A Look at Slackware Linux 10.2 [LWN.net]

September 21, 2005

This article was contributed by Ladislav Bodnar

Slackware Linux 10.2 was released on 14 September 2005. Looking through the release notes, it is clear that Slackware 10.2 is not particularly heavy on exciting new features, which, in itself, can perhaps be considered the most obvious selling point of this distribution. In fact, with Slackware, it often seems that Patrick Volkerding tries hard to avoid adding anything that might disturb the peace and add an element of unpredictability, together with potential bugs. With the Native POSIX Thread Library (NPTL), Slackware took the most conservative approach among the Linux distributions, requiring three years to introduce NPTL into the product. NPTL, besides the newly added support for SATA controllers and other hardware, is probably the biggest new feature of Slackware 10.2.

The above paragraph summarizes why Slackware, which had as much as 90% market share of all Linux installations in the mid-nineties, has slowly and painfully become a niche distribution, catering mostly to die-hard Linux geeks. A good case in point is the kernel in Slackware 10.2. Although the default kernel is version 2.4.31, version 2.6.13 is also provided in the /testing directory for the more adventurous users. This kernel can be selected during installation. Once you do that, however, the system will boot into the new kernel without loading any kernel modules, disregarding any hardware detection that might have taken place during the installation. Users are then left to their own devices (no pun intended) to set up and load any kernel modules they might require.

The situation is somewhat better if the user chooses one of the standard binary kernels - either the bare one, or one of the specially prepared kernels with support for certain less common hardware. This type of installation will result in a functional system, with kernel modules for sound cards, USB devices, and network cards loaded and working properly. But the installer does nothing to set up the graphical part of the system; although it provides a functional xorg.conf file with a VESA driver and a decent screen resolution and color depth, it does not extract information from the graphics card, let alone create a proper configuration file with the parameters supported by the card. Configuring X, together with adding non-root users, is a manual task left entirely to the person performing the installation.

Virtually all major distributions available today do an excellent job setting up not only graphics cards and monitors - even more exotic devices, such as scanners, wireless cards or digital cameras, can often be detected and configured without any user intervention. Of course, any such interference with the kernel might introduce bugs and even serious instability, and this is something that Slackware is trying to avoid at all costs. As such, there is little wonder that Slackware is considered to be one of the most stable and bug-free distributions - without taking any risks and without introducing even remotely troublesome code into the product, Slackware is indeed rock solid. And if a user decides to load a kernel module and things go wrong, then it's the user's problem, not Slackware's.

The above attitude means that Slackware is a great product for deployment on servers, but much less exciting as an operating system on workstations - at least until the distribution is painfully set up to support all the peripherals. Even so, some users might be disappointed with the new Slackware release, which, for the first time in years, ships without the GNOME desktop. Although not everybody likes GNOME, there are useful GTK+ and GNOME applications that many might choose to run while logged into KDE or one of the other available desktops. Those users will now have to get GNOME from independent sources, perhaps from Freerock GNOME or GWARE, thus adding a layer of complexity to the process of security updates. And if you think about using the popular Dropline GNOME packages on Slackware, then think again - due to the project's insistence of adding PAM and replacing large system packages, Patrick Volkerding does not recommend it as a suitable option.

Security and system updates provide further cases in point to illustrate how much more convenient most modern distributions have become over the last few years. Although Slackware issues security advisories and provides timely security updates, the process of patching holes is as cumbersome as ever - it entails downloading the updated package manually, then checking its signature, before firing up Slackware's pkgtool to upgrade the vulnerable package. Similarly, a highly manual method awaits any user who decides to upgrade from an older version of Slackware Linux to a newer one - a complicated 10-step process that starts with dropping to runlevel 1, then updating glibc, pkgtool and sed before proceeding with the rest of the software and before bravely refreshing all the configuration files and clean up the resulting mess. Suddenly, you wish that you were running Ubuntu, which can be upgraded with a single command, or SUSE, where a similar task can be achieved from within a nice graphical application.

Before I get reminded about it - yes, I know that Slackware can be extended to include various third-party tools and applications that make security and system upgrades so much more convenient. It also enjoys a large number of community sites that package extra software for Slackware. With their help, Slackware can indeed be extended into a more complete and user-friendly distribution that can do anything that other modern distributions do out of the box. But will it be still Slackware? Or will it be a new distribution where only the base is Slackware, while the reminder is a mix of third-party tools and applications where stability and security are no longer guaranteed?

And that's really what Slackware Linux is today: a base system with the Linux kernel, GNU, pkgtool and a fairly bare collection of the most common open source applications. As such, it gets very high marks for being an extremely clean, stable, reliable and secure operating system. On the other hand, it scores very low in terms of user-friendliness, hardware setup, upgrade convenience and features. A perfect system for many web or file servers, for the geeks who need to have total control, and for those who wish to build a new distribution on top of it.

(Log in to post comments)

A Look at Slackware Linux 10.2

Posted Sep 22, 2005 5:00 UTC (Thu) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022) [Link]

Ah, but for the geek who needs to have total control, it nicely removes the temptation to go *BSD to maximize the UN*X nature. :) And when you compile your own kernel anyways, and you have a box with a functional ACPI BIOS, your devices will exist. The 2.4.31 default kernel is useful to make sure everything in the distribution set up sanely on first boot, and the rest of the distribution is fully 2.6-capable. I do vouch for the niceness of Freerock Gnome, even if you need to grab frg-current today to get full 10.2 support with Gnome 2.12. It no longer screws up your KDE menus, and it's pretty sweet in its own right. :)

And if you think that it's not Slack when you add these things, keep in mind that they are useful to you in proportion to their conformity to the Slack nature. Try to usefully troubleshoot an autodetected Mandrake installation, and tell me that home sweet home isn't still Slackware.

However, no, unless you're already doing things the UN*X way, or want to, Slackware probably isn't a wise starter distribution. Its user-friendliness is not readily apparent until you've needed to get into the nuts and bolts. Think of it like popping the hood. Most car owners never worry about how well arranged the engine compartment is, because they pay a mechanic to do that. But if you've seen the inside of an older muscle car, where every component is laid out *to be worked on*, you should be able to appreciate how user-friendly a clean and readable /etc is.

A Look at Slackware Linux 10.2

Posted Sep 30, 2005 19:48 UTC (Fri) by didierspa (guest, #32794) [Link]

I've installed Slackware 10.2 on my laptop.

what to add not already said by other posters ?
- Everything works
- I'm using a 2.6.14-rc2 kernel : no problem
- Installing more applications is *really* easy whether as Slackware packages or from the source code. Almost never did I find a dependancy problem nor a missing library. Not the same story with the Mandrake (now Mandriva) which I used before...
- e.g. just to have a look at it I downloaded & installed kde3.5-beta1 using konstruct ; get it working was a matter of less README && cd meta/kde && make install... a few hours later everything was installed.
- If you want to stay -current you usally will be among the first to be able to use most recent relases of your favorites applications.

I admit that while installing it is easy, configuring it is a little more demanding -- but when it's done you can forget about lifting the hood. I installed it on my father's computer and he use it very easily everyday. OK he is smart ; but he is 83 and not a geek at all.

Sorry for my bad English

A Look at Slackware Linux 10.2

Posted Oct 1, 2005 22:47 UTC (Sat) by wartstew (guest, #9819) [Link]

I am a reluctant Slackware advocate.

I began using Slackware (as a desktop OS no less), many years ago after growing tired dealing with fixing up configuration errors left behind by some of those "user friendly" utilities used by those other distributions. By Using Slackware I was able to configure my system do exactly what I wanted.

Over the last two years, I've been converting over to Debian-Unstable. I chose Debian for it's very functional and flexible package manager as well as its huge repository.

So now my main desktop machine double boots into Slackware and Debian (also a largely abandoned Windows 98). Guess which one I boot into the most!

The Slackware system not only boots up and runs super fast (partially thanks to my custom kernel), but it got Xorg and KDE 3.4 months before Debian Unstable did. Granted Debian was entirely too slow at adopting these software versions, but My Slackware system keeps surprising me further. Maybe I'm just lucky, but here are some of my experiences:

1) Despite its generally reckless package management system, software upgrades to Slackware have been generally trouble free. My Slackware 9.0 system has evolved into a Slackware 10.2 system and everything seems to still work.

2) Because Slackware has a small native software repository, I often have to "steal" packages from other distributions. With just a little care and common sense, I've had very good luck getting these non-native packages installed and running with excellent stability.

3) Because Slackware isn't set up to use any fancy kernel patches, I have no problem compiling custom kernels for it from "pristine" kernels from kernel.org. They just work.

4) Since Slackware doesn't have many "user friendly" configuration utilities, it assumes you are going to configure things manually by directly editing files in /etc. Because of this, these file contain extra instructions and tips to help you along. This philosophy is not unlike what you find with *BSD, and once you get used to it, you can usually get things configured quickly and correctly.

5) Granted Slackware isn't bleeding edge like Fedora, Gentoo, and others, but on many things it isn't far behind. When Slackware introduces a new version of something, I have confidence that it will work correctly.

Perhaps these are some reasons why Slackware has such a loyal following. After you get used to all what others consider to be non "user friendly" it is hard to leave a distribution that works this well.

A Look at Slackware Linux 10.2

Posted Mar 10, 2006 23:55 UTC (Fri) by d00bid00b (guest, #36415) [Link]

Slackware is quite simply a marvellous GNU/Linux distribution. Ordinarily I tend not to join the mob, but on this occasion I am with the previous posters all the way.
My unsolicited little piece of wisdom is quite simply this: GNU/Linux Slackware just works!! There are no two ways about it. I have cursed it for the very same reasons that I come back to it: because it places the user in control of the system s/he is operating. In this chaotic and soul-destroying cubicle-farm world we spend the majority of our lives in, the prospect of being able to mold one's computer into the kind of machine one wishes is intoxicating!!!
While the lure to blindly follow the beat of "progress" is itself seductive, in modern technological development all too often the question of ethics or the question as to whether a given innovation is worth the consequences are easily glossed over. It is refreshing, and strangely reassuring, that Pat Volkerding &C. still take the time to weigh up the value of progress against the pressure to "upgrade", especially when doing so undermines the stability of what has been established. In short, Pat and his colleagues invite a fundamentally ethical investment with the user world: the basic Slackware system will be reliable, it will be stable, it will withstand however many stupid user errors are thrown at it and rebound with the pipe clenched firmly between Bob Dobbs' teeth. Now, that is reassuring. And I, as a user and part-time developer, want to be able to lean on something as rock solid as my Slackware distribution.
I have sworn by Slackware since 8.1, which was an absolute Godsend on the cover of a magazine here in the UK. I have stayed true to Slackware since those days when the entire distro could fit onto one CD!! In fact, Slackware 8.1 had to be loaded via floppy disks, if I recall correctly. And I have sworn by the distro ever since.

Rock on Patrick!!! Well done - you have my vote for the most gracious and elegant GNU/Linux distribution of them all. No matter which alternative I try, Slackware is the home to which I return.