Linux.com

Feature: Linux

Review: Slackware goes to 11

By Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier on October 18, 2006 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

Slackware Linux 11 was released at the beginning of this month, which marks 13 years of continued development. Slackware Linux, while not the first Linux distribution, is the oldest surviving one, and is starting to show signs of aging.

The first version of Slackware Linux was released on July 16, 1993, by Patrick Volkerding. Slack was based on the Softlanding Linux System distro, and was designed to be installed from 3.5-inch diskettes in software "series."

The same old Slackware

It's somewhat comforting to realize that some things don't change, or at least don't change much. Slackware's software is still divvied up into software series, though the selection has expanded beyond the base system (A series) and X11 (X series), and requires a lot more than 24 diskettes' worth of space. Slack now requires 6 CDs for binaries and source, or one DVD.

I've been using Slackware on and off since 1996, and in all that time the installer has stayed largely the same dependable text-menu installer that greeted Linux users long before anyone had produced a GUI installer for Linux.

Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on your level of experience. I think a minimal installer is best, but some operations are best handled in the installation routine for most users. For instance, if you're installing Slackware on a new system or a system without any Linux partitions, you still have to deal with manual partitioning using fdisk or cfdisk before proceeding to the Slackware setup program.

The no-frills approach means that Slackware's installer doesn't require a lot of system resources. Where a few other distros use bloated installers that require a great deal of horsepower just to squeeze Linux onto the system, Slackware's system requirements include a mere 16MB of RAM and a 486 CPU.

Slackware's installer isn't the only component that has been slow to change. While other distros are working on replacing the aging System V init setup, Slackware still uses the even older BSD-style init setup.

Volkerding has also been cautious about moving to new packages in some cases, even when the majority of other distros have long since adopted newer versions. The most obvious example of this is the choice of kernel. Despite the fact that the 2.6 kernel has been out since December 2003, Slackware still ships with a 2.4 kernel by default. Slackware does include 2.6 kernels, but I'm surprised to see the distro sticking with 2.4 nearly three years after the release of 2.6.

Slackware is also one of the few distros to default to Apache 1.3.x instead of Apache 2.2.x, and doesn't even include Apache 2.2.x packages. I wasn't surprised when Slackware didn't make the move to the Apache 2 series right after it was released, but it has been a few years. Slack also comes with the 3.4.6 release of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), where most distros have moved on to the GCC 4.x series.

That's not to say that Slackware is not current with security releases. Though it includes older versions of some packages, Slackware has the most recent release of the older series. And Slackware does include the most recent versions of most packages. For instance, Slackware 11 includes Vim 7.0.109, Firefox 1.5.0.7, Thunderbird 1.5.0.7, Perl 5.8.8, and KDE 3.5.4 (which was current at the time of the release).

Hardware woes

I installed Slackware 11 on a couple of different systems, and under VMware Workstation 5.5. Slack installed flawlessly in VMware, but had a little more difficulty with non-virtual hardware.

The first on my list was a Pentium 4-based laptop, with 1GB of RAM, an ATI video card, RealTek Ethernet chipset, Radeon R250 video card, and Intersil Prism 2.5 Wavelan wireless chipset. Slackware handled the video just fine, and the trackpad and USB on the system, but it didn't seem to like the wireless chipset or the RealTek Ethernet device. I wasn't shocked that Slackware didn't automagically configure the wireless card in the laptop, but Slackware 11 is the first OS I've put on the system that failed to use the onboard RealTek Ethernet.

Next, I tested Slackware on a IBM ThinkPad T43 with 512MB of RAM, the Centrino wireless chipset, and an ATI video card. I had hoped that Slack would do a bit better on a more mainstream laptop, but no such luck. Slackware froze entirely at bootup.

I had better luck with my workstation test system, which has an Athlon XP 2600+, 1GB of RAM, VIA onboard Ethernet, Nvidia GeForce FX 5500, SB Live soundcard, and a 17-inch LCD monitor. The onboard NIC and SB Live were detected just fine. I had to do a little tweaking to X to adjust the resolution to the monitor's native 1280x1024 resolution, but everything else worked right away.

