Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd May 2008 05:47 UTC, submitted by ZacharyM
Slackware, Slax One of the oldest Linux distributions, Slackware, has pushed out another release. "Well folks, it's that time to announce a new stable Slackware release again. So, without further ado, announcing Slackware version 12.1! Since we've moved to supporting the 2.6 kernel series exclusively (and fine-tuned the system to get the most out of it), we feel that Slackware 12.1 has many improvements over our last release (Slackware 12.0) and is a must-have upgrade for any Slackware user."
E-mail Print r 8   · Read More · 42 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 312736
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Packages, packages...
by sbergman27 on Sun 4th May 2008 05:04 UTC in reply to "Packages, packages..."
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

I see several users have left Slackware for Debian or Ubuntu because of the "massive repos".
I don't know of any individual who uses all 25000+ packages in the Debian/Ubuntu repositories. Therefore, the only advantage is an easier method of resolving dependencies.

You are not making any sense. What matters not what percentage of the packages one uses, but how many are *not* available in the standard repos, and thus require a lot of manual attention to obtain and maintain. Between the main repo, Universe, and Multiverse, pretty much anything that is available anywhere is available there. I use CentOS, Fedora, and Ubuntu regularly. And there is really no comparison regarding completeness of the repos. (I'm sure Debian package availability is at least as good.) I'm not sure what the availability status of Slack is these days, since I left it in 1997 due to its... lack of proper package management. But I have seen nothing to indicate that the situation has changed much.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Packages, packages...
by gavin.mccord on Sun 4th May 2008 12:52 in reply to "RE: Packages, packages..."
gavin.mccord Member since:
2005-09-07

[flame]
No doubt those who don't like Slackware's package management also drive automatic transmission cars.

Real men drive stick shift and work out their own dependencies :-)
[/flame]

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Packages, packages...
by bradley on Sun 4th May 2008 15:39 in reply to "RE[2]: Packages, packages..."
bradley Member since:
2007-03-02

Strange... Slack does not need to be defended, she definitely speaks for herself. Dependencies - I've always put dependencies for the programs that I use on a flash drive and when there is a new or updated package I simply replace it so I'm always current. If dependencies are soley the reason for people walking away from Slack... then let them walk.

If you know what programs you need for day to day tasks, it just makes sense to keep up with what dependencies are need.

Opensource... For the people, by the people.

Peace.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Packages, packages...
by garymax on Sun 4th May 2008 15:30 in reply to "RE: Packages, packages..."
garymax Member since:
2006-01-23

You are not making any sense.


Nice try at polemics but I made perfect sense. My point was and is the fact that unless you are installing massive amounts of apps, resolving dependencies is not that big of a deal.

When you have source code ANY application is available.

I left it in 1997 due to its... lack of proper package management. But I have seen nothing to indicate that the situation has changed much.


This further proves my point. You're looking for something easy. It's not a matter of whether apps are available or not. It's whether you can get them onto your system in a perceived "easy" fashion.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing but it underscores the crux of the issue.

Also, it appears your idea of a "proper" package manager is one that resolves dependencies or, in other words, is easy...

I still say the cleanliness of the system and the relative ease with which dependencies are resolved in Slackware are well worth the minimal extra effort to get a great system that performs well with no bloat.

Reply Parent Score: 3

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I would agree that for very simple systems with well defined requirements, Slackware's lack of package management might not make much difference. Ditto for embedded use.

For my own personal and professional needs, I require something which handles software installation and dependencies more efficiently than does Slackware. I support some 60 or so machines in various configurations, and that "small amount of effort" you refer to adds up fast. What you somewhat disparagingly refer to as wanting something "easy", I refer to as wanting something scalable, managable, and face it, modern.

Edited 2008-05-04 17:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Packages, packages...
by Oliver on Mon 5th May 2008 08:35 in reply to "RE: Packages, packages..."
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Most of these so-called 25.000 packages are the userland itself. And if I use something like pkgsrc with Slack I will find lot _additional_ of software. So what? It's about quality not quantity.

Reply Parent Score: 2