4 ms·

Does Slackware have notable practical applications?

snw 11y ago
it's a nice linux distribution. The packages are usually very stable and well tested. It does the job on the desktop and on the server. In that sense it is practical, not sure if "notable" as there are many other more popular distributions these days.
gruturo 11y ago
I ran it for many years (and still do on a couple smaller machines). It has been exceptionally stable and thankfully devoid of "surprises" (using the word in its worst possible connotation). Things stay exactly as you leave them, it's exceptionally rare for any package to have been "customized" and nothing happens in the system unless you explicitly asked for it / made it happen. This used to be true for the initial setup too, which made it a bit scary to newbies - but since quite a few years that's become a painless experience. Its learning potential is very large. As someone once wrote: Study RedHat, you will have learned RedHat Study SuSE, you will have learned SuSE Study Slackware, you will have learned Unix.
- theseatoms 11y ago
  As someone who should learn more Unix, this is great to know. Thanks.
jqm 11y ago
It's simple so it's somewhat easy to take apart and re-purpose. I was able to use it to build an internet enabled kiosk for instance without a lot of extra weight. It's super stable also so it make a good server. Lack of package management means you won't find it in the standard VM distro line up though. As for other uses... using it to reply to this comment right now.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Lack of package management There is no lack of package management. There is a lack of automatic dependency resolution without third-party additions. This is nowhere near as debilitating as often presented by outside observers who have never tried the distribution. YMMV, but I've ran into circular dependencies and conflicts in addition to configuration updates rendering systems unbootable multiple times on distros like Debian with their non-transactional resolution heuristics that make your life easier, until they don't. Slackware's spartan package management has not failed me once, it's rock solid no matter how much you thrash your file system hierarchy. In addition, when I want to install SlackBuilds, I have never used a more convenient package manager than sbopkg before. Dependencies can be cleanly recorded and built with queuefiles.
  - jsizz 11y ago
    > I have never used a more convenient package manager than sbopkg before. Dependencies can be cleanly recorded and built with queuefiles. http://idlemoor.github.io/slackrepo/index.html http://idlemoor.github.io/slackrepo/index.html
  - mlvljr 11y ago
    Let whoever wants downvote me, but I'd just like to bring people's attention to what your 2nd paraghraph says. ...to me it often is Ubuntu's apt breaking itself (and even reporting this back with cheerfullness I cannot understand) just in time for a save-home-dir-then-wipe-and-install-latest-ubuntu action sequence :)
  - jqm 11y ago
    So it does... I mispoke. But it isn't the same as yum or apt-get. (which is ok w/ me).
- deelowe 11y ago
  Slack has package management. It doesn't do automatic dependency management. That said, Slack's packages are built in such a way to make dependency resolution relatively painless to the point where it's almost a non-issue.
  - igravious 11y ago
    Really? How so? How is dependency resolution managed to the point that it's relatively painless without resorting to automatic dependency management? I'm not saying I don't believe you, I'm just curious. Slackware was the first distribution I ever used oh so many moons ago that I've forgotten how it all worked. Ah sweet nostalgia as someone else mentioned.
    - massysett 11y ago
      Libraries are built as a single package, not split into separate "-dev" packages with headers, so there are fewer packages to manage. Also, these days it's easy to just install the whole of Slackware for a desktop system (when even an SSD is hundreds of gigabytes, a few gigs is no hardship.) So when you do need to build third party applications, your system probably already has what you need. Slackware already comes with a good set of the major libraries, even if they're not GNU (pcre, for example.) Slackbuilds.org will tell you if one of the packages there has dependencies that aren't in Slackware. Typically installing them is not onerous.
deelowe 11y ago
IMO, Slackware is canon. Other distros do great things, but Slackware is the only distro (again to me), that is pure linux in it's look and feel. Practically, it's barebones and basic yet functional enough to do whatever is needed. It's extremely easy to make Slackware into whatever kind of system you're looking for from desktop to server.
carlesfe 11y ago
It's probably the most UNIX-like major Linux distro
cyphax 11y ago
Anything you want from a GNU/Linux-based operating system. Slackware is a great base operating system and its simplicity is its strength. For me it was very easy to get familiar with and feel at home in. One thing that it has over probably all other distributions is its stability in terms of software selection. It still defaults to Lilo over Grub, it didn't switch to systemd, and installing Slackware 15 or 14.2 when it comes out will be exactly the same experience as installing slackware 14.1, or just about any version preceding it, I'm sure of it. :) It has one thing to make it genuinely notable: it's the oldest surviving Linux distribution out there.
emcrazyone 11y ago
I run an entire data center of Slackware Linux on Dell servers. My entire EMail and Web hosting platform is Slackware. I have ~30 Slackware Linux boxes. My installs are very stripped down. I.E. I don't install any of the KDE, Gnome or X stuff. I also remove the games and many of the stock applications that ship with Slackware. I hate Ubuntu, RedHat, etc... Everytime I use them, I feel like I'm fighting the GUI. Ubuntu, for example, I could never figure out how to change the IP address without using the KDE GUI. On Slackware it's as easy as editing /etc/rc.d/rc.inet1.conf I resist Ubuntu, RedHat, etc... because it forces you to become familiar with that distro's way of doing things. And there in lies the rub. As more and more distributions of Linux come about, I see a fragmented Linux world. So, in short, I guess you could say I stuck with what I learned and know from years back. I know that at start up, the stuff inside /etc/rc.d/inet1.conf are parsed and fed to ifconfig for static IPs. my 2 cents...

