Who's using Slackware?
 

Howdy Forum,

Can anyone direct me to data, or an article with data and examples on who uses Slackware? By "who" I mean businesses, websites, research labs, people I may have heard of somewhere outside of a Linux forum ;)

I'm curious for two reasons:

• Slackware, Inc. maintains a port for the S/390 --- how many customers do they have? most often for mainframes I hear about RedHat and SuSE.
  
• Whenever I tell other Linux users I use Slackware, I get funny responses (funny can mean either "humorous" or "weird").

Example:

Also, I'm interviewing prospective grad school advisors, and one of them told me his lab uses Linux -- which was a big plus for him over his competition -- and then we chatted a little about Linux; I told him I use Slackware, and he said "Whoa, now that's old-fashioned!" I told him, no big deal, if someone else is administrating it, then I'll use whatever distro. When I'm in charge, I like Slackware.

Now, I know from reading the history and a few other weird emails I've gotten that Slackware is the oldest surviving distro, and that it was at one time the dominant distro. However, I found out about Slackware just from reading on the internet and from trying out different distros; I use it cos I like it --- it appeals to me. What would I be using if I'd found out about it from a friend?

Thanks for any info,
Joel

Dunno..the fact that Slackware is The Old Distribution, is not bad: it just states that there's something good in it, as it still is in use. Many other distributions come and go. I don't have any statistics but I do believe nowadays people easily get Ubuntu, Fedora and others that have nicer, graphical installers, "ready" configurations out-of-the-box, handy package managers configured ready..but that's not actually a reason why they couldn't use Slackware either. Maybe those who laugh at you (funny, I've never heard -- all I hear about Slackware users is "they've geeks" though it isn't true either) just don't know what Slackware is today.

My guess is that those who use Slackware aren't that interested in advertising it; they're doing their jobs rather than boast with their operating systems.

We use Slackware on nearly 80 servers where I work. It was the choice of the person who was previously responsible for the location, and I stuck with it because I like it. I have always enjoyed slackware for it's simplicity and stability. My only complaint is that I would like to see Patrick begin to support 64 bit arch officially in order to take advantage of the new hardware in the market.

I've hardly seen much advantage in using 64-bit systems; all I see is trouble that overwhelms that little advance in using 64 instead of 32.

Having said that, I wouldn't either complain about seeing Slackware_64.

Did he explain what he meant by "old-fashioned"?

I think that would be hard to say about 12.0. Yes, there is no 64-bit nor SELinux, but otherwise it's very up to date.

Dennisk

He did not explain, although he was probably referring to package management, as he said he prefers Debian. As the youtube "Ubuntu vs. Slackware" video shows, Debian users are often quite proud of apt-get. To each his own.

I'm quite proud of using a system that feels old-fashioned -- only in the sense that my first heavy computer use was on SunOS and AT&T UNIX -- and is actually more modern than anyone else's (surrounded by Mac and Windows). I loved it when Steve Ballmer said "Yeah, Linux is fine if you want a clone of a thirty-year-old operating system." Yeah, that's right: thirty years of improvment, instead of another clone of a thirty-year-old operating system (VMS) and thirty years of board-room design.

@roreilly, it's okay if you prefer not to mention where you work with the 80 servers using Slackware. That's why I asked if anybody knew of any businesses or websites: a nice side-effect of the discussion would be being able to say "Well, ya know www.flippinstiltbikes.com uses Slackware."

Thanks,
Joel

Well... I know that www.proan.com has and uses Slackware on their web and mail server... because that's one part of my job and I personally installed and configured that server :D (though I didn't do the webpage, and... it's horrible)

Though I don't quite get why would you want to know or what are you trying to prove there. Maybe you wanna hack it? Be my guess, give it a try :p

I use Slackware as my primary distribution. If you're getting funny responses from people whom you tell about your own use of Slackware, it's because they don't know a damned thing about it. Slackware is one of the oldest and most ROCK SOLID GNU/Linux distributions available today. It is a fabulous choice for business or server applications. About the only distro I would recommend other than Slack is Debian.

