This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Slackware 7.1 Stable Released
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Ummm, well, OK. The network's the network, the computer's the computer. Sorry for the confusion. -- Sun Microsystems
Good for small installations. (Score:3)
Plus, i mean, "Slackware"... that just sounds cool. =^)
-legolas
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
Re:Bring the hammer down on *nix. (Score:1)
Pretty serious. I am venting on the lack of recent innovation. I haven't seen a feature released in any recent OS candidates that has made me mutter, "Wow, thats fraggin' cool".
Come on. The encrypted swap space support of OpenBSD 2.7 [openbsd.org] definitely has the "Wow, that's fraggin' cool" feel. It also has the "Wow, I have absolutely no need for that" feel, but that's beside the point.
Re:Why slackware? (Score:1)
And it is not a negative thing to learn and to avoid doing mistakes. I learned how to swim without ever having to drown, what about yourself?
Re:Slackware... (Score:1)
A wise man once said, and I think it entirely appropriate for your comment, "Don't be a dick.
In this instance, referring to software, "rock solid" means "stable." A "rock solid" piece of software is robust, bug-free, and fault tolerant. A "rock solid" program can handle bad user input with grace, doesn't have memory leaks or security issues, does not crash at random, and is capable of handling any problems that come up during the use of the program (traps errors before they become problematic enough that the program can't continue).
When referring to cars, "rock solid" means that the vehicle in question is of high-quality, can run for a very long time (years) without things going wrong with the car, and capable of performing feats that lesser quality cars could not - hauling sailboats three times its size, filling a truck bed with several tons of rock and moving it up 45-degree-incline hills, and so on (hence the line of Chevy truck commercials that end with the tagline, "Chevy - Like A Rock").
Now, are you through being a dick?
Re:Not difficulty: time (Score:1)
I too have tinkered with Slack and a miriad installation floppies, and having a boot floppy and a root floppy and manually configuring PPP, X and compiling a thousand packages over and again. These days, I like the fact that when I insert a CD in the drive it is automounted and a file manager window pops up.
That leaves me more time to compile and configure Emacs to my heart's content :-)
Release schedule? (Score:1)
I have been using slackware for several years now and it is still my favorite distro. I like the way you can edit the config files each individually without having to worry about screwing up an autoconfig tool. I have tried redhat and debian but they both seem to over-complicate basic system initialization. I like the *BSD style system init in slackware. It is very straight forward and easy to understand what is happening and in what order.
Just my $0.02
--Donald
Re:Do it yourself! (Score:1)
I never had a problem when I first installed slackware. It has never bugged me with a utility I thought was crap(linuxconf) and package management is the Changelog file and and 33.6 modem.
Three Cheers for Patrick V.!!!
--Donald
Re:Package Management (Score:1)
227
And that's complete install
Chances are you wont read this, but if you do, tell me, do you really need all those 706 packages?
scar - spouting BS all over Slashdot while compiling in tty2-tty5.
Re:Only slackware.... (Score:1)
Fawking Trolls! [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Slackware is the best alternative to *BSD (Score:1)
spreading FUD about *BSD and Slackware?
You know, I think this is really the scum of the world. Fight evil with evil? Risking to be offtopic, but I think Jesus' words contain a big lesson for you (and anyone else, for that matter).
Re:Slackware... (Score:1)
Not really, I was just warming up. The expression "rock solid" doesn't mean robust, bug-free and fault tolerant per se, if you read /. carefully. It usually conveys a judgement of value of one piece of software (say, Slackware) in comparison to another (say, Redhat). As such, it is simply a propaganda term not any more meaningful than the lower TCO that is built from the ground up in NT, according to the Micro~1 marketing machine.
Thus, and to the same effect, proponents of Slackware (and the Slackware creators themselves) parrot this and similar expressions whilst comparing both distributions, solely for their propaganda value. Sure, an argument can be made that Slackware packagers are more careful in their package selection and the testing of said packages, but considering that most of what is shipped by each distribution is composed of the same software packages (which incidentally are not created by either Slackware or Redhat), this is really a moot point.
So what is really fair when comparing distributions? IMHO it's what they aggregate (package management systems, new packages etc), and in that respect, Redhat produces more and better software than Slackware.
So, how's that for a dick, eh?
Re:ARRRG! (Score:1)
This is true; Slackware 4.0 might not be a bad choice. That's what I'm running on my 486 right now, although I may change (I haven't really decided yet). For even older systems, Slackware 3.6 might not be bad (2.0.x kernel).
