Could Slackware be it?
 

Hi all,

First: Please excuse my english. It's not my native tongue, so this post might be a bit hard to read, simply because my vocabulary is lacking - and because it's going to be a bit long. :)

I run a small business. So does a handfull of my friends. A few years back we decided we would try our best to migrate completely to Open Source. For some of us it was as easy as switching 2 desktop computers from Windows 2K to Suse or something similar, whereas for others it was a bit "harder" as several computers were involved, both desktops and servers. We meet each month to talk about beer, Linux, Open Source and how things are going with our project. We're all self-employed with everything from 1 to 20 employees. Our needs are very diverse.

My particular need is primarily servers. Those of us who needed to go from Windows to Open Source powered servers found a home with Trustix. It was a breeze to install, SWUP was easy to use, and it was very non-bloat, which is a good thing when you're just starting out. What it lacked in documentation, it had in a solid maillist with some very active users and regular participation of developers.

Months and years went by, and we were happy in Trustix land. But then it started to go a bit stale. Developers left, a new version was a mess and the maillist all but died out. We started to look for another home, and it was then that I suggested Slackware. Slackware was the very first distro I managed to install back in 1999. I had no clue about what I was doing, but it was fun.

My friends thought it sounded like a grand idea and we decided I should test it out, but I soon hit a few obstacles:

1. No RAID configuration during install.
Coming from Trustix where software RAID was a breeze, this was somewhat of a shock. We found some guides and tried our hand at it, but it's definitely not as simple and straightforward as Trustix. Is this intentional? Does the Slackware "vision" not include the use of software RAID? Are there any tools out there to ease the process?

2. Software install/package management.
It seems there's absolutely no dependency checking done in Slackware. While I can appreciate the concept of doing your own checking, it does feel somewhat odd not being able to just install a given package and have it automagically fetch whatever is needed to make it run. Also coming from a RPM based system, the whole .tgz concept feels "strange", in lack of better term.

3. Most of the servers we deploy are web/FTP, SAMBA and mail (usually Postfix+Courier).
As far as I can see Slackware 10.2 ships with Apache1. We're all accustomed to Apache2. Is this going to be a problem? Seeing as we're basically all just a bunch of amateurs, how do we go about maintaining security on said software, if there's no $swup --update functionality?

4. Kernel.
Our old Trustix machines all run 2.4 and so does Slackware 10.2. Is this something to be concerned about in regards to security? Is 2.6 more secure? And if so, should we wait for Slackware 11 and go with the testing kernel instead? Again keeping in mind that we're all in this because we think it's great fun - we have no formal education or training - should we opt for a distro with a somewhat automated process for updating?

5. Controlling the beast.
Coming from Trustix's $service X start/stop/reload, $chkconfig and similar, Slackware does seem a bit "intimidating" at first. Should we worry about this, or is it in reality just as simple and easy as any other distro?

These are some of the thoughts and questions that've popped up in my mind while testing Slackware 10.2 today. I feel a strange mixture of excitement and fear of the unknown while working with Slackware, as opposed to Trustix.

I guess what I'm basically asking is this: Is Slackware a good choice for us? Is it a good community? Will it die on us like it seems Trustix has? Is it really as hardcore as rumor has it, or can it be used by someone who's not able to dedicate 8 hours a day to manage his/her servers?

Well, that was all for now. Sorry for the lengthy post. I tend to spend twice as many words as needed.. :)

Sincerely,
Thomas

2) You can either follow the changelog and use Pat's official packages, or make your own with checkinstall for easy upgrades. ./configure will tell you if you're missing anything, and once you've made a package you can just upgradepkg/installpkg the .tgz checkinstall made.

4) There isn't anything wrong with the 2.4 kernel, the main reason to upgrade would be for the increased support for devices (especially wifi).

5) Slackware has this with a lot of it's services. /etc/rc.d/rc.httpd start|stop|restart and many of the other /etc/rc.d/ files are set up in this way.

I wouldn't say it was "hardcore", there is a definate learning curve, but if you get stuck somewhere a search/post on here is usually enough to resolve the problem. If you need faster support you can also ask in one of the Slackware IRC channels around.

Is Slackware a good choice? I would say it depends. Slackware is not like Suse or Redhat. For those "commercial" distributions, you pay for the support. So, in case something goes wrong, you know where to point your finger. Slackware is free, which means you need to take care of your own business. Other than that, I think Slackware is a perfect candidate for a server, very stable, very fast and easy to maintain. Community support for Slackware usually is pretty good. There are also some good handbooks about Slackware available online.

Is slackware "hardcore"? Well, I think not. Why? When I first started to use linux, I began with debian. Then Tried fedora, Suse, and a few more. But as it so happend, the hardware I was using always gave some trouble, and -except for debian- the "automatic" instalation went wrong. Now, with slackware, I´ve had some troubles, but I knew before hand that I would have to learn a few things -for example, I just had to make a post concerning my usb pendrive-. But once I got to undertand and learn how the system works, averything works so smoothly, that I believe it´s worth giving it a try. Slackware runs very fine to me. Also, the comunity support is great. I´ve become over time, into a slackware fan.

I guess what I´m trying to say is: If you are willing to spend some time learning a few things -wich if you already use linux I don´t thing will be too much- slackware is just great. Runs just the way you want it.

About the package managment, every time I´ve tried another distro, I have actually had more trouble do to missing libraries etc. that the one I´ve had downloading the source code and compilling what I need. I don´t do servers and that kind of thing. I do math. Use octave, f90 compilers, maxima, and many other stuff. But as far as I understand, Slackware works very nice for servers.

Good luck with your bussiness!

BTW: English is not my native tongue either -probably already noticed that-. But your´s is great.

Is it a good community?
Like any other. Except you get the same strong-spirited (reverse) advocacy that characterises a largish percentage of Slackware and Debian converts (users), plus you'll have to affectionally call the one that packages this distro "Pat", plus you'll have to deal with the effects on the distro because of the packagers opinion, plus you may proudly call yourself part of the eternal underdog crowd of GNU/Linux.
But since you have used Slackware before you already know that, so nothing really changed.


Will it die on us like it seems Trustix has?
Very unlikely.


Is it really as hardcore as rumor has it
Its all in the eyes of the beholder: if you think something is difficult you're just making it difficult for yourself.


or can it be used by someone who's not able to dedicate 8 hours a day to manage his/her servers?
You just have to get used to doing things "the slackware way".


I guess what I'm basically asking is this: Is Slackware a good choice for us?
I didn't read any hard business criteria (reliability, efficiency, control) that would make a decision favour either Slackware or not, which IMHO means it boils down to your skill and willingness to "unlearn" and relearn. If you think you can unlearn (and want to spend the time) what you've learned using Trustix, don't mind the simplicity (in the right sense of the word), the quirks (PAM, SysV vs BSD, dependency hell) and of Slackware, then by all means go try it. Once you get the hang of it it will not be less or more efficient using it. And being in the list of major distributions it must be there for a reason, even if it's more like towards the bottom end of that list.



---

Slackware is not like Suse or Redhat. For those "commercial" distributions, you pay for the support. So, in case something goes wrong, you know where to point your finger. Slackware is free, which means you need to take care of your own business.
Nobody forces you to pay, you can have say a well-maintained, well-supported RHEL-alike for free (CentOS, for instance).


Other than that, I think Slackware is a perfect candidate for a server, very stable, very fast and easy to maintain
Subjective. These criteria can apply to any well-configured and well-maintained server.

Thanks all. I think I will stick with it and see if I can make it work for the things I need.

I will without a doubt be back with questions as I stumble towards a fully functional install. I will stick with the default kernel - I don't think we have any special hardware needs.

Regards,
Thomas

I noticed :p
Let me point you a correction with a constructive intention of course, my fellow hispanohablante venezolano.
You can't "speak a tongue". Though it sounds fine in spanish, you "speak a language".
So there both of you should have said my native language.
I think that is one of the hardest points to learn a foreign language, sometimes one can't translate the bare words but must interpret them in order to make sense in english (or the target language). This can be achieved only with years of practice, which I can't say I own myself.

english is my native tongue, and as far as I'm concerned, "native tongue" is perfectly valid english. it's a pretty common phrase.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=native%20tongue

edit :p :)

I don't know where people get this idea. Yes, Pat offers it for free download in order to comply with the GPL, but it is actually a "commercial" distro:

http://store.slackware.com/cgi-bin/store

Most other "commercial" distros are free to download as well.

Please support Slackware by buying a CD/DVD set when 11.0 is released. You can pre-order too.
hehehe.. Raska, you crack me up. :D

I agree!

I've always made an effort to support whatever distro I've used in my business, be it m0n0wall, Trustix, Clark Connect, SME or whatnot. If I end up using Slackware, Patrick can be sure I'll either buy a bunch of CD's or send him a donation.

:)

In my opinion, dependency checking isn't as important with Slackware as with some other distro's, mainly because Patrick seems to value stability and reliability over the latest-and-greatest. That said, there are tools out there that can help you monitor dependencies should you feel the need. (eg. swaret) I might only do a dependency check a couple times per year, and/or after a large upgrade (many packages or some more critical ones like the ones in /a.)

There are several options. You can manually keep an eye on the changelog (ftp://ftp.slackware.com/pub/slackwar.../ChangeLog.txt)
or the security advisories (http://slackware.com/security).

What I do is run swaret nightly, but only have it report the new packages to me via e-mail (if there are any) without performing any automated updates. This puts me in the drivers seat, so to speak.

Secure? I wouldn't think so. "Secure" is a label that is only earned over time. Since 2.4 has been out longer, we have to conclude it's security has been tested more than the younger 2.6 kernel. This doesn't mean it's written better -- just more thoroughly tested.

As another poster mentioned, one reason you might elect to go with a 2.6 kernel over 2.4 is support for newer/more hardware. Another is performance, which I find is at least slightly better than 2.4.

You should also know that Patrick will almost certainly include both a 2.6 and 2.4 kernel on the next release, with 2.4 as the default.

Slackware was the 1st linux distribution I used. The only experience I had with *nix was from university and the odd work project. I found it to be very unix-like. I've since played with a couple other distros that I don't like as much because of their custom tools for configuring. I would rather edit config files manually than have some tool do it for me (just like I can't stand writing web pages in any HTML "editor".

If you like stability, don't mind "getting your hands dirty" (ie. researching and tinkering a bit to get it right), then Slackware is a very good distribution. I don't find it takes anywhere near 8 hours a day. Once you have it running, it's pretty solid. Just keep your eyes open for security fixes or automate these notifications if it's a great concern.

Hope this helps your decision,

Garry

Indeed it does. Thank you for your reply Garry. :)

I'm currently working on the whole RAID thing. It's not as complicated as it first looked, so things are so far looking good.

Regards,
Thomas

Dependency checking can be more trouble than it's worth. Ok, it might prevent you from installing the software until you have all the other necessary bits but it can come unstuck when you have a later version of a piece of software and it is expecting to find a certain version.

Cool. I guess I got obfuscated somehow. This day is worthy to me as I have learnt something new, thanks for doing so ;)

Well you guys have better english than a lot of the native english speakers on the net. ;)