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I have used it for years and everytime I try another distribution they all just annoy me too much.
The only time I ever considered Slackware I took one look at the docs, read the bit about 2.4 kernel and threw the disk in the bin. I think that was Slackware 9.?? but everyone else was just releasing the first 2.6 kernels even then.
Why do they still go 2.4 by default now?
How does Slackware work with modern hardware? (Wifi, SATA, etc)
I am never likely to use Slac
Re: (Score:2)
Why do they still go 2.4 by default now?
Well, you could always just compile your own Kernel. Takes maybe an hour all told.
Or, even better, you can actually RTFM and see that you can easily select a 2.6 kernel during install, but I prefer compiling my own.
How does Slackware work
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How does Slackware work with modern hardware? (Wifi, SATA, etc)
- See the 'compile your own kernel' comment.
I've had no problems whatsoever getting sound, SATA, USB, network, WiFi, Bluetooth working on my Dell Inspirion 6400 (six months old) on my Slackware 10.2. I upgraded to Linux 2.6, followed some clear kernel instructions for my Intel card and moved to -current because it was nearing release anyway and I already happily used -current on another system.
A few extra notes:
- most SATA controllers work with
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Download LiveCD
Burn LiveCD
Boot LiveCD
Run through Wizard.
What's the problem? Gentoo now has an installer [gentoo.org]
Or you can always use Vida Linux which is a binary distro built on Gentoo...
Re: (Score:2)
not really sure i really gel'd with gentoo. it never made it to my primary pc; i played with it a bunch on a secondary box. i did kinda like emerge, i liked the custom-compile twiddle-your-own-settings-to-the-nth-degree thing.. but ultimately i just liked the balance of simplicity/hands-on stuff of slackware. that, and my secondary box (lowly pII-based celery466) had a mild coronary when i asked it to build kde. it was fun to watch the smoke curl out of the c
Re: (Score:2)
I was a long time Gentoo user, but I made the switch. Ubuntu's defaults are, almost without exception, the exact settings that I would have chosen for my own, custom distro. They've got the desktop set up the way that I'd have liked to have had it in Gentoo, but I never had the time to get it just right (despite hours of tinkering and RingTFM).
The handful of things that I don't like take a few minutes to fix after a fresh installation (mostly the ass-tastic color scheme).
If you've never tried
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes 3ish years seem like a lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for wifi, but sata works just fine, at least with 2.6 (I haven't tested the 2.4 beyond having to use it for the install). It worked out of the box, but I had to recompile the kernel anyway (no HIMEM-enabled kernel comes with it.
Sound cards are still the various iteration of the Audigy 2s, more or less (if someone can recommend an alternative that has decent linux drivers, please do. Creative drives me nuts, but the buzz on the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And of course, the admin has the final say, however, Slackware doesn't make it easy to quickly install this-or-that tool on demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Theoretical question (Score:5, Insightful)
It is funny, Using slackware, I always wondered what the big deal was with Gentoo users compiling thier own programs and such, until I tried Ubuntu one day and tried to compile something...
Re:Theoretical question (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is (as far as I know) with Ubuntu (and many other distributions), you can use Linux just like you can use Windows: without knowing much, and without having to learn how to use a command line. It's nice, smooth, and not too hard. But you don't learn that much.
(Please note this is not to criticize Ubuntu, or any other distribution : Ubuntu is a great answer to a tough problem, how to make Linux useful for complete newbies).
With Slackware, you will have to learn . Sure, it will be tough, at first. But what you learn, you will be able to use on any Linux distributions, and on many other UN*Xes. I started with Slackware and I am today managing 10+ Solaris servers, as well as 12+ SuSE server. IMHO, what I learned under Slackware has been invaluable to the job I am doing today. YMMV, of course, but everyone I know who uses Slackware credit it with .
What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?
Slackware is interesting for hard-core Linux Geeks because:
Try Slackware, you may find yourself hooked!
