Talk:Slackware/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Unwarranted advertising

The Third Party heading was clearly intended to include a list of third party sources of packages for Slackware. However, at the end a superfluous mention of Puppy Linux has been slipped in, with the statement that: "Puppy Linux, as of version 3.00, is now compatible with Slackware 12, as it includes almost all the dependencies needed for the installation of Slackware packages."

Aside from the illogicality of the term "compatible" to mean "contains a subset of the required libraries", this is merely unwarranted advertising. If there are no rational objections within a few days, it should be removed. There is no justification for listing all the distributions that can have Slackware packages installed, which, logically, should be nearly all of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marksouth (talkcontribs) 20:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Release information

Can we compile the release history and related information into a table such as this:

Colour Meaning
Red Old release; not supported
Yellow Old release; still supported
Green Current release
Blue Future release
Version Code name Testing name Release date Supported until Features and Changes
4.10 Warty Warthog Sounder 2004-10-20 2006-04-30 Initial release; ShipIt
5.04 Hoary Hedgehog Array 2005-04-08 2006-10-31 Update Manager; Upgrade Notifier; readahead; grepmap; laptop suspend, hibernate and standby; dynamic frequency scaling; Ubuntu hardware database; Kickstart; installation from USB devices; UTF-8 by default; APT authentication
5.10 Breezy Badger Colony 2005-10-13 2007-04-13 Usplash (graphical boot sequence); "Add/Remove..." application tool; easy language selector; logical volume management support; full Hewlett-Packard printer support; OEM installer support; Launchpad integration
6.06 LTS Dapper Drake Flight 2006-06-01 2009-06 (desktops) Long Term Support (LTS) release; Live CD and Install CD merged onto one disc; Ubiquity graphical installer on Live CD; Usplash on shutdowns; Network Manager for easy switching of multiple wired and wireless connections; 'Humanlooks' theme implemented using Tango guidelines, based on Clearlooks and featuring orange colours instead of brown; LAMP installation option; installation to USB devices; GDebi graphical installer for package files
2011-06 (servers)
6.10 Edgy Eft Knot 2006-10-26 2008-04 Ubuntu 'Human' theme heavily modified; Upstart init daemon; automated crash reports (Apport); Tomboy notetaking application; F-spot photo manager; EasyUbuntu merges into Ubuntu via meta-package installs and features
7.04 Feisty Fawn Herd 2007-04-19 2008-10 Migration assistant; Kernel-based Virtual Machine support; easy codec and restricted drivers installation; Compiz desktop effects; Wi-Fi Protected Access support; PowerPC support dropped; Sudoku and chess games added; disk usage analyser (baobab) added; GNOME Control Center; Zeroconf for many devices
7.10 Gutsy Gibbon Tribe 2007-10-18 2009-04 Compiz Fusion by default; AppArmor security framework;fast desktop search;fast user switching; some plug-ins for Mozilla Firefox now handled by APT (Ubufox); graphical configuration tool for; a revamped printing system with PDF printing by default; full NTFS support (read/write) via NTFS-3G
8.04 LTS Hardy Heron Alpha 2008-04-24 2011-04 (desktops) Long Term Support (LTS) release; Better Tango compliance; compiz usability improvements; tracker integration; Brasero disk burner, Transmission BitTorrent client and Vinagre VNC client by default; PulseAudio by default
2013-04 (servers)
8.10 Intrepid Ibex Alpha 2008-10-30 2010-04 Complete interface redesign; improvements to mobile computing and desktop scalability; increased flexibility for Internet connectivity

Altonbr (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC) no because Slackware doesn't work the same way as ubuntu does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but making everything before 8.1 (2002) red and it and everything after yellow could be reasonable. Slackware's next version is not pre-announced and the current one would obviously be the latest, so I see no sense in those, but some versions do get updates and some don't. -- (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Latest Version Layout

 I have been working on a Linux Users Group resource page and need some
conformity of all the Wiki Linux versions and distributions. Debian has an
excellent template and I have made an RSS reader to pluck version data from
the wiki page. Would be nice if I could get all of them to follow this method
and my page could keep up to date with all the latest versions.  
RSS source path     
RSS Template.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarusfactor (talkcontribs) 02:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 

Support term

A bit of info that should be part of every article about a Linux distro: how long is a major release typically supported?--Exidor (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

They are supported as long as Pat supports it. Slackware 8.1 from 2001 is still getting updates. Just check the changelogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a paragraph with Support term. I concur with you, Exidor, that this is a vital point, worthwile or even necessary to be included. I thus made an addition. Maybe we should add some info about technical support as well..