Yeah, apt-get is mucho COOL, but Slack's package management is fine and dandy. You can enhance it with Swaret or (in Slack based distros like Vector and Zen) use Slapt-get. I started out with Ubuntu just over a year ago. After playing around with numerous distros, I came to the conclusion that Slack is the best of all, for me. I'm still a big Debian fan, though. You'll notice that all the distros I run currently are either Slack or Deb based... Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Mepis --> Debian-based / Slackware, Vector, Zenwalk --> Slack-based.

Have FUN! :)

I haven't experienced Linux in any business environments, or even encountered more than a few users other than myself, but I read a lot here and on linux.org. I think most people that are moving from Windows to Linux want the easy point-and-click interfaces and wizards and automatic updates. Even veteran Linux users who've been distro shopping tend to settle on "easy" distros like Ubuntu. They tend to refer to Slackware as not user-friendly, difficult to configure and install, lacking features, blah blah.

The truth is Slackware is designed to be minimal with little overhead. When I was distro shopping I knew what I wanted - the most UNIX-like distro, and that is Slackware. Pat has done a great job of keeping Slackware what it is and not following suit behind the distros that decided to include more software and eye candy. The minimal installation is something that drives others away - emphasis on commandline, default runlevel 3.

When someone tells you Slackware is "old-fashioned" just tell them "That means Slackware is doing something right." Slackware is THE oldest surviving distro.

I see, slackware is good at hosting webpages with cute farm animals...I would count giving me a webpage in Spanish, when I clicked on "Ingles" as pretty bad, horrible may be pushing it. I'll explore and see how horrible it is ;)

I'm just the sort of person who likes to know things. I get lots of funny reactions to that, too :P No, the real reason is -- oh, wait, yeah, I'm just curious. Like I said, I only hear about RedHat and SuSE, to many people "Linux" is synonymous with RedHat.

I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm still going to use Slackware, even if I find out Micro$oft uses it ;)

Joel

I've been happily slacking since 10.0, for me it is my distro of choice. In my school district where I work I am starting to see a small influx of Linux work stations ( Ubuntu, Debian).
Slackware is perfect the way it is.:D

Actually the webpage part is mostly incomplete and hasn't had any update for months, that webdeveloper is one helluva slacker I'm sure. Oooh and I freakin' hate flash-based sites without an html option :rolleyes:

That server has one year and three months up and running online, it started with a Slackware 10.2 install but now it is a major mixture of several packages from 10.2, 11.0 and some security updates from the latest 12.0, with a lot of up-to-date, custom-compiled sources for qmail, spamassassin, ClamAV and greylisting mail facilities.

It's a headless machine (without a monitor plugged in), so it does not have the X server, graphics goodies packages nor any window manager installed, pure CLI over ssh it is all it needs. The thing does not even know how a monitor looks like ... :D LOL XD

We have other linux servers here, some other 10 machines but all with RHEL3. Those servers provide inner network services and some SAP applications. Mostly just a bunch of outdated and overworked, reliable linux machines. Those servers were here before I arrived and are managed by my workmate, so I have nothing to do with them (yet, I would love to upgrade them to Slackware but they are actually working ok so better not mess it up)...

I also know from good sources that my university's mail server at bonaterra.edu.mx uses qmail on Slackware. Not the web server though, it's relayed over another server which I don't know what's running.

Probably you've never heard about the portuguese architects association but their web site (http://www.arquitectos.pt) is running on Slackware (with PosgtreSQL and mod_perl - two packages I would like to see on Slackware... but that's another story).
Also, the (main?) portuguese open source software mirror (http://darkstar.ist.utl.pt/) is powered by Slackware Linux.

Since Pat doesn't modify Apache source to show something like ApacheX-xx Slackware GNU/Linux (a la Debian) it's hard to find on what Linux distros some web sites are running.

the computer pools at my university were switched over to slackware after running suse before and i guess some servers at the datacenter are running it too.

I use Slackware for personal use. I have a website http://www.hclg.org/ (Joomla- PHP/MySQL). I also have a email server(sendmail) running on that machine. I am going to rebuild it someday and install QMail (qmailrocks.org).

