I understand and respect the purists who insist on saying and using GNU/Linux, and I like that there are distros that ship free open source software. However, I prefer a more pragmatic approach. I really appreciate the Debian people who distribute installation ISOs with non-free software. I can of course get the non-free drivers for my NIC, etc. and install them, but, I don't have a problem with using non-free software.
I really appreciate that our BDFL includes a lot of software so that my video card, sound card, and network adapter work properly.
That's the beautiful thing about our ecosystem. We get to choose what our computing experience will be like. Choice is a very good thing.

I know this guy. He posts on Quora a lot. :^D

Have you ever heard of Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD?

Yeah, the BSD kernels are valuable alternatives for a "Linux distribution" without the Linux kernel.

BUT, the Hurd kernel is just a fantasy. A communist fantasy.

EDIT: I apologize! The Firefox auto-correction tricked me regarding the naming of GNU/Hurd. But, honestly, maybe that Firefox AI knows something...

If it has no Power Shell it ain't no win 10

GNU/Hurd has nothing to do with "communists". Please desist from spreading misinformation.

I wouldn't also say it was a communist ideal, but yea - I wouldn't hold your breath with HURD -- maybe in another few decades, when everybody is geriatric, (for those who are already geriatric and already shed their mortal shell...) , it might be ........somewhat usable.... :p lol :D

How is it that the folks who managed to give us a splendid Unix OS require more than 20 years to write a kernel?

Isn't that exactly because of the HURD? Being a parallel on-demand kernel it is extremely hard to debug especially in initial development. Everything is so interdependent you fix one thing and five others break because of the "fix". The "one-step-at-a-time approach is far simpler.

I don't know, this seems legit. :p

I believe they have written a kernel.

I believe they haven't written all of the user-space bits (given the way that kernel was designed) that manage to work together to do little things such as accessing devices according to who you are.

If you want to be picky, I believe that Linux came about because Mr. Torvalds told his CompSci instructor that he could write an integrated kernel faster than some group of people could write a micro-kernel.

Turned out he was correct. However, there is speculation that a lot of brainpower that could have gone into making a GNU micro-kernel fully operational (HURD or not) has gone into extending the linux kernel instead.

Linux has had over 20 years of hardware vendor support accelerating rapidly in the last 10 years, Hurd has not.

Linux has sponsorship, via the Linux Foundation, which means it's funded by the likes of Microsoft, IBM Red Hat, Intel, Google and many more. Hurd has not.

20 years ago Microsoft fanbois might have sneered at Linux as just a "communist fantasy". 20 years ago, many used Linux precisely to avoid the restrictive, extortionate and inferior offerings from MS and dealt with the lack of "hardware support" with good grace - now MS are a big donor and many of todays Linux fans have no problem at all.

Now Linux fans sneer at Hurd, the BSD's, anything which lacks "hardware support"... by "hardware support" of course, they refer to device drivers coded by developers on the payroll of Intel, Qualcom, AMD, etc.

Apple did ok with their mach derived XNU, due to being a multi-billion dollar global business, paying developers to work on it.

The "fantasy" is this idea that Linux is not the product of developers on the corporate payroll, to serve the needs of said corporate backers, but some "free as in freedom" volunteers' effort for desktop hobbyists.

The Hurd has less hardware support than Linux, not even amd64 arch is supported, therefore inferior.

Linux has less hardware support than Windows, therefore inferior.

Great post, cynwulf, until the last sentence maybe. It is my understanding that currently modern Linux kernels supports substantially more hardware than does modern Windows.

In some ways, i wonder whether dys/mal-functional 'beings' like ialexand (and now bgpepi) demonstrate that slackware has been and still is the reigning distro. Best when it comes to stability, power and ease of use, hardware support and more.

Why else, would anyone bother registering to a forum to bitch about its content if not to try as hard and as rudely as possible to discourage other user? I believe, that even newbies, soon or later, realize that no one would do that except from pure fear and/or terror to be (as always been) inferior.

No matter how hard they (trolls) try, they will never succeed to dishearten me from using and praising slackware and its developers.

