LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Slackware (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)
-   -   Why Slackware? (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/why-slackware-296904/)

PeterOnTheNet 03-02-2005 06:39 PM

Why Slackware?
 
Hi,
I am interested why all of you are using slackware?
Why this distribution?
Slackware pros and cons.
Where Slackware is better then RedHat or debian?
Is Slackware more like FreeBSD?
I googled all day and there is not much about slackware, I mean it is not 'popular' distro, why?
I heard slackware is a good distro to learn Linux, why?
Reading thru LQ forums I found slackware forum more 'hands on' then other distros forums, can I catch that here ;-)

Thanks,
Peter

mcd 03-02-2005 06:48 PM

Quote:

I googled all day and there is not much about slackware
hmm...have you tried www.google.com/linux ? anyway there's a good review of slackware, what makes it unique, and why people love/hate it here at distrowatch: http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?res...view-slackware

it was a review of 8.1 i think, but still very relevant. basically, slack is simple (in terms of structure and design), stable, and unix-like. if those things appeal to you, and the thought of sitting in front of a command prompt for hours at a time excites you, then slackware is the way to go.

synaptical 03-02-2005 07:12 PM

mcd said it well: stable as hell, simple structure/design, easy to work with if you're comfortable with the command line. great distro for learning the basic ins and outs of linux.

cons include poor package management, smaller user/support base than some distros (rh/suse/debian, etc.), and hard to work with if you don't like the command line. :p slackware's stock packages are i386, so it also can be slower to comparable setups running the same software packages (e.g., same programs on arch or gentoo).

gbonvehi 03-02-2005 08:03 PM

Just a few threads from here:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...hreadid=288054
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...hreadid=289450
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...hreadid=213496

egag 03-02-2005 08:06 PM

...and did you really use google ?

quote google :
----
Results 1 - 10 of about 6,150,000 for slackware. (0.06 seconds)
----

egag

MMYoung 03-02-2005 08:16 PM

Actually Slackware's packages, for the most part, are i486 ;). Even then they are compiled using -march=i486 -mcpu=i686 -O2 CFLAGS, so they are compiled for broadest compatibility (i486) but contain optimizations for the i686 CPU so the binaries created during the compile will take advantage that CPU as well.

Also, I keep hearing this stuff about Slackware being "difficult", but I disagree. Having said that, I do remember the first time I installed it and all the trouble I had, then I RFM and found out why :D. Truth be told the install of Slackware is one of the simplest I've seen, once you get past the "OH MY GOD WHERE IS THE MOUSE POINTER!!!". It ain't Windows, Red Hat, Fedora, Mandrake, et all, so it doesn't make any decisions for you, you actually have to use your head for something other than a hat rack.

The only reason I spend "hours" in front of the command line is because I want to. Most of the Slackware installs I've done worked pretty much out of the box. Yes I had to set alsamixer so that I'd have sound, if I want to update I have to use the Command Line. Most of the time spent in front of the CL if for "myself" now, compiling programs and creating SlackPacks of the stuff I want. Whereas, used to I would just download a package from www.linuxpackages.net or www.slackcare.com (which is shutting down BTW a pity too) and then, again using CL, use installpkg to install the program, then run it from the GNOME Applications menu. Other than that I pretty much never really did much command line stuff, but then I only wanted to "use" my computer after I quit "abusing" it ;).

Later,
MMYoung

digitalhead 03-02-2005 08:19 PM

Quote from... who knows where.... "If you know Slackware, you know Linux. If you know Red Hat, all you know is Red Hat". This is true. It kind of MAKES you learn what you're doing.

Also, Slackware default installations include only stable releases of programs. Basicly, if Patrick doesn't feel it's right to be in Slackware, it's not. If you want everything you have to be completely up to date, you can always upgrade to Current.

A lot of the configuration is done at a command line since it doesn't include certain gui tools like other distros. This makes it so you know your configurations have taken effect instead of being lost between KDE and the inner-workings if your system.

If you want to truly know and understand the pros and cons of Slackware, you should try it. Personally, I've tried switching to another distro... I'm back on Slack and here to stay. :)

--digitalhead

PeterOnTheNet 03-02-2005 08:22 PM

What you said about packages i386 and i486, does it mean Slackware is still in I486 era, and installing it on spanky fresh Athlon XP 2800+ may not perform good as RedHat 9, Redhat enterprise or Debian?
Is that what you mean?

cavalier 03-02-2005 08:26 PM

I think that I must be the only person that'll say this, but I'm using Slackware (again) because, on the laptop I've currently got, it was the first distro to 'Just work' out of the box in all particulars, from video to audio to wireless.

That said, I'm really impressed with it in general. It can be very stripped down, and very efficient indeed.

guzzi 03-02-2005 08:39 PM

Slackware is still in I486 era
 
The packages may be compiled for 486, but they run faster than *&%&^$%^ on a fast box.

