Slackware 11 Has Been Released 220
CCFreak2K writes "Slackware 11 has been officially released, just over a year after Slackware 10.2 became available. Software available with Slackware 11 includes KDE 3.5, Mozilla Seamonkey 1.0.5 and X11R6 6.9. As usual, ISOs are available through BitTorrent and FTPs, packages can be synced through FTPs, and you can always buy a copy."
Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? (Score:5, Informative)
It's more stable, and uses less memory. Slackware however has been 2.6 ready since 9.1. Now they provide not one but two 2.6 kernels, one 2.6.17.x in
download mirrors (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the full list of mirrors [slackware.com] from where you can download it!
(Or you can get the torrents [slackware.com])
Re:Theoretical question (Score:1, Informative)
It offers the experienced user a beautifully simple experience: no dependencies, no installing 'dev' binary packages and the fantatic and rare ability to easily mix and match self-compiled applications and binary packages on the same system without making yourself cry.
Re:Theoretical question (Score:5, Informative)
"If you want to know how Linux works, ask a Slackware user."
And there was much rejoicing... (Score:5, Informative)
Just as an aside: Patrick Volkerding is one of the unsung heroes of Open Source. Slackware is after all the oldest Linux distribution still in operation, and it is also one of the most stable and well-managed. And this is quite an achievement, considering it still is a one-man operation, and that Patrick went through some tough times recently, with his health problems and the birth of his cute baby... Hey, I am a dad, too, and I know how tough it is wih a new-born in the house!
So, thanks for everything Patrick! You are "The Man" and Slackware rocks!
And, yes, I am a (very) satisfied Slackware customer. How did you ever guess?
Re:Theoretical question (Score:5, Informative)
What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?
A learning experience that will stand you in good stead throughout many distributions.
Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question (Score:5, Informative)
a more hands-on approach to the unix operating system. slackware isn't flashy, isn't what some would even call 'refined' but it is a stable, well-balanced hands-on distro. it's a little more 'primitive' in some things like package management (*whine* dependencies *whine*) but this also works in your favor when repairing a system (reliance only on tar if absolutely necessary). This is only one thought i came up with right quick..
What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?
rock-solid stable. if you stick with distro-only packages, you can expect to have practically no problems with it. that's part of the reason the package versions are older; they're tested. pat doesn't go latest-n-greatest unless a large demand exists or a security vuln is found. fwiw, i had a slack3 mailserver at my 1st job acting as corporate email router/gateway for our entire company (~150 ppl). except for the kernel and sendmail itself*, the system was vanilla slack. ran like a top.
i've tried a number of distros for short periods (longest non-slack dabbling was gentoo).. but i keep drifting back to it. i'm also a unix admin by day, if that matters. for me, slack is just plain and simple the easiest distro i've dealt with.
-r
* only reason i went more current with sendmail was this being the time ~sendmail8 started adding antispam bits and it was overall easier than going back and trying to hack the stuff in v7.. and i always love dabbling with the -current kernel, whatever it is.
Dropline Gnome (Score:4, Informative)
You may have to wait to use it on Slackware 11, but if you like Ubuntu you will like it.
Re:Torrent clients? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.slackware.com/changelog/ [slackware.com]
Re:Torrent clients? (Score:3, Informative)
echo "SOURCE=http://ftp.scarlet.be/pub/linuxpackages/S
slapt-get --update
slapt-get --install ktorrent (assuming you have a functional KDE)
Re:package manager? (Score:2, Informative)
I use Swaret for my package manager, Its cli-only, does dependancies, etc..
swaret
swaret.sourceforge.net/index.php [slashdot.org]
Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? (Score:3, Informative)
I'd guess because there's no 2.7 branch - 2.6 is open to a lot of experimentation. If I'm looking for stability 2.6 isn't it... It might be functionally stable but as far as dev goes it could be broken at any time.
That said, I install a 2.6 kernel on all my Slack boxes (Which is not a subset of all my boxes now that I think about it...)
Re:I see... (Score:2, Informative)
1. speed it might be possible to get slightly better performance with Gentoo or *insert source distro here* however it also doesn't take days to install.
2. It will run on just about anything. it is nice when I can run the identical base system on my brand new desktop, all the way down to my 486 based linux firewall.
3. A sane design. In slackware you will find everything from a software package where the software package would normally install it. in redhat/fedora you really never are quite sure where the config files might turn up.
4. Redhat. I started out back in the good old days with a fresh Redhat installation (9 I think) and just trying to use that for a week forced me to find a better alternative. the distro I actually found was vectorlinux (slack based) I liked it so much that I simply never looked back. I've tried all the latest SuSE, Fedora, and UBUNTU. and non can perform in comparison to my slackware box in terms of speed, or ease of use.