And, again: this is not an attack on such-or-such distribution. I love all distributions, but Slackware always had -- and always will -- have a special place in my heart. And on my computers.
must 'unix' like (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Back in the day you could buy plans and parts to build a radio from Heathkit, and by the time you were
finished with it, you would understand some things about modulation, soldering, and debugging circuits.
Today, you can buy a $5 radio from Wal-Mart that works and sounds just as good as the Heathkit radio.
I for one have learned a lot about linux already, and I don't want to be a sysadmin anymore than I have to in my free time. In one sense I can understand JW
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, just like everyone else.
But, if this is truly your opinion, may I suggest Mac OS X? I believe it is -- so far -- the best answer that is available right now to your requests.
Other than that, the only possibility that I see would be for something like HAL, from "2001: A Space Od
Re: (Score:2)
This is me! That being said, I'm no guru. I've collected a lot of older systems through the years and I have two boxes I l
Re:Theoretical question (Score:5, Insightful)
Use RedHat for a year, and you know RedHat really well.
Use Slackware for a year, and you know Linux really well.
It works, and requires that you learn. It's not a distobution for someone who wants to use a desktop and doesn't care how things work. It's for the person that says "I wonder what that file does".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing much except for few small sets of users. For those who want to understand Unix, it offers a straightforward system. For those who can't burn/boot CDROM, it offers a UMSDOS based subset ZIPslack that can be installed via network or even via floppies (lot of them) from MSDOS on a FAT32 drive.
What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?
It's comprehensible and pret
Re: (Score:2)
Other distributions use GUI tools to configure everything. Sometimes these read their settings from the actual configuration files they are supposed to be editing; sometimes they use a separate database and recreate the config files either on boot, or when exiting. In the first case, you run the risk by manually editing a file that you might make it unparseable to t
Re: (Score:2)
A series of valuble lessons learning the necessity of Reading The Fine Manual.
Apart from that, the time spent learning, tweaking and using slackware gives a good experiential base to go to probably any other Unix-akin and not be completely lost; or at least -having been stuck in slackware and figured out how to get unstuck- provides a good learning background which will put them in a better stead than your wannabe 'click
Re: (Score:2)
In short, Slack is simple and straightforward. It gets out of your way.
Re: (Score:2)
I found that everything I just typed was true, except the hard part. It is so straight forward and on the main slackware site, there is an entire book done in html (which you can buy, I did later on just for reference) on how to go from
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I currently tend to use Ubuntu on the desktop and CentOS on the server.
Where I last worked, I planned to install slackware on our first Linux servers, but it turned out that the hardware we bought wasn't well supported, and I tried several dis
2.4.33? Ob. Futurama quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Slackware isn't Fedora or Gentoo... It's not okay if the system is untested, unstable, buggy, etc. Besides, 2.4 is just the default, you can select a 2.6 kernel just as easily, during the install.
Kernel developers decided not to even try and keep the mainline 2.6 line stable [oreillynet.com]. So, it's no surprise that distros which want ridiculously stable systems would stay with the 2.4 kernel as long as practical.
So why does nobody have the same complaints about Debian?
Die Hard (Score:3, Interesting)
You... you... (Score:2, Insightful)
I use Slack since 1999, no other distribution of Linux
wowed me like Slack did. Nothing comes close, other
distributors try to overload their distros with lot's
of slow and bloated administration-services like YAST2
and so on. But Slackware just runs, and runs and runs...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a slackware user since 1996/97, and I couldn't live without it. I'm a sysadmin and I current have it installed on over 40 production servers. It's terrific.
download mirrors (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the full list of mirrors [slackware.com] from where you can download it!
(Or you can get the torrents [slackware.com])
Torrent clients? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
echo "SOURCE=http://ftp.scarlet.be/pub/linuxpackages/S
slapt-get --update
slapt-get --install ktorrent (assuming you have a functional KDE)
Re: (Score:2)
And there was much rejoicing... (Score:5, Informative)
Just as an aside: Patrick Volkerding is one of the unsung heroes of Open Source. Slackware is after all the oldest Linux distribution still in operation, and it is also one of the most stable and well-managed. And this is quite an achievement, considering it still is a one-man operation, and that Patrick went through some tough times recently, with his health problems and the birth of his cute baby... Hey, I am a dad, too, and I know how tough it is wih a new-born in the house!
