Slackware 13.0 Released 252
willy everlearn and several other readers let us know that Slackware 13.0 is out. "Wed Aug 26 10:00:38 CDT 2009: Slackware 13.0 x86_64 is released as stable! Thanks to everyone who helped make this release possible — see the RELEASE_NOTES for the credits. The ISOs are off to the replicator. This time it will be a 6 CD-ROM 32-bit set and a dual-sided 32-bit/64-bit x86/x86_64 DVD. We're taking pre-orders now at store.slackware.com. Please consider picking up a copy to help support the project. Once again, thanks to the entire Slackware community for all the help testing and fixing things and offering suggestions during this development cycle. As always, have fun and enjoy!"
good job (Score:4, Informative)
This release is, IMHO, a real milestone for Slackware. A major version jump in the desktop, a new package format, a 64-bit version, ext4, 2.6.29/30 kernels with all their goodies...wow, it's come a long way. Thanks to Pat and all other Slack'ers for putting it all together. Waiting eagerly for my subscription to arrive (yes, I put my money where my mouth is and Slackware is well worth the support). :-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Likewise: great job to the Slackware crew, and I am waiting for my CDs to arrive!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the overall format is still the same actually, but a new compression
algorithm is being used. This results in smaller package files and a new
extension *.txz, as opposed to the older *.tgz.
Slackware is for stability - so why KDE 4.2? (Score:2)
KDE 4.2 still isn't really ready for primetime rollout - you just need to fiddle with it too much to get some things to work and with slackware you'll be spending enough time fiddling with the core OS as it is. Why didn't patrick stick with 3.5 and leave 4.2 as an option?
Re: (Score:2)
I file bugs on KDE and have been concentrating on KDE 3 -> KDE 4 issues lately. Please tell me what is preventing you from upgrading to KDE 4, or what is keeping you on KDE 3, and we will file the bugs and get it worked out. Thanks!
You can either reply here, email me at gmail with the same username as here, or use this form:
http://dotancohen.com/eng/message.php [dotancohen.com]
So... (Score:2)
Did Patrick ever get over his irrational hatred of PAM and HAL? Or are these still left as an exercise for the student?
Re: (Score:2)
PAM can be a PITA. One machine I used had its /var/log directory wiped. Because some file in there (I forget whichi - probably messages or syslog) was now missing PAM couldn't write to it and consequently failed every single login. A pretty moronic coding error IMO.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Did Patrick ever get over his irrational hatred of PAM and HAL? Or are these still left as an exercise for the student?
There's nothing irrational about HAL hatred, at all. Have you seen some of the error messages the HAL/Dbus combo can produce on Ubuntu?
Irrespective of whether or not HAL/Dbus are evil, however, the simple fact is that they're also unnecessary. I don't understand for the life of me why people don't simply use udev rules and the kernel's own hardware notification system for hotpluggable har
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, no.
My philosophy is do it the long, hard, manual way once so you learn it, then automate it with the computer. The same reason I'm using network manager instead of writing WPA-supplicant rules by hand; or using IKE instead of writing IPSec SPAs and SPIs by hand.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, now I want to be able to move on and do something else while having the computer handle the tedious details.
Nice rant, though.
Much as I like Slackware... (Score:2)
"To use a generic kernel you'll need to build an initrd to load your filesystem module and possibly your drive controller or other drivers needed at boot time"
Sorry guys , this is 2009. If the only options to get my devices running is some huge BLOB of a kernel or having to manually hack together an initrd I think I'll stick with other distributions. Installing a distribution is enough work as it is these days without having to worry about fundamentals such as getting the kernel to boot in the first place.
Re:Much as I like Slackware... (Score:5, Funny)
You know that "Ubuntu" is Swahili for "too lazy to install Slackware" right ?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And if you find the Slackware way (which, IMO is the most generic approach) cumbersome, pray explain how to boot an nVidia MediaShield fakeRAID RAID5 partition without an initrd for instance, as I would be very in
Re: (Score:2)
"To use a generic kernel you'll need to build an initrd to load your filesystem module and possibly your drive controller or other drivers needed at boot time"
You'll note the word, "generic," there. "Generic," implies that the kernel is attempting to load drivers for everything including the kitchen sink, because the user hasn't recompiled a kernel with support for only the specific hardware he actually owns in his machine.
