LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
LinkBack Search this Thread
Old 05-29-2005, 05:33 PM   #16
project-mayhem
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: May 2005
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3

Rep: Reputation: 0

I have a amd64 processor, and the latest Slackware runs fine.
 
Old 05-29-2005, 05:56 PM   #17
killerbob
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 662

Rep: Reputation: 30
You probably aren't using the 64-bit processor to its full capability, though, pm. Code compiled for a 32-bit processor will run on a 64-bit processor, as long as the manufacturer of the processor knows their arse from a hole in the ground.

I'm a bit skewed in that direction... I try to avoid Intel when I can. In fact, I only just ordered my first *new* Intel-based system since my '386 DX. AMD is generally cheaper, and does what I need it to do. (I've bought second-hand systems for use as servers, and am currently running a P-II-350/192MB for my main webserver. The new system is going to replace that, and is a P4-3.2/2GB that I'm getting for a song.)


Anyway, I don't think that slack is getting outdated at all. The 2.6 headers are on the CD, and can easily be installed. There's a 2.6 kernel on the 2nd CD as well. I would not be surprised to see Slack 11 as a 2.6-based system, and I would not be surprised to see Slack 11 before the end of the year. As everybody else has said, Pat's focusing on stability over being on the front lines. That's the main reason I keep coming back to Slack, and that's certainly the reason that I will be installing Slack on the new server. There's nothing to stop you from compiling your own (and in fact, I do for Sendmail, Apache and PHP) if you want to improve performance.

(As an aside, does the 2.4.29 kernel in Slack 10.1 support Hyperthreading? I'm planning on going 2.6 anyway, but it's a point of interest.)
 
Old 05-29-2005, 08:01 PM   #18
Namaseit
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 325

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by chris318
Okay, stability is good but lets not get carried away. Even if u use 2.6 kernel you don't get many of the advantage becuase everything else was compiled again 2.4 headers. I'm just saying that the slow progress to adapt new features is making it stable yes, but it is also making it more geared for servers. Not for desktop where people don't have to be parnoid about stability and want thing like 2.6 and everything linked agaist it. They also want it compiled with the most recent stable gcc and flags at least for a pentium 2 or better. If not 64 as many people already have an amd cpu. I've tried slamd64 and it flys.

Also for it to go 64 bit at this point is unlikely as slamd64 has pretty much owns that port. So it's future as a desktop OS seems rather bleek to me.


Also, I'm not saying it should do automatic dependency checking but maybe at least tell you want things are linked against would be nice. Or any innovation in it's core system would be nice.
First, that babble about 2.4 and 2.6 headers is just nonsense. I have no idea where you got your info.

Second, the newest gcc 4.0 isn't included because it's really not "stable". There are alot of things that still need to be fixed. I'd rather wait a little while then see Pat just throw packages into current even though there may be huge flaws in them. So what if the newest version of <insert name> isn't in current 5 seconds after the developers post an announcement to their mailing list. Its more current then most any distro. If you want bleeding edge gotta have it now then use gentoo.

Third, pat has enough already on his plate. He doesn't need a whole other architecture to maintain. That's just stupidty. He's one person, not 20. Thats why there is slamd64.

I also use slackware as my desktop and server. It is an excellent desktop distro. Why wouldn't anyone want stability on their desktop? You like having things crash on you and act unstable? Slackware is also very current. I'm not running it on a 486. I've got an AMD64, 1GB Ram, Nvidia 6600 GT, 200GB SATA HDD, 12x DVD/RW drive and am running dual 19" LCD panels. I also run slackware on my brand new Toshiba tecra m3 which has all brand new hardware. 95% of the hardware works fine, the rest doesn't because it's not supported in linux period.
So your view that slackware's future as a desktop OS as "bleek" is very misguided and uninformed. I'm not saying Slackware is going to take over the world but it is as always going to have its own user base.

You want to see what a program is linked against?

root@Venus:~# which xmms
/usr/bin/xmms
root@Venus:~# ldd /usr/bin/xmms
/lib/libsafe.so.2 (0xa7fe5000)
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000)
libSM.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libSM.so.6 (0xa7fc5000)
libICE.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libICE.so.6 (0xa7fad000)
libXxf86vm.so.1 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXxf86vm.so.1 (0xa7fa8000)
libxmms.so.1 => /usr/lib/libxmms.so.1 (0xa7f9b000)
libgtk-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgtk-1.2.so.0 (0xa7e7d000)
libgdk-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgdk-1.2.so.0 (0xa7e4b000)
libgmodule-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgmodule-1.2.so.0 (0xa7e48000)
libgthread-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgthread-1.2.so.0 (0xa7e45000)
libglib-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libglib-1.2.so.0 (0xa7e24000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 (0xa7e12000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/tls/libdl.so.2 (0xa7e0e000)
libXext.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6 (0xa7dff000)
libX11.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 (0xa7d35000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0xa7d12000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0xa7bf6000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xa7feb000)
root@Venus:~#

I'm not exactly sure what you mean about "innovation in its core system". Alot of innovation comes from software. Pat just maintains the distro not creating the software it uses.

From your remarks I get the impression that you just want the newest whiz bang thing even though you have no clue about it and what it is or does. You want all the newest packages the second they are available and you think anything less is "stagnation". I used to be like that too, then I realized I didn't care. My systems run without a hitch, I update them with swaret when I get an email from my server saying that slackware has been updated. I run 2.6.11 kernel on my servers and laptop and 2.6.10 on my desktop because it's so stable there is no need to upgrade my desktop. What does it matter if you have version 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 is released of whatever program. A rule of thumb is that minor version numbers are just bug fix releases so unless you're affected by it in some way it doesn't really matter. Besides Pat is always quite diligent with releases anyways. They may not be in current the next day but when they do I *know* that nothing will go wrong when I install it. But I'm crazy, I like a stable system that I can have installed for months and I will never notice a slowdown. I never to have to reinstall because my system seems to be getting bogged down for some unknown reason. It always performs just like it did the day I installed it even 6 months later.

Sorry to maybe come off quite harsh but you really don't seem to be informed at all and coming in here with an uninformed opinion saying slackware is irrelevant kind of pisses me off.
 
Old 05-29-2005, 08:09 PM   #19
Tinkster
Moderator
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: in a fallen world
Distribution: slackware by choice, others too :} ... android.
Posts: 22,950
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860
Quote:
Originally posted by chris318
Okay, stability is good but lets not get carried away. Even if u use 2.6 kernel you don't get many of the advantage becuase everything else was compiled again 2.4 headers. I'm just saying that the slow progress to adapt new features is making it stable yes, but it is also making it more geared for servers.
Umm ... do you have the slightest clue what you're
talking about?

Your average app will be compiled against glibc, and
not against "the kernel headers" ... the apps on your system
most likely don't give an owls hoot over what kernel was or
is on the system...



Cheers,
Tink
 
Old 05-29-2005, 08:54 PM   #20
davidsrsb
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Distribution: Slackware 13.37 current
Posts: 770

Rep: Reputation: 33
The 2.6 kernel will probably? appear in the next Slackware 11.0? release. When 10.1 came out (and PK was rushed with that one as he was sick) 2.6 was still evolving rapidly and definitely buggy so sticking with 2.4 was the right move. Just be patient
 
Old 05-29-2005, 09:11 PM   #21
Tinkster
Moderator
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: in a fallen world
Distribution: slackware by choice, others too :} ... android.
Posts: 22,950
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860
Quote:
Originally posted by davidsrsb
When 10.1 came out (and PK was rushed with that one as he was sick) 2.6 was still evolving rapidly and definitely buggy ...
Heh ... what do you mean WAS?

How many successive 2.6.11s did we have in which
time frame? Current is 2.6.11.11, right? ;}


Cheers,
Tink
 
Old 05-29-2005, 09:39 PM   #22
syg00
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Distribution: Lots ...
Posts: 11,799

Rep: Reputation: 923Reputation: 923Reputation: 923Reputation: 923Reputation: 923Reputation: 923Reputation: 923Reputation: 923
Mmmm - seems a few people are stuck in the old "paradigm".

2.4 was the stable stream, 2.5 was development.
2.6 is both - very unlikely there will be a 2.7 in the same way as there was a "testing stream" with 2.5.
I take it this was mandated by the man himself.

