Ask Patrick Volkerding, Slackware Founder

Ask him what? About the Walnut Creek/BSDI merger? Sure. About what's happening with Slackware in general? Go ahead! Boxers or briefs? The moderators probably aren't going to let that one through, but almost anything else is fair game. Questions will be selected (as usual) slightly after 12 noon EST Tuesday; Patricks's answers are scheduled to appear Friday.

Why Slackware?

And not Debian that has 4500 packages, 600 developers, open development, 50 suport lists, bug tracking system?

Here here! I agree.

Patrick Volkerding is one of the most knowledgeable members of the community. I learned alot from Slakware and consider it one of the prime LINUX distributions.

I, however, am looking forward to LSB and hope that it is finished soon; I respect Mr. Volkerding's opinion on LSB's non-application to Slakware but also believe that LINUX needs LSB. It would be great if Mr. Volkerding would lend his guiding hand toward helping LSB - maybe it would be even better than it is now.

My Question:
Will you please assist LSB even if you have no desire to adhere to it?

Till Microsoft owns it, make mine Slakware.

Upgrade Path?

First let me say this: I use Red Hat at work, my room mates use Debian, but there's always been a special place in my heart for Slackware. I stopped using it when I decided to upgrade my system wholesale (for glibc 2.0 betas, as I recall) and I didn't want to fuss with upgrading everything by hand (now I use OpenBSD and FreeBSD at home). If Slackware upgrades are now (or were with 3.4) quite safe and as easy as I describe, discount this :)

Have you considered looking at, e.g., OpenBSD's method for upgrading -- installing all the base packages except etc.tar.gz, which replaces everything in the tarballs but leaves /usr/local, /etc, /home, /root, /mnt, and possibly /var alone, and then manually upgrading /etc -- as a way to add better upgradability to Slackware?

I guess the only problem with this is that, as I recall, each individual package puts its own stuff in /etc. Would it be possible to add scripts in the packages so that they check for possible overwrites into protected directories and if so, install the new ones as e.g. /etc/foo.conf.new -- and throw a message to the console saying either "new config file written, it's the same file as in the last distribution" or "new config file written, it's in a new format so you'll need to migrate before using this package at all"?

Three or four questions

1. When is the official Slackware book that is packaged in the boxed version going to be updated?

2. Do you feel the least bit screwed by Walnut Creek or did you see this coming?

3. How soon (if at all) before Oracle certification?

4. VMWare is great - why do they treat Slack so bad (distro = other)?

Slackware, Linux, and being an old timer.

I started Linux with slackware, Late 92, early 93 for at least a couple of years Slackware was Linux to me; my informitve Linux years.
I wanted to thank you for that.

You have been involved for a very long time in Linux years. How do you feel about the meshing of th "Old days" and what Linux is now? Most Slash posters, where not around Linux back then, can you talk about what where the problems you had then and now?
I think most people forget how much of Linux was/is
the Distro and how much of Linux's early success is because of Slackware, can you comment?

WooHoo! Slackware!

Patrick,

I've been a happy Slackware user forever now, and I have some questions.

1.) I've liked Slackware because it doesn't hide what it does behind pretty interfaces. You have easy access to the entire system should you decide to configure any part of it. Obviously, the version jump from 4 to 7 was to keep up with 'Competition' per se....are we going to see that same rivalry enter the distribution? (I.e.: We have to have a pretty interface because the others do!) I like Slack for what it is, and I hope it doesn't become another Red Hat. Slackware is touted for it's Stability and power, and those are two things that we don't want to go away.

2.) Now that Slackware has spun off into it's own entity, are there any changes going to be implemented into it that you couldn't do before? What I mean is, were there anyt limitations imposed on you at Walnut Creek that you are free to do now? Or are you going to need to bring on more maintainers because the main guys are busy with corporate stuff? (Hint Hint....I can work for you!) ;)

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

Re:The Great Distro Gap

Whatever happened from Slackware 4 to Slack ware 7? This is a fairly large gap here.

This has been explained several times already, even by Patrick Himself. What follows is Patrick's post to the Slackware forum about the version number jump.

Patrick Volkerding (Slackware Project Lead), at 21:43 10-10-1999.

I've stayed out of this for now, but I do think I should lend a little justification to the version number thing.

First off, I think I forgot to count some time ago. If I'd started on 6.0 and made every release a major version (I think that's how Linux releases are made these days, right? ;), we would be on Slackware 47 by now. (it would actually be in the 20s somewhere if we'd gone 1, 2, 3...)

I think it's clear that some other distributions inflated their version numbers for marketing purposes, and I've had to field (way too many times) the question "why isn't yours 6.x" or worse "when will you upgrade to Linux 6.0" which really drives home the effectiveness of this simple trick. With the move to glibc and nearly everyone else using 6.x now, it made sense to go to at least 6.0, just to make it clear to people who don't know anything about Linux that Slackware's libraries, compilers, and other stuff are not 3 major versions behind. I thought they'd all be using 7.0 by now, but no matter. We're at least "one better", right? :)

Sorry if I haven't been enough of a purist about this. I promise I won't inflate the version number again (unless everyone else does again ;)

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

Idiot Friendly Distros

Instead of talking about how stable the new release is, or how many new features they've included many makers of distros only talk about how the new version is the easiest ever to install.

Do you have any idea why every new version of existing distros seem to emphasize their idiot-friendliness? And do you think it's good or bad?

LK

Slackware vs. Softlanding Systems (SLS)

Once upon a time, when the kernel version number was << 1, there was the SLS distribution put together by Peter MacDonald. Then there was Slackware, a distribution in a very similar vein assembled by our interview guest. And there were some...bad feelings about that.

Now that this is years in the past, would you care to make any comments about the early relationship between Slackware and SLS, and what if anything you think this teaches us in the Free Software (or Open Source) community today?

(In)security by default

Hi Patrick:

The default installation leave the machine open on a wide variety of services (rpc, anoymous ftp, telnet, etc.) Slackware is not alone in this, all distributions do it. But this leaves the machine open to all sorts of exploits.

Wouldn't it be better to have all such daemons turned off by default (esp. for installations geared towards home users)? The choice to open up services should be a positive choice on the part of the users, perhaps after a short warning about the security implications of running network daemons.

How about Slackware taking the lead in this area?

Where is Slackware headed?

I have used Slackware since version 3.1. It was my first distrib and it has always heald a place in my heart. I have noticed over the years that Slackware hasn't changed much. The installation program hasn't changed in all these years. Installation is still kinda tricky. There isn't a real packaging system (tgz's don't really count). It doesn't come in a nice box with a nice manual and tech support. It doesn't come with a lot of software like the other distribs. There is no exclusive, Slackware developed software. It's a fairly bare bones, Do It Yourself distrib. Now that there is going to be more money involved, is all this going to change? Are we going to see a GUI installation, Slackware Package Manager, people working on Slackware software, a boxed distrib that one can pick up at a computer store, distribution on DVD-ROM with more bundled software, and other features some of the distribs with more money have? Slackware deserves to be right up there with the rest of them. Perhaps now Slack can get the recognition it deserves.

Where is slackware

Seeing the success of recently IPOed linux companies (Redhat and others are still going quite strongly, more then 6 monthes after the release). Is there any plan for Slackware, now a seperate company, to persue additional funding with a public stock offering?

Spyky

Slackware's uniqueness in the marketplace.

Patrick, The Linux landscape has changed remarkably in recent times. We've gone from Linux being a tool soley for that subset of humanity that actually understands what happens "under the hood" of their computers, arriving today at distros that are targeted to the unwashed masses. In my experience Slackware has always focused on the hacker rather than the average Joe/Jane on the street--this is what has set Slackware apart from the rest that are moving toward "ease of use" and propritary package upgrades... Given the increasingly crowded marketplace (and the fact that it's only going to get more crowded) how does Slackware intend to continue to differentiate itself from all the rest? And how will that differentiation lead toward profitability for the comapny and its investors?

Quality

I have used Slackware since version 1.0 (gosh, I'm old). I am currently a fan of ZIPSLACK. I use it to introduce Windows people to Linux. However, I'm concerned about rushing new releases out the door. I had never seen Linux crash (core dump) until I installed version 7.0. Every time I did an 'ls /dev', I dumped. Three finger salute. Only after I fixed my mouse did this stop. I do not trust this version, I fell back to 4.0. How many different pc configurations do you test on before releasing a version? Does your web site list these systems?

Slackware's niche

After Yggdrasil, there was Slackware, then the Linux distribution market segmented into niches (Red Hat for servers, Caldera/Mandrake for workstations, Corel for desktops, SuSE for Europe, and Debian for GNU). There are plenty of shops that have used Linux for years (pre 2.0), so I know that there are production boxen that are still running Slackware instead of Red Hat.

I think Slackware is still relevant, and a great "hacker-ware" environment, and fills the needs of organizations that have used Linux years before these other distributions made their mark, but is there any particular market that Slackware is targeted to?

Integrating "make install" and pkgtool.

Hi Patrick,

I used slackware from 1996 to late 1999.
I'm embarassed to say that I swiched to
Linux Mandrake since I got tired of doing
things by hand all the time, especially with
the difficulty of keeping track of packages
that I installed by
./configure; make; make install.

First question: do you think there is an
easy way to integrate the above process with
a package handling mechanism, so that I could
use make install to install the package
and pkgtool to uninstall it? Is any work
being done on it?

Thanks,

Hari.

umsdos spin-offs

I have been using a UMSDOS mini version of Slackware for 2 years, in the c:\linux directory of my Windows laptop. I use my laptop for (coding) work and web demo's. I use a version because it has a small footprint.
What do you think about the UMSDOS version's of LINUX and the many slackware spinoffs (mostly mini-distro's)?
Do you plan to release a _smaller_ (mini) version of bigslack(zipslack with X)?

Slackware, still kicking?

Slackware is certainly known to be one of the longest running Linux Distro's. It's popular among ISP who like the advanced user interface.

However, a year ago many ISP mailing lists were commenting that Slackware releases were few and far between. Poeple wondered if Slackware was still being developed. Now there is a lot of momentium behind Slackware.

Was there this perception of Slackware no longer being developed real? Or would you say it's associated with the low key media attention Slackware gets (or doesn't get)?

Version numbering

I have been a loyal Slackware user for quite some time now, and there is one thing I have always wondered about this distribution. Where did the name "Slackware" come from?

-- iceburn

Linux Standards Base

Will you support the LSB? If not, why not?

Do you think the LSB is important to insure future compatibility and vendor support for all the Linux distributions?

kfort

BSD Convergence? Or Divergence?

One of the major merits of the "more heavily package managed" systems is that of being able to avoid many of the little, niggling details when they don't much matter, as well as being able to let the system manage version numbers for you.

RPM [rpm.org] is the most-used, and often, most-hated of the options, with Debian's dpkg/dselect [debian.org] and BSD Ports [freebsd.org] vying for the "most-loved" status.

The Ports use of what amount to "just plain makefiles" gives it the merit of being the most "traditionally-UNIX-like" packaging scheme.

Is there likely to be any "convergence" of the sort where libraries are added/modified so as to maximize the ability to use something like Ports?

I left Slackware in about '95 in favor of what I saw then as improved manageability of Red Hat's RPMs. I have since migrated to Debian, which provides better answers than RPM. It would be interesting to see the tide turn back due to Ports providing more deeply improved system manageability...

Next Slackware Release

What will be the featureset (and projected date) of the next Slackware release? XFree86 4.0.x, Linux 2.4.x?

Why a new Distro?

While Slackware certainly is not new, once it was. What was it about distributions at that time that caused you to create a new one? What did you think that they lacked?
Sam TH

modularity and customization

Patrick:

For the past few years, Slackware has steadfastly remained modular rather than go in for an idiot-savant installer package. (I'm not knocking either approach, so please, no flames!).

Does this make Slackware better suited than, say, Red Hat, for the creation of site- or institution-specific distro packages? I believe that CAEN Linux at the U of Michigan Engineering school is based on Red Hat, and obviously any open source OS *could* be made site-specific ... but since Red Hat makes fewer big-picture demands re. dependencies, etc, I wonder if it'd be the (currently) obvious pick for such applications.

Thanks for doing this interview!

timothy

p.s. Like many others, Slackware (from a CD in the back of some book) was the first experience I had with Linux, and though it took me much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I eventually got it going and was happy at how much smoother and cooler a Linux system with X Window was than the Win3.1 which had come on the machine. Thanks.

Linux distributions in the future?

If you look around right now, you'll notice that of the Linux distributions out there, most are either Red Hattish (as in, gone commercial, trying to become easier to use, etc.), really small and relatively insignificant (nothing against Linux Mandrake but....), or, well... Slackware! I'm just wondering what you see for the future. Slackware is the only distro that is relatively "major", yet hasn't given in to the commercial rush and zillion dollar IPOs (although feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Do you know if the user base of Slackware is going up or down? And what do you see for the future of Slackware and Linux in general?

BSDi and Walnut Creek Merger

Patrick,
In your opinion, how do you see the BSDi and Walnut Creek merger affecting Linux in the next few months? year?

David Hill

Why?

Slackware is my distribution of choice for two main reasons, it's powerful, and it hasn't been poisoned by 'userfriendliness'.

Why hasn't it been? Seems every Linux distro (slackware aside) that's making money has made their distribution as brain-dead as possible. Where slackware users are expected to have an idea of what they're doing. Is it laziness, or is it out of respect for those who want a no-BS distro?

---
script-fu: hash bang slash bin bash

This isn't a question really..

Hi, I don't have a question really (unless the one below counts), I just wanna say keep up the good work lad(s).
I wouldn't trade slack for any other dist in the world.

BTW, X-Files, Simpsons or Buffy?

cheers, Per Rydström, a happy slack-user

Boxers or briefs?

C'mon... lets see if moderation REALLY decides what gets asked of Patrick... or if Roblimo just does it himself...

The Magic Wand questions

If you could wave a magic wand and change any one technical aspect of Linux, with no negative side effects on the OS or its users, what would you change?

If you had one wave of the wand and could change only one thing about the Linux community (in the traditional and/or the new, more business-oriented sense), what would it be?

The name

How did you come to the name Slackware? DId it hit you during a long nights of smoking from the holy frop with bob? Did stang climb in your window and wisper it in your ear while you were asleep? Was it the Xists?

Slackware Upgradability

Hi Patrick!

I was an avid Slackware user in the mid-nineties, but after a few years I moved over to other distributions due to the lack of easy upgradability and package management. How upgradable will future versions of Slackware be? Are there any plans for Slack to move to FreeBSD style packagement management (which rocks imho)?

EraseMe

Closed Development

I have been a loyal user of Slackware for many years. I have always wondered why isn't the development process more open. For example, Debian has a very open process in which volunteers can contribute to the packaging of the distribution. Slackware does not seem to allow for that, that is, you seem to be in complete control of what goes out the door. Do you plan to allow for users to assist in development or do you wish for things to remain the same?

Corporate Structure?

Now that "Slackware Linux Inc." is being spun off, are there any plans to honor J. Robert "Bob" Dobbs by designating him Chairman Emeritus? What kind of poison-pill-defenses are going to be included in the corporate bylaws to prevent being taken over by X-ists, or for that matter, anyone from Cupermond or Redtino?



This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.

Slackware's Direction as a Linux Distribution

I've always viewed Slackware as the all purpose workhorse of the Linux distributions. It's always done things better and faster in the server role. Now as everyone is pushing to get Linux on the desktop, I'd like to know what Slackware's Direction in this area. Will it remain focused on playing the server role, or will the distribution splinter into different job roles, or will it follow the crowd and push for the desktop?

Thanks and Regards,
- Nick

upgradeability

I've been a Slackware user since 3.4 and absolutly love it. I don't like most package management systems out there and am glad that Slack doesn't use one (well, if you don't count pkgtool). Unfortunately this seems to be a bit of a problem when it comes to upgrading, seeing as you usually have to just reinstall from scratch and hope you have a good backup of your config files. How do you plan on addressing the issue of upgradability in future releases of Slackware, and do you think a better solution can be achieved through the install scripts without having to revert to an rpm-style package management system.

-Lee

Packaging System?

Are you considering any packaging and dependency system, or do you consider tarballs as all a true hacker needs?

Slackware, Inc.

Now that you are a separate company (spinning merrily off...), what will your distribution channel be? Will it still be handled by Walnut Creek? What about the Slackware-by-subscription option?

OTOH, keep up the good work, and good luck - from a _very_ satisfied Slack user.

Porting Slackware

With the formation of your company, will this give you the resources to port Slackware to the PPC and Alpha? Are there any plans for this?

Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!

Installation options -- FTP install

I was wondering if Slackware would include an ftp install method in some future version similar to FreeBSD, NetBSD, Redhat. I realize ftp has some serious drawbacks compared to NFS or CD install but I found it quite handy when I wanted to give FreeBSD and NetBSD a try. If not ftp, what about the possibility of opening up an public NFS server that will export the latest stable version of Slackware since many of us may not have an extra machine to set up NFS on. It could just run off the same machine as the ftp server for Slackware, right? Just a couple of thoughts.

Thanks Patrick
Ken J.

Download/Sales?

Hi Pat,
I've been using slackware for years now, it was my first distribution back in the 2.x era and other then my little stint with debian for about a month I've been running it ever since.

It's been my observation that slackware has been the most "download friendly" distribution, by that I mean it's segmented into disk sets and you only need to download the ones you want to install it. Other distributions seem to obfuscate this process (redhat complains during install if it cannot absolutely find every package, as do many others).

The reason behind this I think is that they want people to buy it, so they obfuscate and make it difficult to download the distribution.

Now wil Slackware apparently getting spun off into a seperate company, will there be more pressure to sell more units, and will this "download friendliness" change?

-- iCEBaLM

(Non) Participation in the LSB.

Hi, Partick,

I understand that you have chosen
not to participate in the LSB. The reasons
mentioned were:

a) That you prefer the old "unix" way of
doing things.

b) You feel that these ways should be
THE standard.

There must be good technical and marketing
reasons behind your preferences. Could you please
elaborate on both? Thanks.

Hari.

Looking to the future?

Most (all?) of the other "major" distributions have gone the way of commercial and public acceptance (meaning ease of installation, and ease of use). Slackware, on the other hand, is still very much geared towards the linux user that already knows what they're doing. Do you plan on making Slackware "pretty", like the others, or do you plan on honing it into a development environment for power users? Or perhaps something else entirely?
.------------ - - -
| big bad mr. frosty
`------------ - - -