Slackware

string · 2008-12-11 20:29:37

rsync can be used to simplify the update process.

Themaister · 2008-12-11 20:45:24

Slackware would have been interesting, but the fact that dependency checking is non-existant seals the case for me

anrxc · 2008-12-11 20:46:00

People don't actually do this right?

As any security aware user you subscribe to slackware-security mailing list http://slackware.com/lists/ ...
and if you want to go current, you have crond mailing you output of this every morning:

#!/bin/bash
cd ~/scripts/changelog
mv ChangeLog.txt ChangeLog.last
while [ 1 ]
    do wget ftp://ftp.slackware.com/pub/slackware/slackware-current/ChangeLog.txt
    if [ $? -eq 0 ]
        then break
    fi
done
diff ChangeLog.txt ChangeLog.last

Last edited by anrxc (2008-12-11 20:47:06)

dhave · 2008-12-11 21:15:40

Monitoring the changelog and updating packages for current aren't as time-consuming as you might think. For example, during the month of October, there were only four days when there were updates to current, and during September, there were 12 days. I imagine the average falls in between, and it changes according to where in the release cycle the dev team is. Of course, there may be quite a few packages that are updated on a single day, but you won't necessarily have them on your system.

Slackware installations are typically leaner, so a Slackware user wouldn't be as likely to have oodles and oodles of odd packages installed. My understanding is that, traditionally, Slackware users were overseeing production machines, networks, multiple servers, and so on, so they weren't usually trying this and that cool app just to see what it would do (as I am frequently guilty of).

Now, I think this has changed some more recently, as people have wanted to use Linux on their desktops, have nice office suites and multiple options for apps, DEs, WMs and so on, and Slackware has not put obstacles in the way of people wanting to use their systems that way. But this sort of use hasn't particularly been encouraged, either.

Nor has the motivation been always to keep up with the latest releases of everything. Instead, you'll see a concern for judicious updating to enhance stability and security.

Last edited by dhave (2008-12-11 22:22:58)

archdave · 2008-12-12 00:35:44

Having had a relatively long experience with Linux, I have fond memories of Slackware use, mostly due to what it forces one to learn in order to use it beyond a default install. I've only been using Arch since early in 2008, and I still keep an install of Slackware as a fallback distro. It came in handy both times when kde4 and xorg-server 1.5 came out and due to some inattention on my part I ended up with a broken Arch system. Having a fallback distro is really handy in such cases. Imagine having a broken xorg or wm/de and being able to boot up another distro and resuming as if nothing had happened and you see my point. Of course, this can also be accomplished by keeping a hot backup of Arch, but I guess I like keeping Slackware around for sentimental reasons.

What keeps me with Arch is a high stability factor along with a dependancy managing package manager. Also that it is so close to Slackware that I have little problem bouncing from one to the other. I've used many other distros and once you leave the gui interface and start poking into the internals, you can easily feel that you've entered a new and foreign world.

So far my only problem with Arch is that sometimes (twice) I get package updates that won't complete due to one missing package being required and it doesn't show up until the next day.

moljac024 · 2008-12-12 00:45:01

archdave wrote:

Having had a relatively long experience with Linux, I have fond memories of Slackware use, mostly due to what it forces one to learn in order to use it beyond a default install. I've only been using Arch since early in 2008, and I still keep an install of Slackware as a fallback distro. It came in handy both times when kde4 and xorg-server 1.5 came out and due to some inattention on my part I ended up with a broken Arch system. Having a fallback distro is really handy in such cases. Imagine having a broken xorg or wm/de and being able to boot up another distro and resuming as if nothing had happened and you see my point. Of course, this can also be accomplished by keeping a hot backup of Arch, but I guess I like keeping Slackware around for sentimental reasons.
What keeps me with Arch is a high stability factor along with a dependancy managing package manager. Also that it is so close to Slackware that I have little problem bouncing from one to the other. I've used many other distros and once you leave the gui interface and start poking into the internals, you can easily feel that you've entered a new and foreign world.
So far my only problem with Arch is that sometimes (twice) I get package updates that won't complete due to one missing package being required and it doesn't show up until the next day.

The problem lies in your mirror then. Some don't sync as well as others...

Last edited by moljac024 (2008-12-12 00:45:25)

sa · 2008-12-12 01:45:28

slack has a special place in my heart. it was my first distro, and I learned how to use linux (mostly) on it. i have it on an old Athlon computer kicking around that I need to find a use for.

i still keep a slackware DVD around, although I'd probably use Arch for any project from now on. it's a good system though. never breaks down.

jaloz · 2008-12-12 02:54:14

I run a Slackware server at work. I don't follow the changelog. Subscribe to the slackware-security mailing list and you get an email whenever there's a security update. It's not hard to keep up with, for a server at least - no X or desktop apps. There have been 11 updates in the last month of which only 5 were applicable to my setup. To upgrade a package download the new version from a mirror and run upgradepkg somepackage.tgz. Couldn't be easier. Well, it could but it's easy enough.

sokuban · 2008-12-12 04:29:36

Thanks for the tips. I'll check out rsync on the weekend.

I see, so slackware doesn't have so much updates. I guess its because they don't have that much packages, so it is possible to do it all. (I remember there was another thread and I was hearing people say how they like Arch not having lots of packages. When I read that I really wondered why, I guess it has to do with few packages being easier to maintain.)

I did a full install, so I feel like I have oodles and oodles more of extra packages in my slackware install than my Arch install. (No, I'm not even going to dare doing a minimal install and picking it up from there in slackware, that stuff is only possible with pacman.) I might try the menu selection in the install, but I'd have to do a bit of research because I don't really know what is okay to not install (other than KDE). Lack of dependancy support only makes it a little scarier because you know you can screw yourself over.

Either way, winter break is coming up, so I've got lots of time to mess around with.

Last edited by sokuban (2008-12-12 04:30:27)

Aprz · 2008-12-12 06:51:37

string wrote:

Once you get to have your own projects you tend to want to be left to do what you like best: program. One day you might find that you're writing code and you need access to some utility (which is not present on your system) for just a bit (maybe you need some sort of unzip or unrar or somesuch -- just to use Once and then possibly remove it) -- think about having to interrupt your programming process so that you can: fetch the source, solve dependencies, make packages.. An unobtrusive system such as Arch Linux is perfect from this point of view.

I would figure that most programmmers would be smart enough to have the utilities needed for unpackaging, editing, and compiling the utilities they use and create. It's also encouraged for programmers to plan out their work, pseudocode, and be prepared. I would have to question if somebody was even doing some serious programming (and it doesn't even have to be some commercial coding, but a project for themself, which is what I tend to do) if they ran into that problem. I guess some people can overlook things, forget, and we should cut them some slack, which is why I was suggesting that if Slack is such a great distro and all it's missing is a great package manager for every once in awhile use for when people do run into trouble like this then they could compile pacman on Slack http://www.archlinux.org/pacman/ or at least that is what I thought.

Right?

archdave · 2008-12-12 07:25:14

Here's the message I get:
wireshark: requires heimdal>=1.2.1

dave@dellazoid ~ $ yaourt -Ss heimdal
core/heimdal 1.2-2 [installed]
Heimdal Kerberos V5 libraries
community/lib32-heimdal 1.2-2 [installed] (lib32)
Heimdal Kerberos V5 libraries
aur/lib32-heimdal 1.2-2 [installed]
Heimdal Kerberos V5 libraries

So I have a heimdal, from core mind you, that is newer than required by wireshark. How is that a mirror problem?

archdave · 2008-12-12 07:35:38

Here's the explanation, direct from a dev in another forum posting:

Wireshark was rebuilt for both heimdal and libpcap. Unfortunately, this was missed and libpcap and associated rebuilds was moved from [testing] and wireshark needs heimdal which is still there. This is being fixed...

Allan

ArchArael · 2008-12-12 09:14:04

archdave wrote:

Having had a relatively long experience with Linux, I have fond memories of Slackware use, mostly due to what it forces one to learn in order to use it beyond a default install. I've only been using Arch since early in 2008, and I still keep an install of Slackware as a fallback distro. It came in handy both times when kde4 and xorg-server 1.5 came out and due to some inattention on my part I ended up with a broken Arch system. Having a fallback distro is really handy in such cases. Imagine having a broken xorg or wm/de and being able to boot up another distro and resuming as if nothing had happened and you see my point. Of course, this can also be accomplished by keeping a hot backup of Arch, but I guess I like keeping Slackware around for sentimental reasons.

That's a wonderful idea. I have a spare windows partition for work purpouses but considered that I never used it I think that I will follow your example and install Slackware as a fallback system. Macromedia Flash works well also in wine so I shouldn't need it anymore. Great idea.

Last edited by ArchArael (2008-12-12 09:17:36)

string · 2008-12-12 10:21:28

Aprz: 1. I wouldn't/don't give the general programming "population" so much credit 2. unrar/unzip were failry unfortunate examples, I should try to find some more appropriate ones but: heck (actually now that I think about it, I can't quite come up with anything, so *blush* + the following paragraph: )

I suppose this doesn't best apply to programming, but rather day to day use, to which I can testify: it has happened to me every now and then to need to use a certain utility for no longer than 5 minutes (or less). (perhaps it was a screenshot program, perhaps, yes, it was unrar/unzip, perhaps it was a movie player for when I was feeling like a lonely little string..). These are scenarios when systems such as Arch Linux / Debian / etc. come in handy -- and Slackware can be a turn off (I think Gentoo can hold hands with Slackware on this one).

Alas: I don't know if using pacman on Slackware is as easy as simply building it on a Slacky machine and then running it. What repositories would is use? Arch Linux ones? That, to me, would sound like a fairly bad idea.

--

archdave: not having X being brought up on boot can help too

Last edited by string (2008-12-12 10:22:09)

string · 2008-12-13 10:45:34

I suppose a review of 12.2 appeared here: http://www.xstore.co.za/wordpress/?p=307 ; can't quite comment on the quality of the article. I suppose that since Slackware doesn't change in shocking ways between one release and the next, reviews of this distribution tend to sound the same.

All this Slackware talk has made me miss the days when I used to run Slackware, I've actually created myself a 12.2 install DVD, I'm still carefully pondering wether to install it on my laptop or not.

whaler · 2008-12-14 12:51:57

ArchArael wrote:

That's a wonderful idea. I have a spare windows partition for work purpouses but considered that I never used it I think that I will follow your example and install Slackware as a fallback system. Macromedia Flash works well also in wine so I shouldn't need it anymore. Great idea.

Well... If I had had a Windows partition, I would have kept it, but then I already have a Slackware derivative installed: Bluewhite64. While a spare linux system is always a good thing, having Windows is a lot better. There are way too many things still missing under Linux...

string · 2008-12-14 13:48:19

I think I remember reading some pretty bad things about BW64 -- written by various slamd64 people.

dldiamond · 2008-12-14 14:50:05

As for Slack dying.... I just visited the distrowatch page and Slackware (in the default 6 month view) is still getting around 500 hits per day. Coming in above Arch. If you look the last 7 days (I would guess due to a new release) Slackware is actually ranked #6 among all Linux distributions (about 1100 hits per day). I still think Slackware has its users.

As for using Slackware.... I tried to install it in a vm recently and as much as I love the fact that you can choose each and every package you want to install it got tiring looking at all those packages. I prefer the arch way. If I never want it it will never get installed. If it isn't a dependency of something I want... it will never get installed.

I say this as a former slack user. Slackware was how I got started with Linux back in 1998. I've only been an Arch user for about 9 months now but I don't think I would switch back. I think about having another partition with Slackware on times, but it wouldn't be a main desktop for me anymore. That said, if I was looking for a server I would probably use slack.

string · 2008-12-15 13:55:12

Thanks to http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20081215 I found out that "The Faculty of Physical Sciences at the University of Glasgow recently migrated their main logon server across to Slackware Linux.". More details here: http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/it/connec … 17_en.html . Apparently Slackware was picked from distrowatch's "top 20" (which means it was chosen over ArchLinux, I guess).

dolby · 2008-12-15 14:56:36

The only thing Archlinux is missing compared to Slackware is some professionalism.

Anonymo · 2008-12-15 20:13:55

dolby wrote:

The only thing Archlinux is missing compared to Slackware is some professionalism.

how so?

dolby · 2008-12-15 21:28:16

I dont mean to explain it again, sorry. Ive done so, many times, on many occasions. On IRC/fora/MLs/etc.

SamC · 2008-12-15 23:59:40

dolby wrote:

The only thing Archlinux is missing compared to Slackware is some professionalism.

I'm sure if you wanted to pay the devs a salary, they'd be happy to take it.

sokuban · 2008-12-16 02:22:28

Oh now you spiked my curiosity. >_>

I did a forum search of your username but nothing came up.

string · 2008-12-16 05:42:27

Another review of Slackware 12.2 appeared on http://www.techiemoe.com/tech/slack122.htm. I'm guessing it's not a favorable one, I couldn't bring myself to read it in full after having read this: "If you've missed my previous few attempts at using Slackware you might want to go ahead and catch up. Go on, I'll wait" <- Well, go ahead and wait. I wasn't in the mood for that "f**k you" marketing strategy some tend to use.. but anyway, perhaps someone might find the article entertaining.

Arch Linux

#26 2008-12-11 20:29:37

Re: Slackware

#27 2008-12-11 20:45:24

Re: Slackware

#28 2008-12-11 20:46:00

Re: Slackware

#29 2008-12-11 21:15:40

Re: Slackware

#30 2008-12-12 00:35:44

Re: Slackware

#31 2008-12-12 00:45:01

Re: Slackware

#32 2008-12-12 01:45:28

Re: Slackware

#33 2008-12-12 02:54:14

Re: Slackware

#34 2008-12-12 04:29:36

Re: Slackware

#35 2008-12-12 06:51:37

Re: Slackware

#36 2008-12-12 07:25:14

Re: Slackware

#37 2008-12-12 07:35:38

Re: Slackware

#38 2008-12-12 09:14:04

Re: Slackware

#39 2008-12-12 10:21:28

Re: Slackware

#40 2008-12-13 10:45:34

Re: Slackware

#41 2008-12-14 12:51:57

Re: Slackware

#42 2008-12-14 13:48:19

Re: Slackware

#43 2008-12-14 14:50:05

Re: Slackware

#44 2008-12-15 13:55:12

Re: Slackware

#45 2008-12-15 14:56:36

Re: Slackware

#46 2008-12-15 20:13:55

Re: Slackware

#47 2008-12-15 21:28:16

Re: Slackware

#48 2008-12-15 23:59:40

Re: Slackware

#49 2008-12-16 02:22:28

Re: Slackware

#50 2008-12-16 05:42:27

Re: Slackware

Board footer