So, thanks for everything Patrick! You are "The Man" and Slackware rocks!
And, yes, I am a (very) satisfied Slackware customer. How did you ever guess?
Dropline Gnome (Score:4, Informative)
You may have to wait to use it on Slackware 11, but if you like Ubuntu you will like it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Check out slackware-10.2/patches/ChangeLog.txt at your favorite mirror for timeliness of recent patch releases. Not exactly sure what you mean by "stable version numbers", but the main ChangeLog.txt files are available going back several releases, which will show the history of every package version number. Package upgrades can be done through sla
I've been using Slackware since 3.2 (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a big fan of what I like to call Fire-and-Forget computing. I like to set up a system right the first time, then never have to touch it again (or as little as possible). Slackware has been very good about letting me do exactly that. My firewall/NAT box has been running happily without any unexpected reboots since sometime in 1998. For the most part it was only getting rebooted every time I moved from one dorm room/apartment to the next.
Slackware's also better at running on older hardware than any other distro I've found. I've just tried to get Ubuntu installed on some bare-minimum-specs HP e-PCs, without success, and there didn't appear to be any sort of lowmem option there.
I do miss the base floppy set for installing a minimal working system, done away with somewhere around slack9. I do miss that awesome little booklet that was tucked inside the 4-cd set (the first Linux book I ever read, and the most useful IMHO). I've always disliked the lack of a ftp/wget-based installation option on the stock install disk. And I've never been able to get the slack-build scripts to build new openssl-libs and openssh for me. Those are pretty much the only complaints I've ever had that were slackware-specific.
If you don't like the minimalist attitude of slack, use something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Official 64 bit support? (Score:2)
I was veering toward preferring
Re: (Score:2)
So this is what I did, installed 32-bit slack. Runs like a charm on 64-bit x86-64. Downloaded kernel source and build a 64-bit kernel. Next you can procede to build a 64-bit toolchain (of course keeping slack's 32-bit libs). Finally you can recompile packages that will benefit as 64-bit.
Can you please write up how you did this? I'd love to know. I'm a bit short on time these days to try to figure out how to do it myself. I've been experimenting with Splack on an old Sun Ultra, and I am developing my own b
Will Slackware ever officially port to x86_64? (Score:3, Interesting)
All my current PCs CPUs now use AMD64 instruction sets. I'm motivated to moving them toward more pure AMD64 software. I've owned Athlon 64 CPUs for three years now, and still no wide and mainstream support for AMD64. All the 64-bit options currently are not as mainstream or as polished or conflict free.
I've been experimenting with the unofficial Slamd64 port with modest success. Fred Emmott is really a great champion and I appreciate greatly all his work. Slamd64 still has plenty of rough edges and may only approach, but perhaps not exceed, the smoothness and polish of the official distribution.
In the meantime, I'm experimenting with Slamd64 but also branching to other distros which claim full AMD64 support (xubuntu, SuSE, Gentoo are my current areas of focus) to guage whether they seem more mainstream and have smoother support.
Readers, why do you think there is no "official" effort to bring Slack to AMD64? Do you think this may change?
I know Patrick has commented previously on this. To turn a blind eye to AMD64 seems to me to shortchange the future of the distro. Slack was founded on i386 and has maintained steadfast focus on that architecture, and though AMD64 isn't so greatly different, i386 won't be with us always. What becomes of Slack then?
I would like to see Fred's fine start folded into a greater official port to lift out of the level of just being a curious project and to get the backing of a larger community.
Please share your views.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It must be a funding issue.
It's strange how there's an official IBM S390 port but no AMD64. The IBM ports were done by people from IBM. There are also S390 ports of a couple of other distros (RedHat for one, and maybe SuSE?). IBM's marketeers must be in overdrive.
SPARC and Alpha ports have come and gone over the years, but never had the backing of Sun or DEC/Compaq/HP.
Remember, Pat does most of the work himself and without sufficient motication and resources, can't do everything.
Intel is still selling m
Keep it coming (Score:2)
While I have since moved on to another distro, more or less out of necessity, I'm glad to know that I can always "come home" to Slackware.
2.6 kernel and glibc (Score:2)
why not just include a set of glibc packages to go with? (to use if your not just testing 2.6)
and, maybe, for the 2.6 kernels, not bother with the seperate alsa driver. the one in the kernel wor
This is very good news! (Score:2, Insightful)
I shopped around for distributions. I used Debian, Ubuntu, and Mandriva. Those all l
Re:But how (Score:4, Funny)
Re:But how (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:package manager? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I use Swaret for my package manager, Its cli-only, does dependancies, etc..
swaret
swaret.sourceforge.net/index.php [slashdot.org]
Re:package manager? qtswaret (Score:2)
QTswaret, however, is a very nice FE and almost makes me want to switch to swaret. The thing is, I tend to use the CLI for occassional updates and probably only use an FE 20% of the time. I used to use swaret but am currently more comfortable with slapt-get.
slackpkg is quite useful too for package management.
When I roll my own I use checkinstall (mentioned wrt debian and redhat/fedora in a later post) to create install tarba
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If by decent you mean bloated and riddled with cyclic dependancy verification: then, no it does not.
However, the package management solution that comes with Slackware (and always has) is durable, functional, and flexible. It has versioning information, so you can upgrade by package name. You arent stuck with hunting down un-necessary prerequisites because the author says you need them
Re: (Score:2)
Err... actually... *nudge nudge* Look in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:package manager? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.slackware.com/changelog/ [slackware.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the laughs, you really made my day.
-gca
Re: (Score:2)
Now, I have never used Slackware; it never came my way when I started using Linux, then I got hooked on Gentoo and don't see a reason to look back.
However, I do find your comment a bit... strange. Inflammatory, even.
It may be because you just didn't bother to provide any kind of proof for your claims.
I have never heard anything but words of praise for Slackware (barring the comments on the still-default 2.4 kernel, which is still a very valid option in Gentoo as well), and now you have nothing but derrog
Re: (Score:2)
2 things. 1: Lack of proper package management (want to uninstall that package?). Want those dependencies resolved? Want those packages automaticly updated to get the latest security patches? Tough shit. This is a "hands-on OS" and damned if you'll get any assistance getting work done efficiently.
2: Lack of configuration tools. Want to get things done? Want that thing setup now? Go to your favorite text editor and edit those config files by hand, even though it's utterly brainless work that any decent d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about slapt-get etc? Sounds like package management to me... one of the posters here stated he'd upgraded from 10.2 to 11 without a glitch.
That, really, is a matter of taste.
I like manual configuration; you have to learn where th
Re: (Score:2)
removepkg isn't for uninstalling packages? Man, I've been using it for the wrong thing all these years. Good thing I can still use pkgtool and choose "remove" on the menu there.
What dependencies are those? I suppose every once in awhile it happens, but the instructions for installing those packages tell you what else to install and in what order.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
1. speed it might be possible to get slightly better performance with Gentoo or *insert source distro here* however it also doesn't take days to install.
2. It will run on just about anything. it is nice when I can run the identical base system on my brand new desktop, all the way down to my 486 based linux firewall.
3. A sane design. In slackware you will find everything from a softwa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not as much trolling as a statement of facts, but anyway... See this post [slashdot.org] where I replied to exactly the same.
Take a decent Linux distro, remove any useful tools and strip it down to the binaries (and the binaries only). This is essensially a harddrive image, not a distro.
I fail to see what impressive or useful qualities this removal of tools reaps.
Slackware & Mac OS X (Score:2)
Nice to see someone else who does that. I thought I might be the only one who felt that Slackware and Mac OS X are both transparent and user friendly, each in their own very different way.
Re:Slackware & Mac OS X (Score:2)
P233MMX router/mailserver running Slack
Dual Athlon 2600+ desktop running Slack
1ghz iBook G4 running Tiger
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I am! (Score:2)