

Is Slackware Fading Away? 531
A reader writes "I just read over on userlocal.com about how David Cantrell announced he is no longer actively developing protopkg and autoslack (these are 2 apps that could have brought slack out of the stoneage but still kept to slacks philosophy of K.I.S.S.). So is it almost "game over" for the first commercial linux distribution which used to be the heavyweight champ?"
I doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
And just cos a couple of apps are no longer going to be developed, the distro doesn't end. It'll keep on going for as long as the project developers want to, simple as that.
Re:I doubt it (Score:2, Interesting)
The people who use Slackware like having a minimalist package system that coexists nicely with software compiled from source and doesn't get in their way. They like the fact that Slackware sticks to the traditional system configuration method of editing familiar text files in
On the other hand, Debian seems to appeal to people who always want to run the latest & greatest stuff and don't want to know or care about dependencies and the details of exactly what software is on their system, and are willing to live with more bugs and constant updating. Debian users are also willing to give up some power and control to avoid learning a lot about manual configuration, although not nearly so much as Mandrake users, for example. There is also a whole separate class of Debian users who choose it primarily because it's not commercial and/or because it's called GNU/Linux.
If I were to sum it up, I'd say that Slackware primarily appeals to people who have a UNIX sysadmin backgroud prior to Linux, people who need a minimal install for older HW, control freaks, and perfectionists. Meanwhile Debian is preferred by people like to stay on the bleeding edge and the hardcore free software proponents.
If old time Slack users start jumping ship, it seems more likely to me that they will go over to the BSD side than start using Debian.
Re:I doubt it (Score:3, Insightful)
> run the latest & greatest stuff
they're not going to be very successful . . . if you want to run anything even vaguely recent, you need to use either the unstable or testing distributions.
>There is also a whole separate
>class of Debian users who choose it primarily because it's not
>commercial and/or because it's called GNU/Linux
And there's another large crowd of us for whom our systems suddenlty announcing themselves as "GNU/Linux" was the last straw and went and looked at FreeBSD again (and have never looked back . .
>If old time Slack users start jumping ship, it seems more likely to me
>that they will go over to the BSD side than start using Debian.
That I'll certainly agree with. However, I'll concede that Debian is quite often the last Linux distribution that many people use as their experience grows--that is, the last step before switching to *BSD
hawk, running for cover
Re:Debian vs Slack for the 'unix-like' crown? (Score:2, Insightful)
All I want in a distro is a basic install with a simple package system to get me running. After that, I never want to see a package again.
I did like Debian more than RedHat, though. I'd have to say that Debian reminds me of other SysV style Unix distros, while RedHat reminds me of penguin dung.
I'll use Slackware until the very end because it suits my needs and my administration style more than other Linux distros. If Slackware were to go away at some point, I'd roll my own distro, or try to take up the Slack.
Re:Debian vs Slack for the 'unix-like' crown? (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, why do you dislike package systems? If it's becase you like to build your apps locally, have you ever looked at FreeBSD's ports collection?
Re:Debian vs Slack for the 'unix-like' crown? (Score:2)
Then you can build from the same source for all your packages and your kernel on your Macintosh, Your Sparc, Your Intel, and your Vax boxes. You can use the same config files.
I think you meant "ports" collection, rather than "package" collection. A "package" is a archive containing the results of compiling a "port". However, yeah, I agree with your sentiments. Whether I'm on Intel or Sparc, I can compile the same program in the same way, and expect it to work identically. I'm isolated from having to manually configure everything I want to install, but still have the flexibility to do so if I wish. As a bonus, on FreeBSD at least, I can set preferred compiler optimization options in
Re:Debian vs Slack for the 'unix-like' crown? (Score:4, Interesting)
Reasons I prefer Debian [debian.org] over Slackware for most systems:
* Fastest path from bare metal to rock-solid stable server
* Easier to maintain, particularly security updates
* Well thought out system configuration files and scripts
* Debian puts more development manhours into making sure the packages are debugged and working well together
* I prefer modular System V-style init scripts to Berkeley-style huge rc files
* Closer to LSB and FHS standards
* Lots of stuff (both good and fun) for my GNOME Woody desktop without a lot of work
I use Slackware [slackware.com] instead of Debian for the following:
* Floppy-only machines that have little or no internet connectivity
* Excellent for fire-and-forget machines that will never get maintained
* UMSDOS installations (Remember UMSDOS? Slackware still supports it well)
* I need a quick root/boot disk combo for an obscure legacy system
The rest of the time, I use TomsRtBt [toms.net]
Re:Debian vs Slack for the 'unix-like' crown? (Score:2, Informative)
pico? did he say, "pico"? (Score:2)
> 'unix-like' ???
huh? pico? You can certainly say this about vi, but pico is *very* recent. Pine didn't start until the late 80's, and then pico came out of thaqt.
hawk, who used the True Editor on unix long before pico was conceived
No, not a chance (Score:2, Flamebait)
"*BSD is dying" ask/.?? (Score:4, Insightful)
There will always be linux hobbiest that will have slackware installs.
There will always be one developer working on some part of it.
It might not always stay up with the rest of the distros (especially large ones like debian, redhat, and SuSE), but it won't "die".
This ask slashdot sounds a touch like the *BSD is dying troll
Re:Trolling. (Score:2)
I doubt this is from lack of trying. They (yes, the people that give you "Your Rights Online") are censoring them pretty hardcore. So what do the trolls do? Work harder and come up with articles like this.
