Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Ask Patrick Volkerding, Slackware Founder 258

Posted by Roblimo from the hardcore-Linux dept.
Ask him what? About the Walnut Creek/BSDI merger? Sure. About what's happening with Slackware in general? Go ahead! Boxers or briefs? The moderators probably aren't going to let that one through, but almost anything else is fair game. Questions will be selected (as usual) slightly after 12 noon EST Tuesday; Patricks's answers are scheduled to appear Friday.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Patrick Volkerding, Slackware Founder More

Ask Patrick Volkerding, Slackware Founder

Comments Filter:

  • Rescue disks (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Slackware has, imho, the greatest boot/root disk pairs of all time. The ones from Slackware 4.0
    completely rocked. I keep a pair around at all times.

    However, I was extremely dissapointed when I saw that Slackware 7 didnt have a rescue.gz.

    Will you ever start with the rescue.gz again, or have you called it quits with that vital image?
    A modified 4.0 image thats compatible with the latest scsinet.i / bare.i will be just dandy!
  • I heard somewhere that ftp installation is in development. Is this true? If it is true is it coming in the next version or some later one?

  • Your Choice (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hello, Patrick!

    Thanks for Slackware... It's groovy. Here's my question:


    You are walking down the sidewalk. It's a lazy day, you don't have much to do. It's warm. You pass by a building. A man is standing in front of the doorway to the building. He's leafing through some papers attached to a clipboard. He looks up and sees you.

    When you draw near the man, he pats you on the back and makes conversation. After a few minutes, he convinces you to come inside the building to participate in an experiment.

    the man leads you inside and into a large, white room. The room is empty except for a table. At the table sits a georgeous blonde. She has a large, juicy hamburger sitting on the table next to her.

    the man sits you down at the table, next to the gorgeous blonde. you are happy to see him leave. The gorgeous blonde smiles at you, bats her eyes and twirls her hair with her finger.

    Suddenly, you hear a voice over a speaker mounted on the wall behind you, "You can have whichever you want. Which do you choose, Heather or the Wendy's triple cheeseburger."

    You aren't sure you heard that correctly, "huh?"

    The voice seems agitated, "You can have either one, but not both! Which is it?! Heather?! Or the Wendy's triple cheeseburger?!"

    You look at Heather, smiling at you as she twirls her hair.... mhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhm.

    You look at the Wendy's triple cheeseburger, succulent and dripping with juices.... mhmhmhmhmhmhmhm.


    My question for you, Patrick, is: Which would you choose? Heather, or the Wendy's triple cheeseburger.


    NOTE: "Natalie Portman" is not a valid response. Responding "Natalie Portman" will bring about a severe beating with a two-foot long, processed spiced-meat stick. After which, you will wake up naked, pale and quivering on the sidewalk.


    thank you.

  • Preferences (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Which do you like better, Jerkcity [jerkcity.com] or Pokey the Penguin [yellow5.com]?

    $10 says this question will be moderated down because the moderaters mostly seem to be humorless assholes.

  • the name (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just out of curiosity, where did the name come from? 'Slackware' originally made me think that it was meant to be easier then the other distributions out there, but, I'm just crazy :)

  • . (Score:1)

    by volsung ( 378 )
    Anger is not the way of the Jedi, Quinn.

  • >Codifex Maximus ~ It may hurt my pride to be wrong once in a while, but I'd rather be flamed
    >with better information than to be left blissfully ignorant.

    Well, since you insist:

    The actual interjection is "hear, hear," not "here, here." As in "Hear what the person I'm agreeing with has to say."

    Just FYI.


    --
  • Do you feel that you have the resources you need to keep up with all the work that must be done in maintaining the distribution (keeping up with new versions while ensuring the stability and security that Slackware is known for, etc.), or must sacrifices be made because of limited time, manpower, money, etc.? Will the spin-off of Slackware change that? How so?
  • When I'm installing an app that didn't come with the distro, I prefer to compile from source. It really doesn't take that long, and I get to see all the documentation in case there's something weird. Often, the app in question isn't avaialble as an rpm or deb package anyway.

    If it came with the distro, but it isn't already installed, I head over to http://www.slackware.com/ and click Packages (or hit the right arrow key, if I don't happen to be running Netscape). I can either download it from there, or find it on my CD.

    If it came with the distribution, no, I don't like compiling from source (with exceptions like Apache), simply because I don't want to mess with it. If it didn't come with the distribution, why not?
  • Typically grits just take salt, pepper, and butter. Some people like to add stuff like crumbled bacon, cheddar cheese, and chopped green onions, but we make fun of those guys down here in da south.
  • I have a copy of the 4 cd Slakware 3.4 set from Nov 1997.
    Also I actually have a 4 cd set with Slack 2.2, Debian 0.91, kernel source 1.2.1 and a few other things from march 1995.
    I'd be willing to make some images for a site looking to make early versions availiable.
  • Actually he DID just make changes to SLS to start...eventually it evolved into what is now slackware. Originally it was just SLS with modifications...then the installation scripts were re-done ( they WERE from SLS ).

    Have a look at this interview with Patrick from 1994 in Linux Journal
    Click here for the article [linuxjournal.com]

  • I think many choose Slackware because they are insecure in their Unix masculinity. I know how to compile a kernel, make World for XFree, build and rebuild gcc, debug with gdb, build my own packages with autoconf, libtool et al.

    Real geeks don't want to spend all day compiling some new toy, and the next few days trying to wipe it from their system. When I'm really hungry, I don't make my own dough, grow my own veggies, slaughter my own pigs and press my own sausage--I pick up the phone and call Pizza Hut.

    Real geeks use Debian.