Germanopratin (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Pre-1.0 timeline

Donbranson (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Does anyone have info on when versions 0.8 and 0.9 were available? I used them, but can't for the life of me come up with release dates for those.


the name es based in Church_of_the_SubGenius my english is bad, so i won't write this.--Vincegeratorix (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincegeratorix (talkcontribs) 13:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Slackware ports

The article says:

"Slackware for the IBM S/390 architecture is also still actively developed and maintained in both -current and -stable forms."

I'm not sure it is still true. The latest Slack390 release is 11.0 [1] and according to the Changelog there has been no activity in the project since June 2009 [2]. The project doesn't look actively developed to me, it appears to be dead. What do you think?

[1] See

[2] See —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Slackware 13.37 for x86 and AMD64 was released on 27 April 2011
Slackware 13.37 ARM was released on 10 May 2011.
From this I conclude that there is a high probability that the concurrent development Patrick described a while back (a single set of build scripts creates the X86 and AMD64 version) also creates the ARM version, which then gets a couple of days of extra testing. Could someone who has the ARM version running please post selected file creation dates for both?
Slack390, on the other hand, is clearly not in sync with X86, AMD64 or ARM. The last changelog entry for slack390 stable was on 28 September 2009 (version 10.0) and the last changelog entry for slack390 was on 18 Dec 19 2009 (version 11.0). See and Guy Macon (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Default Interface

Is it really KDE? A fresh install of Slackware dumps the user into console mode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. The default user interface is the shell (which defaults to bash). KDE is the default GUI, in that it's preselected during installation, though any of the other supplied desktops and window managers can be selected at that point. Regardless, saying 'or XFCE' is nonsensical. -- (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I concur. The entry in the info box is just wrong. Someone should change it to "CLI" or something like that.
What does "default UI" mean? Is it the most widely used interface? I don't think so.
Is it the interface best supported? How can you judge whether KDE or XFCE or BASH is better supported? this cannot be a criterion
So the default must be what slackware puts you into - and when you don't change the config you are dropped into a CLI.
Germanopratin (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Two 'clarification needed' items

If people are going to mark that things need clarification, they should really add a note to this talk page describing what is unclear to them, as did in the 'Unclear sentence' section.

I'm not going to make these edits as I'm an interested/theoretically-biased party, but here's some input:

1) Swaret and slackpkg were included as extra packages in the Slackware 9.1 CD #2,[11] but were not installed by default. Swaret was removed from the distribution as of Slackware 10.0 but is still available as a community supported package. As of Slackware 12.2, slackpkg has been added as the official remote package manager[clarification needed].

Maybe "As of Slackware 12.2, slackpkg is now installed by default as part of the base system, making it the official package manager capable of working with Slackware mirrors." I'm not sure if "been added as official" or "remote" is what is perceived as unclear. Point is, it was in the "extra" series and so was not official, and is now in the "ap" series and so is. And pkgtools expect to be working with optical media or otherwise local files, while slackpkg expects to be working with network mirrors (though can work with local files, too).

Sidenote: maybe some part of the community somewhere supports swaret but my understanding is that it's pretty much dead (the official project page indicates no release for the past five years) and none of the community I'm involved with supports it.

2) is a community-supported project for acquiring SlackBuild script of extra software not included within Slackware. A SlackBuild build script contains the build instructions and a source download link for building a particular package for your system. This is identical to the way Slackware's official packages are built and is meant to address possible incompatibilities with community created binary packages while sacrificing the portability of typical binary distribution.[clarification needed]

This is not so much unclear as plain wrong in places.

" is a community-supported project for acquiring SlackBuild scripts ofto build extra software not included within Slackware. A SlackBuild script contains the build instructions and a source download link for building a particular package for your system. This is identical to the way Slackware's official packages are built and is meant to address possible incompatibilities with community created binary packages while sacrificing the portability of typical binary distribution. These scripts are written in a similar style to the scripts which build the official Slackware packages. An additional file, with an .info extension, includes metadata such as the source download link. An advantage of using this method is compatibility with Slackware methodology, a guarantee that the user won't install a binary that won't work on his system due to any peculiarities on the builder's system, configurability, and auditability. A disadvantage is the time and machine usage required to compile the software."

Note: it is "identical" methodology: Slackware uses shell scripts (the SlackBuild, itself, and the of a certain structure and style and a "slack-desc" text file to create Slackware packages. SBo does the same and generally tries to make that "structure and style" Slackware-like, partly for ease of migration from SBo into Slackware (and sometimes vice versa). But I'd hesitate to say "this is identical to the way Slackware packages are built" because "identical" is such a strong word and there are trivial deviations (Slackware scripts almost always use a PKGNAM variable, while SBo scripts almost always use PRGNAM; certain code for dealing with manpages and stripping has gone back and forth; arch detection code went from SBo to Slackware, IIRC; Slackware build files don't include .info files; etc.).


-- (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this text is wrong in places. And it is unclear as well. the phrase "is meant to address possible incompatibilities with community created binary packages while sacrificing the portability of typical binary distribution" is logically peculiar, since "portability" and "incompatibility" are really the same in this context...
I fixed some errors according to your suggestions. I hope this is clear and correct now. I also tried to incorporate the statement of the SBo site (missing trust of pre-compiled packages). I am not sure if my version is 100% accurate but it is definitely better/clearer now.

Germanopratin (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


I deleted these 2 sentences at the beginning of the history section, because they refer to the history of SLS rather than that of Slackware. Furthermore they were misleading as they insinuated that Volkerding created Slackware because of SLS changing to ELF, which simple was not the case. (He did so because the distro stalled and there were no bug fixes. The same reason why Murdoch started Debian)

SLS dominated the market until the developers made a decision to change the executable format from a.out to Executable and Linkable Format (ELF). This was not a popular decision among SLS's user base at the time.

On the whole I tried to supply more contents in this section, hopefully delivering more substantial info Germanopratin (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I made some additions, closing the timeline. Previously, the history section ended in 2005. I am not sure if the stuff I added makes for a great novel, but I wanted to close the gap, as we should't make a halt in 2005. :-) Germanopratin (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


This article has been rated with a (pretty poor) 2.0 completeness rate. It would be very helpful if people gave hints on why it's deemed incomplete - in order to add further content. I am always willing to help making this article better, but honestly, I have no clue how to substantially improve it.

Anybody got an idea what is still missing? input would be highly appreciated. Thanks Germanopratin (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Heinz Wiesinger?

In this edit, User:Vorsety posted the following edit comment: "Development team: - Remove Heinz Wiesinger from the list of core members. That'd be me and I'm not a member of the core team."

Of course we don't want the article to list someone as a core member when they say they aren't, but what is to stop some Wikipedia vandal from pretending to be Heinz Wiesinger and deleting his name?

To resolve this, I did what we always do; I went to the cited sources. A search of the history of Slackware development PDF[1] shows no matches for "Heinz" or "Wiesinger". The release notes[2][3] list him, but the heading is "Thanks to the rest of the team (and other contributors)", so any of the names on that list could be "other contributors" or members but not core members of the team.

So, even if User:Vorsety is not Heinz Wiesinger, the deletion was justified as being unsourced. I checked, and the rest of the names are listed on the history of Slackware development PDF list. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


I deleted the

entry in "regional popularity" section. The OR label was absolutely unjustified, as the text makes no assumptions but cites Google's tool - as well as including a perfect reference. Anybody who is unable to check the statements via this reference will be unable to switch on a computer, anyway - so the ref should be perfectly ok. And it is not evident how more referential substance could be added. The only option being to omit the whole section.

Well, yes, maybe the popularity section is off-Wikipedia, taking into account that such a topic HAS to be non-scientific, yet there's some relevance to it. Anybody interested in this popularity thing should check this page: Germanopratin (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, you were right to remove the tag. The popularity section says right at the top what the limitations of such research are, and the research cited is nor original research. It is inexact research, but that is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia as long as it is clearly noted as such, which this clearly is. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sequence of sections

I moved the section on community supported software upwards to all the other package related stuff. Before it appeared after the architecture section.

The order of sections is crucial, it renders the text legible or else cluttered. It is by no means a trivial task to decide how to order topics. I ve been thinking about proper sequences a lot, I checked other distro pages, and they all have different arrangements.

I hope that this modification makes sense.

Germanopratin (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

In a second step I put the section "distribution" after "architecture". This should make some sense, because you want to know first "What does an OS run on" and then "How can I get the distro for the desired platform".

I also made an amendment in the section "architecture", where the original author was referring to "32 bit" or "64 bit" - without specifying the exact platform. It might be obvious - in our INTEL(AMD)-centric environment - what he ment. But the term "32 bit" is not a clear definition for IA-32, as it could mean all platforms that use a 32 bit architecture...

Germanopratin (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

ANNOUNCE: Slackware Linux Distribution 1.00

Every so often, someone "corrects" the release date for Slackware. This is rather understandable, seeing as how various websites give various dates. For example:

"The first version was released on July 13th, 1993."

"Initial release 16 July 1993"
-- Current infobox on Wikipedia.

"it was released as "Slackware 1.0" on July 16th, 1993.":

"First released on July 16, 1993, Slackware has come a long way..."

"Slackware 1.0.0 was released 10 years ago today, on July 17th, 1993!"

"Slackware, started by Patrick Volkerding in late 1992, and initially released to the world on July 17, 1993"

"1993-07-17 [Version] 1.0":

"1993-07-18 Slackware Linux Distribution 1.00"

The above sources mean that we will keep getting people "correcting" the date, but the release date right from Patrick J. Volkerding's mouth, posted on the Slackware website is here:

Another source of confusion is the second announcement two days later:

Our reliable source ( ) gives us a date and time of:

1993-07-16 17:21:20 PST

Now for the interesting question...

If we assume that the above was set to Pacific Standard Time with Daylight Saving on, then the date and time was 17 July 1993 00:21:20 (UTC).

However, it says "PST" not "PDT", which signifies Pacific Standard Time with Daylight Saving off. With that assumption the date and time was 16 July 1993 23:21:20 (UTC).

But wasn't Patrick Volkerding a student at Minnesota State University Moorhead at the time? His sig has a email address. Minnesota is in the Central Time Zone, not the Pacific Time Zone.

BTW, the site with the July 17 date listed above is the official guide to Slackware. Linux. See

So, my fellow Slackwaristas, what is the UTC time and date for the announcement? And what date should we list? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

WOW! This is a truely sophisticated (and tough) question. Very hard to decide. My modest input:

First step: What's more important, the very truth or a formalistic truth (i.e. official SW sources)? Official sources should prevail: The SW website and the slackbook. All other sources should only overrule official statements if it can be proven, that the official sources are wrong. As I cannot identify a criterion to decide which source is (materially) correct, only the official SW sources should remain relevant - for formal (yet striking) reasons.

Second step: Which official source is "more" official, the slackbook or the website? I would go with the website, because it is most authoritative - the announcement comes straight from the original creator of SW. In the days of SW's inception he must have perfectly known when the project was released. So the announcement in is the key. As it stems from SW's creator and is posted on the official website, it is official twicefold. And it is also most precise. So what more can one expect! Well, a bit more actually, so lets move further.

Third step: BUT a more than minor problem lies - as you already said - in the ambiguity of the two authoritative announcements. They differ in 4 (!) aspects: date, newsgroup (comp.os.linux vs. comp.os.linux.announce), email address (!) and approval (the header of the later announcement has an "approved" entry). Without knowing the technical details of the newsgroup and Volkerding's circumstances I would chose the first announcement, just because it seems to be highly unlikely that Volkerding mixed something up with the announcements. It must have been this way, that he posted another announcement later.

Fourth step: Your reasoning conc. the timezone: I am not familiar with US timezones at all. As far as I know, Pat Volkerding had been at Moorhead univ. at that time, so it should be as you said. I just wonder if the timestamp was given by him or by the newsgroup software. Anyway, I guess that we could settle on this last step as being the decisive one. Only this announcement is relevant. Further analysis should focus on this announcement and clarify the cirumstances.

Germanopratin (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here are the original headers from the comp.os.linux post:

  From: bf703@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Patrick J. Volkerding)
  Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
  Subject: ANNOUNCE: Slackware Linux 1.00
  Date: 17 Jul 1993 00:16:36 GMT
  Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
  Lines: 76
  Message-ID: <227gd4$jtq@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
  Reply-To: bf703@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Patrick J. Volkerding)

Everything in the above except Path and NNTP-Posting-Host came from Patrick Volkerding's computer. USENET does not change headers except for those two. In particular, USENET is dateless -- the message may arrive at a node days later with the date unchanged from what the poster set it to. Please note that "Patrick Volkerding's computer" may very well have been a remote computer in another time zone he was logged in to.

And here they are as Google Groups displays them:

  Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
  From: bf703@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Patrick J. Volkerding)
  Date: 17 Jul 1993 00:16:36 GMT
  Local: Sat, Jul 17 1993 12:16 am
  Subject: ANNOUNCE: Slackware Linux 1.00

Notice that Google Groups converts the date to GMT and tacks on a "local" that converts the GMT to my "local" time. (My computer clock is is set to UTC, so they are the same)

Also note that has been modified to show PST instead of GMT.

Here are the original headers from the comp.os.linux.announce post:

  From: (Patrick J. Volkerding)
  Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.announce
  Subject: ANNOUNCE: Slackware Linux Distribution 1.00
  Followup-To: comp.os.linux
  Date: 18 Jul 1993 20:13:55 -0400
  Organization: None
  Lines: 80
  Sender: mdw@TC.Cornell.EDU
  Approved: (Matt Welsh)
  Message-ID: <22cp03$be5@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU>
  Reply-To: (Patrick J. Volkerding)
  Keywords: Slackware, distribution

And here they are as Google Groups displays them:

  Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.announce
  Followup-To: comp.os.linux
  From: (Patrick J. Volkerding)
  Date: 18 Jul 1993 20:13:55 -0400
  Local: Mon, Jul 19 1993 12:13 am
  Subject: ANNOUNCE: Slackware Linux Distribution 1.00

Again, Google Groups converts the date to GMT and tacks on a "local" that converts the GMT to my "local" time (also GMT).

The approved and sender headers are simply telling you that comp.os.linux is an unmoderated newsgroup, while comp.os.linux.announce is a moderated newsgroup. Some of the headers may have been modified by the system that did the approving, but almost certainly not the date.

The two email addresses are the two Patrick lists at the bottom of each post.

My conclusion is that Slackware 1.0 was released on 17 Jul 1993 00:16:36 GMT, and the local time for Patrick Volkerding was 16 July, based upon the following:

Time zone claimed in comp.os.linux USENET post: GMT

Time zone where Patrick Volkerding was living: CDT
Central Standard Time (CST) = GMT-6
Central Daylight Time (CDT) = GMT-5

Time zone claimed by :PST
Pacific Standard Time (PST) = GMT-8
Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) = GMT-7
(It appears that whoever posted that got the info from Google Groups but failed to tell GG to show the original headers, thus they got a version "corrected" for their local time zone (Slackware Inc. is in Brentwood, California -- PST/PDT.))

Time zone claimed in comp.os.linux.announce post: -0400
Eastern Standard Time (EST) = GMT-5
Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) = GMT-4

So the only question is whether we use GMT or local time. I say GMT. That's what was in the original announcement. has been modified to show PST instead of GMT, but Google Groups (formerly DejaNews) has the actual unmodified headers, which show GMT.

Conclusion: Slackware 1.0 was released on 17 Jul 1993 at 00:16:36 GMT. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: All of the references to PST above appear to be an artifact caused by someone at Slackware cutting and pasting from Google Groups but failing to click on the "show original" link. That gave them times that Google "helpfully" converted to their local time. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur with your conclusion: UTC. That seems rather sensible to me. If anybody objects, he has to come up with a stronger argument. Germanopratin (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As a final note for anyone revisiting this in the future who may wonder why we are using GMT and UTC interchangeably, GMT used to be the world standard for time, but in 1986 we started using UTC (which is identical to GMT for our purposes) as the the world standard for time and GMT as the standard time zone for the Prime Meridian, (Zero Longitude). Back in 1993 there was still a lot of software using GMT, including most USENET newsreaders. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)