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!

Pre-Beta Slackware 4.0

CmdrTaco posted more than 15 years ago | from the hammer-on-this dept.

Linux 210

Langston01 writes "According to LinuxToday, a pre-beta of Slackware 4.0 is out. " I remember Slackware. Wow, its been years since I used it. I still need a Debian 2.1 CD. Or a T1.

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

any other platforms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965684)

I asked a Linuxworld and was told that he just got a G3 and a Alpha so ports for those will appear as soon as he gets a chance.

David Lang
dlang@diginsite.com
(AC as I don't want to take the time to login)

8 MB is a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965685)

My X server is using 48 MB of virtual memory,
of which 20 MB is currently resident.

My web browser is using 53 MB of virtual memory,
of which 19 MB is currently resident.

Even my shell takes over a MB, and an xterm
needs about 2 MB. These are partly caused by
our monolithic C library.

FTP.CDROM.COM slashdotted... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965686)

Looks like weve /.ed cdrom.com...

FTP Error

Could not login to FTP server

Sorry, the current limit of 3600 users has been reached.
Please try again in a few minutes.

Most of the files on wcarchive are also available on CDROM. Please
send email to info@cdrom.com or visit our web site for more information.
Online ordering is available at http://www.cdrom.com. You may also
order over the phone by calling us at 1-800-786-9907 (toll-free) or
+1-925-674-0783.
User anonymous access denied.

Slackware - Manly Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965687)

Damn straight Jordy.

Right now (at home, anyway, I have to run Solaris here at work, boo-hoo... uh, I mean, dammit!) I'm running Slackware 3.5, and I think maybe 40 megs out of 500 are from the distro. Basically it's all *hand-rolled*, and I know where every file on the HD sits. All my RH buddies are still trying to figure out how many resource files they need for fvwm! (the correct answer is, of course, 1).

Phil

Slackware - Manly Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965688)

> (the correct answer is, of course, 1)

Or 0, depending on who you ask :)

rob sucks, slashdot sucks, slackware rules,eek eek (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965689)

I don't understand what the big deal about slackware not being glibc2 yet. Most people who harp about this probably don't even know what the differences are. Furthermore between installing linuxthreads, thread-safe xlibs, etc... there's been no program I havn't been able to compile/run (including eMusic, x11amp, mysql, etc..). The only ones i get stuck not being able to run are some precompiled binaries (i.e. my civilization for linux beta ! not even hte slack runtime support would work for this ;( )

-Brian

glibc? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965690)

Does anyone know if 4.0 will be glibc based or lic5 based?

Slackware - Manly Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965691)

Well, it certainly isn't 12, all dependent on each other in a vicious circle, which is the RH answer!

And I really can't understand why ANYONE would use another wm!

Flame on, Garth. Flame on, Wayne.

Phil

I disagree. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965692)

You are looking over the main point though. RedHat and Debian have 1 page where they list all security errors and have links to download fixed rpm and debs of the program. As far as I'm aware of, Slackware doesnt. This tremendously eases the administration process. In addition upgrading software via packages is much simpler than having to recompile every package with ap roblem.

Slackware 4.0...they aren't dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965693)

You mean people still use it? I thought everyone was using current stuff like Debian, Red Hat, or Suse. I didn't think Slackware was still around they had fall so far behind and out of date. Why would anyone switch or use them at this point? Not me. NEXT!

duh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965694)

slackware 4.0 is still based on libc5. duh! i was a loyal slackware user, but i think i'll move to redhat or debian, since libc5 is kinda obsolete...


-Me.

Slackware 4.0...they aren't dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965695)

Oh... You mean this out of date distribution *Points to his Slackware 3.5 CD*

Hold on a sec... (types startx, watches Gnome load) (types netscape &, watches Netscape load localhost/index.html, running Apache)

Hm.. Works fine for me. Mind explaining what's out of date on it?

Probably not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965696)

Slackware is a one person project. The maintainer already has a hard time to keep slackware up to date even on PCs. However, big companies like RedHat or projects like Debian can and already produce Linux distributions for various non i386 computers.

Huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965697)

Show me just one user who had problems with glibc on Debian 2.0 which was released last summer. And don't mention redhat 5.0 glibc nightmares.. it was broken by Definition.

and now my /usr/bin will be a /usr/bin again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965698)

It's good to see the Slackware people out in force. Now i give the Redhat desktops we've been tinkering with a rest and update the boxes that do the heavy lifting.

Slackware 4.0...they aren't dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965699)

it's pretty easy - stability and compability. libc5 has been much more thoroughly tested than _ANY_ libc6. moreover, one can compile things from source.
and another thing? your binary only distros are real pain as for some package u need exactly this and that package etc. - stupid and unnecessary pain. compile the source, luke!

I disagree. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965700)

Yeah I remember how screwed I felt when RedHat got rid of their ftp search. What the hell was up with that! I used that at least 3 times/day to find RPMs and it took me no more than a few seconds to find/grab/install any package I wanted. Now I have to resort to grepping metalab or using one of those glacially slow RPM2HTML sites.

But now they have a google search which appears to be sufficient again. But I'm definitely not an "official RedHat" guy any more.. their boxed sets are way too conservative, and their out-of-the-box window manager setup is so very stale. I've been running Linux-Mandrake for a month or so and I just went to a 2.2.3 kernel -- easy as pie!

Source RPMs are really nice, especially since I have a Qube2 and I can simply rpm --rebuild the stuff from my CD for the mips platform and now it is just like my Intel boxes. Sweet..

Slackware is for people who actually KNOW stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965701)

Slackware is for people who know what they're doing...

If you can't compile a package from the source, you shouldn't be using a free Unix...

X windows question. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965702)

I have been wondering about this too, ever since moving to Linux from my trusty but out of date Amiga. Coming from that environment I was used to being able to run a simple GUI, word processing, non-graphical web browsing, playing games, muddingm etc (and many times all at once) with only 4 megs of RAM on my machine (and the Amiga didn't have virtual mem). X windows certainly isn't as bad as windows but it still requires tons of RAM. I am currently running a happy little machine with 128MB RAM but I still like to keep things as efficient as possible. Anyways, my question is what are the future plans for X (if any) and what is the status of those other projects I have very briefly heard about (Berlin, etc)? What is everyone's thoughts on the future of Un*x GUIs (and not just the window managers either)?

Requirements? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965703)

I use slackware 3.6 on a 386 with 4 megs of ram and two 50megs hds. Everything runs to it's full extent, even apache. I must admit, it is a bit slow.

libc5? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965743)

The system include both libc5 and glibc. most of the utilities are still libc5 compiled, but you can use software designed for either. From what I hear plans are to move to glibc in the next release. (I actully understoof there was to be a 3.7 release with the 2.2 kernel and the 4.0 release would be glibc based, apparently the decision was made to go to 4.0 now)

David Lang
dlang@digisnite.com

Slackware is for Tinkerers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965744)

But I would not run it in a production environment. 1) It lacks real package manager (ok, do slackware packages ever get updated after the distribution has been released or can I find "slackware packages" from freshmeat.net somewehere), 2) 0% support (on Debian I am sure everything is up to date thanks to apt, on redhat there is at least an erratas webpage that lists fixes and updates) 3) It cannot be upgraded without trashing your system (when it is a 30 minute process on other distributions) 4) Never up to date (glibc2 ?) 5) It is a nightmare to maintain compared to other distributions.

If you have lots of time to waste go ahead and use slackware but many people have better things to do instead of trying to figure which programs have security problems and how to upgrade them or how to install new libs ..

In fact if you can't stand rpm based distributions or debian, FreeBSD might even be a better choice ..

Slackware properties (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965745)

1) it has a fairly nice install procedure (I have seen some that are much worse)
2) it has disksets for those people *downloading* it as opposed to those with a cd
3) packages are ordinary gzipped tape archive so they can be tested with say winzip
4) doesn't have dependencies (this is usually a bad thing)

libc5? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1965748)

This distro appears to still be libc5 based (according to comments I saw elsewhere on the Web).

If so, I've really got to wonder why the latest-and-greatest kernel (2.2.3) is being shipped with such antiquated libraries.

Teach an old dog a new trick... (1)

Crow- (35) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965749)

Debian is the most actively maintained, you should give it a try.

Slackware (2)

lars (72) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965750)

I run a severely hacked up version of RedHat 4.2, and if I were starting from scratch again I think I'd use Slackware. Ever since I started using Linux, I have always found it more "natural" to grab the source tarball and compile myself whenever I want to install a new program. This way it's easy to ensure I'm running the latest (or close to the latest) code, and leaves the source sitting ina convenient location so that I can easily hack around with it should I need to. Whenever I've tried to do stuff with RPM's, I've run into failed dependencies, an outdated RPM database, etc. My system is almost fully glibc2 now, and very little remains from that original RH4.2 installation.

I still use a system with 4 MB (2)

Pathwalker (103) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965751)

I have a 386Sx-16 with 4 megs, and an old slackware distribution that I still use quite often for various things. (network analysis, backup nameserver (once), controler for various weird projects...)
You can do a lot in 4 megs, you just can't do it all at once...

any other platforms? (1)

John Kozan (157) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965752)

Is there eventually going to be Slack for other platforms such as alpha and sparc? everyone else is doing that

Makes me kinda nostalgic. (2)

Dr. Crane (178) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965753)

I have to agree. I used Slackware for about 4 years (before that SLS) but I have switched to Debian in the past 18 months and haven't regretted a second of it. I have shared your library upgrade pains; system lockup, no reboot, no rescue disk ... DOH! The moral of the story: always have a rescue disk and don't use ... nah I won't say it :-)

I just built some new systems at work based on Debian 2.1 and got my first taste of apt ... what a piece of cake to keep the system up to date.

apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade

There your system is now right up to date. I did it at home as well; installed apt, and upgraded from Debian 2.0 to Debian 2.1 ... all automatic, no reboots, no problems, just a lot of time (60 MB and a 56k modem don't mix too well).

I haven't installed a Slackware system since the Slack 3.1 days and just took my last one out of operation (thank goodness ... it was so full of holes it was silly). From what I remember you just cannot keep a Slackware system up to date ... perhaps I was missing something. I'd hear about an exploit and try to find an upgraded slack .tgz ... they might be there but in slack 3.4 ... would that work in 3.1 ... do I want to guess, or chance it, on a production web server? Basically it seemed to me that once installed everything on a slack system had to be hand installed/configured and compiled or you'd never be sure things would work. Has slack added any maintenance / package management features??? With 10 servers running Linux who can afford to be compiling and installing by hand?

Slack certainly had it's place - without it where would Linux be today - however it has been far surpassed by many other distributions now ... time to let go!!!

I disagree with the disagreement! (1)

KingKurly (262) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965754)

Glancing at the ChangeLog.txt for the Pre-4.0, this appears to no longer be true. Also now, finger is still enabled by default but it won't allow finger @host. Sysstat and netstat were disabled. Though you are quite correct, having that enabled by default was a very bad thing. :)

Slackware - Manly Linux (1)

Jordy (440) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965755)

Real men use Slackware, eat worms, and like it!

Seriously though, I've always liked Slackware. If it wasn't for a particular project I'm working on having certain dependancies for Debian, I'd move back to Slackware.

Slackware lends itself to the tinkerer more than anyone else. If you like compiling your own packages, don't wanna screw up your fancy smancy dependancy list deal, Slackware is your best friend.

--

Right when I was D/Ling it... (0)

strredwolf (532) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965756)

Dammit, now I got to pull the whole mess again Thursday. GRRRRRrrrrrr At least i won't have to pull a new kernel too.

---

Teach an old dog a new trick... (1)

Eric Green (627) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965757)

Well, I started out with Slackware way back when, and migrated to Red Hat with RH3.0.3 (anybody remember that one?).

Some things to think about:

1) Every config file in Red Hat Linux can be edited by hand if you so desire. It's not like in SuSE Linux, where the config files are auto-generated and you don't touch (you use YAST).

2) Nothing stops you from compiling stuff as .tgz files, just make sure to do "rpm -e" to remove the .rpm version first. Install stuff you compile yourself under /usr/local, just as in Slackware.

3) Today's computers are so fast that it don't matter what your binaries are compiled for :-).

But if you like Slackware, you'd probably like Debian over Red Hat. With Debian, if you want to update a .deb file to be the latest greatest version you download the tarball of the latest greatest version from and then download the spec file and patch file from the Debian FTP site. Then you edit the spec file to reflect the new version number, make sure the patch still works/still needed (and you will probably end up recompiling a few times until you get the patch situation figured out), then just do the build.

I have created updated versions of several Red Hat .rpm files, and it is a pain in the piles. Because the .spec file and patches are lumped together with the (obsolete) source into the .srpm file, you can't just download the .spec and patch file... you have to download the old obsolete source too. Compiling a tarball to stuff into /usr/local is a lot easier :-(. On the other hand, once you've done the .rpm file, you can upload it to contribnet and make a lot of other people very happy. That makes many people smile. But once you've compiled your tarball, well, you make yourself happy, but nobody else.

-- Eric

Requirements (2)

gavinhall (33) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965760)

Posted by MattSullivan:

It would appear as though you can still install Slackware 4.0 beta on a 4 meg machine. All you need is the lowmem.i. And for those who wonder about Slack being glibc based I quote from the www.slackware.com FAQ.

Q: Will the next version be based on glibc2 or libc5?

