Talk:Slackware

Linux B‑class

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Slackware-based distributions section

What a mess this was in. I've fixed the list style, checked the links (they were all fine, one had moved, updated it), and removed a particularly spammy mention of LTSP from the Lorma linux part which claimed it was a Slack-based distro:
LTSP is an add-on package for Linux[1]

Also, not all the External Links are external links.

Fixed

200.195.30.165 has added a rather hefty list of Slackware-based distributions. For now I've moved it down the bottom of the page, near the See Also section, because the long list of links belong down there if anywhere. It was just after the History and Name section before, which I think was an inappropriate position.

The list is very long, I reckon something has to be done about it. I think it should either be placed in a List of Slackware-based distributions page, or into the List of Linux distributions page. I don't think that such a long list belongs on the Slackware page. --James Hales 14:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, someone who knows their distros needs to cut it down to the more noteworthy items. Also, "Linux Distribution" shouldn't be linked on every line. I haven't decided yet if I can be bothered to fix this personally, since it's clear at least one editor suffers from OCD and will revert it. Chris 17:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

The current opening sentence:

Slackware was one of the earliest Linux distributions (and is still being maintained), created by Patrick Volkerding of Slackware Linux, Inc.

This is a little ambiguous, as well as being an awkward sentence structure. It could be taken to mean:

Slackware was one of the earliest Linux distributions to be created by Patrick Volkerding.

How about this?

Slackware was one of the earliest Linux distributions, and is the oldest distribution still being maintained. It was created by Patrick Volkerding of Slackware Linux Inc.

--Annoying anonymous guy #94804327

By the way, some interesting info from vivaolinux.com.br user stats(top distribuições): Slackware is the second most used distro in their community, at 5074 users, beaten only by Conectiva at 5109 users.

Media error

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Andrew Roberts (ON) (January 27, 2005). "A Week in the Life of an Arch Linux Newbie". OSNews.

Er... Slackware uses packages. See http://www.slackware.com/packages/. --Stephen Gilbert

Beat me to it... pkgtool is their package tool. Not as fancy as RPMs, but it works, and works reliably, too. --Malcolm Farmer

Packages

I've taken this passage out, as it's varying levels of inaccurate, confusing, and seems poorly written to me:

There is a disdain for packages, where related files are grouped together and managed as one entity. For example, even a simple application such as cron would be packaged as a set of files containing the executable, documentation, and configuration files. While this can make installing a new application relatively simple, some Slackware users feel that packages limit their flexibility.

A rewrite and clarification is certainly in order here. The page is left a bit thin, but it's better than distributing inaccurate information. --nknight 03:15 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

As per my Summary any thoughts on my shot at describing the package management issue? --Moss Hart 01:23 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. Thanks. --nknight 01:47 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I took the liberty of fleshing things out, including the package management section. I'm sure it could use a good editor at this point. I tried to keep things neutral despite my personal prefernce for Slackware. I also added a section on init scripts, but my understanding of the issue is limited, so it might be in need of some factual corrections. --Greyweather 03:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Slackware's approach to package management is unique." - The reason given is that it lacks a somewhat controversial feature. While it may actually be unique in that no other distribution has this approach (which I am not sure is true), I think labelling it "unique" shows a bias towards it. Or it may just be me; English is not my first language. I was pointed to this wording in this article on a different Linux distribution. --Haakon 20:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As old as this comment is, I rather agree with it. Slackware almost does not have a packaging system at all, each package is just a tgz file with some rather basic info for the database. (package name, version & discription) Having a lack of packaging system not really unique, LFS also does not use a packaging system, and many livedisks don't either. How about changing the sentance to read something like this? "Slackware employs a minimal approach to package management."

LiveCDs don't generally have package management because they are put onto static, fixed media, which makes packages kinda pointless. And the ones which aren't intended to be static (eg Puppy linux and Knoppix with the UnionFS, both on a RW disc of some sort) do have package management. And LFS doesn't include it because LFS... is a book. --Maru 12:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Say what you want, but if other (rather specialised, I'll admit) distros have it, it's not unique. --Jamesgecko 16:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding me. I was replying to the unsigned comment which claimed that lacking a packaging system is not unique (I think it is very rare), and gave examples of lacking. I was pointing out the examples were flawed for various reasons. --Maru 16:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

I added a few changes, including an unofficial version history, more external links, and move the subentry for CollegeLinux, to the subheading for Slackware based distros in the external links. --moorcito 11:58 02 Sept 2004

Package Managers

In the bit about third party package managers, should it be mentioned that those are external outside links, or should they be wikified to stubs which contain the outside links, or what? As it is, it is a bit surprising to click on an apparent wikilink and be somewhere completely else. --maru 15:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, the different color and the little arrow icon should be enough to indicate that they are external links. --Yath 22:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is true that to an experienced Wikipedian, those indicators are more than sufficient; I noticed it right away. But is Wikipedia designed only for experienced Wikipedians, or is it designed on a basis of 'don't suprise a basic user'? --maru 16:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VectorLinux?

