Preach it, brother! The simple structure of Slackware makes it easy for me to upgrade packages from source, at even to make new packages at will; I've hardly run into a problem that was insurmountable. My machine is running stable and fast. Slackware forever!

1 members found this post helpful.

@TobiSGD, It was very true with debian sid when debian moved from wheezy to jessie. It was especially bad with fresh debian sid installs...

If you aren't upgrading, patching, updating your Slackware system between stable releases, you are doing it wrong. Slackware is not a hold-your-hand distribution and requires its user base to have the skill set to do administrative work on their systems. This includes recompiling parts of your system for desirable upgrades such as Mesa if necessary. After having spent a great deal of time using Slackware over the last few months, this is what I've come to recognize as the Slackware way.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

You are blurring what I wrote. I never mentioned having experience with rolling release distros. I was also talking about how Slackware is developed and how it relates to stability. I wasn't starting a debate about which distribution is better due to its rapid release cycle. My point was clearly stated. You are talking about apples. I am talking about oranges. I will humor you by responding and take the bait. At least in part.

I think you are a bit confused about what Debian Sid is... I don't know where you got the idea that Debian Sid is a rolling release distribution. Debian Sid is the development branch of Debian, big difference. Comparing Debian Sid to a rolling release distribution is the equivalent to calling Slackware-current a rolling release distribution. Debian Sid was never designed to be ran as a production system, or even as a main system at home. Sid is the code name for Debian Unstable for a reason. I think people overlook this simple fact quite a bit.

I ran Debian for about 10 years starting in 2004. Debian Sid is fickle if you do not pay attention to the forecast of the repositories and watch the development mailing lists. If you aren't running into bugs or breakage you aren't using Debian Sid correctly (i.e. not updating until a week after a major update). The whole point of running Debian Sid is to find breakage and report it. If you run Debian Sid by hanging back and waiting for stability, you probably should be running Debian Testing, and have no business running Sid.

Furthermore, a Debian system that is a mix between Stable/Testing, Stable/Unstable, Testing/Unstable, or Stable/Testing/Unstable is considered broken in the eyes of the Debian development team. Debian was not designed as a mixed system. Each branch is designed as a software set of specific dependencies that work together. Running a mixed system will guarantee instability and almost always calls for a full system re-installation after some time. In this, I am speaking from experience.

Finally, Slackware isn't quite as dependent on such a model. It is possible to upgrade, say Mesa / related dependencies of Mesa, and have what is still considered to be a stable Slackware system. I am sure there are other examples that would back up my point. However, I am not motivated enough to expand my point any further since my point will most likely be missed in the end anyway. Again, apples and oranges.

Uhh, debian sid is a rolling distribution, as much as pclinuxos, slackware current, arch, gentoo and some others are. Sure the specifics are different, but a rolling release is not a specific term.

I don't know if there is a "Slackware way" in regards to upgrading major system packages like Mesa. I don't think the "Slackware way" requires users to be able to rebuild the OS or even rebuild a kernel. Sure, some users prefer it that way, and you'll run into a lot of those types of users on forums like this, but I think the "Slackware way" is to accept what Pat and team have done and decide if you want to change it. They provide you all the tools to customize the OS to your liking, but how you choose to do that is your own choice. Some slackers may be content installing the latest stable and only upgrading packages as official patches become available (if they even do that -- when I started out, I didn't even know about the patches/ directory, so I was always just running the unpatched stable release) solely waiting until a new stable is released to upgrade the rest. Others have specific needs that require updating the official packages beyond their "stable" release (or even just recompiling them to enable a feature). Others have itches that they need to scratch by installing things that are not needed, but want to try out ("let's see what this latest kernel offers").

I think the Slackware way is to make the OS the way you want it. If you're happy with the stock install, install it and be happy until the next release comes out. If you want to make changes, make those changes.

I say all this because upgrading Mesa on 14.1 to the latest (or a later) version is no small task. When I did it back in December (before -current had new enough versions the features I wanted), it required several source builds of packages in -current (including recompiling all of X) and required other packages to be upgraded even further than what was in -current. And to top it off, I had the fun of recompiling everything again in a 32bit VM to get the necessary 32bit packages so I could convert them into multilib packages.

I don't think every user of Slackware can to do that, nor do I think all should be able to do that (that would set the bar quite high for someone to become a Slacker). I hope all Slackers aspire to be able to do that someday, but if they don't, I don't think that means they aren't following the "Slackware way".