While some of these problems can be solved with a bit of after-install troubleshooting, this isn't "problem" hardware that I'm working with -- I've run several other Linux distros on the same hardware, without any problem with hardware detection and setup. It's disappointing that Slack doesn't "just work" right out of the box on these machines.

Using Slackware

I chose the "install everything" method, which provides about 3GB of software, including KDE, Xfce, Window Maker, and a couple of other window manager/desktop environments. Slackware no longer includes GNOME, though you can find GNOME distributions for Slackware, such as dropline GNOME. Slackware also includes a fair amount of desktop productivity software and LAMP packages like Apache, PHP, Python, MySQL, OpenSSH, and GCC.

While Slackware provides a good base system out of the box, its package selection is limited compared to Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, or openSUSE. For those who prefer minimalist systems, you can select a much slimmer install than I did by going through the package selection menus at install time and winnowing the software selection down to just what you need.

My first order of business upon booting my new system was to log in as root and read the "Welcome to Linux (Slackware 11)!" message, which gives some tips on setting up printing using CUPS or LPRng, dealing with undetected hardware, and setting up CD burning. To put it mildly, these instructions are emphatically not suitable for new Linux users. For example, the advice for dealing with hardware that doesn't work straight away is to:

1. Load the support with kernel modules. This is probably the simplest way to handle the situation. Just edit /etc/rc.d/rc.modules so that it loads the modules you need.
2. Recompile your kernel, including the needed driver(s).

Experienced Linux users may read this and think, "OK, I'll just use insmod to load the modules, and then edit rc.modules so that they'll be loaded from now on when I reboot." Those who haven't had much experience with Linux -- or those who've started with distros that don't require this sort of manual intervention -- are going to be scratching their heads, or just reaching for a different install CD.

During installation, Slackware walks you through setting up a root user, but no regular users. After I read through the "getting started" message, I set up a normal user using the adduser utility, then logged in as a regular user and ran startx to fire up X and check out Slackware's desktop experience. The default desktop is KDE, though you can easily change this using xwmconfig.

Slackware ships packages with minimal tweaking, which means that KDE and other applications are pretty much as they were released by the upstream project. This isn't the case with many distros, which patch software and configure their desktop environment to suit a specific audience. There's certainly something to be said for Slackware's philosophy, except that some packages would benefit from a bit of tweaking.

For example, when I tried out WindowMaker, I noticed that the WindowMaker application menu included entries for OpenOffice.org -- which isn't installed with Slackware, so nothing happens when you try to launch OpenOffice.org. The application menus should at least reflect what's installed on the system.

I did notice that Slackware includes a little more multimedia support than other distros right out of the box. Most distros these days shy away from shipping MP3 support, or support for QuickTime movies, but Slackware includes both. Slack not only allows MP3 playback, but includes LAME for MP3 encoding as well. Ogg is included too, so folks who prefer Ogg for licensing or quality reasons have that to fall back on. Flash is not installed by default, but was easy enough to download and install using Firefox.

Update: Sorry, LAME is actually included in dropline GNOME, not Slackware 11. Apologies for any confusion.

Installing packages on Slackware is easy with the installpkg and pkgtool utilities, and Slackware 11 also includes an APT-like tool called slackpkg for working with packages over the network. It's not installed by default, but it's included in the extras package directory on the Slackware install media.

Like Debian's APT, slackpkg allows you to install packages over the network, perform upgrades, and remove packages. You can also use slackpkg search to search through the package lists. Installing, removing, and upgrading worked just fine, but the search function could use a little tuning. A search for "pysol" returned a handful of results like kdebase and kdeartwork, which doesn't make much sense.

The slackpkg tool has one function that I don't recall seeing in APT or other distros -- the clean-system command, which will remove all packages that aren't part of a "standard" Slackware install.

The upshot

The Slackware 11 release continues a long tradition of stable, no-frills releases for experienced users. Slackware can be a fine desktop system or LAMP system if you're willing to do a little tweaking. The bottom line is that Slackware is a distro that caters to users who prefer an old-style, Unixy way of doing things. It's a distro that's well-suited for users who don't mind recompiling a kernel or editing configuration files to get things working. But Slackware is not a suitable distro for new users who want something that "just works," particularly when compared to distros like Fedora and Ubuntu that have more comprehensive hardware support straight out of the box, as well as GUI management tools that make understanding of the command line mostly unnecessary.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Review: Slackware goes to 11

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

This is Spinal-Slack

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 02:15 AM
"You see, most users will be using 10. You’re on 10, all up to date, all up to date...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push over the cliff...Eleven. One better"

#

Re:This is Spinal-Slack

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 07:50 AM
Actually, I agree. This really should've been called "Slackware 10.3" instead of "Slackware 11". The changes merit a point release renumbering, not a major version renumbering.