At work I have a Slackware machine that run a few web based applications I wrote. It set on the bottom rack and never give me any problems. Can't say the same for the Windows servers.

A while back I rewrote the website for all my companies divisions. I installed Fedora since the guy "in charge" liked it. It was a big mistake. Yum is a piece of junk. Come to think about it, I don't think the guy in charge ever used Linux. He talked a talk, but I don't think he ever walk anywhere.

Hi,

I come from academia, engineering to be exact. I'm now retired but still use unix/linux for a lot of tasks. We used unix/linux in the labs all the time, be it on Sparc I/II SunOS or little 3b1/3b2 with unix. I used Slackware Linux on several PC machines and that was over 11 years ago. Even I won't pay for a unix license any longer, no need with Slackware or BSD available.

As for your statement about 'I'm quite proud of using a system that feels old-fashioned', I would put a little salt on it! I am proud to use a system that was old fashioned but zings like a new one when I use Slackware.

As for Steve Ballmer's statement, he has to spice up Apple somehow.

BTW, VMS had it's place. Laughing all the way to the bank.

There is an unofficial port of Slackware to the 64 bit called Bluewhite64 ( http://www.bluewhite64.com ) and the man behind the project is following step by step Slackware development. I have already set up 10 different servers here at my job and to others with Bluewhite64 (LAMP, file server and email server with Qmail). All I can say is working great!

Hi,

I don't think that I could recommend the use of Bluewhite64 knowing the history behind it. I could recommend Slam64 knowing where and how it was derived with the libs.

Maybe you should read some of the history of Bluewhite64 with libs and 32/64 bit. I should go back an look at it again. Do you do any 32 bit on those servers?

On the servers I'm using only 64 bit software. 32 bit software, like the Flash Player, I'm using on my work station without any problems.

I have used Slamd64 before but is not maintained anymore. As far I can see, they have not released the version 12. I need up to date software, support and security updates. Bluewhite64 is offering all this.

Slackware
 

I started using slackware on my home firewall here in Jan, I simply read a how-to i found on the web and haven't touched or rebooted it since :D. Since Vista occupied space on my hard drive at the time i decided to try slackware out as a home system and have loved it ever since. I have seen a couple of slackware systems being tested out here in the schools in indiana and I trouble shot a couple of systems at work using it although they do not use the server apps yet. They have switched entirely over to Open Office.

Here's your salt: You said it better than I did. As I've said many times before, using Unix-like systems makes me a little nostalgic for my early computer-use days: when I was 13 my friends and I had school district accounts on the university's server, and it was really cool. This was before the computing landscape was a monoculture. When I found out that Linux was free (I'd heard of it, but not that it was free) --- I mean, that I could have Unix at home (!) I jumped at the chance. I love using Unix; and Slackware, even more than FreeBSD, makes me feel like I'm using Unix.

To say it's a thirty year old system is just way off the mark. My point (which I'm sure you got, but I want to say it again, just to say it ;)) was that Microsoft could be accused of the same thing. However, that's no indictment of Linux because

• Linux itself is not thirty years old, it's the most modern computer system out there
• The entire software industry, according to Dennis Ritchie, is still developing software the way they did in the 70s.

Also, the idea that Microsoft is competing with Linux (Ballmer holding up a RHEL box in front of a congressional committee) is totally preposterous: Linux does the job, Windows sells.

Joel

@roreilly, it's okay if you prefer not to mention where you work with the 80 servers using Slackware. That's why I asked if anybody knew of any businesses or websites: a nice side-effect of the discussion would be being able to say "Well, ya know www.flippinstiltbikes.com uses Slackware."

Thanks,
Joel[/QUOTE]

I would like to, but I'm not sure how my employer would feel about it. We have a lot of competition that is trying to figure out how we do some of the things we are capable of.
Hint: Windows just doesn't have the capabilities ;)

As for 64-Bit, what I really want is the ability to properly address large quantities of ram.
We have some very large db's that need as much as we can throw at them.

R.

We're not exactly Fortune 500 :), but w00tz! (w00tzgames.com) uses Slackware 11 internally as our PDC (with Samba), internal app server, internal DNS, and file server.

The web site is co-located and I'm not sure what distro it's running.

Hi,

Ya, my Steve Ballmer statement was one with tongue in cheek. He is always finding ways to reflect from M$. Be it Apple, Linux or whatever. Just his style, that is what make him an Billy Boy compatible.

Yes, M$Windows sells but that picture is changing. People are getting smarter, the ones that aren't will just roll with the flow of the M$ wave.

Linux is getting better daily, I too remember the early 70s' when the micro revolution was just starting. Well Linux is now 15 and you know what happens when something hits the sweet sixteen. It blooms! Take a look at the Linux Timeline.

Agreed.:D
Linux is indeed improving. I'm reflecting today on being a user of Linux for 5 years; I started using Linux in August of 2002:-) I've seen huge improvements in the short time I've been a *nix user.
My first Linux distro was Caldera 2.3 which was created by the evil entity that is SCO:-)
I'm thrilled that Slackware has exceptional hardware identification with plugdev. I can now plug in my SD memory card from my Nikon Coolpix camera into my portable USB reader and an icon pops up on my XFce desktop. Easy:-)
I'm encouraged that industry heavy weights are starting to get behind Linux. In my opinion I think that Vista has encouraged people to explore other options.

I have tried to get my employer to allow me to setup slcakware for various things but he always falls back to RH based distros (for the reasons mentioned).

I feel the same way, I started around 2001 with Mandrake (now Mandriva), I also at this time had a laptop with no floppy and only a dvdram? drive, huge 5.x" sorta floppy looking thing hid under a flip up keyboard, that I tried to install slackware 8 onto thinking that older distrobutions dealt better with older hardware (newbie flame torches out please). :]

DVD-RAM?? Surely you're thinking of 5.25" floppy disks?

Hi,

The 5 1/4 floppy was a big deal in it's day. Heck I remember the 8" and thinking I was in heaven to have that much storage on either.

My first computer system was a Intel 8080 design system with 256 B, yes that's bytes. The I/O was an ASR-33 teletype with tape reader (punch tape). I built a cassette interface to get more storage. I added 1K and thought I had finally had enough to do something. We had to write some tight code to get anything done. Unlike today were a gig is looking small to most programmers.

The 4004 really wasn't more than a calculator, that is why I built the 8080. Down the memory lane again. I really should clear out some of that old hardware. Yes, I have most of my early systems. Some are probably older than some of the LQ members that I communicate with.

I no longer have the ASR-33 because it was to big to get around. So I built a monitor w/video interface for the 8080 that was smaller and much easier to move around. Then the Z80 came out, that's another story.

What an odd reaction.

If using the most flexible and customisable distro out there is "old fashioned," then I guess I am too...

I'd like to know precisely what makes Debian so "new fangled" by comparison.

My first computer had 5.25" floppy disks too. It was a BBC Master. I think mine has 2 KHz processor and a 128 KB RAM, with 128 KB of ROM (for the OS - which only occupies 16 KB!). It came with a 3 colour monitor - light green, medium green and dark green, but you do get that Matrix-effect glow after a character has gone. I've still got it at my mum's house, and it still works - I wrote a little BASIC program on it the other day :) It's weird using it; you don't have to wait for it to boot, you just turn it on, and bam - a command line waits for you. Ditto for shutting down, just hit OFF.

I had a series of games on 5.25" floppy disks - Repton Infinity, Chuckie Egg, Snake - ah, the memories!

Anyway, enough off-topic talk.

I've got Slackware 1.01 somewhere that someone posted a link to on this forum, and I want to see if I can get that running in a virtual machine - it'll be interesting to see how much has changed!

I think people equate "new-fangled" with "easy-to-install-applications".

Nope, DVD-RAM, http://aplawrence.com/Reviews/dvdram.html .

This was the weirdest laptop I have ever seen wish I still had it so I could give you guys more information about it. I took it to a local computer shop way back and they looked at it and were like "woooah, we don't know either" :\ .

