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!

Slackware 11 Has Been Released

ScuttleMonkey posted about 8 years ago | from the come-a-long-way dept.

220

CCFreak2K writes "Slackware 11 has been officially released, just over a year after Slackware 10.2 became available. Software available with Slackware 11 includes KDE 3.5, Mozilla Seamonkey 1.0.5 and X11R6 6.9. As usual, ISOs are available through BitTorrent and FTPs, packages can be synced through FTPs, and you can always buy a copy."

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

2.4 kernel vs 2.6? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16289775)

Anyone know why they stuck with making 2.4 series kernel default over 2.6? (They do, however, provide 2.6)

Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? (4, Informative)

MobyTurbo (537363) | about 8 years ago | (#16289857)

Anyone know why they stuck with making 2.4 series kernel default over 2.6?


It's more stable, and uses less memory. Slackware however has been 2.6 ready since 9.1. Now they provide not one but two 2.6 kernels, one 2.6.17.x in /extra and one bleeding-edge 2.6.18 kernel in /testing, if that's what you prefer. (I wish however that Slackware still came on four disks (with two installation ones) rather than 6, I guess that'd be impossible if it provided less kernels. 8-) Of course, a lot of people complained when it went past one installation disk, thanks to KDE and (then-included) GNOME getting more bloated.)

Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290043)

testing

Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? (1)

hcob$ (766699) | about 8 years ago | (#16290121)

It can still be on a single disk... Just it's gotta be a DVD.

Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? (0)

valen (2689) | about 8 years ago | (#16290597)


  2.4 is *NOT* more stable than 2.6.

  The 2.6 VM is an order of magnitude better, as far as I can see, based on some stats I've gathered on a few thousand hardworking 2.4 machines and a few thousand 2.6 machines. Only reason to go 2.4 is...less stuff to change.

john

Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290837)

That's great, and I look forward to seeing these VM improvements just as soon as I manage to boot a 2.6 kernel without it hard-freezing my computer.

Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290659)

I wish however that Slackware still came on four disks (with two installation ones) rather than 6, I guess that'd be impossible if it provided less kernels.

Back when I downloaded Slackware, it was already six disks, just for the base system. X added something like ten disks to that, as did the development packages.

To get down to four disks for the entire distro, you would be in 1992 or somesuch.

Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? (2, Interesting)

Denney (947351) | about 8 years ago | (#16290271)

I have heard that 2.4 kernel is better for older computer systems while 2.6 is better for the new systems. Thus, it might be that Slackware folks decided that their distribution was installed on more older computer systems than on newer ones. I, for one, am definitely glad they stuck with the 2.4 kernel because I have a really old system (100MHz cpu) and I have Slackware installed on it and use it as a file-server. This means I can upgrade to Slackware 11.0 without worrying about the effects of 2.6 kernel on my old system.

Just my $0.02.

Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? (2, Informative)

fuzzix (700457) | about 8 years ago | (#16290617)

Anyone know why they stuck with making 2.4 series kernel default over 2.6?

I'd guess because there's no 2.7 branch - 2.6 is open to a lot of experimentation. If I'm looking for stability 2.6 isn't it... It might be functionally stable but as far as dev goes it could be broken at any time.

That said, I install a 2.6 kernel on all my Slack boxes (Which is not a subset of all my boxes now that I think about it...)

Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? (3, Informative)

zlamma (962382) | about 8 years ago | (#16290857)

Here's Pat's view on the issue:
From the ChangeLog.txt from Fri Jul 14 18:31:20 CDT 2006
"I'm probably going to leave the bare.i 2.4.32 kernel as the default kernel (or perhaps sata.i?) as it has very good performance and probably better security due to the simpler and longer-tested design."

srsly (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16289783)

frist?

But how (0, Troll)

kelvinq (752763) | about 8 years ago | (#16289807)

long is Pat going to live before all hell breaks loose and Slackware becomes another Debian? Slackware is ancient enough already...

Re:But how (4, Funny)

Spookticus (985296) | about 8 years ago | (#16289845)

What is this debian in which you speak of? It must mean devil....and must be slayed

Re:But how (5, Funny)

kelvinq (752763) | about 8 years ago | (#16289901)

How APT a reply! I thought all our minds have gone all woody reading /.

Re:But how (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | about 8 years ago | (#16290079)

Its OK, Partick had some incompatible hardware.
Once he had aquired the components he recompiled himself from source and is now read for the next few years.

In other news, police are looking for the persons responsible for chopping of the wings of a penguin at the local zoo.
Patrick was in a flap about the whole situation.

Re:But how (-1, Flamebait)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | about 8 years ago | (#16290119)

long is Pat going to live before all hell breaks loose and Slackware becomes another Debian? Slackware is ancient enough already...

Yeah, it would be much better if it had a mission statement, a philosophy, a logo, its own color, and a bunch of annoying splash screens everywhere. Oh, and it should change its name to something that means something vaguely nice in some African language.

*Then* it'll be a real l33+ distro.

Obligatory (-1, Troll)

Jack Malmostoso (899729) | about 8 years ago | (#16289815)

Welcome to 1999 everyone!