If I were you, I'd just install an old copy of slackware 4.0 and update with some of the newer packages form Slackware 7.1
Dude, are you trying to make him hate life? Not cool. Or are you just not a Slackware user?
--
Re:Slack vs Debian (Score:1)
Personally, I use Solaris and it owns the fuck out of Linux, the non-conforming piece of shit (not even "real" UNIX anyway).
I agree with you on the point on linux not being a "real" unix. But to put Solaris in the same category as FreeBSD is definately LARTworthy. I'm forced to use Solaris at work (Though I've got 2 other machines, with Linux on one and FreeBSD on another). Solaris has got to be the most bloated and buggy OS next to Windows. There are patch releases for Solaris about every 2 days (I have a cron job with downloads and installs the recommended and security patches when they're available). The "Patch Clusters" for Solaris are about as big as a small installation of Slackware (30Megs and up for older releases of Solaris).
For security reasons, I've put my FreeBSD box as the gateway to all my computers. This is because I don't fully trust Linux security, and I don't trust Solaris security at ALL.
FreeBSD is better for security and stability, making it a good server / router.
Linux has far better multimedia support, since thats where the development is being done. This makes it good for a personal desktop system
Solaris sucks at everything, except being bloated, slow and buggy.
Re:Why slackware? (Score:1)
Re:Slackware is the best alternative to *BSD (Score:1)
Re:Only slackware.... (Score:1)
You don't think this means they're done, do you? Personally I'm not terribly interested in running kernel 2.0.0; I'd much rather wait for, say, 2.0.4 or thereabouts.
--
ok, whatever (Score:1)
Re:Bring the hammer down on *nix. (Score:1)
Re:Slackware is the best alternative to *BSD (Score:1)
I tried running the demo of vmware. The installer hated Slackware with a passion. Have they fixed the installer, or did you have to do some major hacking? I hacked with it for 20 minutes getting it to install, then when it refused to run I gave up and hacked with it for another 15 minutes getting it to go away. Not a pleasant experience.
--
Re:Slack vs Debian (Score:2)
However, I have run into Slack users and they have stated that most hard core linux users run Slack. I am curious as to what would be the advantages of Slack over Debian, and visa versa.
Hard core Linux users run Linux From Scratch [linuxfromscratch.org] :-P
No, serious. I would have expected more hard core Linux users to install their system themselves. Is there something that is too hard to do yourself that prevents LFS from becoming as popular as e.g. Slackware?
Re:Bring the hammer down on *nix. (Score:1)
or are you serious?
Re:Bring the hammer down on *nix. (Score:1)
SoulStriker
Re:Package Management (Score:1)
To answer your question: do I really need all 706 packages? Not really, but:
The irony of all that, is that the piece of software I use the most (by far) is Emacs, which I pluck from the CVS tree, configure and compile by myself. Go figure. It is, at least, a lot more fun than compiling and configure sendmail :-).
Re:Why slackware? (Score:1)
After all, the point of RTFM is to learn how to do what you have to do, and not recovering from a shot in your foot, after a misguided attempt at doing it.
Re:Slackware... (Score:1)
and the testing of said packages, but considering that most of what is shipped by each distribution is
composed of the same software packages (which incidentally are not created by either Slackware or
Redhat), this is really a moot point.
There are a couple of problems in your statement here which render it "not a moot point."
For one thing, while the type of software that Red Hat and Slackware (since you use this as a comparison) ship may be similar (both, for instance, ship XFree86, GNOME, KDE, etc.), the specific software varies. Slackware may ship slightly older software, or may in fact wait a much longer period of time before shipping a specific version of software. Such was the case in the libc5 vs. libc6/glibc. Red Hat jumped into the fray with libc6/glibc, and to their detriment found it was not quite ready for primetime use. As a result, the perceived quality of Red Hat's software was lowered in the eyes of many users, because the library was not fully tuned, tested, or debugged. Slackware, up until 7.0, continued using libc5 because it was a tried, tested, and debugged library. Only when libc6/glibc was finally quality, dependable software did Slackware switch over. For some, Slackware's reluctance to switch was a hindrance because they couldn't use the latest-and-greatest software that was compiled for other platforms like Red Hat. Others, however, saw that the libc6/glibc libraries were more prone to problems and wanted to avoid them until they were ready.
