Slashdot Log In
Slackware 11 Has Been Released
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Tue Oct 03, 2006 06:43 AM
from the come-a-long-way dept.
from the come-a-long-way dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Slackware 11 is Coming 115 comments
ejd3 writes "In the slackware-current changelog Pat has stated that 'Although there's still quite a bit in the TODO queue here I'm making my steps carefully as -current is very stable, and I think it should ship as a stable 11.0 soon so that we can get back to the business of breaking things in -current. :-)' How much longer will the slackers have to wait?"
[+]
Slackware 11.0 Almost Done 190 comments
linuxbeta writes "DistroWatch reports that the development process for Slackware Linux 11.0 is almost over. OSDir has some sweet shots of Slackware 11.0 RC1 in the Slackware 11.0 RC1 Screenshot Tour." From the article: "'There are still a few changes yet to happen, but let's call this Slackware 11.0 release candidate 1.' Other recent changes include upgrade to stable kernel 2.4.33; upgrade to udev 097, and rebuild of glibc 2.3.6 for both 2.4.33 and 2.6.16.27 kernels. The new release will ship with X.Org 6.9.0 and KDE 3.5.4, and will provide SeaMonkey instead of Mozilla."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
2.4 kernel vs 2.6? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? (Score:5, Informative)
It's more stable, and uses less memory. Slackware however has been 2.6 ready since 9.1. Now they provide not one but two 2.6 kernels, one 2.6.17.x in
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's with these rumors that the 2.6 kernel is a memory hog? I'm not seeing it. About 2 months ago, I put Slackware 10.2 on a 166 MHz Pentium (no MXX) with 48M of ram and a 1G hard drive. Made a 75M swap partition. I compiled a kernel from vanilla 2.6.16.4 source. And, for the heck of it, I made the root file system Reiser4. (The Reiser4 patch for that kernel version is now labelled as "don't use", sigh.) And you know what? Running XWindows, with a lightweight window manager (jwm, used in Puppy Li
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd guess because there's no 2.7 branch - 2.6 is open to a lot of experimentation. If I'm looking for stability 2.6 isn't it... It might be functionally stable but as far as dev goes it could be broken at any time.
That said, I install a 2.6 kernel on all my Slack boxes (Which is not a subset of all my boxes now that I think about it...)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From the ChangeLog.txt from Fri Jul 14 18:31:20 CDT 2006
"I'm probably going to leave the bare.i 2.4.32 kernel as the default kernel (or perhaps sata.i?) as it has very good performance and probably better security due to the simpler and longer-tested design."
Glad to hear it (Score:5, Insightful)
Theoretical question (Score:4, Interesting)
What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?
Let's say I've been using Linux for years, and I'm a compulsive downloader and installer. I like trying out different OS's and desktop environments, everything from FreeDOS to CentOS to OpenBSD. I'm familiar enough with different package systems and administration styles to figure out how stuff works, but I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on something tedious and unrewarding.
What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?
Just curious, not trolling.
Re:Theoretical question (Score:5, Informative)
"If you want to know how Linux works, ask a Slackware user."
Parent
Re:Theoretical question (Score:5, Informative)
What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?
A learning experience that will stand you in good stead throughout many distributions.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But, but, don't you need to know how to speed read _before_ you start with Gentoo??
Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question (Score:5, Informative)
a more hands-on approach to the unix operating system. slackware isn't flashy, isn't what some would even call 'refined' but it is a stable, well-balanced hands-on distro. it's a little more 'primitive' in some things like package management (*whine* dependencies *whine*) but this also works in your favor when repairing a system (reliance only on tar if absolutely necessary). This is only one thought i came up with right quick..
What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?
rock-solid stable. if you stick with distro-only packages, you can expect to have practically no problems with it. that's part of the reason the package versions are older; they're tested. pat doesn't go latest-n-greatest unless a large demand exists or a security vuln is found. fwiw, i had a slack3 mailserver at my 1st job acting as corporate email router/gateway for our entire company (~150 ppl). except for the kernel and sendmail itself*, the system was vanilla slack. ran like a top.
i've tried a number of distros for short periods (longest non-slack dabbling was gentoo).. but i keep drifting back to it. i'm also a unix admin by day, if that matters. for me, slack is just plain and simple the easiest distro i've dealt with.
-r
* only reason i went more current with sendmail was this being the time ~sendmail8 started adding antispam bits and it was overall easier than going back and trying to hack the stuff in v7.. and i always love dabbling with the -current kernel, whatever it is.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I have used it for years and everytime I try another distribution they all just annoy me too much.
The only time I ever considered Slackware I took one look at the docs, read the bit about 2.4 kernel and threw the disk in the bin. I think that was Slackware 9.?? but everyone else was just releasing the first 2.6 kernels even then.
Why do they still go 2.4 by default now?
How does Slackware work with modern hardware? (Wifi, SATA, etc)
I am never likely to use Slac
Re: (Score:2)
Why do they still go 2.4 by default now?
Well, you could always just compile your own Kernel. Takes maybe an hour all told.
Or, even better, you can actually RTFM and see that you can easily select a 2.6 kernel during install, but I prefer compiling my own.
How does Slackware work
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How does Slackware work with modern hardware? (Wifi, SATA, etc)
- See the 'compile your own kernel' comment.
I've had no problems whatsoever getting sound, SATA, USB, network, WiFi, Bluetooth working on my Dell Inspirion 6400 (six months old) on my Slackware 10.2. I upgraded to Linux 2.6, followed some clear kernel instructions for my Intel card and moved to -current because it was nearing release anyway and I already happily used -current on another system.
A few extra notes:
- most SATA controllers work with
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Download LiveCD
Burn LiveCD
Boot LiveCD
Run through Wizard.
What's the problem? Gentoo now has an installer [gentoo.org]
Or you can always use Vida Linux which is a binary distro built on Gentoo...
Re:Theoretical question (Score:5, Insightful)
It is funny, Using slackware, I always wondered what the big deal was with Gentoo users compiling thier own programs and such, until I tried Ubuntu one day and tried to compile something...
Parent
Re:Theoretical question (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is (as far as I know) with Ubuntu (and many other distributions), you can use Linux just like you can use Windows: without knowing much, and without having to learn how to use a command line. It's nice, smooth, and not too hard. But you don't learn that much.
(Please note this is not to criticize Ubuntu, or any other distribution : Ubuntu is a great answer to a tough problem, how to make Linux useful for complete newbies).
With Slackware, you will have to learn . Sure, it will be tough, at first. But what you learn, you will be able to use on any Linux distributions, and on many other UN*Xes. I started with Slackware and I am today managing 10+ Solaris servers, as well as 12+ SuSE server. IMHO, what I learned under Slackware has been invaluable to the job I am doing today. YMMV, of course, but everyone I know who uses Slackware credit it with .
What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?
Slackware is interesting for hard-core Linux Geeks because:
Try Slackware, you may find yourself hooked!
And, again: this is not an attack on such-or-such distribution. I love all distributions, but Slackware always had -- and always will -- have a special place in my heart. And on my computers.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
This is me! That being said, I'm no guru. I've collected a lot of older systems through the years and I have two boxes I l
Re:Theoretical question (Score:5, Insightful)
Use RedHat for a year, and you know RedHat really well.
Use Slackware for a year, and you know Linux really well.
It works, and requires that you learn. It's not a distobution for someone who wants to use a desktop and doesn't care how things work. It's for the person that says "I wonder what that file does".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing much except for few small sets of users. For those who want to understand Unix, it offers a straightforward system. For those who can't burn/boot CDROM, it offers a UMSDOS based subset ZIPslack that can be installed via network or even via floppies (lot of them) from MSDOS on a FAT32 drive.
What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?
It's comprehensible and pret
2.4.33? Ob. Futurama quote (Score:5, Funny)
Die Hard (Score:3, Interesting)
You... you... (Score:2, Insightful)
I use Slack since 1999, no other distribution of Linux
wowed me like Slack did. Nothing comes close, other
distributors try to overload their distros with lot's
of slow and bloated administration-services like YAST2
and so on. But Slackware just runs, and runs and runs...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a slackware user since 1996/97, and I couldn't live without it. I'm a sysadmin and I current have it installed on over 40 production servers. It's terrific.
download mirrors (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the full list of mirrors [slackware.com] from where you can download it!
(Or you can get the torrents [slackware.com])
Torrent clients? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
echo "SOURCE=http://ftp.scarlet.be/pub/linuxpackages/S
slapt-get --update
slapt-get --install ktorrent (assuming you have a functional KDE)
And there was much rejoicing... (Score:5, Informative)
Just as an aside: Patrick Volkerding is one of the unsung heroes of Open Source. Slackware is after all the oldest Linux distribution still in operation, and it is also one of the most stable and well-managed. And this is quite an achievement, considering it still is a one-man operation, and that Patrick went through some tough times recently, with his health problems and the birth of his cute baby... Hey, I am a dad, too, and I know how tough it is wih a new-born in the house!
So, thanks for everything Patrick! You are "The Man" and Slackware rocks!
And, yes, I am a (very) satisfied Slackware customer. How did you ever guess?