Still, I'm glad it's out and that Patrick is healthy enough to continue doing it.

#

Re:This is Spinal-Slack

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 05:23 PM
[applauds]

It's not often you get a laugh in the linux.com comments thingy. Nice one!

#

What is this "newest version" need in all reviews?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 02:32 AM
There is this one thing I don't understand.

Why, ohh why do anyone need the newest version from the compiler to the c-lib to X11 ?

And why, ohh, why is every reviewer giving API/ABI and security-wise stable distros minus points for including old versions of packages even if they mean rock-solid, reliable stability.

Please, answer my question: I read for the last year many, many reviews of distros. And everyone is pounding for the newest and shiniest.
You know, there are machnies out there which run more that stable with operating systems delivered 13 (!!) years ago.

#

Re:What is this "newest version" need in all revie

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 03:01 AM
The short answer: Look around you. Consumerism has become the new state religion of pretty much any western country, so it's not surprising that this emphasis would be preeminent.

#

Re:What is this "newest version" need in all revie

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 03:30 AM
And we should develop software for 13 years old operating system?
Get real.

#

Re:What is this "newest version" need in all revie

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 04:42 AM
What's wrong with a 13 year old OS (ver 11) that for
some dumb reason just works.

$PATH is your friend.

#

Re:What is this "newest version" need in all revie

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 20, 2006 02:29 PM
Windows is 12 years old. Is someone still writing software for it?

#

Yep, that's why CentOS, RHEL, and Ubuntu LTS exist

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 06:42 AM
You hit the nail on the head. There's a reason that Red Hat sticks with certain versions of software with RHEL, and why Canonical's doing the exact same thing with Ubuntu 6.06 LTS (Dapper Drake). It's the same reason why the Cummins B-series turbodiesel, used in Dodge trucks and much other equipment, is revered, even after all these years (I currently own a Ford PowerStroke, but damn, that Cummins engine is fine). What some call "dated," I often call "battle-proven." When I'm in the trenches, I need a battle tool that I have a *really* high level of assurance will work when I ask it to.

GCC v3.x is battle-proven. Linux 2.4 is truly battle-proven, though Linux 2.6.17.13 is available as an option (I just did it last night). The BSD init system is battle-proven and furthermore is really easy to follow. I've been using the SysV init for years and am comfortable with it, but I actually find the BSD system somewhat easier to work with.

Unlike Microsoft's meaning, Slackware's choice of software packages follows the true meaning of "Plays For Sure," and I'm glad that Patrick made those choices. On my systems, Slackware has never failed to "play for sure." Not even once.

#

Re:What is this "newest version" need in all revie

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 04:44 PM
It's true that many reviews mark down distros for not being on the bleeding edge, but that's not the impression I got from this one.

The reviewer mentions packages that aren't quite the latest, and rightly so. Choosing stability over bleeding edge packages is one of the big factors that sets Slackware apart from its peers (as a Slacker myself, I think this is a Good Thing).

Thank you Pat, for another excellent release!

#

yada-yada-yada...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 03:00 AM
  • Next, I tested Slackware on a IBM ThinkPad T43 with 512MB of RAM, the Centrino wireless chipset, and an ATI video card. I had hoped that Slack would do a bit better on a more mainstream laptop, but no such luck. Slackware froze entirely at bootup.


yeah, 10.1 also froze the install on my notebook ( just after keyboard check, if i recall )... but a simple "nousb" option on boot solved that, and everything installed flawlessy... since then, it's been slackware-current setup kept with slapt-get.

#

LAME is not included in Slackware

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 03:16 AM
Umm, there is no LAME included in Slackware. Just finished looking through the package list. It's not there. Where did Mr. Brockmeier get the idea that it was included?