By the way, that )(&(*^*& above, is not some sort of Perl script, so don't even try. : )

The beauty of a distro like Slackware is that you can take the latest release and load it on
your old 486 that you use as a firewall/NAT router/whatever. And then load the same packages
on your Quad super fast Xeon box. And then use the command line configuration tools because they
don't get in the way of you doing what you want.

It's all good.

MMYoung 03-02-2005 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PeterOnTheNet
What you said about packages i386 and i486, does it mean Slackware is still in I486 era, and installing it on spanky fresh Athlon XP 2800+ may not perform good as RedHat 9, Redhat enterprise or Debian?
Is that what you mean?

Nope, you didn't FULLY read my post (if I am the one you are addressing). Most Slackware packages are built to be installed on anything from the i486 and up. Just because you and I have latest "whizz-bang" processor on the market (or close to it anyway ;) ), doesn't mean that everyone does and there are still a LOT of servers out there that are running on 486/586 hardware. However EVERY package, where I've looked at the build script anyway, adds the -mcpu-i686 flag for gcc when compiling. What this allows the package maintainer to do is build his/her package so that it will install and run on an i486 but will take full advantage of the i686 processor as well, best of both worlds. Will there be a performance "hit" by doing this, short answer is yes. Is it noticeable to the "nekid eye", not hardly.

On the other hand, I compile my PERSONAL Slackware program packages using the following gcc options:
CHOSTS="i686-pc-linux-gnu"
CFLAGS="-march=i686 -mcpu=athlon-xp -O2 -pipe -fromit-frame-pointer"
CXXFLAGS="-march=i686 -mcpu-athlon-xp -O2 -pipe -fromit-frame-pointer"

This way all of MY packages are compiled to ONLY install on i686 CPU's and will take full advantage of my Athlon-XP 3000+ CPU. And I could use the -O3 (and that a capital "oh" not a zero) but it increases the package file size and I really don't see that big a difference in the startup speed.

BTW, last I looked most of RH/FC RPM's and Debian's .deb files were i386. However the same thing applies to them as well, IIRC.

Just my thoughts,
MMYoung

MMYoung 03-02-2005 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cavalier
I think that I must be the only person that'll say this, but I'm using Slackware (again) because, on the laptop I've currently got, it was the first distro to 'Just work' out of the box
Naw, I said pretty much the same thing in post #6.
Quote:

Originally posted by MMYoung
Most of the Slackware installs I've done worked pretty much out of the box.
So I couldn't agree with you more :D :D

Later,
MMYoung

synaptical 03-02-2005 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MMYoung
Actually Slackware's packages, for the most part, are i486 ;). Even then they are compiled using -march=i486 -mcpu=i686 -O2 CFLAGS, so they are compiled for broadest compatibility (i486) but contain optimizations for the i686 CPU so the binaries created during the compile will take advantage that CPU as well.
thanks for clarifying that (and in your second post). in my packages directory are a mix of i386 and i486 packages, mostly i386 it looks like, but maybe there are more 486. but i didn't know you could compile for a lesser architecture and still have the program take advantage of i686 processors. :cool:

cavalier 03-02-2005 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MMYoung
Naw, I said pretty much the same thing in post #6.
So I couldn't agree with you more :D :D
To quibble (and don't we all love that?) most of the boxes you installed Slack on, probably would have worked okay with Fedora Core 2 or Xandros or something more glamourous but less interesting than Slack. Interestingly, they didn't on my laptop, where Slack did everything, right, the first time. I was re-impressed. :)

PeterOnTheNet 03-02-2005 09:04 PM

I have go than, I got old book about Linux (Slackware) 'Linux Unleashed' by Kamran Husain and Tim Parker. I bought this book last week, cuz is from 1996 (lol) and I can find some helpful info there. I looked at some new books but they all seems to be KDE or GNOME orientated and there is not much about shell.

43%[=====================> ] 294,123,564 89.34K/s ETA 1:12:04

Above yet to go to the end of the second slack iso so I have a read yet.
I will come back here anyway when I will be in trouble.

Thanks All,
Peter

MMYoung 03-02-2005 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by synaptical
thanks for clarifying that (and in your second post). in my packages directory are a mix of i386 and i486 packages, mostly i386 it looks like, but maybe there are more 486. but i didn't know you could compile for a lesser architecture and still have the program take advantage of i686 processors. :cool:
Well, I ain't never counted them, so I ain't 100% sure either ;).

As an example, I just pulled this off my Slackware 10.0 DVD (I haven't made my 10.1 DVD yet). It's the build script for alsa-uitls-1.0.5
Code:

VERSION=1.0.5
ARCH=${ARCH:-i486}
BUILD=1

if [ "$ARCH" = "i386" ]; then
  SLKCFLAGS="-O2 -march=i386 -mcpu=i686"
elif [ "$ARCH" = "i486" ]; then
  SLKCFLAGS="-O2 -march=i486 -mcpu=i686"
elif [ "$ARCH" = "s390" ]; then
  SLKCFLAGS="-O2"
elif [ "$ARCH" = "x86_64" ]; then
  SLKCFLAGS="-O2"
fi

Later the variable SLKCFLAGS is inserted into the script just before the ./configure line:
Code:

CFLAGS="$SLKCFLAGS" \
 ./configure \
 --prefix=/usr \
 --sysconfdir=/etc

Might want to check out this ARTICLE about GCC Myths and Facts. Real short, to the point and got some good info in it. There's also some pretty good reading on the (ahem) Gentoo site.

Later,
MMYoung

MMYoung 03-02-2005 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cavalier
To quibble (and don't we all love that?) most of the boxes you installed Slack on, probably would have worked okay with Fedora Core 2 or Xandros or something more glamourous but less interesting than Slack. Interestingly, they didn't on my laptop, where Slack did everything, right, the first time. I was re-impressed. :)
Well, way to go! Just bust my baloon why don't you!
I bow down before you! I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy!
Just kidding! :D

Guess the point I was making is that I've always heard how HARD it was to install/use Slackware and that the only problems I ever had was ones that I created, for the most part.

Later,
MMYoung

cavalier 03-02-2005 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MMYoung
Guess the point I was making is that I've always heard how HARD it was to install/use Slackware and that the only problems I ever had was ones that I created, for the most part.
I'm totally down with that. So many things work so well with Slackware that I find myself doing things just because other people say they're hard to do! Like installing and configuring Wine and VMWare, just for kicks.

salviadud 03-03-2005 04:58 AM

small revie from a newb
 
I've been using slack for a month now. and yes, the first thing you do is go "damn... what now?"

this is the first linux distro i've tried, and from what i've read, the one i'll stick with. the command line is nothing to be afraid of, absolutely nothing!

and with this example, i'll tell you why slack rules... i was running xmule and the program bugged or something, it crashed, but i could'nt quit using the GUI... so what did i do?

before installation i did took my time to read the manual, so i shoot up the

Code:

ps
and see the list of options, i then find out how to see all processes running, and then

Code:

kill
pfffffffffff, xmule gone. now, why such a long story for such a simple command like that?

well. i also have windows xp on another computer... if something stupid like that happens... :o reboot the damn thing...

slack is GREAT for beginners like myself. like learning to swim by diving in the water.

but the best about slack is the community. when i get to know enough about it, i'll anwer some questions myself, you guys make this thing happen..

man, what a long post... thanx for reading.

Darin 03-03-2005 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by digitalhead
Quote from... who knows where.... "If you know Slackware, you know Linux. If you know Red Hat, all you know is Red Hat"...
That and, "It just works" are probably the two biggest quotes you will hear about Slackware. I've used both many times to explain my preference.

Personally, I started in computers prior to the modern GUI days and doing tech support, so I spent considerable time at the command line using DOS commands. Since the CLI does not scare me in the least, I found it an easy transition to Slackware. At some point in your Linux endeavors you will need the command line, even in fancy graphical distros, it's nice to not be lost when you are there.

Most of the graphical tools in Windows, as well as in Linux, attempt to hide all the details of what they do from the user. This works fine until something you try to do isn't working. I despise all the 'wizards' in windows and find it insulting to be the administrator of a high end server and be forced to have a paperclip walk me through setting everything. Linux GUI tools are almost more annoying than the Windows ones, when they fail to work right they not only don't do what you want but they always seem to cannablize the config files as well.

Slackware's boot process is incredibly simplistic yet functional, and after you gain a certain comfort at the command line it becomes painless to work with. Despite this, it is set up to accept [redhat et al] initialization, so if you wanted a bunch of Sxxsome_procedure files laying around, those would work too.

When something in Slackware breaks or isn't working, I can just dive in and fix it. When the same thing happens in [other distros] I'm usually stuck between some GUI tool that isn't doing what it should and some config file I can't find or can't figure out how to fix.

carboncopy 03-03-2005 08:08 AM

Why I use Slackware?
It gives me control of Linux. It doesn't force you to do things in a certain way.

Of course there is cons to this, you can go ahead do it in a bad method. But, what the heck, it is MY MACHINE. And I want to do it MY WAY.

Just want to add my 2cents to what the rest had said.

Oh, if you like to do things your way all the way, NetBSD sounds good. I tried it, and am impress by the no holding hands method. :) Read or drown!

Edited:
P.S.
After you use and familiarize with Slackware, you will find your way around any distro, from RedHat to whatever obsecure version, Solaris, *BSD, Mac Os X with no problems.

At least, that is my experience. Took me 2 hours to scan through Mac Os X book to know where things is place (Unix world not aqua eye candy) and you will be rock n roll on it like any other Unix like OS.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:48 PM.