Slackware-current is still based on libc-5.4.46, and there may well be one more official Slackware release based on libc5. A glibc-2.1 based version of Slackware is in the works, but getting a stable version out with the 2.2.x kernel and KDE-1.1 may end up taking priority. Slackware 3.6(and -current) do contain runtime support for glibc2.

Will someone *please* get CmdrTaco a Debian 2.1 CD (1)

Mike Greaves (1236) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965766)

He's mentioned it a few times now...

Been running it myself since a couple days after the release :-)

I have to say... (2)

Enahs (1606) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965767)

I wish that Slackware were developed by a *team* rather than one person. I love slack, but just try to get a relatively new distro ready for something like GNOME or KDE. (Come to think of it, KDE is *much* easier to shoehorn into a Slack distro ;^)

Slackware properties (1)

jnik (1733) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965770)

Disksets aren't as nice anymore; last I checked, A and N were the only sets actually installable from floppies (bitch for installing on an old laptop).

Cheap*Bytes is shipping as of today! (1)

gaj (1933) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965771)

Just as I headed over to check /. one last time before heading home I got mail from C*B saying that my 2.1 CD's (along w/a few more RH5.2 CDs) have shipped. Deb 2.0 was cool, but not enough to get me to switch all my RH machines. Wondering how 2.1 will stack up. Sounds good so far...guess I'll know this weekend!
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.

Nope...libc6 (1)

JazzyJ (1995) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965772)

..with support for libc5...just like the other distros.

I have to say... (1)

Rendus (2430) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965776)

Try Slackware-Current. Comes with KDE 1.1 as an option (in the main distrib, not contribs)...

Teach an old dog a new trick... (1)

Rendus (2430) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965777)

Damn it people, Slackware DOES have a package system. Unless pkgtool is a figment of the imagination of Slackware users everywhere. I get so tired of hearing people say there isn't package management for Slackware, when there most certainly is...

I just don't care to use it, myself...

Requirements? (2)

Rendus (2430) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965778)

I don't know about 4.0, but it shouldn't be any harder than 3.6, which I managed to get installed on a 386 (and a 486 as well) with 4 megs of RAM. Just be sure to setup your swap space first, and follow the low memory install documentation Patrick includes. (Using /slakware/rootdsks/obsolete is probably best, since it's much nicer on memory). And this was over a LAN. With a CD drive things should be a bit easier.

Installing in 8 should be quite easy. 12 is flawless.

redhat is that bad with mem? (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965779)

Its not that RedHat is bad, IMHO, its just that RedHat strangely requires you to run through their partitioning/mounting system before you can mount the swap. A significant upgrade where memory is concerned with RedHat is if they'd give the user in "Advanced" mode the ability to scan the drives on the local system for swap partitions and mount them BEFORE anything else happens during the install.

The RedHat installer seems to load itself into a ramdisk, and then load any additional modules into a second ramdisk mounted into the filesystem. That plus the kernel tends to eat 5-6 meg of RAM, and with the libraries and such their Disk Druid program and fdisk both can't load, which are prerequisites for mounting the swap space.

As an alternative, documenting how it can be done from the command line in the shells thats opened would help. As I said in another post, I wasn't able to find what program it was using, since the usual utilities don't seem to be there.

Requirements? (2)

tgd (2822) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965782)

Unfortunately that doesn't help with RedHat. RedHat doesn't give you the ability to mount a swap partition until after you have partitioned the drive -- regardless whether or not the drive is already partitioned. The real problem in the RedHat install with 8 meg seems to be the amount of memory it takes to fork Disk Druid or even fdisk. The very next step is mounting the swap space, but in one attempt I made to install it onto a 486/80 (AMD) with 8 meg ram, I let it run swapping for two hours just to see if it'd ever actually manage to get fdisk or Disk Druid to load up. It never happened.

Debian is better -- it lets you mount a swap parition if you've already created one. In the previously mentioned install, I was able to boot off a RedHat install disk, load no drivers for anything, and just squeak by after killing the installer to be able to load fdisk and partition the drive. My hope had been to mount the swap before getting to the partitioning step, but I was unable to find the program that's actually mounting the swap space. I'm assuming RedHat isn't using swapon / mkswap for it, but I might've just missed it.

I ended up ordering Debian CD's and got it installed on that system with no troubles. I remember I had to install the barest minimum I could, then reboot to get it to handle the full install. I never did figure out why that was the case.

Part of the autoLinux [bangsplat.org] stuff I've been working on is getting a good mid-size distribution together. (Bigger than the various router projects out there, but smaller than what I remember the Slackware "A" series being...)

Requirements? (3)

tgd (2822) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965783)

Anyone know what the requirements for a system are going to be for Slackware 4? I've been disappointed lately to see they keep growing with Redhat (in particular) and to some extent with Debian.

I know Linux on a 4 meg system may not be reasonable any more, but it seems 8 should be doable, but 8's too small to install RedHat, and I 've only gotten Debian to install in 8 meg successfully when it was installing from a local harddrive.

Is the minimum (A) set still fairly small? It'd be nice to have a standard distribution that can get a core system installed in 15-20 meg.

8 MB is a joke (4)

tgd (2822) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965784)

I have 176 meg of ram in my system at work, and those applications do tend to swell in size (particularly Netscape). I actually try to close Netscape once every hour or two (figuring it doesn't crash on its own) to keep memory bloat down. I don't know if its a "feature" or just a bad memory leak, but it is bad.

Now, where 8 meg is concerned, 8 meg most certainly isn't a joke. Back in the days of the pre-1.0 kernel, I ran a rather useful system for several years in 8 meg of RAM. When I was in school, virtually all of my papers were written on that with vi and nroff/groff. It handled e-mail serving and reading, usenet reading and posting, and I was running a mailing list getting almost 30 postings a day to 200 people on it. I also gave user accounts to friends who needed a machine to work on from terminals around the campus.

Never had a problem with it, at one point had nearly 9 months uptime on it.

I currently have three systems here with only 8 meg RAM. One's being used as a development platform for embedded linux POS applications. One handles my internet dialup, masquerading, routing, firewalling, fax sending and receiving, and voicemail. The third is the system I mentioned above, which is an old notebook computer. Slow, low in RAM, small screen, but the battery lasts almost five hours, and its great for writing when I want to be outside. The router box used to handle printing too, but ghostscript eats too much RAM, so I moved it off to the system I've been experimenting with Oracle on.

All three of those applications don't need more than eight meg of RAM. They're providing important functions for me without costing me any excessive amount of money, using old parts I've scraped up.

Its a lot of functionality in not a lot of hardware. If you want to know why the ability to run in 8 meg is important, that's the exact reason. There's lots of very inexpensive hardware that people can buy or have laying around that can be made useful as print servers, or any of a dozen other functions, and 8 meg is enough for many of them.

Don't be afraid! (1)

planet_hoth (3049) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965785)

I was a diehard slackware user, too, once. I think I made the transition gracefully enough. I now consider Slackware counter-productive, since it has fallen so out of date, and lacks a modern package system.