[edit] It may have been bigger than 5" not too sure. I do remember it was a Panasonic laptop, and it had a massive cartridge that said dvd-ram on it that I loaded under the keyboard, and thats all I remember.

Oh yeah, I'm proud to be old-fashioned, inasmuch as I already said it can feel old-fashioned/nostalgic if I want it to. I do weird things to the desktop depending on Mood; sometimes I want it to look like a mid-90s desktop, with big fat buttons and sometimes I want it to be sleek-looking.

I'm pretty sure it was, and I take it as, a compliment -- something like "you're hard core!" He had already impressed me (shown he was serious) by saying that his lab uses Linux exclusively. The distro was an after-thought at that point.

Joel

In the company that I do occasional recovery and rebuild for, I'm working on a proposal to replace 13 Windows machines of various vintages and OSes with a customized system based entirely off Slackware 12. I'm looking at 9 identical workstations, each customized to a role currently performed by some machine we already have, plus a file server, a dedicated Backup server, and possibly a firewall/router. The best part of all is, I could set up a secure remote administration system, so if a machine crashes while I'm traveling, I could just ssh in and perform data recovery. No more worries about viruses, no spyware, and no mixed-mode environment... the only computer we currently have that experiences no networking problems is my laptop running Slack 11!

The ironic part is, with a little more tweaking on my part, I could use the computers we already have in the business. I want to buy a set of new ones, just for the express purpose of having identical hardware. The other day one of our critical machines crashed, and I spent 8 hours testing PC100 memory sticks before finding out I only had one 32MB stick that was okay... Windows 2000 was not happy.

I'll let you guys know if my proposal ever goes forward. I know it would save a heck of a lot of money for my employers.

SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE
SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE
SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE
SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE
SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE
SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE
SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE
SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE
SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE
SLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARESLACKWARE
Slackware is the good stuf the only good stuf an nothing but the good stuf
so help me god:tisk:

My Slackware experience...
 

...began at the Masonic Temple in Toledo, Ohio. I went there to a computer/ham-fest with some friends and users of my computer BBS (anyone remember those?). I picked up my first copy of Media Magic Linux. It was vintage 1994 two disk set. It had initial versions of Slackware, Debian, and get this, Red Hat. I could only get the Slackware to install as it supported the CD ROM drive (SB16 w/ proprietary CD interface). Neither of the other distros wanted to work with the CD ROM drive.

It was installed on a 486SX33 with a math coprocessor,500 megs of hard drive space, 16 megs of RAM, the SB16, and an ATI Mach 32 VLB video card. I learned a lot, but eventually got tired of the iffy CD ROM access. The CD ROM drive worked when it wsnted to, and could not be cajoled into working consistently. I actually got FVWM up and running consistently. What I loved the most about Slackware were the screen savers with Bob, the pipe-smoking icon of the Church of the Subgenius.

I began working as a computer tech, and lost interest in Linux. At the time, Windoze 3.11 and OS/2 were the operating systems most people had. Linux was a thing for total geeks, and computer snobs. It wasn't mainstream, or even close to it. Microsoft was the only way to the cross, at least the only way that was socially acceptable.

I became re-introduced to Linux about two years ago. A friend showed up at my place with a laptop loaded with PHLAK. I began to think about playing with Linux again. I was really quite impressed when I first saw the Gnome desktop. I finally decided to get back into Linux seriously almost a year ago.

When I found out that Slackware still existed, I got a little excited. I really wanted to see how far it had come since the last time I worked with it. I was so impressed, it has become my Linux distro exclusively. That decision was made after I wrote a series of articles entitled The Linux Project for the blogging web site, OpEdNews.com. Click here to go to my author page to read that series of articles.

After trying all the distos reviewed for The Linux Project series, once again, I decided that it was Slackware for me. Why?

