LinuxQuestions.org
LinuxAnswers - the LQ Linux tutorial section.
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 05-21-2009, 09:10 AM   #91
gargamel
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Distribution: Slackware, SLAX, OpenSuSE
Posts: 1,621

Rep: Reputation: 142Reputation: 142

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... .

gargamel
 
Old 05-21-2009, 09:12 AM   #92
mRgOBLIN
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Jun 2002
Location: New Zealand
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 999

Rep: Reputation: 227Reputation: 227Reputation: 227
Don't think of it as a secret, think of it as a surprise
 
Old 05-21-2009, 09:16 AM   #93
grissiom
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: China, Beijing
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 423

Rep: Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilgar View Post
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.
 
Old 05-21-2009, 09:27 AM   #94
Alien Bob
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 5,334

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by grissiom View Post
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.

Eric
 
Old 05-21-2009, 09:28 AM   #95
gargamel
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Distribution: Slackware, SLAX, OpenSuSE
Posts: 1,621

Rep: Reputation: 142Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mRgOBLIN View Post
Don't think of it as a secret, think of it as a surprise
This a real good way to put it!
It wasn't secret, just "undisclosed" until prime time...

gargamel
 
Old 05-21-2009, 09:34 AM   #96
Shingoshi
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2006
Location: Cochise County, Arizona
Distribution: Gentoo-AMD64 / Slackware64-Current
Posts: 474
Blog Entries: 28

Rep: Reputation: 34
Kind of reminds me of the computer companies of old... "Not invented here"

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonWisard View Post
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.

Shingoshi
 
Old 05-21-2009, 09:35 AM   #97
SqdnGuns
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Location: Fountain Valley, CA / Thailand
Distribution: Slackware64 14.0
Posts: 981

Rep: Reputation: 88
So much fricking drama, if you like it use it, if you don't like it STFU.
 
Old 05-21-2009, 09:37 AM   #98
chess
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Location: 127.0.0.1
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD, FreeBSD
Posts: 728

Rep: Reputation: 168Reputation: 168
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. :-)
 
Old 05-21-2009, 09:38 AM   #99
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 3,480

Rep: Reputation: 1016Reputation: 1016Reputation: 1016Reputation: 1016Reputation: 1016Reputation: 1016Reputation: 1016Reputation: 1016
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonWisard View Post
Didn't rworkman just answer that.
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).
 
Old 05-21-2009, 09:55 AM   #100
cwizardone
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Distribution: Slackware64-current & "True Multilib." PC-BSD.
Posts: 2,253

Rep: Reputation: 181Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by mestigoth View Post
This is the answer I received from Alan_Hicks on irc channel slackware@oftc
Many Thanks!
How does one go about installing the 32 bit libraries?
 
Old 05-21-2009, 10:01 AM   #101
grissiom
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: China, Beijing
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 423

Rep: Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by chess View Post
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. :-)
A year or two ago?... o_O
 
Old 05-21-2009, 10:04 AM   #102
grissiom
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: China, Beijing
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 423

Rep: Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien Bob View Post
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
 
Old 05-21-2009, 10:14 AM   #103
Shingoshi
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2006
Location: Cochise County, Arizona
Distribution: Gentoo-AMD64 / Slackware64-Current
Posts: 474
Blog Entries: 28

Rep: Reputation: 34
>=(o_O)=>
 
Old 05-21-2009, 10:31 AM   #104
DragonWisard
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: MD, USA (D.C. Suburbs)
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 95

Rep: Reputation: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shingoshi View Post
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.
 
Old 05-21-2009, 10:36 AM   #105
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
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.
 
  


Reply

Tags
slackware, torrent


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
LXer: Common Public Licence superseded by Eclipse Public Licence LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 04-18-2009 04:10 AM
slackware current question on the current kernels davimint Slackware 3 06-03-2007 08:39 AM
LXer: A Public Market for Public Music LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 03-30-2007 08:16 AM
LXer: Public Venture, Public Content LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-22-2006 09:54 PM
To anyone=(To go public or not to go public that is the question...) hotrodowner Linux - General 10 06-25-2002 10:19 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:44 PM.

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