2.6 is changing a *lot* - Andrew (Morton) seems to think he and the product maintainers can keep it under control.
Seems to have worked so far.
From my perspective, it is spectacularly *not* buggy.

(general comments above, not Slack specific).
 
Old 05-29-2005, 10:47 PM   #23
vharishankar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,142
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 120Reputation: 120
I am not a Slackware user, but being a Debian user, I can understand the philosophy of not wanting to stay bleeding edge all the time. It's a bit risky to run mission-critical systems on the latest software.

This is especially true of the kernel. If 2.4 works for you, then I don't see any point in using a 2.6 kernel (unless there is some hardware-specific support in 2.6 which is not there in 2.4). Also once you install a fully working kernel, I don't see a situation where you have to upgrade it for a long, long time.

The kernel is the base of the system. I don't see many people (except Linux enthusiasts) upgrading their kernel every few weeks.
 
Old 05-29-2005, 11:14 PM   #24
Namaseit
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 325

Rep: Reputation: 30
Well I do upgrade my kernel often on my laptop but even then it's not that often. I would only see upgrading a kernel if it benefits you somehow. I stopped upgrading my kernel after 2.6.10-cko3 on my desktop mostly because everything broke in 2.6.11. ACPI wasn't working right, it would just hang at shutdown and restart. There were lots of other little intricacies that made the upgrade a pain in the ass. So I just leave my kernel at 2.6.10-cko3 on my desktop because even though they might not get mentioned largely there are things that are changed in each version and they can brake a lot of other things. It's like throwing a rock in a pool of water. I got tired of screwing with newer kernels when I knew 2.6.10-cko3 worked for my system and there was really no reason to use 2.6.11. There was no gaining feature for me, no new support that I needed. On my laptop I'm running 2.6.11.10 just because I got it working on it without hassle so It wasn't a problem to use. With my servers they still had 2.4.29 on them so I wanted to get a 2.6 kernel on them and didn't mind screwing with them since I don't need a lot of hardware support other then the mobo, nics, and HDD controllers which work just fine. When 2.6.12 comes out I might try it out on my desktop just because it's been a long f'in time since they've released a new 2.6.x kernel. I don't mind the whole 2.6.x.y version stuff but it's breaking patches every other release and is getting damned annoying.
 
Old 05-30-2005, 12:31 AM   #25
ringwraith
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana
Distribution: Slackware-current
Posts: 1,244

Rep: Reputation: 47
And as I recall, Pat did not move from 2.2 to 2.4 as the default kernel until 2.5 was opened. This showed the kernel maintainers thought 2.4 was sufficiently stable to start a testing branch. Let's face it, the 2.6 situation is a confusing mess right now. There was even some talk for awhile that the kernel people would basically always be testing and they would leave it up to the distro people to package a stable kernel. This goes against what Pat has always tried to package, a vanilla non-distro specific kernel. But one thing is clear, the 2.6 kernel is still in a state of flux and is not likely to be ready for prime time any time soon. Obviously Pat isn't as conservative as Debian stable but he does want his product to be safe to run a server on.
 
Old 05-30-2005, 01:52 AM   #26
Tinkster
Moderator
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: in a fallen world
Distribution: slackware by choice, others too :} ... android.
Posts: 22,950
Blog Entries: 11

Rep: Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860
Quote:
Originally posted by syg00
Mmmm - seems a few people are stuck in the old "paradigm".
Mmmmh ... seems a few people caught the "johny come lately"
virus ...


Quote:

2.6 is changing a *lot* - Andrew (Morton) seems to think he and the product maintainers can keep it under control.
Seems to have worked so far.
From my perspective, it is spectacularly *not* buggy.
Well - good for you is all I can say :)

From my personal experience I can only say the I
still strongly dislike 2.6, find it unpredictable at
times, and can't see the supposed performance
benefits. I'm forced to using it on one machine
because of the missing back-port of the cx2388
drivers in v4l, and the bloody thing is an adventure
with every upgrade it attempt.

2.4 hasn't given me trouble since what, 2.4.7? If it
wasn't for security fixes I'd still be on that old dog.

And I only moved away from 2.2 after 2.2.19 because
that's when I found 2.4 to be robust enough...



Cheers,
Tink
 
Old 05-30-2005, 02:14 AM   #27
Namaseit
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 325

Rep: Reputation: 30
I don't generally find the 2.6 series to be too problematic. Upgrades from one revision to the next *are* flaky though. Things get changed so damn often that compiling a new kernel turns more into a crap shoot. One kernel version my harddrive is /dev/hda wham before I know it it's changed it to /dev/sda and I can't get a booting system. Took me 3 days to figure out why my laptop wouldn't boot and I only figured out cause I used SLAX which uses 2.6.11 kernel and automounts partitions in /mnt. Thats why I think I'm gonna just leave my desktop until there's some feature I can't live without that they add to it. Maybe Reiser4 support in default kernel might do it. Probably not though, 2.6.10 with cko3 patch already adds it.

I will say that 2.6.11 in whole has been disappointing.
 
Old 05-30-2005, 02:52 AM   #28
syg00
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Distribution: Lots ...
Posts: 11,799

Rep: Reputation: 923Reputation: 923Reputation: 923Reputation: 923Reputation: 923Reputation: 923Reputation: 923Reputation: 923
Quote:
Originally posted by Tinkster
Mmmmh ... seems a few people caught the "johny come lately"
virus ...
Now that's a tad harsh.
I was merely trying to point out that waiting for 2.6 to go "stable" ala 2.4/2.5 is a forlorn hope.
If and when 2.7 comes out it likely won't be the testing arm of 2.6, it'll be a new level.

Unless of course Linus decides to change things again.
Quote:
Originally posted by Namaseit
I will say that 2.6.11 in whole has been disappointing.
I tend to agree; that has been a bit of a problem child.

Last edited by syg00; 05-30-2005 at 05:50 AM.
 
Old 05-30-2005, 05:32 AM   #29
mjjzf
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Valby, Denmark / Citizen of the Web
Distribution: Slackware 14.1
Posts: 879

Rep: Reputation: 38
Does anyone have any idea how things are likely to look if Pat V can't administer Slackware anymore?
 
Old 05-30-2005, 05:55 AM   #30
Namaseit
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 325

Rep: Reputation: 30
I'm not sure exactly what would happen. Pat surely seems to be almost unreplaceable. If it was taken by the community everything would be crapped up by a bunch of idiots who want to turn it into every other distro. There could possibly be a successor but even still, Pat's a hard person to replace. His ideals that he puts into slackware are unique and his unwavering ability to do what no one else wants to but needs to be done is hard to find.

Such as stopping releasing gnome. Thats something not a lot of people would have done. But Pat recognized that there are other projects to tackle that beast and that his time would be better spent elsewhere. Keeping slackware so true to its roots after all these years is something a lot of people would be hard pressed to do. I think replacing Pat would have to be a gradual process. Where he possibly finds a successor and "phases" them into position slowly. Starting with them helping out on package releases and such.

I just don't know though. Pat is very much a one in a million person.


EDIT:

Oh and btw I believe Linus said that there was not going to be a 2.7 branch split in the near future. Thats the reason for the whole 2.6.x.y numbering now. They added another minor number set to signify testing branch. The developement model changed to suit the changing needs of the kernel. People weren't wanting to feature freeze the 2.6 series just yet because it still has so much potential. I don't know what they'll do after the 2.6 series. Maybe we'll have a brief 2.7 release and hit 2.8. I don't know. It's up to Linus. For right now though things seem to be going to stay this way for a little while.

Last edited by Namaseit; 05-30-2005 at 06:01 AM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Arenít terminals outdated now? LinuxPadawan Linux - General 75 10-18-2005 02:40 PM
outdated cronjobs bujecas Linux - Software 6 08-04-2005 10:24 AM
Have outdated hardware you would like to get rid of?? allforcarrie Linux - General 1 02-17-2005 08:44 AM
GTK+ outdated version? Netrack Linux - General 4 07-09-2003 01:37 PM
Outdated GLib? nocturnal Linux - General 1 05-07-2003 05:28 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:36 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration