Slackware or Slackware64
 

I have been given a Toshiba Satellite U300 and I want to install Slackware on it. I also wish to run current. I have no issues with this.

My question is whether to install Slackware64 or not. The laptop has 2GB ram and I can't see myself upgrading that in the near future. I am just starting to get my head around the fact that 64-bit is the future and have installed it on my desktop with 4GB ram. Is there any real advantage to having a 64-bit install or not on a 2GB laptop?

Cheers
Stephen

No there isn't, and a 64-bit system will also be more RAM-hungry.

A 64-bit system is supposed to be better for some hard tasks (encoding video and sound, compiling, etc). However, other light task could be slower because of the need to allocate more RAM (I have read somewhere this is the case with Open SSH).

I would say that, as of today, running 32 or 64 bits is more or less the same. Impact in memory and efficency is generaly irrelevant.

Thar said, I use 64 bit with support for 32 bits apps installed.

If you really want heavy usage like very heavy math calculations, science experiments or something like that, go for 64 bit, otherwise go for 32 bit.

I use Slackware64 with multilib, so useful, handy and dandy ;)

Depends do you intend to extent your memory in the near future to 4 GB then it might be beneficial. Some programs benefit a lot of 64 bit most a little or nothing. And if you want to run 32 bit programs like wine or the android sdk you need to install multilib if you are running slackware64.

Thanks. I think I'll go with a 32 bit install on this occasion. Or 64 bit ;)

Hi,

I'm using Slackware64 on my Lenovo x100 subnotebook with 2GB of RAM. The reason is that I'm running Slackware64 on my Server and my Laptop as well. So I can use the packages which I've compiled on my Server also on the subnotebook.

I want to run 32bit-programs (Skype) also on my subnotebook an have therefore installed AlienBobs multilib-packages. But this is very inconvenient because one has to be very careful with the updates.

My advice: if you don't want to use your selfcompiled packages on both of your computers, I'd recommend to use Slack 32bit.

Markus

Interestingly enough, there's been some discussion in another distro's mailing list (linking to a spec) on whether or not to go 64-bit for their default CD image in their upcoming release. One thread there points out that 64-bit is the better for systems with more than 2GB RAM, so in your case it might be better to stay 32-bit.

I say go Slackware64. 2 GB is plenty of RAM for a 64bit system, and you get the benefits of a 64bit system. If you need to run 32bit applications, just use Eric's multilib packages, and that will work perfectly. I always go by if your system has a 64bit CPU, and you have enough RAM, which 2GB is plenty, why not use it?

I found myself manually "upgrading" a laptop to 64 bit in a similar situation which is not easy (unless your users are happy to lose their settings). So my advice is: go 64 bit.

For a new install on capable hardware use Slackware64 to have a smooth upgrade path.

Currently Slackware/i486 and Slackware/x86_64 are almost identical feature-wise, but sooner or later there will be applications which only run non-legacy x86-64 systems. ZFS is a good example.

In the future there will be hardware with UEFI which doesn't support 32 Bit anymore. You might later want migrate your installation to such hardware without having to start over completely.

It's not so much about memory (i686 supports up to 64 GB) or speed (some stuff with SSE2 faster, some stuff slower), but about stumbling over bugs later ("What? You're still using i486?"), when the major Linux distributors switch over to x86-64.

BTW: I think Slackware64 should become a non-hassle multilib-System out of the box and contain an own series with compatibility packages. The current "clean 64 bit" approach leads to threads like this.

I think you should stick on x32 yet. You will get rid of a number nasty bugs of 3rd-party software, for instance, not all software x64 ready. Yes, it compatible with x64 CPU, but not compatible x64 system. For instance, one famous GNU/GPL-ed software is dependent on sqlite(strongly) but its configure script cannot detect it installed, because of /usr/lib64 instead of /usr/lib paths.

Nope, thanks. I don't need 32 bit applications on my 64 bit systems, therefore I don't want 32 bit libraries that bloat the system. It is not that hard to go multilib, anyone who feels the need can do it themselves.

FeyFre, that can always be solved. Every software you can compile from source, can be compiled for x86_64 just as it can for x86. If you have software which can not detect a sqlite library then you just forgot something.

The only issues you would have on a 64-bit system is that you can not run closed-source, binary-only programs like Skype. Also if you want to run 32-bit Windows programs through Wine, this will not work on a pure 64-bit Linux OS.

Eric

^ But will run on Slackware64 with AlienBob's Multilib files installed.
:)

The problem is in it. I cannot build it from source, because it cannot detect sqlite3 on "./configure" stage. Neither pure ./configure nor "./configure --prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib64 --with-sqlite3=/usr etc" and other combinations doesn't helps. Anyway, it is offtopic here, I already reported to maintainers(and since it is GPL-ed software, I no waiting it to be fixed during next half-year).

Instead of calling that software "one famous GNU/GPL-ed software" you could have been specific about its name so that other people can give you a patch. Waiting half a year for a fix is a bit ridiculous.

Eric

The problem is not in that I cannot fix it(probably I can if I really want, if not now, then in a few days or weeks, I'm in no hurry). I only showed reason why inexperienced user should choice x32 distribution rather than x64: because there are a number of software that is not ready to run/be built on x64. I vote for avoid such unpleasant situations which can negatively influence Slackware's reputation(like this: software doesn't build on Slackware, but builds on others, so Slackware is boo) - to use x32 system. I'm not sure OP is able to solve all or some such bugs(and waiting at least half of year for developer attention is unfortunately real picture in Open Source & Free Software world. I do not say it about each and every project, but for majority it is true. If to compare, Slackware team answers is almost instant).

Usually I'm not in mood to advertise software whose developers are treat me offensively, but only because You asked and it touches Slackware I will name it here: it is Asterisk - opens source PBX and bug in question is reported here. You can watch or participate if interested.

I don't get it. In which way is it better for Slackware's image to say "Use 32 bit, not all software can currently be built on Slackware64"? Isn't it more damaging to say that, instead of letting the user run 64 bit and then help him if something like that ever occurs (I really doubt that he wants to use Asterisk on his laptop)?

FeyFre,

You can fix your build by adding a LDFLAGS definition to the configure command, like this (and use sqlite3 instead of sqlite):

Eric

Edit: if you want to know how I came to that commandline, have a look at the "config.log" file.

You don't need them, but someone else does. I don't want the KDE bloat, so I don't install the k-series. It would work the same with a potential compat32 series. I just want the option included into Slackware, so I don't have to manually rebuild and upgrade packages like libpng or openssl for security.

You can't compare the k-series with a potential compat32 series. Compat32 touches the heart of the system. Instead of two systems Slackware and Slackware64 there would be three systems which require maintenance. I can understand that given that Slackware holds the keep it simple principle argues that if you want to run 32 bit programs can use Slackware and if you want to run 64 bot programs run Slackware64.

If You can help You probably will recommend, I cannot help so I will not recommend anything I know I cannot help. I feel liability for my recommendations. Since I cannot guarantee software on Slackware64 will work no worse than on Slackware32, and I cannot guarantee my useful assistance to OP if he encounters any bug, I shall recommend x32.
I think, there is no damage for Slackware if one recommend to user more mature version and user will just work; it is better than recommend version in which I know some software has problems(not matter whose this fault: Slackware or Software) and user cannot solve them

Thanks for tip, I'll try it a bit letter. By the way, I already tried to run ./configure <default-slackware-keys> --with-sqlite3=/usr - the same result. And about key "--with-sqlite3" I think it absolutely unnecessary, because configure script already checks for it because it is required dependency.

Just for the sake of clarity I feel the need to point out that the name 'x32' which FeyFre keeps using is not the correct name for the 32 bit IA-32 (a.k.a i386 - i686, x86, x86-32) architecture.

'x32' is a new, still in development ABI for x86-64 processors whose aim is to leverage the advantages the new processors bring whilst retaining the memory efficiency that the use of 32 bit pointers/data-lengths provide.


It actually looks quite interesting, and would probably be a good match for the OPs needs if it were ready, but it's still early days yet and not ready for prime-time. Whether we'll ever see a native SlackwareX32 I tend to doubt though as Pat seems to have more than enough on his plate just dealing with supporting the existing architectures. Non the less, it's an interesting development and one to watch.

Having to manage two installations and dual-booting them is anything but "simple" and superflous anyway (thanks to the compat packages provided by Eric). I just want the functionality of Slackware included into Slackware64, because the hardware supports this natively.

It is an optional dependency. If you don't pass any sqlite parameter to the configure command then configure will not fail if sqlite was not found. See http://slackbuilds.org/repository/13...work/asterisk/ where no sqlite is being used at all in the SlackBuild script.

Eric

Ah, sorry, that is my bad. I forgot to mention it explicitly(however, in link to issue it was mentioned): I'm using Asterisk version 10 and this version is requires SQLite (as internal storage engine). On Slackbuilds.org there is Asterisk v1.8 - predecessor of Asterisk 10(yes, they also was infected by Mozillas/Googles Version Numbering Disaster). 1.8 used built-in BerkelyDB implementation for internal storage, 10 uses external SQLite library.

P.S. Do we have moderators here? I sure we should separate Asterisk build errors into separate thread.