Compile a kernel to support only the devices you've got, and don't load anything as
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I looked at /proc/config.gz for a 2.6 kernel it had over 3000 options. I have better things to do with my life these days I'm afraid. 2.4 kernel building at home was just about do-able. 2.6 is best left to people who do it as a job.
Re: (Score:2)
Gimme the lame patronising a rest sonny. I used slackware right from the 1.1 kernels when you were probably still dribbling over your rusks and watching saturday morning cartoons up, right until the 2.4 series. I have a pretty damn good clue of how to build a kernel and glue together a system. Being able to do it isn't the issue - having more important things to do these days is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Suggestion for slackware team (Score:4, Interesting)
Quite frankly, if you don't know what it is, then you're not ready for it, so it doesn't matter.
I've got mod points again, but they never get spent, because I consider it to be a sign of greater integrity, to refute posts I disagree with, rather than simply down modding them.
Slackware was my first Linux distribution, during the mid 1990s. At the time, I'd only previously had exposure to UNIX at all via an ISP's FreeBSD shell account, and so I barely knew what it was at all.
A newcomer who is willing to learn is actually going to be far better off with Slack than with Ubuntu or Debian.
There is a much greater degree of simplicity within Slackware's overall design. Less complexity means less potential opportunities for things to break due to random, uncontrolled interactions of the various parts, and even more importantly, it also means that when something does break, it's a lot easier to find the source of the problem and fix it.
Using a system like Slackware is also going to give a user good mental habits as well, and teach them how to recognise a genuinely sound distribution design when they see one. Debian's greatest problem isn't so much that it's a terrible design, but more that the people who design and use it actually think that it's great.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Explain what slackware is
It's a Linux distribution. There are many other Linux distributions, but this one is Slackware! :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there such a reason? Beyond simple inertia. Slackware was maybe the first Linux distro to be widely adopted. I imagine that most of its users keep using it simply because it's not worth their trouble to switch to a more modern distro.
It's a side project that wasn't meant to be a big deal, but now has lockin and is the main claim to fame of its inventor. Sort of like MS-DOS. (Ducks.)
Yea! (Score:2)
Finally!
I admit, I started with SLS Linux, out of which Slackware grew (what do you mean you need 93 3.5" Floppies!?!?!)...and although I try lots of different distros, I keep on coming back to Slackware. Thanks to Patrick and his crew for all the work over the years!
ttyl
Farrell
Re: (Score:2)
93??? I remember the first time I tried Linux, I had way less floppies than that. I remember they were labeled B1, B2, N1, N1, N3, D1, etc. for base, networking, development, etc. Extracted them from a tarball off a tape that was snail-mailed across the country to my school's data center 'cause the entire campus was served by a single 56k CSU/DSU at the time and ftping would have swamped the connection for a year and a day. Then some of us brought our PCs to the data center to make the floppies because
Re:Purpose (Score:5, Informative)
It seems that deb/rpm people don't like/understand Slackware.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I've been using Debian based distros for the last year (read: Ubuntu), what are the advantages of using Slackware? What can I expect?
Re:Purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
You can expect to get yourself into distro wars, but arguing from the Slackware side rather than Ubuntu side.
There are some other, more minor, technical differences but that is the main thing.
Games (Score:5, Funny)
When I first gave Linux a try back 1998, I tried slackware. It came with a game called "X Server". If you won, you got to see pretty colors and stuff. If you lost, that's to say, if you set the refresh rate above what you monitor could take, you got a smoking monitor.
It was almost as scary as FEAR.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It also comes with fortune [softpedia.com] and trek [wikipedia.org]. You haven't lived until you've gone through the offensive quotes (fortune -o) of the fortune file or had to battle hordes of Klingons by manually entering the compass bearing that you want to fire your phasers or photon torpedoes in.
I used to have a version of Trek where I had hacked the source to give it a "borg" mode. In borg mode the incoming Klingon fire would recharge my energy reserves while filling the screen with "RESISTANCE IS FUTILE" in random ANSI colors ;)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Classic troll. I've been using Linux since 1992. Yes, 1992. Tseng Labs VLB video, reading the timings off the clock crystals on the video card, the whole thing. I have never smoked a monitor, nor has anyone I have ever talked to about Linux.
Re:Games (Score:4, Funny)
Some friends of mine smoked a monitor once, but I didn't inhale.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Linux user since 1994. And yes, I have 'smoked' a monitor by using a too fast a vertical sync. To be fair, the monitor had run at that speed before but had aged out of spec.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
At an old job we were told the only way to get a new monitor was if the old one broke. The new monitors were 17 or 19 inches while the old ones were 15 inches. I had just bought a number 9 imagine 8 MB video card (it was good back in 1996 even though it is nothing today). Install the video card, load up correct drivers. And look at all the options we now have. It was strange how every 15 inch monitor broke one after the other. A few even set of the smoke alarm.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you lost, that's to say, if you set the refresh rate above what you monitor could take, you got a smoking monitor.
I've often thought it; Jim Gettys needs to change his name to Dr. Frankenstein. ;)
Re:Purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
what are the advantages of using Slackware? What can I expect?
More hands on experience with the guts of a running Linux system instead of hands on experience with a package manager? That may or may not be an advantage for your particular application but it's a nice option to have.
Slackware was the first Linux distro I ever tried and I've remained partial to it ever since. My introduction to Linux came in the form of a $1.99 CD (hard to download the distro in the dialup era) that had Slackware, Debian and Red Hat on it. I picked Slackware because it had the coolest sounding name. I think it was to my long term benefit because I got a lot of experience with the nuts and bolts of Linux through sheer necessity. I don't know as if that would have happened if I had picked one of the other two.
I run Slackware for my servers at work and my firewall/nat/misc server at home. I spend more time setting it up but the knowledge of what's going on and the level of customization that I can achieve makes it worthwhile, at least IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
I downloaded the disk sets over 14.4k modem, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
what are the advantages of using Slackware? What can I expect?
More hands on experience with the guts of a running Linux system instead of hands on experience with a package manager? That may or may not be an advantage for your particular application but it's a nice option to have.
A better question (for my purposes anyway), is what are the advantages of using this version of Slackware? I think the last version I bought and used was 8, and since then I've used Gentoo and various Debian/*buntu distros. Gentoo by far was the best for furthering my knowledge of Linux (through brutal necessity), and Ubuntu the most convenient in getting everything up, configured, and running quickly. When I think CentOS and Fedora, I think gaining experience with a slightly different style of a common en
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What does the Slackware experience bring to the table that distinguishes it from other distros, beyond a certain level of nostalgia?
1) Most Unix-like of the Linux systems (may or may not be something you care about).
The big reason I like this aspect of Slackware is summed up by the old saying: If you learn Red Hat, you know Red Hat. If you learn Debian, you know Debian. If you learn Slackware, you know Linux.
2) Stability as #1 development priority, Security as #2, everything else isn't even on the radar (so if you want a system that never needs a reboot, Slackware's your distro. If you want a 64bit system....well, it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A BSD style init script system rather then a SYSV one. It's easier to grok, IMO.
disclaimer: when i graduated college, i switched to ubuntu, which is much easier to break when you muck around with init scripts and packages and such, but requires much less mucking. Slackware still holds a special place in my heart, though.
Re:Purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
Slackware is for people who don't understand packages? I think you have that one backwards mate.
Anyone who uses Slackware regularly understands much more about Linux than your average debian / ubuntu user, and is certainly not going to be burned by the "complexity" of a package management system. This is because much of the configuration is manual.