I was skeptical, too, of the whole RPM thing at first. Coming from a windows background, this is not surprising. Let me assure you that RPM may not be perfect, but it kicks the pants off of InstallShield or any other windows equivalent.

You can always manually remove a package and install the corrosponding .tar.gz package in its place. And if you are concerned about losing the performance you gain from compiling your own binaries, you can download SRPMs, which are Source RPMs. It is very flexible, once you get the hang of the concept. I suggest reading the Using-RPM HOWTO if you still have cold feet.

I'm sure you would get similar functionality from Debian's package manager as well. And you still can't beat Slackware if you want to get down and dirty (and repetitive.)

No rescue disk? ... a rescue partition! (1)

bert (4321) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965788)

I've made it a good habit to always install twice on any machine that has to do serious duties: one small 'emergency' root and another normal 'production' root. For lilo I make a small third partition with the kernels (old, current and new) and lilo.conf in it. symlink lilo.conf to both /etc dirs, the kernel dir to both root fs's.

Now when you've compiled a new kernel, first time you call it 'new.z' or something, only after a successful boot and some testing you cp it to current.

Whenever your production file system is seriously fsck'd up (power failure maybe), boot from the emergency partition, fsck it or otherwise fix your stuff and reboot into your newly fixed production fs.

Obviously you still need a rescue disk when the boot record is really ill so lilo won't boot, but at that time chances are your disk has crashed.

BTW I always use Slackware - for tinkering and out of habit. I dislike RedHat for the encapsulation of everything, have yet to give Debian a go. On 'production systems' one seldom needs to upgrade libs, and if really necessary one can mostly find a suitable binary tarball (doesn't need to be slack tgz - just do a 'tar -tzf' and see if it's what you want). Thank Linus Torvalds, big distributions and Patrick Volkerding for Choice - Just my $.02

Slackware 4.0 carrying current versions? (1)

bert (4321) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965789)

There are no reasons whatsoever for changing to 4.0 pre-beta, better wait for the real 4.0, then maybe. It isn't really difficult to upgrade to kernel 2.2 if you want to, besides 3.6 has most 2.2 support tools in it.

I think that must have been the main reason for Patrick to bring out 3.6, other changes were not so important, like you mentioned.

5 MB (2)

bert (4321) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965790)

8 MB is no joke, I used to have a 386 SX 16 with 5 MB and a 30 MB hard disk, with Slackware 3.x on it and a 2.0.x kernel, as a router between two ethernet segments. Sure, it would swap something out when you logged in, but that's what virtual memory is for.

Also, Netscape is a memory hog if there ever was one (but that obviously doesn't concern the above machine).

Still no glibc2? (1)

Bishop (4500) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965791)

Yes. Debian unstable (aka potato) uses glibc 2.1. I upgraded from v2.0 just the other day. Painless upgrade. I didn't even have to reboot. :)

He doesn't need one: USE FTP! (1)

Bishop (4500) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965792)

Best way to install Debian is through ftp or http. Install a few files to get started, select the packages you want and let debian take care of the rest. :-)

FTP.CDROM.COM slashdotted... (1)

dvdeug (5033) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965795)

ftp.cdrom.com is frequently that way. Some cynical part of my mind claims they must inflate the user number, but I have no evidence for that, nor do I really believe that.

libc5? (1)

drig (5119) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965796)

looking at PACKAGES.TXT, glibc2 is installed. Whether this means that everything uses it or not, I dunno.

I disagree. (1)

law (5166) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965797)

The Bin was imapd, I read the release about pop3 and dutifully upgraded it, but missed imapd was also susceptible, With debian I would of never missed it, much less not upgraded it.

Makes me kinda nostalgic. (3)

law (5166) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965801)

It makes me kinda nostalgic for about three minutes, then I remeber the fools that almost rooted me because of a old bin, or the hours it took to upgrade fairly simple stuff, and the realization that the first time I upgraded a lib I learned somthing... the second time I did not... The third I resented that it took as long as it did, and I had 10 other things to do.
Slackware is at best a teaching tool, at worst time consuming and insecure. It allways seemed to me the people who had lots of time where the loudest proponents.

libc5? (1)

ewhac (5844) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965805)

If this is true, it may be what finally moves me away from Slackware and towards something else (leaning toward Debian at the moment, for no particular reason).

Schwab

8 megs and Red Hat (1)

Booker (6173) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965810)

Yes... isn't that lame? I got an old 486SX20 laptop with 4 megs, upgraded it to 8 megs. Installed windoze 95 on it first, because I had the disk handy, and it installed no problemo.

Then I go to install Red Hat. It hung. I tweaked. It hung. I cursed. It hung. I found it very depressing that the Red Hat install wanted more hardware than the windoze 95 install.

(I *finally* got it installed, with much tinkering, and it runs just fine. Now why should the install take more memory than actually *running* the OS?)

Now I've done it... bring on the RH flames. (sigh)

Come home to daddy (5)

CMiYC (6473) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965813)

I've been using slackware for what seems like forever now. Its almost gotten to a point where I can't remember a time NOT having Linux installed on my computer. If it wasn't for slackware's stubborn way of doing things (you know, not doing them for you) I would have never gotten this far with linux. I have installed RedHat on my Laptop, mostly to see why its so well liked... I do have to say, if you want POWER, and you want control, then slackware is your distro. To me, its the hacker's distribution. When I think of Linux, I think of Slackware.

If you want to USE your computer, and get things done, then Redhat is more suitable. RPM is nice when you just want to use something...

Call me crazy (go ahead, I think I am too) but I still enjoy the headaches of compling stuff on my own. I think going bald at 21 can be 75% contributed to Slackware, but its worth it.

If slackware never came out with another release, I'd still be happy with 3.6 (okay, if they would come out with a glibc2 first, then quit... i'd be REALLY happy).

Anyways, that my 2 shinny pennies (do you take credit cards) on Slackware.

---

What's the deal with libc6? (1)

LogicX (8327) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965815)

Here's a good How-To [unc.edu] for glibc, might come in handy for those of you deciding to try slackware 4.0, and wanting to setup glibc.

Slackware 4.0 carrying current versions? (2)

LogicX (8327) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965816)

I'm a bigtime fan of slackware, and I was a little dissapointed when I downloaded the latest slackware 3.6 to find it had old versions of the x server, kernel, and many other little programs. I can't get into cdrom.com, it's packed, has anyone downloaded it? If so do you know if it comes with the latest x server, along with various other utilities? I'm sure it has, but I'd just like to be sure before I invest my 56K modem to a day long downloading adventure.
Also, are there any major changes, considering it's moved to 4.x series?

