Yes, I am sure many of you might have felt quite emotional when clicking this link... but please don't take this as a threat and continue reading.

This may seem off topic in a Slackware forum. However I believe it is a part of topic and if it isn't I apoligize. For one I am pro slackware at this point with some insecurity and indecisiveness and I personally prefer the system over any other. One of the principles of slackware is to be the most UNIX like operating system. This choice was made perhaps because the Internet is run by UNIX standards or Patrick's general liking to the granddaddy UNIX and BSD type user control setting...

However, now I am starting to doubt UNIX being the backbone of the internet as I am starting to see major changes taking place on the most powerful internet servers in the world switching to using "Redhat" as opposed to a real Unix derivative. So my question is, Is Unix being Replaced by Linux? If so, what will this mean for the future of Slackware? Will it continue to be based on UNIX/BSD standards even if it becomes more obsolete? I have no complaint on the way things already are.

I haven't given Redhat that much of a thorough try to be honest since I have been quite biased towards using Slackware. I am writing this more to understand the basic differences between the distros. I have talked about my thoughts on what I see in these 2 distros that I like most in my other introduction post but I would love to see a more thorough explanation of what makes Slackware Slackware and why you prefer it over "Redhat". Along with what makes Redhat preferable as well. I have my own biased opinions from trying out both distros (actually CentOS). But I would love to listen to more feedback of the major differences between both of these distros as far as usage is concerned both pros and cons and why you choose slack over redhat/centos.

So, I No longer fully believe that being based on a UNIX Standard makes it preferable if the majority of the servers are starting to switch or use Redhat (since, that switches the standards).

Concluding this I will leave you off with 2 links before you reply to my statements. I love Slack but I don't know if I have given Redhat enough of a chance... Maybe I am being biased with Slack and being closed minded? I am in a position in wich my heart says Slack but my mind is starting to whisper other things. And I am kind of begging some logical answers to why I should be more confident in slack.

So here are the 2 links to check out:

link 1
http://internicdomainservices.com/faq/3.html

link 2
http://linuxgazette.net/issue59/correa.html

Do us a favor: split your text into several paragraphs, so it be easier to read.

TIA

Agreed, didn't bother to read it since it is so bunched together. Hard on my old eyes..........

I'm not a Slack user but I'm not sure I agree with your premise as to the raison d'etre of Slack. Slack is one of the oldest Linux distros around. A lot of its users like it because they feel they have more control over things and also have to KNOW what they're doing.

RedHat's main focus has been to be a commercial distribution. It is this focus that makes it so attractive to organizations that are doing Linux because they are used to having someone to call when they run into problems. RedHat is also more about "stability" than being technically advanced. With a RHEL distribution you can essentially run on it for years and expect RedHat to give you bug and security fixes (and support) for those years without needing to upgrade to a completely new version. (Though of course they release new versions and updates to older versions periodically.)

Being an old time UNIX admin I can tell you that for the most part there is no "standard" UNIX. Solaris, HP-UX and AIX which are the big 3 commercial distributions of UNIX are very different animals. On the other hand Linux distributions and UNIX variants do share quite a bit of commonality for day to day tasks and it is only in full administration that the differences become really relevant. (Of course code development also makes these differences important.)

Although BSD is UNIX I never really saw much use of it in commercial settings other than its adoption within more commercial variants such as SunOS/Solaris which was initially more BSD like than System V. However, over time even Solaris added a lot of System V look and feel and only kept BSD stuff for the old timers that didn't want to adapt.

Red Hat is a enterprise level Linux institution. It's not unheard of that they would get more corporate level deployments in systems. That's just the nature of the beast being Red Hat is a mainstream, marketed, and enterprise friendly Linux based OS.

Slackware is for those who want more customizations and don't need bells and whistles while being minimal.

That's just how it is.

Thanks for the great response. So why is it that everyone is moving towards the System V structure if it makes it easier to work with BSD style? What gives Sys V the advantage that all these companies are moving towards it? Besides the init scripts split to run levels i honestly don't know much of the main differences between them. I mean if you checked out the 2 links I provided you would understand what I mean by "big companies" adopting Redhat in the first link its not just a company but the main backbone root server of the damn NET internic!
I haven't even checked what the other 12 are using.

I fail to see your points here: You have two main questions, as I can see it:
1. Should you yourself give Red Hat a try? My question would be: Why not? And how is this decision related to some major companies running Red Hat (except may you want to work for them)?
2. How will it affect Slackware that some major companies run Red Hat/Linux in general? My question would be: Why should it affect Slackware at all? Companies run Linux since short after it came into existence, I would think. Yes, nowadays there may be more companies that run Linux than Unix, but why should that matter to Slackware? As fa as I can see it Pat's business model is to make the most Unix like Linux and sell it to people that like what he does. Seems to work since about 20 years, shouldn't change much in the future.