1) I began using computers before they had GUI's. I was used to typing in commands to get said computer to do something, and Slackware is definitely about typing.
2) Slackware's bullet-proof stabitity shone through. None of the other distros reviewed were anywhere as stable: not Ubuntu, not Vector, not Fedora, and certainly not Debian!
3) Consistency: the installation process for Slack-12 is the same as it was for my first version: partition the drive, then start the setup program and let it do the magic.

Slackware is, in my opinion, the best thing going in Linux. It has the versatility of Debian without the seemingly inherent Debian instability. It has been around since the beginning, and has definitely gotten better with the passage of time. Even though I think the latest Slackware iteration is not all that and a bag of chips, I'd still rather use it than any other open source opertating system that exists. I am a Slack-head, for sure!

Blessed be!
Pappy

Hi,

If you are as computer literate as you say then what's the problem?

You seem to have a lot of problems with setting up HAL on Slackware 12.0 for your system. I've just read your series of posts in the thread '12.0 and HAL - READ THIS!', the last of which is #43.

I can associate with some of the errors and frustration. But I worked to solve the problem(s) instead of throwing up my hands an giving up. You could always disable HAL, if you say it causes you that much trouble.

As stated before, the system is yours to do as you wish. If Slackware 11.0 meets your needs then use it. I really like Slackware 12.0 and find that every install is just a little bit different. Some find this a problem. These are the same people who just don't understand the OS let alone their system. A lot of people who have problems with Slackware 12.0 or for that matter any distro seems to jump on the wagon with 'Well it works for Windows' or 'Works on Timbuctoo distro'. The common reply instead of trying to find the solution for the current problem.

I'll give you some credit. At least you attempted to solve the problems but fall short of getting the problem(s) corrected.

As for your purist status, not my call.

BTW, as for the hamfest/computer shows (post 'Who's using Slackware'), I still attend at least one a year. In fact we have a Superfest coming up in September which is worth the time spent.

No argument from me about Slack being the best thing going in Linux.
Debian is unstable? I run Etch and it is stable like a rock.
What do you mean Debian is unstable?

Yeah, and if you walk to it they'll nail you down.

Perhaps that's the way it was in the arena of people who actually worked with computers, but when I was a teenager and started real computer use (my family always had computers, e.g., Commodore 64), DOS and UNIX (on our school district accounts) were what everybody used. I'm always amused when my coworkers refuse to use, or avoid like the plague, a command line. When I started using computers, that's all there was! We had no choice.

No, wait, we did have a choice: we thought graphical interfaces were stupid. There was Windows, which we only used if the computer we were on used Word for Windows. And then there was Macintosh --- we were all really annoyed that there was no command line so we could just make the thing do what we wanted. We used to sit for hours making jokes about pointing and clicking...

Overall, we had many choices, and the ones we chose were usually command-line interfaces and text editors. Most of our time was spent writing funny profile messages and chatting...

Joel

Maybe he means Debian unstable is unstable, as the name suggests.

Joel

No I don't think that is what he meant; he said Debian instability, not Debian unstable (Sid).
Not a big deal, I just don't like inaccurate information being posted. Debian is not an unstable distro by any stretch of the imagination.

It seems that for ol' pappy_mcfae, anything which doesn't work exactly the same way it did 150 years ago on his rubber band powered abacus is "unstable." :p :D

I wonder what'll happen when distros are no longer supporting "mouse-on-treadmill" based systems... :scratch:

Heh-heh, funny stuff:-)
I'm still very curious as to what made pappy_mcfae label Debian as unstable (a bad experience perhaps?). I've never had a problem with the "stable" branch of Debian.

Some questions answered.
 

Firstly, I want to be clear on one issue. I am not going to mess with Slack-12.

Why should I?

I agree that much of what makes Linux go so far beyond anything put together by M$ is the fact that you have to make it your own, in some form or fashion. Truth be told, all was not well out of the box for Slack-11. However, the glitches were minor, and I could correct them by editing the required .conf files (CUPS and samba). Compared to being told I can't access my drives, those are some small and insignificant bugs.

I also think that inability to install is a big bug. If I can't get software to install properly, after numerous tries, that tells me the software is somehow broken, defective, inferior, screwed, glued, and tattooed, however you want to say it. In my opinion, such is the case with Slack-12. I spent a lot of time installing a lot of different Linux distributions on a few systems. I know from stable, and anything but.

