
Slackware 13.0 is released  - dimm
http://slackware.com/releasenotes/13.0.php
======
cesare
Slackware is still my favorite distro (even though I also use Ubuntu a lot
nowadays).

It's the best choice IMO for learning Linux, for power users and for
developers.

I still prefer to compile most of the software I need by myself, to get the
latest releases and to compile with the options I want. And there's nothing I
can't get running on Slackware. This is mostly because Slackware uses
unpatched/non customized versions of each software, compiled with default
settings.

I also love that fact that it doesn't even have its own visual branding. KDE
is just KDE (with the default theme and its own wallpapers) and everything
else comes as if you would have got the source and compiled yourself.

\\\//, live long and prosper, Slackware.

~~~
ednapiranha
slackware, the main distro for the church of the subgenius. amazing. _wipes
tears of joy_

------
astine
Biggest news:

 _Probably the first thing to mention about the release of Slackware 13.0 is
that it marks our first release with an official 64-bit port!_

Nice.

Also, they switched from KDE3 to KDE4. And version number == 13; lucky number.

------
steiger
Because i run -current, i didn't even notice.

But hell yeah, it's a damn good news! I'm running the 64 bit version and it is
rock-solid (as always is the case with slack.)

------
zokier
I must admit, I have never understood the package management in Slackware, and
that has kept me from trying it. Apparently it has some kind of package
management tools, which don't do dependency resolving (by default).

But does it have the capability to update installed packages automatically or
with a few commands (compare to aptitude update; aptitude upgrade)? And does
it have a search function for packages (like apt-cache search foo)?

I can understand that not having dependency resolution simplifies tools a lot,
but is there advantages for end-users from that? And is there some kind of
external database or something that will help tracking dependencies, or is it
based on guesswork and trial & error?

~~~
rg3
Every time Slackware is metioned in a news site, fans of it will always write
comments saying how they love it, and many other users like to point out how
Slackware's package management is "nonexistant" or outdated, in the sense that
it doesn't resolve dependencies automatically and we're in 2009. There are
even some Slackware fans who counter-attack saying that manually resolving
dependencies is better and that you should not trust a program to do the job.

Now, as a long time Slackware user, I'm going to give you my opinion: it's all
a matter of taste. Different people like different types of systems, and
Slackware is a perfectly valid distribution for many people.

The reason it doesn't resolve dependencies automatically has to do with its
"KISS" principle. Normally, to resolve dependencies effectively you need to
add more stuff to the package management tools. For example, it makes much
more sense to automatically resolve dependencies when the package management
tools know the concept of remote repository, know the list of available
packages, and what each package provides, and they can talk to the servers
over the network to download packages automatically. Like apt-get does.

In Slackware, the package management tools you get are really really simple
internally, and are in fact shell scripts (installpkg, removepkg, upgradepkg,
etc). All they understand is package files, which are tarballs, and they don't
really perform complex tasks. The package management tools in Slackware follow
the KISS principle, and the line was drawn at that point. If you want to
resolve dependencies automatically, then you probably need remote
repositories, talking over the network, keeping a package database, etc.
Slackware drew the line before all of that to keep the system simple. As easy
as that.

As a Slackware user, I will never say that having to resolve dependencies by
hand is a good thing. However, it's a very minor flaw that needs to be present
if you want the package management to be simple, like the rest of the system.
Slackware, internally, is very simple and stable. It's one of the few
distributions you can very easily learn almost by heart. There are so few
pieces and they fit together so easily...

For people like me, Slackware is the best choice because we want that type of
system and we enjoy being working at the computer and knowing perfectly the
system you're working on. Solving dependencies automatically is not a priority
for me and having to do it manually is a non-issue. I don't install new
software everyday. I just keep my system with the applications I need and use
it. Contrary to one of the comments above, I don't use Slackware to hack and
learn. I use it to get the job done. That's what computers are for, and
Slackware is still a very valid system for that.

How do I track dependencies? If a program doesn't run because it lacks a
library, running it from the command line will tell you which library is
lacking. The ldd command can tell you that too. From that point, it's very
easy to know what you are missing that the program needs. Library names
usually match the package name. For other cases you can use the package
browser and ask for the library (packages.slackware.it), you can ask in the
IRC channel at freenode for a quick answer, you can ask at LinuxQuestions and
you can also manually look in the MANIFEST.bz2 file present in every mirror,
as it mentions the files each package provides.

If the problem lies in a piece of software you are trying to compile, usually
the program documentation contains the appropriate information including a
list of requirements. Some of those requirements may have an official package
and some others may have to be installed by hand too.

But, really, it's not that hard and for most people this problem doesn't turn
up all the time, at all. If you like the system, you won't find offensive to
lose a bit of time tracking a few dependencies in a software package you're
installing. Specially if you're going to use the software for months. That
initial effort is not that important, at least in my humble opinion. Like I
said at the beginning, it's a matter of taste and what fits you better.

~~~
sandGorgon
According to your philosophy, isnt ArchLinux the perfect middle ground ?

rolling releases, BSD style init, a really good package repo (AUR) and manager
(pacman) - no "-src" packages ...

if you want to insist on Slackware like package management - use PKGBUILD .

~~~
rg3
I've heard many positive things about Archlinux and a friend of mine who used
to run Slackware now runs Archlinux and he's very happy, as far as I know. I
don't use Archlinux for two reasons: I already know Slackware, and I have also
heard, first hand from him, that Archlinux tends to break a bit more than
slackware-current, that is, it's a bit more unstable.

But, yes, Archlinux is definitely another distribution that could fit me too,
as it's quite simple and doesn't get in the middle. I'll probably try it one
day if I become tired of Slackware.

------
justindz
Slackware 3.0 was my introduction to Linux in Jr. High. I definitely learned a
lot. Although most "friendlier" distros weren't around then, even if they were
I hope I would have still started with slack.

I use Ubuntu now in part because my wife and little kids use the computer too,
but I am frequently tempted to give slack a try again.

------
anshul
Anyone got any updates on the various gnomes? Anyone of them close to the
finishing line?

------
trezor
I don't really get the fascination around Slackware. As a distro it is
probably the least featured among all of the distros out there. It doesn't
even have automated patch management for Christ's sake.

Only real use I see for it is using it, once, to fiddle around and learn how
Linux actually works. After that you just wants something which works and move
on to Debian, Fedora or whatever.

Also obligatory demotivator link:
[http://invalid.ed.ntnu.no/~jostein/qupload/files/slackware.j...](http://invalid.ed.ntnu.no/~jostein/qupload/files/slackware.jpg)

~~~
anshul
I am the opposite. I really can't get anything other than slackware (not that
I can't work with them - I can, but life just is not as simple as slackware
anywhere else). Why would anyone want or need anything more complicated then a
compressed tar file for package management is beyond me.

Slackware is simple, beautiful and elegant but no more than it has to be. It
just works and it leaves all the power in the world at my hands. I can make it
do my bidding fast as lightning and it never gets in my way. Once you begin to
get the basic principles of slack, it very closely follows the principle of
least surprise.

~~~
jballanc
I agree. I think that those who feel that Linux should be a "main stream" OS
(for whatever definition of main stream you choose) are missing the point that
it was, and always has been, primarily a hacker's OS.

That's not to say that distros like Ubuntu don't have their place, but there's
so much automation going on in these "modern" package management systems that
you really aren't going to learn anything. Sure, you'll end up with a very
nice, very functional computer, but that (IMHO) isn't the point of Linux. I'd
go so far as to say that I feel like Ubuntu is no longer "Linux", just like
Mac OS X is no longer "BSD". Based on? Yes. Is? No, _Slackware_ is Linux.

~~~
trezor
Sure Linux may be a "hackers OS", but I'd still argue the opposite.

For people who work with Linux for a living, like system administration, you
want your Linux distro to absolutely minimize the amount of work needed. When
your server-park scales, manually having to fiddle around 200 Slackware
installations simply isn't an option.

~~~
jballanc
Right, which is why you'd be using RHEL or some such. When we get into the
open source world of BSDs and Linuxes, it's hard to really say what qualifies
as the "OS". My point was that the original "Linux" that Linus wrote to learn
more about his machine had a purpose, I think, much more in line with
Slackware than SuSE/RHEL/Debian/Ubuntu/etc.

