this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
128 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

1253 readers
68 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Blog post alert

Let me start off by saying: If you just want to have a working system to do your thing with minimal effort, Slackware isn't for you (anymore).

Running Slackware today is like being gifted a Ford Model T by a weird, bearded museum curator, and then finding out that after some minor modifications and learning how to drive it, you can keep up with any modern car on the road. Only it has no ABS, AC, power steering, starter motor, crumple zones, airbags or seatbelts.

Most people who still run it (by any realistic estimate, fewer than 10000 people in the world now) have been running it since the 90's and follow the advice not to change a running system to the letter. So why should anyone who hasn't studied CompSci in Berkeley in the 90's try it today?

First of all, the most widely known criticism (it has no dependency resolution) is a bit of a misunderstanding. Slackware is different. The recommended installation method is a full installation, which means you install everything in the repository up front. That way, all dependencies are already resolved. And you have a system you can use equally well on a desktop or server. It uses 20GB but disk space is essentially free now.

What if you need something that isn't in the repo? Well, do whatever the fuck you want. Use Slackbuilds, which aren't officially supported but endorsed by Slackware's dev. Use Sbopkg, a helper script with dependency resolution very much like Arch's AUR helpers. Use the repos of sister distros like SalixOS that include dependency resolution. Install RPM packages. Install Flatpaks. Unpack tarballs wherever you want them. Go the old school way of compiling from source and administering your own system yourself. Slackware doesn't get in the way of whatever you want to do, cause there's nothing there to get in the way.

It's the most KISS distro that exists. It's the most stable one, too. Any distro-specific knowledge you acquire will stay valid for decades cause the distro hardly ever changes. It's also the closest to "Vanilla Linux" you can get. Cause there really isn't anything there except for patched, stable upstream software and a couple of bash scripts.

Just be mindful of the fact that Slackware is different (because the Linux ecosystem as a whole has moved on from its roots).
One example:
Up-to-date Slackware documentation isn't on Google, it's in text files written by the guy who maintained the distro for 31 years, which come preinstalled with your system. Or on linuxquestions.org, where the same guy posts, asks for input from users, and answers questions regularly.

It's still a competent system, if you have the time and inclination to make it work. And it's a blast from the past, where computing was about collaborating with like-minded freaks on a personal level. And I love that.

top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Charadon@lemmy.sdf.org 35 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Regular Slackware user here.

The biggest reason I use Slackware personally is that it's the only distro I'd consider a "full system" out of the box. What that means, is that I install it, and I don't really install much outside of the repos.

For example, the kde set comes with pretty much every KDE app. I do mean all of them. With other distros, I either have to go hunting for what packages are named what in the repos and spend hours getting everything setup and installed. While on Slackware, I pick the partitions, install, and I have a full desktop with everything I could possibly need.

Some would say "Oh, but that would take a lot of disk space.", and funny thing about that, is with BTRFS compressio enabled. A full install of Slackware is only 4gb =P

[–] Feyd@programming.dev 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Charadon@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

KDE was an example, but a lot of other things come out of the box with Slackware. And of course, that package isn't a thing that comes out of the box.

[–] LiveLM@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago

Damn, squeezing all of that down to 4gb is impressive!

[–] limelight79@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"If you want to know how Linux works, ask a Slackware user."

I've mentioned this a lot lately, but I used Slackware from the late 90s (3.x days) until about 2009 on my desktop and laptop, and about 2017 on my server. I just got tired of dealing with dependencies and switched to Debian (all three run Debian now). I had the CD subscription and would automatically receive the latest version about twice a year.

Patrick Volkerding (if my memory is accurate) has my utmost respect, and I do feel a little bad about abandoning it, but I just didn't have the time to deal with it any more.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 19 points 1 month ago (3 children)

“If you want to know how Linux works, ask a Slackware user.”

apparently Linux works like this:

./configure
missing x
download x.tar.gzip
tar -xf x.tar.gzip
cd x
./configure
missing y
download y

... something something...

make 
make install
[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Well, yes. That is how it works!

As someone who started with slack in '97 these modern distros function so "automagically" that I sometimes distrust them. They've hidden so much of the complexity of Linux and whatever Desktop Environment is running on it that most users have very little idea what's actually happening or how it works.

That's been GREAT for getting more people to use Linux but it's creating the same problem that Microsoft did with Windows. The old DOS users often knew quite a lot about their PC and how it worked because they had to but as the technical barriers went down so too did the knowledge of the users. You no longer had to juggle IRQs, Memory Maps, or DLLs because Windows just did it for you.

That's not a bash (lol) on Linux or users of modern distros either, I myself am on Linux Mint as I type this, because it was always going to work out like this. A lot of very smart people put a lot of their time into MAKING it work out like this.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 4 points 1 month ago

Yeah but now I can install what I need in second and start working, instead of spending an hour finding out dependencies

[–] limelight79@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

Pretty much. Oh but the updated dependency required for your new program breaks an old program you've been relying on for years!

[–] GreatBlueHeron@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

Wow, that brings back memories. Slackware 3.x was my into to Linux in the '90s.

[–] TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

"This is actually the same as the menu option"

Umm so why are there two options?

[–] superkret@feddit.org 8 points 1 month ago

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] Charadon@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 month ago

Legacy Support for old Automation Scripts (Script expecting to press e rather than m)

[–] downhomechunk@midwest.social 11 points 1 month ago

I've used slackware more or less exclusively since the late 90s. It's been my daily driver since I deleted my windows XP partition some time in the early 00s. It's really all I know. Sure, I can find may way around a .deb based system when I have to. I'm also likely to apt install something, say yes to 50 dependencies, brick my system and have no idea what did it.