Which brings me to Debian. I installed Debian three separate times on a system I had cobbled together from parts I got from repairing computers for customers. Anything they didn't want back after system upgrade was up for first dibs of the tech that did the repair. The system in question is a PII-450, 500 megs of RAM, two DVD ROM drives (one is a burner), two PATA drives (20 gig for Slackware, 80 for XP), and a SATA 160 gig (half NTFS, half FAT32). It is presently a file server that dual boots into either Slackware or win2K. It runs Slackware like a champ, albeit a slow champ. The recompiled kernel chopped to the bare bones helps it run a bit faster, but it is what it is.

This same system also had Debian installed on it. I can say that I love Debian's package handling. There is no other distro that is so well supported from a pre-compiled programs point of view. Literally, if it exists in source code, someone somewhere has turned it into a .deb file.

However, from my experience Debian was incredibly unstable on the above mentioned system. I installed it using the 40 meg Internet install .iso CD. I told it to install the basics, Xorg, kde, gnome, and the rest of the goodies to go along with it. The first time I installed it, the installation failed while setting up the libraries for X-windows, and when I say, "failed," I mean the computer locked up solid! After a hard reboot, it went back to where it was when it tied up, and started over. When it did finally finish, X-windows would not work at all. The second time I tried installing it, it locked up again, but when it finished after it was restarted, kde did come up, but it was very unstable. The third time, it went all the way through without a failure. However, the GUI was very unstable, whether I used gnome or kde.

I define that instability in many ways. It had video problems. It had networking problems. It had sound problems. You name a subsystem, it was problematic under Debian. I told the set up program to set up the stable version. Long story short, I wasn't impressed. Ironically, the Ubuntu family sets up and runs just fine on that system. Strange but true.

Also, for those that missed it, While I kept the original CD's with the early versions of Slack, Debian, and Red Hat, I stopped playing with Linux the system. I worked on customers' computers, so there was little need for me to know anything about Linux. Few indeed are the computer nerds into Linux that would suffer the indignity of having someone else fix their computer...it's sheer heresy! So, while I did play with Slackware back in '94, I stopped playing with it about '96 or so. I rekindled my interest in it about two or three years ago...can't recall, many spliffs have passed between then and now. I got serious about Linux about a year ago.

Ironically enough, the same observations I made about Slackware recently are the same ones I made when I installed it from my original Linux CD's. Of the three, it was the only one that would set up properly with my CD ROM drive. I could actually get the GUI (FVWM) up and running. It didn't like to mount the CD player more than once, but it was still pretty cool playing around with it. The other two distros wouldn't set up. Debian could see the CD ROM drive, but for some reason, it wouldn't install. Red Hat didn't see the CD ROM drive at all.

I use Slackware today because it gives me a choice of working with a console session, or a GUI. I use Slack-11 because I have set it up to run on every computer I own, and it has worked flawlessly on them all, including the Compaq Pentium 133 laptop I have. I use Slack-11 because it is rock solid stable! It stands head and shoulders above anything that M$ has made, and pretty much everything else in the Linux stable of operating software.

One more thing, just because I don't like Slack-12 doesn't mean I need to be proselytized about it to within inches of my sanity. I don't like it for many reasons. For my systems, at least the ones on which I have installed it, it has not worked as expected. While it is true I could go to great lengths to get it to run, when I don't need what it's giving, why use it? That's the kind of mentality I would expect from He Who Must Not Be Named, but made billions ripping off other people's ideas. Windoze Vista didn't suit my needs. I replaced it with Windoze XP, which did.

The point is, I am still a Linux user, and even a registered one (451386), even if I am not gung-ho on the newest release from my Linux of choice. I am using what works, which for me is Slackware-11. I don't see a reason why I should forgo what works for what doesn't. Believe me, my friends, it's not the end of the world if I think Slack-12 isn't all that and a bag of chips.