#

Re:LAME is not included in Slackware

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 03:49 PM
I got that idea from KAudioCreator. It offers LAME as an option for encoding ripped tracks.

As a Slackware nembie, this may just have solved my inablility to rip to MP3<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:o)

#

Re:LAME is not included in Slackware

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 20, 2006 12:47 PM
True - just download and build it.

see: lame.sf.net

#

Hmm

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 03:32 AM
Slackware was the second distro I tried, after Red Hat. But I only tested Red Hat a little, Slackware is what most my Linux experience is from.
Actually, I didn't find Slackware very difficult. But I believe it have teached me alot of things what package is what, what does what, and how to compile kernel and stuff.

There is something about Slackware that feels clean, and Unix.

QuickTime I could live without, I almost never come across any site that uses it, QuickTime is pretty dead on the web.

#

Re:Hmm

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 10:27 AM
Amen to that. I don't know of any distro that includes QuickTime or any other proprietary format (well, OK, Linspire/Freespire includes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.WMV, but that's about it). I always go for Ogg Theora/Vorbis anyway whenever possible. If not, I just don't bother; I ain't that dependent on watching multimedia.

#

Re:Hmm

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 03:40 PM
Yes, I prefer vorbis and theora too.
Though I can understand people would like to play other formats like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mpeg and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.avi
But<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.wmv just sucks, it buffers all the time, jagged lines, bad quality.
QuickTime and RealPlayer are dead, nobody uses them.

#

Re:Hmm

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 11:12 PM
anyway, MPlayer is just perfect for all my pr0n-watching needs... after all, that's what the web is all about, right ?!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

#

Re:Hmm

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 20, 2006 06:19 AM
At last! Somebody who exposes the truth about all this!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

Yeah you're right; MPlayer does handle all those formats pretty well. Easy to compile, too, on Slackware. Someone did a doc on that a while back on Linux.com, and that's what I used.

#

multimedia and hardware support? heh

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 06:16 AM
Well if the only positive thing you've found in Slackware 11 was mp3 support then you might as well look at proper non-US distros like ALT Linux. In Russia, there ain't no such thing as software patents (not telling there's no fight over this though).

For <a href="http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT8266871610.html" title="desktoplinux.com">desktop</a desktoplinux.com>, see Compact <a href="ftp://ftp.altlinux.org/pub/distributions/ALTLinux/ISO/Compact-2.3-en.iso" title="altlinux.org">2.3</a altlinux.org> (for older hardware like PII) or <a href="ftp://ftp.altlinux.org/pub/distributions/ALTLinux/3.0/iso/compact-3.0.4.iso" title="altlinux.org">3.0</a altlinux.org> (newer hardware; rewritten installer); for server, <a href="ftp://ftp.altlinux.org/pub/distributions/ALTLinux/ISO/Master-2.4-install-cd.iso" title="altlinux.org">Master 2.4</a altlinux.org>'s basesystem is comparable to <a href="http://openwall.com/Owl/" title="openwall.com">Owl</a openwall.com> GNU/*/Linux in terms of security (actually our sec teams collide).

We have rare releases, current one is being pondered on; we're rather specific to xUSSR in that most people on mailing lists speak Russian, so it might be somewhat hard for non-speaker to really participate in community (unless there's a group to join and break some scale barrier, maybe). Still we do have yet another interesting combination of features and community that many do value.

The project members are involved in quite a few <a href="http://altlinux.org/?module=intproj" title="altlinux.org">international projects</a altlinux.org>; recent developments include git.altlinux.org -- the infrastructure to build packages off git repositories (based on hasher, the isolated-environment package builder).

All in all, seems that we'll have 3.1 before spring, so hopefully will get back with more news before too long.

--
Michael Shigorin
mike@altlinux

#

You're right; Slackware is very UNIX-y

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 06:24 AM
I've been using Slackware since v8.1, having come from a MS Windows environment. Yep, it's UNIX-y.

That's the point.

Slackware always has strove to be the most "pure UNIX" of GNU/Linux distributions. I wouldn't advise "Aunt Tilly the Grandmother" to install Slackware herself, un-assisted, any more than I would advise her to install FreeBSD, which is what Slackware reminds me a lot of. It takes a little effort and "brain-sweat equity" to learn how to tweak it.

