SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
I tried searching for this and didn't see it anywhere so here goes... if I missed it I apologize and feel free to delete my post.
I was just wondering the differences if any between college linux 2.3 and slack 9. I recently burned and installed college linux and I had a few beefs that I wonder if maybe are not issues with slackware. First, it forces you to make a root partition of at least 2.5gb of space. Second, the installer won't let you set FS types or mount points. All you get is cfdisk. Third, the kernel source doesn't get installed. Fourth, when I did download and install the latest kernel, just for the experience, I booted about 10 trillion times faster. Last, support for ext3 wasn't installed (am I saying that correctly? My point is that I couldn't designate ext3 for my partitions, because mkfs.ext3 wasn't installed.) I had to download the latest e2fsprogs and install it in order to do that.
I guess all my problems are with the installer. Does slackware 9 avoid any of that, or is it virtually the same? anyone used both?
On the plus side X was configured and installed (college linux uses redhat's X installer?) with no problem, and I was playing with KDE immediately. That was a relief too, especially after not being able to get into X from a mandrake install. That was embarrassing.
I'm a newb to be sure so if I'm inappropriate in anyway I'm sorry, and please let me know.
Slackware 9.0 and College Linux 2.3 use different versions of gcc. CL2.3 can use packages from Slack 8.1, but not from Slack 9.0.
IMO, Slackware has the best installer of any distro. Mandrake's installer may be easier for a total newbie who doesn't know much about partitioning a harddrive, but the Mandrake 9.1 installer was pretty buggy compared to their earlier version installers.
The Slackware installer talks you through every step, but gives you total control. It uses cfdisk and lets you partition and set mount points to your heart's content. You can let it install all the packages, or select the ones you want.
I was very, very disappointed with Slackware 9.0. With my hardware it was actually slower than 8.1, the fonts looked worse than on 8.1, and for some reason I cannot fathom, my harddrive was seeking _constantly_. It still didn't have a driver for my Epson Stylus C82 printer, either.
College Linux 2.3 didn't offer me choices in the install and I didn't like the way it wouldn't let me select mount points for /home and /usr. It wouldn't configure my printer, and when I did manage to get it to print, it was awful.
If I had to choose between College Linux 2.3, or Slackware 9.0, I'd choose Slackware 8.1 ;-)
Like Contrasutra said, all you do in Slack to configure X is type xf86config as Root when you first boot up after the installation. It's a text-based program to configure your keyboard, mouse, monitor, screen resolution, etc.
It will ask for your video card and your monitor's vertical and horizontal refresh rates, so it's good to have that written down before starting. Just read the prompts carefully and take your time. It's not that hard.
Thanks for the help. I guess the consensus is that slack 8.1 is superior then? It definitely sounds like what I want. I've got no control over anything now. I'd rather go through the extra effort to learn in order to have my system set up properly and hand configure it.
Slackware 8.1 is completly out of date, you'd do better to get 9. Especially considering all Slack Packs are made for 9 now, and 8.1 uses GCC 2.95
That guy was one in a few that had problems. "Slack 9 is slower" is a ridiculous statement. If he didn't spend the time to stop unneeded services, thats not Slackware fault. The fonts are also controllable. A quick trip the the "KDE or Gnome Control Center" and he could have solved that problem. For a slackware user, he seemed to want everything done for him.
Why do you think thats the consensus? Doesnt seem that way by my count.
My fault. Thank you for your help. *cancels his 3 day 8.1 download and starts a 3 day 9.0 download* heh.
I just thought I had read some threads where a number of people complained about problems but I see what you're talking about it being too out of date. Besides, if I do have problems it'll be a good chance to get my hands dirty.
Contrasutra, I'd like to respectfully respond to your post.
That guy is a gal ;-) and I've seen quite a few people report the same problems.
I _always_ turn off unneeded services, and I run very few services at all. I'm not talking about "normal" slow from too many services running, I'm talking about "hanging" slow.
Looking at 8.1 and looking at 9.0 with the _same_ font configuration, 9.0 looked worse.
The constant noise from my "silent" Seagate harddrive was quite alarming. It has _only_ happened with Slackware 9.0 .
I LIKE Slackware, and I know how for the most part how to use it. I didn't expect it to do everything for me. I just found it was not as good on _my_ box as 8.1 . Your mileage may vary. He asked for an opinion, and I gave him my experience. Please don't invalidate someone's experience just because yours is different.
I have a questions that's slightly off the topic. But since we're talking about upgrading distros from one version to another... (it's a newbie question I know, but it's about slack)
I was wondering, how exactly do you upgrade your distro, say from slack 8.1 to 9.0, without losing your settings and files and whatnot? I mean, if I had slack 8.1 installed and configured and set up just the way I wanted it, and had all my files on it, etc, how could I upgrade to ver 9.0 without losing all of that? At this point I can't even compile the newest kernel without losing my mouse and X... and the differences seem enough that upgrading is kind of necessary.
I find slack 9 to be much better. Its all about the packages. I love dropline gnome. You will appreciate the latest packages. It is the equivalent of going from win98 to xp. (yes I have used windows before) gcc will probably be the biggest +.
There was a problem installing opera. It had something to do with QT though. Apparently it was too new, and it didn't include some header file. Thats a software issue though, not slack.
I agree...although 8.1 was very nice, contrasutra is right...it is outdated, which is why I made the switch to 9.0.
now on the other hand...tigerflag does have a point...I had some minor performance issues at first also. And...I agree that the fonts seemed worse. After upgrading the kernel, and ALL of the packages in the current tree, all seems BEAUTIFUL again.
Although I noticed the above issues, I wasn't really worried too much knowing that I hadn't taken the time to optimize my installation at that point. I like to keep my system up to date, so upon upgrading the packages, when things seemed to have improved, I almost forgot about it (and of course I finally took the time to optimize also). I guess the bottom line is that as the packages improve, so does certain areas of performance. If I were comparing just the bare essentials, the differences would be null.