Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Apr 2008 22:30 UTC
And Slackware too puts out a test release. Patrick writes in the changelog: "OK, we're going to call this Slackware 12.1-rc1, though there is still some more minor work to do." So there. Just so you know.
Thread beginning with comment 308176
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-03-26
Actually, Xenix and AT&T Unix 3.2 for 386 and 3B2, back in the 80s, had more sophisticated package management, and reasonably good menu driven administration facilities. So maybe Slackware is more of a 70s style Unix-like distro.
I've got to agree with you.
I love Slackware's philosophy and for a long time Slackware was my favourite distro.
Recently ArchLinux has taken over on my Linux boxes. It has the same kind of "feel" as Slack but without a lot of the arsing about.
Member since:2006-07-15
ArchLinux?
It lacks quality, it lacks stability, it lacks reliability, it lacks experience within the developers. It has got pacman but this alone doesn't make a good distro or something UNIX-like. KISS as excuse for the lack of any quality is a really poor excuse. So Slack with e.g. pkgsrc beats ArchLinux in no time.
Member since:2006-07-15
RE[3]: Comment by Oliver
by sbergman27 on Sat 5th Apr 2008 15:31
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Oliver"
Member since:2005-07-24
Solving dependencies has nothing to do with UNIX-like,
Then what exactly did you mean by your original statement? The simplistic tar.gz package management, and relative lack of intuitive admin tools are Slackware's primary distinguishing factors.
comparing it with Solaris makes me laugh by the way.
Me too. But probably for different reasons.
Member since:
2005-07-24
It's the only 80s and 90s style Unix-like operating system within the Linux distros. Unix operating systems like Solaris and AIX have moved on. After administering Unix for 8 years, I started my Linux journey with Slackware back in 1996. (Slackware '96) It's remarkable how little it has changed in the last 12 years.
Actually, Xenix and AT&T Unix 3.2 for 386 and 3B2, back in the 80s, had more sophisticated package management, and reasonably good menu driven administration facilities. So maybe Slackware is more of a 70s style Unix-like distro.
Edited 2008-04-04 18:00 UTC