Can't keep a good distro down.. :) (2)

malkavian (9512) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965817)

Good to see that Slackware is still pulling their weight.. :)
I've got many fond memories back in my Uni days of slaving over an old 386 in my flat, shoehorning the floppies into the drive, drooling over the fact that I could now code all my coursework at home, and dammit, I had _UNIX_ at home.. :)
I cut my teeth on Linux using Slackware, and look forward to seeing what they've got coming out now.. :)
*Blush* But I must have to admit to using Red Hat, 'cos it seems to be the easiest way to get new people into it, and I tend to use it a lot in places I go out on contract to (whenever I can persuade 'em to drop an NT box in it's favour, which is becoming increasingly easier.. :) )..
I think it's time to go back to my roots for a while tho, and see what gives with this release.. :)
Whatever else gets said about the distribution competition, It's still Linux, and at core, it beats the pants off just about everything else.. :)


Malk..

No SuSE boxes in the states? (1)

Dast (10275) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965818)

Thats funny...I saw two at my college.

Distribution distribution function (function) (1)

bobsquatch (10397) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965819)

Slack certainly had it's place - without it where would Linux be today - however it has been far surpassed by many other distributions now ... time to let go!!!

<DRAWL>You can take my Slack box from me when you pry it from my cold, dead hands, buster.&lt/DRAWL> :)

The oldest machine I own is based on Slackware 3.0, and is now upgraded (after toil and sweat and much cursing) to the latest glibc, kernel, X, and so on. I couldn't have learned how to do any of that from scratch on Debian. (Well, maybe the kernel. Most of the kernel, at least.) I wouldn't have once deleted /lib/ld-linux.so.1 because I thought I didn't need it anymore (yeah, that was a while ago... sheesh), but I also wouldn't have learned what ld-linux.so did. (Did anybody get through a libc5->glibc or a.out->ELF transition without resorting to rescue disks? There's gotta be somebody!) Slackware takes you by the balls (or whatever) and drags you down into the guts of the machine; it's a hell of a ride, and if you want to learn you gotta go there anyway...

I think the ideal distribution for the geek with N computers is one Slack machine, and N-1 Debian/SUSE/RH/Caldera boxes. I can't imagine the time it would take to upgrade plural Slack boxes, so my other machines run Slink. I get work done with the N-1 boxes, I learn stuff on the Slack box, and I can try the latest tarball-only apps on any distribution. Hey, works for me... :)

--

any other platforms? (1)

mrsam (12205) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965823)

I doubt it. There's only one Patrick Volkerding to go around, unfortunately.

I still find the idea of one person putting out an entire Linux distribution to be a rather frightening thought. Brrr...

One problem that I really hope Patrick takes care of is a formal upgrade procedure. Last time I checked, the READMEs still recommend whiping the machine, and loading Slack on an empty disk. Yes, I suppose you can try reinstalling on top a previous version, but that's going to be messy.

Teach an old dog a new trick... (2)

mrsam (12205) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965824)

I've pretty much went the same way myself. I cut my teeth on Slackware, now use Red Hat exclusively, except for one box that's still running Slack.

RPM is definitely a timesaver from a sysadmin's point of view. One constant pain sysadmins have is upgrading a package - remembering where all the config files are - what needs to be changed. God forbid if a directory or a file that belongs to a package has moved from one place to another.

When you upgrade with RPM, your old version is cleanly deinstalled, and a new one installed, all automatically. A few intelligent things are done with configuration files, and you have a complete record of which file came with a package.

You can certainly compile and install stuff yourself, by hand, on Red Hat. But, over time, that tends to break things. If you install a later version of something that was already installed as an RPM, when you later upgrade to a newer Red Hat version, you will find that Red Hat's installer will automatically scribble a newer RPM your installed app. Perhaps that's not such a bad idea anyway, but you may not've wanted to do that, for some reason. Plus you're likely to lose any changes to the configuration file that you've made.

It's also quite easy to stay up to date with the latest versions of everything you have installed. There are scripts out there that can automatically poll the updates directory on a Red Hat FTP site, and notify you when updates become available. I don't think that there's anything similar to that for Slackware.

Here's a real good example of what kind of a benefit you get from RPM.

I needed to repartition my main box. I dumped everything to tape, and I put together a boot disk that comes up with a bare kernel, the kernel tape drive module, and the minimum of tools that I need to load the system back from a tape. I go ahead, rewipe the hard disk, format it, partition it, then go ahead and reload everything back from tape.

I reboot, the system comes up fine, but after logging in, it's acting kinda funky. I normally have a button to run Pine within xterm. Pine comes up briefly, something flashes on the screen, and it exits. I'm getting some real weird messages from "su" that I have never seen before in my life. All sorts of things suddenly give me real strange error messages, out of nowhere.

I did some digging around. Hoo-boy -- looks like tar doesn't know how to properly restore the permission and ownership of device files. My entire /dev is completely fubared.

No problem.

rpm --setperms dev

Back to normal. Carry on.

If you intend to work heavily with a Red Hat system, I strongly recommend that you buy the book "Maximum RPM". The entire Red Hat distribution is based around their package manager. That book gives you all you need to know about creating your own RPMs, and is an invaluable source of information.

Teach an old dog a new trick... (5)

HRbnjR (12398) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965825)

Background: I have been running Slackware, since 1994. So everyone has been clamoring over how cool RedHat is, so I tried it, kinda. Before I go on, let me qualify that I am a full time Java developer, using Java 1.2, and have thus since I graduated a couple years ago, and until recently been forced to use Windoze (which I hate) most all of the time. I still keep a Linux partition, and am now going to attempt to move my system primarily back to Linux, and get all my fancy new hardware running. So, last year I did an FTP install of RedHat 5.1 which really impressed me, as it autodetected everything, DHCP'd and FTP'd and was up and running (with X, wow) without me doing anything, no dot clocks, no rc files, nothin. Not that I minded Slackware, after about 50 installs, you get the nack for it (don't touch _anything_ while it's installing, and if anything goes wrong (even blinks), start over). I have, since then, not actually touched a thing on the RedHat partition, due to lack of time, and waiting for 2.2 before investing any time. I haven't even updgraded a single RPM, I'm not even sure I remember how. However...I am one with gzip, tar, and make.

Question: So what's the deal with RPM's? I understand that they are binary only and have dependency tracking. Does that mean if something is installed via RPM I can't manually download a tgz and build over it, I have to use RPM's? Do I really care? I always thought I was getting better performance by compiling myself, in that the compiler would optimize for newer P2 instructions rather than being 486 compatible :-) I don't have the time to build and tweak much anymore, so RedHat sounds like it is for me. It's just that...well...rules scare me. I'm scared that when I get down to actually using RedHat, all the rc files and stuff is going to be a bunch of auto generated stuff I shouldn't touch, or that will get written over when I upgrade something. I guess I imagine a RedHat config file like a Microsoft Visual C++ source file, compared to Slackware's Linux C++ file..."Don't touch this...or that...or edit this". It's the people that keep warning about how they have to edit dependency files and stuff, and it is a pain.