That said, I love Slackware. It's in fact *because* it doesn't put a bunch of frills in my way that slow me down. It's because Slackware sticks with the pristine upstream source whenever it can, vs. heavily patched kernels and desktop environments like Red Hat/Fedora, SuSE, or even Ubuntu use. It's very logically laid out. Because of its clean design, it's F-A-S-T on my systems, and due to sticking with pristine upstream source, it's very easy for me to tweak. I run it now on a Dell Latitude D600 (yes, with that Broadcom wireless crap--ugh), and it's actually a *pleasure* to use the computer.

Slackware's target audience never has been Aunt Tilly the Grandmother. You're right; that's what Ubuntu/Kubuntu, SuSE, or VectorLinux--a Slackware derivative, actually--are for. Remember that Patrick Volkerding is a computer scientist (i. e. a true, traditional hacker). Slackware is for those who are interested in technology and who prefer a cleaner design, as I do.

Pat, thank you!

#

Re:You're right; Slackware is very UNIX-y

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 10, 2007 11:48 AM
you are all FREAKS!..l33t little small minded children that want to hold linux back because you think unlesss you can use the CLI and not WHINE about it, then you DONT DESEVE TO COMPUTE...

well you can shove that attitude up your wazoo's!, cause distros like ubuntu and freespire are going to run slackware into the HOLE it belongs in.

good-bye pat!

bye bye<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..........>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

#

Re:You're right; Slackware is very UNIX-y

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 08, 2007 05:19 AM
you are all FREAKS!..l33t little small minded children that want to hold linux back...


Who is small-minded: people who enjoy the freedom to choose the distro they want to use, or people who insult those who exercise that freedom?

And exactly how is Slackware holding linux back?

well you can shove that attitude up your wazoo's!, cause distros like ubuntu and freespire are going to run slackware into the HOLE it belongs in.


What hole do you live in, troll?

good-bye pat!

bye bye<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..........>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


I'm sure he'll miss you.

#

building from source

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 07:34 AM
Another really nice aspect of Slack is that you almost never encounter problems building complex software from source. This is because Pat typically places things where the upstream author intended. Trying to compile complex packages from source on other distros (not necessarily all other distros) using the original upstream code can be very difficult if the distro maintainers have patched things extensivley or put things in non standard places.

It's nice to know that I can download almost any FOSS tarball and compile without complications.

#

Re:building from source

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 12:30 PM
If you want to have fun compiling from source tar balls, go with Slackware.

This allows you to build a most recently updated system like what I did for my email server that runs the most latest programs which are Postfix 2.3, Postgrey 1.27, Amavisd-new 2.4.3, dkim-filter 0.5.2, clamav 0.88.5, SA 3.1.6, latest from CPAN and other else. Since its deployment for almost 9 months now, we never receive any spam and virus through email.

And with the help of slapt-get, I can easily update my base.

#

and dont forget "dev's"

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 11:20 PM
unlike the RPM-hell ( and their "-devel" packages ) and even the Debian-based ( "-dev" packages ), once one installs ANY tgz package, all the includes ".h" are installed together... this is pure bliss !!!

#

Slack: its not for everyone

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 11:08 AM
"I've been using Slackware on and off since 1996..."

And that says about all you need to know about the reviewer's perspective.

I've been using Linux since 1997. In the first year and a half I tried Mandrake, Caldera, Suse, Redhat and Debian. All had good points but all had quirks that were ultimately too frustrating. RPM hell, kernel patch hell, broken development tools, fussy configuration tools... I wanted an OS I can use, not one I have to babysit.

In 1999 I tried Slackware. I'd avoided it previously because I always heard how hard it was. The actual experience was a very pleasant surprise. The installer was simple, the config files well documented, no kernel patches to break things and best of all, I didn't have to depend on distro specific RPMs or DEBs to install new software - compiling from source worked every time!

Haven't tried another distro since. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

#

Re:Slack: its not for everyone

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 11:49 AM
RPM hell, kernel patch hell, broken development tools, fussy configuration tools... I wanted an OS I can use, not one I have to babysit.!


You are exactly right! I have a great Unix-y feeling with Slackware and if you want to make things work as the way it should be and the way you expect it, this should be your distro.

The installer was simple, the config files well documented, no kernel patches to break things and best of all, I didn't have to depend on distro specific RPMs or DEBs to install new software - compiling from source worked every time!


Correct!

#

Re:Slack: its not for everyone

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 09:42 PM
>"I've been using Slackware on and off since 1996..."

>And that says about all you need to know about the >reviewer's perspective.

What does it tell us besides the fact that he's been using Slackware on and off since 1996?

#

Re:Slack: its not for everyone

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 20, 2006 11:56 AM
Maybe that its not for him?

If you like simple, fast, reliable and highly configurable, then you'll like Slack. Set it up once and forget about it.

If you like GUI installers, multimedia out-of-the-box, spending ridiculous amounts of time hunting down packages that didn't come on your install CD, and complaining on linuxquestions forums about how hard it is to compile them when you can't find an RPM, then use something else. (And ever notice how many of those questions on the forums are answered by the Slack users?)

#

Re:Slack: its not for everyone

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 20, 2006 12:10 AM
Well Slackware's been a good teacher to me. No way I can learn more than by using other distros.

#

Re:Slack: its not for everyone

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 20, 2006 06:23 AM
True. About the only other GNU/Linuxes that could teach you more would be either Gentoo or LFS. That's why I prototype everything new (e. g. VPN, 802.1X) in Slackware--not only do I learn, but also the distro's cleanliness makes it easier *to* learn.

#

Re:Slackware!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 05:25 PM
Heh. Even Slackware boots from CD these days<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;o)

(not a dig at Slackware: I'm a proud if inexperienced Slacker)

#

Despite some wrong &amp; missing bits I love it !

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 07:18 PM
wrong bits:
-sendmail
-inetd
-named
-syslogd

missing bits:
- PAM
- LDAP server
- SNMP
- SDL
- gnome
( I used only one gnome app: etherape !
external to Slack gnome distros, not too good... )

_IMHO_

  off the shelf it's good for:
- learning
- small individual server,appliance sort of things.
- not too fancy Desktop ( I'm using it @ home & work, day & night)

As enterprise big iron or member server You have to work a little.
Which is just fine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for me !

Download source package from creator,
compile( as you want )
checkinstall make install
Done.

Stop laughing!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... with Slackware 11 we have an out of box SMP kernel !!!!
As always check the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/extra for other goodies
_/IMHO_

#

Re:Despite some wrong &amp; missing bits I love it

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 08:16 PM
I was able to compile LDAP in Slack the way I made it in OpenBSD.

#

Re:Despite some wrong &amp; missing bits I love it

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 19, 2006 11:09 PM
Anyone missing Gnome on Slackware should try Freerock GNOME. It also provides an OpenLDAP server/client packages.

#

Re:Despite some wrong &amp; missing bits I love it

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 20, 2006 06:37 AM
Here's my short list:

1.) Evolution + Exchange Connector (I'm cursed w/ MS Exchange Server at work, sadly)

2.) OpenOffice.org (at least a desktop icon package)

3.) PAM

I know why Patrick doesn't include the above, though I do somewhat disagree with excluding PAM. DropLine GNOME, for example, will install it for you, though, so all of the above are pretty easy to tweak if you need.

Actually, you do get a pretty fancy desktop, since you get KDE 3.x ever since Slackware 8.1. Talk about eye candy!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

Slackware ROCK!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 20, 2006 02:07 AM
I use slackware since 1995/6 and if i can say it:
"Learn Fedora and you will learn Fedora,
learn Slackware and you will learn LINUX!"
Slackware is for people who think slack 8)

#

Slackware Rock Solid.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 20, 2006 09:30 AM
One of the best things in Slackware is it's stability. It hardly breaks, unless you really insist on breaking it.
It is common to read people critisizing Slackware because of this and that, but no one is forced to use it, so why rant?

"...as well as GUI management tools that make understanding of the command line mostly unnecessary."

Well, that can be a problem nowadays, because the CLI is very powerfu and certain tasks can only be performed through the CLI. If the GUI stands in the way you'll lose a lot of experience.