For another thing, you'll find that because Slackware takes their time in shipping bleeding edge software, the distribution is less prone to security faults than Red Hat's distribution is. While Red Hat has the latest and greatest software, and as a result can offer somewhat more features than Slackware can (depending on the software), Red Hat issues security updates/patches for their distribution more than Slackware does. A significant number of people value security/stability over features - and Slackware is more to their taste. Is this to say Red Hat is crash-prone, or "bad" software? No. It's simply catering to different tastes.
For a third thing, your statement ignores the qualitative differences between distributions that having nothing to do with software. The style of Red Hat's init scripts versus Slackware's, for instance. Some prefer Slackware's init script style because it's more BSD-ish than Red Hat. Does that make it bad? No - it's just catering to a different taste. Some people also like the fact that Slackware has a very minimalistic package management system, because it forces them to learn more about the system and because it offers them more control over their software (whether it actually does or not is an arguable point). Does this make SysV scripts and RPMs bad? No - it just offers a different way of doing things that some people might find less to their taste. Others, as can be witnessed on this thread, find RPMs to be the greatest thing since sliced bread!
So what is really fair when comparing distributions? IMHO it's what they aggregate (package management systems, new packages etc), and in that respect, Redhat produces more and better software than Slackware.
Quantity vs. quality as a valid metric? Shove as much into the distribution as possible, and you're guaranteed to be considered "the best?" That's a spotty judgement call at best.
You're right when you say it's fair to judge distributions on what they aggregate. But relying *soley* on that aggregative factor is ignoring everything else that makes distributions unique. It's just as much propaganda to claim that Red Hat is better because it has more to it as it is to claim that Slackware is better because it is "rock solid." It's just different, not better.
Further, judging which distribution is "best" involves knowing who you are judging it for. For desktop users who want an install-and-go Linux experience, Red Hat is overwhelmingly the better choice. However, for those users who want to delve into the system and not have their hand held by GUI utilities, or who want a slightly more "generic" Linux experience (and, admit it or not, Red Hat provides an awful lot of custom utilities for administrating their distribution), or who don't want to become dependent on a packaging system, Slackware is probably the better choice.
Don't be a distribution bigot. Choose the distribution because it's the best for you, not because some Slashdot hack says so. (It's kinda like those Sprite commercials. You wouldn't listen to some moron spout off his mouth about other things; why listen to them do it about distributions?) Just be content that what you use is the best one for you, and let everybody be free to choose their distribution based on the merits of those distributions.
Re:Yay, Slackware! (Score:1)
hot grits!!! beowulf cluster!! NATALIE PORTMAN!!!!!
thankyou.
Re:Why slackware? (Score:1)
one word (Score:1)
one word: yggdrasil...
that brings back memories!
Ricardo.
Re:Why slackware? (Score:1)
Re:Why use Linux (Score:1)
VMS can run the Internet just fine without any *nix at all. And VMS was the first POSIX compliant system while *nix was splintering into the fractious and fractured community it is today (huh? a non-unix system was the most unix-compliant system at one time? That's right, kid, now go suck your pacifier).
Just because DEC stabbed itself in the heart by firing Olsen, just because the drones that ran him out couldn't sell ice in the Gobi desert, doesn't mean that VMS wasn't technically superior.
I have personally built an Internet node using nothing but VMS and a single Cisco router (didn't need the router, either - it was just easier that way). And it was fundamentally more secure than any *nix system can be, because there is no concept of a "root user" on VMS.
When the Morris worm blew down two thirds of the *nix variants, the VMS-driven portions of the Internet did not crash, did not become unuseable, did not fail from lack of "*nix glue" they kept right on running. And I still got my Email.
Linux & the BSDs are better because they are free, and open source. That's the whole ticket. They are technologically imperfect, flawed at the root so to speak (and hey, don't take my word for it - ask Denis Ritchie and he'll tell you the same thing) but they are useful and nearly free.
Punk kids think they know everything.... long live free open source!
--Charlie
Ports (Score:1)
Re:Slackware. (Score:2)
How frequent are your service changes that you need to be able to do this automatically? I'm really confused as to your whole point here.
"Hang on, it's Three O'Clock, time to change runlevels again..."
Re:Slackware. (Score:1)
I've seen a couple that didn't boot properly the first time after the install...
Why would you call that an advantage? SysV init scripts are much less of a pain when you need to add some service automatically...
I know where everything is, and I can comment/uncomment what I need to in the appropriate scripts, or just add my own scripts (like rc.firewall to set up IP Masquerading).