Re:Obligatory (0, Redundant)

fire4ever (630478) | about 8 years ago | (#16289831)

1999 ? I think something like 1995 or 1994 ...

Re:Obligatory (1)

onegear (802747) | about 8 years ago | (#16290059)

why do you say that? is it because of the 2.4 kernel? if so, your comment is not needed. the 2.6 kernel is included if you would rather install that.

Re:Obligatory (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 years ago | (#16290233)

Yeah, I was looking for a new linux distro a few months back, and quickly turned away when visiting their front page yielded the most recent news as september 2005. I know they're probably spending all their time coding and therefore have no time to update their website, but I seriously thought they had stopped developing slackware because of the lack of news.

Re:Obligatory (2, Informative)

Rob Kaper (5960) | about 8 years ago | (#16290503)

There's more to a web site than its front page. Slackware keeps development news where it belongs:

http://www.slackware.com/changelog/ [slackware.com]

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290601)

"Yeah, I was looking for a new linux distro a few months back..."

If I had any mod points I'd give you +5 Insightful. You've encapsulated almost the entire problem with the Linux community, and you didn't even need a whole sentence to do it.

package manager? (0, Troll)

mdew (651926) | about 8 years ago | (#16289843)

I remember Slackware back in the day, apart from updated packages, has it got a decent official package manager yet?

Re:package manager? (0)

Ravenscall (12240) | about 8 years ago | (#16289951)

What? Too good for FTP?

Re:package manager? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290077)

I remember Slackware back in the day, apart from updated packages, has it got a decent official package manager yet?

PMEBCAK as ever.

Re:package manager? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290089)

Yeah, it's called "the System Administrator." ;)

Re:package manager? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290489)

Short answer: No.

Re:package manager? (4, Funny)

Trigun (685027) | about 8 years ago | (#16290553)

Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Re:package manager? (2, Informative)

DD32 (971130) | about 8 years ago | (#16290609)

I only deal with CLI installs of slackware, its been damn stable throughout -current.

I use Swaret for my package manager, Its cli-only, does dependancies, etc..

swaret :: The Essential SlackWARE Tool
swaret.sourceforge.net/index.php [slashdot.org]

Re:package manager? (3, Informative)

CatsupBoy (825578) | about 8 years ago | (#16291051)

I remember Slackware back in the day, apart from updated packages, has it got a decent official package manager yet?
If by decent you mean bloated and riddled with cyclic dependancy verification: then, no it does not.

However, the package management solution that comes with Slackware (and always has) is durable, functional, and flexible. It has versioning information, so you can upgrade by package name. You arent stuck with hunting down un-necessary prerequisites because the author says you need them. And they are very easy to create and maintain (using a standard tar/gz format).

Above that, Patrick does a wonderful job from release to release by specifying every package naming changes, obsoletion, and addition in order to make upgrading easy.

Now, true, with checkinstall package creation is much easier in redhat/debian. And debian/ubuntu release updates are super easy. However, you cant diss a tried and proven solution just because its not feature ritch. It will allow you to do what any package management solution is designed to do: install, upgrade, remove software packages. Enough said.

Glad to hear it (4, Insightful)

Rob Kaper (5960) | about 8 years ago | (#16289849)

Congratulations, and kudos to Pat Volkerding. Many distributions have tried to convert me away from Slack in the past decade: none managed. Debian got close at some point, but with slapt-get in place Slackware's package management has become much easier (updated my laptop from 10.2 to -current with ease). Vanilla rocks.

Theoretical question (3, Interesting)

Morrigu (29432) | about 8 years ago | (#16289865)

So let's say I'm a relative newbie to Linux, and I've just finished installing Ubuntu 6.06.1 LTS Dapper Drake on my laptop. I've read through the forums and have apt-gotten my way to a nice-looking Gnome or KDE desktop with 3D accelerated drivers for X, a bunch of useful apps and some games.

What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?

Let's say I've been using Linux for years, and I'm a compulsive downloader and installer. I like trying out different OS's and desktop environments, everything from FreeDOS to CentOS to OpenBSD. I'm familiar enough with different package systems and administration styles to figure out how stuff works, but I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on something tedious and unrewarding.

What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?

Just curious, not trolling.

Re:Theoretical question (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16289905)

Slackware offers newbies the ability to learn a lot about how Linux works.
It offers the experienced user a beautifully simple experience: no dependencies, no installing 'dev' binary packages and the fantatic and rare ability to easily mix and match self-compiled applications and binary packages on the same system without making yourself cry.

Re:Theoretical question (5, Informative)

Skater (41976) | about 8 years ago | (#16289919)

Distrowatch used to have a great comment about Slackware:

"If you want to know how Linux works, ask a Slackware user." :)

Re:Theoretical question (4, Informative)

shudde (915065) | about 8 years ago | (#16289943)

What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?

A learning experience that will stand you in good stead throughout many distributions.

Re:Theoretical question (1, Troll)

caluml (551744) | about 8 years ago | (#16290593)

Gentoo more so.

Cue uninformed trolls saying that watching gcc output scrolling doesn't teach you anything....

Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question (5, Informative)

uncleFester (29998) | about 8 years ago | (#16289955)

What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?

a more hands-on approach to the unix operating system. slackware isn't flashy, isn't what some would even call 'refined' but it is a stable, well-balanced hands-on distro. it's a little more 'primitive' in some things like package management (*whine* dependencies *whine*) but this also works in your favor when repairing a system (reliance only on tar if absolutely necessary). This is only one thought i came up with right quick..

What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?

rock-solid stable. if you stick with distro-only packages, you can expect to have practically no problems with it. that's part of the reason the package versions are older; they're tested. pat doesn't go latest-n-greatest unless a large demand exists or a security vuln is found. fwiw, i had a slack3 mailserver at my 1st job acting as corporate email router/gateway for our entire company (~150 ppl). except for the kernel and sendmail itself*, the system was vanilla slack. ran like a top.

i've tried a number of distros for short periods (longest non-slack dabbling was gentoo).. but i keep drifting back to it. i'm also a unix admin by day, if that matters. for me, slack is just plain and simple the easiest distro i've dealt with.

-r

* only reason i went more current with sendmail was this being the time ~sendmail8 started adding antispam bits and it was overall easier than going back and trying to hack the stuff in v7.. and i always love dabbling with the -current kernel, whatever it is.

Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | about 8 years ago | (#16290133)

I'm just curious, but what made you leave Gentoo?

I have used it for years and everytime I try another distribution they all just annoy me too much.

The only time I ever considered Slackware I took one look at the docs, read the bit about 2.4 kernel and threw the disk in the bin. I think that was Slackware 9.?? but everyone else was just releasing the first 2.6 kernels even then.
Why do they still go 2.4 by default now?

How does Slackware work with modern hardware? (Wifi, SATA, etc)

I am never likely to use Slackware and answer these questions myself as I am a sucker for running the most recent stable versions of stuff.

Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question (1)

Ravenscall (12240) | about 8 years ago | (#16290249)

The only time I ever considered Slackware I took one look at the docs, read the bit about 2.4 kernel and threw the disk in the bin. I think that was Slackware 9.?? but everyone else was just releasing the first 2.6 kernels even then.
Why do they still go 2.4 by default now?


Well, you could always just compile your own Kernel. Takes maybe an hour all told.

Or, even better, you can actually RTFM and see that you can easily select a 2.6 kernel during install, but I prefer compiling my own.

How does Slackware work with modern hardware? (Wifi, SATA, etc)

See the 'compile your own kernel' comment.

Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 years ago | (#16290429)

I'm the same way, except with Mandriva. I've been using Mandriva since Version 7 (which came out in 2000, back when it was Mandrake). I find that all the other distros annoy me too much. With Gentoo it's the installation process. I know you just have to read through the installation docs, but it's 2006, and I don't feel like printing out the docs, and they're too hard to memorize. No other distro I've seen requires you to follow website instructions to install it. With other distros it's other stuff. I find that Mandriva has a straightforward installation process, and usually all the hardware is working right after you install it. Software is also braindead easy to install, either from the command line, or with their nice admin tools.

Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question (2, Interesting)

rainman_bc (735332) | about 8 years ago | (#16290681)

With Gentoo it's the installation process. I know you just have to read through the installation docs, but it's 2006, and I don't feel like printing out the docs, and they're too hard to memorize.

Download LiveCD
Burn LiveCD
Boot LiveCD
Run through Wizard.

What's the problem? Gentoo now has an installer [gentoo.org]

Or you can always use Vida Linux which is a binary distro built on Gentoo...

Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question (1)

Cothol (460219) | about 8 years ago | (#16290339)

I agree, I've also been running Slack and Gentoo, but now I'm running Arch Linux, it's like Slackware but up to date (for desktop use) and with a great package manager called Pacman that is everyting I liked about portage but with no need to compile. Ofcourse if you want to compile everything you can do it with ABS.
www.archlinux.org

Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question (1)

bigpresh (207682) | about 8 years ago | (#16290653)

I like Slackware and Arch, I used to use Slack for everything, now I use Slackware for servers, and Arch for workstations, that combination suits me down to the ground, they're two top distros.

Arch has a lot of software ready to roll, a quick 'pacman -S <package>' away, and plenty more in the (quite active) Arch User-community Repository [archlinux.org] , and if you fancy rolling your own packages of anything, compiling and producing a package with abs [archlinux.org] (the Arch Build System) is easy enough too.

Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question (1)

cerberusss (660701) | about 8 years ago | (#16290605)

it's a little more 'primitive' in some things like package management (*whine* dependencies *whine*)
This also makes admins lazy. I know of one admin that found package management in Slackware a hassle, so he installed basically everything. He avoided installing packages later, however, all that software that can contain vulnerabilities makes a box less secure and less targeted for a single purpose.

Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question (1)

bigpresh (207682) | about 8 years ago | (#16291167)


This also makes admins lazy. I know of one admin that found package management in Slackware a hassle, so he installed basically everything. He avoided installing packages later, however, all that software that can contain vulnerabilities makes a box less secure and less targeted for a single purpose.


That's not the fault of the distro though, that's the fault of the lazy admin. If you choose to bang in a nail with a sledgehammer, it's not the sledgehammer's fault that you've made a mess of everything. Slackware allows you to do things your way. It's your own judgement call as to whether your way is sane or not.

Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 8 years ago | (#16290993)

One thing that I always loved about Slackware (I sadly have switched to Gentoo now but used Slackware for years before I switched) was specficially the lack of a lot of customizations (and the lack of a clear package system). I never was one for grabbing distro-specific packages (or waiting for them); as soon as the source was available for a new app I wanted to install it :). Slackware's barebones nature made that very easy to do without having to worry about breaking the package management system or replacing some uber-customized Redhat package with the plain vanilla version (and often hosing something up).

It was basically a tinkerer's dream come true ;).

Re:Theoretical question (1)

arun_s (877518) | about 8 years ago | (#16289971)

What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?
A newbie's reply here, so please be kind if I'm wrong :)
You learn quite a lot if you use Slackware. I was totally new to Linux more than a year back, and after trying Mandriva, Ubuntu, and a few others, it was Slackware that I finally stuck too.
It doesn't hide the underlying workings behind poorly made GUI wrappers (IIRC I struggled somewhat with Mandriva because of this).
Its basic package management is easy too, an installpkg filename.tgz almost always works for me. And since my (default?) installation put gcc, perl, python etc, I didn't come across dependency problems either. The 2 CD set of 10.2 also came with a surprisingly comprehensive bunch of apps (lots of small windowmanagers especially!), and there's always linuxpackages.net for the rest.
Give this distro a try, for its sheer simplicity and cleanliness its worth it.

Slackware Taught Me Linux (1)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | about 8 years ago | (#16289985)

Slackware taught me Linux. I had used distros before and after Slack (I'm on SUSE now) but none forced me to understand Linux more. I learned how to compile a kernel, modify X*.conf files, load driver modules and ./configure, make, make install. I switched to SUSE for laziness reasons, but because of Slack I've yet to have a problem that was too much for me to solve.

Re:Theoretical question (4, Insightful)

Ravenscall (12240) | about 8 years ago | (#16290009)

I concur here. It is not easy, but hell, if you want easy there is OS X and Windows. Using Slackware, customizing and tweaking it, you will learn, because, well, you HAVE to. However, it also allows you unparalelled customization without locking you into a specific format package manger. And if you cannot get a package to install, you can always just Use the Source.

It is funny, Using slackware, I always wondered what the big deal was with Gentoo users compiling thier own programs and such, until I tried Ubuntu one day and tried to compile something...

Re:Theoretical question (5, Insightful)

Noryungi (70322) | about 8 years ago | (#16290045)

What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?

The thing is (as far as I know) with Ubuntu (and many other distributions), you can use Linux just like you can use Windows: without knowing much, and without having to learn how to use a command line. It's nice, smooth, and not too hard. But you don't learn that much.

(Please note this is not to criticize Ubuntu, or any other distribution : Ubuntu is a great answer to a tough problem, how to make Linux useful for complete newbies).

With Slackware, you will have to learn . Sure, it will be tough, at first. But what you learn, you will be able to use on any Linux distributions, and on many other UN*Xes. I started with Slackware and I am today managing 10+ Solaris servers, as well as 12+ SuSE server. IMHO, what I learned under Slackware has been invaluable to the job I am doing today. YMMV, of course, but everyone I know who uses Slackware credit it with .

What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?

Slackware is interesting for hard-core Linux Geeks because:
  1. You have to learn. See above.
  2. You get to compile tons of stuff, which is also a great learning experience. Plus, you learn how to be independent from one distribution.
  3. Everything is open, everything is readable, everything is understandable. All configuration files and utilities are simple text and shell files. All the software compiled on Slackware, including the kernel, is vanilla: no annoying distribution-specific patches.
  4. Slackware is your distribution, your way. Except you don't have to waste countless hours to compile everything, like you have to do under Gentoo or with LFS. It's usually faster and simpler to install than either of these Linux distributions. Install it, and you have the basis of a rock-solid Linux system, ready to go, and ready to go your way , not the "Debian", the "Red Hat" or the "Mandriva" way. That's a big difference.


Try Slackware, you may find yourself hooked!

And, again: this is not an attack on such-or-such distribution. I love all distributions, but Slackware always had -- and always will -- have a special place in my heart. And on my computers.

Re:Theoretical question (1)

baboonlogic (989195) | about 8 years ago | (#16290547)

Try Slackware, you may find yourself hooked!

And, again: this is not an attack on such-or-such distribution. I love all distributions, but Slackware always had -- and always will -- have a special place in my heart. And on my computers.

As they say, once a slacker always a slacker! :)

hold on there buddy (-1, Flamebait)

bogie (31020) | about 8 years ago | (#16290891)

"Ubuntu is a great answer to a tough problem, how to make Linux useful for complete newbies)."

