LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
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
 
Search this Thread
Old 05-30-2005, 06:10 AM   #31
justwantin
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: Slackware, Slackware ARM, Salix and Porteus
Posts: 552

Rep: Reputation: 45

Outdated?

Only if I want it to be. I kind of see each release as a stable snapshot at that time and place. But it don't take long for me to start adding and updating to suit. Sometimes from current, sometimes from linuxpackages and half the time I compile from source.

I'm running slack 10.1 with 2.6.11.9 patched for cx88/with kde-3.4. Lots of things are non standard add-ons so how am I supposed to know whether or not I'm really up to date?

Maybe its the eye candy that counts or maybe it has to be just like one of those rpm based be all end all distros that is so new the patches are holding it together and if there ain't a shiney new wizard in charge, then it aint configurable.

I think I'll stick to a (old fashioned?) stable distro for a base and configuration with an editor. If I need something warm and red there's cvs, gcc and mcedit.....well vi is a bit long in the tooth........ I can put anything I want in there, I'll be able to see how it is behaving, I''ll be able to take it out if it misbehaves and I can do all that without having to do a complete reinstall.

Actually that sounds kind of advanced.

I gave up being up to date at about mandrake-8 when I found out there was a standard linux file system, a sensible (bsd style) init system and a compiler in every box.

Then it all began to make sense and I could be as up to date as I wanted to be.

Last edited by justwantin; 05-30-2005 at 06:14 AM.
 
Old 05-30-2005, 06:25 AM   #32
Namaseit
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 325

Rep: Reputation: 30
Amen brother.
 
Old 05-30-2005, 12:15 PM   #33
etrumbo
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Michigan, USA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 39

Rep: Reputation: 16
I see what chris318 is getting at, some of the significant apps and services like Apache, PHP and MySQL are staying one major revision behind the curve and that spells a *very* conservative distribution. But in each case upgrading to the current version has compatibility and configuration issues that not everyone who depends on them will want to deal with on a distributor's schedule, but on their own schedule. People who really want Apache 2, PHP 5 and MySQL 4.1 (much less MySQL 5!) can upgrade on their own.
 
Old 05-30-2005, 12:24 PM   #34
Namaseit
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 325

Rep: Reputation: 30
"Very Conservative"? I really don't see how. What reason is there to use apache 2 right now? There actually are drawbacks to using apache 2 right now. What feature of the "new" MySQL cant you live without right now? PHP is about the only one that I could see someone really wanting because of its new OOP style. Like you said though, If you need it, you can install it.
 
Old 05-30-2005, 12:40 PM   #35
etrumbo
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Michigan, USA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 39

Rep: Reputation: 16
Namaseit, your arguments are a prefect example of what I meant by "very conservative".
 
Old 05-30-2005, 01:55 PM   #36
Namaseit
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 325

Rep: Reputation: 30
I guess I've just been spoiled by slackware these last 3 or 4 years. It just seems to me that Apache 1.x is stable, secure, reliable, and fast. If you run a webserver how many people are you going to server daily? 1 thousand? 5 thousand? 50 thousand? Something tells me probably not. I'm not going assume the same for every situation but is having the newest brightest thing really make it "cooler". Like I said, I can see something like PHP which in the newest version changes the whole programming style. Hell I'd like to have it, I might just install 5.0 to play with. But thats slackware.

It's easy for you to add what you want to if its not included. I really don't get this complaining about the packages included with slackware. If you want the newest of packages nanoseconds after their release(and this isn't pointed toward anyone in particular) use gentoo. I'm sure they could use another fanboy or two.

As far as I can tell 99.99% of slackware users are happy with its current state and how Pat is running his distro. Keyword *his*.

Last edited by Namaseit; 05-30-2005 at 02:11 PM.
 
Old 05-30-2005, 03:45 PM   #37
unixfool
Member
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Northern VA
Distribution: Slackware, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OS X
Posts: 781
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 157Reputation: 157
Quote:
Originally posted by davidsrsb
The 2.6 kernel will probably? appear in the next Slackware 11.0? release.
Pat V. personally stated when he visited ##slackware on irc.freenode.net that he's shooting to have the 2.6 kernel in Slackware 11.0 (and not in /testing). See http://wigglit.ath.cx/slackware_botl....log.14Jan2005

[13:40] <volkerdi> Anyway, I can see the Great Restructuring happening for Slackware 11, but first 10.1 (the last to support a 2.4.x kernel) needs to release so that NPTL and such can come along.

Anyways, I don't see the exclusion of a 2.6 kernel being an issue. I still run the 2.4 kernel on my home Slack machines and even had a 2.4-kernel'd Slack machine at work pulling Perl-crunching duty. I think the main thing Pat is focusing on is stability. The original poster may not like the fact that 2.6 isn't set up by default to be used by Slackware but there's nothing stopping him from grabbing the 2.6 kernel (whether it be from kernel.org or slackware.com as a slackpack) and compiling what he needs into it. As with most Linux software, the source is out there for the benefit of everyone...to complain about what isn't included in a stock distribution is pointless, IMO.
 
Old 05-30-2005, 04:17 PM   #38
etrumbo
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Michigan, USA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 39

Rep: Reputation: 16
Hi Namaseit,

Just to be clear, nothing I'm saying should be considered a criticism of your points or Patrick's reasoning behind his distribution choices. Slack rocks my house, etc.

It's legitimate to ask "why upgrade?", but it's also legitimate to ask "why not?" Well, in the case of major revisions to major apps and services, I've previously given one reason "why not" and we seem to be in agreement. But there are other reasons to wonder why not.

You've said that there are drawbacks to Apache2. Well, Apache2 hit minor revision 54 a while ago. If my work depends on a webserver and revision 54 of my webserver still has some showstopping drawbacks, I might need to contemplate that and maybe make some hard decisions about my future with the product. The *entire* product line, since inevitably the day will come when Apache 1.1.3 will receive precisely as much attention and patching as Linux kernel 2.0.x.

MySQL is another example. (Note: I'm a PostgreSQL guy myself, so everything I'm about to say might be utterly wrong. Don't quote me on anything here! :-D) Slackware has MySQL 4.0.x but a stable 4.1.x seems to have been around for a while, while the scary things are being done in 5.x. MySQL has been steadily moving towards more support for SQL features and standards, and I'm sure that 4.0 -> 4.1 brought some improvements with it. So, "why not" upgrade? Or perhaps, "Is the guy I look to to design my distribution implying something about MySQL 4.1 that I should know about?"

In short, both "why" and "why not" are legitimate questions to ask.
 
Old 05-30-2005, 04:35 PM   #39
Namaseit
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 325

Rep: Reputation: 30
Oh I completely understand. I'm not trying to attack anyone, in particular. I can see the point you try to make with the comparison of apache and the kernel but it's more or less wrong. The 2.0 kernel has much less hardware support and features then the 2.6 kernel. While apache 1.3 will still serve webpages just fine and still does for most anyones needs.

Sorry if I seemed hostile in anyway. But the original poster was making insane claims and trying to spread false truths. I don't mind a debate but the other person better at least have a clue about what they are talking about if they want to make any kind of point that they want to be taken seriously.
 
Old 05-30-2005, 04:57 PM   #40
chris318
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Distribution: Slack
Posts: 122

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 18
Forgetting about all the software version numbers, slacks future seems not well defined. What well pat do in a year are two when 64 is pretty much standard. After slamd64 spent all this time debugging and what not, will he just take those improvements and tell the slamd64 people sorry better luck next time. That wouldn't seem fair after they put so much work into the project. The server market may not upgrade as fast so that is fine for them. But desktop is a totally different story and this is my point. Slack's future as a desktop OS does't look good to me.
 
Old 05-30-2005, 04:59 PM   #41
etrumbo
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Michigan, USA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 39

Rep: Reputation: 16
Hi Namaseit,

I admit that by comparing Apache 1.x to kernel 2.0, I was exaggerating for effect. But otherwise why is my example "more or less wrong"? The box that's my home server today is from 1999 and using all the same hardware that kernel 2.0 supported just fine, the only reason I'm running 2.4-2.6 is that it would be more trouble to downgrade! Meanwhile, Web technology keeps growing, along with users' expectations. If I were a mighty Web-geek, I wouldn't mind at all running Apache 2.0.54 on a kernel 2.0.whatever (assuming that's possible) on that box, and only upgrade the kernel for security issues. So what we care about upgrading depends on what we're upgrading and what we're doing with it.
 
Old 05-30-2005, 05:18 PM   #42
Namaseit
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 325

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by chris318
Forgetting about all the software version numbers, slacks future seems not well defined. What well pat do in a year are two when 64 is pretty much standard. After slamd64 spent all this time debugging and what not, will he just take those improvements and tell the slamd64 people sorry better luck next time. That wouldn't seem fair after they put so much work into the project. The server market may not upgrade as fast so that is fine for them. But desktop is a totally different story and this is my point. Slack's future as a desktop OS does't look good to me.
Again you're making assumptions that Slackware is going to take over the server market and the world and that Pat is going to be all of a sudden releasing for x86 and x86_64. Why would he take the work of slamd64? why? why? why? It makes no sense. They are the maintainers of that port so why would Pat take it away from them? They can do whatever they want. Pat has no say in what they do. You are looking at things in a completely wrong context. And this assumption that everything will be running 64-bit is a wrong assumption as well. You nor I have any proof either way but as it is now I don't see that happening in the grand scale that you describe. Besides, what servers besides those that geeks setup will Slackware find its way onto. Company's want big support and so they go to Novell, RedHat, etc. Unless they actually trust their staff. But that is a small amount company's.

to entrumbo:
You are more or less wrong because there is HUGE difference between 2.0 and 2.4 and 2.6. Large memory support, SMP, Filesystem support, Pre-Emption, etc. Apache 1.x still servers webpages. It can still do the "flashy" sites. I personally like simple and elegant websites like the slackware mainpage. But thats just me. I like websites that give me all the info I need easily.

Last edited by Namaseit; 05-30-2005 at 05:26 PM.
 
Old 05-30-2005, 05:26 PM   #43
justwantin
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: Slackware, Slackware ARM, Salix and Porteus
Posts: 552

Rep: Reputation: 45
I can't help myself!

I looked at this thread again this morning and I thought that chris 318 might have a future with the ministry of misinformation or maybe the ministry of fud.

IMHO slackware is a pretty impressive outcome for a one man operation. It has outlasted every other commercial linux distro for the past (what is it?) 13 years. It will probably fold up because Pat decides to fold it up and not because it is out of date and no one is interested in it anymore.

I can't help myself:

"seems like the distro remains pretty much stagnate"

Have you bothered looking at the changlog? IMHO it don't look very stagnant, change occurs in a methodical well considered way with who knows how many man hours of compiling/recompiling/testing/retesting not to mention correspondence with developers of the said packages. Consider the glibc entry for 13 May. Glibc is right and it ain't going to fall over or it wouldn't be there.

"when it comes to making improvements in the core system, i.e. package,etc."

What has to be done to the core system? whatever you mean by core system, and do you mean packaging system? Whether any other (newer?) packaging system is any better would be a rather subjective point to make.

"Also, I wonder what will happen now that 64bit cpu's are taking over."

Taking over what? I don't see any groundswell of takeup, usage or indeed advertisments for 64 bit systems here in Oz. 64 bit is still in early adopterland. If someone has the time or fat why not roll out a 64 bit OS but how many people need or want one?

"We have a 64-bit windows, mac-osx, freebsd, and some other linux distro have gone 64 as well."
How about "There are a 64-bit.............." and "".........other linux distro offer/provide an alternative 64...."

"But it doesn't seem like Pat has any intention of doing this and will most likely pass it off to some else",

I don't think passes anything off to or onto anyone, but there might be people who offer Pat/Slackware their support and/or assistance.

"slamd64 i think."

You are correct.

"Overall, i think it is becoming more and more of a server only distro, and it's losing ground quickly when it comes to the desktop."

It always has been a server distro, but not just a server distro or maybe the inclusion of productivity and multimedia aps is an oversight. What do you mean "desktop" anyway? I'll venture a quess that you mean workstation and I think you'll find that most folks on this list would be quite satisfied with slack's suite of workstation productivity aps. Just like the backend software it is all solid and stable. If you want more or newer you can upgrade/install yourself.

IMHO, most of the productivity and multmedia applications have a much more rapid development cycle than the backend programs, but who wants to constantly track beta? and who wants to constantly upgrade the libraries to run beta and worry about security risks and instability for the sake of latest and greatest?

There seems to me to be an overabundance of 'help me' type posts (especially from newbies) to some lists I've been on every time a certain rpm based distro with a tendency towards bleeding edge comes out with a new release...and then everyone has to wait for help on a list, or a fix, or a patch or a stable version of the ap to replace the newest and greatest version, etc.

This is not the case with Slackware, never was, never will be.
 
Old 05-30-2005, 05:27 PM   #44
etrumbo
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Michigan, USA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 39

Rep: Reputation: 16
Hi chris318,

I don't understand your objection to Patrick possibly building on [ not "taking"] slamd64's work. If slamd64 is based on Slackware, didn't they already "take" Patrick's work? That's the way Free/Open software is supposed to work! Some Germans wanted to apply RedHat's package manager to Slackware, the result grew up and became Suse. Someone wanted to compile RedHat with Pentium optimizations, and Mandrake was born. Don't even get me started on how many current distributions started by "taking" Debian.

Anyway, getting back to your point about Slackware on the desktop. There are alternatives, and in fact if I were really looking for the best desktop and the most current hardware support I'd be looking at the latest Suse. Slackware might be an uphill battle for you based on what you want, just as I was always fighting with RedHat a few years ago. Doesn't mean that Slackware is dying, just that you and it may have irreconcilable differences.
 
Old 05-30-2005, 05:31 PM   #45
unixfool
Member
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Northern VA
Distribution: Slackware, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OS X
Posts: 781
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 157Reputation: 157
Quote:
Originally posted by chris318
Forgetting about all the software version numbers, slacks future seems not well defined. What well pat do in a year are two when 64 is pretty much standard. After slamd64 spent all this time debugging and what not, will he just take those improvements and tell the slamd64 people sorry better luck next time. That wouldn't seem fair after they put so much work into the project. The server market may not upgrade as fast so that is fine for them. But desktop is a totally different story and this is my point. Slack's future as a desktop OS does't look good to me.
I don't see 64-bit becoming a standard anytime soon. While the hardware may be available, 64-bit hardware still costs more than 32-bit hardware. Also, there's the software to contend with. No one seems to want to redo current software into 64-bit so applications can take advantage of this new hardware. Until that happens, 64-bit isn't gonna be economical, at least on the desktop.

What Pat does is what Pat does. He OWNS Slackware (and BTW, from what I understand, he doesn't own Slamd64 and I doubt he'll 'take' its improvements without at least asking first). You'll probably get your questions answered if you email him and voice your opinions directly. Until that happens and when his response is posted here, I'm treating this topic as FUD. I've seen enough of FUD like this on the Slackware newsgroups and sites like Slashdot to know when threads such as this are pointless.

I'm not attempting to attack or demean you or your arguments, but you're making some HUGE assumptions, IMO. If you're not happy with the way Pat's doing things, you can always try a different distro and be happier. I don't think Pat's gonna be changing the way he does things because of posts such as this, as he's been doing what he does for a LONG time.
 
  


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


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 07:43 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