Taken with a pinch of psychology in mind, we should maybe thank trolls for confirming our choice and, perhaps remind them that there are always 'windows' to jump from just in case.

So, here is my thank you, ialexand and bgpepi.

p.s.: perhaps, there should be ONLY one reply to such future posts: a link where slackware info may be found (just in case it's an authentic question) and that's it!

but Slackware is dead...

It is dead on course to be the longest surviving distro out there :D

Not only that, but they're all supported by closed source firmware. AMD and Intel can usually easily use open source drivers (some Nvidia work decently with the nouveau driver, but certainly not great), but AFAIK, all modern cards will require closed source firmware for proper usability.

With direct included support, the Linux kernel is much better with hardware support than Windows. But I wonder if that is the case for out-of-tree drivers? First thought was yes, but then I started thinking about it. MS devs (or maybe manufacturers) have a habit of deprecating older devices with newer versions of Windows, when it's rare for hardware support to be deprecated (if it ever happens).

So, if we're comparing devices that ever had Windows support vs ever had Linux support, Windows would certainly win. However, if we compare current modern Linux support with current Windows 10 support, I'd imagine Linux would be higher.

This has been my pointless TED talk. :)

It's official. I read the news today, oh boy:

https://news.itsfoss.com/slackware-15-beta-release/

Aside from a few parts, the code committed by Intel or AMD towards the Linux DRM/KMS driver stack is permissive licensed. GPL has likely been avoided there for the usual reasons. The next layer is the firmware, which is closed and proprietary, followed by the hardware itself which is closed. Thus those drivers qualify as mixed "open source" and proprietary, but certainly not "free". AMD and Intel have not risked exposing any proprietary IP.

It's crowned the oldest

:D Slackware is the English queen of GNU/Linux now :D

...and they (of course) are linking directly to AlienBob's installation iso on slackware.uk which the page author describes accurately as unofficial. No mention of the (equally unofficial) live iso.

I'll chip in a little bit to the server bandwidth fund this week. I suspect (and hope) that the red bar at the bottom of the page will be getting longer.

Okay, I don't visit LQ as often as some but I'm going to pop up for a moment. I'm amused to the head-shaking point at that first post, and pleased to see that obvious trollery can be redirected into a good discussion. My contribution: Slackware is not dead. That is all.

Carry on. ;)

Haha! Agreed. My favourite operating system is very much alive. 15.0 is shaping up to be another stellar release. :)

I thought that with Slackware-15.0 beta (or even alpha), there would be an end to this nonsense. Whoever heard of a dead distro fielding a new release candidate?

Ah, now you're talking logic, and we can't have that! :) These threads gain a weird momentum after a while, logic be damned. And as you can see, the OP, with four posts to his name, hasn't replied since 3/22.

is the OP (account wise) dead?

Last activity on the account was 22 MAR (the day of the first post on this thread). So, it's been almost a month since that person has been signed into their account.

Just another angry or jealous troll seeking some attention. The good news is they're a flash in the pan.
The dogs bark and the Slackware caravan moves on :D

That's not saying however that another (one of many) troll account isn't being used instead :\

I meant to point to the irony:

Slackware outlived much more trolling accounts than many other distros with heck a lot bigger "pedigree" ;)

And is about to do so for many more years to come :D

The OP should have consulted Netcraft... It would confirm it.

All I can say to the original starting post is: switch if you must, but Red Hat is probably among the *least* Slackware-like of distros!

Slackware is one of the few remaining islands of stability and well thought out engineering solutions in the world of "effective management".
The 15th version is expected to be better than ever, a lot of things will now work right away, without a rasp reworking.

Moderators should mark this thread solved.

Let's leave that for the release day?

Pros and Cons Here is a list of things that I personally see as pros and cons of the Slackware distro. There is always room for discussion in this matter, but I’ve tried to be objective as possible.
P r o s
• Slackware is a very stable distribution.
• It offers a very simple UNIX-like design.
• It is an original distribution.
• It’s highly configurable.
• It offers very simple configuration trough scripts and text files.
• The packages are almost pure upstream ones, without modifications.

Cons
• The package managers do not resolve dependencies.
• It is not a user-friendly distro.
• There’s a long time between releases, so it has outdated packages.
• If you want additional packages, you have to use third party repositories.
• It has no commercial support and a very small community.
• It has poor documentation and it’s outdated.
• No Gnome support.
• There is only the outdated LILO as boot loader.

That at least is not true. Slackware includes both LILO/ELILO and GRUB.

And saying that it isn't user-friendly is misleading because there is such a wide range of possible users for any software. Most people misuse the term "user-friendly" to mean "novice-friendly". Slackware is certainly not designed for novices, and most of those would do better with Ubuntu or Mint. But if you are the kind of user Slackware was designed for, you will find it very friendly because it is internally simple and doesn't do anything behind your back. In any case, no one stays a novice for long.

If you want to learn more about Linux, my sugestion is Slackware. I already learned a lot of commands through my Linux story, and on Slackware i learned even more. Sometimes i had problems, and then i created some "weird" ways to solve them. And i like it XD

Quite good with some I disagree with :
User friendly : at least for me it is from far the most
Time between releases : between 14.2 and 15 it's true but not a rule
Additionnal pkgs : SBo is endorsed even if complicated since long period since 14.2
Documentation : some parts to be refreshed since 14.2
Gnome : your personal
Lilo : not true

Some Slackware users, my self included see this as a Pro.

I find it otherwise, true in the aspect you are not spoon fed every step of the way. I've always seen it as you have some responsibility to learn things on your own.

These 2 points are highly co-related, but my personal take regarding communities and user base - the quality (structure) of user base is huge advantage on Slackware, although it is not big in size. It is small, but quite knowledgeable, experienced and powerful.

There are not many distros where BDFL and core developers are participating and helping users directly. I highly doubt that there is thread on certain topic that could not be answered by these (you!) guys.

Slackware is outdated. No releases schedule, no communication, users are playing all the time guess game - about date of next release. But more important of all - idea behind Slackware is outdated. Even 10 years ago was good - but no more. Sbopkg's don't resolve problem -some scripts are weak - some can't be build on without having powerhorse computer. Should I spend a lot of money to buy computer to able to build some scripts? Definitely not. Slackware definitely need some fresh air. As we know our BDFL is running Slackware on 44 processors cluster - this is idea of hardware to run Slackware? Something here is definitely wrong. Last release was - wait 5 years ago! It is a mess. I am sure today it is not possible to create distribution good for everything. We are waiting because some part of - well does not work as it supposed. This part was fixed - another in meantime brake off. That's crazy. This way we can wait the next 2 years. I mean I won't. Probably I will give at all Linux - was nice 10 years ago - now is too much commercialized as for me - pay or donate - what's difference. Donate is like freeware for Windows. Looks what happened - Centos killed - Slackware is only virtual - others are tainted by d-s.. now another taints come. It is even better to switch to Windows. The answer what should I use was given time ago but someone who lost job and claimed it had now uninstall Slackware - install Centos to learn - to find a job. That' your answer. For curious people you find the story here on LQ.

Funny. These are all on my Pro list... :D

Though having a different view on the red ones.

Just FTR and in conversation, Igadoter, but...
Outdated? For doing what? There's nothing I want to do that I can't on Current and very little I can't do even on 14.2. Release schedule? Why should I care? Communication? When is the last time you communicated with the actual devs of any other OpSys? Ours are commonly right here just to mention one place.

Powerhouse PC? First what it takes to comfortably build a distro is very different from what it takes to run it. Not only do I have a 2007 2GHz Core 2 w/4GB Ram happily running both 14.2 and Current (multiboot) with a 5.10.20 kernel but it builds kernels and packages just fine, especially since I got a $40 250GB SSD.

Last (official) release was 5 years ago? So what? It still works, can still be updated IF DESIRED and by comparison Win10 costs ~$140 USD just to get started, absent AntiVirus, Office, etc., came out 6 years ago and forces upgrades and spies on you even if you encrypt and "phones home" your data and even emails on unsecured networks.