I love to tinker, and I love to learn. There's no shortage of either in Slackware, and that's why it's not for everyone. And I don't mean that in an "i use arch btw" way. I'm an intermediate user at best. I ask for help way more than I provide help. Lucky for me I've made some good friends in the Slackware community over the years.

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I did once try to get started with Slackware when I was a teenager. It was on a cover CD for Linux Format about twenty years ago. I never managed to get it running and gave up on Linux for a while as a result.

I'm a little perplexed as to what it exists for, to be honest.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 20 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It doesn't exist for anything really. It still exists because some people still find it worthwhile to maintain it, and some people still find it worthwhile to run it.

[–] walthervonstolzing@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I believe the original SUSE Linux started as a bunch of helper scripts for installing Slackware.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It actually started as the German translation of Slackware. Slackware started as a bunch of helper scripts for installing Softlanding Linux, the first real Linux distro.

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think you might be interpreting my comment a little too literally. Perhaps I could instead word it as "I don't know what the appeal is - to me it doesn't seem anything other than an oddly archaic OS". What's its USP, so to speak?

I had something similar when I tried running SUSE in about 2005. Shortly after I discovered Ubuntu and found that it made package management and maintenance easy and from there I was able to start using the system to get things done. Whilst I don't currently use Linux on my personal machine, I do use it on my work machine inside WSL2, on servers at work and at home.

I've never even entertained the notion that Slackware would be something I might use - because it seems clunky for the sake of clunk. Am I missing something here? Or is the clunk the appeal, like how lots of people like really awful B-movies?

[–] superkret@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's a system that doesn't do anything you didn't do, so you know what it does.
It never changes so your workflow stays the same forever.
You can control the startup process in detail, it's all bash scripts.
It comes with a wide variety of software pre installed so no matter if you're running a server or desktop you can start using it right away.
There's no "Debian way" or "Fedora way" of doing things, it makes no assumptions about how you use your system. Put your files wherever you want. Add whatever repos and additional package managers you like. Run it with sudo, create multiple users or run everything as root, it's your system.

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago

Interesting. That makes sense. Thanks for explaining. It doesn't appeal to me but I can certainly relate to the frustration of changes breaking established workflow.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 month ago

Its KISS to the point of being too simple

[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 9 points 1 month ago

So you're saying it's essentially BSD but wastes more of my time. Got it.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Praise "Bob!" For we have Slack...ware! I actually haven't tried it yet because I'm a new user running fedora and Slackware still seems above my paygrade, but as an avowed SubGenius and linux user, it is my destiny to try. I have an old laptop to try it whenever it will bring me Slack, I'm saving this thread for information purposes, thank you. PRA'BOB

(For the uninitiated, the creator of Slackware is also a SubGenius and thus he created it in the name of "Bob.")

1000003261

[–] matcha_addict@lemy.lol 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Is my summary here correct?

  • slackware installs all software in its repos by default.
  • there's no package management or dependency resolution. If you want to delete something, or install something, you do that on your own
[–] superkret@feddit.org 8 points 1 month ago

No. It has a package manager that installs, removes and upgrades packages.

[–] Junkdata@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

It does also have third party repos such as sbopkg. This does a bunch of the movement for you when installing packages though you still need to manually install dependencies, BUT If you also add sboui which is a front end package resolution for dependencies then the process is much faster. I like the stability of Slackware, and also because its helps me get better for when I try the BSD since its very much like them as well.

[–] digdilem@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Nice write up, and there's lots of choice so although Slackware was the first distro I ever ran, back in the 90s, it probably still has a place.

I'm interested in your take on security, without updates. Do you consider Slackware is secure?

[–] superkret@feddit.org 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Slackware gets security updates backported to its package versions, like Debian. If you run Slackware Current, it's actually just as active as Arch or Debian Sid. But for the software you install from outside of the repo, keeping it updated and secure is on you. I just use Flatpaks cause I'm a lazy Slacker.

[–] digdilem@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

Thanks, I was wondering how that worked.

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why would Slackware be insecure? The only trust is in the package manager, which comes with checksums and a maintainer who has a good track record

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago

Vulnerabilities found in packages? The maintainers aren't omniscient.

[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago

That’s good Slackware, don’t you waste that Slackware.

When they dropped reiser the lug broke up mostly along Debian or gentoo lines. It was hard to switch to Debian. You just can’t freely disconnect and connect things like in Slackware. You can’t just rpm2tgz some package and see if it works.

You can’t top the level of troubleshooting knowledge gained from using that distro.

About the only thing a Slackware user can’t tell you is how the system got installed. He just hit enter a bunch of times.

[–] yetAnotherUser@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago

I don't think you answered the question on the title. Why should most people not use Slackware?

[–] SeikoAlpinist@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Every Linux user should try Slackware at some point.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 9 points 1 month ago

I did Linux From Scratch once. I got it to the point it was booting a kennel that supported everything I needed, had a working init (sysv), a helper script that "installed" packages (symlinked stuff to integrate them into the system) and kept "recipes" for whatever I compiled.

If I had kept going and compiled everything I needed and kept maintaining that I'm guessing it would have been pretty close to the Slackware experience, right?

It was very cool to know I can do all that and I learned a lot but if I had kept going I feel like it would have become limiting rather than empowering.

Like, it's cool to go camping and catch your food, and cook it, and sleep outdoors and to know you can survive in the wild, but I wouldn't want to have to do that every day.

[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 3 points 1 month ago

Ngl i would try running the popular distros or a distro based on the popular distro