Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
We do use Slackware for enterprise stuff...
Hi there
We do use Slackware at work. It rocks. It's great to be the SquidMaster in my intranet (all my other coworkers excepting the boss can't access "those" websites ;) ). |
Though I'm still new to Slackware, I'd like to add my small comment...
i bought an eMachine W3502. I tried to install: Xandrso OS3 Deluxe--- FAILED I tried various options.. It would jsut hag during install Xandrso OS2 Deluxe----FAILED " ' ' ' ' ' ' SuSE 10.0 Boxed Ed-----FAILED Went on, wouldn't boot Fedora CORE 5---------FAILED Graphis so far out of whack I couldn't dom anything Mepis-----------------No sound, graphics were weird Knoppix (various versions)---FAILED refused to install on HD Pink Tie Linux---------FAILED Graphics so far out of whack it was uninstallable Darkstar Linux--------FAILED went on.. wouldn't boot Ubuntu----------------FAILED Graphics all messed up Kubuntu---------------FAILED ' ' ' ' ' ' Mandrake--------------FAILED ' ' ' ' ' etc.------------------FAILED ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Slackware 10.2--------SUCCESS Flawless (after I reburned install media.) Why this is, I have no idea. But, if it wasn'r for Slackware, I would not be using Linux at all on this box. -Joe |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Debian-based distros as a class - forget it, no network access. I tried Debian, PCLinuxOS, Mepis, U/Kubuntu. Xandros - no network. Arch - no network. Fedora Core 3 mysteriously accessed the drive too often for my taste. *BSDs - no network. For some reason, though, SUSE and Slackware-based distros work on my system flawlessly. VectorLinux worked great. Slackware worked great. Zenwalk Live works great. Zenwalk is currently working wonderfully. Slackware and its derivatives are simply better at detecting network hardware / "Winmodems." |
I run older hardware, so Slackware is perfect for my needs. Slackware runs very fast out of the box.
|
Quote:
Quote:
As I said, Slackware is a good system. I really liked it as a tool that can be used virtually everywhere (from desktop to server). But that has changed. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This describes some approaches: http://www.yazzy.org/docs/NetBSD/netbsd-on-cf.txt Quote:
|
to danieldk:
I'd agree in many points with you. Only I don't see Slackware's goal as the all-task-covering/all-purpose distribution. It may be suitable for standalone servers, simple desktops/workstations and routers while not straying from pure and proven unix concepts and keeping prestigious reliability. If I'd have to maintain incosiderable amount of custom packages for a specific task, I'd consider it twice to choose Slackware, although I like its concept the most. For example my "limit" for an Imap/Smtp server is to keep up-to-date Clamav, SpamAssassin, Spamass-milter and bunch of less then 10 Perl modules. Concerning building of a minimal system I've thought about standard ways by using default installation tool and package management, not about such hacks ;) When you also selectively pick up libraries from glibc-solibs (libc, libutil and libm covers most of dependencies and are total of 1,33 MiB - ver. 2.3.6), use minimalistic shell as ash (0,09 MiB) and custom kernel (~ 1 MiB) and some stripped down utilities, you may get a very small system without hacking with busybox or even dietlibc. Getting Slack on 32MiB CFlash is troublefree if you know what you are doing. |
I don't know why I use Slackware.. Pat V and his little lemmings constantly piss me off to no end.
They don't ever seem to have a mind of their own. What Pat V says seems to be law. For some reason though, after a year or so of bouncing around from distro to distro, I always found myself back to using Slackware. Yes it may be lacking in many areas but that is how it was created, leaving it to the user to customise it to his/her own needs. Do I like the philosophies of it's creator or some of its users? No I don't, but I do respect the work he and others put into creating it. It takes minutes to install unlike most others, I don't have to go through a bunch of B.S. installing dev tools and headers to compile a simple program like some others, I don't end up with a super bloated desktop that runs slow as hell like some others, and last but not least, I don't have 3/4 of my system replaced when using apt to upgrade a non distro supported package. I like the fact I can install a .tgz and if it don't run, I can find the few things it may be whining about and upgrade/install them and go although I usually just end up creating my own packages that I may use later on should the need arise to do a reinstall. One of the things I "REALLY" like is the fact that if one actually takes time to read some of the config files in /etc, alot of it is preconfigured for you. You just find what it is that you need, uncomment it, and go. I guess I could go on and on but I think that gives a few reasons I prefer using Slackware over others. If there was another Slackware type o/s that was as simple and clean I would probably use it since like I stated before that I don't tend to agree with some of the knucklehead B.S. that it's maintainer does, but looking past that, for the most part, he and his buddies do great work and until something does show up I will continue to use Slack. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:40 PM. |