Hey if you honestly think Win10 or Centos are better operating systems, it's your choice. Good luck.

Some find this as a negative, many Slackware users find it as a positive.

Depends on the person. I find Slackware a lot easier to use than when I have to deal with other distros. Probably a case of what people are used to. If you're used to Ubuntu, Arch, or Gentoo, Slackware is going to require a change of usage, just as I'd need to change how I use another distro.

This has been a frustrating thing with the last two releases. However, there is no set release schedule (which can be a pro and a con), so future releases may be faster now that a lot of big changes have been made.

When you think about it, this really isn't that much different than other distros... Most distros have a large number of people providing official packages. Instead, Slackware has one person (with help from a few others) and SBo is the other people chipping in that already occurs on most other distros.

I do like the small community feel, but I can understand why some would see these as a con.

Most distros don't provide documentation. Arch is the basically industry standard and you still find outdated info on there (although, it isn't common). However, most documentation doesn't need to be distro specific. Many times there's no need to duplicate documentation on a topic that's found elsewhere.

There's several projects out there that provide Gnome for Slackware. Two big ones are Dropline Gnome and Dlackware (Dlackware includes systemd). There's also the forked version of Gnome2, Mate, available via MSB, and the Gnome3 fork, Cinnamon, available via CSB.

As others have said, Slackware includes multiple bootloaders (lilo, elilo, grub2, and syslinux). However, lilo is default with BIOS based systems (or UEFI systems with legacy mode enabled) and elilo is default with UEFI systems. The installer doesn't give you the ability to choose another bootloader, but you're able to set those up after you complete the setup before you reboot.

In the old good times people were rather discouraged to run -current. At least this changed. Today people are encouraged to run -current due to outdated kernel and other many things - say if one wants bluetooth audio device - for sure needs pipewire (why ist PipeWire?)

No, Bluetooth headphones work with PA. Or do you mean Bluetooth headphones mic - does it already work on Linux? Because last time I tried (last Tuesday) it kinda "worked" as usual but in general it is unusable. The only Linux-based system on which Bluetooth headphones mic works well is Android.

Works also quite fine on a PipeWire audio server. On Slackware-current.

Speaking of it, you guys are aware that Slackware is PipeWire-ready technically simultaneous with Fedora, the very inventors of this thing?

Fedora 34 wasn't YET released with PipeWire as default audio server, BTW...

BUT, as well our BDFL can release (IF he wish) the Slackware 15.0 as SECOND distribution doing this thing.

Or even the FIRST, if he polish fast enough the other things on -current.

Speaking of how ancient is Slackware a lot... ;)

What do you mean by "fine"? Is the quality of the recording the same as with, say, laptop's internal mic? It also "works" on PA but the quality is horrible, there were big problems with that https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pulse...e_requests/288, https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pulse...o/-/issues/776 but indeed people say that mic works well on Pipewire. Good, I'll give it a try.
Well I have never claimed that, the fact that I'm using it at work to perform all software developer's tasks in year 2021 speaks for itself :)

By "fine" I mean effectively "fine" as my headphones with mic (which I use for Skype calls) works absolutely fine - while connected at a cheap USB Bluetooth adapter of Chinese origin plugged on PC. On PulseAudio, that mic is not even present, so I have no way to make further comparation.

Anyway, the overall quality of PipeWire as audio server feels highly superior to PulseAudio. Crystal clear.

Initially, I was an evangelist of PipeWire as video server for Wayland/Plasma5 usage, BUT after I discovered how well works on the audio side (while @ZhaoLin457 posted his setup for PipeWire with that daemon) and how well handle the Bluetooth audio devices, I switched all my boxes on using it as default audio server.

Great, good to know. I have MS Teams videocalls every day now, earlier I tried to use my Bose QC Bluetooth mic to free myself from the desk but it just didn't work out. I hope it will be fine now and I'll be able to chat walking around the office.