It's often quoted... if you use Ubuntu, you'll learn Ubuntu. If you use Slackware, you'll learn Linux.
I've been using Slackware since '96, and I continue to use it in various capacities today. Installing Slackware and playing with it, writing programs for it, was seriously the best thing I ever did for my knowledge of computers and for Unix environments. I have skills that far surpass any of my co-workers or friends, and have often been the only one that could sort out issues with any sort of Unix environment.
Thanks Pat for the hard work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's based on Mach and Nextstep. The latter includes BSD-based code.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Talking of Mach, that joke just flew over your head at at least twice the speed of sound.
Re:Purpose (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Purpose (Score:5, Informative)
The main purpose of Slackware is to provide a Linux distribution that is very BSD-like. People familiar with FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD that need to use Linux will find Slackware very pleasant to work with.
Linux users that have no experience with UNIX and the CLI will find themselves stumbling around and complaining and asking stupid questions like: "Does Slackware have a real purpose?"
I look forward to upgrading.
Re:Purpose (Score:4, Interesting)
I loved Slackware for many years, from 1995 to 2008, when I had 4 Slack machines in the house. However, it was the upgrading itself that finally turned me. I found it nigh impossible to actually "upgrade" a pre-existing configured system in use without critically damaging libraries and needing to reinstall from scratch, and worse, reconfigure and fiddle for about 10 hours to get everything working again the way I liked it. In my 20s I had that kind of energy and enthusiasm. Not any longer.
Yes, I have switched to Ubuntu/Mythbuntu, but have brought all my Slackware knowledge with me. Debian package management is divine. The switch has turned out to be the best of both worlds, Ubuntu's polish with my Slackware config skills, with the result of a brilliantly tuned machine that's nigh hassle free.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I used to use slackware but the novelty of manually setting everything up wore off a while back. Plus theres so much more to set up in a modern distribution that you really don't want to have to worry about getting low level plumbing up and running - it should just work out of the box.
Re: (Score:2)
> I used to use slackware but the novelty of manually setting everything up
> wore off a while back. Plus theres so much more to set up in a modern
> distribution that you really don't want to have to worry about getting low
> level plumbing up and running - it should just work out of the box.
Am with you on that. But funnily enough a new Slackware install doesn't :-)
exactly take me a whole lot longer than, say, an Ubuntu install anymore.
Either I got really good at it or Slackware did
Example: With m
Re: (Score:2)
I use Slackware and what you describe is one of my biggest complaints. Patrick will occasionally split packages into several parts, which is good for the long term, but it's pretty annoying when you discover it the hard way because some library you need wasn't installed when you did "upgradepkg".
However, once I get the Slackware systems set up, they just run and run, practically zero maintenance or fiddling required. That part I love.
Re:Purpose (Score:4, Informative)
Aside from Gentoo, I've found that to be common with every Linux distro I've tried.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Gentoos last straw on my box was when a portage upgrade broke wget and left me dling source packages without wget.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Really? I don't think I've reinstalled any of the Slackware installs (of which there are plenty) since ~2000, other than for corrupt filesystems.
Before doing a Slackware upgrade, definitely consult UPGRADE.TXT and CHANGES_AND_HINTS.TXT. Together they provide a very simple set of instructions for doing your upgrade, as well as a list of which packages have been split or merged, and details on any software that's been replaced and may need to be reconfigured.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You're a sick man.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I've run Slackware in production plenty of times for years at a time with no issues, maybe you just don't how to configure it for your purposes? You don't HAVE to pick every package you want, but it does give you that option. It sounds more like you're not familiar enough with the installer to manage a successful installation to end up having only the tools needed for the function said production machine is going to require.
That said, I've not had much of a problem with package management for Slackware, m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RHEL and SuSE are convinced you absolutely must have a GUI, same with Windows Server.
Just because its there (by default), doesn't mean that ...
I make no claim to Windows server, having no need for them. Although the install CDs make great coasters, if only I'd get them in the mail ;).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not true regarding sles. i've set up and run several sles servers without x installed, and it's a very enjoyable experience, mostly because of their approach to yast (i remember them wondering whether unified gui/cli yast experience was worth the hassle - is anybody from suse is reading, it's totally worth it). some problems i experienced with sles 10 was base packages depending on some gnome icons set. wtf ?
rhel, i had slightly more interesting experiences. for their configuration, some of the official too
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I could really do without in the Linux community is the attitude that, if you're not willing to compile your own binaries, or write your own upgrade scripts, that is your failing, and not the fact that the software is byzantine or difficult to use.
You can strip down any common linux distro to only the bare bones. Many of them have that as a preconfigured install option, and nearly all of them will let you choose only those services you want/need.
But if you use a common distro, that will completely
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of "clearly flamebait"
Linux is hardly usable for the majority of computer users because most (all?) distributions are incapable of attaining licenses to the many proprietary applications that the majority of people want/need to use. Linux is, point blank, one of the biggest jokes in OS and computing history. The sad part is it still has potential.
In addition to the flamebait mod you already recieved; you're -1, Wrong as well.
My servers and desktops are Linux/Solaris -- x86, AMD, and SPARC due to job requirements. My Wife's laptop is Linux, and she interfaces with MS-Office users all day long without issue. My Kids PC is Linux, and that meets the requirements of webkinz.com + Freddy Fish, ABC-123, etc... Right there is 3 diverse demographic categories in which Linux has met and exceeded usability standards*.
[snark]* Add
Slashware (Score:2, Funny)
I read the headline and thought it said slashcode 13 released. For a split second there was much rejoicing. Then I wondered if it would include images of Jason. Then I realized it said Slackware and I went back to staring at the wall.
Re:Purpose (Score:4, Interesting)
Mr. Fluxx, I just can't let that comment go by without challenge. We, lusers in general, mock Microsoft and it's monopoly. We mock the mindset of people who just use Windows because it's all they know, and they are unwilling to learn or to explore. We mock conformity, in general.
I change OS's from time to time, just to see what's happening in Suse-land, Debian-land, Ubuntu-land, Solaris-land - well, you get the idea. Each flavor of Linux has it's good points, and each flavor has something that I don't think highly of.
I could name a favorite, and do everything in my power to sell that favorite, while denigrating the other flavors of Linux. But, not only would that be petty - it may actually impede innovation!
Which of us is to say that one team or the other will NOT stumble over the best thing since sliced bread in the next year or ten? At the moment, Ubuntu seems to be leading the way toward "The year of Linux on the desktop". But, how can you read the future? Anything can happen. Most especially, anything can happen when we don't have all the facts. Computer science is still in it's infancy.
Linus and his associates could conceivably have a flash of inspiration tomorrow, and rewrite the kernel in a manner that turns the computer world on end tomorrow. Or, more likely, a bunch of hackers do the same, to spite Linus and his entrenched hierarchy. Soon after, ALL the flavors of Linux that we love today may be replaced by "The Next Big Thing".
What I'm trying to say is, don't be a dick. If slackware looks like a waste to you, that's cool. Keep it to yourself. The kind of crap you posted just gives ammo to the astroturfers who are pushing the MS agenda.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Despite the flamebait mod, I was hoping to get someone to give me some advantages. Disappoingly the only real 'advantage' that anyone has given so far is that it's more bare-bones and thus forces you to learn learn.
Re:Purpose (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, one can never have too much Slack.
I can think of a few bungee jumpers who would beg to differ.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I'm waiting for Slackware version 17 myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Eris knows you don't even need to be a SubGenius to appreciate the benefits, one can never have too much Slack. Please excuse me, I just got run over by a Fnord.
ROFL. That pretty much entirely covers it.
Re:Purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
I was actually just thinking about this. Slackware is *just like* LFS in its simplicity. This is a good thing for those who desire it. Slackware is an LFS system that has been tested for stability and provides a simple, easy for an admin to takeover package management system. Slapt-get provides higher level package management for those who desire it--including support for dependency resolution.
Believe it or not, not everyone wants to be met with GUI greeters, setup wizards, beginner-oriented defaults, and enabled-by-default automatic updates.
Re:Purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
Its purpose is to be an absolute garbage, unpolished Linux distribution. You may as well LFS.
And this "absolute garbage, unpolished" distribution also happen to be the oldest still-existing distribution in the Linux world. Surprising, that.
Hmmmm... Maybe they are doing something right, after all? Like, perhaps, being stable, complete and a joy to work with?
As opposed to, say, the RPM-Hell, bugged-to-the-bone, over-bloated and absolutely nonsensical but politically correct other distribution(s)?
Just a thought for you...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Slackware is actually a privately-held company, so it does not have to disclose profits or losses.
However, ever since it has been created, it has provided the mains source of income for Patrick Volkerding, so I guess profits must have been steady, if not spectacular.
I'll note that Slackware has been forked countless times -- probably because it provides a stable, simple and highly-customizable platform for experimentation. Just like Linux (the kernel) itself, by the way.
Besides, this is open-source. Profit
Re: (Score:2)
The reason people use package managers and such is because not everyone has time to resolve every dependency problem by hand.
I've used Slackware, and yes, it's stable, and yes it's reasonably bug-free, and it gets these things by pruning down the default install. If you want to run a bare-bones install of Fedora, it's also extremely stable. It's also of limited utility.
I'm not fond of Slackware in a production environment because upgrading and package maintenance is a pain in the ass. Instead of typing (for
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not fond of Slackware in a production environment because upgrading and package maintenance is a pain in the ass. Instead of typing (for example) rpm -q *program*, you have to teach people how to determine which binary version is present, where it is
$ ls /var/log/packages/*mysql*
$ whereis mysql
and coach them in installing new ones
# installpkg package.tgz|tbz|txz
and making sure the dependencies are okay
now finally something true ;)
nothing will prevent you from installing a new package to discover that it doesn't run because of some missing library except your experience and trial & error.
I'm not terribly fond of "off the shelf" rpms, but it's easy to make my own
it's also easy to create slackware packages
and then put them in my own repository, and push them out to every machine that needs one. It's a simple and effective infrastructure, and one that can be grasped by minions who are not capable of scratch building binaries with weird dependencies.
first, true - slackware has no official repositry management, although there are several solutions included in latest versions. i personally haven't tried them as i rely on my own simple scripts...
se
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I wish the Pirate Bay was still around (Score:5, Informative)
Or you could just use the torrent page. [slackware.com]
But, if you want to download your operating system from a completely unknown and untrusted source, go right ahead.
Granted, TPB would probably link you to the same torrent, but why would you take the risk? Because you find searching, poring over a search list, and deciding on one that looks safe is a more efficient use of your time than just going to the source's torrents?
Re:I wish the Pirate Bay was still around (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.slackware.com/getslack/torrents.php [slackware.com]
Since when did you need TPB for this kind of sharing. Ain't best place for torrent of sotware on its offical pages? Thou, http://www.legaltorrents.com/ [legaltorrents.com] really could use linux / opensource section.
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to use this source/tracker.
http://linuxtracker.org/ [linuxtracker.org]
Try DistroWatch For Linux Torrents (Score:5, Informative)
TPB really helps me find my torrents. This kind of file sharing is exactly what BT is great for.
I've used DistroWatch [distrowatch.com] since the first time someone told me to try out Debian in college and it turned out I needed a different distribution because Debian was for me to start out on. Very memorable learning experience.
Even today, the site does a really good job of keeping up to date. An example is Slackware 13.0 [distrowatch.com] that was released today and there in one paragraph with all the links you could want and direct links to mirrors for torrents and the MD5s.
A lot of times when I want to know what a distro is up to, I click that pull down bar -- like say Fedora -- and get a convenient history of recent releases with a paragraph about the release. Hats off to the people who maintain that site.
Re: (Score:2)
I've used DistroWatch since the first time someone told me to try out Debian in college and it turned out I needed a different distribution because Debian was for me to start out on. Very memorable learning experience.
Yeah, I'll bet it was. Even more memorable likely would have been installing virtually any other Linux distro on the planet, and discovering just how different something actually standard is.
If someone had recommended Debian as my first distribution, at a future date I would have punched thei
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Slack is great but overweight. I'd rather have a more minimal distribution, preferably something that fits on a a single CD. That said, it lives up to expectations -- everything plus the kitchen sink.
The cause of distro bloat these days is upstream laziness, particularly on the part of X and the DE (Gnome/KDE) developers. It's a running joke about how you can forget any hope of getting a clean X install without having to hack various bits into shape yourself.
So distro makers have to ship everything themsel
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Check out SLAX
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.slax.org/get_slax.php [slax.org] ? although slightly outdated at times, quite minimalistic.
also i have scripts to create hackish single-cd version of slackware install, although since version 11 or 12 it doesn't fit with x and kde on a single cd anymore, only the "server version" does :)
Re:Overweight (Score:5, Informative)
Slack is great but overweight.
Slackware, overweight? You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Usually, you only need the 1st CD to install a minimal Slackware system, including fluxbox if memory serves well. CD2 is usually KDE and XFCE. CD3 are optional packages. CD4 through CD6 is source code.
Since I have installed Slackware on countless servers, I hope Slackware 13.0 still follows this simple rule.
And "Everything plus the kitchen sink" is precisely the opposite of the Slackware philosophy [slackware.com] (= KISS).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now a toaster [embeddedarm.com] on the other hand...
Re:Thinking about a Distro switch (Score:5, Interesting)
> I've been trying to get into Slackware lately but I just can't seem to get
> use to it. Are there any realb benifits to tranfering to it.
It may or may not be for you. That's the beauty of Linux. Use what you feel
comfortable with.
> Right now I run Arch and I just came from Gentoo, and I like the speed
> aspects of both and the optimization ability. Would there be such option in
> Slackware
You can recompile every package to your specifications. See the Slackbuilds.
Whether there's any actual benefit to doing so remains to be seen.
Ditto for actual source you download. Optimizations are a CFLAGS away.
Re:Thinking about a Distro switch (Score:5, Interesting)
It's been a while since I used it, but I liked Slack when I did. It didn't use the SysV init system used on almost all other Linux distros, but instead opted for BSD-style startup scripts. At the time I liked that - after getting very used to SysV these days though I think I'd be more or less indifferent on the issue.
Also, Slack was a bit more "raw" of a distro - it's package management included no real dependency handling, making it for the most part just an easy way to install binaries. Usually rather than relying on the package manager (as I often do in other distros now) it was just easier in Slack to download the source tarball and manually compile and install it. That was nice in that I pretty much always had the latest version of any program that I cared about, but the downside was that sometimes as older versions of libraries and such lagged, it would eventually hit a point when upgrading something like Gnome manually became a very, very long task of tracking down all the packages that needed to be upgraded, and sometimes fixing them (as sometimes they'd have libraries in non-standard places and such - not a common occurence, but it did happen).
Slack also didn't ship with any of it's own GUI tools. What you got was basically whatever Gnome or KDE shipped for you to use.
All in all, it was a fast and lean system that lended itself well to a person who wants to tweak things to keep them working exactly how they want. These days though, I've just found that Ubuntu on servers and Mint on the desktop is 90% as good of a system to use while being 20% of the effort to maintain, so I just use them instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now I run Arch and I just came from Gentoo, and I like the speed aspects of both and the optimization ability. Would there be such option in Slackware, I haven't seen one but I could of missed it.
From what I've seen, Arch is similar to Slack, but simply has a slightly greater degree of automation. Slackware is somewhat Amish. ;)
Hence, Arch is likely to be fine. Gentoo I'm not sure about, as I keep reading reports of its' death or fragmentation every few months, it seems. I think they're both simila
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
according to wikipedia, he's in his fourties, for what it's worth.