To quote Princess Leia (I'm paraphrasing so don't flame the quote):
The harder you squeeze, the easier it is to slip through your fingers!
Re:Trolling. (Score:2, Insightful)
Or like the one about "Cesium". Or the "How ESR built a bad motherfucking computer." Or the "Look how quiet my ThinkGeek(tm) computer is" article.
There's tech news happening every day. Are the readers here really more interested in this trivial shit? It's like a site for professional carpenters reprinting the instructions for a birdhouse kit from a craft store, for crissake.
Oh, and many thanks to the fuckwit who modded my last post "Overrated". When you're finished eating oatmeal and shaking on the short bus, you might want to look up what the Score +1 Bonus is, you grannyfucking slophound.
--saint
Not gameover.. not yet. (Score:5, Interesting)
The kernel killed debian's setup program shortly after startup.. But trusty 'ol lightweight slakware rose to the challenge to breathe new life into that machine.
I was impressed.
Re:Not gameover.. not yet. (Score:2)
It really is things like these that make slackware stand out. This is what brings out the difference between windows and linux. Thank god for slackware, I dont have to use DedRat lindows or the like!!
Lightweight installs with Slackware (Score:2, Informative)
I installed Slackware on a 486DX-33 w/12Megs of RAM and a 100meg hard drive to act as a print spool for an old laser printer on our network. Shut down all services except what was needed for printing, installed SSH for remote admin, and let it loose.
You can pretty much shape Slackware for whatever job you need a Linux machine to do, and you can do it easily.
Low end. (Score:2)
One word, baby. NetBSD. I ran a web/file/mail server on a Quadra 700 with a 200 meg drive for months.
The hardware has since been changed over from the Mac to a Dell 486. Seamless and fast.
--saint
Linux Is Still Prizing Quality over Consistency (Score:3, Interesting)
I could even suggest that K.I.S.S. is, in part, a decision to pursue quality. But it does mean a less comprehensive product - 'right out the box'.
Linux will likely never die, because those want control over the lower layers of their OS, AND who have the skills to manage it, will always choose Linux-like systems.
But lots of non-technical people want to install their OS once, and never have to worry about recompiling the kernel because they didn't have SCSI support and wanted to plug in a new device they just brought home.
Perhaps, in the absence of a single first choice of a distro among the Linux users, there heeds to be a single *second* choice.
....cjs
Re:Linux Is Still Prizing Quality over Consistency (Score:2)
is that it then for OS's. Do we have nothing new to look forward to. That's depressing.
Fortunately I know that a new paradigm will emerge, like so many times before, and we will all end up with fond memories of the penguin
K.I.S.S. = VERY simple ~ dumb (Score:2, Insightful)
now i have it (slack) running on my router because i wanted it to be simple and "bare knuckle" as one user expressed it. and it is. everything seems like a huge deal to get it going over there.
cron is not working properly, and has no default logging. (they don't use vixie).
but most other problems i have worked out.
it's just not as shiney, but as a DIY kinda guy i gotta say i like it that way. for all the power and ease of the big distros they have stuff that is big and just gets in the way sometimes.
Slackware isn't dead. It's just not for everyone. (Score:5, Informative)
I've never had a problem with the stability of a Slackware distro because Patrick Volkerding puts out a quality distro with out a ot of bloat.
Thanks for such a good distro Patrick.
Adam
It's a damned good thing it's not for everyone (Score:2)
I remember when the book Linux for Dummies [bn.com] came out. My first thought was "well, now I have to make the switch to BSD". While that may not have been bad in and of itself, I did then come to my senses and realized "Oh wait, I use Slackware, never mind".
Uh Oh! There's a Slackware for Dummies [bn.com] now, too. Maybe I'll have to switch to BSD afterall? Well, as long as Patrick doesn't try to make Slackware be the replacement for Microsoft Windows, then it will remain my choice.
Slackware gone? Hell no! (Score:2, Informative)
One hobbyist would hope not... (Score:5, Insightful)
Slackware has been a stalwart distro for me ever since I discovered Linux, and continues to be the #1 distro I run on my machines. Now, I have many, many vintage machines, as I'm into collecting and restoring older machines. [computershelter.org] Slackware works very well for this, as well for various servers that I maintain.
Mind you, the setup and interface has never been stellar, and leaves most normal users coughing in the dust. However, for those who need max flexibility and a thin system (like these 386 machines and such need), this is an excellent one. I personally don't see any huge loss by not having these tools....come to think of it, I've never used them anyway.
On the other hand, if Slack exists because of commercial sales, then the loss of these tools and others will be its demise from lack of revenue.
Re:One hobbyist would hope not... (Score:2, Interesting)
There was a sparc port but it died. Stampede (the Mandrake of the Slackware world), was going to have a fancy build system for a bunch of platforms, but I haven't seen anything out of those guys in months.
Slackware is below the horizon (Score:2)
Again, you end up spending a lot of time just keeping the system up to date. The major distrobutions are becoming easier to maintain. Basically, Slackware has an ever decreasing market niche. Too bad.
Oh - I write this from a slack 8 desktop.
Re:Slackware is below the horizon (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as security updates for packages that are included in Slack, what's so hard about downloading it and typeing:
upgrade newpackage.tgz
Personally, I don't trust something that "updates itself".
Don't even get started about Linux on the desktop for the newbies. It's not ready yet...but that's another discussion entirely.