No distribution has that - you can just take Red Hat, Debian, or whatever and compile stuff from source. All you lose when doing that without doing it properly is dependency checking for other packages that depend on the stuff you installed from source.
Um, I was under the impression that if you installed a library from source, then tried to install another package that depends on that library, RPM wouldn't work and you'd have to do everything from source. This is a pain. If I know I've got a library installed properly, I should just be able to use it, and if I install an app on top of it, it should work. Slackware lets me do this.
--
Re:Slackware... (Score:1)
I guess that's because I'm mostly a programmer, not a sysadmin. I like new features. I like keeping track with the latest and greatest, even if it means it's still a little on the buggy side of the spectrum. Do you think the linux kernel was born stable? Do you think if people's reception to bleeding edge was so timid as Slackware advocates it would have progressed so fast? No, right?
You got me totally wrong on the "quality vs quantity" debate. It's not that I think Redhat is better because it provides more packages, but rather because it provides more new things. RPM is just one example of it, but RH still pays Alan Cox to do kernel development, at one time employed Rasterman of Enlightenment fame, and contributes a lot to GNOME and a lot of other packages. In all good faith, I see no commitment of Slackware to new developments and advancement, but boy, sure they deliver a rock solid system.
All in all, I'm against distro holy wars as much as yourself, but we have to concur that the most childish attitude (as can be seen from a number of posts here) is generally shown by the Slackware camp.
Getting back to "moot" points, the contention that Redhat somehow makes it difficult to delve into the system is really bizarre. A GUI program can do the editing for you, but what's to stop you if you want to do so? What's to stop you from upgrading and recompiling your kernel (which I do often)? What's to stop you from installing the source RPM and modifying sendmail to your hearts content or installing the offensive fortune(6) cookies that the powers that be at Redhat (TM) left out for the sake of corporate prudence? What's tying your hands? What is a more "generic" Linux (or as another poster put UNIX-like) experience? You don't even have to use the graphical intall if you don't want. How's that for freedom of choice?
To finish it off, I don't consider myself to be a distribution bigot. Instead, all my ranting is directed at fighting bigotry and ignorance. I ran Slackware once. Today I run RH (at the office) and Debian (ah, the joy!) at home. How many Slackers can claim such lack of prejudice? So be consistent with your unbiased way of thinking and blow the horn when you see another AC claim that "RH is for lamers".
Re:Why slackware? (Score:1)
Uhh I have edited my
Re:Do it yourself! (Score:1)
yes i learned alot from using slackware for
several years... but it gets too darn complicated
with all the different lib versions and gtk
releases and other horror...
i still have a libc5 slackware box running so
i still get my compiling kicks (i've become
very fast in installing apache+php+mysql straight
from the source
for servers @ work i use debian... it's great...
need a webserver? just do the basic 60mb install
and apt-get install apache and other stuff and
you can be sure it doesn't include any other
software you really don't need on it (except
for telnet of course
Hah! (Score:1)
'rpm --nodeps packagename.rpm ' works just fine when you have a library rpm doesn't know about.
It sure didn't for me when I ran Red Hat, ignoring dependencies just made things worse when it came to installing programs.
And don't even think about using rpm on slackware, but at least there's good ol' rpm2tgz...
Re:Do it yourself! (Score:1)
Exactly what is *learning* Linux? Knowing how to compile the sources?
./configure
make
make test
make install
or knowing how to bring up your machine from a broken install?
or is it configuring X?
You can do this under numerous distributions.
If its knowing "Essential System Administration" in & out then I don't think this is limited to slackware.
IF YOU really want to learn linux, try contributing to an open source project using your linux machine and administrating a few others at work in a heterogenous network, and install whatever distro you please. (for extra credit, bring it up on a laptop using a dev kernel)
And then maybe you can say you scratched the surface.
Longtime slackware user (Score:2)
I've been running Slackware 7 with the 2.4.0-test series of kernels and have generally had good results with it.
One thing I don't like about Slackware though is that it's never had much of a concept of upgrading from a previous version, and so won't automatically delete files it is replacing during an upgrade. This once resulted in filling my root partition during an upgrade and made my machine unbootable.
For that reason I've gotten Debian to use on the server I'm building. But I expect I'll put 7.1 on my laptop.
Slack 7.1: A Nice Security Update (Score:1)
Couple gotchas that may save people some hair-pulling, is the scsi support. Not, just scsi, but, also ide-scsi appears to be broken in kernel 2.2.15-2.2.17. I tried it on a dual with 3 different Adaptec Ultra-Wide cards (aic7xxx.s) and, none would boot/install correctly. Ended up having to load Slackware 7.0 to get it installed.
I checked Deja and found I wasn't the only one. I would have written it off, but, I upgraded my Athlon over the weekend (with 10 Gbytes drive) and, it was the smoothest upgrade I've ever done. It's very slick. No changes of init scripts, whatsoever. It just worked out of the box (or, off the ISO, whichever way you wanna put it). However, my Goldstart RW wouldn't read the CD, so had to do an NFS install from my Dual Celey, and, turns out this is likely related to the ide-scsi issue. In order to see my CD-RW after the load, I had to revert to kernel 2.2.13, and, all's well. [deja.com]
Bottom line: On a generic ide-based system, it's probably a streamlined way to implement the security fixes of gpm, fdmount, et. al., but, then, if it's just a workstation, these aren't gonna open up any gaping holes, anyway.
That is of course, unless you have some port-forwarding enabled to your workstation through your firewall. But, then, again.... who would do that? >:)
Linux rocks!!! www.dedserius.com [dedserius.com]
Re:Slackware... (Score:1)
I remember when the SLS distro was the only one and you had to download it from either tsx-11.mit.edu or sunsite.unc.edu. 5.25 inch boot disks.... yea those were the days.
Re:Why slackware? (Score:1)
So then you have to look to see where you have *.SuSEconfig files scattered around
--
No FTP install in Slackware?! (Score:1)
In *BSD, this is a _standard_ installation method. What is wrong with Patrick? Make an FTP install option part of the base install!
Re:ARRRG! (Score:1)
Slackware 7.1 = glibc2.1.3 with 2.0 and libc5 runtime compatibility.
Pkgtool will seriously fuck you up if you try to upgrade, it also hoses when you do it by hand. Search the slackware.com/forum archives for tales of sorrow.
MY RANT: (Score:1)
Re:Slackware... (Score:2)
Re:Slack vs Debian (Score:2)
'Course, I could be dead wrong.
BTW, I do use slackware. Dunno why. Redhat irritates me, and I haven't tried Debian yet. I will someday. Maybe I'll swich, and maybe not...
Re:Only slackware.... (Score:1)
Fawking Trolls! [slashdot.org]
Re:Slack vs Debian (Score:2)
Aside from the odd manually compiled Apache, or other hotfix upgrade to deal with a security issues, most Slackware systems (IMO) are just the base + whatever the person downloaded from freshmeat.
My workstation setup is Slackware 7 + Gnome 1.2 packages + a few things from freshmeat (gnapster, xmms, etc). I'm also not running a "stock" kernel (testing 2.2.17pre6 here). The two servers powering my personal domain are fairly "stock" Slackware systens, aside from configuration tweaks, some replaced or upgraded daemons, and the odd kernel upgrade to deal with an issue (such as the TCP locking problem recently squashed in the 2.2.17 pres).
If you consider the "base" system to be only what comes with it package wise (a reasonable view consider Debian seems to have millions of packages in deb format), then you're correct. But if you consider that most people don't replace anything beyond the kernel, and that they probably just add some userland software, I'd say you're wrong.
---
Re: cure for yellow teeth (Score:1)
This too will remove your yellow teeth. (Use a new hammer, as this will likely be used to remove your yellow teeth.)
No need for brushing.
Re:Slackware... (Score:1)
Re:Ports (Score:1)
Re:Slackware... (Score:1)
Does it mean immutable? Static? Impossible to move or change?
I like my trusty hammer, thankyouverymuch. (Score:1)
>You'll always use your trusty hammer--until it breaks.
And then you'll just get another one and keep on keepin' on.
If Slackware, or any Linux distribution, doesn't fit your taste, there's no problem with that. Linux itself isn't for everyone--I'm perfectly happy running a well-hacked Slack 2.1 box at home, while I wouldn't think of giving that box to my mother (who uses Windows and is happy with it). But that doesn't mean Linux is intrinsically "bad". To each his own, after all.
I might also point out that there haven't been any really major OS advances in a long time. The two most recent ones that come to mind are multitasking and the GUI, both of which have been around for many, many years now. Sure, there's the Windows Registry, capabilities in Linux, or whatever, but I would argue that neither Windows nor *nix have made any eye-popping innovations in recent years. If anything, we ought to be looking at things like BeOS (which I personally haven't used so I can't say one way or the other).
Now, if Microsoft can beat *nix to a realtime idiot detection/elimination feature, I may just have to think about switching...
--Andrew Church // achurch without spam at dragonfire spam net
Re:Do it yourself! (Score:1)
Re:Because PAM sucks, gay pedo coward frederic. (Score:1)
Not difficulty: time (Score:2)
Now, I've been using Linux since 1994, had the obligatory completely-replaced Slackware system, rebuilt bootdisks to work on wonky laptops, and was putting together my own distribution at one time. That level of tinkering can be very interesting, but right now I want to spend my time in different ways. That's all.
Re:No Linux-PAM? (Score:1)
Go read the Slackware devel forums and post if you want new packages
Yes, but they should fix the forums to allow posts via browsers without javascript support. Using Lynx [browser.org] I get a php error.Re:Slack vs Debian (Score:1)
And I bet you compile all the software you run on that Solaris box, or install it with tar and gzip. Really...
Re:I Didn't Run Slackware... (Score:1)
It's not enough to run linux, but it's necesary to run 31337 linux...
I bet this guy got into linux to be more l33t than windows/DOS users, and now needs a new goal...
ack.
***
Re:No Linux-PAM? (Score:2)
---
Re:Slackware is the best alternative to *BSD (Score:1)
Re:Slackware is the best alternative to *BSD (Score:1)
About the only portion of your post that is right is that Slackware is good for people who can't (for one reason or other) do it with BSD (need Netscape? StarOffice perhaps?). The "build as you go" approach can be used with distro I know of (I use Redhat at the office and Debian at home). There is no need for you to install the full 500M that come in a Redhat CD (and incidentally are also present in that Slack CD). Also, many people that like UN*X actually prefer SysV, so don't go presuming that being more BSDish is a win.
Re:Slackware. (Score:2)
'rpm --nodeps packagename.rpm ' works just fine when you have a library rpm doesn't know about.
Adam
Re:Only slackware.... (Score:1)
Slackware isn't my choice, but AFAIK it hasn't changed much from the days when I did use it (because there were few, but not zero (CT!), other choices 5-6 years ago) and it's very much a DIYers launchpad, so if you want a different kernel, go for it. Besides, slack has the shortest release cycle of all, so 8.0 (I'm guessing here) won't trail Linux 2.4 by more than a couple months.
Because I don't feel like I've sold out... (Score:2)
Slackware? The only distro? (Score:1)
Now, I got into linux about 5 years ago. Bought my CD set, took it home, and installed Slackware (the only distro with installation instructions in printed form). I created a partition on my 500mb harddrive using partition magic, keeping enough space to run my BBS under OS/2 on it. The machine, a 486sx-33 with 8mb ram, should be more tha sufficient. So, I get it installed and after much fooling around, I could never get X to run properly (damned S3 video card), so I just dug around in the command line. It was a bit strange at first but eventually, I started loving it. People wonder why I'm so comfortable with the console (people I work with) and this is why. I had no other options back in those days.
And now, mostly because Slack remained so stagnant for such a long period of time, I'm using Debian and haven't had a single problem with it. Maybe I should try Slack for old times sake...
Re:Longtime slackware user (Score:2)
Dont snag it just yet (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No Linux-PAM? (Score:1)
Warning: File upload error - no name component in content disposition in /var/www/slackware/forum/post.php3 on line 0 Warning: Cannot add more header information - the header was already sent (header information may be added only before any output is generated from the script - check for text or whitespace outside PHP tags, or calls to functions that output text) in /var/www/slackware/forum/post.php3 on line 13
I wrote to the webmaster some days ago but got no reply. Note that I always get this error. Got today, one week ago, and trying at different hours. Using Lynx 2.8.4dev.4. 2.8.3rel.1 gives the same error.Re:Slackware... (Score:1)
Re:Bring the hammer down on *nix. (Score:2)
Invention is advancement by giant leaps, the favoured method in the US. Innovation is advancement via baby steps. Japan has been doing this since the Second World War.
What kind of car do you drive?
What brand is your tv?
Your VCR?
Your stereo?
I'd be shocked if more than two of the above were made by an American company. Most people would have zero. I know that this wasn't your point, but you needed correcting.
Microsoft does make billions by innovating. Is Office 2000 really so much better than Office 97 (7, 6, etc) to be worth $US 800 for the upgrade, $1400 for the full version? But if people will pay for it...
------
Re:It is appropriate to hold off on 2.4 kernel (Score:2)
Its not version 1.0, its version 2.4. What cave have you been hiding in?