Regarding the question, why I run Slackware and not Red Hat: Simple, it is a personal thing, I never liked RPM based distros. Don't even know why, I just don't like RPM. So the question for me should be why I run Slackware and not a different distro, like Debian. Also simple, because Slackware works best for me. Is it because Slackware is the most Unix like distro? I don't know, I have a limited experience with Unix.

In short: If you feel you have to give Red Hat a try then do it. CentOS is free, or just get yourself the free 30-day evaluation from Red Hat. If you feel that Slackware may be not the right thing for you because Unix is not as popular as some years ago, then you have to ask yourself if Ubuntu wouldn't be a better distro for you, since it is far more popular. Or may be a Mac (wait, that is not an option, this would be Unix again). In my eyes, popularity should be the last concern if you want to choose a tool for your work, the first should be quality. And you will get high quality from Red Hat, Slackware and the Unices. So choose the one you like, simple as that, regardless if it is popular or not.

Thanks Tobi! You are correct. My questions are not precise as my mind is a bit mixed. I have tried centOS. I liked the stability, speed and minimalism. But I was unused to RPM. Which is the reason I did not use it for too long. Does this mean RPM is worse then slackpkg? I don't know because I have not used it long enough. However I do hear that RPM adresses dependencies or I think it was Yum. Slackware currently does not adress dependencies which is both a good and a bad thing. Another motivator of why I chose Slackware is because it was so closed to the UNIX/BSD Standards... However since now everyone is adapting to Redhat... won't that change the standards of what the internet servers run off of?

I guess if I were to summarize my questions better is:

1- Why is most linux distros switched towards Sys V structure?
2- What is the main big differences between Sys V and BSD besides the init scripts and if you know a reliable link that provides that information in detail?
3- If the init scripts is the only difference. Then why the hell would these other distros use something with less common sense then the BSD init system?

I have heard things and just kept repeating them over and over saying Sys V is for service oriented and BSD is for user oriented systems. But I honestly haven't seen any practicle examples except for init scripts. Which I agree BSD is easier to do... But there has to be a logical reason why the split those scripts to run levels as well... I mean why would they do it just to make things harder for the admin? Makes no sense to me.

They aren't running Red Hat because they like the init scripts. Furthermore, init scripts are about to be eliminated in Red Hat for systemd units, which will about put an end to any pesky customization of the init system by mere mortals.

1 members found this post helpful.

Excuse me but are you the God Send mystical figure behind the Slackware Distro?!!!

I'm speechless and very humbled to hear from you! You actually go through this LQ? I am pretty sure Redhat CEO doesnt do that LOL

That is what I am talking about! You are the man if that is really you! Thank you soo much!

A few words can move mountains!

So interpreting what Patrick has said (it that is really him): "Redhat gives you much less control and plans on even limiting your control on the OS" and there is another reason behind why Companies like Google and even internic have adopted Redhat... hmmmm....

This question doesn't make sense at all for me. At first, I don't see any one adapting to Red Hat. Yes, some major companies do run Red Hat, but most of them have not changed yesterday, they do it for years. Also, why should the fact that more companies run Linux change anything about the Unix principles? This isn't a popularity contest. Unix is not only an OS, it is a philosophy how to make a good system. Other people follow other philosophies, that doesn't change anything. In the same way that Buddhists don't change their philosophy just because there are more Christians in the world.

Slightly outdated. At the bottom of the page I see:

Quote:

Published in Issue 59 of Linux Gazette, November 2000

But even the Creator of UNIX himself Dennis Ritchie told us about some ruff edges on his own Programming Language C as well as Unix. So the whole "Unix is a way of life" to me does not justify the means. It is a dogmatic way of thinking and it regresses the human mind and stops it from thinking to become its highest potential. The reason I chose slackware is "Simplicity and User Control" I also chose it because during that time UNIX was the backbone of the Net and Slackware adopted UNIX principles but on top it was FREE and I could install it on my PC!

But understanding from what Patric wrote, I think the specialty of the BSD system is that it is more User Centric as opposed to System Centric Sys V. In otherwords the power is given to the man and not the machine. His few words have made a lot of sense to me and I see things quite clearer. Its like the world is moving towards more of "Automation" and replacing "humans, mere mortals"... Reminds me of the movie 2001 Space Oddesy. Yup, man vs machine age... that is where we are going...

EDIT
After reading this I agree with what you said. Sorry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

http://catb.org/~esr/writings/unix-koans/zealot.html Yes, Unix has its rough edges, as has any other OS. You could try to polish them away, but you would loose some of that what you hold high and what is a Unix principle: "Simplicity and Control". http://catb.org/~esr/writings/unix-koans/two_paths.html

1 members found this post helpful.