Re:Slackware is below the horizon (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Slackware is below the horizon (Score:3, Informative)
This is a common misconception. pkgtool makes it very easy to add, update, and remove packages, and the simple package format makes it easy to make your own. In combination with installwatch and install2slack, maintaining multiple machines is a no-brainer.
If you want pre-built packages for slackware, you might try linuxmafia [linuxmafia.org], where you can find contributed packages for a wide variety of software.
Now, if you mean that slackware's package management system doesn't check dependancies, you'd be right. It's not as if it doesn't exist, though.
Re:Slackware is below the horizon (Score:3, Informative)
>use, you can publish that onto an ftp server,
>and then have the debian boxes patch themselves.
>Slackware can't do that, to the best of my
>knowledge. I used slackware intensively up to
>and including 7.1. It is a GREAT distrobution.
>Really. You're on your own, and if you fuck up
>it's usually you fucking up, not some
>inconsistent package management system. Use it
>if you want to learn Linux the hardcore way.
It seems to me that, if one needs to distribute software to many machines at once, there are easy ways to do it besides relying on a particular distribution's packaging tools. For instance, the unix labs at UT Austin use Debian, but most software (as far as I can tell) is actually stored on a central NFS server and run directly from that machine. It works great.
I administer several Slackware servers for our UT's student union. When I need to add a new piece of software or make an upgrade, I do it on a test server first (either compile a new package, or find it on Linuxmafia.) Once I ensure that it works, I run rsync on the other servers and viola!, they 'patch' themselves! Sometimes I have to run lilo if I upgrade the kernel on the other machines, but that's it.
Re:Slackware is below the horizon (Score:3, Informative)
Current package management systems in use (rpm, deb, etc.) rely heavily on the package maintainers. You're trusting them on several issues that seem kind of hairy in a large production environment.
1) The binary package does what it's supposed to (read: trojan free)
2) The software within was compiled to an architecture that you can handle (Nothing like finding -i386 meant to your package maintainer that 686 optimizations were included (not so good on some chips, like the AMD k6-2's))
3) Everything was built with reasonable options
4) The package plays nice and doesn't replace files from other packages on your system.
Personally, I'm more than happy compiling everything from source, especially now that a "./configure ; make ; make install" describes the build instructions on a huge number of available applications.
Want to roll it out on your large production system? Build the package on your test machine, use makepkg to build a slackware package, and then install it all over your network. Slack's concept of packages may be a bit simple (yes, they're basically gzipped tarballs with a manifest), but installpkg, removepkg and makepkg have been enough for me. (If you're using the makepkg angle, it's quite a bit easier removing things, especially if you're generally bad at keeping track where all the stuff is landing to begin with)
I won't bother with all my other anti-package arguments (dependencies, etc.)
As long as there are people that enjoy slackware, it will keep going. My question to the poster of the article (not that comment I'm replying to) is "When did commercial acceptance become the _only_ thing we care about?"
-transiit
Re:Slackware is below the horizon (Score:2)
It seems to me that all these problems are solved by debian's source package scheme. (Ie, apt-get source package; cd package; review & edit source and build scripts to your liking; dpkg-buildpackage) Yes, the maintainers could potentially throw in trojans, (although package signing prevents anyone else from doing this), or just get lazy and make mistakes in the packaging. But most of those mistakes can and should be caught by the package management system, and provide the user enough flexibility to correct the problem. (I know
Isn't this really one of the basic reasons to have a package management system? When you do a 'make install', you're blindly telling the installation scripts to install themselves. I know in my experience I've had more then a few cases of 'make install' causing chaos, whereas any package management system worth its salt will point out these conflicts and give me the option to specify more precisely what should be done, or simply back out and cancel the installation.
Re:Slackware is below the horizon (Score:2)
When you do a "make install", you're only doing so blindly if you don't bother to look at the makefile to begin with. So you've got a choice: Take a chance with a package manager or a blind "make install" OR just be dilligent to begin with.
Unfortunately, I haven't found a package manager worth its salt yet....rpm-based systems tend to be so picky about dependencies that you either have to go along with whatever it tells you (which is a much lower level of choice than what I expect) or you force installation (which often tends to push the rpm database even further into its little fantasy world.) Apt, from my experience, tends to do whatever the hell it feels like. Nothing like watching it install libc5, remove libc5 and then reinstall libc5 on successive runs of "apt-get upgrade". (Here in the fifth circle of hell, we've only got low-bandwidth connections and a lot of mud.) What finally drove me over the edge was that I decided the system I was working on didn't need an MTA, so I told it to get rid of exim. It did. And took at with it. So, thinking it was annoying, told it to go get at again. It did. And brought zmailer with it.
I tend to view package management as it's defined these days as a great tool for the lazy, cowards and the otherwise uninterested. When it really comes down to it, if I were to find myself responsible for a large number of debian-like boxen, I'd probably just set up a box to act as the primary package source and populate it myself. Call it paranoia, but one of the big things that got me excited by Free software was the amount of choice that comes with it. If you're experience is all about having a package manager do all the fun work, then by all means, go right ahead.
-transiit
Voluntary software update network (Score:2)
Does anyone remember the old Fidonet-technology file echos? They were automated distribution networks of shareware and other public-domain files that BBSes would carry to always offer new files to users. You would dial up to your master server, it would download the files to you, then you would run a program called a file tosser to import them into the file areas of your BBS.
Something like this that passes around
Just a thought..