Is RedHat scary for Slackware people?

I guess I could live with a binary only distro. With GNU/Linux, it just seems wrong though. But the thought of quick upgrades and fixes is to much to pass over. I mean...there never used to be binaries at all...and you get used to one thing for so long.

And the only reason I say RedHat (not Debian, Suse, etc) is because it seems to be the most actively maintained in terms of current stuff. I'm thinking about Starbuck/6.0 here. It also seems easy to find RPM's for everything now.

I guess after this I have to sort out all this Gnome/KDE stuff. I think I will stick with good old FVWM. Who needs all the fancy schmancy themes and crap...just bloat anyhow :-) The only reason I even run X, is cuz I can't see Rob's cute Icons using Lynx :-) Hmm...someone should port Mozilla and thus GTK to GGI...then I woulnd't need X at all....mmmm....fast.

I disagree. (1)

mattc (12417) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965826)

Not to mention the default Slackware install is much less secure than any other distributions.. For example, systat enabled in inetd.. huh??? Most unixes don't have stupid stuff like this enabled by default.

Still no glibc2? (1)

mattc (12417) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965827)

Debian has glibc 2.1 in their unstable branch (the next release). I think.

Debian 2.1 (1)

devinoni (13244) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965828)

A lot like 2.0 actually. More packages, but installing packages is easier with apt.

8 MB is a joke (1)

jerodd (13818) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965829)

What are you using--HP-UX? Or perhaps OpenWindows? I haven't seen paging requirements like that since five minutes ago when I was fiddling with WebSphere. (Now that's a resource pig--I was using it on OS/2, it it took up 2 GIGABYTES of address space, had about 500 megabytes of that committed, and had around 100MB resident!)

<sigh> (2)

jerodd (13818) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965830)

I remember Slackware. It's still in use here for the sole purpose of ZipSlack, which fits so nicely in a machine otherwise prostituted to Windows. All I can say is that it's about time we got glibc6--I might actually use Slackware for something again.

I was drug kicking and screaming to the eternal judgment La-`Z'-Boy of `Bob', and he told me to install Debian! I could hear Mike Enlow's voice in my head! But I did as `Bob' commanded, and am indeed happier now. (Fear potatoes.)

Still, if Slackware 4.0 doesn't have modern compiles of everything, I won't use it. I just had too many bad experiences with Slackware 3.6 (Slackware 98) of horribly old, crusty, buggy, and vulnerable executables. (Don't even get me started of when I had my Slackware machine connected directly to the Internet and was using it to gab on IRC.)

OTOH, Slackware, along with OS/2's kernel debugger and DEBUG.COM has made me what I am today, and I am grateful.

I just want to see a revival of SLS Linux! Now those were the days! (Geesh. I was 10 years old then. Youngstuff. I didn't know what I was doing--gosh, I wish I could go back in time and help myself out!)

Cheers--Joshua.

Slackware is for Tinkerers (1)

Raindog (13847) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965831)

I hate to agree, but I agree. Like many others here, I cut my teeth on slackware....a kindly little geek at a previous job took me under his wing and coached me though the rough spots. But I recently switched to Red Hat....I like the feel of Slackware better, and it seems to make more logical sense overall, but it was simply too hard to maintain. I don't have hours to futz around with the system....I barely have time to play with the civ beta. While manually loading and compialing everything is "purer" and more preferable in many ways, it is simply too clumsy. Pkgtool is great, but no files are relased using its format, so its next to useless. I had nightmares simply thinking about having to compile and install everything required for Gnome. Makes me sad though....Slackware has the right "feel" to it....I sorting out Red Hat, but....theres nothing like the real thing. Would it be possible for someone to grab slackware, update all the necessary librarys, add support for debs and rpm, and rerelease it, kindof like how Mandrake did with redhats distro....have a slackware release, and then a slackware for slackers...maybe. Dont know.

Brian

Makes me kinda nostalgic. (1)

Mental Erosion (13851) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965832)

I run a Redhat 5.1 box which has been used heavily over the past few months. The funny thing is, after all this use, it's hard to stay on the bleeding edge if I depend completely on RPMS. So I use tar.gz. And guess what? After months of tweaking and customizing, my box looks closer and closer to good 'ol Slackware. It just evolved that way I guess.

I can see where RPMS/DEBs would be useful for system administrators or those running a heavily visited server. However, I'm just a joe linux user who connects via PPP and checks his email. I really have no need to worry about most of my binaries being secure when /etc/hosts.deny is set to ALL:ALL and /etc/inetd.conf is all commented out.

Teach an old dog a new trick... (1)

Robotech_Master (14247) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965835)

Other folks have already said, but I might as well put my two cents in, too.

I've never adminned any Linux box except for my personal one; I've run RH5.0 and 5.2 on it, and plan to upgrade to 5.9 in a week or so once Cheapbytes [cheapbytes.com] gets it on CD.

There are, essentially, three ways to upgrade any package with a Red Hat system.

1) Compile from scratch. You can tar -zxvf and make just like with any other Linux distro. I do it from time to time myself if what I want isn't around in RPM form yet. The only thing about doing this is that it doesn't tell your RPM database that it's installed.

2) Install from RPM. This is what most people in a hurry or who don't know how to patch or deal with odd compile errors will do. When you do this, it installs the binaries, the documentation, and puts a note in your RPM database that the package is there.

The one problem with this is that if you use compile to install some packages and RPM to install others, RPM won't realize the compiled packages are installed. But there are RPM options to override dependancy failures, so if you know that you've got that package installed, you can tell it to install anyway.

3) Build from SRPM. The SRPM, or source RPM, contains the .tar.gz'd source, plus a .spec file that contains the instructions for compiling and installing it. You can do an rpm --rebuild (or is it --recompile?) .SRPM and just watch it go. This has the double benefit of both compiling it on your machine (and thus customizing it to your specific installation) and adding it to the RPM database.

This also suggests

3a) "Roll your own" RPMs. You can do it; it's as easy as putting a script together that tells how to compile, and what files go where. I've tried it myself, for a simple program. This has the same benefits as 3) above...

Anyway...good luck with it!

libc5-based, glibc2.0.7 support, no glibc2.1 (2)

crow (16139) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965845)

My understanding is that this is a libc5-based distribution, but has runtime support for glibc-2.0.7-pre6, but no runtime support for glibc-2.1 or glibc-2.1.1-pre1.

Glibc is in a state of flux, particularly with 2.1 being recalled. 2.0.6 is, so I hear, buggy. 2.0.7 is still a -pre6 release, though everyone seems to pretend that it is a real release. 2.1 is another big step, but it's not clear that it is ready for stable systems.

