SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
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.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I have to say, that despite the secrecy, the team members provided some guidance into the right direction for those who decide what to install a system on a new 64-bit hardware box. I was advised to install Slackware 12.2 with HIMEM kernel support, in favor of something else, along with the hint, that a later upgrade to an official 64-bit Slackware release shouldn't be problem. That was the first indication that the team was actually working on such a release, but there was no hint, how long it would take.
The guys were very clever at that, pointing users in the right direction, without disclosing how close the destination actually was, already. They managed to keep everything under cover, without causing anyone making a wrong decision, such as installing another distro... .
Maybe the time, energy and nerves wasted on answering impatient questions, flood of useless bug reports and ill-founded criticism? Having a critical mind is good but aren't you being a bit enthusiastic about finding conspiracies in this issue?
I agree with you As I have already said, the 64bit port is *not* secret. There are so many clues.
I agree with you As I have already said, the 64bit port is *not* secret. There are so many clues.
The Slackware team had a lot of fun dropping hints here and there in slackware-current these past few months and watching the reactions :-)
Those with a keen eye have seen it coming for some time. But publicly announcing that a 64bit port was in the works would have put an unacceptable pressure on. Developing slackware-current has the primary focus and it would not have benefited anyone if the 64bit port would have gotten in it's way.
Kind of reminds me of the computer companies of old... "Not invented here"
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonWisard
Didn't rworkman just answer that. They didn't want to put up with everyone and their grandmother telling them how it should be done so that they could focus on doing it their way.
I remember an interview from several years ago where Pat V. said that if he ever made a 64-bit port it would be "Pure 64". I think this mulitlib-ready style is a very nice compromise.
So how does a multilib-ready compromise isolate the philosophy of Slackware64 from what I believe is the status quo (among other Linux distributions)? Does it amount to nothing more than saying Slackware64 didn't follow the lead of anyone else? I haven't checked, so I don't know how many "Pure 64" distributions there are. But if the solution of being Pure was absolute (as in being a conceptual pinnacle), there should be no justification for a multilib-ready system. Anything anyone has to add to, is by definition incomplete.
The first real hint I recall was a year or two ago when Pat mentioned in IRC that slackware64.com had been registered and was redirecting to slackware.com. :-)
My apologies if I missed that. Sometimes I find that linuxquestions forums seems to update the 'read' marks on topics even when I haven't read them and I miss some posts. Not sure why this happens, but I suspect it might be something to do with my ISP transparent web proxies - I've had the issue before with other BB boards.
I remember listening to the interview you mentioned and I agree with the policy of keeping it pure 64bit. If you try and jump through too many hoops to maintain backwards compatibility then sooner or later you end up with a mess (as Microsoft has discovered).
The first real hint I recall was a year or two ago when Pat mentioned in IRC that slackware64.com had been registered and was redirecting to slackware.com. :-)
Those with a keen eye have seen it coming for some time. But publicly announcing that a 64bit port was in the works would have put an unacceptable pressure on. Developing slackware-current has the primary focus and it would not have benefited anyone if the 64bit port would have gotten in it's way.
Eric
Ah, I see So, Shingoshi, here is at least one reason to keep it "secret" which is reasonable in my view ;D
So how does a multilib-ready compromise isolate the philosophy of Slackware64 from what I believe is the status quo (among other Linux distributions)? Does it amount to nothing more than saying Slackware64 didn't follow the lead of anyone else? I haven't checked, so I don't know how many "Pure 64" distributions there are. But if the solution of being Pure was absolute (as in being a conceptual pinnacle), there should be no justification for a multilib-ready system. Anything anyone has to add to, is by definition incomplete.
Shingoshi
I disagree. There are a number of "Pure 64" distros in the wild including BlueWhite and 64-bit Ubuntu. These require users to jump through hoops with chroot directories or virtualization to run 32-bit proprietary or legacy applications (eg. Skype, Flash 9, others that don't immediately pop into my head).
By making it multilib-ready, they are a delivering a Pure 64-bit distro that can easily accommodate 32-bit proprietary/legacy code when needed but doesn't bloat the system with duplicate libs that most people won't need or want.
Your whole "if it has to be added to it's incomplete" attitude is flawed. There are many unofficial packages that I use because of my job or simply personal preference which are unlikely to ever be included by default in Slackware. That's part of why we have wonderful sites like SBo. People are different and have different needs. If you want to include and maintain every package known to man in the default install go ahead and start a fork.
I think it was a wise decision to make it multilib, in fact I think it's absolutely necessary as a step in the transition to 64-bit. Currently, not every software is available in 64-bit, one of the major ones is wine, and many people need it and other such programs. Going purelib is a radical decision that should only be made some time from now when 32-bit goes the way of 16-bit and 8-bit that came before.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.