    --

  • Slack On Mac (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Being a Mac user and using Slackware at work on our PCs, I'm always on the lookout for Linux ports on the Mac. I really like the structure and tools that you package with Slackware and I'm frustrated with the Mac ports that I've tried. So I was surprised when I came across this little site talking about porting Slackware to a 7200 and G4 Mac (slackintosh.exploits.org [exploits.org]). Are you aware of this project and what do you think about its possibilities?
  • There are a couple of reasons (I feel like I can answer this, I know the guys who made the new page). First, and maybe most importantly, one of the guys who made the web page is colorblind. :-) But in general, it seemed that the grayscale seemed like slackware... simple, elegant, efficient.
  • "So much longer"? Try maybe 2 years (if that) Redhat's 1.x releases had code names (ie "Mother's Day" release, "Halloween" release etc). I didn't use it back then, but as I understand it, these were NOT beta versions. They then went to Redhat 2.0 which was ELF and started using version numbers.

    You can debate whether Redhat increases version numbers too fast, but they've never skipped a number. The fact that you're not even aware of Redhat before 4.x simply exposes what a newbie _you_ are (speaking as someone who started Linux with Slackware 1.0).
  • Background: I started Linux using Slackware 1.0, then moved to Redhat 2.0 and then Debian 2.2, so I've been around a bit.

    The charges I see levelled most often at other distros (ie Redhat) generally come down to two things:
    1. It's too easy to use/is too big, you don't learn
    2. It's too unstable.
    When I started using Slackware, (1) was certainly a complaint many people who were using SLS or MCC levelled against Slackware. As for (2), I remember the days when smail as shipped with Slackware couldn't deliver to MX addresses, when g++ shipped with the wrong path for its headers compiled in and a dozen other problems. So, it hardly seems like bugs are something Redhat has a monopoly on.
    How do you view these "problems?" You've made backhanded comments about Redhat being unstable before, do you think the charges levelled against other distros are fair? Do you think that these days Slackware *is* stable (even if it wasn't) and has the "right" amount of stuff in it (even if people 6 or 7 years ago disagreed and thought it was too big)? How much difference do you think there really is between using one distro or the other?
  • I find that I want to change the configuration details of enough of the software that it is easier to simply make a habit of compiling it all myself.

    This saves the hassle of downloading a binary version, installing it, finding I don't like the default configuration, saving any content I might have created with the misconfigured (from my view) version, uninstalling it, and putting that content back later.

    Yes, given the choice I also spend a couple minutes modifying my pizza once it arrives. They just don't have all the things I like on my pizza.

    Real geeks are a diverse lot.

  • Debian!

    Everyone's favorite not-a-bit-like-RedHat, completely non-commercial (well, except for spin-offs like Corel), power-user distro :)
  • When you take away the fluff of the merger/spin-off news what does this really mean for Slackware in terms of development and long-term goals? Will there be more resources working to make Slackware even better than it is today (the best damn distribution of Linux out there IMHO), will there be an attempt to go public and sell your services if so any ideas on partnerships ( this would be good for convincing stubborn bosses to use it more often ). I know this has probably been hashed out already so I'm not going to try and give the pros and cons I'm just interested in what will be happening with an OS that I use on a daily basis.

    Regardless of what happens keep up the good work.

    Sig--------
  • My point was that some people use Slackware just to flex their fucking geek muscles, not that Slackware requires you to compile things. No, I don't use Slack. I use Debian, and I love it. I am not a Debian advocate. I'm not an advocate of anything. I use what I like, and I like Debian.

    We hired a guy who swore by Slackware. He wanted to run ggrits, but didn't have the analrape.so.2 library, so he had to go out and find a Slack package for that, couldn't, so he tried to compile it himself, but got hung up because he didn't have another library, so he went to get that, but the main FTP site was full, so he did a search on Alta Vista and came up with a lot of Bosnian porn featuring Natalie Portman.

    We had to fire him after a week, because he wasted all his daytime trying to gather up all the components of little trival packages like gnome-asswipe-applet instead of working.

    He had a friend who was a GNOME, a real GNOME and not a Mexican. The GNOME fingered his asshole with a little GIMP tickle-brush, and we are supposed to pay for this?? I don't know about you, but some of us have work to do. I would rather `apt-get install ggrits' than grow my own fucking corn, grind it, heat it, or go to Denny's and ask Mrs.Stretchy-Leggs to shove it down my beau pantalones. So, fuck you, Slappy.

    I think I'll become a troll, since Slashdot is a festering shit-hole of "me too" wannabe geeks who weren't even born when the real dudes were online.

    Does anyone else get really pissed off when Malda says "Ooh I want one of those", when we all know goddamned well he's fucking rich now?

    I still buy things from Amazon just to spite the communist genius-grant stinker RMS. It's easy to be a communist when you're supported by the rich.

    Like Mischa Auer in MY MAN GODFREY. Look, dear, Carlo's a monkey!

    The coolest thing about ESR is that he's a gun nut, and that's great because if one of you fawning dipshits tried to suck his dick in actual RL, he'd blow your fucking head off.

    Try thinking for yourself sometimes, you pathetic slashfucks.

    Hey, Debian is great, I love it. If you don't want to use it, that's cool. I apologize for claiming that "Real geeks use Debian", when that is obviously incorrect.

    Real geeks use whatever works.

    I actually tried grits at Denny's this weekend did not like them at all. What's supposed to go on them? Syrup? Honey?

    The point is that there's more than just Slack and Redhat in this world. I love package managers, especially for a DESKTOP system. It's awesome being able to just apt-get install some neat little toy rather than spend all day compiling it.

    Speaking of which--have you ever tried installing KDE or GNOME from scratch on a P75? FUCK THAT SHIT, dude! I set it compiling in the morning and it took the whole damn weekend.

    Anyway, use whatever you like. I'll use Linux until I can dig up the clams to buy a nice new PowerPPC and run MacOS X. I'm no zealot, man. I use what works, and what has games.

    Well, I'd better be going. Someone actually moderate this to FLAMEBAIT or TROLL, since it deserves it, unlike you did with my comment to that Roblimo story about Al Gore's webmaster, you unjust fuckwads.

    --
  • why did they skip three version numbers so people would think that Slackware is newer

    Well, if you go to: the FAQ [slackware.com] where it talks about just this, you will have your answer.

    He did not do it just so it looks "newer".
  • Do you find that the SubGenius religion and the Linux mindset go well together? :) In all seriousness though, what first caught your attention to linux and made you like it enough to want to distribute it?

    Hail Eris ;)

    Sgt Pepper
  • Slackware stayed with libc5 for a long time and "fell behind". It was a reasonable choice, but gave the perception it was out of date.

    Now with verison 7, Slack is once again at the front of the pack. Mandrake has caught up, but RedHat is still in the 6.x series, and many others are still stuck in the dark ages of 2.x.

    :-) :-) :-)

    --
  • Slackware has been in a Retail Box since 4.0. I know for a fact they sell it at CompUSA with about 5 or 6 others.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • "Slackware" comes from the Church of the Sub Genius. They like slack.
  • Hello Pat!

    First i must say it was great meeting you at LinuxWorld!

    Now for the serious question!

    now that BSDi and Walnut Creek are merging and Slackware is spinning off into it's own company, will Slackware continue to be the company where you can meet it's president/head/whatever at expos and such?

    imho, that seriously gave slackware a huge edge over the "commercial" linux distro and the militant (did i say that?) debian folks.

    also: any job openings? ;) i had also spoken with you about a sparc port of slackware, and you had told me you couldn't because you needed an sbus frame buffer. please let me know if you still need this!
  • Since when do Slack users have to recompile kernels or rebuild X? Since when do you have to compile anything? Have you even used Slack?
  • That's the beauty of Slackware!

    Has anyone actually found the time to even try all the 4500 packages in Debian? Or the thousands in Redhat, Mandrake and SuSE? I've been burned too often using the "default" installation that I choose "custom" whenever possible. But there's no way in hell I'm going to spend two hours of install time just choosing packages.

    Who needs 600 chiefs? Slackware takes the smart route by only have a few chiefs, then letting the rest of Open Source take care of their own packages. Unlike Debian, it doesn't take Slack six months to make a decision. But I guess if you have 4500 packages, you have to have maintainers for them.

    Why does Debian need 50 support lists? Slack gets by just fine with only one. How does one know which list to ask? Somehow I suspect that the most common reply in the Debian lists is "Wrong list, RTFFAQ!"
  • Is that why it takes 50 packages in Debian to equal the one emacs package of any other distro? Hey! I'm joking! Stop the mailbombing okay!

    Seriously, Debian seems to have a greater atomicity with their packages, but that's not the only reason they have 4500 packages. I mean, they have *my* applications as packages too! You can't get much more desperate than that :-)
  • Uh, if you take a look, Slack is sitting on store shelves. And it don't need a GUI installer, because the text installer it already has is far easier and robust that anything else. Yes, it's bare bones. That's the whole joy of Slack! No dangly bits of cruft or suffocating fluff.
  • So why not include a single foo.bar.1.4 with the joeschmoe fix? Is there any reason to keep the broken version around?
  • He actually answered this http://www2.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/issue2/2750 .html [linuxjournal.com]. Basically he says that he started installing SLS on some computers for a professor, and ended up fixing bugs in the SLS setup. The ball started rolling, and eventually he had slackware

    That's nice, but not what I was really trying to ask about (perhaps I was too delicate). The SLS/Slackware story, as I remember it, involved attempts to "close" an open source license on the SLS install scripts, accusations that somebody was trying to prevent SLS from making money...a bunch of more sensitive issues that were presented way too emotionally at the time to allow any kind of rational analysis or learning to take place. Also, I think the current interest in the story is that SLS was, in many ways, the first Linux company on earth and it went out of that line of business. Slackware was not the sole cause of this by any means, but it is a fact that doesn't seem to be very widely known right now.

  • I realize that the RFC's suggest using example.net for hostnames that don't exsist (Similer to the private IP's set aside for non-connected networks) but is there any chance you can change the default hostname back to darkstar.frop.org? It just seems, I dunno, more slackish. :=)

    Also, I miss getting the "Welcome to Pine" emails requested by freshly installed slackware boxen. :=)
  • I realize that this has already been addressed elsewhere in the article and comments already, but I cannot let something so blatent go without comment.

    REDHAT started this, not Slackware. If Pat had done his version numbers the way RedHat does, we'd be on version 20something already, not 7.0. Slackware has been around so much longer than RedHat, it's not even funny. RedHat (AFAIK) never released a 1.0 or a 2.0 version of thier distro. They like to go 4.1, 4.2, 5.0,5.1,5.2,6.1,6.1,6.2, etc. If Slackware did that, we would never have seen Slack 3.0, 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.9, 4.0, etc. We'd be on version 20.2 or something now. So don't start that stupid crap about version numbers, it just proves what a newbie/troll you are.

    Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
  • Nice try. I've been using Slackware since 1993, back when everything still fit on floppys. In fact, I made it available in the Detroit, Michigan area on my old BBS, "Corpsmans Corner BBS". This was back when the kernel was pre 1.0. I then moved to Chicago, where I learned even more about Linux from my good friend, and fellow FidoNet Net 115 Sysop, H. Peter Anvin (who I just called Peter then - I had no idea who he was). RedHat was no big deal until much later. I still do not remember a 1.x or 2.0 release. The first version number I recall seeing from them is a 2.1 release. So it seems to me that the skipped .1 to 2.0, and 2.3 to 2.9, 3.3 to 3.9, 4.3 to 4.9 (I think, I'm not 100% sure on that one), etc. etc. etc.

    Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
  • Thank you, first of all, for being so much more rational about this.

    I do believe that they are skipping numbers. They release, at most three distro's in a current major version number. Slackware hasn't done that in the past, although I fear they may do that now. The blame for this rests squarely on the shoulders of the crew at RedHat, IMHO. They don't skip WHOLE numbers, true. I wonder some times why they use minor revision numbers at all!

    Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
  • I don't remember a 1.0 either, but there was definately a 2.1 release, their "Mother's Day" release. After that were the toothpaste releases - 3.0.3, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.0, 6.1...

    Redhat just likes to increase the major number for any random large change (new kernel, libc, etc), fault them for this if you like, but they don't have a habit of skipping numbers.

  • I believe all Linux distributions should adopt and adhere to the FHS 2.0 spec. Nothing irritates me more than seeing tons of X application binaries floating around in /usr/bin.

    But according to every interpretation of the FHS I've ever read (except for yours :), that's where they should go. /usr/X11R6 [pathname.com] is reserved for the X Window System itself, not X applications:

    This hierarchy is reserved for the X Window System, version 11 release 6, and related files.

  • Patrick,

    Slackware was also my first Linux. I keep trying others, but I always seem to come back to Slack. But, like several others have mentioned, it's always kind of a pain to upgrade.

    I had always used olwm, but I recently switched to KDE. My question is, which window manager do you prefer?

    Also, (obligatory dig), do you think Slashdot would have any better response time if they used Slackware?

  • Real geeks don't want to spend all day compiling some new toy, and the next few days trying to wipe it from their system.

    Real geeks wouldn't have to wipe it from their system.

    When I'm really hungry, I don't make my own dough, grow my own veggies, slaughter my own pigs and press my own sausage--I pick up the phone and call Pizza Hut.

    If you were a cook or a farmer you would.

    Since when are you the spokesman for geeks? I actually like compiling my own stuff, it gives me control in how its built, what options are set and how it handles the filesystem.

    -- iCEBaLM
  • How much cooperation goes on between the different distro makers? Do you cooperate with debian/redhat/whatever developers?

  • Who did your site design and what (if any) sites were the inspiration for it? It's the coolest B&W site I've seen yet.

    ( Slackware user since 1.2.8, 8/95 :)
  • Slackware was one of the very first Linux distros; what do you think has contributed to its longevity, particularly given the popularity of "upstarts" like SuSE, Redhat, and Caldera, who are staking their future market share on increased levels of user handholding and initial ease-of-use? Have you found the pressure to dumb down hard to resist? Given that you have resisted this trend so far, are you targeting Slackware at a particular niche?

    Thanks for all your work; Slackware was my first distro, and I think I learned a whole lot more about Unix than if I had pulled another distro of that CD back in '93.

    --

  • In slackware 7.0, you've introduced SysV-compatible initscripts/directories, to keep slackware compatible with various installers that assume a SysV structure.

    One of the things about slackware that IMHO simply rocks are the BSD-style init scripts, and I would like te know what you're up to in the future. Will slackware evolve to SysV to become the next RH/SuSe/... lookalike, or will we slack-fans be able to happily hack away at our BSD-style initscripts for the rest of times?

    Keep up the good work


    Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.

  • When I was first getting into Linux a few years back, Slackware the big distribution. Since then Slackware's popularity has taken a hard dive. My question, in two parts, is this: What do you beleive are the major reasons Slackware lost its place of dominance, and what do you see Slackware doing in the future to make up that lost ground?
  • You people must get harassed by this all the time. I'd love to see some slackware STUFF. Like ThinkGeek.net or Copyleft.com STUFF. Shirts! Ties! Clothe myself in the greatest Linux distro!

    I recently abandoned the filth which is RedHat for slackware and don't regret it. Slackware does everything RIGHT, and I think it's great that it's not dumbed down or pretty. That's one of the key reasons that it can be used for everything for my school work (Sr Project was done on Linux, in Slack 4, and StarOffice got me a 6 for my speech) to my ADSL connection server (firewall and gateway for the family 'doze boxen).

    So, I would like to see some slack stuff. =) Keep the cool black logo. =)

    --Joshua Knarr
    Previous slackware professional hassler. ;)

  • Hi Patrick,

    With the split from Walnut Creek, what does the future hold for the Slackware Linux Project? In the past 12 months, companies like Red Hat and Caldera have really pushed their distributions. Will Slackware be promoted more in future? (I would hate to see it sidelined.) What can I do as an individual to advocate Slack?

    Also, whilst I applaud Slackware's adherance to Linux (and BSD) standards, how much of an interest do you take in the actual creation of these standards?

    Thanks,
    Dave H.

  • Slackware has always taken stability and usability over ease of use. (Thank God)

    Does branching off into your own company affect the priciples behind Slackware? In other words Will this mean Slackware will have to become easier in order to compete with the other Linuces?

    I personally prefer the stable over the easy. If I wanted easy I would be in another OS.
  • I use Slackware at home and at work, and simply love this distro of Linux. I would love to be able to run Slackware on my Sun hardware at work, or even have a 64-bit version of Slackware for some of the better machines (Sun Ultra series) at work.

    Do you have any plans to port Slackware to other platforms?

    Slackware's a great distro, and I thank you for all the hard work you and others have done!
  • I think it's great that you're (Slackware) becoming your own company. Now, the questions:

    1. Will you continue to be the sole maintainer of Slackware, or will you be bringing on help?
    2. Are there any plans to add a more "user friendly", if you will, package management? I know there's RPM support, so this may not even be an issue, though.
    3. I believe it was mentioned before, but will any work be done on upgradeability? I understand the switch from libc5 to glibc needing a full reinstall, it makes sense, but what about upgrading Slackware 7?
    4. Most of the time, when I read distro flame wars, the 2 that always come out on top are Debian and Slackware. I have to assume that you do this because you love it, but do you care about whether or not the world loves Slackware?

    Thanks for your time, and even moreso, THANK YOU FOR SLACKWARE!

    Mike
  • Patrick, Do you still live in the Fargo-Moorhead area? I always suspected that the Internet made geography rather irrelevant, but your location, I am guessing, is fairly distant from your developers and partners. Has geography played much of a hinderance in Slackware? Has the Internet made up for this by harnessing collaboration?
  • according to the Linux Counter, 29.83% of all Linux machines run Red Hat and 29.06% runs Slackware
  • For years, slackware held on to libc5 when Redhat et al switched to libc6.

    Can you explain your reasons for finally switching? Can anyone explain why libc6 is at least 6 times the size of libc5!? Why is libc6 better when almost all programs seem to link against libc5 without problems?

    How does one build a libc6 based single disk Linux install? Also, whoever decided to make two incompatible versions of libc6 should be taken out and shot!

    This might seem an unreasonable rant, but I didn't have any compatibility or linking problems with Linux (using since 93) until libc6 came along. I'd just like to know what the reasons behind the switch were and why libc6 is so much better that I have to waste 3mb of ram holding it?

    libc6 == bloat (IMHO)

  • I've been a Slackware user for 5 years now. Recently, I upgraded from 3.2 to 7.0 and it's even nicer now. Is there any change that upcoming Slackware releases will come with a java development kit?
  • Hi Pat, There are some myths going around about Slackware: (1) "Lacks easy installation" Slack is the easiest of all distros to install. I have timed myself, and I can install Slack in 6 minutes (this includes the loading time of the boot/root floppies). I've installed around 10 other distros, and none are as easy as Slack. (2) "Lacks easy maintainability" At the factory, how many people does it take to maintain RH or SuSE, and how many does it take to (not quite) maintain Debian? Now how many does it take to maintain Slack? If far fewer people are able to produce the quality that we all observe in Slackware, then I would think that the package management techniques are correct. (question) I think the only thing lacking in Slack is promotion. Since you have some helpers now, do any of them have a flair for (and plans for) some promotion?
  • First off, slack has been my favorite distro for many years now; it's running a couple of our servers here (which is a medium sized .edu)

    However, interoperability is now more important than it's ever been in the past, and PAM support in slackware is unfortunately lacking. We'll be rolling out linux to ~1500 public workstations RSN where we'll need either LDAP or NDS authentication. I'm not liking the prospect of having to roll out RedHat. (yuck) Of course I'll give recompiling binutils & company myself a shot (and make it into a package if I succeed) but I thought I'd just ask:

    What's the state of future PAM support?

    Mark Schlouse

    PS Keep up the great work!

  • Why Slackware? (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:22AM (#1206191)
    And not Debian that has 4500 packages, 600 developers, open development, 50 suport lists, bug tracking system?

  • Here here! I agree. (Score:3)

    by Codifex Maximus ( 639 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @09:11AM (#1206192) Homepage
    Patrick Volkerding is one of the most knowledgeable members of the community. I learned alot from Slakware and consider it one of the prime LINUX distributions.

    I, however, am looking forward to LSB and hope that it is finished soon; I respect Mr. Volkerding's opinion on LSB's non-application to Slakware but also believe that LINUX needs LSB. It would be great if Mr. Volkerding would lend his guiding hand toward helping LSB - maybe it would be even better than it is now.

    My Question:
    Will you please assist LSB even if you have no desire to adhere to it?

    Till Microsoft owns it, make mine Slakware.

  • Upgrade Path? (Score:3)

    by Matthew Weigel ( 888 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @09:54AM (#1206193) Homepage Journal
    First let me say this: I use Red Hat at work, my room mates use Debian, but there's always been a special place in my heart for Slackware. I stopped using it when I decided to upgrade my system wholesale (for glibc 2.0 betas, as I recall) and I didn't want to fuss with upgrading everything by hand (now I use OpenBSD and FreeBSD at home). If Slackware upgrades are now (or were with 3.4) quite safe and as easy as I describe, discount this :)

    Have you considered looking at, e.g., OpenBSD's method for upgrading -- installing all the base packages except etc.tar.gz, which replaces everything in the tarballs but leaves /usr/local, /etc, /home, /root, /mnt, and possibly /var alone, and then manually upgrading /etc -- as a way to add better upgradability to Slackware?

    I guess the only problem with this is that, as I recall, each individual package puts its own stuff in /etc. Would it be possible to add scripts in the packages so that they check for possible overwrites into protected directories and if so, install the new ones as e.g. /etc/foo.conf.new -- and throw a message to the console saying either "new config file written, it's the same file as in the last distribution" or "new config file written, it's in a new format so you'll need to migrate before using this package at all"?

  • Three or four questions (Score:3)

    by Eric Wayte ( 4583 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @08:06AM (#1206194) Homepage
    1. When is the official Slackware book that is packaged in the boxed version going to be updated?

    2. Do you feel the least bit screwed by Walnut Creek or did you see this coming?

    3. How soon (if at all) before Oracle certification?

    4. VMWare is great - why do they treat Slack so bad (distro = other)?

  • Slackware, Linux, and being an old timer. (Score:3)

    by law ( 5166 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:44AM (#1206195) Homepage
    I started Linux with slackware, Late 92, early 93 for at least a couple of years Slackware was Linux to me; my informitve Linux years.
    I wanted to thank you for that.

    You have been involved for a very long time in Linux years. How do you feel about the meshing of th "Old days" and what Linux is now? Most Slash posters, where not around Linux back then, can you talk about what where the problems you had then and now?
    I think most people forget how much of Linux was/is
    the Distro and how much of Linux's early success is because of Slackware, can you comment?

  • WooHoo! Slackware! (Score:3)

    by Accipiter ( 8228 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @08:38AM (#1206196)
    Patrick,

    I've been a happy Slackware user forever now, and I have some questions.

    1.) I've liked Slackware because it doesn't hide what it does behind pretty interfaces. You have easy access to the entire system should you decide to configure any part of it. Obviously, the version jump from 4 to 7 was to keep up with 'Competition' per se....are we going to see that same rivalry enter the distribution? (I.e.: We have to have a pretty interface because the others do!) I like Slack for what it is, and I hope it doesn't become another Red Hat. Slackware is touted for it's Stability and power, and those are two things that we don't want to go away.

    2.) Now that Slackware has spun off into it's own entity, are there any changes going to be implemented into it that you couldn't do before? What I mean is, were there anyt limitations imposed on you at Walnut Creek that you are free to do now? Or are you going to need to bring on more maintainers because the main guys are busy with corporate stuff? (Hint Hint....I can work for you!) ;)

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • Re:The Great Distro Gap (Score:3)

    by Accipiter ( 8228 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @08:48AM (#1206197)
    Whatever happened from Slackware 4 to Slack ware 7? This is a fairly large gap here.

    This has been explained several times already, even by Patrick Himself. What follows is Patrick's post to the Slackware forum about the version number jump.

    Patrick Volkerding (Slackware Project Lead), at 21:43 10-10-1999.

    I've stayed out of this for now, but I do think I should lend a little justification to the version number thing.

    First off, I think I forgot to count some time ago. If I'd started on 6.0 and made every release a major version (I think that's how Linux releases are made these days, right? ;), we would be on Slackware 47 by now. (it would actually be in the 20s somewhere if we'd gone 1, 2, 3...)

    I think it's clear that some other distributions inflated their version numbers for marketing purposes, and I've had to field (way too many times) the question "why isn't yours 6.x" or worse "when will you upgrade to Linux 6.0" which really drives home the effectiveness of this simple trick. With the move to glibc and nearly everyone else using 6.x now, it made sense to go to at least 6.0, just to make it clear to people who don't know anything about Linux that Slackware's libraries, compilers, and other stuff are not 3 major versions behind. I thought they'd all be using 7.0 by now, but no matter. We're at least "one better", right? :)

    Sorry if I haven't been enough of a purist about this. I promise I won't inflate the version number again (unless everyone else does again ;)

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • Idiot Friendly Distros (Score:3)

    by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:17AM (#1206198) Homepage Journal
    Instead of talking about how stable the new release is, or how many new features they've included many makers of distros only talk about how the new version is the easiest ever to install.

    Do you have any idea why every new version of existing distros seem to emphasize their idiot-friendliness? And do you think it's good or bad?

    LK

  • Slackware vs. Softlanding Systems (SLS) (Score:3)

    by King Babar ( 19862 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @11:06AM (#1206199) Homepage
    Once upon a time, when the kernel version number was << 1, there was the SLS distribution put together by Peter MacDonald. Then there was Slackware, a distribution in a very similar vein assembled by our interview guest. And there were some...bad feelings about that.

    Now that this is years in the past, would you care to make any comments about the early relationship between Slackware and SLS, and what if anything you think this teaches us in the Free Software (or Open Source) community today?

  • (In)security by default (Score:3)

    by Pelerin ( 33247 ) <rru@nOSpaM.pelerin.net> on Monday March 13, 2000 @11:03AM (#1206200)
    Hi Patrick:

    The default installation leave the machine open on a wide variety of services (rpc, anoymous ftp, telnet, etc.) Slackware is not alone in this, all distributions do it. But this leaves the machine open to all sorts of exploits.

    Wouldn't it be better to have all such daemons turned off by default (esp. for installations geared towards home users)? The choice to open up services should be a positive choice on the part of the users, perhaps after a short warning about the security implications of running network daemons.

    How about Slackware taking the lead in this area?
  • I have used Slackware since version 3.1. It was my first distrib and it has always heald a place in my heart. I have noticed over the years that Slackware hasn't changed much. The installation program hasn't changed in all these years. Installation is still kinda tricky. There isn't a real packaging system (tgz's don't really count). It doesn't come in a nice box with a nice manual and tech support. It doesn't come with a lot of software like the other distribs. There is no exclusive, Slackware developed software. It's a fairly bare bones, Do It Yourself distrib. Now that there is going to be more money involved, is all this going to change? Are we going to see a GUI installation, Slackware Package Manager, people working on Slackware software, a boxed distrib that one can pick up at a computer store, distribution on DVD-ROM with more bundled software, and other features some of the distribs with more money have? Slackware deserves to be right up there with the rest of them. Perhaps now Slack can get the recognition it deserves.

  • Where is slackware (Score:3)

    by Spyky ( 58290 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @10:48AM (#1206202)
    Seeing the success of recently IPOed linux companies (Redhat and others are still going quite strongly, more then 6 monthes after the release). Is there any plan for Slackware, now a seperate company, to persue additional funding with a public stock offering?

    Spyky

  • Slackware's uniqueness in the marketplace. (Score:3)

    by BrettJB ( 64947 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @08:01AM (#1206203)
    Patrick, The Linux landscape has changed remarkably in recent times. We've gone from Linux being a tool soley for that subset of humanity that actually understands what happens "under the hood" of their computers, arriving today at distros that are targeted to the unwashed masses. In my experience Slackware has always focused on the hacker rather than the average Joe/Jane on the street--this is what has set Slackware apart from the rest that are moving toward "ease of use" and propritary package upgrades... Given the increasingly crowded marketplace (and the fact that it's only going to get more crowded) how does Slackware intend to continue to differentiate itself from all the rest? And how will that differentiation lead toward profitability for the comapny and its investors?

  • Quality (Score:3)

    by spell_caster ( 82187 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:50AM (#1206204)
    I have used Slackware since version 1.0 (gosh, I'm old). I am currently a fan of ZIPSLACK. I use it to introduce Windows people to Linux. However, I'm concerned about rushing new releases out the door. I had never seen Linux crash (core dump) until I installed version 7.0. Every time I did an 'ls /dev', I dumped. Three finger salute. Only after I fixed my mouse did this stop. I do not trust this version, I fell back to 4.0. How many different pc configurations do you test on before releasing a version? Does your web site list these systems?

  • Slackware's niche (Score:3)

    by LocalYokel ( 85558 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @11:27AM (#1206205) Homepage Journal
    After Yggdrasil, there was Slackware, then the Linux distribution market segmented into niches (Red Hat for servers, Caldera/Mandrake for workstations, Corel for desktops, SuSE for Europe, and Debian for GNU). There are plenty of shops that have used Linux for years (pre 2.0), so I know that there are production boxen that are still running Slackware instead of Red Hat.

    I think Slackware is still relevant, and a great "hacker-ware" environment, and fills the needs of organizations that have used Linux years before these other distributions made their mark, but is there any particular market that Slackware is targeted to?

  • Integrating "make install" and pkgtool. (Score:3)

    by gharikumar ( 87910 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @09:24AM (#1206206)
    Hi Patrick,

    I used slackware from 1996 to late 1999.
    I'm embarassed to say that I swiched to
    Linux Mandrake since I got tired of doing
    things by hand all the time, especially with
    the difficulty of keeping track of packages
    that I installed by
    ./configure; make; make install.

    First question: do you think there is an
    easy way to integrate the above process with
    a package handling mechanism, so that I could
    use make install to install the package
    and pkgtool to uninstall it? Is any work
    being done on it?

    Thanks,

    Hari.

  • umsdos spin-offs (Score:3)

    by xDroid ( 115379 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @08:45AM (#1206207) Homepage
    I have been using a UMSDOS mini version of Slackware for 2 years, in the c:\linux directory of my Windows laptop. I use my laptop for (coding) work and web demo's. I use a version because it has a small footprint.
    What do you think about the UMSDOS version's of LINUX and the many slackware spinoffs (mostly mini-distro's)?
    Do you plan to release a _smaller_ (mini) version of bigslack(zipslack with X)?

  • Slackware, still kicking? (Score:3)

    by Kagato ( 116051 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:29AM (#1206208)
    Slackware is certainly known to be one of the longest running Linux Distro's. It's popular among ISP who like the advanced user interface.

    However, a year ago many ISP mailing lists were commenting that Slackware releases were few and far between. Poeple wondered if Slackware was still being developed. Now there is a lot of momentium behind Slackware.

    Was there this perception of Slackware no longer being developed real? Or would you say it's associated with the low key media attention Slackware gets (or doesn't get)?

  • Version numbering (Score:3)

    by iceburn ( 137875 ) <jmohr44&hotmail,com> on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:20AM (#1206209) Homepage
    I have been a loyal Slackware user for quite some time now, and there is one thing I have always wondered about this distribution. Where did the name "Slackware" come from?

    -- iceburn

  • Linux Standards Base (Score:4)

    by kfort ( 1132 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:36AM (#1206210)
    Will you support the LSB? If not, why not?

    Do you think the LSB is important to insure future compatibility and vendor support for all the Linux distributions?

    kfort
  • One of the major merits of the "more heavily package managed" systems is that of being able to avoid many of the little, niggling details when they don't much matter, as well as being able to let the system manage version numbers for you.

    RPM [rpm.org] is the most-used, and often, most-hated of the options, with Debian's dpkg/dselect [debian.org] and BSD Ports [freebsd.org] vying for the "most-loved" status.

    The Ports use of what amount to "just plain makefiles" gives it the merit of being the most "traditionally-UNIX-like" packaging scheme.

    Is there likely to be any "convergence" of the sort where libraries are added/modified so as to maximize the ability to use something like Ports?

    I left Slackware in about '95 in favor of what I saw then as improved manageability of Red Hat's RPMs. I have since migrated to Debian, which provides better answers than RPM. It would be interesting to see the tide turn back due to Ports providing more deeply improved system manageability...

  • Next Slackware Release (Score:4)

    by adraken ( 8869 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:59AM (#1206212)
    What will be the featureset (and projected date) of the next Slackware release? XFree86 4.0.x, Linux 2.4.x?

  • Why a new Distro? (Score:4)

    by Romen ( 10819 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:23AM (#1206213) Homepage
    While Slackware certainly is not new, once it was. What was it about distributions at that time that caused you to create a new one? What did you think that they lacked?
    Sam TH

  • modularity and customization (Score:4)

    by timothy ( 36799 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:39AM (#1206214) Journal
    Patrick:

    For the past few years, Slackware has steadfastly remained modular rather than go in for an idiot-savant installer package. (I'm not knocking either approach, so please, no flames!).

    Does this make Slackware better suited than, say, Red Hat, for the creation of site- or institution-specific distro packages? I believe that CAEN Linux at the U of Michigan Engineering school is based on Red Hat, and obviously any open source OS *could* be made site-specific ... but since Red Hat makes fewer big-picture demands re. dependencies, etc, I wonder if it'd be the (currently) obvious pick for such applications.

    Thanks for doing this interview!

    timothy

    p.s. Like many others, Slackware (from a CD in the back of some book) was the first experience I had with Linux, and though it took me much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I eventually got it going and was happy at how much smoother and cooler a Linux system with X Window was than the Win3.1 which had come on the machine. Thanks.

  • Linux distributions in the future? (Score:4)

    by Gogl ( 125883 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:22AM (#1206215) Journal
    If you look around right now, you'll notice that of the Linux distributions out there, most are either Red Hattish (as in, gone commercial, trying to become easier to use, etc.), really small and relatively insignificant (nothing against Linux Mandrake but....), or, well... Slackware! I'm just wondering what you see for the future. Slackware is the only distro that is relatively "major", yet hasn't given in to the commercial rush and zillion dollar IPOs (although feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Do you know if the user base of Slackware is going up or down? And what do you see for the future of Slackware and Linux in general?

  • BSDi and Walnut Creek Merger (Score:4)

    by ocipio ( 131260 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @08:03AM (#1206216)
    Patrick,
    In your opinion, how do you see the BSDi and Walnut Creek merger affecting Linux in the next few months? year?

    David Hill

  • Why? (Score:4)

    by Farq Fenderson ( 135583 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:31AM (#1206217) Homepage
    Slackware is my distribution of choice for two main reasons, it's powerful, and it hasn't been poisoned by 'userfriendliness'.

    Why hasn't it been? Seems every Linux distro (slackware aside) that's making money has made their distribution as brain-dead as possible. Where slackware users are expected to have an idea of what they're doing. Is it laziness, or is it out of respect for those who want a no-BS distro?

    ---
    script-fu: hash bang slash bin bash

  • This isn't a question really.. (Score:4)

    by Second ( 154508 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:27AM (#1206218) Homepage
    Hi, I don't have a question really (unless the one below counts), I just wanna say keep up the good work lad(s).
    I wouldn't trade slack for any other dist in the world.

    BTW, X-Files, Simpsons or Buffy?

    cheers, Per Rydström, a happy slack-user

  • Boxers or briefs? (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:21AM (#1206219)
    C'mon... lets see if moderation REALLY decides what gets asked of Patrick... or if Roblimo just does it himself...

  • The Magic Wand questions (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:22AM (#1206220)
    If you could wave a magic wand and change any one technical aspect of Linux, with no negative side effects on the OS or its users, what would you change?

    If you had one wave of the wand and could change only one thing about the Linux community (in the traditional and/or the new, more business-oriented sense), what would it be?

  • The name (Score:5)

    by sanityimp ( 479 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:17AM (#1206221) Homepage
    How did you come to the name Slackware? DId it hit you during a long nights of smoking from the holy frop with bob? Did stang climb in your window and wisper it in your ear while you were asleep? Was it the Xists?

  • Slackware Upgradability (Score:5)

    by EraseMe ( 7218 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:09AM (#1206222)
    Hi Patrick!

    I was an avid Slackware user in the mid-nineties, but after a few years I moved over to other distributions due to the lack of easy upgradability and package management. How upgradable will future versions of Slackware be? Are there any plans for Slack to move to FreeBSD style packagement management (which rocks imho)?

    EraseMe

  • Closed Development (Score:5)

    by nullspace ( 11532 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:33AM (#1206223)
    I have been a loyal user of Slackware for many years. I have always wondered why isn't the development process more open. For example, Debian has a very open process in which volunteers can contribute to the packaging of the distribution. Slackware does not seem to allow for that, that is, you seem to be in complete control of what goes out the door. Do you plan to allow for users to assist in development or do you wish for things to remain the same?

  • Corporate Structure? (Score:5)

    by Spud Zeppelin ( 13403 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:42AM (#1206224)
    Now that "Slackware Linux Inc." is being spun off, are there any plans to honor J. Robert "Bob" Dobbs by designating him Chairman Emeritus? What kind of poison-pill-defenses are going to be included in the corporate bylaws to prevent being taken over by X-ists, or for that matter, anyone from Cupermond or Redtino?



    This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.

  • Slackware's Direction as a Linux Distribution (Score:5)

    by dee^lOts ( 15121 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:29AM (#1206225)
    I've always viewed Slackware as the all purpose workhorse of the Linux distributions. It's always done things better and faster in the server role. Now as everyone is pushing to get Linux on the desktop, I'd like to know what Slackware's Direction in this area. Will it remain focused on playing the server role, or will the distribution splinter into different job roles, or will it follow the crowd and push for the desktop?

    Thanks and Regards,
    - Nick

  • upgradeability (Score:5)

    by SpaFF ( 18764 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:18AM (#1206226) Homepage
    I've been a Slackware user since 3.4 and absolutly love it. I don't like most package management systems out there and am glad that Slack doesn't use one (well, if you don't count pkgtool). Unfortunately this seems to be a bit of a problem when it comes to upgrading, seeing as you usually have to just reinstall from scratch and hope you have a good backup of your config files. How do you plan on addressing the issue of upgradability in future releases of Slackware, and do you think a better solution can be achieved through the install scripts without having to revert to an rpm-style package management system.

    -Lee

  • Packaging System? (Score:5)

    by SEWilco ( 27983 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:16AM (#1206227) Journal
    Are you considering any packaging and dependency system, or do you consider tarballs as all a true hacker needs?

  • Slackware, Inc. (Score:5)

    by mircea ( 28953 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:09AM (#1206228)
    Now that you are a separate company (spinning merrily off...), what will your distribution channel be? Will it still be handled by Walnut Creek? What about the Slackware-by-subscription option?

    OTOH, keep up the good work, and good luck - from a _very_ satisfied Slack user.

  • Porting Slackware (Score:5)

    by Vladinator ( 29743 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:38AM (#1206229) Homepage Journal
    With the formation of your company, will this give you the resources to port Slackware to the PPC and Alpha? Are there any plans for this?

    Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!

  • Installation options -- FTP install (Score:5)

    by kjj ( 32549 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:32AM (#1206230)
    I was wondering if Slackware would include an ftp install method in some future version similar to FreeBSD, NetBSD, Redhat. I realize ftp has some serious drawbacks compared to NFS or CD install but I found it quite handy when I wanted to give FreeBSD and NetBSD a try. If not ftp, what about the possibility of opening up an public NFS server that will export the latest stable version of Slackware since many of us may not have an extra machine to set up NFS on. It could just run off the same machine as the ftp server for Slackware, right? Just a couple of thoughts.

    Thanks Patrick
    Ken J.

  • Download/Sales? (Score:5)

    by iCEBaLM ( 34905 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:20AM (#1206231)
    Hi Pat,
    I've been using slackware for years now, it was my first distribution back in the 2.x era and other then my little stint with debian for about a month I've been running it ever since.

    It's been my observation that slackware has been the most "download friendly" distribution, by that I mean it's segmented into disk sets and you only need to download the ones you want to install it. Other distributions seem to obfuscate this process (redhat complains during install if it cannot absolutely find every package, as do many others).

    The reason behind this I think is that they want people to buy it, so they obfuscate and make it difficult to download the distribution.

    Now wil Slackware apparently getting spun off into a seperate company, will there be more pressure to sell more units, and will this "download friendliness" change?

    -- iCEBaLM

  • (Non) Participation in the LSB. (Score:5)

    by gharikumar ( 87910 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @09:34AM (#1206232)
    Hi, Partick,

    I understand that you have chosen
    not to participate in the LSB. The reasons
    mentioned were:

    a) That you prefer the old "unix" way of
    doing things.

    b) You feel that these ways should be
    THE standard.

    There must be good technical and marketing
    reasons behind your preferences. Could you please
    elaborate on both? Thanks.

    Hari.

  • Looking to the future? (Score:5)

    by phrawzty ( 94423 ) on Monday March 13, 2000 @07:08AM (#1206233) Journal
    Most (all?) of the other "major" distributions have gone the way of commercial and public acceptance (meaning ease of installation, and ease of use). Slackware, on the other hand, is still very much geared towards the linux user that already knows what they're doing. Do you plan on making Slackware "pretty", like the others, or do you plan on honing it into a development environment for power users? Or perhaps something else entirely?
    .------------ - - -
    | big bad mr. frosty
    `------------ - - -

Slashdot Top Deals

A Fortran compiler is the hobgoblin of little minis.

Close