Slackware. (Score:2)
Yes.. everything had to be done by hand.
So.. slackware was where you really learned what went where, and that anything can really go anywhere. You had to get really familiar with it.
Now, of course, once you know such things.. why on earth you would go back to slack is beyond me..
It's a great time for a new version! (Score:3)
Better than yet another distribution, I find the Linux from Scratch [linuxfromscratch.org] project quite interesting...
It is appropriate to hold off on 2.4 kernel (Score:4)
I think it is important to understand that a widely used distribution should not use a kernel until it has been used in widespread production for several months.
Anyone who knows what they are doing can download the kernel source and compile it themselves. I've been using the kernel 2.4.0-testX-acX series on my Slackware 7 installation for some time now, and it works well.
But there is a huge number of combinations of configurations out in the world, and there really is no way that the kernel can be adequately tested by the people who presently are testing it.
Once the 2.4.0 final kernel is released a lot more people will download and compile it than have been using it yet, and guess what? Bugs will be found.
That's why we have minor releases.
But a commercial distribution gets used by a lot of people who do not want to be testers, or would not be competent to diagnose their own systems if there was a problem.
You may say that Slackware is for the hardcore sorts (does that make me one? Gee, but I write MacOS GUI code for a living! [goingware.com].) but the fact is a lot of people will get Slackware for their very first experience with Linux just because they see it on a store shelf somewhere and decide to try it out.
Give Patrick a break.
And remember some wisdom a customer passed to me when I was working tech support in a bygone era: Don't buy version 1.0 of anything.
Re:dundant. (Score:2)
Re:No Linux-PAM? (Score:2)
Patrick has stated this is the reason for not including it. Go read the Slackware devel forums and post if you want new packages. A fellow posted asking for sgml tools, I seconded, and a package appeard in contrib within 24 hours. Ditto for when I found that the ypnis tools were missing a binary, the upgraded tcpip2.tgz came within a few hours.
Slackware is about quality, tested code, not features (that's Red Hat).
Feel free to write a *clean* version of PAM for Linux. I'd love to see one, and I'm sure Pat would toss it into Slackware
---
Re:Longtime slackware user (Score:2)
1) RPM is complex enough already. Adding the extra overhead of having to write to a text database makes it more complex than I'm willing to put up with. (More complexity==more bugs)
2) The RPM database doesn't need to be user editable. Anything that you can do with a text file, you can do through RPM. Additionally, if the database gets corrupted, the average RPM user will not know how to fix it anyway. The problem is that RPM was aimed at you. While it is a decent package format, it wasn't meant for the advanced user when it was designed.
Re:I Didn't Run Slackware... (Score:2)
LL
Debugging MacOS (Score:2)
Sometimes it happened that an app would fail on a new system build - and then it would come to me.
Without source code to the app and usually no cooperation from the vendor, I'd use MacsBug to determine whether the problem was a real new bug in the system, or an old latent bug in the third party app that we just happened to stimulate.
I could tell some stories but probably shouldn't. More than a few developers were suprised to get calls from me detailing how they should fix their old code.
Re:It's a great time for a new version! (Score:2)
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
Re:Has Slashdot become too political? (Score:2)
<p>
I'm sorry, should he have listed every single package that was in the system? You're the one being political, or else you wouldn't have cared which packages he listed.
<p>
Anyway, I'm sure that KDE will get talked about on Slashdot when it comes up with a new stable version. 1.91 isn't.
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
Re:Why slackware? (Score:2)
Re:Why slackware? (Score:2)
No I'm not. I'm absolutely 100% factually correct. The SuSe /etc/resolv.conf contains the line:
# PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE
> The 'do not edit' is usually put in files which are edited by a process
Yes, that's right. That's what I'm complaining about. These files are designed to be edited by a system administrator. What's more, if you learn how to configure DNS by editing resolv.conf, that knowledge will stand you in good stead on BSD, Solaris, AIX, Dynix etc etc etc. Learning how to do it with yast will be of precisely no use to you.
I don't mind processes altering these files where appropriate; but if they're written in such a way that they can't cope with changes made by the system administrator, they are broken.
Do it yourself! (Score:3)
Rules to Live By:
- Have an hour free? rm -rf
/* as root to see what it does. - Oops, did that hurt the system? Go through the installation again. Familliarize yourself with the purpose of all the packages.
- If it can be done in windows, it can be done better in linux. Do it. Prove to the world there is hope after microsoft.
