Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 11:38 UTC, submitted by Witek Wasilewski
Slackware, Slax Slackware 13.0 RC1 has been released. Or tagged. Or whatever you'd call it in the Slackware world. "The TODO isn't entirely empty here, but it's pretty much down to minor nits, and so we're going to call this release candidate #1 and (mostly) freeze further updates unless they happen to fix problems. Regarding the kernel, 2.6.29.x has been well tested with this userspace and seems like the best choice to ship for production use. Perhaps we can put something else (at least source and configs) in /testing, though."
Order by: Score:
Very cool
by JPisini on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 12:22 UTC
JPisini
Member since:
2006-01-24

I was a long time Slackware user eventually migrating to Debian based systems but Slackware was my first Linux and I'll always enjoy playing with new releases of it to see how it is progressing.

Reply Score: 1

Cool
by darknexus on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 14:22 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Slackware was my first Linux, and I'll always have a soft spot for it. It was my favorite Linux for a long time, but in the last year or so Archlinux has taken that position.

Reply Score: 2

<3 Slackware
by boldingd on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 16:34 UTC
boldingd
Member since:
2009-02-19

The fact that there's now an official 64-bit version may well bring me back to Slackware. I <3 me some Slackware. I'll definitely be installing the RC.

Reply Score: 1

How's it run?
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 03:42 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

I'm kind of nervous about the next Slackware, given that it uses KDE4 by default. These days, I'm sure the bugs in the 4 series are mostly minimal, so that's not really my concern, but another problem remains. KDE4 is a *monster* on system resources and in my experience hogs up a lot of memory. Basically, to the point where it's not even usable as an installed OS, let alone a live CD which (by its nature) is heavier. With 256MB of memory, you might as well not even bother with it--that's been my experience. However, Slackware has always tried to be as simple as possible, which leads to its tendency to feel lightweight and fast compared to others. Has anyone tried KDE4 in Slackware vs. KDE4 in, say, Kubuntu/Pardus/etc.?

Reply Score: 2

RE: How's it run?
by wigry on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 09:32 UTC in reply to "How's it run?"
wigry Member since:
2008-10-09

In Slackware, there is no such thing as default window manager. In fact you may choose not to install any window managers at all. All installation is text-based and one of the last questions it asks is what window manager the user prefers. Later this can be changed with xwmconfig.

I for example installed slack 12.2 without any WM then compiled my own XFCE 4.6.0 (Slack 12.2 had 4.4) and used that.

Slack is too modular to complain about resource hogging.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: How's it run?
by gezley on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 13:36 UTC in reply to "RE: How's it run?"
gezley Member since:
2009-07-03

Could you point me to a write-up how to compile XFCE 4.6 on Slackware? I'd love to do this.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: How's it run?
by wigry on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 16:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: How's it run?"
wigry Member since:
2008-10-09

Used xfce.org dependency list as guide to compile the sources: http://www.xfce.org/documentation/requirements

Also created the slack build scripts to install the compiled modules as slack packages (for removal purposes if needed later). Browse in the slackware source directory to see the available SlackBuild scripts as samples and create your own based on them.

After the scripts are created just run them and the sources are compiled and packaged for installation.

Actually only special thing about those scripts are the fact that 'make install' is called with destdir parameter to install the module to specific directory and them slackware package is created by compressing that directory.

Edited 2009-07-03 16:35 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: How's it run?
by gezley on Mon 6th Jul 2009 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: How's it run?"
gezley Member since:
2009-07-03

Thanks for that. I did try to do it in Debian but failed. I'll give it another go.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: How's it run?
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE: How's it run?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

In Slackware, there is no such thing as default window manager. In fact you may choose not to install any window managers at all. All installation is text-based and one of the last questions it asks is what window manager the user prefers. Later this can be changed with xwmconfig.


Maybe I should clarify myself. By "default," I meant that Slackware, if you choose KDE, now uses KDE4 instead of KDE3. Xfce is good, and if it comes down to it I might just end up using that if I move back to Slack. I just have some serious doubts of KDE4 running well at all on my machine.

I for example installed slack 12.2 without any WM then compiled my own XFCE 4.6.0 (Slack 12.2 had 4.4) and used that.


I've tried compiling various small programs; some worked, and some didn't, usually because of dependencies. The last thing I would want to do is compile an entire desktop environment. In fact, the last time I did it was actually Xfce, with their fancy GUI "installer" and all. Even after installing a bunch of dependencies, I got nowhere. What fun.

Slack is too modular to complain about resource hogging.


Agreed, but assuming a typical user is used to running KDE3 in Slackware... it seems that either they're going to have to pack their bags and switch window managers, or hope they've got the resources to run its successor.

Reply Score: 2

RE: How's it run?
by B12 Simon on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 09:37 UTC in reply to "How's it run?"
B12 Simon Member since:
2006-11-08

You can choose not to install KDE.

If you're concerned about resources there's XFCE and other more lightweight window managers available.

Reply Score: 2

RE: How's it run?
by wigry on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 09:44 UTC in reply to "How's it run?"
wigry Member since:
2008-10-09

You want the latest and the greatest in software (KDE4) but you refuse to match it with the decent hardware (256MB RAM)? Guess you have to stick with software that matches with the capabilities of your hardware.

Edited 2009-07-03 09:46 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: How's it run?
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE: How's it run?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

You want the latest and the greatest in software (KDE4) but you refuse to match it with the decent hardware (256MB RAM)? Guess you have to stick with software that matches with the capabilities of your hardware.

Dude, since when did I say I *wanted* KDE4? I still have yet to try it--even with a more powerful machine--and come away saying, "man, I like this better than KDE3..." I'm just not impressed, and still would much prefer to run KDE3. Also, not having the money for a new machine is not "refusing" to match hardware. Hardware upgrades? Hah, this thing's honestly not worth putting any more into at this point, except possibly a memory upgrade--but even those are prohibitively expensive with the current conditions. I've already fed it loads of money, and it's just getting flakier.

Edited 2009-07-03 22:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Wasn't there a sqlite weakness
by Ulenrich on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 08:19 UTC
Ulenrich
Member since:
2007-04-26

Wasn't there a sqlite weakness with kernel 2.6.29
That was the main reason of firefox being slower on Linux than other platforms.

Edited 2009-07-03 08:21 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wasn't there a sqlite weakness
by kaiwai on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 16:54 UTC in reply to "Wasn't there a sqlite weakness"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Wasn't there a sqlite weakness with kernel 2.6.29
That was the main reason of firefox being slower on Linux than other platforms.


I assume you're referring to the following:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_2629_bench...

When it came to the SQLite performance, a serious performance regression began with the Linux 2.6.26 kernel and ended with the Linux 2.6.29 release. Normally it required 27~28 seconds to perform 12,500 database insertions using SQLite, but with the Linux 2.6.26 through 2.6.28 kernel releases it took 109 seconds! Fortunately, this regression is now fixed. This is quite important considering SQLite is used by Mozilla Firefox, Adobe, and many other desktop applications.


This performance issue doesn't impact on Linux 2.6.29 and in regards to older kernels, unless you're going to flog the system by doing 12,500 inserts you won't experience any major performance issues. For some reason I don't think the average user using Firefox will be doing 12,500 inserts.

Edited 2009-07-03 16:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

WindowMaker
by g0nad on Sun 5th Jul 2009 07:47 UTC
g0nad
Member since:
2009-02-22

For people with limited resources I'd definately recommend WindowMaker. It's my favorite because it does what I want it to do, like sloppy focus etc

Reply Score: 1

At least they have a 64-bit version now
by riserglen on Tue 7th Jul 2009 02:28 UTC
riserglen
Member since:
2009-07-07

I've been using Slackware again since they unofficially released the 64-bit version. The performance, at least for me, has been excellent.

Reply Score: 1