I'm sorry but I disagree with you on a fundamental level about *nix and learning. IMHO slackware and the rest of the *nixs are broken at the very core in that they require learning to be useful. Somewhere from many years ago there is a post by me here about ease of use and OS's. Basically what I had said is that the ultimate goal of any OS should be to be usable by anyone for anything. In a perfect world the learning curve for and OS is nil and it simply gets out of the way. You should be concentrating on the fact that OS's like Slackaware are broken and not done yet vs the fact that they serve as a learning tool for other "broken" OS's like the one's you mention. I hate to sound like GWB here but if you disagree with me your simply wrong. Your way is masochism and my way is the future of OS design.

Re:hold on there buddy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16291217)

I'm sorry but I disagree with you on a fundamental level about *nix and learning. IMHO slackware and the rest of the *nixs are broken at the very core in that they require learning to be useful. Somewhere from many years ago there is a post by me here about ease of use and OS's.


There is nothing wrong with Slack or any of the other less friendly UNIX variants. What is wrong is people like you think that one size fits all. It's just like comparing an M-16 to an MP5: any kid can be taught in a half hour to effectively aim and use an M-16, but an MP5 requires experience and finesse but in many situations yields a much superior result.

And for a requisite ad-hom: you're probably the same type of candy-ass who can't change the oil in his car.

In a perfect world the learning curve for and OS is nil and it simply gets out of the way.


This is a joke. Learning curve is nil eh? Considering that humans use different strategies to learn based upon previous experience and that everybody will perceive the OS in their own context it just goes to show that you're a retard. It's never going to happen.

And instead of a perfect world, people who want to earn a living work in the real world. As a Solaris/Irix/BSD/Linux admin I call tell you that Slackware will help you to this end.

Re:Theoretical question (1)

Like2Byte (542992) | about 8 years ago | (#16290215)

Let's say I've been using Linux for years, and I'm a compulsive downloader and installer. I like trying out different OS's and desktop environments, everything from FreeDOS to CentOS to OpenBSD. I'm familiar enough with different package systems and administration styles to figure out how stuff works, but I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on something tedious and unrewarding.

This is me! That being said, I'm no guru. I've collected a lot of older systems through the years and I have two boxes I like to test distros out on. One is a very tempermental beast - I think there's a problem with the bios. This PC is from 1996-97. I've tried many distros out on this box to no avail. Most recently I tried Debian 'Sarge' and it puked on the first install and I'm going to put Slackware 10.x or 11 back on it later. However, when I installed Slackware 10.1 on this box it too failed. None-the-less, I eventually got it up and running and it runs quite well.

What's my point? I guess my point is, is that slackware is notoriously effective/stable on older systems. When I got semi-serious about linux I turned to Slackware because of its reputation. I was not disappointed and I remember learning so much. My first install with Slackware on this system did not go smoothly - it was rather rough - but, it went on and I learned *a lot* about linux, permissions and its filesystem.

Ubuntu Massive Mouthful (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290221)

So let's say I'm a relative newbie to Linux, and I've just finished installing Ubuntu 6.06.1 LTS Dapper Drake on my laptop.
Just finished installing it, or saying it? Good grief!

Re:Theoretical question (4, Insightful)

Bandman (86149) | about 8 years ago | (#16290235)

Some friends of mine have a saying.

Use RedHat for a year, and you know RedHat really well.

Use Slackware for a year, and you know Linux really well.

It works, and requires that you learn. It's not a distobution for someone who wants to use a desktop and doesn't care how things work. It's for the person that says "I wonder what that file does".

Re:Theoretical question (1)

wolf369T (951405) | about 8 years ago | (#16290255)

I tried, as a newbie, many distros. Red Hat 8, Mandrake 8, then came the Knoppix-on-HDD times and now Ubuntu. They are nice. SuSE looks nice too, Ubuntu is very simple, so for a newbie they are OK. Still, my true love is Slackware. It's the distro I'm stick most of the times. I install and remove distros and always come back to Slack, because this is a true Linux ditro. If you want just another WindowsXP clone, try Fedora. Try Ubuntu. Try Mandriva. Try SuSE. Sure, they are nice (and slow), but their main mission is usability. If you want to use them easily, try one of them, you'll like it. If you want to learn to use Linux, try Slackware. My first ./configure, make, make install were in Slackware, my first make bzImage make modules make modules_install were here too. One big point for Slackware is it's speed (and stability, let's not forget). After FreeBSD, it is, by far, the fastest Linux on my machine (wich is not a brand new one). With slackware you feel like you control your system, you feel like using Unix / Linux trully. With Ubuntu it's just a true strong XP feeling. Eben the new theme has bumpy buttons like Aero. I like it flat. BSD init scropts vs System V 1-0.

No package manager? Rarely I feel the need. Just download the .tgz or, even better, the full sources and compile them. It's part of the learning process. Error? Google it. Never (or rarely) fails. Now, if you really need to compile stuff, choose Gentoo, but that one is a little to extreme for me. If you really insiste, there's always slapt-get with linuxpackages.net as repo. Works fine for me.

I find Slackware the best Linux balanced distro. A true Linux one, without trying to copy features from corporate OSes.

Thank you, Pat.

(Ok, I know, Debian is close to Slackware in stability, security and simplicity, but choosing Slackware may be just a personal option. Just for the record, don't want to start a distro-war here. In another Everett world, maybe I am a Debian fan. And a cat :)

Re:Theoretical question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290389)

You are tired of configuration tools not doing what you want?
You want to have full control?
You want to look behind the scenes?

Get Slack!

Re:Theoretical question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290451)

> What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?

A learning curve. Maybe not everyone's cup of tea, and if you want a distro that will install-and-go, fine, there are plenty of good ones. Ubuntu is great for that.
However, if you learn Ubuntu, that's all you know. Learn Slackware, and you learn Unix.

> What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?

You can dig right in under the bonnet and not worry about breaking a 250mb dependancy database written in martian heiroglyphs and thereby turning your shiny distro into a Black Screen of Gibberish, just by doing something a bit clumsy.

2.4.33? Ob. Futurama quote (5, Funny)

radu.stanca (857153) | about 8 years ago | (#16289875)

Welcome to the World of tomorrow!

Die Hard (3, Interesting)

slummy (887268) | about 8 years ago | (#16289883)

I will use Slackware until it's demise. Even after it's long gone I will build a LFS installation that mimicks Slackware's simplicity.

You... you... (2, Insightful)

TransEurope (889206) | about 8 years ago | (#16289995)

... can read my mind !!!??!

I use Slack since 1999, no other distribution of Linux
wowed me like Slack did. Nothing comes close, other
distributors try to overload their distros with lot's
of slow and bloated administration-services like YAST2
and so on. But Slackware just runs, and runs and runs...

Re:Die Hard (1)

Bandman (86149) | about 8 years ago | (#16290267)

I'm with you. I've thought about that too... "What if Pat kicks the bucket and no one takes over?" "Well, I guess I'll just have to do it myself".

I'm a slackware user since 1996/97, and I couldn't live without it. I'm a sysadmin and I current have it installed on over 40 production servers. It's terrific.

Re:Die Hard (1)

newt0311 (973957) | about 8 years ago | (#16290871)

you might want to look at Gentoo stage 1. faster to do and with useflags and custom compilng, is basically the same as the LFS install that you suggested.

download mirrors (3, Informative)

arun_s (877518) | about 8 years ago | (#16289887)

I've been checking the changelog [slackware.com] twice a day for a helluva long time, and its finally come.

Here's the full list of mirrors [slackware.com] from where you can download it!
(Or you can get the torrents [slackware.com] )

Torrent clients? (1)

Channard (693317) | about 8 years ago | (#16290137)

On a related subject, are there any linux distros that come with a built in torrent client? If not, they're so widely used it seems like it'd only be a matter of time before one does crop up. Followed by a suit from the RIAA.

Re:Torrent clients? (3, Informative)

pjbgravely (751384) | about 8 years ago | (#16290301)

Ummm, Gnome has a built in bittorrent client, so a few Distro's must have it already

Re:Torrent clients? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290319)

Slackware has a package for bittorrent in the extra directory, which I'm using in a slack10.1 system right now to download the slack11 dvd iso.

Re:Torrent clients? (2, Informative)

Rob Kaper (5960) | about 8 years ago | (#16290603)

I suppose some might have a Torrent client on their installation CDs, but the closest you can get with Slackware, if you have slapt-get installed:

echo "SOURCE=http://ftp.scarlet.be/pub/linuxpackages/Sl ackware-10.2/" >> /etc/slapt-get/slapt-getrc
slapt-get --update
slapt-get --install ktorrent (assuming you have a functional KDE)

Re:Torrent clients? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16291071)

KTorrent is supplied with the Slackware 11 release (only since version 11), it's in extra/ktorrent. Also, a command-line client has been supplied since at least 10.2.

And there was much rejoicing... (4, Informative)

Noryungi (70322) | about 8 years ago | (#16289937)

Yep, finally we got Slackware 11, and the list of changes and improvements is impressive.

Just as an aside: Patrick Volkerding is one of the unsung heroes of Open Source. Slackware is after all the oldest Linux distribution still in operation, and it is also one of the most stable and well-managed. And this is quite an achievement, considering it still is a one-man operation, and that Patrick went through some tough times recently, with his health problems and the birth of his cute baby... Hey, I am a dad, too, and I know how tough it is wih a new-born in the house!

So, thanks for everything Patrick! You are "The Man" and Slackware rocks!

And, yes, I am a (very) satisfied Slackware customer. How did you ever guess? :-)

I see... (-1, Flamebait)

trezor (555230) | about 8 years ago | (#16290105)

Slackware 11 is now out and all the 28 remaining Slackware users in this world rejoiced.

Seriously. Why would anyone use this one a production system or even for playing at home. The only thing Slackware is good for is learning a little about how Linux works, then you move on to a distro that allows you to get things done.

I know all the (28) Slackware fanboys will mod me to oblivion for this, but seriously. It's a piece of shit compared to anything else released the last 6 years, and yes, that includes Redhat.

Re:I see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290189)

Hey....no one asked me.... I must be # 29

Re:I see... (1)

ibbo (241948) | about 8 years ago | (#16291095)

30 here anymore?

Re:I see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290259)

from the Linux Counter [li.org]
Distribution
153638 registrations entered 156607 values
distribution Count Percent
conectiva 769 0.50%
debian 31966 20.81%
diy 840 0.55%
fedora core 10480 6.82%
gentoo 13760 8.96%
knoppix 830 0.54%
kubuntu 782 0.51%
mandrake 11951 7.78%
mandriva 2073 1.35%
red hat 16238 10.57%
s.u.s.e 16159 10.52%
slackware 15754 10.25%
ubuntu 10812 7.04%
Others 24193 15.75%

shure, just 28 then.

Re:I see... (1)

Ravenscall (12240) | about 8 years ago | (#16290419)

pwnd!

Re:I see... (1)

RangerElf (32760) | about 8 years ago | (#16290295)

BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Thanks for the laughs, you really made my day.

-gca

Re:I see... (1)

cp.tar (871488) | about 8 years ago | (#16290411)

Now, I have never used Slackware; it never came my way when I started using Linux, then I got hooked on Gentoo and don't see a reason to look back.

However, I do find your comment a bit... strange. Inflammatory, even.
It may be because you just didn't bother to provide any kind of proof for your claims.

I have never heard anything but words of praise for Slackware (barring the comments on the still-default 2.4 kernel, which is still a very valid option in Gentoo as well), and now you have nothing but derrogatory words for it. I would very much like to know why exactly you find Slackware so lacking.

Re:I see... (1)

trezor (555230) | about 8 years ago | (#16290525)

2 things. 1: Lack of proper package management (want to uninstall that package?). Want those dependencies resolved? Want those packages automaticly updated to get the latest security patches? Tough shit. This is a "hands-on OS" and damned if you'll get any assistance getting work done efficiently.

2: Lack of configuration tools. Want to get things done? Want that thing setup now? Go to your favorite text editor and edit those config files by hand, even though it's utterly brainless work that any decent distro should have automated.

Multiply these factors by your amount of servers and tell me you want to manage that piece of shit. Seriously. Some people work in the real world and needs to get things done, not tweak with custom builds and config files. And in this respect Slackware is 100% certified useless.

When I see people praise Slackware it's usually because they got things working, at last, after tons of work. They seem to think this is something special that other OSes doesn't do. Or something. Debian on the other hands... Users praise Debian for getting things done, no hastle, just like that, and that was 2 seconds ago.

I might be biased, but I have used Slackware, and my bias is mostly made up of that experience and my encounter with other Slackware users.

Re:I see... (2, Insightful)

cp.tar (871488) | about 8 years ago | (#16290621)

1: Lack of proper package management

What about slapt-get etc? Sounds like package management to me... one of the posters here stated he'd upgraded from 10.2 to 11 without a glitch.

2: Lack of configuration tools. Want to get things done? Want that thing setup now? Go to your favorite text editor and edit those config files by hand, even though it's utterly brainless work that any decent distro should have automated.

That, really, is a matter of taste.
I like manual configuration; you have to learn where things are, but once you do, no automated confiuration is that quick and flexible.
Of course, I do not despise automagically created defaults that work...

Anyway, thank you for the explanation.

Re:I see... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290519)

Actually, I consider Slackware to be the best linux distro for a server. My order of preference is this:

  1. Slackware
  2. FreeBSD
  3. OpenBSD
  4. Debian

The only thing Slackware is good for is learning a little about how Linux works, then you move on to a distro that allows you to get things done.

Au contraire, if you can't "get things done" using slackware then you haven't learnt anything about *nix!

Re:I see... (1)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | about 8 years ago | (#16290565)

Oh yay, troll time! The only difference between a Gentoo troll and a Slackware troll is that I only have to put up with Slackware trolls every couple of years when a new release comes out.

Some people have different needs, hence different distros for different people. You wrongly assume that your needs are the same as everone else's. I know I'm going to regret this, but I'm very interested in knowing why you feel so strongly that Slackware is shit compared 'everything else.' And please don't bring up the 2.4 kernel. There are reasons for that, and 2.6 is included if you want it anyway.

Re:I see... (1)

trezor (555230) | about 8 years ago | (#16290649)

It's not as much trolling as a statement of facts, but anyway... See this post [slashdot.org] where I replied to exactly the same.

Take a decent Linux distro, remove any useful tools and strip it down to the binaries (and the binaries only). This is essensially a harddrive image, not a distro.

I fail to see what impressive or useful qualities this removal of tools reaps.

Re:I see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290889)

This is essensially a harddrive image, not a distro.

It's only a "hard drive image" if you don't know what you're doing. It takes me around 20 minutes to do manual package selection on a fresh install and I end up with exactly what I need for a base system.



I fail to see what impressive or useful qualities this removal of tools reaps.

There is no "removal of tools", slackware users generally don't want or need these features. I fail to see what your problem is, if you don't like the distro then perhaps Slackware isn't for you? I don't feel the need to bitch about SysV init every time an update to some other linux distro is announced.


Re:I see... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290627)

I am a devoted slackware user (been checking the Changelog in excess of 3-4 times daily) and you ask why people use slackware?
1. speed it might be possible to get slightly better performance with Gentoo or *insert source distro here* however it also doesn't take days to install.
2. It will run on just about anything. it is nice when I can run the identical base system on my brand new desktop, all the way down to my 486 based linux firewall.
3. A sane design. In slackware you will find everything from a software package where the software package would normally install it. in redhat/fedora you really never are quite sure where the config files might turn up.
4. Redhat. I started out back in the good old days with a fresh Redhat installation (9 I think) and just trying to use that for a week forced me to find a better alternative. the distro I actually found was vectorlinux (slack based) I liked it so much that I simply never looked back. I've tried all the latest SuSE, Fedora, and UBUNTU. and non can perform in comparison to my slackware box in terms of speed, or ease of use.

Re:I see... (1)

ColdCoffee (664886) | about 8 years ago | (#16290673)

Seriously...all 28 of us are really happy you feel that way. We wouldn't want an asshat like in the Slackware brotherhood. Go play with your Mac, you lemming.

Re:I see... (1)

spiderbitendeath (577712) | about 8 years ago | (#16290881)

Hey, don't insult us Mac users like that. I use Slackware and Mac OS X as my two main OSes. Slackware for Server and Desktop, OS X for laptop. Tell him to go back to drooling over the latest screens of Vista.

Slackware & Mac OS X (1)

McDutchie (151611) | about 8 years ago | (#16291065)

Hey, don't insult us Mac users like that. I use Slackware and Mac OS X as my two main OSes.

Nice to see someone else who does that. I thought I might be the only one who felt that Slackware and Mac OS X are both transparent and user friendly, each in their own very different way.

Re:I see... (1)

goarilla (908067) | about 8 years ago | (#16290955)

jezus even

##slackware channel is populated with +230 people atm ...
which is a normal number in that support channel ... granted ##gentoo got 3 times
that number easily, but you sir are just trolling!

Dropline Gnome (4, Informative)

pjbgravely (751384) | about 8 years ago | (#16290243)

For a better slack experience, if you are using a GUI that is, I recommend Dropline Gnome http://www.droplinegnome.net/ [droplinegnome.net]

You may have to wait to use it on Slackware 11, but if you like Ubuntu you will like it.

Allow me to reprhase that (-1, Flamebait)

trezor (555230) | about 8 years ago | (#16290303)

If you like Gnome in Ubuntu, you will like Gnome on any other distro too. Except on Slackware you have to wait a little for binaries that wasn't compiled for a 15 year old architecture, unless ofcourse you feel like compiling it yourself.

If you like how things just work in Ubuntu, you will loath the sight of Slackware, regardless of version for it's total lack of decent packagemagement or configuration tools.

For the record, I use Debian, FreeBSD, Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP. All OSes I am very happy about for their respective qualities. IMO Slackware has none.

Re:Allow me to reprhase that (2, Interesting)

megabyte405 (608258) | about 8 years ago | (#16290447)

I like both Gnome (and Ubuntu) and Slackware. How? Specialization. Ubuntu on desktops, Slackware on servers. Each has their place.

Re:Allow me to reprhase that (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | about 8 years ago | (#16290989)

Does Slackware have the same commitment to timely security patches, easy upgrades, and stable version numbers (no breaking configuration files) that Debian does? If not, I'd rather keep running Debian stable on my servers.

cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290359)

I've been using Arch for the last year, i much prefer it to slackware ,they are both simple yet extremely powerful distros, arch won out because it has a very good package manager (pacman) and i love the BSD init script style. This is not to diminish pats achievement. I spend a lot of time at linuxquestions.org which is home to the official slackware support forum, a lot of people (much more than 28) swear by it there. 2.4 kernel isn't really my thing but then i've heard reports of it being a little faster than 2.6 (less modules?)

It's ok, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16290473)

1999 keeps calling, they say they want their default kernel back...

old packages...? is there a reason? (0, Redundant)

chroot_james (833654) | about 8 years ago | (#16290731)

Judging from http://www.slackware.com/announce/11.0.php [slackware.com] it looks like slack is still using a lot of old packages. Is there a reason? Apache 1.3. Kernel 2.4. Etc...

Seeeeeed (1)

jitterysquid (913188) | about 8 years ago | (#16290797)

1200 peers and I'm only getting ~100k/s?

C'mon people, increase those transfer rates. This is one of the few things you can share via bittorrent that won't get you named in a lawsuit (unless it's against your AUP, of course).

Re:Seeeeeed (1)

failure-man (870605) | about 8 years ago | (#16291129)

I'll be putting a couple megabits on over the next few hours (as soon as I have the bits to throw.) I assume others will do similar.

64bit Support (1)

rojebrio (997893) | about 8 years ago | (#16290945)

I love slackware, I've been using it for more than a year without changing distributions or installing windows. However, I'm planning to update my machine, and add an Intel Dual Core. My question is: Why doesn't slackware have support for 64bit architectures yet? There might be ports like Slamd64 or BlueWhite64, but IMO 64bit support should be included in the main distribution.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?