Rather, this is a term of which you don't know the meaning. Although not perfect this will give you a clue.

1 members found this post helpful.

Rolling release is a specific term. It means that there is never an actual release, but the packages are continually upgraded. Slackware-current acts like a rolling release most of the time, but it does end up becoming the next stable release, which, by definition, means it's not a rolling release.

This is no different then getting the latest source from some github project and installing it before they make a new release. It doesn't mean that they're suddenly doing a rolling release since you got it outside their release schedule, it just means you're helping in their development (hopefully you're actually helping by submitting bugs if you come across them).

I hope you realize that this totally contradicts what you have said in your earlier post:If you upgrade parts of the system yourself you don't have a well tested system anymore. Or in other words, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
I am not blurring anything. Even if your points about Debian Sid were true (by the way, it is called Unstable not because it can break, but because version changes of packages occur), which I do not think they are, and leaving aside that I never wrote about mixing repositories, you still have made the statement that rolling release distros inherently have to break in major ways on almost any upgrade:This is simply not true (both Gentoo and Arch have a stable and a testing branch, rolling release distros like PCLinuxOS that don't want to always have the latest software are also considered stable). Since you state that you have no experience with rolling release distros it is clear that your opinions on them rely on hear-say and further discussing them with you is mood.

Thanks for clarifying. I guess I just assumed based on the openness of Slackware that most people did rebuild parts of their system for the customizations they wanted. (Though, not always large parts like Mesa.) I do realize though some just use a vanilla installation, and this is the case with many people in any OS.

I probably went too far to say so forwardly that just anyone could rebuild Mesa. I meant that it seems like, based on what I've seen on these forums, that most Slackers are very in tune administrators. I exaggerated a bit with those remarks, but only because of my high opinion of Slackers in general.

Slackware is designed to be user contributed at some level and administratively controlled after installation. It ships slackpkg in a default state with all mirrors disabled, and has special inputs for admin/user defined repositories. You can effectively make Slackware your own through careful planning and even, if desired, you can/could add things like hardening patches to use SELinux style controls for example. Just clone the source repo, edit the builds, patch, rebuild, and deploy.

No, I don't believe there is a contradiction. I believe that everyone should patch their system and update software that has bugs. I never said anything along the lines that suggested anyone only use vanilla installations of Slackware stable releases.

I've never heard such a thing in my life. You are teaching me so much that I didn't know! Based on your statement I can only assume that:

• Updating any part of a system with new software or security patches, that were not originally apart of the vanilla release, causes instability.
• That any added software bug fixes or security patches that are not tested by the developer of an operating system will cause instability.
• Also that, upstream developers do not test their software for bugs or security holes.
• Finally, that operating system developers are the only people with the expertise to install software within an OS.

You are totally correct. Debian Sid doesn't break. It is a stable operating system. It is as stable as any stable release of Debian. Again you have taught me something very important, oh wise one.

I didn't say if I did or did not have experience. I also didn't say if I have or have not used Arch, Gentoo, or any other distribution besides Debian. I am not entirely sure why it's so important either. I was disagreeing with the idea of using a rolling release cycle to develop an operating system. To clarify, I was simply stating that Slackware has a superior development cycle.

How do you know it is hearsay? Anyway, I am glad you feel this way, I don't care to discuss anything with you either!

3 members found this post helpful.

@mralk3: At this point it is clear to me that you are not interested in an honest discussion anymore, you put things in my mouth I never said, so I will cease any further discussion with you.

@TobiSGD:You have already clearly stated your current opinion about Slackware:Maybe this influences the way you react, that I feel somehow aggressive (maybe because English is not my native language). mralk3 is a newcomer here and I appreciate his contributions so far, so I hope that won't discourage him to post in this forum.

2 members found this post helpful.

I don't want to discourage anyone from posting here, and indeed, my current opinion about Slackware is clear and well known to many members of this forum. Though, I don't see how my opinions about Slackware would have any influence on the factual correctness of mralk3's statements or his attempts to put words in my mouth.

Respectfully, I found it a jape rather than a constructive discussion. Take it easy my friend. Of course many people in this forum would agree with you. But I don't think this is a right way to put your opinions.
I don't think Tobi words are aggressive either. I have learned a lot of useful things from his previous discussions with Slackers.