snw 11y ago

it's a nice linux distribution. The packages are usually very stable and well tested. It does the job on the desktop and on the server. In that sense it is practical, not sure if "notable" as there are many other more popular distributions these days.

gruturo 11y ago

I ran it for many years (and still do on a couple smaller machines). It has been exceptionally stable and thankfully devoid of "surprises" (using the word in its worst possible connotation). Things stay exactly as you leave them, it's exceptionally rare for any package to have been "customized" and nothing happens in the system unless you explicitly asked for it / made it happen. This used to be true for the initial setup too, which made it a bit scary to newbies - but since quite a few years that's become a painless experience. Its learning potential is very large. As someone once wrote: Study RedHat, you will have learned RedHat Study SuSE, you will have learned SuSE Study Slackware, you will have learned Unix.

theseatoms 11y ago
As someone who should learn more Unix, this is great to know. Thanks.

jqm 11y ago

It's simple so it's somewhat easy to take apart and re-purpose. I was able to use it to build an internet enabled kiosk for instance without a lot of extra weight. It's super stable also so it make a good server. Lack of package management means you won't find it in the standard VM distro line up though. As for other uses... using it to reply to this comment right now.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Lack of package management There is no lack of package management. There is a lack of automatic dependency resolution without third-party additions. This is nowhere near as debilitating as often presented by outside observers who have never tried the distribution. YMMV, but I've ran into circular dependencies and conflicts in addition to configuration updates rendering systems unbootable multiple times on distros like Debian with their non-transactional resolution heuristics that make your life easier, until they don't. Slackware's spartan package management has not failed me once, it's rock solid no matter how much you thrash your file system hierarchy. In addition, when I want to install SlackBuilds, I have never used a more convenient package manager than sbopkg before. Dependencies can be cleanly recorded and built with queuefiles.
- jsizz 11y ago
  > I have never used a more convenient package manager than sbopkg before. Dependencies can be cleanly recorded and built with queuefiles. http://idlemoor.github.io/slackrepo/index.html http://idlemoor.github.io/slackrepo/index.html
- mlvljr 11y ago
  Let whoever wants downvote me, but I'd just like to bring people's attention to what your 2nd paraghraph says. ...to me it often is Ubuntu's apt breaking itself (and even reporting this back with cheerfullness I cannot understand) just in time for a save-home-dir-then-wipe-and-install-latest-ubuntu action sequence :)
- jqm 11y ago
  So it does... I mispoke. But it isn't the same as yum or apt-get. (which is ok w/ me).
deelowe 11y ago
Slack has package management. It doesn't do automatic dependency management. That said, Slack's packages are built in such a way to make dependency resolution relatively painless to the point where it's almost a non-issue.
- igravious 11y ago
  Really? How so? How is dependency resolution managed to the point that it's relatively painless without resorting to automatic dependency management? I'm not saying I don't believe you, I'm just curious. Slackware was the first distribution I ever used oh so many moons ago that I've forgotten how it all worked. Ah sweet nostalgia as someone else mentioned.
  - massysett 11y ago
    Libraries are built as a single package, not split into separate "-dev" packages with headers, so there are fewer packages to manage. Also, these days it's easy to just install the whole of Slackware for a desktop system (when even an SSD is hundreds of gigabytes, a few gigs is no hardship.) So when you do need to build third party applications, your system probably already has what you need. Slackware already comes with a good set of the major libraries, even if they're not GNU (pcre, for example.) Slackbuilds.org will tell you if one of the packages there has dependencies that aren't in Slackware. Typically installing them is not onerous.

deelowe 11y ago

IMO, Slackware is canon. Other distros do great things, but Slackware is the only distro (again to me), that is pure linux in it's look and feel. Practically, it's barebones and basic yet functional enough to do whatever is needed. It's extremely easy to make Slackware into whatever kind of system you're looking for from desktop to server.

carlesfe 11y ago

It's probably the most UNIX-like major Linux distro

cyphax 11y ago

Anything you want from a GNU/Linux-based operating system. Slackware is a great base operating system and its simplicity is its strength. For me it was very easy to get familiar with and feel at home in. One thing that it has over probably all other distributions is its stability in terms of software selection. It still defaults to Lilo over Grub, it didn't switch to systemd, and installing Slackware 15 or 14.2 when it comes out will be exactly the same experience as installing slackware 14.1, or just about any version preceding it, I'm sure of it. :) It has one thing to make it genuinely notable: it's the oldest surviving Linux distribution out there.

emcrazyone 11y ago

I run an entire data center of Slackware Linux on Dell servers. My entire EMail and Web hosting platform is Slackware. I have ~30 Slackware Linux boxes. My installs are very stripped down. I.E. I don't install any of the KDE, Gnome or X stuff. I also remove the games and many of the stock applications that ship with Slackware. I hate Ubuntu, RedHat, etc... Everytime I use them, I feel like I'm fighting the GUI. Ubuntu, for example, I could never figure out how to change the IP address without using the KDE GUI. On Slackware it's as easy as editing /etc/rc.d/rc.inet1.conf I resist Ubuntu, RedHat, etc... because it forces you to become familiar with that distro's way of doing things. And there in lies the rub. As more and more distributions of Linux come about, I see a fragmented Linux world. So, in short, I guess you could say I stuck with what I learned and know from years back. I know that at start up, the stuff inside /etc/rc.d/inet1.conf are parsed and fed to ifconfig for static IPs. my 2 cents...