- freshmeat.net is your friend
- It dosen't matter if you need to or not, just do it. It's perfectly normal to have several unfinished projects going at any given time.
- Compile it your own damn self.
- Good things come with time. I installed slackware using floppy disks made on a windows system with a 28.8 modem.
The real benefit of running a slackware system is that the system you are running is yours. There is no generic install, you can take pride in your accomplishments. One thing that slackware has accidentally taught me over the years is how to solve problems as they arise... a real life skill. Cheers to Patrick for keeping slackware the distro it was meant to be. =)Re:Slack vs Debian (Score:3)
If you use packaging systems, debian is better, however, if you want to make everything from source, just do a minimal slack install, and make your own distribution.
Slack is a good place to get parts for a distribution, I'd say most slackware users' systems arent too similar to the base install.
Re:Slack vs Debian (Score:2)
Re:Slackware. (Score:4)
The benefits of Slackware Linux are many:
You might also want to read about why Kuro5hin.org runs Slackware [kuro5hin.org] (article written by me, so this is a bit of self-promotion
If you'd grown up on it, or come from another Unix-alike (such as OpenBSD, etc), you'd find Slackware as comfortable and well fitting as a very nice pair of boxer shorts. Whereas I find something like Red Hat restrictive and holey (like very old briefs which haven't been taken care of). Why anyone would run Red Hat (or derivatives), or even Debian, is "beyond me"...
To each their own.
---
Re:It is appropriate to hold off on 2.4 kernel (Score:3)
I'm not to sure I'd be putting on my resume that I was the one who debugged MacOS 7.5.(2|3).
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Longtime slackware user (Score:2)
Thats why you remove the packages you're about to upgrade first...
-- iCEBaLM
Why slackware? (Score:2)
Re:Slack vs Debian (Score:2)
Re:Why slackware? (Score:2)
Go on then, I'll bite.
Why do they have a "DO NOT EDIT" header if it's not because you can't edit them?
Sure, you can load them in to vi and make any changes you want. But next time you do anything even vaguely network related in yast, your changes will be lost. That's what I mean by "you can't edit them". And that's why the files say "DO NOT EDIT".
Of course, you could just never use yast again. That's pretty much what I do.
Re:Longtime slackware user (Score:2)
Yes, it does. Graphic images for instance, are usually best not formatted in ASCII :) But I don't think this is an example of one of those things.
> Maybe because a binary file is easier to edit from a program than a text file?
Making the software use text files is a little harder for the programmer, but only has to be done once.
Making the user edit binary files is very, very much harder, and if often impossible in practice. And it often has to be done over and over again in the life of a system. Why else do you think files like resolv.conf and inittab are human readable?
Anything that takes administrative control of your system away from you and gives it over to unreadable binary files and over-complex software (hello, RPM) is a Bad Thing (tm).
Re:Slackware. (Score:2)
True - so are Red Hat, Debian and many others.
Easy to configure (for the average Unix guy)
I'd think that's true of virtually all Linux distributions - some are even easy to configure for non-Unix guys.
BSD style init scripts
Why would you call that an advantage? SysV init scripts are much less of a pain when you need to add some service automatically...
No RPM locking dependancy
No distribution has that - you can just take Red Hat, Debian, or whatever and compile stuff from source. All you lose when doing that without doing it properly is dependency checking for other packages that depend on the stuff you installed from source.
It's not done uploading - watch this file (Score:3)
There's a note in the file that says it will disappear when the upload is done. Apparently the Slashdot article got posted when the release was announced, but the loading of the files is still in progress!
Eagerly,
Bring the hammer down on *nix. (Score:2)
These *nix clones are starting to remind me of the hardware store. You walk into your local hardware store and move directly towards the hammer section. As you step down the aisle you salivate at the big hammers, fiddle with the tiny hammers, and practice with the hammers that fit you best.
The concept of the hammer has been around since our earliest days. The concept of the Operating System has equally matured. These two have very similar conceptual models.
Your big hammer is the microsoft OS, dominating the field. The tiny hammers are your experimental operating systems that you keep a keen eye out for on FreshMeat. Those hammers that fit you so well? You know what they are.
These releases of OS are losing momentum, because Microsoft is actually doing something that no other Open Source project seems to be able to pull off. Masked Innovation.
Microsoft is building the powered jackhammer while the unix community debates and flames each other over balsa or oak. You'll always use your trusty hammer-
-until it breaks.
SoulStriker