SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
The kernel developers' mantra is "DON'T BREAK USERSPACE."* So yes, you can (barring kernel bugs) take a newer kernel and use it. I'm currently running 6.5.5 (starting with the Slackware kernel config, using "make oldconfig", and very very few tweaks on top of that).
The whole point of this thread is people using "the latest kernel release" and reporting success/problems with it.
*Ironically the whole reason you are posting in this thread is the loss of ReiserFS, which is ... breaking userspace.
If ReiserFS were to just be removed without any sort of heads-up I would probably agree, but the removal is slated for 2025 so that should give enough users time to migrate to a different FS, or unless there is enough uproar to delay that decision which I doubt.
If ReiserFS were to just be removed without any sort of heads-up I would probably agree, but the removal is slated for 2025 so that should give enough users time to migrate to a different FS, or unless there is enough uproar to delay that decision which I doubt.
Not that we are asked about it, or that our opinion is relevant, but I can't help the impression that ReiserFS' lime time is over with phasing out spinning platers and their physically moving heads.
For the while I've used Reiser I used it for that very property - the disk drive would clearly sound releived of much of the stress while keeping, if not surpassing the performance from before.
That is the fact even today - i'm yet to see any FS to perform comparably to ReiseFS of any vintage.
How ever it is put it saddens me to see it go - there are quite few FS that receive same if not less maintenance yet i don't see anyone attempt, let alone mention culling it from the tree.
I always conceived the kernel project part as a bleeding edge project part as a heritage custodian with the variety of FS and partition scheme support - I was (oh, silly me) under the impression we will always have the option to access an vintage computer or storage merely by the means of compiling an old FS from the source.
I will certainly try to follow up how this will unfold.
Not that we are asked about it, or that our opinion is relevant, but I can't help the impression that ReiserFS' lime time is over with phasing out spinning platers and their physically moving heads.
For the while I've used Reiser I used it for that very property - the disk drive would clearly sound releived of much of the stress while keeping, if not surpassing the performance from before.
That is the fact even today - i'm yet to see any FS to perform comparably to ReiseFS of any vintage.
How ever it is put it saddens me to see it go - there are quite few FS that receive same if not less maintenance yet i don't see anyone attempt, let alone mention culling it from the tree.
I always conceived the kernel project part as a bleeding edge project part as a heritage custodian with the variety of FS and partition scheme support - I was (oh, silly me) under the impression we will always have the option to access an vintage computer or storage merely by the means of compiling an old FS from the source.
I will certainly try to follow up how this will unfold.
With regards to spinning platter disks being phased out, the problem is there isn't a lot of focus on NAND-based filesystems in majority of Linux distros. AFAIK Slackware is the only one that supports F2FS as a choice to install (granted you can't boot off of it, you need a non F2FS partition), but also I recall I was one of the users requesting that and it luckily got included. Again ext4 XFS JFS are fine filesystems and I use XFS on my conventional spinning platter disk that holds my /home ; but I am still wondering when more distros are going to start considering F2FS as a choice during install. Also there is JFFS2, and it would be nice to also see that included in Slackware; again ext4 and JFS while fine; they were written during a time when it was still spinning platters, and NAND devices were more of an afterthought with the support of TRIM. F2FS was written FOR SSDs, JFFS2 probably as well.
As for ReiserFS I can't say I am attached to it, I remember using it briefly back in the 00s , but I found JFS and XFS together just suited me better.
, but I am still wondering when more distros are going to start considering F2FS as a choice during install.
I was a fan of f2fs for devices like SD cards or USB sticks, but now btrfs is better on all counts for these kinds of devices are well as SSD en NVMe. So btrfs is the file system created for the partitions formatted during installation in the "auto partitioning" mode (in manual partitioning mode ext4 and xfs are also available).
I was a fan of f2fs for devices like SD cards or USB sticks, but now btrfs is better on all counts for these kinds of devices are well as SSD en NVMe. So btrfs is the file system created for the partitions formatted during installation in the "auto partitioning" mode (in manual partitioning mode ext4 and xfs are also available).
I'm not convinced to even try BTRFS only because from what I have seen it is not considered 'stable' because there are features that are still marked as 'experimental' , plus again while BTRFS tries to replicate what ZFS does, it still seems written from the ground up for spinning platter disks in mind initially. So far, I haven't had any issues with F2FS as my / partition , granted I need an ext4 to boot but thats just a minor gripe.
Distribution: VM Host: Slackware-current, VM Guests: Artix, Venom, antiX, Gentoo, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OpenIndiana
Posts: 1,015
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didier Spaier
I was a fan of f2fs for devices like SD cards or USB sticks, but now btrfs is better on all counts for these kinds of devices are well as SSD en NVMe. So btrfs is the file system created for the partitions formatted during installation in the "auto partitioning" mode (in manual partitioning mode ext4 and xfs are also available).