I believe VectorLinux is a Slackware derivative. Could we add that to other derivatives? http://www.vectorlinux.com/ for more info.

Live CD section

Why do we need a section devoted to Slackware-based live CDs? This is an article about Slackware after all. I think this section should resemble the section on Slackware-based distributions - One link and one line devoted to each live CD, linking to wikipedia stubs as appropriate. Any thoughts? --Grazer 2005-06-09

OK, I've made the change. Hopefully you won't want my head on a plate. --Grazer 2005-06-10

Live CDs introduce users to Slackware and its file organization http://freshmeat.net/projects/linuxlivescripts/ exerpt "There are many excellent projects build by using these scripts, like Slax, GoblinX, Mutagenix and gNOX"

Not as widely used as it was in the 90's?

I've been in university for many years now and I've yet to meet a classmate who also uses Slackware. Everyone is "Debian this, RedHat that, Ubuntu this, Gentoo that" -- I feel like I'm the only one on the entire campus who uses Slackware! It used to be in the 1990's that I didn't have such a hard time meeting Slackware users (in the real, physical world I mean, not the Internet), but these days I think I have a better chance of seeing a leprechaun riding a unicorn. --I am not good at running 18:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you've not been there too long... But you are right- I personally think the reason is obvious: one of the major advantages of Linux distros over all the other OSs (I'm excluding *BSD here) is the various packaging systems, which are a unique selling point. MS can't do that, nor can Apple. Slackware does not really have one. --Maru 21:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zipslack

Anyone familiar enough with zipslack willing to include a paragraph or two about it? --Unconcerned 10:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Zipslack paragraph is in the wrong place; it is right after design philosophy and package management, which IMO are definitely not similar topics. --maru (talk) contribs 02:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. I have just moved the Zipslack section to underneath the Releases section, which I believe is more appropriate. James Hales 05:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Release History Table

I do not like the release history table that is aligned to the right hand side of the screen. It leaves a large area of blank space between headings. The only alternative that I could come up with was to use a table like on the Fedora Core page, and place it underneath the text of the section, without aligning , which makes a slight improvement. I had previously tried a few experimentations involving removing the <br clear="all" /> so that proceeding headings would appear to the left of the page, but the release history section was too short and the release history table too long and narrow to make it look attractive.

Has anyone any alternative suggestions? Here is the table I've written up. Hopefully someone can come up with something better. James Hales 05:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just came up with something and tried it. Moved the <br clear="all" /> to underneath the Zipslack section, so that they would sit closer to one another, which I think is proper anyway, but it does not allow the release history table to sink into the design philosophy section, which is a larger and unrelated part of the article. James Hales 11:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

**Slackware x86 Release History**
Version	Date
1.0	July 16 1993
2.0	July 2 1994
3.0	November 30 1995
3.1	June 3 1996
3.2	February 17 1997
3.3	June 11 1997
3.4	October 14 1997
3.5	June 9 1998
3.6	October 28 1998
3.9 / 4.0	May 17 1999
7.0	October 25 1999
7.1	June 22 2000
8.0	July 1 2001
8.1	June 18 2002
9.0	March 19 2003
9.1	September 26 2003
10.0	June 23 2004
10.1	February 2 2005
10.2	September 14 2005

Citing sources

Someone's tagged this article for not citing its sources, and I've taken a crack at adding some. I mostly made links to various pages of the Slackware web site. Places where it's lacking at the moment are the KISS section and the packages section. I couldn't find a reference for those on the main pages of the web site, so I'll keep looking. Once those two sections are done I'm taking away that tag.

For most of the other sections I've added references, except where there is a link to another article or web site which would serve as the relevant reference.

--James Hales 15:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are references all over the article now, so I've removed the notice box, as the article is mostly referenced now. There are still a few comments around the article which require citations, and I think that they're mostly the subjective comments, or are about technical details not mentioned on the official website, but I'm looking around the net for reviews or guides related to Slackware which might back these points up. --James Hales 07:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SlackWare Screenshot

Could somebody get a SlackWare screenshot up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.56.155 (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

File Formats

Does Slackware use RPM files, DEB files or what? ^Talk User:Fissionfox 12:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slackware#Package management. Chris Cunningham 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome

desktop environment was removed from the pending future release,[5] and turned over to community support and distribution. The removal of GNOME was seen by some in the Linux community as significant because the desktop environment is found in many Linux distributions. In lieu of this, several community-based projects have filled the GNOME void in Slackware, by offering complete GNOME distributions for Slackware.

Is this really worth mentioning? -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 10:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]