Live data from Hacker News

Slackware 14.2 released

slackware.com

11–20 of 32 posts

Re: Slackware 14.2 released

#11
post #7

I've worked with a lot of linux distros. I'm a Fedora person myself, but enjoyed Debian and Gentoo also. For Slackware heads, why should I look at Slackware?

Rock-solid stability. Even running the -current (development) version, I've not seen any show-stopping bugs. The bugs I do see are all upstream, and are patched quickly by Pat and the Slackware team. If you are masochistic and enjoy the sometimes daily breakage of distros like Arch and Fedora Rawhide, you won't get your jollies here. But if you want a stable, fast, sysadmin-friendly OS with no surprises or NIH nonsense, give it a shot.

Speaking of patching, Slackware tries to stay as close as possible to the upstream developer's version of a package, with minimal patching. Patches are usually security related, and sometimes a package is patched to fix a bug found in testing, but there are no exotic tweaks like what you get with Ubuntu and other "flashy" distros.

Package management is as simple as it gets; there is no dependency resolution so the user is responsible for making sure they have everything they need for a particular package. Personally I prefer this approach, it reduces bloat and puts me in control of my system. That said, it's not for everyone, and there are some third-party package managers that enhance the existing system with dependency resolution and a pretty interface. You can also build from source just about any package you want to, as Slackware includes a complete dev toolchain for the most popular languages, and you can easily install support for less popular ones.

There is no systemd, which to me is a blessing as it makes for much easier and more familiar management.

Obviously I'm a fan, but there are some downsides I'm willing to admit. It's not flashy; the various desktops that come with it (KDE, Xfce, Fluxbox, Blackbox, WindowMaker, fvwm, twm) are bone-stock with no customization like you get with other OSes. This means a ton of tweaking on the user's part if you don't care for the default themes.

GNOME support is nil. Pat dropped GNOME in the mid-2000s when he got frustrated with building it, and while there are third-party solutions, none of them work 100% in my testing.

Unless you run -current, the stable version tends to get left behind. It's been nearly three years since 14.1 was released, and it was clearly showing its age, though some would consider that a good thing (I certainly do, especially for servers, which is what I use Slackware for on two systems).

There is no systemd, and for many people that makes it a non-starter.

-----

I say, give it a whirl. You may be pleasantly surprised! Then again, you may run screaming back to your bells-and-whistles eye candy OS. But at least you can say you tried it. :-)

Re: Slackware 14.2 released

#12
post #9
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reliability. Consistency. Battle tested and proven. Sticking to original principle and only making changes pragmatically. Slackware Linux. One of the oldest and truest Linux distributions, ever.

How does it compare to *BSD?

I find that it aligns very closely with OpenBSD; users familiar with one will soon be comfortable in the other. Slackware is by far the most BSD-like Linux distro.

Re: Slackware 14.2 released

#15
Slackware 3.0 or 3.1 was my first Linux distro. I remember spending many hours tweaking my XF86Config file to get my Diamond Stealth64 video card working, while worrying about the comment in the config about how the Vsync and Hsync params could cause your monitor to smoke if specified incorrectly...

I also remember in 1999, while installing servers with it, that you had to be careful to lot boot it on an open internet connection without first securing it. The number of running network server daemons the distros of the day started with is sort of mind-boggling now, and since inetd made it as simple as writing a shell script, there wasn't necessarily a lot of thought put into security. This, of course, wasn't a problem limited to Slackware.

Re: Slackware 14.2 released

#16

I've used Slackware back in the day. Nowadays it feels like it's a terribly outdated distro. Why would anyone still use it? The packages are pretty much up to date but the distro itself feels dusty.

I've used this analogy before, but here goes: Slackware is the muscle car of linux distros. If you own one, you're going to need to know how to get your hands dirty, but once you do the thing is going to be fast, lean, and stable. If you enjoy tinkering, swapping things out, compiling from source, editing configs without GUIs...Slackware is for you. If you just want to spin up a linux, install some packages (including all the default-to-on dependency trash that comes with them), and be on your merry way...I'd stay away.

If you want to learn Ubuntu, get Ubuntu. If you want to learn CentOS, get CentOS. If you want to learn linux, get Slack.

Re: Slackware 14.2 released

#17

I've used Slackware back in the day. Nowadays it feels like it's a terribly outdated distro. Why would anyone still use it? The packages are pretty much up to date but the distro itself feels dusty.

I used it until a couple of years ago, but it often wasn't getting security updates and compiling anything for it was becoming more and more trouble. So I left and I don't miss it.

Re: Slackware 14.2 released

#18
post #7

I've worked with a lot of linux distros. I'm a Fedora person myself, but enjoyed Debian and Gentoo also. For Slackware heads, why should I look at Slackware?

I used to run it, and I'm not sure there's value in it anymore. They often don't stay on top of security updates, and compiling anything just got worse and worse.

The last straw was the fanboys at the linuxquestions forum. It was cultish and creeped me out.

Post reply on HN