So please, let's talk about something else. Frankly, I am starting to feel a little put out. I came here to share my opinion. Some folks took offense, and for that, I apologize. I am glad I came back to the world of Linux. As I have said before (though not here), as soon as I find a stable, fully functional sound editing/mixing/recording program (a port of Cool Edit Pro, please???), I will give Voldemort Gates and his evil empire the long kiss good-bye. And it's a pretty sure bet if I go there, I will be running some version of Slackware.

Blessed be!
Pappy

Hi,

As you said, your opinion. If Slackware 11.0 meets your needs then why change. No need to justify to me.

My point was that Slackware 12.0 or for that matter any OS can hiccup at any time. The person who can get the system to do as they desire will continue until the problem is solved. That's why a lot of people use Slackware as their OS. Obviously Slackware 11 fits your need and you have got it out of the box to do as you wish.

pappy_mcfae, not being mean or anything, but I think you took the comments the wrong way. I re-read the posts and I think most where wondering where you had problems (except for rkelsen). Maybe I am a little thick skinned though. I take most things with a grain of salt unless I think they are getting personal.

As for the recording software, I think a couple issues back in Linux Journal (maybe Linux Magazine) they had an artical about a recording software. I am not sure if it is what you where looking for. I am at work right now and can't look it up. If I remember when I get home I'll get the name of it for you.

In 4 tries, using the internet ISO, I couldn't get a Debian install with a working X right out of the box either. I always chalked it up to Xfree86 being borked, not Debian though... (back then Debian hadn't switched to Xorg).

Gotta ask, if this was intended to be just a file server, why set up a GUI at all? My little Debian server, which sounds to be slightly less capable than yours ;) doesn't even have a monitor hooked up. Only problem with that is my wife assumes it's not turned on and unplugs it once on a blue moon.

Thank you for the reply.
Did you ever determine what caused the instability in Debian? I run Etch at home on a Plll 667 with 256 MB RAM, it runs flawlessly. I also run Debian Etch on 9 computers at work; the computers range from a Pll 266 with 192 MB RAM up to a P4 with 684 MB RAM.
They all function perfectly. There is the possibility that you may have had some hardware incompatibility in that unit of yours, or you may have mis-configured the unit. That isn't the fault of Debian as there is excellent documentation about supported hardware at the Debian site (they also have a great forum here). I find it a bit odd that you have written off Debian based on your experience with one machine.....Each to his own:-)
But, sure, feel free to use Slackware 11, it is a robust, stable system ( I ran it until 12 was released). I run Slackware 12 on two Plll 800 IBM units at home; I've found 12 to be a welcome upgrade, it functions flawlessly.
Cheers:-)

hitest

Please take your Debian discussion somewhere else. If you have a beef with another LQ user, please don't use this thread to pick fights.

Thanks,

Joel

Actually, I was too. :)

The biggest problem so far seems to be communication. Pappy has done nothing to specify exactly what his problems are. The only explicit statements he has made to date are that "Slackware 12 is crap," that "Debian is unstable," and that Slackware 11 works the same as the version he tried in 1994.

There have been no explanations, no trying any of the advice provided by myself and others and no answers to any of the requests for further information asked by those of us who have tried to be helpful. Just paragraph after paragraph of rhetoric.

If he really wanted help, there are several willing people (myself included) who've posted in this thread and others.

Anyhow, have a nice day! :D

No, I didn't. It could have been the system itself not jibing with something in Debian. I have heard many people tell me they have never had a lick of trouble with Debian...or at least the general crop of software glitches that infest all code, no matter the manufacturer of the machine that runs it. Of course, the machine that runs software is also less than perfect.

I might consider trying it again sometime, but I will have to get a hold of a faster and more generic computer. I use my laptops for business, and now that I have their operating systems set just how I want them, I don't want to do any experimenting.

Actually, if there is a real Linux project I want to bring into being, it's actually getting Gentoo to work properly. Now there's a project worthy of a computer with speed to spare. I have tried five times to get it working right, but I am hamstrung by not having a system fast enough to compile a full system with KDE, and all the goodies, including Koffice.

Blessed be!
Pappy