Submitted by “Slackware 14.0 brings many updates and enhancements, among which you’ll find two of the most advanced desktop environments available today: Xfce 4.10.0, a fast and lightweight but visually appealing and easy to use desktop environment, and KDE 4.8.5, a recent stable release of the 4.8.x series of the award-winning KDE desktop environment. […] Slackware uses the 3.2.29 kernel bringing you advanced performance features such as journaling filesystems, SCSI and ATA RAID volume support, SATA support, Software RAID, LVM (the Logical Volume Manager), and encrypted filesystems. Kernel support for X DRI (the Direct Rendering Interface) brings high-speed hardware accelerated 3D graphics to Linux.”
Congrats to the Slackware Team! Glad to see she still exists today since her beginnings. I’ve been a long time supporter and user… Slack On.
Edited 2012-09-30 19:49 UTC
Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not against the existence of Slackware and I truly appreciate all the work that has been put in it. I was a Slackware user for a number of years and I’ve just installed Slackware 14 on a test machine. I’m also knowledgeable in many other GNU/Linux distros, which is why I make the following question:
Why use Slackware at all? I can accept the answer “because I can”, but I would prefer something a bit longer than that. To be fair, I can’t think of any answer which couldn’t be refuted with “distro X does it better”, where X could be replaced by more than one name.
Help me understant Slackware in this day and age. Thank you.
So after being a former user… what made you install it today?
I like tinkering. It’s the same reason I like to test new versions of KDE, even though I completely dislike KDE; or installing every new version of Fedora, even though I completely dislike it’s package management.
You’re right. Slackware does not offer any benefits over other distro’s. But maintaining and trying new things out on a Slackware machine is so great as a hobby and you learn a lot from it ( it’s about as close as you can get to a pure form of Linux, with no distro-specific things, without going the insanely time consuming LFS route )
In my opinion, you had the right idea with the second part of your comment. I think that using Slackware to learn Linux IS a great benefit over other distros. Also, as a Slackware user on a server, I find I am able to strip it down to the bare essentials easier than other distributions. The ability to install only what you need without much worry about having to fulfill dependencies is refreshing.
It all depends on what you are looking for, however, to determine if the above should be viewed as benefits.
All distros are good for learning and depending on what you want to do, you have to get your hands dirty sometimes. I love Gentoo, I like Debian and I don’t enjoy Fedora and it’s derivatives, but as a sysadmin I have to know how to configure and maintain a CentOS system, for example, because it’s a professional advantage. The same goes for Ubuntu, since Ubuntu server LTS has a really nice support timeline.
The same can be said of Gentoo, Debian and Fedora, with the added bonus of having a really mature package manager that is “Internet aware” and “update ready”. I understand that nowadays slackpkg comes with Slackware by default, but still it feels clunky.
Like I said before, I’m glad that Slackware is still around and I’m glad that there are people still using it, but unfortunately I can only see it as a somewhat broken toy that will never go beyond that. Sure, we can play with it, sure it can be fun, but you’re better off spending your time with a proper (this is very subjective) operating system.
Edited 2012-09-30 22:29 UTC
You’re right, you can learn a lot of things. I did, especially when trying stuff that clearly wasn’t designed for Slackware. But I (cautiously) disagree with the “pure Linux” statement. As far as I recall, Slackware had it’s own file system hierarchy, which made things funkier to deal at times. Feel free to slap me if I’m wrong. 🙂
Well, file system hierarchy is a giant mess on about any Linux-dstro, and IMHO a good admin will ALWAYS use a command to find a configuration file in his scripts, instead of hardcording path. So I don’t see it as a downside.
Hey, to each his own, though. The only thing people should slap are basses 🙂
No argument there… BSD? 😛
I haven’t tried Slackware in several years, but as I recall, it never really changed much. So if I put it down for a couple of years and then picked it back up again, getting it up and running was pretty much exactly as I remembered it from last time
That, IMHO, was its greatest strength. Plus, there is a certain elegance to it that I liked.
Well that’s an easy one to answer.
Its appeal lies in its simplicity and predictability, especially in its init scripts and conf files. I can always assume that Slack won’t run over my settings.
Also, I know people think the packaging system is a throwback, but I personally prefer Slackware’s over any other. Its genius lies not in its packaging format but in the de facto way that packaging works.
First, almost all dev libraries you need are installed by default. If you can’t find a certain library or program, you can use slackpkg to autodownload and resolve dependencies. If slackpkg doesn’t have it (which is more often than not the case), you can almost always find it in Slackbuilds. Is Slackbuilds too annoying to use? Then use sbopkg, which automates Slackbuilds. Don’t want to tarnish the simplicity of your system? Don’t use sbopkg. Still can’t find things? Compile and install from source without fear of conflicting with your package manager in the future even if you overwrite a file, because Slack’s package management is dumb.
Of course, another way to read all these “advantages” is to say that in a world where the Linux desktop still stinks, Slackware gets out of your way the most so that you can mop up the mess more easily once it happens (and it eventually will)…
That’s the main reason (among many) that I’m switching away from Arch Linux. Arch has always been bleeding edge, but these days they are making changes for the sake of it with no real benefit, and most recently doing a piss-poor job of documenting it where in the past they were one of the most well-documented distros around.
I’m currently installing the new Slack in a virtual machine, and if it does what I need it to I’m going to switch back to it full time for GNU/Linux work. I’ll gladly give up Arch’s pacman and go back to compiling my own slackbuilds if it means some daily sanity is restored.
It was 1999, if i remember correct, when i decided to learn to use a linux system so i got a lot of iso of various distros to test. I spent a lot of time trying to install and properly configure my system. Then i met Slackware, maybe it was 7 or 8. I felt at home, it was a good feeling.
After 13 years i’ve used several different distros for variuos reasons: suse at university, centos, debian and ubuntu server for work, but each time i could choose by myself i always run Slackware.
I love the idea behind it, it’s philosophy. simplicity, stability, performance.
There is no fancy gui that does the work for you, all software is vanilla, no patches.
Upgrades, configuration and everything is made “by hands”. If you need a package not present in the distro you can grab a slackbuild a build it, if you don’t find it you can write it.
Simple. It is always well tested and stable. They release a new version when it is ready. Upgrading from older versions is dead simple. No GUI’s to change config files in ways no human can read. I just love SlackBuild. It is also a very developer friendly distro, because all development tools and libraries are normally installed as standard, so it is very easy to do a off-line install, and get a fully working development system without the need of internet access (very handy in some situations).
In many ways, Slackware makes me think of FreeBSD. A very stable system, and easy to manage and maintain. And building apps from source is awesome, because it can be tuned to your specific hardware or needs.
I can’t speak for others but, speaking for myself, I like Slackware because it stays out of my way. I tell it to do something, it does it. There’s none of these “well, package x depends on package y which also depends on package x” circular dependency problems because Slackware assumes that you know what you are doing and does what you want it to. If I know I don’t need or want a certain function, it won’t refuse to remove it just because it’s marked as a dependency. Also, Slackware has a long-standing tradition of not adopting bleeding edge tech. Don’t get me wrong, I like to experiment with the bleeding edge, but it’s nice to have a system I can just fall back on when I want something that works without a hick-up. Slackware is simple, solid and stable, and doesn’t give me any backtalk. That’s what I like about it. I used to really like Arch for this reason as well, until recently when they decided to do some seriously idiotic things with their filesystem and systemd that broke most of my setups.
The other reason is that Slackware doesn’t really attract the trolls. Those who use Slackware know why they use it and love it for what it is. No one is trying to make Slackware into something that it just couldn’t be. Slackware is for those who understand Linux and *nix, and will always be this way. It’s a breath of fresh air in this day and age when most of the other distros are trying to soften everything and, in the process, making things so complex that it can make one long for the “simplicity” of Windows’ registry again.
I have to agree with this, Slackware stays out of the way. It does very little hand holding. There is an assumption that the user knows what they are doing, for better or worse.
Personally, my main distribution is something else, but I’ve spent time with Slackware and I respect what the developers have done. They’ve basically made an (almost) completely vanilla Linux distribution which is really stable, with no frills or surprises. It’s not exactly my cup of tea, but the simplicity of design does hold a certain appeal, especially as an educational tool.
Can someone fill me in about why KDE 4.8.5 was preferred over 4.9, any particular reason? KDE 4.9 has some nice fixes, isn’t it stable enough?
Slackware has always been about stability, and Pat likes to make sure a package is rock-solid before it hits the servers. I’m sure he’s testing 4.9 right now and it will be released under the -current tree when it’s ready.
I learned a long time ago not to expect zero-day packages from Slackware or vanilla Debian; for bleeding edge there are distros like Arch and Gentoo if that’s what you’re after.
I see. I am currently with RHEL but won’t renew my subs. Ubuntu and Fedora are ruled out. Archlinux was alright until it removed their installation framework from their setup.
The thing I like the most in Slacware is the distro name. In a world where every distro name is pretty ridiculous (ubuntu, fedora, puppy, somethingOS, mageia) Slackware stands out as a damn nice name for a distro.
I think you’ll be happy with it. While I prefer Xfce to KDE and therefore can’t speak for that DE, the rest of the system is as stable and functional as always. In fact, it seems to run even faster on the same hardware than 13.37 did. That’s likely due to better Linux support from AMD; the most recent stable video driver installed without a hitch and seems to be much more reliable than in the past. Still not as good as Nvidia, but they’re getting there.
I think my Windows 7 install is about to be diminished to Windows-only gaming for the foreseeable future.
I was going through a dependency hell trying to install K3B 2.0.2 on RHEL, so I am just calling it a day. I’m gonna try Slackware again. However, I will need: Eclipse, Inkscape, LibreOffice. I think there’s no major issue there. I will be going with KDE since I despise XFCE ugliness. Good to know it’s faster on AMD coz it’s everything here is AMD and my GPU is a new brand Radeon.
Same here. My main home machine is an HP dc5750S with a dual core AMD processor and onboard ATI X1150. I’ve got an AMD HD6570 in there now, and with Slackware 14 this thing is snappier than my box at work, a quad core i5 Lenovo ThinkCentre with 8GB RAM and Windows 7 Pro. I do love the Lenovo and my boss has already offered to sell it to me cheap when it’s time to upgrade, but honestly I am doing great with this old AMD box.
My experience is that Slackware doesn’t check dependencies and it’s with Slackware I’ve had the least problems with them.
A number I’ve times I’ve been bugged by a Linux system not wanting to install X, because it needs Y and Y won’t get installed or doesn’t even exist.
If you really want to be in control of your system Slackware is one of the better choices.
Slackware is what made me understand and love Linux.
I have since the days my parents bought the first computer been eager to know everything about computers and their operatingsystems. It was on slackware I learned to configurate, and it was there I learned to compile my own stripped-down kernel.
It was slackware where my love for opensource began, and my understanding of network as dhcp and so on.
It could have been another distro but I have to be thankful for the Swedish computermagazine “Datormagazin” that had an article that Slackware was for the geek. And as the wannabe-geek I was, I couldn’t make another choice as of that time.
It was also here where I learned somewhat pacience
I remember how many dependencies I downloaded to compile something. Learnt aswell understanding to change Makefiles if there was something suspicious.
In other words: Thank’s mr volkerding and others for this great compilation of free software.
Edited 2012-10-01 06:47 UTC
Slackware is the most maintainable and upgradeable hence dependable linux distro.
You can install Slackware 8.0 and upgrade in easily to 14.0 without a need for reinstall. You can be sure it does not step on your toes or get on your way. You are the owner of the system and know whats inside. No babysitting. Perfect!
Edited 2012-10-01 06:59 UTC
I’m going to chime in a say that Slackware was my second distribution. (The first was Mandrake) It’s was the first one I was able to get working fully. There was a nice installation on LinuxQuestions that got me started.
My only problem with it was the limits on which software I could find for it. That meant that sometime I had to compile and several times that didn’t work. But looking back I remember most of the time that was software that I was experimenting with.
It was a lot less annoying than many others out there with their packaging system. It was also much less buggy than many of the others. (So was Mandrake if my memory serves)