LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Latest LQ Deals
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 05-27-2016, 12:01 AM   #16
bassmadrigal
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: West Jordan, UT, USA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 6,135

Rep: Reputation: 3825Reputation: 3825Reputation: 3825Reputation: 3825Reputation: 3825Reputation: 3825Reputation: 3825Reputation: 3825Reputation: 3825Reputation: 3825Reputation: 3825

Quote:
Originally Posted by tallship View Post
2.) Versions, to many of us, for whom don't even bother with Slackware -stable in production are superflous... at best, they offer a "CHECKPOINT" to delineate one generation of our fav OS/distro to the next.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this point... In a production environment, -stable is not superfluous. I NEED to know that my system isn't going to take a dump on me when I run slackpkg to ensure I'm running the latest packages (obviously, after thoroughly reading the changelog). Yes, -current is pretty dang stable... most of the time. But when it isn't, it can cause all sorts of problems. One bad problem, and your production machine is suddenly a massive headache while you restore your backups (hopefully you do actually have backups). On my primary systems, I can't afford to run -current. Between the constant updates and the sometimes required reboots, those all equal possible downtime and I try to minimize that as much as possible. I run -current on VMs so I can test and prepare eventual upgrades of my production machines to the next stable release, but unless there is a hardware requirement, I refuse to run -current on a machine that I can't be without.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tallship View Post
3.) it is often pointed out that a lot of people often don't run -current because they don't realize just how stable it is, so they wait and wait and wait for a new version, sometimes thinking that Slackware isn't as relevant as it has always been.
It is ridiculously stable... until it isn't. The same thing happened when I was constantly running CyanogenMod nightlies. They almost always ran great... until one update prevented you from making/receiving phone calls. For a long time, I was willing to accept that uncertainty every time I upgraded. But I eventually realized that the headaches when things went wrong weren't always worth the benefits provided by those newer versions. I went from installing pretty much every nightly to a few a week, to a few a month, until my last phone, I didn't even bother installing CM (in all honesty, it's because I enjoy Android Pay too much).

Luckily, I don't entertain the thought that Slackware isn't as relevant to me. I have no desire to switch OSs and will likely stick with this as long as they make it available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tallship View Post
5.) I see a day when Patrick will entertain the thoughts of, and may indeed even consider, ending the versioning of Slackware for something along the lines of "CHECKPOINTING" it.
Personally, I hope I never see this day. I don't want a rolling release with the occasional checkpoint. I like having massive uptimes because I only restart the services that had security updates. I'm currently at 73 days uptime on my personal 14.1 machine, and that reboot was only due to an extended power outage that depleted my UPS (which then shut down the computer when it got low). Prior to that, the last shut down was due to a hardware upgrade.

I love what Pat does with -current and I check the changelogs religiously (probably more than my wife would prefer considering I did it several times throughout our last vacation hoping to see a 14.2 release). It certainly has a place among Slackers, including me, but I also love my stable releases that I use on my machines where I try to minimize any potential downtime.
 
11 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-27-2016, 04:21 AM   #17
kikinovak
MLED Founder
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Montpezat (South France)
Distribution: CentOS, OpenSUSE
Posts: 3,396

Rep: Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassmadrigal View Post
Personally, I hope I never see this day. I don't want a rolling release with the occasional checkpoint. I like having massive uptimes because I only restart the services that had security updates. I'm currently at 73 days uptime on my personal 14.1 machine, and that reboot was only due to an extended power outage that depleted my UPS (which then shut down the computer when it got low). Prior to that, the last shut down was due to a hardware upgrade.
Here's my main production server running Slackware64 14.0 with a shitload of services.

Code:
[kikinovak@alphamule:~] $ ssh root@serveur.microlinux.eu
root@serveur.microlinux.eu's password: 
Last login: Fri May 27 11:16:24 2016 from 62.212.104.80
Linux 3.2.45.

I heard a definition of an intellectual, that I thought was very
interesting: a man who takes more words than are necessary to tell
more than he knows.
		-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

[root@sd-48975:~] # uptime
 11:17:51 up 646 days,  1:19,  1 user,  load average: 0.59, 0.48, 0.55
You can't do that running -current.
 