Re:2.4 kernel vs 2.6? (Score:3, Informative)
From the ChangeLog.txt from Fri Jul 14 18:31:20 CDT 2006
"I'm probably going to leave the bare.i 2.4.32 kernel as the default kernel (or perhaps sata.i?) as it has very good performance and probably better security due to the simpler and longer-tested design."
Re:package manager? (Score:3, Informative)
However, the package management solution that comes with Slackware (and always has) is durable, functional, and flexible. It has versioning information, so you can upgrade by package name. You arent stuck with hunting down un-necessary prerequisites because the author says you need them. And they are very easy to create and maintain (using a standard tar/gz format).
Above that, Patrick does a wonderful job from release to release by specifying every package naming changes, obsoletion, and addition in order to make upgrading easy.
Now, true, with checkinstall package creation is much easier in redhat/debian. And debian/ubuntu release updates are super easy. However, you cant diss a tried and proven solution just because its not feature ritch. It will allow you to do what any package management solution is designed to do: install, upgrade, remove software packages. Enough said.
Re:package manager? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Allow me to reprhase that (Score:3, Informative)
Check out slackware-10.2/patches/ChangeLog.txt at your favorite mirror for timeliness of recent patch releases. Not exactly sure what you mean by "stable version numbers", but the main ChangeLog.txt files are available going back several releases, which will show the history of every package version number. Package upgrades can be done through slapt-get and upgradepkg.
I partition my drive with a big / and reasonable
Re:Theoretical answer to theoretical question (Score:3, Informative)
How does Slackware work with modern hardware? (Wifi, SATA, etc)
- See the 'compile your own kernel' comment.
I've had no problems whatsoever getting sound, SATA, USB, network, WiFi, Bluetooth working on my Dell Inspirion 6400 (six months old) on my Slackware 10.2. I upgraded to Linux 2.6, followed some clear kernel instructions for my Intel card and moved to -current because it was nearing release anyway and I already happily used -current on another system.
A few extra notes:
- most SATA controllers work with one of the SATA kernel images you can choose when installing. I had to use a 2.6 kernel for mine though.
- sometimes you'll need user space add-ons to make the most of your hardware, my Intel WiFi requires a binary 2.6 driver module and daemon.
- if you do compile your own kernel: copy your working kernel config (Slackware's default is a good start), make oldconfig to check new options, then make oldconfig your way towards a leaner kernel with fewer modules plus the things enables that you'll need. Keep dual/triple booting into working configurations to test things out. Nobody ever got fired for learning grub or lilo.
- with Slackware you start with a vanilla setup. You have more control and responsibility when it comes to non-critical patches that add functionality. Understand this and use it to your advantage. Slapt-get and SWARET are apt-get like clones which you can also point to linuxpackages.net, this gives you access to a good amount of extras.
- Patrick is conservative. Expect security fixes and grave bug fixes to release versions only. Even -current gets relatively few updates, you can see the entire Changelog from 10.2 to 11.0 on the Slackware site and it's a very plain and forward list of changes. Again, linuxpackages might help out.
- Slackware does no development of its own. Report software bugs to the source and important released (security) fixes to Slackware. This is a bit decentralised but also removes bureaucracy.
I always say: it works for me, but YMMV. Slackware has always worked really well for me and I can tell people how it behaves, but they do have to make up their own mind whether that suits them or not.
Re:Will Slackware ever officially port to x86_64? (Score:3, Informative)
It must be a funding issue.
It's strange how there's an official IBM S390 port but no AMD64. The IBM ports were done by people from IBM. There are also S390 ports of a couple of other distros (RedHat for one, and maybe SuSE?). IBM's marketeers must be in overdrive.
SPARC and Alpha ports have come and gone over the years, but never had the backing of Sun or DEC/Compaq/HP.
Remember, Pat does most of the work himself and without sufficient motication and resources, can't do everything.
Intel is still selling millions of 32-bit only x86 processors to the ignorant, so going to a 64-bit Slackware is not top priority yet.
My humble £0.02.
P.S. I've been using Slackware as my primary destop OS since 1996 after first trying it on a borrowed machine a year before. I've used RedHat, Debian, CentOS, Ubuntu, SuSE, Solaris 7, 8, 9 and 10 but I still personally choose Slack. I have 5 x86 boxes (from Pentium II up to Athlon XP) running Slackware and a Sun Ultra 1 running Splack. At work I have a dual-core 64-bit intel Dell running Slack.