Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

64-Bit Slackware Is Alive

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the needs-a-really-good-version-number dept.

Operating Systems 164

t0mg writes with this news from the top of Slackware.org "from the Slackware64-current changelog: [tap tap tap]... Is this thing on? ;-) Ready or not, Slackware has now gone 64-bit with an official x86_64 port being maintained in-sync with the regular x86 -current branch. DVDs will be available for purchase from the Slackware store when Slackware 13.0 is released. Many thanks go out to the Slackware team for their help with this branch and a special thank you to Eric Hameleers who did the real heavy lifting re-compiling everything for this architecture, testing, re-testing, and staying in-sync with -current. We've been developing and testing Slackware64 for quite a while. Most of the team is already using Slackware64 on their personal machines, and things are working well enough that it is time to let the community check our work. We'd like to thank the unofficial 64 bit projects for taking up the slack for us for so long so that we could take our time getting everything just right. Without those alternatives, we would have been pressured to get things out before they were really ready."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Glad to here. (0)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#28028901)

Although I haven't use slackware in years.
But it is great when you have servers up to your ears.

Re:Glad to here. (2, Funny)

IAR80 (598046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28028979)

First distro I ever used. And I kept using it until 2002. It warped me for good on the BSD file layout. Now I can only use Gentoo because of that. :)

Re:Glad to here. (3, Insightful)

TheSovereign (1317091) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029357)

Also my first distro, ill never leave as long as its maintained! LONG LIVE BOB!

Re:Glad to here. (1)

laddy (159448) | more than 5 years ago | (#28030089)

First distro for me too, and still using it.

Re:Glad to here. (1)

Cutie Pi (588366) | more than 5 years ago | (#28030657)

Are you talking about Microsoft BOB? That was my first distro too. I wonder when MS will be coming out with a 64-bit version. :)

Re:Glad to here. (3, Interesting)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029069)

But it is great when you have servers up to your ears.

Slackware is a beautiful server distro, but I used to use it as my primary desktop distro until comparatively recently. The only reason why I stopped was because of a long hiatus in the maintenance of the Dropline Gnome distribution. I just don't have time to build all that stuff myself, and it used to be so good. (And no, Gentoo just does not fill that gap.) Now I am mostly using Arch Linux [archlinux.org] which is similar in the important ways to Slackware (sweet!) but with the advantage of more current package builds.

+1 on Arch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28029597)

I switched to gentoo on the desktop in 2004 for 64 bit support and it did fill the gap for me. The problem with gentoo is that the ebuilds have started to become increasingly dependency heavy. When a dependency is not absolutely required and has not been specified by me it shouldn't be built. That was the point where I decided I may as well go back to a binary based distro.

Recently I switched my servers from Slackware to Arch and my desktops/laptop from gentoo to arch. PKGBUILD's are trivial to write and maintain and the rolling release cycle means the end of the yearly system backup, reinstall, reconfigure procedure. Arch isn't a perfect distro but it is by far the best I've found.

Re:+1 on Arch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28029775)

Umm... if your ebuilds have too many dependencies, maybe you should consider turning off USE flags you really aren't using? Regardless, the dependencies will be less than by using a binary distro so I'm not sure what your point is.

Re:+1 on Arch (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28031795)

Umm... if your ebuilds have too many dependencies, maybe you should consider turning off USE flags you really aren't using?

I wasn't particularly clear, but these were cases where the ebuild wasn't checking for USE flags before enabling an optional feature at configure time. Inkscape and numpy was one example, one where I began building inkscape manually. Yeah, I'm stubborn but I did things this way for years when I was a slackware user. Speaking of which, when I first started using gentoo it was perfectly simple to set up a system without PAM, it became so much jumping through hoops that I eventually gave in. Long live choice eh?

Regardless, the dependencies will be less than by using a binary distro so I'm not sure what your point is.

That's the idea isn't it, that the user can prevent optional stuff from being fetched and built? If ebuilds are not going to let me keep dependency bloat to a minimum, why then would I continue to use gentoo? There's little to gain from compiler flags on my first generation AMD64 boxes; Possibly on my newer intel machines but it's not going to make a huge difference. The Arch ports style tree (abs) is perfectly usable, PKGBUILD's are much easier to write than ebuilds and (although I initially found it difficult after using emerge for so long) pacman is a pleasure to use. That was my point ;)

Slackware was a great distro and retains it's place in heart if not on my machines, I strongly considered going back to Slackware before I found Arch. Gentoo: mask or unmask this, unmerge that to resolve a packaging conflict, run revdep-rebuild, no USE flags to disable stuff I don't want or need, perform a dance with a rubber chicken while you recompile half your system, eselect this, eselect that... I'm not missing Gentoo at all although it'd still be my personal preference over debian and RH based distros.

Re:+1 on Arch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28029997)

I switched from Slackware to Arch, too. pacman makes life much easier. Though Slackware still has a special place in my heart. It's good to see it still moving along. I shall download 13 x64 when it's released and find a use for it.

Slackware and Arch are by far my favorite distros.

Wow Slack is still around? (1, Funny)

Lookin4Trouble (1112649) | more than 5 years ago | (#28028909)

I guess some folk like to stick with the first version of anything they ever try... kinda like the Amiga crowd?

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (2, Funny)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#28028981)

You're not just lookin' - you've found it.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (3, Insightful)

IAR80 (598046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029001)

If you want a linux engineer to fix things up for you pick a Slackware user not an Ubuntu one.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (3, Informative)

hubert.lepicki (1119397) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029171)

Yeah, unless it's Ubuntu which needs fixing. Slackware is being very conservative, and it's core system hasn't changed a lot in recent years - which is much different from Ubuntu or Fedora. Things like booting process, sound subsystem or package management are totally different now.

I loved slackware but got sick and tired of compiling everything myself... and switched to gentoo where ebuilds were. Then switched to OpenSuse... and finally I am Ubuntu user, quite happy one (not too but still).

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (2, Insightful)

IAR80 (598046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029223)

From Gentoo to Suse! Ouch. My path was Slackware -> FreeBSD -> Gentoo and never got tired of compiling. Such is Unix.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

anarchyboy (720565) | more than 5 years ago | (#28031593)

Hmm maybe I should have tried Gentoo, I tried slackware as my first linux experince since

a)I could download it and have it on floppy.

b)There was some option to install it ontop of the MS-DOS file system which was good since it wasn't my computer.

I did enjoy recompling my kernel etc but could never get it to work with the winmodem the computer had. It was great except for no internet access which meant booting to windows, downloading something/searching for help with a bug writing it down then rebooting in slackware. When I got my own PC I went to FreeBSD which I used as a file server and other functions at home for a while, I had no need for linux or unix for a while after that and now I've started using Ubuntu for my coding and on a cluster for work at Uni and as a desktop OS at home. I do still feel some attachement to slackware still though since it really cemented my love with computing if only because it was fun trying to fix it when it went wrong.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

neurovish (315867) | more than 5 years ago | (#28031639)

I gave opensuse a shot since I used sles a lot at work...it was quite I relief when I went back to gentoo...

Slackware -> LFS -> Slackware -> Gentoo -> OpenSuSE -> Gentoo/Fedora (moved from SLES to RHEL at work).

The brief stint with LFS was just pure masochism on my part really.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (2, Insightful)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029261)

I loved slackware but got sick and tired of compiling everything myself...

Ah, but you're missing the fun. The whole point is that Slackware is perfect for people who like compiling their own software. It just gives them a world to stand on while they do so.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

FreonTrip (694097) | more than 5 years ago | (#28030059)

I dunno about that. My experience with Slackware has been diverse enough that my Ubuntu-using friends usually call me first when they have a problem. It definitely teaches you how to read the documentation...

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

siyavash (677724) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033411)

Why won't you just go over to Windows and get over with it? :) Seriously, I'm a Windows fan and love good technical stuff but if you dislike compiling stuff, I don't see a point of sticking to Linux.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (4, Insightful)

joib (70841) | more than 5 years ago | (#28030213)

Really?

Putting my sysadmin cap on, the first thing that comes to mind when seeing a Slackware, or for that matter Gentoo, box is "Oh God no, a tweaker".

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

Mozk (844858) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032955)

The first thing that comes to mind when reading "Oh God no, a tweaker" is "What does methamphetamine [wiktionary.org] have to do with Gentoo?"

But on second thought, I suppose it probably has a lot to do with it.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032177)

If you want a linux engineer to fix things up for you pick a Slackware user not an Ubuntu one.

Yea, like the guy who went to fix my mother's computer (she uses fedora5, I'm serious) and replaced a kernel I took some time to tune with some archlinux he had on hand and screwed her soundcard (AND REMOVED MY KERNEL AND CONFIG FILES). As fedora kills their yum repos for older versions, I spent a whole afternoon trying to find some Fedora 5 repo somewhere around...

By the way, the problem was a loose cable.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (3, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033451)

"When you know Slack', you know Linux."

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (2, Insightful)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029035)

First linux I tried was Fedora. Second was Slackware. I never went back.

Slackware is for two kinds of people: those allergic to rebooting, and those who like to play with their operating system. I learned more about Slackware in the first two days than I knew about computers from the previous 17 years of my life at the time.

As it has always been said: If you use Red Hat, you learn Red Hat. If you use Ubuntu, you learn Ubuntu. If you use Slackware, you learn linux.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

IAR80 (598046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029093)

I found in 2004 a slackware 3.6 mail server which I instaled back in 1998. It hasn't been rebooted since. Almost 6 years uptime and over the 2000 day mark.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

IAR80 (598046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029113)

Yep! Best learning distro ever. Actualy the first linux distro.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029405)

No it wasn't. Slackware is the longest surviving distro, but at least two came before it, SLS and Yggdrasil. Slackware grew out of SLS if memory serves.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

IAR80 (598046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029575)

Correct. MCC Interim Linux was the first linux distro.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

Minupla (62455) | more than 5 years ago | (#28030427)

That's how I remember it. SLS was my first distro. Linux kernel .96a IIRC. Rebuilt that damned box so many times...

Min

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

RockWolf (806901) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033535)

Linux kernel .96a

Righto, gramps, I'll get off your lawn... No need to wave your cane at me...

/~Rockwolf

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

EkriirkE (1075937) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029203)

I had the reverse. I couldn't go on with slack as I wanted 64bit, and wasn't on AMD arch anymore. So now I'm on fedora on my laptop and in the middle of installing it on my desktop. Maybe now I'll cancel the desktop install and go back to slack for that

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#28031729)

"As it has always been said: If you use Red Hat, you learn Red Hat. If you use Ubuntu, you learn Ubuntu. If you use Slackware, you learn linux."

That's ok. I just want a functional OS. I do not like messing with config files if a simple checkbox works the same way. I'm willing to whatever is neccesairy to make my box run smoothly but if I can do it in an easy, simple way with a GUI-enviroment I won't take the hard way and mess with text-files in bash with vim/emacs/nano/ed/I'msorryIforgotyourtexteditor.

That's why I chose Ubuntu since they care about making my pc easier to use. I've used it from 6.06 onward and the manual text-editing has slowly but steadily been driven to the background to my relief.

In 6.06 I had to manually edit my fstab file to allow writeable ntfs partitions. Now I can simply use the default config supplied with no hassle.

Everybody likes to use his OS for his own reasons. Some people like to learn how it works, some people like to fiddle around and some people like to play minesweeper and stupid internet flash games. All of these people should be able to use one of the different OSes running the linux kernel.

Sure, use Slackware, use Fedora, use SuSe, use Ubuntu. Let all people choose the version they want for their personal reasons.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#28031791)

I just want a functional OS. I do not like messing with config files if a simple checkbox works the same way.

That's pretty much his point. When a "simple checkbox" doesn't work, you need someone who knows how this stuff works.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032441)

I'm not advocating Slackware for everyone. I'm not knocking Ubuntu (or even Red Hat). But if you like playing with your operating system, and want to really understand how all the parts fit together Slackware is THE choice because it forces you to do that. This is by design, it isn't meant for luddite grandmothers. It's not for everyone.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (3, Insightful)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029273)

Your point appears to imply that Slackware is somehow archaic. Why is that? It cannot be the kernel or the applications as these are as up to date as any other.

If the lack of a GUI installer or package dependency management is the basis for your criticism then that's really a reflection on your particular skill set, not on Slackware.

There are many fine Linux distributions out there (and BSD's too). The more of these you are comfortable using the more effective you are when choosing a platform for your particular needs at any given time.

]{

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029985)

If the lack of a GUI installer or package dependency management

Not being funny but, what exactly DOES it do then?

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

csartanis (863147) | more than 5 years ago | (#28031083)

Everything the others do?

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28031947)

nothing.

slack just is.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

bol (152634) | more than 5 years ago | (#28031119)

Despite the fact that Slackware was my favorite distribution I stopped using Slackware as soon as their packaging system became a hindrance. Combined with the lack of PAM it pretty much seals Slackware's fate as only a hobbyist only distribution.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032795)

I went to another Linux specifically to get package management. Unfortunately I went to Redhat. But eventually I went to Debian, and now I'm a Debian and Ubuntu user, and now I make my own debs, and I am much much happier this way thank you. (Not to mention that Ubuntu makes it easy to put them up on my PPA, and let someone else host them for free. Thanks, Ubuntu. You have provided the community that Linux distributions have been missing.)

Slackware is dead simple and I recommend it to anyone trying to understand Linux that is overwhelmed by Gentoo. But once you understand Linux, you will likely feel the need for something more complex. That's not necessarily true, either; lots of people use home-rolled systems.

Package System? (1)

Crizp (216129) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033013)

Package system? Which package system? .tar.bz2?

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

japer (87553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033433)

I had previously used slack since 92, but gave up on it in release 12, where for some insane reason they decided to install a kernel you were not supposed to actually use. WTF? That coupled with the lack of a forum or mailing list made it more trouble that it was worth.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029395)

Unfortunately Soft Landing and Yggdrasil aren't around these days.

Re:Wow Slack is still around? (1)

IAR80 (598046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029619)

SLS was not arround that long and it was rather buggy. Actualy both Debian and Slackware got born because their creators got fedup with SLS.

64bit only DVD's? (3, Funny)

0racle (667029) | more than 5 years ago | (#28028933)

I wonder if it's too much to ask that the DVD have both i386 and x86_64 on them. I also wonder if they'll support upgrading from i386 to x86_64. I wonder when 13 will be released.

I wonder a lot of things really.

Re:64bit only DVD's? (1)

isama (1537121) | more than 5 years ago | (#28028987)

keep on wondering, it makes life worth living!
i don't really like slack, but i like the "Want to get everything right" attitude!

Go slack!

Re:64bit only DVD's? (1)

IAR80 (598046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029039)

First one I installed it was 40 something floppy drives and it took me quite a few hours. That was back in 93. Nowadays you install everything off a usb stick in minutes. Sort of spoils the whole adventure.

Re:64bit only DVD's? (1)

sheph (955019) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029215)

An array of 40 floppy drives? Now that would be quite a sight. Got any pics?

/ducks

Re:64bit only DVD's? (1)

IAR80 (598046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029301)

No digital cameras then. :) I remember it was a shopping bag full of them. Unfortunatelly not the most reliable medium. I still have vivid memories from the strugle.

Re:64bit only DVD's? (1)

EkriirkE (1075937) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029369)

Not 40, but...
5 FDD Array [8k.com]

Re:64bit only DVD's? (1)

mindcorrosive (1524455) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029133)

1. Slack 12 was on 6 CDs, kitchen sink included, or a single DVD. How do you propose they'll squeeze basically twice the content on the same media?

2. Slack does not support upgrades even between major versions - the procedure is admittedly rather invasive and not for the faint of heart. I had no problems personally, though, but YMMV. In fact, this is the first time I've heard for upgrading from x86 to x86-64 for any OS.

3. It will be released when it's ready, as is the long-standing Slack policy. Slackware cannot afford to be both late and unstable.

Re:64bit only DVD's? (2, Informative)

0racle (667029) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029629)

Point 1 - I don't know how much room is on the DVD, so I can't speak to that. Slackware packages only take up 4 CD's though, the last two are source. A SlackBuild script for i386 and x86_64 could be provided with all the source still fitting on 2 CD's. You would probably then have to add 2 more CD's to hold the rest as I don't believe the rest of disks were full, I believe CD 5 or 6 is just KDE. The current filesystem layout that existed since Slackware 3's floppies might need to be revamped to make more efficient use of space though.

Point 2 - Slackware upgrades are braindead simple and are indeed supported. UPGRADE.TXT [slackware.com] always details how. As upgradepkg is simply remove the old package and install the new one (while being intellegent with config files) I don't see why you couldn't simply remove the old i386 packages and replace them with x86_84 ones. In a perfect world anyway.

Point 3 - I have used Slackware for a bit and I know the release cycle. I can however still wonder.

Re:64bit only DVD's? (1)

ArTourter (991396) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032453)

Point 2 - Slackware upgrades are braindead simple and are indeed supported. UPGRADE.TXT [slackware.com] always details how. As upgradepkg is simply remove the old package and install the new one (while being intellegent with config files) I don't see why you couldn't simply remove the old i386 packages and replace them with x86_84 ones. In a perfect world anyway.

True, Slackware updates are fairly simple these days and tools like slackpkg make life even simpler (or more boring depending on your point of view).

However upgrading from a 32bit to a 64bit distro is quite different, especially when the 64bit version is not multilib. As soon as the glibc-solibs package gets upgraded things will stop working (the libs will be 64bit and the leftover binaries such as tar will be 32bit).

Re:64bit only DVD's? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032751)

Obviously the answer is not to remove the 32 bit libraries at all, until it has been established that it is appropriate. Just create a lib64 directory, and a lib32 directory, install all the 64 bit stuff, then change a symlink for /lib. It's crazy to drop the 32 bit libraries, at least the core ones.

Re:64bit only DVD's? (1)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029657)

Shouldn't oracle know beforehand of all things he wants to know?

Re:64bit only DVD's? (1)

uassholes (1179143) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032527)

OpenSolaris DVDs have both as does the HDD install, and automatically boots the kernel appropriate to your hardware.

Slackware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28029043)

...that's the OS my grandpa used it use, isn't it?

Original anouncement (2, Informative)

IAR80 (598046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029145)

Re:Original anouncement (1)

IAR80 (598046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029179)

I used to run that on a 386DX33 with 4MB of RAM. And I was fortunate I had a friend who had to run it on 2MB. Try that nowadays. When I got money for 8MB Xwindows started flying even using Openlook.

Cool (3, Insightful)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029205)

I havn't used Slackware in years, but I owe my knowledge of the nitty-gritty workings on Linux to it. It's a great environment for learning how to compile your own kernel.

Re:Cool (1)

rthille (8526) | more than 5 years ago | (#28030321)

Really? I'm trying to do that for work, and I'm having a hell of a time. Our product is based on RHEL4/5 (depending on version) and I wanted iptables -m random or -m statistic, so I could do some network failure testing... Cue decent into hell.

The 2.6.18 kernel we have in our RHEL5 version has the right iptables in the kernel to support -m statistic, but the iptables RPM at 1.3.5 doesn't have the module, I need 1.3.6. I figure, no problem I'll just grab the newer RPM from somewhere on the net. No such luck, can't find it anywhere. So I grab the source RPM, but it wants 'kernel-source' installed before it'll build. So I grab the SRPM for the kernel, but installing that and building it doesn't provide 'kernel-source' so iptables still won't build... I'm ready to toss it to IT, just requesting a 2-nic fedora box with NIST-Net installed (which also looks like a kernel-compilation nightmare waiting to happen, but that's another story)

On my home NetBSD box, it's all in the one CVS tree, and 'build.sh' with a few options 'just works' (unless of course someone recently broke the build :-)

Re:Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032293)

Really? I'm trying to do that for work, and I'm having a hell of a time. Our product is based on RHEL4/5 (depending on version) and I wanted iptables -m random or -m statistic, so I could do some network failure testing... Cue decent into hell.

The 2.6.18 kernel we have in our RHEL5 version has the right iptables in the kernel to support -m statistic, but the iptables RPM at 1.3.5 doesn't have the module, I need 1.3.6. I figure, no problem I'll just grab the newer RPM from somewhere on the net. No such luck, can't find it anywhere. So I grab the source RPM, but it wants 'kernel-source' installed before it'll build. So I grab the SRPM for the kernel, but installing that and building it doesn't provide 'kernel-source' so iptables still won't build... I'm ready to toss it to IT, just requesting a 2-nic fedora box with NIST-Net installed (which also looks like a kernel-compilation nightmare waiting to happen, but that's another story)

On my home NetBSD box, it's all in the one CVS tree, and 'build.sh' with a few options 'just works' (unless of course someone recently broke the build :-)

If you are trying to build a kernel module, it may be the kernel headers that are missing. Perhaps there is a kernel-headers package. I'm not sure if that is the problem, though.

Re:Cool (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032721)

Compiling the Linux kernel has become more and more arduous over the years. When I got started with Linux (Slackware 2.0) the latest kernel in general use was 1.1.47. Building the kernel then was tricky, but not that bad if you didn't enable too many features at once. The huge increases in complexity since have made it a hell of a lot harder to write a kernel config that will actually compile. Someday we're supposed to get a new config system that handles deps but I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Cool (1)

rthille (8526) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033445)

Finally managed to get it to work:
edit ipfilter.spec to require 'kernel-devel' instead of 'kernel-source'
build the kernel source rpm and symlink /usr/src/linux > /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/...
rpmbuild -bb ipfilter.

The build and symlink step was necessary because the building of the 'libipt_statistic.so' module I wanted (for dropping packets at a random probibility or interval) was conditionally built based on finding a couple of files: $KERNEL_DIR/net/netfilter/xt_statistic.c $KERNEL_DIR/include/linux/netfilter/xt_statistic.h (and KERNEL_DIR was set (by rpmbuild I assume) to /usr/src/linux.

Now I'll find out whether the module panics the box or not :-)

Slackware is Awesome (3, Insightful)

Fantom42 (174630) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029265)

I'm not a Slackware user. It has been many years. I think 2004 was when my server finally stopped running Slack. It was a time thing. I wanted to have the same distro on my desktop and server so I only had to keep track of one way of doin things. That said, I really do like that Slackware is still around. Slackware is basically a story about one guy and his distro. And its nice to know something like that still exists in the Linux world. Its a statement of individualism and simplicity that is sometimes lost in a world of sophisticated integrated products.

And to be honest, the simplicity of Slackware has its definite payouts. It means the system you end up with has a simple and relatively easy to maintain architecture, without much fluff. If you want a machine to do one thing, and do it well... I think Slack is a very excellent choice and still worth considering. Congrats on going 64 bit!

Aww (1)

whoisisis (1225718) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029309)

That's just typical. Slackware, being my primary (and most often only) OS since I began using Linux, didn't fully support my new 64 bit machine.
So I switch to Gentoo (those extra cores had to have a reason..), and when I finally get
settled with Gentoo, Slackware goes 64 bit.

Well enough? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28029417)

Most of the team is already using Slackware64 on their personal machines, and things are working well enough

From personal experience "well enough" for the Slackware folks is far beyond anything others consider "fabulous."

DVD? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28029457)

When did they stop using floppies?

Re:DVD? (4, Funny)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029713)

From the distro notes:

"IMPORTANT: People making their own copies of the CDs for redistribution to colleagues etc. are reminded that cDs can not be made double-sided with a hole punch"

Re:DVD? (1)

not-my-real-name (193518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28030959)

Well, of course. The CD is too tough for the hole punch. If you do press hard enough on the hole punch, you could break the CD.

What you need to do is use a drill. Set low RPM and use low pressure. It may take a while, but you'll get a nice clean hole.

Who cares? (0, Troll)

martas (1439879) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029493)

*no body*

Re:Who cares? (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029521)

retracting accidental pun: "*no body*" meant no message body (slashdot wouldn't let me submit with nothing in the message). it wasn't meant as an answer to the question in the subject. but it did answer it pretty accurately...

Huh? Fred Emmott got SLAMD'd ??? (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029535)

I've been running a 64-bit Slackware port for over a year. SlAMD64 [slamd64.com] latest at 12.2 from February this year. Runs fine.

IIRC it is maintained by Fred Emmott. Why no credit/cooperation??? Lacking expanation, I'm unhappy.

Re:Huh? Fred Emmott got SLAMD'd ??? (2, Insightful)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029807)

Well, he did credit the unofficial ports. If you're unhappy that it wasn't by name, uh, I dunno, deal with it?

As for why no co-operation, you'll have to ask Pat himself for that. He takes fixes all the time by e-mail, and x86-64 support has been in many of the build scripts since even before SLAMD64 started, so everybody who has followed Slackware should have known that this was coming.

Re:Huh? Fred Emmott got SLAMD'd ??? (2, Insightful)

EkriirkE (1075937) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029907)

AMD-only. No (ok, very little) Intel. Kthxbye

Just now? (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029571)

It's getting hard to buy a new machine that ISN'T 64 bit, and Slackware's just now releasing for x86_64? Why does Debian get all the shit for slow release cycles?

Re:Just now? (1)

IAR80 (598046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029639)

Slackware was always famous for slow release cycles and stability as well. As for 64bit distros it is still hard to find a real use for them. At least in my environment.

Re:Just now? (1)

Rantastic (583764) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029813)

As for 64bit distros it is still hard to find a real use for them. At least in my environment.

I don't know what you do in your "environment" but I don't have a single server in the data center with less than 16g of ram and that right there requires a 64bit distro to use effectively.

Re:Just now? (1)

Khue (625846) | more than 5 years ago | (#28030799)

64-bit isn't a mandatory requirement to sport volumes of RAM 16gigs and greater. MS = /PAE w/Enterprise and VMware's ESX 3.5 can support 64 gigs. And just FYI, not everyone works for Cray and Pixar.

Re:Just now? (2, Interesting)

bol (152634) | more than 5 years ago | (#28031315)

The amount of memory an OS or architecture can support is rather meaningless if the maximum amount of addressable memory of a process is still too small. Even with PAE a process can only fit inside of 32bit memory space.

It's incredibly easy these days to get a single process over 3GB of memory allocated, which is the largest process size on a 32bit linux. The only way around that is with hugepages, shared memory or other creative memory assignments.

Try working on data sets larger than your personal address book and it's easy to break the 32bit barrier.

Re:Just now? (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28031377)

PAE only allows 4GB per process, and you take a performance hit (I've heard numbers around 30%) when you do so.

Re:Just now? (1)

Khue (625846) | more than 5 years ago | (#28031479)

That is true, but the context of my point is that you COULD address 16 gigs if needed. That's all. /PAE also needs specific hardware but most server technology these days support it anyway. I think the real point of my comment is that not everyone has a need to address 16 gigs on a single instance server and just because they don't doesn't disqualify their "environment."

Re:Just now? (1)

EkriirkE (1075937) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029879)

For me, 64b for more memory per core and possible speed enhancements w/ 64b functions

Re:Just now? (1)

Steve Baker (3504) | more than 5 years ago | (#28030305)

The unofficial 64bit ports have been out for years now and released fairly quickly with slackware releases, thus there was much less incentive for Pat to place much effort towards supporting 64 bit himself. I myself have been using slamd64 since slackware 10.1 which was released in 2005 and never minded the couple month delay between slackware and slamd releases. An official port will be nice though.

Re:Just now? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032691)

EVERYONE is falling on their ass about 64 bit platforms. I have a winmodem supported under 32 bit linux but not 64, google gears has been out for HOW long now with no 64 bit release, etc etc. I've even run into 3D java programs with 32 bit linux support but no 64 bit. This is seriously pathetic because if you want a single process to have more than 3GB on most systems, or for that matter to have the full performance of your system (some benchmarks show a 10% improvement in running 64 bit apps on a 64 bit platform, overall, as compared to running it in 32 bit mode) you need to run 64 bit linux. Hell, Wine vm86 doesn't work on 64 bit linux. I thought that these processors would flip back and forth? At least, that's what AMD promised when announcing Hammer in the first place.

alive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28029585)

I didn't know that slackware is still alive.

My first distro... (1)

downix (84795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28029753)

I rememember my first distro, Slackware 3.0. The fustrations, the joys, ah, the memories. When 13 ships with 64-bit support, I'll have to take a look.

Is it still for geeks only? (1)

Artem Tashkinov (764309) | more than 5 years ago | (#28030275)

Last time I used (five years ago) Slackware it had no dependencies tracking, no automatic updates or update manager, it lacked any utilities to automatically set up network interfaces and used LILO. Is it better now? ;)

The real question is, what's the target audience of Slackware? People who have no active social life and prefer computers to chicks?

Re:Is it still for geeks only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032037)

Move along little boy back to your Windows or Ubuntu box and let the real men use a real OS.

Re:Is it still for geeks only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032221)

Last time I used (five years ago) Slackware it had no dependencies tracking, no automatic updates or update manager, it lacked any utilities to automatically set up network interfaces and used LILO. Is it better now? ;)

I've never had a problem with it. Then again, if you're one of the amateurs who doesn't pay attention to what he's installing I can see that it would be an issue.

The real question is, what's the target audience of Slackware?

People who value stability and conciseness. I use a katana, kid. You'd best stick with the mace.

People who have no active social life and prefer computers to chicks?

The time from DVD install reboot till full configuration and production ready is between 12 and 20 minutes for me.

That's services configured, system locked down, extraneous daemons disabled, etc. Call me when you're finished masturbating with your Ubuntu in the corner. You shouldn't even be playing with that nasty little thing!

Re:Is it still for geeks only? (1)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032471)

The real question is, what's the target audience of Slackware? People who have no active social life and prefer computers to chicks?

Doesn't it apply to Linux in general?

Hey, doesn't it apply to unix in general?

Re:Is it still for geeks only? (2, Insightful)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033035)

Slackware doesn't exist to hold your hand. Get over yourself.

As for the target audience, it's Pat Volkerding. Slackware exists for him. Anyone else who wants it can have it, but it exists to meet his criteria, not yours.

Five years ago I ran Slackware with Grub, automatic updates, a wireless card, and still got laid. More than I do now in fact. Now I'm using a MacBook.

Volkerding makes Slackware to fit two criteria: 1) Stability. A Slackware system should be able to run for 10 years without rebooting. Fantastic server system. 2) Security. A Slackware system should have an absolute minimum of bugs and/or holes.

There are no other criteria for a Slackware release.

If it is not for you, then fine. Don't use it. And while you're at it go be petulant twerp somewhere else.

Re:Is it still for geeks only? (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033175)

Last time I used (five years ago) Slackware it had no dependencies tracking, no automatic updates or update manager, it lacked any utilities to automatically set up network interfaces and used LILO. Is it better now? ;)

If you want updates, I recommend the optional slackpkg package (in the extras directory). Edit /etc/slackpkg/mirrors and uncomment your favorite mirror, then run slackpkg update to retrieve the latest package database, and finally run slackpkg upgrade-all to be presented with a list of all available updates. After installation, you'll be asked what to do about configuration files that have changed.

Subscribe to the slackware-security mailing list, and you'll get an e-mail whenever a patch is released. It's safest to wait a day or so before applying them, in case any problems are found.

It still doesn't track dependencies, but as long as you install everything in the L series, you'll probably be fine.

The real question is, what's the target audience of Slackware? People who have no active social life and prefer computers to chicks?

Au contraire - the target audience is people who want to set up their server, configure it the way they like, and then pretty much just leave it alone for three years so they can go out and have a social life without worrying that the server might break.

Poor Fred (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 5 years ago | (#28030929)

He doesn't get credited at www.slackware.com.

Slamd64 [slamd64.com] provided us with a good Slackware port to AMD64 while Pat was busy with IBM/390 ports.

No, I didn't. (5, Insightful)

fred87 (720738) | more than 5 years ago | (#28031465)

Hi,

I'm in the ChangeLog/copyright notices where appropriate. All my published work on Slamd64 is free software; I don't care what's done as long as the licenses are followed.

This is probably a good time to say why I made slamd64 again:

I wanted a 64-bit Slackware. I didn't want to be a distro lead, or anything like that. I like Slackware, and I needed a 64-bit distro. I made it for my own use, and uploaded it in case anyone else wanted to use it. Now there's a 64-bit Slackware, that reason's gone.

Slamd64 will be continued in some form for the foreseeable future, but possibly as something slightly different.

A true Slackware64 is better for you too:

  • Security updates shouldn't lag behind "real" Slackware
  • you won't miss out on nearly two months of security updates (like you are right now) due to tendon issues on my part

Re:No, I didn't. (1)

fred87 (720738) | more than 5 years ago | (#28031483)

Additionally, Slamd64 isn't AMD-only at all. slamd64.com runs on an Athlon64 X2, but it developed on my desktop with a core 2 quad, and my laptop with a core 2 duo.

wow (1)

slugman01 (1488741) | more than 5 years ago | (#28031995)

Best news! This made my day! I cannot wait to upgrade my machines to this! posting on slack 12.2~!

it's one tool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032175)

in the bag of tools. why pick ubuntu over slack or openbsd when you can simply use the right one?

my main desktop is slack.

also when a particular program is not in a repository, or it's the wrong version, or the wrong options are set...I find it easiest to build my custom packages on slack. so a specific use box that will require a custom package or two, slack is easy for me.

when i need quick functional desktop it's ubuntu, like the other day my buddy has a guest room computer that he's tired of getting infected, so I put ubuntu with firefox very prominantly displayed. the guests can surf on that system.

when i need a linux router or especially hardened system i use openbsd.

if i need to use (my admittedly old version of) autocad & photoshop i boot to a windows 2000 partition.

i find most of the comments in this thread bizarre.

if anything, i find the gentooistas the most quixotic. i've used gentoo, it's pretty straight forward, while the users are not. i don't have a niche for it. if i want to compile mostly everything, i'll use freebsd. if i need serious video editing, i'll probably use my roommates macpro.

suse/redhat/mandrake those are all good standard linuxes with package management.

debian would be the king where package management is the hostess with the mostess

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?