4 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-27-2016, 07:49 PM   #18
drgibbon
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2014
Distribution: Slackware64 14.2
Posts: 497

Rep: Reputation: 324Reputation: 324Reputation: 324Reputation: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldbeer View Post
Dude, I think you may be reading Shakespeare way too much.
Hark dude! I know not that which hast emboldened me to this unseasoned intrusion and prithee no reply; but perchance thou hast feasted upon an excess of television? :P
 
4 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-27-2016, 08:28 PM   #19
montagdude
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2016
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,553

Rep: Reputation: 1178Reputation: 1178Reputation: 1178Reputation: 1178Reputation: 1178Reputation: 1178Reputation: 1178Reputation: 1178Reputation: 1178
The point of view in the OP would make sense on a different distro, say Ubuntu non-LTS or maybe an actual rolling release like Arch or Manjaro, the latter of which I know does put out "snapshot" ISOs from time to time. But tons of work and testing goes into a stable release of Slackware, which is why it's so good and worth getting excited about. Granted, I'm new here and I've been running -current for the last couple months since I started, but that's only because it was already at the RC stage and I didn't want to wait for 14.2 just to switch from Debian. I get the impression that -current isn't always as stable as it is right now, when it's very close to being the new -stable. In any case, it's not really meant to be a rolling release (though you can kind of use it that way), but more of a testing ground for the next stable release.
 
4 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-29-2016, 07:24 PM   #20
lazardo
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2010
Location: SD Bay Area
Posts: 208

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
More of a mixed bag for me.

* static stable.

A backup/distcc server running a functionally-pruned 13.37 (before that, slamd64). No updates except for truly critical things like filesystem bugs and hard core security patches.

* mostly stable, application-driven.

Photo related software is compiled from scratch, mostly git pulls, and has a lot of [sometimes obscure] library and/or compiler dependencies, so it is an app-driven, slow rolling release model with a stable slackware base. Usually one app/library upgrade every few months (rawtherapee, darktable, hugin, ufraw, luminance-hdr, geeqie, gimp, lensfun, Argyll, gutenprint).

When 14.2 is released, a slackware upgrade will done followed by all photo software+dependencies upgrade/rebuild.

* pure rolling current.

Bleeding edge skylake laptop that requires current, a 4.6+ kernel and Intel-centric git pulls just to run, and so hand selected, current plus intel extras release model. This will hopefully stabilize over the next six months.

All other systems tend to be more static and so only get security updates from patches/packages, except for browsers which are pulled directly from mozilla as released. These are upgraded to the next stable release only when slackware version trees are consolidated due to age or housekeeping.

Basically I would not survive without the slackware development+packaging+replaceable-kernel model

Cheers,

Last edited by lazardo; 05-29-2016 at 07:30 PM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-29-2016, 08:09 PM   #21
notKlaatu
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2010
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Distribution: Slackware, Fedora, NetBSD
Posts: 1,071

Rep: Reputation: 725Reputation: 725Reputation: 725Reputation: 725Reputation: 725Reputation: 725Reputation: 725
For me, the fact that Slackware is one of the few Linuxes that still bother differentiating what's in development vs what normal users are supposed to be using is exactly what sets it apart.

I have tried using alternatives, and so far only SUSE has an equal mix of longterm support for stability plus mix of "non-enterprise" packages.

But it's Slackware that offers me drop-dead simplistic packaging (that's the other thing that sets it apart from everything else).


Use Case: I'm a Linux consultant; if I can't keep up with production on Slackware, then I'd have to switch over to the custom Ubuntu/Debian flavour that the studios I work with run (based on VFX Reference Platform, in case anyone's curious), and even then, there are frequently codecs and apps they don't install, forcing me to make IT requests, etc. It just slows things down.

tl;dr
Versioning matters. We certainly don't see other OS's forsaking version numbers, so maybe Linux should not.

Last edited by notKlaatu; 05-29-2016 at 08:19 PM.
 
Old 05-30-2016, 12:49 AM   #22
a4z
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,727

Rep: Reputation: 740Reputation: 740Reputation: 740Reputation: 740Reputation: 740Reputation: 740Reputation: 740
Quote:
Originally Posted by notKlaatu View Post
For me, the fact that Slackware is one of the few Linuxes that still bother differentiating what's in development vs what normal users are supposed to be using is exactly what sets it apart.
one of the fiew?

RHEL/CentOS -> Fedora
Ubuntu LTS -> half year updates
Debian stable -> testing -> unstable
Suse / openSuse Leap -> openSuse Tumbleweed

all of them have more clear plans and are more predictable in their behaviour than Slackware


Quote:
Originally Posted by notKlaatu View Post
I have tried using alternatives, and so far only SUSE has an equal mix of longterm support for stability plus mix of "non-enterprise" packages.
you did not try hard enough the other alternatives,

Quote:
Originally Posted by notKlaatu View Post
But it's Slackware that offers me drop-dead simplistic packaging (that's the other thing that sets it apart from everything else).
agree, building RPM/deps is a night mare
That's whay Slackware is superior for testing/proto typing installation of packages and software.
But this could also be that my knowledge of RPM / deps or quick make stuff for such distros is limited and other people have better results on such distros.


Quote:
Originally Posted by notKlaatu View Post
Use Case: I'm a Linux consultant; if I can't keep up with production on Slackware, then I'd have to switch over to the custom Ubuntu/Debian flavour that the studios I work with run (based on VFX Reference Platform, in case anyone's curious), and even then, there are frequently codecs and apps they don't install, forcing me to make IT requests, etc. It just slows things down.
intresting , do you sell VFX work machines with Slackware installed to the industries?

Quote:
Originally Posted by notKlaatu View Post
Versioning matters. We certainly don't see other OS's forsaking version numbers, so maybe Linux should not.
yes, except for those rolling release distros which do not need any version other than current ;-)
 
Old 05-30-2016, 03:46 AM   #23
notKlaatu
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2010
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Distribution: Slackware, Fedora, NetBSD
Posts: 1,071

Rep: Reputation: 725Reputation: 725Reputation: 725Reputation: 725Reputation: 725Reputation: 725Reputation: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by a4z View Post
RHEL/CentOS -> Fedora
Ubuntu LTS -> half year updates
Debian stable -> testing -> unstable
Suse / openSuse Leap -> openSuse Tumbleweed

all of them have more clear plans and are more predictable in their behaviour than Slackware
I don't want to hijack the thread and explain why my tests lead me back to Slack, so I'll just say that I both agree and disagree with you.

Anyone can make any Linux do anything; I would never argue against that. As I said in my post, many of my clients use non-Slack distributions as a foundation for a heavily customised environment. All I'm saying is that Slackware makes my environment 1) easy to customise and 2) stable upon release and for the duration of its [long] lifespan.

You can take me at my word that I have found other distributions to be less reliable, or you can disagree and tell me that I should try harder on other distributions. But this is a thread questioning the usefulness of versioned releases, and I'm saying that I appreciate Slackware's versioning scheme, stable releases, and packaging system. That's all. :^)
 
6 members found this post helpful.
Old 05-30-2016, 06:42 AM   #24
kikinovak
MLED Founder
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Montpezat (South France)
Distribution: CentOS, OpenSUSE
Posts: 3,396

Rep: Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005Reputation: 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by a4z View Post
agree, building RPM/deps is a night mare
That's whay Slackware is superior for testing/proto typing installation of packages and software.
I'm building extra packages for both Slackware and RHEL/CentOS. The two procedures are quite different, but building your own RPMs is not too hard. There are many tutorials available on the web, here's my own quick & dirty HOWTO.

https://github.com/kikinovak/centos/...uild-HOWTO.txt

Fedora provides nearly every free software under the sun as SRPM, so it's relatively easy to rebuild this stuff on CentOS, for example.
 
Old 05-30-2016, 08:09 AM   #25
a4z
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,727

Rep: Reputation: 740Reputation: 740Reputation: 740Reputation: 740Reputation: 740Reputation: 740Reputation: 740
Quote:
Originally Posted by kikinovak View Post
I'm building extra packages for both Slackware and RHEL/CentOS. The two procedures are quite different, but building your own RPMs is not too hard. There are many tutorials available on the web, here's my own quick & dirty HOWTO.

https://github.com/kikinovak/centos/...uild-HOWTO.txt

Fedora provides nearly every free software under the sun as SRPM, so it's relatively easy to rebuild this stuff on CentOS, for example.
ok, copu and past works aways easy, until you need to write something from scratch.
hm, I know hot to build a rpm. even used the obs.
https://build.opensuse.org/package/v....spec?expand=1
90% of this file is mess. Required mess. Of course not when you put something in your own repo where missing dependencies do not matter, or it's not checked by some strange rpm linter, and there are not special 'where to place file rules' checked in the last instance, and therefore you do not need to care about things you hardly find in documentation. like special distribution macros. or .....

since Slackware has not rules you can not invalidate rules, that's great. superior, I would like to say. and reducing builds to something like for example Salix does is also nice.

but I will give the REHL/CentOs rpm a trial, possible they are less crazy to write
 
  


Reply

Tags
slackware 2016 and beyond, slackware-current, slackware-live, slackware64


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
Shouldn't "Slackware64" Become just "Slackware" and 32-bit Become "Slackware32"? foodown Slackware 6 06-23-2009 01:24 PM
Versioning filesystems - any experiences? Or: "is my life wrong?" piete Linux - General 1 07-09-2008 09:07 AM
"Back" and "Forward" side-buttons of my mouse Unforgiven79 Linux - Hardware 1 10-31-2006 12:10 AM
adsl+iptables+port forward+"-m tcp" strange problem icry0000 Linux - Networking 3 07-31-2005 09:31 PM
"I have a4 tech 5 button mouse but can't use the two for back&forward in browsing " aicholate Linux - Hardware 1 02-26-2004 11:16 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:15 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
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
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration