Why use Slackware?
 

Hi everyone,

I've been lurking/reading for a while now - recently just plucked up the courage to wipe my windows laptop and start using Slackware as my main OS... GULP. I love it but it was big step for me :-)

So my question is this, I chose to use Slackware because backtrack, apparently, is very similar to it and I wanted to learn a distro that was similart to backtrack as I am a security consultant with very little linux experience, it's like an oxymoron isn't it :-P But I am getting exhausted with it because there are very little Slackware packages out there. I have managed to get my laptop going - with widescreen nvidia drivers n all.. go me :-) But.. for example, I just went to find Nessus for it and again, no Slackware version.

Why does everyone persist with it if there isn't any packages? Is it just the stability of it? I'm not complaining because I do like it, I especially like the fact that it boots to CLI by default as I prefer running tools from that because a) they're quicker and b) well, it's just cooler. lol

Could someone possible give me an explaination of how we get round this? Can I just use rpm2targz for everything?

Thanks in advance for this and thanks also for all your other posts that have got my system up and running.

Ian

If it has source code, you can compile it.

Can be easily changed.

No. Learn how to make slackware packages from source. It is easy, and there are many ways to do that.

I like slackware because it's the most "understandable" of the distros I've tried.

Most packages I need can be built using the slackbuild scripts from http://www.slackbuilds.org.

When there isn't a slackbuild there I download the source and compile and install it myself, usually by creating a slackbuild script for the purpose.

Why use Slackware? I've found that Slackware is stable, secure, and easy-to-understand. Nothing is hidden from the user with shiny GUIs. All system functions are controlled by logical easy to configure text files.
Slackware does the job for me. :)

When you want ready-to-go-Slackware-packages, you can always go to Slacky-eu or LinuxPackages.net.
Nessus for example can be found at Slacky-eu: http://www.slacky.eu/index.php?searc...search&Itemid=

Personally, I prefer SlackbuildScript from SlackBuilds.org, or when compiling from source (and there are no SlackBuild scripts available), src2pkg usually does a fine job. :)

I am trying to learn how now but unfortunately Rome wasn't built in a day. I was just looking for a little guidance that's all - I'm certainly not looking for a step-by-step guide or to have my hand held.

Looks like I need to learn how to compile the programs and then life will be easier. For now I'll try out the sites adriv and mcnalu suggested to get me up and running - thanks for that, I appreciate it.

Ian

This should explain it. It's not the guide from which I learned "make DESTDIR=pkg install" but it looks like it explains same thing.

Super, thanks for that. I guess the more I use it the easier it will get.

Thanks,

Ian

look i tried slackware
it is fast , stable and u will find a very powerful team who will help u here

Another tool you can use is alien. You don't want to install everything with it because you'll end up with "dependency hell" like you would if you were installing software in Ubuntu package by package as opposed to having apt-get or aptitude find it's dependencies for you. If you try and start a program and you're missing a library or something, go find a deb or rpm (rpm.pbone is a good place) that has the library you need. Download it, and run the following command as root.
It will turn out a Slackware package for you. But, like I said, use this with caution, it can form a bad habit and make you very mad if you want to install something that has a lot of dependencies. Always look for a Slackware package or SlackBuild first.

IT's true that Slackware doesn't have a lot of official packages. However, you can easily find, install and even make unofficial packages, or install directly from the source tarballs. Slackware's freedom from dependency tracking means no headaches over how packages work together. You install them, use them, and don't worry. Here are your options:

• Install from the source tarball (untar, then read the README and INSTALL files in the package for instructions)
• Use a build script from SlackBuilds.org (just like the previous option, except automated).
• Find a prebuilt package on Slacky.eu
• Use the third party tool "src2pkg" (it's as simple as src2pkg source-archive.tar.bz2)
• Use RPM (which is part of Slackware)

Stolen from another thread (also by me and mostly relevant. I don't feel like typing it again):

Building from source is highly recommended in Slackware. Since there is no official repository containing tons of apps, and since Slackware does not have automatic dependency resolution from within the package manager, you will probably have to compile something from source at some point. Slackware includes all of the development tools you will need by default, and packages are not split in two packages like most other distros (for example, there is no -devel package for any application -- the development libraries and headers are included with the application itself in Slackware).

I would encourage the use of SlackBuilds to build your applications. Slackbuilds.org is a great resource containing SlackBuilds for many applications. To learn how to use SlackBuilds to compile an application, see here. If an application is not available from slackbuilds.org, I would also suggest Alien Bob's and rworkman's repositories, which include both SlackBuilds AND prebuilt Slackware packages (.tgz files).

If you still can't find a SlackBuild, I would suggest slacky.eu, which maintains a large repository of packages and SlackBuilds. I would trust this resource less than the others, but it's still a great resource and I've never had any problems with it. I would stay away from linuxpackages.net though -- although there are some reputable packagers there, finding them takes experience. Some of their packages are built on unclean systems with questionable dependencies, and many of the packages don't include a SlackBuild, so you're basically going on blind faith that the application was built properly.

You could also try gnashley's src2pkg application, which I admittedly haven't tried but have heard nothing but praise about. It tries to automatically compile the application and build a package for you. You can also pass parameters to it if it doesn't build successfully (or if you want to customize the build). If you want to learn more about src2pkg, the wiki is a good place to start.

I use Slackware because I want total control over my OS and don't want the OS telling me what to do. Using Slackware you WILL learn Linux, using most other distros, you will learn that distro.

Oh no... Not again... please. There were tens or maybe even hundreds of such threads. IIRC, I even made link list for them somewhere.

EDIT: and btw sorting by post count does not work, neither reaching threads more than month old.

Hi Ian.

Yes, I like booting to the CLI too.

About packages, check out these two articles from Linux.com:

Slackware's "magic package maker"

and

Sbopkg provides seamless package repository integration for Slackware

These are reviews I wrote about two utilities that make creating packages easier with Slackware. I prefer them because they work "the Slackware way" -- in that they facilitate building Slackware packages from source and then working with Slackware's native package tools to manage them.

Regards,

-Drew

Yup, that's what I do. If there is no slackware package, I compile it from source.


Other than that, why do I use it, because it's the only distro worth using. It's stable, secure, fast, easy to use and configure, customizable, and no dependency management in the package manager. There's nothing more I could ask for.

Other distros were backwards to me. There is a great community of helpful people both here and a great resource at slackbuilds. No brainer start up script directory /etc/rc.d. All the header files are included with the packages (no retarded -devel packages). Black Box. Stability first, upgrade later. I could go on and on.

I had a similar post way back in 2006 :) :

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...6/#post2450360

My personal reasons:

Yes it takes some time and effort to set up a Slackware system the way you want, I mean the configurations, extra software etc. But once you do it you realize that

- You have learned a lot about Linux during the process
- The system works exactly the way you want it to work. Everything under control, nothing hidden.
- You don't need to install a zillion -devel packages to compile hello_world.c . Although the official package list and the repositories for Slackware are not as large as the ones for some other distros, being able to do installation from source code makes up for that.

Slackware encourages you to build the system that you want to have. There are plenty of binary packages pre-built for it, but the .tgz archiving scheme uses the same conventions as the very common .tar.gz format used to distribute compressed and archived source code packages. It is these packages that a great number of hard core Slackware enthusiasts use to get the latest versions of their favorite software.

Slackware-CURRENT contains a set of binary packages that are often quite a bit newer than the current released software, unless a release has just come out. You may find Slackware-CURRENT to be a decent place to get software until you are ready to grab software and build it yourself.

The build it yourself software method is often not that difficult at all. The sequence:

1. Download the software (usually a .tar.gz file).
2. Save it to a known location.
3. Extract the software (usually tar zxvf package.tar.gz is all it takes).
4. Move to the location where the software has been extracted. The cd command is used to change the working directory, for example, cd ~/Desktop/firefox.
5. Assuming the software is source code rather than binaries, the following routine often works:
* ./configure && make && sudo make install
* You will be prompted for the root password for the make install step, assuming all else works.

6. If all goes well, your software will be installed, probably in /usr/local/bin unless you or the software specifies otherwise.

If you are not quite ready for Slackware, Debian is another alternative that is very stable and quite flexible, but very different from Slackware.

This is yours. :D I wonder where is mine. :scratch:

Booting to the command line was a big reason I stuck with Slackware. It's a minor detail since I nearly always use X, but I don't like a distro doing a lot of unrequested things like that. Plus I like Patrick's overall philosophy about keeping it simple and functional.

I'm about to switch back to Slack as soon as my stupid transfer finishes.

The reason I switched away from Slackware originally is that people tend to think "well, since he/she is a Slackware user, they must know everything about Linux". I couldn't stand that statement. I have over 2,000 posts. Most people don't understand that over half of my posts are questions, not answers. I really like Slackware, so I'm going back to it, but this time I'm putting something in my sig to scare off those people that think that since you use Slack you know everything. Maybe all the other Slackware users do, but I know I sure don't.

Masinick,

1) You make some good points, but I have two quibbles. I don't think sudo is enabled by default in Slackware.

2) The build method you describe is (of course) technically correct, but it does not build a package than can be easily upgraded or removed with Slackware's package tools.

Being able to remove or upgrade a package is the reason I recommend Slackbuilds.org (using Sbopkg) and Src2pkg.

Regards,
-Drew

There are several people here on the LQ Slackware forum who really are Slackware experts (Eric, Robby, and Mr.V. come to mind). Like you I enjoy learning about my favourite distro (I'm certainly no expert). I'm never bored with Slackware:-)

Dude, I'm as dumb as a box of rocks, nothing is too hard, just as long as know how to look for the answer and ask questions properly. I have been using Slackware since 8 and still don't know squat, I always refer back to my years of notes............

Incredibly bad idea. "make uninstall" is often unsupported, so this will turn your system into mess. NEVER use "make install", always make package first, then install package with package manager. Also sudo won't work by default.

Better way:
1) ./configure
2) make
3) mkdir pkg
4) make DESTDIR=`pwd`/pkg install
5) cd pkg
6) su
8) makepkg programname-programversion-1xyz.tgz
9) chown `whoami`.users ./programname-programversion-1xyz.tgz
10) mv ./programname-programversion-1xyz.tgz ..
11) cd ..
12) rm -r pkg
13) Ctrl+D (exits "su")

Or use slackbuilds, src2pkg, checkinstall or anything else.

This way you'll get package you can install/remove with pkgtool

Notice:
1) step 4 won't work for all programs. To be precise, it won't work for hand-written makefiles, unusual build system and scons-based projects.
2) you can use any 3 letters instead of xyz. I use my nickname.
3) "DESTDIR" might not be supported for very old software.

slackware is incredible, thats why people use it. it is certainly not the easiest OS to master, but speaking as a 'nub' to slackware it is very rewarding getting it up and running, and really the hardest part is the time investment. once you begin to learn how to use it you will feel rewarded when you begin to make things run from scratch. It has great documentation both included on the disc, on the internet, and on forums. the lack of point and click will have you thinking for yourself and learning linux.

With all respect, the the laziest acceptable slack method for installing packages from source if you may uninstall it later.

But then that is even lazy for me... I take the time to make 'good' build scripts for everything that I want and isn't already at slackbuilds.org (seriously... can anybody make a counter to show how often people give that website a plug?). I like that slackware defaults to not configuring sudo for a user. It let me learn how to do it my self and why you may (or more likely may not) want to do it.

I mean honestly, why the hell would any GNU/Linux distro not have a password for the root user and force people to use sudo? not like you just can't go 'sudo su' (I'm sure there is some way to disable that)

Out of spite everybody with a non root password system! type 'sudo su -c "passwd"'

V is the real expert; the rest of us just play one on TV and stay at Holiday Inn Express occasionally... ;-)

Seriously, while I won't speak for Eric, I think the term "expert" goes a bit too far when used in a sentence with my name, unless there's a negation operator present between them. There are certainly areas in which I'm pretty damn good, but there are far more in which I just plain suck. The only "expert" qualification I might have in that regard is knowing that my *writing* should be in the former and my *reading* should be in the latter -- far too many people seem to get those confused... :-)

Each of us on the Slackware team have our own "specialty" areas, and the sum of that knowledge is probably a big part of what makes Slackware what it is.

Darn it. My backup is taking soo long. I keep reading this thread, the more I read, the more I want to get away from Ubuntu. *sigh*

You can check if it is by looking through the Makefile.

And if it's not, the there are ways around it. One way is to run "make install" again, check the output to see where the files went, then delete them manually.

Corrected your current distro...............

Welcome Back!!

I'm staying up till my backup is done so I can start the install. Another hour...

i think centos is good too like slackware
u can try it

I've used CentOS before. It is nothing like Slackware, but its isn't a bad distro. Remember, CentOS is pretty much Redhat with a different logo. Its about as bloated as Fedora (which isn't as bad as Ubuntu..."ubombtu"). Its really good for servers but thats not what this is for. Plus, I put hours of work into making my own Slackware CD so it only installs what I need. Now I can just select the "full install" option and it only installs about 2 gigs of system. Got rid of KDE, replaced it with 12.2's XFCE package, added a customized Fluxbox and Icewm package as well as Conky. Nope. I'll stick to my CD.

That sounds like fun... I'm kind of waiting for 12.2/13 to solidify my extras package base... then maybe I could place those onto the cd as well.

I tested the ISO out in VirtualBox, the only thing that worries me is that XCFE's terminal program seems to act really weird. I'm hoping its just a Virtual computer thing. Also, I changed all the themes in the icewm and fluxbox packages cause the ones they come with are lacking style in more ways than one.

The Slacker way to build packages was well described above, but if you are in a hurry, and risking installing a binary file from a third party is acceptable for you, the Nessus packages is available from www.slacky.eu

Chris

It's a vesa driver thing - Terminal doesn't seem to like the vesa driver in X.

Nope. We're good. I'm up and running. I have a 2.2 Gigabyte system, its lightning fast, and so far I'm happy with my custom system. I am now running a 12.1/12.2 hybrid Slackware distro!

Now I just gotta set my mouse to imps so I can scroll again...

And you'll have to keep source for every program you have. Not a good idea.

It is easier to make package, than deleting things manually.

i think centos have a better thing than slackware
it is the updates u can have updates and all programs u want
remmber that rhel is a very powerful dist.

How is that any different to other distros?

I've answered this or similar questions before, too...Why do I use Slackware? For all the reasons mentioned by other Slackers + I just like it a lot more than any other distro I've used. I like others, but not as much.
If we're having a competition to find out who's not an expert, then I'm sure to win. And Robby's definitely a loser. :D

Very cool, man:-) Welcome home! :cool:

Look how excited everyone has gotten about using Slackware... awesome lol

I managed to install and use Nessus last night too... woo-hoo :-)

Not every program you have, just every program you choose to install this way. That's what /usr/local/src is provided for.

And I don't agree "make install" is a good idea. I already made mess from my Slackware 11 this way (had to kill /usr and install Slackware 12), and I'm not doing this again. Besides, "to run make install again and check what it does" you'll have to either compile entire thing again (probably using different ./configure switches this time, so some junk still will be left behind), or keep object files.
Compiling again takes time, and keeping object files takes space. Certain program take HOURS to compile (nice example is Qt 4 - up to 15 hours, depends on machine), and some other programs take up to gigabyte of space to compile them (most takes up to hundred megabytes, but there are few exceptions). So it is waste of resources either way. Sure, making package takes a bit longer, but it pays off (saves huge amount of time) in the end. In my opinion, using "make install" for installing anywhere (unless there is no other way to do this) is a very bad idea, and I'm not going to change that opinion.

Great, so I'm supposed to keep track what is installed which way. What if later I install package that will overwrite some files of "make install" software? Looks like endless source of "fun". In my opinion, keeping source makes sense, if:
1) you are compiling it right now.
2) you are hacking it.
3) you are studying it.
4) Other programs can't be made to work without it.
Otherwise it is just a pile of files lying around and taking space.

If you were recompiling just to do another make install, you would not run configure again. You would just rerun make.

And keep in mind that we're talking about exceptional cases here. Most programs do support make uninstall, and you can check first by grepping the Makefile for "uninstall." If you don't see it, you might decide not to "make install" that package.

Have you actually seen this happen?

Also, I when I do a ./configure with the intention of doing a "make install," I leave the prefix at the default setting of /usr/local. It's impossible to mess up your /usr directory this way.

I agree with Dugan here.

Personally, I prefer to use a slackbuild to make a package whenever possible, but I'll use make install if writing the slackbuild is too much hassle. I recently did this because I had to upgrade to alsa 1.0.18 to get sound working. Although there are stock packages for alsa-lib and alsa-utils to upgrade from in 12.1, there isn't for the alsa drivers because it's part of the kernel. Also, as I had no sound for the 12.1 version of alsa, I couldn't see why I'd ever want to uninstall!