I Love Slackware (Score:5, Insightful)
So what if one developer is stopping work on some tools? It's opensource right? Isn't part of the point that if they are needed and people want them someone will pick it up and finish them? 2 tools don't make a distro, and 2 tools stopping development by their primary guy doesn't kill a distro. GO SLACKWARE!
Re:I Love Slackware (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I Love Slackware (Score:2)
Don't forget that just because a distro has requirements of a PIII and 2G of hard drive means that that's what it actually requires. Slack *is* nice and small yes, but that's not to say that other (major) distros can't be nice and small either.
nostalgic but inevitable (Score:2)
Just another Sys5 drone, nowadays.
Slackware will always have a place... (Score:5, Insightful)
-Upgrade to the newest kernel, make sure everything is compatible
-Upgrade to the newest compiler and basic libs, and make sure everything is compatible
-Make sure the system is compatible with the latest, greatest hardware.
A bonus would be up-to-date GNOME and KDE, but is it really necessary? For Slack fans like myself, it's better to get a simple, basic OS and then add whatever desktop stuff I see fit. It's build-you-own, without most of the pain of build-your-own.
Redhat, Mandrake, and SuSE have been pissing me off lately with installs that take 1800 MB of disk space, and 10,000 background daemons that eat up 80% of the available RAM. If I want to install a useful system with X and FVWM to do Web browsing, check e-mail and log into remote UNIX boxen, all on a Pentium-90 with 16 MB RAM and a 600 GB hard drive, the ONLY current distribution good for the job is Slackware.
Slackware is for folks like me, who remember when Linux was *Linux*, and not a Windows wannabe.
Re:Slackware will always have a place... (Score:2, Informative)
very well put -- I started off with Slackware in 1994. I tried Redhat for a while, but found myself spending most of my time trying to figure out what Redhat's scripts were failing to do correctly, and I moved back to slack. Last year, I tried Debian because I was getting sick of the lack of package support for slack, but I then spent most of my time learning how to use dpkg and trying to figure out what the hell got installed to my system on my last upgrade.
Now, I'm happily back to slack, and I'll stay here. No other distribution enables you to know as much about precisely what's installed on your system as slack, and for somebody learning linux, I think Slackware is the best learning tool out there. I find that most of the other distributions try to do too much for the user (making it a "windows-like" experience), which makes learning what it's doing that much more difficult.
KDE and slackware??? (Score:2)
hawk
Re:Slackware will always have a place... (Score:2)
1) Go to freshmeat and search.
2) find the Web page or FTP site for the software I wanted.
3) Download.
4) Untar.
5)
Those were the good old days. I love apt-get as much as the next guy but I just felt so much more in control with Slack, installing virtually every new piece of software myself. Maybe Slackware will be in my future, too?
Re:Slackware will always have a place... (Score:3, Informative)
5)
6) cd
7) epkg foo-x.y
Take a look at http://www.encap.org/epkg/ . It gets rid of the single valid complaint that packaging nuts have against Slackware.
Re:Slackware will always have a place... (Score:3)
Last big flashy distro I installed was Mandrake 8.0. Horrible experience. First off you are presented with a nauseating yellow on purple themed installer. Then it installed unecessary dependencies after I deselected their dependent packages. Then it decided my Matrox G450 was really a cheap framebuffer. Then it turned on a bunch of services without me asking. The overall attitute of Mandrake is "we know better than you so shut up and obey".
If you want a simple bare bones installation, use a simple bare bones distribution. Trying to coax one out of a complex bloated distribution isn't worth the effort.
Re:Slackware will always have a place... (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think so (Score:3, Insightful)
Autoslack was cool, but not essential to the "mission" of Slackware. And perhaps someone will pick it up. I've been using Slack 8 since release, and I prefer hand-building anyways (then again, it's stable enough that all I've done is upgrade kernels and Mozilla so far). If you want it all done for you, you can always use Mandrake or Red Hat, and if you love apt-get, then go ahead and use Debian.
How I learned linux. (Score:3, Interesting)
With slackware, I was able to poke, prod, and tweak everything about the system to do anything I wanted.
Installing new software usually consists of:
And I was HAPPY with that... it was cool, and I didnt have to wait for an RPM to show up, I could easily use pre-final release software, and configure the build options to whatever I want. If the build didn't work, I went in and tweaked the make file or even the source to get it to compile.
But now with SO MANY shared libs and other dependencies, it gets to be a major pain in the ass to get one package then have to go get 15 other libs to get it to work. RPM solves all that, and I've come to accept binary distributions as making sense
Times have changed I think. But if you still want to work with linux at the lowest level (excellant for learning) go seek out the Linux From Scratch [linuxfromscratch.org] (LFS) project. It's where you take a kernel and assemble your own distribution from scratch, making it work how YOU want it to, sort what slackware did for me back in the day.
RPM flame (Score:2)
How does RPM solve all that?
Part of the reason I switched from Mandrake to Slackware was because RPM wasn't solving all that, and I just couldn't keep my system up-to-date. I was spending lots of time hunting for RPMs and finding out about new dependencies (which restarted the cycle). And then half the time, there just weren't any RPMs for the stuff I wanted, so I had to build from source anyway. Then the RPM database would gradually start drifting away from what was really installed on my system, and then I got into the habit of force-installing every single RPM, because 99% of the time, the dependency messages were false-negatives. Then the 1% case would bite me in the ass, as some program crashed because something it needed wasn't installed. ARGH!!! I HATE RPM!
(How do Mandrake and Red Hat users get by? I really don't know!)
