Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Operating Systems Software Linux

Slackware 12.1 Released 244

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the old-timers dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Slackware 12.1 Released

Comments Filter:
  • ok and? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 02, 2008 @11:38PM (#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 Saturday May 03, 2008 @12:12AM (#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)

      • by notamisfit (995619) on Saturday May 03, 2008 @12:25AM (#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:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          >(well, scratch that for KDE, considering how much Mandriva, SuSE, and Kubuntu patch it all to hell and think they're actually *improving* it)

          Actually Mandriva has one of few distros what use upstream version of KDE. KDE developers like it when distribution builders works with KDE project together and does not "fork" own version from it as Kubuntu does.

          There was story about this when KDE4 came out on dot.kde.org where KDE devels "thanked" Mandriva.
        • 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.
        • Seems a bit French for my tastes...

          Seriously, it is nice to see that there are some people who don't assume that the whole world speaks English. However, French?!? Just looking at the login screen made me want to eat frogs.
      • by turgid (580780) on Saturday May 03, 2008 @06:22AM (#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.

    • by Phroggy (441)
      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 Saturday May 03, 2008 @12:49AM (#23282336)
      Slackware isn't different from other distros. Other distros are different from slackware.

      slackware:linux::Rolling Stones:Rock&Roll
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Inner_Child (946194)
        That's actually a fairly apt analogy - the Stones are one of those bands that people either love or hate, regardless of the band's longevity.

        So thank you. Thank you for the first good analogy Slashdot has ever seen.
    • by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Saturday May 03, 2008 @01:25AM (#23282460)
      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.

    • 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?

      To be honest, Slack isn't likely to pick up a lot of new users since it doesn't make heavy use of GUI config tools that don't link up right with actual config files. Though Slack's system is more reliable and deployable (in my opinion), thes

  • by DarrenBaker (322210) <darren&flim,net> on Friday May 02, 2008 @11:40PM (#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 @11:44PM (#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 @11:47PM (#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 Anonymous Coward
        Slackware was the first distribution I used, a fairly long time ago (3.0? when 1.2.13 was the current kernel). I stuck with it for years until 7.0.0. My problem, I suppose, is that for me it was sort of in no man's land.

        I compiled everything myself, for two main reasons: not everything was available as a Slackware package, and I patch a large number of packages to tweak them in a way I like. The issue with Slackware was package management: it has a package system, but not a terribly sophisticated one. I
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by mrbluze (1034940)

        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

        I just read some reviews on Slackware, then Gentoo. I run Ubuntu at the moment. I think people bash Slackware because it's difficult to install and maintain compared to others. But if someone gave me the job of installing Linux onto a computer that will later be difficult to physically access and must work no matter what, say, for example, in an operating theatre, then Slackware is a worthy choice. Seems like it's possible to get exactly the features you desire with slackware and nothing else.

        But it seem

        • by delt0r (999393)
          My wife is currently using slackware. I'm currently using slamd64 12.

          Its all good.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Baseclass (785652)
          My wife and my 11 year old son use Slackware.
          Sure Slackware may be slightly more difficult to install than some other distros, but when it's all said and done, Slackware is incredibly lean and stable.

          My son recently got a new PC for for his birthday and came pre-installed with Vista. He told me he wanted to keep Vista installed so he could do some gaming.
          A week or so later he was so fed up with the bloat, the pop-ups, and restrictions he said "dad, can you put Linux on this for me". Made me very proud
    • 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.
      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        I started with Slackware myself (version 2) with ye olde kernel 1.1.47 with the A, N, and D sets, and part of the X set. On a 386DX25 with 8MB FPM DRAM, a 1MB trident card, and a 120MB maxtor disk on an ISA IDE controller, I had a full development kit with the ability to build the system (though not enough disk space to do it, heh heh) and X with Netscape. Good times. Today, I have a real computer, so I can run a bloatier distribution.

        Probably the only reason I would run slackware at this point is if I had

        • 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.
    • When you're installing a server OS for production use, boring is good. Very, very good.
  • Hooray for slack! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lambent (234167) on Friday May 02, 2008 @11:44PM (#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.
    • Same here. Slackware 3.0 was the first linux I installed. (OK, I'll admit I've used Multics, Idris, Interactive IX/386 etc.. and ported big apps to the last one of those). Looked at 11.0 and was *delighted* to see that it isn't bloaty. If I wasn't playing with the newest Debian right now I'd use it. It isn't a joke to say that anyone who knows Slackware well *really* knows Linux... Andy
  • by robw810 (819414) * <robby@@@rlworkman...net> on Friday May 02, 2008 @11:47PM (#23282088) Homepage
    The official Slackware site is at slackware.COM, not slackware.ORG. (and it's already dead as of comment #3).
  • by stox (131684) on Friday May 02, 2008 @11:47PM (#23282092) Homepage
    They just keep going, and going, and going!!
  • Bittorrents ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by ClickOnThis (137803) on Friday May 02, 2008 @11:51PM (#23282106) Journal
    ... are listed on this page:

    http://www.slackware.org/getslack/torrents.php [slackware.org]
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by notamisfit (995619)
      Seed you bitches! Rescue me from Ubuntu hell!
  • 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.
    • by Skapare (16644)

      If you asked me whether Linux sucks, I'd unequivocally say..."Yes it does, and it does so big time." All because of a remote control that does not work.

      If you asked me whether Hauppauge hardware sucks, I'd unequivocally say..."Yes it does, and it does so big time." All because of an OS that does not work.

    • 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.
      • 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.
        Simply put, Slackware is a distro for people who have plenty of time to waste.
        • by schon (31600)

          Slackware is a distro for people who have plenty of time to waste.
          No, it's the exact opposite. Slackware is a distro for people who know what they're doing and don't have plenty of time to waste.
        • 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

        • by swillden (191260)

          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.

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

          I applaud your highly-efficient lifestyle. It's not everyone who can completely avoid time-wasting entertainment activities like television, movies, fictional books, video games and fiddling with your computer's operating system.

          • I applaud your highly-efficient lifestyle. It's not everyone who can completely avoid time-wasting entertainment activities like television, movies, fictional books, video games and fiddling with your computer's operating system.
            I didn't say one shouldn't waste time on enjoyable things, did I? Wasted a lot myself with Gentoo. You'll have to agree, though, that for the majority of users, it's not a particularly enjoyable activity - hence the warning.
            • by swillden (191260)

              I didn't say one shouldn't waste time on enjoyable things, did I?

              You snidely implied that it was only for people who didn't have anything better to do. The fact of the matter is that nearly EVERYONE has significant free time that they spend on activities that they find enjoyable. It's not a matter of how much "time to waste" you have -- an ordinary amount of free time is adequate -- it's a matter of how you choose to waste it.

              I agree with your new statement, that for most people fiddling with the innards of their operating system is not an enjoyable activity, but t

      • by zsau (266209)
        I wasn't an expert when I started using Slackware. I guess I was when I stopped, though. (I switched to Debian a few years ago because I wanted to run it on a PPC. I'm now back to x86 chips, but I'm too lazy do everything, and Debian's easy enough to use now, unlike when I started with Slackware.)
  • by hitest (713334)
    Congratulations, Pat! Thanks for your dedication:-) I'll always be a Slacker!
  • Everytime i see a post about slackware it brings back some old memories... slackware was the first distro i'd used (tho not the first time i'd used linux) and i think the only other options at the time were yggdrassil and sls.

    Sooo many floppies. Its good to see it still survives and thrives.
  • Slack was my first Linux distro, and I still fondly remember downloading the floppy iso's with so much excitement. That's why recently I decided to give it another whack.

    I have to say though, it lacks a lot of the polish of the more recent distro's, and this is not a good thing. It's been several months so I don't recall the details, but I mostly just recall having the same sorts of issues that I had on other distros several years ago, but are now annoyance free in those other distros.

    It's not j
  • Illness (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tragek (772040) on Saturday May 03, 2008 @03:05AM (#23282774) Journal
    Whatever happened with Patrick's illness?
  • by Skylinux (942824) on Saturday May 03, 2008 @03:46AM (#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.
    • by Dusty101 (765661) on Saturday May 03, 2008 @04:39AM (#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.
      • by Gazzonyx (982402)
        Slackware was my first distro, and I can vouch for what you say; I learned more in my first week with Slackware, during which time I hosed my system about 3 times. Everyone laughs when I say that, but it's true. I always wondered why everyone thought that Linux was so 'fragile', as it took a pounding and then some for me to hose the thing. I later found out that you can't screw up a dozen compile and install cycles on most distros and expect them to keep running. I literally learned more about Linux dur
    • 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 :)

      What you say is the same thing that's repeated by Gentoo and FreeBSD fans all too often. There is some truth to it as I've found out (used Gentoo for a long time myself), but point is, these days, I do not want to toy with my OS (and let's be fair - that's what setting up Slackware really is), I want it to jus

    • Stability? Other Linux distros are just as stable, many have run for years without a hiccup.

      Learning? Learn what? If you want to work professionally with Linux, you will find that most businesses want you to know redhat.

      I use debian because I think it has the best package management in the business, among other things. If you going to do a better job of manually managing your packages, you are going to have to really fight to stay on top of your system.
    • by turgid (580780)

      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.

      Most have given up and left /. because their interesting and informative posts keep getting modded Troll or Flamebait whereas the ignorant rantings and astroturfers get modded up.

      Maybe I'm getting old. I just come here to read the headlines now and go to other sites to find the actual news. Having said that, many things that make the

  • System Requirements (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dotancohen (1015143) on Saturday May 03, 2008 @04:23AM (#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.
    • No. Last time I installed Slack on a machine it was from a CD.
      I suppose it's just listed there as an absolute minimum requirement, e.g. if that's all you have, you can still install Slackware.
      (Similarly, you don't need a 486 processor, but if that's all you have, it will run :)*

      * Slackware is installed on my main machine, an Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+ (2GHz),2Gb RAM,GeForce 8600GT,Dual Monitor-ed monstrosity.
      It's also on my wee internal test web-server, a Pentium MMX 166MHz with 16Mb RAM :D
      • by turgid (580780)

        I've been running Slackware since 1995 (initially on a 486). Last year I got an Athlon 64 3200+ (2.0GHz) and later upgraded it to a Athlon 64 X2 5200+.

        I decided to give SLAMD64 [slamd64.com] a try. It's straight Slackware compiled for AMD64/Intel EM64T. Although I haven't done any serious benchmarks, my SETI@Home floating-point measured performance went up 55% when I installed the 64-bit client. The system is using memory more efficiently too (read up on the problems 32-bit OSes have with RAM of 1GB and above).

      • I suppose it's just listed there as an absolute minimum requirement, e.g. if that's all you have, you can still install Slackware.
        I suppose if one defines CD-ROM drive as superseding a floppy drive, then that's fine. However, I don't perceive it that way, as the critical function of a floppy drive (reading and writing floppy disks) cannot be performed with a CD-ROM drive.
    • by dbcad7 (771464)
      Been a long time, but I think you need a floppy drive any more.. Turning on my wayyback machine (late 90s'), I remember installing with boot and root disks that you made to get the system started.. the rest of the distro was on the CD.. but I really can't say for certain if it was still this way last time I installed.

      Perhaps someone who's installed it in the last few years (It's been like 3 or 4 years ago for me) could give a definite answer.

    • No, you don't need a floppy. [slackbook.org] The ISOs are bootable.

      In addition to keeping with the spirit of Linux distributions circa 1995, Slack seems to keep actual documentation from that era as well. The system requirements you list, plus:

      Q11: Is it possible to install this operating system without a floppy drive? [slackware.com]

      The only answer involves using LOADLIN to jump into a linux kernel from DOS. Wow! I appreciate the simplicity of Slack, but their main FAQ could include at least reference bootable CDs - it has b

    • I just found this on the FAQ page:

      Q: Is it possible to install this operating system without a floppy drive?

      Yes! And it's not much harder, either. First, you'll need a DOS partition.
      A DOS partition?!? I hope the FAQ is seriously out of date.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by beej (82035)

      Does one really need a floppy drive to install it?

      No! Slackware supports punchcards.

    • by CCFreak2K (930973)
      Actually, since 2.6 is the default kernel, you can't even boot from a floppy anymore. You'll have to settle for CD-ROM or network boot. The 486 part is still the norm, though. Back in 11 or something, Pat changed the compile flags to compile for a minimum of 486.
    • by Kirkoff (143587)
      No, a floppy drive isn't necessary. You will have to burn a CD with a bootable image, however. IIRC, the CD images for Slackware that are available have already done all of the required stuff to make the boot image work.
    • The website is not updated. If you actually read through the book [1], you will realize that it needs CD drive, and Floppy installation support was discontinued really really long time ago (when it was at version 7).[2]

      [1] http://www.slackbook.org/html/installation-requirements.html [slackbook.org]

      [2] http://www.slackbook.org/html/installation-requirements.html#INSTALLATION-METHODS [slackbook.org]
    • by mikael_j (106439)

      As others have said, you don't need the floppy but as a bare minimum you can install from floppy.

      I haven't actually done a Slackware install from floppies since I think it was Slackware 3.6, installing A and N (base and network) and then grabbing everything else I needed over a 33.6kbps dialup connection

      /Mikael

  • Got to echo many comments here... I thought slack had gone pink years ago.

    Good to see them still there fighting the bloat. I'll have to see about getting some slack on a spare server somewhere...

    (and y'all thought I was just a BSD pussy)
  • Yes it was Slackware that dragged me away from Yggdrasil Linux, before I decided that Red Hat was the way to go. Then after Fedora was released I jumped to Debian, where my heart lay for several years until I decided Ubuntu was the way forward :)

    Guess I'm a bit of a distro whore :) Tried Mandrake and SUSE along the way too, but never got along with them. I guess Slackware is one of the most venerable surviving distributions?
  • Is there such a thing as a MAME Linux Distro? With better support for TV outputs (resolutions, refresh rates), USB and PS/2 control panels (I-PAC, etc), mini-ITX CPUs, GPUs and audio chipsets, FAT32 support?

    I've seen lots of "MAME on Linux" pages if I do a search, but is there a MAME-specific Linux distro?

    And if there isn't any, which distro would be the most basic one to make the perfect MAME cabinet (as in, the OS doesn't run background processes that would be useless for a game system).

The Force is what holds everything together. It has its dark side, and it has its light side. It's sort of like cosmic duct tape.

Working...