Dropline Gnome (Score:4, Informative)
You may have to wait to use it on Slackware 11, but if you like Ubuntu you will like it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Check out slackware-10.2/patches/ChangeLog.txt at your favorite mirror for timeliness of recent patch releases. Not exactly sure what you mean by "stable version numbers", but the main ChangeLog.txt files are available going back several releases, which will show the history of every package version number. Package upgrades can be done through sla
I've been using Slackware since 3.2 (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a big fan of what I like to call Fire-and-Forget computing. I like to set up a system right the first time, then never have to touch it again (or as little as possible). Slackware has been very good about letting me do exactly that. My firewall/NAT box has been running happily without any unexpected reboots since sometime in 1998. For the most part it was only getting rebooted every time I moved from one dorm room/apartment to the next.
Slackware's also better at running on older hardware than any other distro I've found. I've just tried to get Ubuntu installed on some bare-minimum-specs HP e-PCs, without success, and there didn't appear to be any sort of lowmem option there.
I do miss the base floppy set for installing a minimal working system, done away with somewhere around slack9. I do miss that awesome little booklet that was tucked inside the 4-cd set (the first Linux book I ever read, and the most useful IMHO). I've always disliked the lack of a ftp/wget-based installation option on the stock install disk. And I've never been able to get the slack-build scripts to build new openssl-libs and openssh for me. Those are pretty much the only complaints I've ever had that were slackware-specific.
If you don't like the minimalist attitude of slack, use something else.
Will Slackware ever officially port to x86_64? (Score:3, Interesting)
All my current PCs CPUs now use AMD64 instruction sets. I'm motivated to moving them toward more pure AMD64 software. I've owned Athlon 64 CPUs for three years now, and still no wide and mainstream support for AMD64. All the 64-bit options currently are not as mainstream or as polished or conflict free.
I've been experimenting with the unofficial Slamd64 port with modest success. Fred Emmott is really a great champion and I appreciate greatly all his work. Slamd64 still has plenty of rough edges and may only approach, but perhaps not exceed, the smoothness and polish of the official distribution.
In the meantime, I'm experimenting with Slamd64 but also branching to other distros which claim full AMD64 support (xubuntu, SuSE, Gentoo are my current areas of focus) to guage whether they seem more mainstream and have smoother support.
Readers, why do you think there is no "official" effort to bring Slack to AMD64? Do you think this may change?
I know Patrick has commented previously on this. To turn a blind eye to AMD64 seems to me to shortchange the future of the distro. Slack was founded on i386 and has maintained steadfast focus on that architecture, and though AMD64 isn't so greatly different, i386 won't be with us always. What becomes of Slack then?
I would like to see Fred's fine start folded into a greater official port to lift out of the level of just being a curious project and to get the backing of a larger community.
Please share your views.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It must be a funding issue.
It's strange how there's an official IBM S390 port but no AMD64. The IBM ports were done by people from IBM. There are also S390 ports of a couple of other distros (RedHat for one, and maybe SuSE?). IBM's marketeers must be in overdrive.
SPARC and Alpha ports have come and gone over the years, but never had the backing of Sun or DEC/Compaq/HP.
Remember, Pat does most of the work himself and without sufficient motication and resources, can't do everything.
Intel is still selling m
Re:But how (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:But how (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:package manager? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If by decent you mean bloated and riddled with cyclic dependancy verification: then, no it does not.
However, the package management solution that comes with Slackware (and always has) is durable, functional, and flexible. It has versioning information, so you can upgrade by package name. You arent stuck with hunting down un-necessary prerequisites because the author says you need them
Re:package manager? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.slackware.com/changelog/ [slackware.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the laughs, you really made my day.
-gca
Re: (Score:2)
Now, I have never used Slackware; it never came my way when I started using Linux, then I got hooked on Gentoo and don't see a reason to look back.
However, I do find your comment a bit... strange. Inflammatory, even.
It may be because you just didn't bother to provide any kind of proof for your claims.
I have never heard anything but words of praise for Slackware (barring the comments on the still-default 2.4 kernel, which is still a very valid option in Gentoo as well), and now you have nothing but derrog
Re: (Score:2)
2 things. 1: Lack of proper package management (want to uninstall that package?). Want those dependencies resolved? Want those packages automaticly updated to get the latest security patches? Tough shit. This is a "hands-on OS" and damned if you'll get any assistance getting work done efficiently.
2: Lack of configuration tools. Want to get things done? Want that thing setup now? Go to your favorite text editor and edit those config files by hand, even though it's utterly brainless work that any decent d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about slapt-get etc? Sounds like package management to me... one of the posters here stated he'd upgraded from 10.2 to 11 without a glitch.
That, really, is a matter of taste.
I like manual configuration; you have to learn where th
Re: (Score:2)