Why would anyone use BTFRS on desktop (which is main Slackware application - that is desktop/workstation)? You are confusing server config with multiple drives with desktop. Not to mention that it is designed for large files/volumes. BRFS was not (in contrast to F2FS) designed for NVMe.
Pushing BTRFS everywhere you can is just ridiculous.
@Aeterna and @Jeebizz: I don't know on what you base your opinions. No issue has been reported so far by Slint users about btrfs as root file system, very responsive including on a small USB stick and needing roughly half the space needed by ext4 with our default settings. Anyway we won't convince each other, so let's agree to disagree.
I would like to tell you that for several years I have been using Slackware installed in a 64GB Sandisk SD-card, which has an F2FS formatted root partition and next to it is an EFS partition (UEFI) and a BIOS Boot partition for GRUB2, everything in a GPT partition table.
My friends laugh that my SD-card "identifies" as SSD, but I use this Slackware installation daily since years.
It is not true that it is not possible to boot from F2FS. GRUB2 may well use such a partition. Or maybe you are referring to these ancient bootloaders that are still forced down the throats of Slackware users?
These ancient bootloaders do not work in my Z83-F mini-PC anyway.
Last edited by ZhaoLin1457; 10-08-2023 at 05:59 AM.
desktop (which is main Slackware application - that is desktop/workstation)?
I agree that it is rather easy to configure Slackware for desktop usage by enabling a graphical login manager. However in my experience it is also easy to configure Slackware for different server purposes:
As a file server sharing big raid disks with NFS and/or samba
As a web server sharing pages with apache
As a mail server with sendmail or postfix
As a DNS server with bind
As an ldap server with openldap
As an SQL server with mariadb
As a VPN server with openvpn
As a NIS server with ypserv in the yptools package
The above are examples for which I have used Slackware for during the years, none of the above require any third party packages from sources like SlackBuilds.org.
Slackware behaves very well as a server and a client in a networked environment. The net-snmp package allows for easy monitoring of status of servers and workstations using third party packages like mrtg or nagios and you might get even better overview of how things are connected in the network by installing a third party package with lldpd.
I would like to tell you that for several years I have been using Slackware installed in a 64GB Sandisk SD-card, which has an F2FS formatted root partition and next to it is an EFS partition (UEFI) and a BIOS Boot partition for GRUB2, everything in a GPT partition table.
My friends laugh that my SD-card "identifies" as SSD, but I use this Slackware installation daily since years.
It is not true that it is not possible to boot from F2FS. GRUB2 may well use such a partition. Or maybe you are referring to these ancient bootloaders that are still forced down the throats of Slackware users?
These ancient bootloaders do not work in my Z83-F mini-PC anyway.
I guess that is the difference. When I setup F2FS and installed LILO on it, it would not boot but obviously it seems GRUB2 is much more versatile in this regard. LILO does not play nice with F2FS and needs a regular ext2/3/4 or JFS partition - then again it won't play nice with XFS either still so there is also that.
@Aeterna and @Jeebizz: I don't know on what you base your opinions. No issue has been reported so far by Slint users about btrfs as root file system, very responsive including on a small USB stick and needing roughly half the space needed by ext4 with our default settings. Anyway we won't convince each other, so let's agree to disagree.
It is not really an opinion, BTRFS is literally trying to be what ZFS is which is fine - its just not my use case for data storage though.
Distribution: VM Host: Slackware-current, VM Guests: Artix, Venom, antiX, Gentoo, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OpenIndiana
Posts: 1,015
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by henca
I agree that it is rather easy to configure Slackware for desktop usage by enabling a graphical login manager. However in my experience it is also easy to configure Slackware for different server purposes:
As a file server sharing big raid disks with NFS and/or samba
As a web server sharing pages with apache
As a mail server with sendmail or postfix
As a DNS server with bind
As an ldap server with openldap
As an SQL server with mariadb
As a VPN server with openvpn
As a NIS server with ypserv in the yptools package
The above are examples for which I have used Slackware for during the years, none of the above require any third party packages from sources like SlackBuilds.org.
Slackware behaves very well as a server and a client in a networked environment. The net-snmp package allows for easy monitoring of status of servers and workstations using third party packages like mrtg or nagios and you might get even better overview of how things are connected in the network by installing a third party package with lldpd.
regards Henrik
I never said that Slackware can't be configured as server. I have no doubt that Slackware is used as server. What I said is that most of the users (here) have set up Slackware as desktop/workstation.
Any unix-like system I used (Linux, BSD, Opensolaris, OS X) at some point was configured as amateur server with one or other purpose.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
I never said that Slackware can't be configured as server. I have no doubt that Slackware is used as server. What I said is that most of the users (here) have set up Slackware as desktop/workstation.
