Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Slackware 12.1 Released

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Fri May 02, 2008 10:33 PM
from the old-timers dept.
Operating Systems Software Linux
SlackFan writes "Slackware 12.1 has been released, with kernel 2.6.24-5. 'Among the many program updates and distribution enhancements, you'll find better support for RAID, LVM, and cryptsetup; a network capable (FTP and HTTP, not only NFS) installer; and two of the most advanced desktop environments available today: Xfce 4.4.2, a fast, lightweight, and visually appealing desktop environment, and KDE 3.5.9, the latest 3.x version of the full-featured K Desktop Environment.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Slackware 12.1 is released by prapu (1147161)
[+] VectorLinux SOHO 5.9 Deluxe Reviewed 36 comments
An anonymous reader writes with a link to Caitlyn Martin's review of the Slackware-based Vector Linux SOHO 5.9 Deluxe: "I've read past reviews by other reviewers describing Vector Linux as 'better Slackware than Slackware' or 'what Slackware should be' and I always felt that was a bit of a stretch. With this release it isn't a stretch. You get all the reliability and stability of Slackware, better performance than vanilla Slack (at least on my hardware) and the features and most of the conveniences users of distributions touted as user friendly have come to expect."
This discussion has been archived.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.

Slackware 12.1 Released 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • ok and? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 02 2008, @10:38PM (#23282046)
    same stuff as in every other distro. the same "most advanced desktop environments available today" can be found in hundreds of other distros too. Why not advertise based on what makes slackware different from the rest than taunting the software that everyone else has?

    • excellent question (Score:5, Interesting)

      by goombah99 (560566) on Friday May 02 2008, @11:12PM (#23282188)
      What exactly does go into making a "distro" anyhow. My only experience with this is making my own custom Knoppix CDs that woke up as apache servers. Seemed pretty freakin easy. it was sort of a chinese menu of what you wanted to leave in and leave out.

      But of course I was standing on the shoulder's of giants. Someone created the look and feel of that and made all the config files work. But how much of that is what goes into a distro and how much is pretty much set by the packages them selves. e.g. choose gnome and is basically the look and feel set?

      these days everything seems like it comes down to four looks, KDE or gnome in user interface and redhatish or debianish in directory layout and packages.

      THe only distro I've played with that felt amazingly original in every aspect is Damn Small where everything is different and very tight. (never tried Puppy).

      So what exactly goes on to make a "distro". What makes say ubuntu different than one of the four chioices (kde,gnome, debian, redhat)

      • Re:excellent question (Score:5, Informative)

        by notamisfit (995619) on Friday May 02 2008, @11:25PM (#23282242)
        Really, any distribution boils down to package selection, package management, and release engineering. As per your example, Ubuntu uses Debian unstable for packages and apt for management, but only supports a small subset of unstable, and releases every six months. Yeah, just about every GNOME and KDE distro looks the same (well, scratch that for KDE, considering how much Mandriva, SuSE, and Kubuntu patch it all to hell and think they're actually *improving* it). Slackware's more of a throwback to the days when a Linux distro was just an easy way to get a system up and running, as opposed to an all-inclusive software library.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by farrellj (563) *
          I built a custom distro, MfxLinux, based upon Slackware, so I have rooted around the innards of it, so think I can give you a much better answer...

          Yes, a lot of a distro is the packages and release engineering...but a huge portion is making sure that everything works together, that all the libraries a program needs are installed, that if those libraries need other libraries or utilities that they are installed as well. It's also making sure that everything is working OK with the versions of libraries, compi

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Ian Alexander (997430)
        If you think DSL is amazingly original then you should try SliTaz. ( http://www.slitaz.org/en/ [slitaz.org] ). They've crammed a working desktop into half the space of DSL, and it's a damn sight more functional, too. It's one of the most unique distro's I've tried so far.

      • Re:excellent question (Score:4, Informative)

        by turgid (580780) on Saturday May 03 2008, @05:22AM (#23283202) Journal

        Making a distro is quite an involved software integration exercise.

        It's not just about selecting a bunch of packages. It's about selecting the right versions of the source, configuring, compiling, testing, debugging, patching, testing, packaging, installing, testing, testing and more testing.

        A lot of bugs in core utilities get found in this way, and obviously they have to be fixed. Whether that's the disto maintainer, the developers or random community members depends on the individual circumstances.

        Bugs pertaining to architecture (big- vs. little-endiam, 32- vs. 64-bit etc.) get found. Bugs in shiny new cutting-edge versions of applications, obscure kernel bugs caused by very particular combinations of configuration parameters, you name it.

        As the complexity of GNU/Linux and unix systems increases, it's an ever-increasingly difficult job. That's why large, diverse communities of testers and developers are important.

        As for Slackware, it's simple, conservative, very high quality and very useful/usable.

        It's a shape Pat hasn't done an official AMD64 version. I've moved to SLAMD64 for my newest machine now. I should really make a donation to Fred.

    • Because what makes Slackware different from the other distros hasn't really changed since previous versions. What has changed are the addition of new features that other distros have had, and Slackware is now adding.
    • And that's why I use it.

      Incidentally, "taunting" is not the same word as "touting."
    • Some distros started moving config files around and going more towards GUI programs (redhat). At least with Slackware you can still expect to find stuff in the right places, inetd.conf in /etc. Stuff like that.

    • Re:ok and? (Score:5, Funny)

      by gambolt (1146363) on Friday May 02 2008, @11:49PM (#23282336)
      Slackware isn't different from other distros. Other distros are different from slackware.

      slackware:linux::Rolling Stones:Rock&Roll

    • What makes Slackware different... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Saturday May 03 2008, @12:25AM (#23282460) Homepage
      It's Slacktastic, and chock-full of Volkerdingliciousness! Slackware - part of a well-balanced breakfast.*

      * Notes: Not to be used as a flotation device. May stick to certain types of skin. Do not taunt Slackware.

  • Que pasa? Nada. (Score:4, Funny)

    by DarrenBaker (322210) <darren.flim@net> on Friday May 02 2008, @10:40PM (#23282060) Homepage
    According to their home page, this is the first interesting thing to happen to Slackware since 2005. It's the most boringest of all distros!

    • Re:Que pasa? Nada. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pommpie (710718) on Friday May 02 2008, @10:44PM (#23282074)
      Which is why it works so boringly. No crashes, no wacky untested software with potentially unrealised bugs, no fancy memory-sapping 3D effects... where's the fun in that?

    • Re:Que pasa? Nada. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zappepcs (820751) on Friday May 02 2008, @10:47PM (#23282090) Journal
      To some it is boring, yet to others it's a sign that not only is Linux not going to go away, but it is available for any business, government institution, school, person etc. to modify and use it as they please. There is no single church around the globe despite the rather vigorous efforts of several groups. There should be no single OS. The simple reason for this is Born out by your comment. We simply cannot all play nice together and agree on what an OS is supposed to be and do. For that reason alone there should never be a single OS. Vive Slackware! Vive la difference.

      You never know, one day next year (around March 15th or so) you will find that you have the perfect application for the use of Slackware. All of a sudden, it will seem like a cool OS for that application and you will have a moment of de ja vu and silently thank me for this moment.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by celle (906675)
      Another name for boring is rock solid stable. Been using it since 1994. I haven't lost data yet even after my home was struck by the biggest tornado in the United States (2 1/2 miles wide)(it had friends). I was doing a backup and cleaning out the interior of the case when the tornado struck. I went back to what was left of my town(three tornados went through it)(obliterated) and my house(struck by two tornados) the next afternoon. Put the covers back on and removed the server to my fathers. I then cleaned

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Cairnarvon (901868)
        ``Tornado resistance'' is probably more of a hardware feature than a software one, wouldn't you think?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MightyMartian (840721)
      And it's the fastest. I tried Ubuntu's server edition and found it a royal pain in the ass. Part of it, I suppose, is because Slackware was the first distro I installed (way back in 1993 or thereabouts), and has remained very conservative in its setup process, as well as maintaining all the default paths, so that a good deal of software can compile with little or no pissing around. It's packaging system isn't as pretty as Debian's, but is functional.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by MightyMartian (840721)
          I still do quite a bit of work building routers, mail gateways and file servers, and while I've tried everything from Mandriva to Ubuntu server edition to FreeBSD, I keep going back to Slackware. I'll admit that, after fifteen years of playing with the distro, I just feel more at home, but still, I feel more like I'm configuring the system I want, rather than working around the system someone else decided I should have.

  • Hooray for slack! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lambent (234167) on Friday May 02 2008, @10:44PM (#23282066)
    The first distro I ever installed, and the one that's changed the least over the years. You may say that is a bad thing, but Slack is the only distro i can think of that hasn't succumbed to bloat, rot, ego, or the all-things-to-all-people syndrome. It may have stagnated for a while, but it's good to see it get back to a more regular release schedule.

  • Fix URL, please - s/org/com/ (Score:5, Informative)

    by robw810 (819414) * <robw810.yahoo@com> on Friday May 02 2008, @10:47PM (#23282088) Homepage
    The official Slackware site is at slackware.COM, not slackware.ORG. (and it's already dead as of comment #3).

  • All hail Pat and the Slackware Team (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stox (131684) on Friday May 02 2008, @10:47PM (#23282092) Homepage
    They just keep going, and going, and going!!

  • Bittorrents ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by ClickOnThis (137803) on Friday May 02 2008, @10:51PM (#23282106) Journal
    ... are listed on this page:

    http://www.slackware.org/getslack/torrents.php [slackware.org]
    • Seed you bitches! Rescue me from Ubuntu hell!

        • Re:Bittorrents ... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by MollyB (162595) * on Saturday May 03 2008, @08:05AM (#23283672) Journal

          Unconvincing username? Check.
          Better than AC by a long shot.

          Obscure referential sig? Check. Can't say. I disable sigs like many here. Who cares?

          Playing to current popular /. groupthink? Check.
          Since when is that a hanging crime around Slashdot?

          UID around the one million mark? Check.
          Again, who cares? Nobody decides when they will be born. Lots of high-UID's are brilliant contributors.

          Do the world a favor and kill yourself.
          Any of us could take that advice, but you won't find many volunteers. How about yourself? Exactly what do you offer the world that your absence would be missed?

          (yes, I fed the troll. Got my Irish up...)

      • and again, it's .COM, not .ORG
        Blame the summary. I clicked through to the announcement, then navigated to the torrent page. In any case, the .org and .com addresses both point to the same IP address, so no big deal?

          • slackware.com has address 64.57.102.34
            slackware.org has address 12.246.148.57
            True, but the www.slackware.com and www.slackware.org addresses both point to 64.57.102.34.

      • and again, it's .COM, not .ORG
        Looks like a mirror. Is there a difference?
  • Why do they call it Slackware?
  • Where as most distros I have tried will recognize and work well with the mentioned card, my efforts to have those distros recognize and fully utilize the remote control which comes with the card have failed at best! The whole exercise was full of frustrations culminating in giving up.

    It's my hope that someone can tell me that "Yes, Slackware will work for you."

    But will will not be surprised if Slackware turns out to be just like the distros I have tried.

    If you asked me whether Linux sucks, I'd unequivoca

    • You do know that hardware is a kernel thing, not a distro thing, right? If no other Linux distribution supports it, Slackware more than likely will not.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by julesh (229690)
      It's my hope that someone can tell me that "Yes, Slackware will work for you."

      Slackware will work for you if you know how to make it work. Slackware is a distribution for experts. Slackware is a distribution for people who don't mind^W^Wwant to get their hands dirty.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by kv9 (697238)

          Simply put, Slackware is a distro for people who have plenty of time to waste.

          simply put, Slackware is a distro for people who have plenty of time to invest in something that they really like/care about and dont have a constant need to whine about the smallest thing that "breaks". but I guess that's a novell concept for you spoonfed motherfuckers.

          I find the constant bashing of Slackware for being hard to use and arcane quite ironic (situational irony). simple is not hard and arcane. simple is efficient.

          (disclaimer: I am no longer a Slackware user, but I still can appreciate somet

      • "sudo apt-get build-essential"... (Score:4, Informative)

        by SEMW (967629) on Saturday May 03 2008, @04:41AM (#23283096)

        Distros like Ubuntu are not developer friendly because ... you will have a hell of a time compiling anything from source unless you get all the right development libs after install
        Yes, I can see how running "sudo apt-get build-essential" can be hell. I mean, at 28 characters it, umm, really puts a strain on my RSI. Or something.

  • Illness (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tragek (772040) on Saturday May 03 2008, @02:05AM (#23282774) Journal
    Whatever happened with Patrick's illness?

  • I thought this was news for nerds.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Skylinux (942824) on Saturday May 03 2008, @02:46AM (#23282868) Homepage
    WTF is going on here? I have been reading through the comments and it appears as if most "nerds" have been pussy wiped by other distros and don't understand the point of actually knowing your OS.

    If you learn Slackware, you know Linux! Why is that you ask?
    Because Slackware does not come with a bunch of highly modified packages, Slackware is build using tested and known to be working code. Configuration and partition is done by hand. Slackware does not crash if setup properly, it is a perfect OS for any server or Desktop.... if you know what you are doing but it is not for you grandma. It is an Operating System for "real" nerds :)

    With all the bitching about lack of features in Slackware, it may be time for you "nerds" to go and load up Vista for the ultimate hand holding experience.

    You all remind me of that computer technician we have at work, he thinks he is the freaking king but knows nothing about computers. He fixes issues by running every GUI tool on his thumb drive and hoping that one of them sticks. When I ask him how he fixed it, he has no clue and says that "Tool xyz" fixed it. When I ask him to run "regedit" his eyes open wide and he starts to sweat.... cold sweat.
    Dude you are not a computer tech, geek, nerd, hacker .... whatever. Go home and learn something.... almost forgot, he is A+ certified, uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    Same goes for Slackware, use it, learn it, know Linux or use openSuSE and stop the bitching.

    • Re:I thought this was news for nerds.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dusty101 (765661) on Saturday May 03 2008, @03:39AM (#23282968)
      Although the parent post's a bit... overcaffeinated, he has a point: maintaining a Slackware box teaches a lot about Linux overall. As a stepping stone for those who find it "as user-friendly as a rattlesnake", might I suggest they try out VectorLinux ( http://vectorlinux.com/website2/ [vectorlinux.com] )? It's a Slackware-derived distro that's easier to get to grips with, & runs nice & quickly on old boxes (which is why I often use it). Not totally pure in terms of 'free' (as in speech), but rather usable.

  • System Requirements (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dotancohen (1015143) on Saturday May 03 2008, @03:23AM (#23282932) Homepage
    The slack site lists these as the system requirements:
            * 486 processor
            * 16MB RAM (32MB suggested)
            * 100-500 megabytes of hard disk space for a minimal and around 3.5GB for full install
            * 3.5" floppy drive

    Does one really need a floppy drive to install it? Of my two desktops and single laptop, none have a floppy drive anymore.
    • Eh, it's not too bad. It's ncurses based (no super-pretty, takes 10 minutes to load anaconda crap), and partitions still have to be done by hand (although cfdisk is a lot nicer than regular fdisk). All in all, just regular Linux install stuff (select packages, set time zone, configure network, yadda yadda yadda).
    • If you considered it "painful" to burn the CD, maybe Linux wasn't the best choice in the first place.

      • If you considered it "painful" to burn the CD, maybe Linux wasn't the best choice in the first place.
        He meant that he placed the CD in a fire.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.