So the choices are:
Use libc5. It works, is stable, but not trendy.
Use glibc2.0.7-pre6. It works, is stable, but you'll have to transition to 2.1 soon, anyway.
Use glibc2.1.1-pre1. It might work, is relatively untested, but is what everyone will eventually be moving to.

Personally, I think Slackware made a reasonable choice. I wouldn't compile for glibc2.0, as that's a dead-end library. Why bother making that transition? Instead, provide the runtime support for the binaries that require it, release another libc5 system, and focus development on glibc2.1.

Still no glibc2? (1)

Mr. Piccolo (18045) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965847)

Damnit, Slackware is getting real outdated real fast. now that glibc 2.1 is out,they're TWO versions behind (although to be fair, I think only Stampede is going to use glibc 2.1 right away.) I've tried Debian, Stampede, OpenLinux (ewww), and SuSE, finally settling on SuSE because YaST just plain rocks, even if their packages aren't all the latest and are RPM. Too bad you'll never see the SuSE box here in the States... ;-)

Makes me kinda nostalgic. (1)

MikeTurk (18201) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965849)

It makes me kinda nostalgic too. I look up at this double CD case with three CDs in it: Slackware 2.2 (that's kernel 1.2)and snapshots of sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux and ts x-11 from the relevant time period. This was my first Linux.

Then I got too busy to learn stuff, so I left it alone for a long time, until I downloaded RH 5.2 and installed it on my old 486 in the corner with my cable modem acting as my firewall for the other three boxen. If not for Linux (or *BSD), that computer would be utterly useless, because Windows is painful.

Mike
--

glibc? Yep. (1)

King Ruin (19011) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965850)

I'm downloading slack 4.0 right now, I looked in the a package before downloading and noticed in addition to libc4 and 5 it has glibc2.

I'm not sure if I should be happy or afraid for this. The only reason I am even downloading it right now and not waiting for a CD is because glibc2 thrashed my system last night. Pretty good timing, because reinstalling from my slackware 3.2 cd after doing an fdisk doesn't sound like a fun proposition.

I've been using slackware since nov '95. I've never used any other distro -- I'm kinda confused as to what all the fuss is about. I like slackware. I'll continue to buy slackware.

Slack off. Get slack.

later

SLS & TAMU? (1)

mecca (20061) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965854)

Now these were real distributions! Slackware wash just a cheap SLS ripoff :) Somebody needs to do a history of Linux Distributions.. Hmm Maybe I'll go for it.

Teach an old dog a new trick... (2)

An onymous Coward (20578) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965857)

You can install over your redhat rpm binaries, it won't hurt anything but might make the system bitch if you try to uninstall the rpm package later.

Redhat's not scary, alot of Slackware die-hard's seem to be using it nowaday's cause the novelty of maintaining the system isn't as rewarding as it once was for them. I think since Debian 2.x hit the streets that most of the Slack die-hards that were using Redhat have switched to Debian though. I started with Slackware and I always preferred it. But when I bought the Debian 2.0 CD it blew my mind, dpkg and dselect are just awesome for maintaining the system. dpkg packages tend to prompt you for all config information during the install, saving time for rooting around for .conf's. I like Debian, it's great on my firewall/gateway 486 box.

But for my Pentium boxes I use Stampede. If you want pentium-optimized code, as you said above, you should check it out, since that's what it is built for. After running Stampede one tends to shy from 386/486 bins since they are so slow in comparison. Stampede's gzip is like 50% faster than standard gzip. It has its own package management format too, but you can setup pgcc and compile stuff yourself if ya want. Stampede comes w/ alot of kickass packages the other dists don't so it's worth a look. Cheapbytes has CD's for $2, or go to www.stampede.org.
It was the first dist w/ 2.2, and is probably the most actively maintained except for Rawhide.

ANd yeah I agree w/ you about FVWM(2). It's the best WM ever, fast as hell even when loaded w/ pixmaps. And who needs themes when the best one is the one you do up yourself. And as far as GTK/GNOME themes go, I haven't got that stuff to work but it looks great. Cvs stuff never compiles for me so I've given up till the stuff is out of devel. Stampede is beta as all hell but they got a kickass bugtrack that answers most problems.

Good luck on getting your system up and running. I recommend you do some security checking tho cause RH5 has some exploitable configs/apps w/ the default setup.

Good 'ol days! (2)

roddy (20621) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965858)

Ahh yes! The first PC I owned was a 386 with 2M of RAM, in first year uni I could afford 10 floppies, so I made trips back and forth from campus to home with my 10 floppies with slackware at a time.

Those were the days, I stayed up all night trying to figure this new beast out.. what a thrill! (err.. what a geek!)

What's the deal with libc6? (2)

PsychoKiller (20824) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965859)

What *is* the deal with libc6? I've been running Slackware for several years and I have never run into problems compiling tarballs on any package yet. Are there any examples that people have?

Requirements? (2)

sweetooth (21075) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965860)

You could always try Linux Router [linuxrouter.org] you don't need a hard disk to use it.

What's the deal with libc6? (2)

toolie (22684) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965863)

I have no idea why people would shy away from a release based soley on the libraries. I have Slackware 3.4 and wanted to install StarOffice. I didnt want to trust my machine to their libc6 upgrade, so I went ahead and did it myself. In about 45 mins or so, I had both 5 and 6 set up. There are some awesome pages on the web that helped along the way (I think I started from slackware.org :P ). The point is, don't let the libraries dictate your choice. If libc6 is the only reason your staying with RH (heaven forbid), trash it and try Slackware. Its easier to keep track of where everything is installed, the initialize scripts make sense, its easy to tweak until you have it set up perfectly for yourself.

My first distro... (2)

zhobson (22730) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965864)

My very first experience with Linux was with Slackware 1.0. When I started using Linux regularly (a few years later), it was RedHat. During my first years in the industry, I was knee-deep in FreeBSD, so naturally my first linux was going to come from Walnut Creek. ^_^

Admittedly, Slackware doesn't interest me anymore. However, all of Rob's comments on Debian make me wonder if maybe I ought to check that distro out.

-zack

redhat is that bad with mem? (1)

elfguy (22889) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965865)

I didn't think it was that bad with mem.. anyways I've been running Slack 3.1 on a 386 4M ram 50M HD for years now and it installed fine and never crashes of course. I use it for a lot of small tasks and am very happy with it.

ahhh good ole slack (1)

elfguy (22889) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965866)

I've been running Slackware since '95 and am glad a new version comes around. I really don't like the general direction that some other distros have been going. Man have I heard about glibc problems. I would never ever recommend to anyone to run any glibc-based distro until gnu libc gets its acts together. They have been one of the most unstable libs i ever saw. Anyways.. I run Slackware on my servers mainly for security, and because I know there wont be an X bin with a big security hole setuid root somewhere *laugh*

Hopefully cheapbytes.com will start selling 4.0 CDs soon so I can point people to it.

Teach an old dog a new trick... (2)

DeathBunny (24311) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965869)

RedHat (or Debian for that matter) is definately NOT a binary only distro!!

First off, everything in RedHat has an associated "Source RPM" (SRPM). You can download that and use RPM to recompile..

Second, almost anytime you compile anything from a source tarball, it usually defaults to installing in /usr/local or /opt. In both RPM based(Redhat, etc) and Debian distros /usr/local and /opt are specifically reserved for stuff you compile yourself.

To me, packages give me the best of both worlds. I be lazy and download the latest RPM's to keep all the misc. stuff on my system up to date, or, for stuff I really like to mess around with (like perl), I can compile from source.

I still have yet to see a *valid* reason a distribution should NOT have a package manager.

Some of us just never switched. (1)

mihalis (28146) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965877)

I started off with Linux on Slackware in early '96. I had a very modest PC then and I still do, and so I've just kept using Slack. I've never felt held back by it (apart from the time it takes to upgrade) and I like the hackability of it. I very much appreciate the total stability I have had from it. I get the impression that some of the more popular distros have had flaky moments, but since Slackware 96 I haven't had any inexplicable crashes (only crashes are due to blowing out swap space or bad kernel build decisions). I've got one spare partition left and i think Slack 4.0 is such an interesting development to me that I'll finally get myself a CheapBytes preview (have been happy enough with Walnut Creek up till now).

Debian (3)

NoneToBe (28541) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965879)

Debian is well worth trying out...

Once installed you can install a new package via:

apt-get install

And it will determine what it depends on, dialup and download the stuff and install it on-the-fly. If you are upgrading (for example) lpr it will stop lpr, install the new one and bring it up again.

The key word with Debian TCO. Once running... it is the closest to zero that you can find.

Cheers

libc5? (1)

Yoganaut (28823) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965880)

From the look of the Changelog, slack 4.0 has the same gnu libraries as 3.6. Everything was compiled against libc5, and you get only RUNTIME SUPPORT for libc6. I believe Patrick has chosen to do this simply because to this day glibc2 is a little sketchy in some areas, whereas libc5 is still solid as a rock, but aging quickly.

What, me? No, I use RedHat. ;)

Requirements? (1)

Yoganaut (28823) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965881)

Alls you do is enable your swap space before you install, so that you don't run out of memory. With Slack this is easy--it even gives you directions on how to do it when you boot off the standard disks.

And, yes, if you want a barebones linux system, Slackware is an excellent route. Chances are that you'd also want the "n" part of the distro as well as the "a", which will make your HD requirements considerably greater.

My 0x5a Cents. (1)

arseonick (28913) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965882)

The first distribution I ever used was Slackware 3.5 (or was it 3.4? I can't remember.)

I've been running it ever since. I love it.

Sure, I've tried Red Hat. I hated it. I don't see what the big deal is. Woo! X Configuration!@# Wow! It installed way to much crap that I didn't want, and it put my files in bizzaire locations. Argh.

Debian. I don't see what's so special about this either. I remember someone saying something like this on irc: "Red Hat does everything for you. Slackware does nothing for you. Debian does just what it should." I can't agree with this. I couldn't even get PPP working in Debian or Red Hat (linuxconfig is confusing.)

Some people acclaim RPM. Why? I got along for two years without using a(n) RPM just fine...

Ah well...

Ahem (1)

Mojo Geek (28926) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965883)

I cut my teeth on Slakware many moons ago. I've run Redhat. I've run Debian. I've run Caldera. I have a system that is M$ free and I'm much much better now. That is the bottom line.

Requirements? (1)

Fluffy the Cat (29157) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965884)

I've just installed Debian 2.1 on a PS/2 386/16 with 4 megs of RAM - there's a low memory installation floppy that sets up swap, copies the full installation floppy to hard drive and then lets you boot that. Not awfully elegant, but it works (and gives the impression that it'll work on 2 meg systems - I don't plan on testing this in the near future)

The only problem I had was that I had to extract the image from the boot disk, uncompress it, create the device notes for the ESDI drive, recompress it, copy it back to floppy and then boot. No other hitches - the module for the network card went in happily, and the rest of the installation went over NFS. It does take 10 minutes to boot and I haven't dared try compiling anything yet, but it's now a perfectly usable email terminal....

LinuxToday slashdotted, download URL here (3)

CocaCola (30016) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965887)

DOWNLOAD Slackware 4.0 here [cdrom.com]
(LinuxToday appears to be slashdotted, at least from here)

My first distro - and still using it!!! (3)

yorkie (30130) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965888)

I first came across Slackware EONs ago - I recall downloading it from Compuserve at work a couple of years before we had an internet connection.

My current setup is loosley based on a basic Slackware 3.4 with a lot of extras on top - the only binaries I have downloaded being Netscape and a glibc2 Xfree.

I still prefer slackware to any other distro - I have tried Debian, Redhat, S.U.S.E and FTlinux in the past with poor results.

I just hope that a glibc 2.1 Slackware release appears soon. I would then reinstall removing all libc5 from this machine for once and for all.

My slackware experiences... (2)

BRTB (30272) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965889)

I started using Linux about 2 years ago. Back then I kept hearing all these really bad stories about Slackware ("ick, that's the LAST distro you should get..."). Being new at it, I tried to download RedHat. I don't think I even got to the copying-the-software step because of repeated SIG11 errors... For some reason, I just didn't like Debian. =]

Slackware has always worked best for me. It installed perfectly on all my hardware (no SIG11's) from a lowly 386/4mb/120mb (yes, it'll still run on 4meg hardware) to my current 350mhz/32mb/2gb.

Package maintenance on Slack? Too much of a hassle. It's always seemed logical to just download the source for a new program, fix the Makefiles to the right path and install it over whatever old version was there. Never had a problem compiling anything on libc5 either... not even on the current Slack3.4-based server at my school. (If you could still call it Slack-based... I've replaced about half of everything from TGZs =])

Yes, I know Slack doesn't have any fancy control panel Xapp or one-click installation, but those have always seemed a little too simplistic. Better to open up pico and fix the config files yourself... you learn better that way =]

Oh well, enough of my rambling...

I disagree. (1)

pk (80103) | more than 15 years ago | (#1965893)

This makes no sense to me. I agree with a previous poster... Slackware is definately for the tinkerer... It is GREAT (IMHO) because of it's non-dependence on packages... If you want them, use alien to convert them. Otherwise, compile your own stuff... :) It's so much nicer that way. What I don't understand is your comment about it being inherently insecure. Much like all Linuxes (and Unixes), it is only as secure as you make it. Nothing is "secure" by default, until you see to it to patch and update software towards this end. Whether this involves updating RPMS, DEBs, or recompiling tarballs... security is an issue for the sysadmin, not an issue of any particular distribution.

pk
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?