#

Amen!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 20, 2006 12:10 PM
I used to recommend Mandrake to people who wanted to try Linux, because it was so GUI oriented and newbie friendly.

Except they kept getting mad at me when installing RPMs gave them a page of errors, or they couldn't access the new camera, or they couldn't find the software they wanted in the repositories. The problem was when the GUI didn't work they were dead in the water.

So I started giving out Slackware CDs along with a 8 page tips booklet on how to get X & sound working, set up an internet connection and compile software into<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.tgz. No more frustrated phone calls at 10:30 pm. They now not only had a great running system, they knew enough about their system to maintain it on their own. A little knowledge goes a long way.

#

Re:Slackware Rock Solid.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 20, 2006 12:56 PM
Rock solid is right. I run ten Slackware servers in an ocean of Windows servers and the Slackware boxes never crash. Senior management doesn't even realise that the organisation is using Slackware but they are sure impressed with the stability!

#

Re:Slackware Rock Solid.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 21, 2006 12:57 AM
At the right time, let that fact be known. When they ask you, "how is it that you keep your servers so stable?", then just give a slightly shy smile and tell 'em it's Slackware GNU/Linux. The key is to do it when they ask you that. Yes, that strategy has worked and has increased the numbers of GNU/Linux deployments in enterprises.

Dollars and cents, man, it's all about dollars and cents, and uptime is money.

#

once you go slack, you never go back

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 20, 2006 05:31 PM
It's funny how the old components of slack criticized in the article are actually the highlights of running slack for me:

1. no frills, text-based installer
2. BSD style init
3. old but stable vanilla packages

I've tried other distros such as RH, Mandrake, Suse and Ubuntu, but I always go back to slack. It simply works for me. I never recommend it to new users though, unless they have CompSci degrees or backgrounds.

#

Thank God for Slack!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 20, 2006 11:30 PM
Yes, thank God slack is not redhat or XXX. I used SLS (SoftLanding System) before (kernel 0.97?) and slack was a godsend then, just as it is now. Slack is not for your granny but if you need a system RIGHT NOW that you won't have to worry about later, slack is it. Like a rock.

#

Showing age?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 22, 2006 04:48 AM
What its showing is WHY its the oldest distribution out there. Rock solid, fast, capable of doing anything you want, and doing it better than the alternatives.

All this whining about older packages and not being newbie friendly completely misses the point. Slackware is designed for people who need to get things done. People who can learn and follow simple instructions. That includes newbies. Slack was my 1st distro, tried some others, decided to stick with quality over cutting edge frustration.

I've seen way to many users who have been running Linux for a couple years or more, and who are still newbies. Who don't know what hardware they're running, can't type "insmod", and freak out because they can't find Nero in an RPM. And they think they're gurus! Their answer to questions forums is "use a different distro"!

If only more distro were like Slackware. I'll take aged over an immature wannabe anytime.

#

Re:Showing age?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on October 30, 2006 08:02 AM
I couldn't agree more !! Slackware is the only way to go. Started to use Linux in the mid 90's on and off, but several years ago after trying Arch, frugalware and Gentoo, I decided to stick with the one and only... SLACKWARE. If you want to learn, no doubt that's the distro you need. Don't look for lousy excuses, no pain no gain. You sweat, you get results !! Congrats Patrick, god bless.

#

Re:Showing age?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 10, 2006 10:06 PM
quote: I've seen way to many users who have been running Linux for a couple years or more, and who are still newbies. Who don't know what hardware they're running, can't type "insmod", and freak out because they can't find Nero in an RPM. And they think they're gurus! Their answer to questions forums is "use a different distro"!

Amen to that. I know exactly the type of person you mean. Using Linux just like windoze, point and clickety-click-click and run a mile if you mention the words command line to them.

I've used everything from Debian to RHEL, Kubuntu to SUSE and I always come back to Slack.

#

Re:Showing age?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 10, 2007 11:42 AM
you guys are all snobbish, little childish L33t'ers who would not know 'market advantage' and what it means to USERS who really USE their OS, from a damn HOLE IN THE GROUND>

I have one thing to tell you

GET OVER YOURSELVES already because linux deserves market share not market whinners LIKE YOU FREAKS..

chow baby!

#

Re:Showing age?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 08, 2007 05:46 AM
you guys are all snobbish, little childish L33t'ers who would not know 'market advantage' and what it means to USERS who really USE their OS, from a damn HOLE IN THE GROUND>

I've concluded that anyone who uses the term l33t is a confused fool with an inferiority complex, or a juvenile. You're proving my theory.

BTW, if you bothered to really learn the shell, you'd never look back. *nix isn't *nix without a shell.

GET OVER YOURSELVES already because linux deserves market share not market whinners LIKE YOU FREAKS..

LOL... looks like we have a "whinner"!

The people who get the job done don't give a rat's arse about market share. They just do it. The sheeple will follow later...

-- just another freak, and proud of it!

#

Re:Showing age?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 27, 2007 11:39 PM
Anyone who uses "L33t" has a small "d1ck" and spends too much time "j3rk1n6 0ff."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D

And there are others who use the right tool for the job: Slackware just works for 99% of what business users and IT- or engineering-types need. Sure, it's not as easy to set up, and you can f*ck it up, but you can f*ck up any distro if you try real hard.

I wouldn't recommend it for home users that want to switch from Wincrap - the consumer stuff (scanners, cheap printers, wireless networking) isn't easy to set up. It can be done (I've done it), but it requries too much effort for the average person. But for business, where the users won't be administering their machines, it's damn near perfect.

#

Getting back to Slack

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 10, 2007 01:17 AM
I started using Slackware back in the early days of '95/'96 (kernel 1.2) on an Asus AT motherboard with a whopping 4MB RAM and a Cyrix 6x86 CPU. Back when rawrite was required to create bootable floppies, and all I had was a measly 512MB Maxtor HD.


If I wanted a GUI desktop, FVWM was the window manager of choice, and manually configuring my internal 56k modem to use PPP if I ever wanted an Internet connection.




The Slack installation has been basically the same throughout the years, and I'm looking forward to getting back to Slack once again, but this time I plan on using it for a small file and Web server.



When it comes to using Linux as a desktop system, I have my reasons for sticking with another distribution. I'm very comfortable with openSUSE 10.2 for the time being. My time should be spent being productive, not configuring or troubleshooting my desktop. I'm sure there are those of you who will want to argue this point, and that's fine, but as I mentioned, I have my reasons... don't be hatin'... it could be worse, I could be using windoze (spelled in lower-case for a reason).




Keep up the great work!

#

Always fall back to Slack...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 16, 2007 04:37 AM
Nostalgia or the simplicity, its hard not to fall back to Slack.

Downloading Slack 11 right now for a "net appliance". If it weren't for Slack, I'd be downloading FreeBSD.

The bloatware out there (Open/Suse, RH/Fedora, etc) have become the Windoze of GNU/Linux. I get a sense of them, but I just don't understand them...

#

If only.....

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 21, 2007 03:20 AM
I've been using Slack since 2002, and like others I also tried others like Fedora, or Ubuntu.

And every time I switched back to Slack.

If only Slackware had a port for AMD64....

#

Re:If only.....

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 11, 2007 11:07 PM
Just do a 32-bit install on AMD-64. It works fine on my machine. You won't be able to tell the difference anyway, unless you intended to run an app that uses more than 4GB of RAM (although, wouldn't that go to Swap anyway?).

#

Re:If only.....

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2007 06:29 AM
well... check this out:

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slamd64" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slamd64</a wikipedia.org>

Regards...

#

Slackware IS GNU/Linux... IMHO

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2007 11:02 AM
Slackware IS GNU/Linux... IMHO

I have been using slack since v7.0, after having a terrible experince with RH GUI install. If you want to understand, control and manage your linux systems, I highly reccomend it. It is also the absolute best base from which to develop custom live/base images which can better leverage HW for specific purpose... IMHO

However, enthusiam for it seems to be waning, may slackware related sites are essentailly defunct, point-n-click mentality is prevalent. LFS is jsut do-it-yourself SLACKWARE. Pat deserves all our thanks for his long standing devotion to the real hacker-ethic and the spirit of Gnu/Linux.

#

Slackware!

Posted by: Administrator on October 19, 2006 04:20 AM
I remember the olden days when I use to have a mandrake floppy boot disk..

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya