Does Slackware still matter? (Linux-Watch) [LWN.net]

Alan Canton compares Slackware to other distributions on Linux-Watch. "Unlike Slackware, most Linux distros have by now moved on toward newer and better (IMO) package management systems, as well as either full-fledged GUI admin modules or a collection of easy-to-run scripts that you can use to configure your system. Only in Slackware do you actually have to go in and edit xorg.conf. Just about every other distro has a GUI module or a script that will easily let you set the resolution or dpi of your display."

to post comments

Does Slackware still matter? (Linux-Watch)

Posted Oct 27, 2005 16:23 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] (2 responses)

Don't bother reading the article--it's just someone parading his ignorance. I really don't understand what the point of writing an article is if you're just going to sneer at something.

Does Slackware still matter? (Linux-Watch)

Posted Oct 27, 2005 17:29 UTC (Thu) by tjw.org (guest, #20716) [Link] (1 responses)

I didn't need the warning.

Stating the superiority of an ever changing set of graphical tools over knowing how to edit the three lines of text that those tools change? Please.

Obviously some people need (or want) to be trained button-clickers and have no interest in the underlying system. However, I have a hard time believing those people could be fooled into using Slackware in the first place.

I can only assume this article was intended to either spite Slackware users or persuade Pat to change the way he does things. In either case, it can't be a good article.

Does Alan Canton still matter?

Posted Nov 2, 2005 16:33 UTC (Wed) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link]

"Stating the superiority of an ever changing set of graphical tools over knowing how to edit the three lines of text that those tools change? Please."

LMAO! You nailed it! How in the world is it better to train users to be dependent on tools which depend upon the graphical system, in order to configure the graphical system? Seems a bit like requiring a working car in order to fix your car when it's broken down.

Adding layers of abstraction is not always a good thing to do. If the configuration tool supplied by X doesn't work for a particular combination of hardware (pretty rare these days), the user should not be so dependent upon abstractions as to be unable to examine a plain text file. (I've never been able to figure out what is so scary about text).

Slackware, in my experience, tries not to get in your way and seems to assume that your way should take priority over auto-magical configuration thingies. Slackware is for crazy folk. I suspect the really hard-core Slackware users insist on some means of firing the spark plugs individually and manually in their cars, just in case the means provided from on high, whether electronic or mechanical, doesn't do it to their liking. May there always be such crazy folk and Slackware.

Does Slackware still matter? (Linux-Watch)

Posted Oct 27, 2005 17:42 UTC (Thu) by BradReed (subscriber, #5917) [Link] (2 responses)

I think Alan Canton got his feelings hurt because not everyone worships him on alt.os.linux.slackware. He is constantly trolling a.o.l.s with his opinons on how he could manage Slackware so much better than Pat does.
He constantly drones on about how it should be about market share, and Slackware should advertise, or change to the newest trendy marketing gimmick to boost the market share.

I think most long time readers of a.o.l.s have him scored -9999.

Does Slackware still matter? (Linux-Watch)

Posted Oct 27, 2005 22:18 UTC (Thu) by Alan_Hicks (guest, #20469) [Link]

Worry not, LWN is a great news source. I'm sure once they see the e-mail I just sent to the editor detailing how he has personally attacked members of the Slackware community, accusing them of being on par with people that advocate genoicide (with Message-IDs no less) they won't be linking to anything written by him. If you subscribe to slackware-ot, I forwarded it there, as well as to linux-watch.

Slack's market share is just fine, thank you

Posted Oct 31, 2005 18:23 UTC (Mon) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link]

You have to look at the market Mr. Volkerding is after: Those with the knowledge, or are willing to read a bit to gain the knowledge, to run a clean system whose configuration methods reliably carry over from release to release. It gets you acquainted with the tools a sysadmin needs for any Linux operation.

One of the beauties of Linux distributions: each one can go for 100% market share in the market it cares about.

Does Slackware still matter? (Linux-Watch)

Posted Oct 27, 2005 21:11 UTC (Thu) by richl (guest, #6988) [Link] (2 responses)

I've used Slackware since about 1995 or so.... I seem to remember 3.2 (?). In any case, the issue is one of Control. I can simply edit a few files and it is a stable, reliable server that builds applications well from source. It's a good tool and is being maintained and upgraded nicely (no bleeding edge stuff, etc.).

I'm very happy with Slackware. A familiar, reliable tool.

Les Richardson
Open Admin for Schools

Slackware not bleeding edge???

Posted Oct 27, 2005 22:45 UTC (Thu) by rvfh (guest, #31018) [Link] (1 responses)

I am surprised by these words: Slackware always has (apart from the official kernel) the latest stuff. It only slew down recently following Pat's 'problem', but we used to have KDE's latest well before any other distribution for example. The comparison with Debian, reputedly very stable too just kills the latter.

What I really like in Slack is that the minimum number of patches are applied, meaning that you don't get bad surprises when compiling stuff. It also looks like Pat usually has the right set of configure options so you can expand your system without recompiling everything.

Slackware not bleeding edge???

Posted Oct 29, 2005 18:18 UTC (Sat) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link]

At one time it may have been the bleeding edge distro but no longer. Gentoo or Ubuntu is a more popular choice for those who want everything the instant it's released upstream,

Does Slackware still matter? (Linux-Watch)

Posted Oct 27, 2005 22:33 UTC (Thu) by jimi (guest, #6655) [Link] (1 responses)

As a long time slackware user my first reaction to this article's headline was obviously, "WHAT!??" The comments indicate that the author seems to be trolling more than anything.

But there are some assumptions made in the article that appear to be taken for granted as true. One is that text files are not graphical and therefore not visual or easy. As far as I can tell, text files are as visual as anything (we aren't reading braille here). I think his point is that text files aren't graphical and that is accurate. But the second half of the assumption is not accurate either. GUI tools are not intrinsically any easier to use than text tools are.

It doesn't take a whiz kid to understand slackware, either. Interesting that just recently there was a Slashdot article posted of a review of Slackware that pointed out how simple it was.

Another problem is that the audience to whom Slackware "is not relevant" is never defined. It is assumed that Slackware is not relevant to anyone, but that is clearly false as the article points out that there are 50,000 to 100,000 slackware users. Obviously Slackware isn't irrelevant to them. So who are the people for whom Slackware is irrelevant? MS Windows users? People without computers? Is this any surprise? It is like saying that cars are irrelevant to sailing.

OT

Posted Oct 28, 2005 7:25 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

" It is like saying that cars are irrelevant to sailing."

Until you're surprised (like I was) when, on a boat trip on the Thames, we met a car coming the other way up the river ...

Cheers,
Wol

Does Slackware still matter? (Linux-Watch)

Posted Oct 28, 2005 3:46 UTC (Fri) by wartstew (guest, #9819) [Link]

It's kind of funny, I am very familiar with several Linux distributions. My "main" computer dual boots into Debian-Unstable and Slackware (as well as a mostly abandoned Windows-98). Guess which one I boot into most often?

Yes, I use Slackware as my desktop OS of choice! Eat your heart out Alan Canton.

My Slackware system is stable, very up-to-date but without having "bleeding edge" problems. It also boots up and runs quickly, and somehow I have an easier time configuring or troubleshooting Slackware than about about anything else.

Does Slackware still matter? (Linux-Watch)

Posted Oct 28, 2005 3:52 UTC (Fri) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] (1 responses)

Problem with graphical tools is, if you're legally blind, they're useless. Considering that one of
the original creators of Slackware is legally blind, this might be useful to know.

Text is often easier to handle anyway. A simple edit of a config file, and (sometimes) restart the
daemon, and it works.

Does Slackware still matter? (Linux-Watch)

Posted Nov 3, 2005 12:17 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

If you're illegably blind, they're also useless.

Ok, cheap shot.

X11

Posted Oct 28, 2005 6:35 UTC (Fri) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] (1 responses)

Alan Canton: Only in Slackware do you actually have to go in and edit xorg.conf. Just about every other distro has a GUI module or a script that will easily let you set the resolution or dpi of your display

If it only where so... I find that quite often I have to manually edit the X11 server configuration anyway, either to get it work at all, or to make X11 properly take advantage of the best resolution the card and monitor combination supports. The GUI set up tools certainly work in many common cases and have been getting better, but if not, it is back to the text editor. Slackware is simply being honest.

X11

Posted Nov 1, 2005 0:15 UTC (Tue) by N0NB (guest, #3407) [Link]

Things are getting better. This past weekend I installed Slackware 10.2 on an IBM T42 laptop. To configure X I sumply ran xorgcfg. After a bit I was greeted with a graphic screen. To be sure the mouse worked I moved it around a bit and then clicked Quit. I was prompted to save the config files and the utility exited. I then typed startx and was greeted with the lovely KDE desktop. Truly a non-event.

I started with Slack back in '96 with 3.0 and quickly jumped to Slackware '96 (3.1?). In 1999 I started with Debian and while it is my standard install, I still like to jump back to Slackware.

The article is a plain and dumb FUD

Posted Oct 28, 2005 8:59 UTC (Fri) by dunric (guest, #32852) [Link]

I don't intend to be offensive, but I can't get why somebody has an urge to write about something he completely doesn't know or understand.

because I believe the current Slackware user base is in the area of 50,000.... maybe even as high as 100,000

I believe in Santa Claus, the Earth is flat, etc. How he has got these numbers ? It's almost impossible to get such statistics, but atleast along counter.li.org and distrowatch.org Slackware belongs to top 5, resp. top 10 most used distributions.

Only in Slackware do you actually have to go in and edit xorg.conf. Just about every other distro has a GUI module or a script that will easily let you set the resolution or dpi of your display.

You don't have to ! XOrg suite contains it's own tools to generate xorg.conf - xorgcfg with autodetection or xorgconfig. Philosophy of Slackware is to avoid to do things in non-standard, this distro only specific ways.

The trouble is, there are so many other distros that are just as stable, and just as fast, and which you can use without having to get a Ph.D. in order to understand how to get your work done.
...
And I say "highly professional," because that's what you have to be in order to know and understand how to admin this beast.

Another whistlings in the wind. I would like to hear about any distro not requiring at least basic knowledge of system working to use it. Slack administration is clean, standards keeping and as simple as possible. See the /etc tree and compare it to RH, SUSE or Debian equivalents.

Company's reputation really doesn't help ignorance of its president. But who cares ...

Slackware wasn't desinged for grandma

Posted Oct 28, 2005 10:10 UTC (Fri) by Rick174q (guest, #15955) [Link]

Yes, Slackware does have less GUI tools than most other distros. In many cases it does encourage users to manually edit config files and to try to better understand how everything works. Many Slackware users such as myself prefer that more direct control of everything but, it is not for everyone. If someone just wants an easy to install and use desktop alternative to Windows that is immune to virus and adware then I would suggest something like Ubuntu or SuSE instead. I do not forsee your average Windows user giving up Windows for Slackware. To some extent the author does have a point. Not everyone is a geek who has time or desire to become an expert at Linux configuration.

Slack can occasionally be more difficult when installing an unusual package that has many complex dependancies such as the Beagle desktop search tool. Unfortunately, there are not yet any Slack packages for Beagle and some of its depenancies. With Beagle, I got to one dependancy, for which, I could not find any way to make it work under Slack even when compiling from source. Slack also uses more of a BSD style inititialization instead of the more common System V style intitialization and also uses it's own packaging system instead of RPMs or Debian packages. On a couple of occasions, I have encountered instructions for software or a dependancy which did not seem to allow for one or more of those differences. However, most of the time installing packages under Slack is quick and easy. Has anyone here actually managed to install Beagle under Slack?

Does Slackware still matter? (Linux-Watch)

Posted Oct 28, 2005 14:21 UTC (Fri) by ringerc (subscriber, #3071) [Link]

"Just about every other distro has a GUI module or a script that will easily let you set the resolution or dpi of your display."

Yep. And you know what?

NOT ONE OF THEM IS THE SAME, at least across the major distros. We have all these open source system configuration tools, yet each distro maker seems to desperately ignore its peers to continue enhancing its own "obviously superior" versions. GNOME and KDE tools help a lot, but not really enough (and some distros even go out of their way to make some of those hard to find).

Above all else, I don't get it. Why maintain yast's automatic dependency tool, plus yum, plus apt-rpm, plus urpmi ? Why so many different installers? What about DrakConf, YaSt2, the system-config- tools from FC, and so on? In the position of a distro maker, there's no way I'd want to have to maintain my own versions of these when someone else has existing ones I can just enhance a little.

I wonder if it's that distro makers don't want to then send the enhancements back to the competition?

Does Slackware still matter? (Linux-Watch)

Posted Oct 29, 2005 2:43 UTC (Sat) by brushmore (guest, #33448) [Link] (1 responses)

So why is this guy so obsessed with "market share"? Slackware does its job very well and fits a need for some of us very well which is in fact what it is supposed to do. Thankfully Patrick isn't spending his time trying to figure out how to steal market share from Windows but delivering a solid Linux distribution that you can rely on.

Does Slackware still matter? (Linux-Watch)

Posted Oct 29, 2005 5:40 UTC (Sat) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

No crap.

I'd bet that Slackware now has more users then it ever had in the past. Sounds like Alan Canton should fork and build a Slackware clone that will blow the doors off of Slackware if he thinks it's possible.

Does Slackware still matter? (Linux-Watch)

Posted Oct 31, 2005 15:31 UTC (Mon) by dhave (guest, #33501) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't see how the increasing popularity of Linux will diminish the popularity of Slackware. Instead, as Linux attracts more and more users overall, Slackware will attract more and more of those who like to get under the hood. Remember that some of the refugees from Windows are people who resent the way Windows "protects" the user from delving into the inner workings of the operating system. I'm sure the vast majority of Windows and future Linux users won't be that type; but for those who do have such inclinations, there'll always be a Slackware.

Does Slackware still matter? (Linux-Watch)

Posted Nov 3, 2005 15:32 UTC (Thu) by tnoe27 (guest, #23523) [Link]

I am exactly that user. I switched to SuSE 8.2 back in May of 2003 from Windows 2000/XP. At the time I didn't realize that the SuSE/RH/Mandriva's of the Linux world didn't necessarily provide vanilla code (either kernel or supplied apps). When I went to do my first kernel recompile on SuSE ... disaster. Total kernel panic. It was at that point that I read about Slack and it's various philosophies and despite the warning that it was "not for newbies" I gave it a go. Now I use it on every single piece of hardware that I own and am very happy with it. It gives me complete and total control of every aspect of my system.

In fact, Slack has taught me so much about the underlying system that makes Linux "work", that I was able to fix a RedHat 9 server that was having problems with it's DNS resolution. Did I use the pretty GUI app that came with RedHat? Nope. Just edited the underlying .conf file and away it went.

Bad straw-man selection on his part

Posted Nov 3, 2005 5:08 UTC (Thu) by kirkengaard (guest, #15022) [Link]

Not to mention that comparing Slackware to Debian and its clones as a way of implying obsolescence is downright silly.

A) When have we ever been competing with 'pure' GNU/Linux run by committee as Debian does it, and
B) Why would we ever want to?

Debian is nice, but it fits a specific niche. It is community-run, FSF-friendlier GNU/Linux. Fortunately for many, many other people, it also is easily adaptable to fit many, many other niches. Or maybe it just needs to be adapted? The existence of a plethora of Debian clones is in part due to the endless release period of recent memory, and perhaps what Mr. Canton takes for advantage is, in fact, the opposite situation. Think about how you usually see parallel project forks develop, what the normal cause of forking is in a developer community. Think about how many Slackware forks are out there, compared with Debian forks. Aren't there several other possible conclusions?

I'm not sure we're working against Debian, but even if we were, I'm not sure we'd need advice or help from Mr. Canton. We're fairly healthy, and very relevant, right out of the primary codebase.