I keep hearing that Debian's apt-get is so easy, and I've been tempted a couple of times. But fear will protect me: Fear that someday I won't be able to get something I need in package form, so I'll install from source, and then the package database will be wrong and I'll have the same problems I had with RPM. As long as I keep that fear in my mind, I'll be safe from Debian's temptation.
I'll steer clear of package management systems, thankyouverymuch. It's not "eliteness" or that I enjoy watching gcc do it's thing, justifying the cost of my Athlons. It's purely because of convenience and a desire to keep my hair instead of pulling it all out.
Re:RPM flame (Score:4, Informative)
It's a utility that automagically changes tarball installs into RPM or slackware package installs.
I run it like this:
./configure
make
make test (if necessary)
checkinstall
Checkinstall first installs the build into a temp directory, builds the RPM or slackware package, and then installs the package.
I've been using it for the past 8 months and it's saved me many times from giving up on the RPM database. The developer is working on getting Debian pkgs going too.
It's available here. [asic-linux.com.mx]
Slackware is great! (Score:2, Interesting)
I hope they can keep up all the good work they're doing going forward.
Not again, please (Score:4, Insightful)
I fail to understand why there is such an attitude against slackware.
It is a really good distribution. It is simple, it is smart, and it is up to date!
The only thing that is not present in slackware are things for which MS windows is (in)famous for). Fancy installs, dumb control pannels, etc.
Slackware is as close to unix you can get using linux. There are no fancy 'linuxconf' like security holes, and wverything works as advertised.
I use Slackware 8, and have switched to it AFTER trying Redhat 7.1 and Mandrake 8. Before this I was using Redhat for many years, and I regret the time I have wasted with it.
And oh yes, like MANY others, I started linux with slackware... back in the days of kernel 1.2!
Re:Not again, please (Score:2)
Ob: Pedantic (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ob: Pedantic (Score:5, Informative)
I'm assuming userlocal.com is alluding to /usr/local. They're wrong. /usr is not "User", it's "Unix System Resources", and is pronounced "Yew Ess Ar"
Sorry, you are wrong. "Unix System Resources" is a retro-nym for /usr, much like "Packet InterNet Groper" is a retro-nym for ping; both are incorrect 'explanations' for for terms who's origin and meaning have been hidden by time.
In current Unices, /usr is where user-land programs and data (as opposed to 'system land' programs and data) hang out. The name hasn't changed, but it's meaning has narrowed and lengthened from "everything user related" to "user usable programs and data".
So, you are wrong. Deal with it.
Re:Ob: Pedantic (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, since there is a difference between "users" and "user,"
Dinivin
Long Live Slackware! (Score:5, Informative)
Lacking really ultra-advanced package management has never been much of a problem either. While the setup programs weren't quite as "saleable" as the pretty GUI frontends, they were colorful, used an easy-to-follow menu system, and gave a very detailed description of what they were doing, when, at all times. Compare that to, say, the Corel setup wizard, which kept crapping out on even slightly non-standard hardware.
So what's wrong with package management (Score:4, Insightful)
I've noticed the majority of posts on this topic seem to be against distro's that use package management. I say wtf is wrong with package management? I use Debian for one reason, I like to use my computer, and not spend time compiling and configuring. When I want to upgrade, I want it done quickly. Call me lazy, I know I am...but I just feel I should spend more time enjoying my computer, and less time trying to get the software to work.
*Flame off*
Re:So what's wrong with package management (Score:4, Insightful)
I know I am...but I just feel I should spend more time enjoying my computer, and less time trying to get the software to work.
It's a fundamental difference between various types of users. For some of us, tweaking the OS to work exactly like we want is enjoying our computers. I'm not saying either way is better, I'm just pointing out that people are different. :)
Re:So what's wrong with package management (Score:3, Interesting)
The Slackare package stuff is like the rest of the system, simple, bare bones, and assumes you know what you are doing.
When I want to upgrade, I want it done quickly.
You can do the same with Slackware.
Re:So what's wrong with package management (Score:2)
Slackware will never die! (Score:2)
I started out with zipslack because it was the only way i could try out this new Linux thing without destroying my happy little compaq term-paper writing machine. Of course I discovered FIPS a few months later. (College kids living on air and sunshine don't have the privilage of buying a new hd just to learn how to fsck.)
Since then I've tried several other distros but none gave me the flexibility of Slack. Even the latest greatest Mandrake sucks the bilges when it comes to compiling a new kernel and configuring oddball hardware. With slack all the config files are easy to find and in plain english.
And besides, this is just a message posting of one guy saying he's too busy to maintain one nifty program. bring on the tarballs!
(protopkg && autoslack) != slackware (Score:5, Insightful)
protopkg and autoslack were interesting concepts, but really little more that than in my view. As a long time (5 years) user of The Slack, I have come to know how to maintain the package database with simple tools like ls and grep, how to build new packages from source with only 1-2 minutes overhead on the normal build time, and how to use rsync and wget to keep my package store current. David's tools were just a way of automating what I do automatically anyway.
I don't mean to down-play his work, just emphasise that these were tools to make life a little easier -- especially for those with a little less time and/or experience. They were not there to bring Slack "out of the stoneage", and the are not necessary for the continued vitality of the distribution.
(By the way, what stoneage is the poster talking about? The lack of framebuffer eye-candy in the install? The lack of a package management system that can't handle alien packages? The lack of non-standard compilers, kernel and C library?)
I don't see Slackware dying any time soon. Things have surely slowed down on the official development front since the developers stopped being paid to work on the distro, but security patches and updates to important packages (kde, vim, emacs) are still coming out.
Slack has gone through some slow periods before, but often there is work going on behind the scenes. Just recently there was a long but very active "unstable" cycle, with many updates and improvements, leading up to the release of 8.0 (which contrary to popular belief DOES contain recent versions of core software). I think it is understandable that the distro is now in a "maintenance" phase, keeping important thing up-to-date but not embarking on major changes or attempting to keep every package at the bleeding edge. I'm confident that development will begin again when Patrick sees value in it.
Re:(protopkg && autoslack) != packaging sy (Score:3, Informative)
I've been sold the slackware `packagaing system' doesn't have dependencies. If that's true, it isn't a packaging system. Nothing wrong with that, but less call a software install method a software install method.
Must every Linux distribution be for the mass? (Score:2, Interesting)
Slackware has me worried (Score:5, Insightful)
However, it's not the qualities of the distribution that have me worried about its future (so what if it doesn't do RPM?). After the "layoff" Patrick's helpers (David, Chris, Logan) have been forced to get paying jobs elsewhere and only help out on a part time basis, leaving Patrick to handle the bulk of development by himself. He's started a slackware-current which has a few package collections in there, but nothing close to a new distribution tree. I'm also concerned that the latest patches put out for 8.0 were in August.
They've always been on time with security patches, but they've yet to release a patch for the kernel issues found a couple weeks ago. While, I don't mind so much downloading the new kernel source and recompiling it myself, I imagine there are many out there who don't know to do that. And yes, the newgrp exploit thing doesn't work in slackware because it uses shadow passwords instead of PAM, but the kernel bug is still there for exploitation by other means (su perhaps).
The fact that David is no longer developing autoslack and protopkg is unsettling, but it doesn't concern me as much as the seeming lack of activity at the slackware site. Please, Patrick, tell me I'm wrong and that you've got something big cooking up back there...
Re:Slackware has me worried (Score:2)
What kernel issues are those? Slackware 8.0 ships with the 2.2.19 and 2.4.5 kernels. I don't recall any security issues with those.
Re:Slackware has me worried (Score:2)
and here [securityfocus.com]
Re:Slackware has me worried (Score:2)
Domain Registry uses Slackware (Score:4, Interesting)
Part of the reason is habitual, but Slackware's simplicity and UNIX-ness is also very appealing for a large, complex network that needs a lot of work to operate. Its lean install (if you don't want it, you don't have to install it, if you do, put it on yourself) is perfect for mission critical stuff where security is important.
That's why Slack will always have a place in our hearts and on our boxen.
Re:Domain Registry uses Slackware (Score:2)
Pray, say, what does make Slackware more UNIX-ness than Random Joe Linux, hmmm?
For whatever is worth, Interesting is a rather appropiate moderation in this case. It is genuinely interesting to see some people say Slackware is more Unix than other distros because it lacks something. I mean, I usually think of my distro as very Unix-like because the stuff it has, not because of what it lacks.
Another interesting point, particularly if you take into account that quite a few people here are defending ./configure ; make ; make install as something good... (and a side note: exit status? what exit status?)
hell no it's not dying (Score:2)
I myself have almost a dozen boxen installed with Slack, and it's about to be one more.
Slackware on my boxes (Score:2)
I've used Slackware off-and-on for a couple of years; it's one of three distros I've installed on a regular basis. Right now, though, I'm trending toward two distros: Debian and Mandrake.
I use different distros for different purposes. My laptop, for instance, has a Mandrake 8.1 install, because I didn't want to spend lots of time making exotic hardware working with Debian or Slackware. Mandrake installed perfectly the first time, enabling all the laptop's devices without even a hiccup.
My servers and cluster, however, run Debian-testing, because I can install a simple, tight, focused Linux for Beowulf or web hosting. I don't need KDE or X or any exotic drivers on my cluster nodes; I do need a reliable and concise install. Mandrake is too "fluffy" for my cluster... ;)
As it stands now, Slackware is fading from my systems because it doesn't give me anything I can't get from Mandrake or Debian. If Slackware is going to survive, it needs to provide a unique value not found in other distros.
My First, My Last, My Everything (Score:3, Informative)
(with apologies to Barry White)
Slackware was the first Linux distro I installed, more than 6 years ago. Since then, I've flirted with the GUI-package-oriented distros (Red Hat and Mandrake in particular), acquired disks of several others (tradeshow giveaways and the like), been exposed to Debian on servers someone else installed, but I've come back to Slack, to stay.
Why? Several reasons really:
I think I'll go along with what others have said about this: even if Slackware, by name and/or business, were to go away, there are plenty of people in the Slackware community (myself included) who have the wherewithal, interest, and capability to "roll-our-own" Slack-like distros. I would expect, if it were to happen, to see all sorts of "children of the Slack" proliferate as a result, perhaps none with the singular momentum of the parent, but all with a specific niche to fill.
Re:My First, My Last, My Everything (Score:2)
As reasons for still using Slackware, Spud Zeppelin writes:
Historically, however, I'd like to point out that this has not always been the case. A lot of people back in the day switched away from Slackware to the new upstart Red Hat when the maintainer of Slackware put out releases where it was absolutely clear that nobody had ever tested *anything* much. Really, it was off-scale that way. This was interesting given that Slackware had started out as rebadged, bug-fixed version of SLS, which itself had problems in that the maintainer would make big changes to things like the kernel in for-real releases that ended up breaking things.
Note that this is not a flame against either McDonald or Volkerding; Linux might have gone *nowhere* without their contributions. But it is pretty much a historical fact that distributions like these have tapered off as Linux has taken off. This is not surprising: the amount of effort it takes to deal with the complexity of packaging a modern Linux system has gone beyond what a single person can do. Corporations can do it, as can the very impressive distributed organization that is Debian, but not any lone hacker.
It does make you a bit nostalgic. According to the lore, Ken Thompson used to send little "with love" notes along with the magtapes of what we now call Unix to remote sites. I can tell my grandkids one day about downloading SLS onto 40 or more 5.25" floppy disks and secretly installing a rebel Linux partition on the PC in my office at UCSD. It has to start that way if it's any good. It has to change at least a little bit if it's going to stay any good, or be good for more than a small circle of friends.
Slackware first distro? Not quite (Score:2)
Re:Slackware first distro? Not quite (Score:2)
does anyone still have a copy of SLS laying around? It might be interesting to show to these newbies how far distributions have come...
Mod story -1 troll (Score:3, Informative)
what does that tell you.
Just because some apps are no longer being actively developed by the lead maintainer doesnt mean the distro is dead. thats the beauty of open source. if alan cox or linus decided that they no longer had time to work on the kernel, would people shout that linux was dead?
i think not. as many people have said here, they are still using slackware, lots of people are. just because it isnt keeping up with the 'latest and greatest lindows distro' doesnt mean its dieing.
As another poster said, slackware's goal is not to ipo, make a huge amount of money (although im sure patrick wouldnt mind that, heh), and take over the world. its to have a linux distro based on KISS. and it works.
slackware lives on, and always will.
Well, its not mainstream anyways... (Score:2, Insightful)
I just downloaded Slack 8 last week, hoping to replace Caldera on my main system. I couldnt get Caldera to install very lightly, and after that i couldnt get a whole lot of programs(both
So load the ONE cd into the drive.. go through the install. Not quite as nice of an install as other distros, but i managed to get it going.
To my amazement, it seemed to install everything i wanted, KDE, XMMS, X, sound support, usb support, mozilla, and the latest and greatest versions of the kernel, libraries, etc. So i thought: Great! this'll be perfect, everything i need, nothing i don't!
Then i rebooted, WOW what a fast boot time. Logged in, typed "startx". Nothing.
Basically none of my hardware was set up, except my NIC. Now i do like Slack's KISS philosophy, however, if i want to install an OS, i want it to actually use the hardware i install it on.
Every other current distro i've thrown on that machine(Athlon 1.2, SBLive, Geforce2, USB mouse, Linksys NIC) like RedHat, Mandrake, Caldera, SuSE... all the basic hardware worked after the install (granted to get 3d accel on the geforce i had to set it up with the detenator drivers, but at least X came up)
So if slack is going to stay fairly used, I'd say it has to have better hardware detection at least.
It has everything else going for it, but i'm not spending an additional 4 hours setting up my hardware post-install, its not worth it.
However, I didnt waste the CD-R i put slack on, I had an old k6-300 i put it on to act as a router. So, yes, Slack still has its place, so i dont think it should just dissapear, but its not my first place for a workstation machine.
First Commercial distribution? (Score:2, Interesting)
Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that Slackware was a modification of SLS.
Anyone remember? Does anyone have SLS disks anymore?
Slackware will never die (Score:2, Interesting)
I've used many different distros over the years - Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, Storm, Caldera, etc. While they all had their good points, I didn't truly like any of them as much as I like Slack (although Debian did come close). Why?
Part of it is simplicity. With distributions like, say, Mandrake, you get a lot of decisions made for you. That's the whole idea behind Mandrake and its kin. To hide the complexities underneath from the average user. But in so doing, they weave a tangled web that can be quite annoying for a power user to undo or modify to their needs. This is the opposite of Slackware - it gives you a powerful base of core software, with a few extra goodies thrown in. But if you really want to only install 50MB of stuff, you can do that. Don't want X? Gone. No KDE? No problem. And so on, and so on.
For people like me, Slackware is a wonderful distro. It allows one to start out with a very functional system with more than enough to get started, and build their system from there. Unlike the other newbie-ized setups, KDE and GNOME are not thrust down my throat. I happen to like WindowMaker, and even before the installer nicely offered that as an option, Slackware was more than happy to oblige my choice of window manager. And while many would cite the fact that Slack is a non-RPM distro as a weakness, I don't miss it. In the past, compiling things would be a more worrying prospect for me, especially during the turbulent times when glibc wasn't yet standardized across the distributions. But honestly, I'm not bothered by compiling my software, and I generally don't have the problems I occasionally had with RPM systems (ever try to upgrade RPM itself? how many times have you had to upgrade tar or gzip?).
All distros have their place - Slackware's place is with the power users, who don't want to be stuck with a Windows-wannabe setup. Slack harkens back to the day when men were men, installers were text, and Linux was Linux. And that's just the way I like it. ;)
It isn't in the spotlight, but won't die. (Score:2)
We don't hear much about Slackware very often, that is true. In the last couple of years we've seen Linux IPOs, the domination of Red Hat, and many other flashy distros with neat logos and nice web sites (Corel, Mandrake, and so forth). Slackware has kinda stayed in the background of the Linux world, so to speak.
Get you news from reliable sources (Score:3, Informative)
Good thing Slackware doesn't rely on those apps... (Score:2, Insightful)
Grateful for Slackware (Score:2)
I was recently very grateful for Slackware. I wanted to install a modern, up-to-date distro on an ancient 486 laptop with a ~300MB hard drive. Red Hat, which is what I use on my desktop and on all my machines at work, just laughed at my naivete, thinking that I could install Linux on a drive so small. Slackware, however, worked without a hitch. See http://www.sonic.net/~rknop/linux/canonib150c.html [sonic.net] .
-Rob
Just an idea... (Score:2)
"Slaktool is a project to improve the Slackware package manager with all the features of the more advanced package managers while retaining the classic
The library handles all the package operations transparently, and does not base around any GUI or text console."
ttyl
Farrell
any relation to subgenius? (Score:2)
Re:just a question (Score:2)
" in my haste to get a first post, i clicked the logout link...when i went to the front page to try again, this story wasn't here.
do different stories show up for anonymous/logged-in users? or anonymous ppl don't see stories with under a certain number of comments?"
Re:Slackware? What's that? (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been using Red hat 5, then Red Hat 6, then Mandrake 7, then Debian 2.2, and now I'm using Slackware 7.0, which I of course upgraded a bit.
To answer to your question, I would say that slackware is the most easy-to-configure distro of all the above. But I mean this for people like me, who like to know in which file which information is stored, and dislike the graphical interfaces that write in dozens of different files without you knowing it. The slackware structure is simple, efficient. If you're seeking for something in the rc.d directory, you'll find it much easier than with Debian, not to speak about RH or Mandrake. If you can handle a console-based configuration, it's just great. The negative point for certain people is of course the quite bad packaging system, but hey, it's possible to install rpm. Or checkinstall, which I personally use. IMO, the best one.
Re:Slackware? What's that? (Score:4, Informative)
Stable out of the box.
Easy to configure (for the average Unix guy).
Rarely has software which contains security holes.
BSD style init scripts
No RPM locking dependancy. If there's an issue, you can upgrade from source quickly.
There's an article here [kuro5hin.org] explaining why one site runs Slackware, which you might find interesting.
If you'd grown up on it, or come from another Unix-alike (such as OpenBSD, etc), you'd probably find Slackware quite friendly... most Slackware-heads would find Red Hat or even Debian restrictive and unfriendly.
To each their own.
Re:Slackware? What's that? (Score:2)
No RPM locking dependancy. If there's an issue, you can upgrade from source quickly.
Bah. If you absolutely can't wait for an errata package, this is what you do to make the latest source release work:
wget http://package.org/package-bugfix.tar.gz ../SRPMS ../RPMS/i386
mv package-bugfix.tar.gz SOURCES
rpm -ivh package.src.rpm
cd SPECS
vi package.spec
rpm -bs package.spec
cd
rpm --rebuild package-bugfix.src.rpm
cd
rpm -Uvh package-bugfix.i386.rpm
SPEC files aren't exactly dark magic, you know. It's painfully straightforward and the only problem is when you have specific patches (isn't that common of a problem, too).
Re:Slackware? What's that? (Score:2)
And Zipslack fucking OWNS.
Re:Slackware? What's that? (Score:2)
Oh well. Now it's a very nice little firewall. Even put copies of Slash'em and Nethack on it, for those times when I'm on a windows machine somewhere else and need entertainment.
Re:Slackware? What's that? (Score:2, Funny)
'nuff said...
Re:Not Bare-Knuckle enough. (Score:2)
i'm in the same boat (Score:3, Interesting)
When I got a new computer, I just decided to run it root-initrd against the old one (now the server), instead of taknig the opportunity to install a new Slackware. So I don't know what's happened to it over the last five years, but I really don't care: Slackware as it was five years ago was absolutely PERFECT!
BTW the "packaging" things which apparently brought it out of the "stoneage" are rubbish (install_pkg or something like that?). The first thing you should do after installing a Slackware machine is remove them. I made a script (complete with ncurses/X menu-ing system) to automate the './configure && make && sudo make install' process (useful for remembering 'configure' options, too), and it's much nicer and much more versatile than that glorified 'cp -a' install_pkg garbage.
As I'm now playing with the Hurd, I'm playing with Debian (since Debian is the only distro available for the Hurd right now). I must admit I do like apt-get (especially since I don't know what I'm doing in the Hurd yet!), but there's so much that's very un-Slackware-like, and it annoys me. If I ever get comfortable with the Hurd, I'm going to have to rearrange the file system and init scripts and whatnot just to get rid of that icky Debian feel :)
Re:God i hope not (Score:2, Funny)
You learn how to turn a computer into a door stop.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Re:Slackware will live on (Score:2)
Re:Slackware was NOT the first distro (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Slackware was NOT the first distro (Score:2)
It's not losing steam. It's just changing the structure of the vent pipes. As more and more people come into the Linux community, they may well be the ones who shouldn't be using Slackware. But just because it's not the preferred distribution for the masses doesn't mean it's losing steam. For those of us into working with how our systems are put together, even Slackware sometimes is too much. I've even been tempted to go the other way to one of the minimalist Linux distributions, or build it myself. But Slackware is pliable, so I really don't need to. I've replaced the entire init/rc script startup system with my own design built from scratch, and Slackware didn't even blink.
Re:Commercial?? (Score:2)
I believe they mean it was the first distribution available as pre-made disks from a commercial entity (in addition to being able to download and build your own set of disks). In that case, what was being sold was "the pre-made disks", not the Linux-based system itself.