Some of you know I'm a professional writer, publisher (and a "plonked"
PITA).

I'm doing a piece about Linux distros. It should make it to some of the
mainstream media in due time.

The kernel is the kernel. It's the basis of all distros.

Slack and Deb have a rep. of being more stable (fewer crashes) than other
distros. I know about Deb (which tends to use much older WMs, and other
apps.)

Questions:

1. Is the concept of Slack being "more stable" an urban myth?

2. If not, what is it about (ie. what has been done to) Slack that makes it
more stable than other Linux distros (in lay terms).

I won't quote anyone unless they give me explicit permission. I'm just
looking for some generic background info to weave into the article.

Thanks,

Al Canton
President, Adams-Blake Company, Inc.
Publisher, Adams-Blake Publishing (owned by above)
www.adams-blake.com

Adams-Blake Co. <atakeoutcanton@adams-blaketakeout.com> wrote:
>
> 1. Is the concept of Slack being "more stable" an urban myth?

Yes, it is known for it's stability (same with Deb).

>
> 2. If not, what is it about (ie. what has been done to) Slack that makes it
> more stable than other Linux distros (in lay terms).
>

It's not a myth. Linux distros are made up of more than just the kernel.
The choice of kernel, libraries, and software go a long way to making
that distro stable. If you look at Slackware's history and overal
design philosophy, you can see this. For instance, Pat held off on the
adoption of glibc (from libc) while other distros (um, RH for one)
jumped on glibc very early on. Pat wanted to wait for the libraries
to mature, and he made a good call because other distros using the
newer glibc also had some issues due to their desire to be cutting
edge. Another example was the first Slackware distro released while
the 2.4.x kernel was very new. Pat included the 2.2.19 (IIRC) kernel
in addition to the 2.4.umIthink4 kernel.

Another big bonus for Slackware is how Pat decides when the distro
is ready to be released: when it is ready. There are no hard deadlines.
When everything comes together and feels right, he releases the distro -
not before.

You can find a lot more info googling various linux groups on this. You
should also be able to find interviews with Pat Volkerding regarding his
design philosophy.

- Kurt

Adams-Blake Co. wrote:

> Some of you know I'm a professional writer, publisher (and a "plonked"
> PITA).
>
> I'm doing a piece about Linux distros. It should make it to some of the
> mainstream media in due time.
>
> The kernel is the kernel. It's the basis of all distros.
>
> Slack and Deb have a rep. of being more stable (fewer crashes) than other
> distros. I know about Deb (which tends to use much older WMs, and other
> apps.)
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Is the concept of Slack being "more stable" an urban myth?

Nope. I have personal experience that shows it, but it's on home computers.

>
> 2. If not, what is it about (ie. what has been done to) Slack that makes
> it more stable than other Linux distros (in lay terms).

Probably due to it having less complexity. First off, there aren't all
these ridiculous gnome mods (like redhat). Secondly, it's less automated
(scripted), unlike Mandrake. The installation is curses-based instead of
GUI-based, which can also help the stability portion. See, it's logical
that as things get more complex, there are more possible problems that may
arise. Slackware seems to be built around these ideas: 1. let's pick
stable programs to include into our system and 2. let's only include things
that are typically stable.
That, and the libraries are right there in /usr/lib for anyone, and you can
compile stuff from source much more easily.
I'm definitely not a linux expert, nor a distribution expert, but this is my
opinion as a home user. I've tried Lycorise, Mandrake, Redhat, Knoppix,
SuSE, Slackware, Gentoo, FreeBSD, and Corel Linux (oldie!). Slackware is
by far the most stable version, and has the fewest problems right out of
the box.
You may quote me: I give you explicit permission. But be sure to include
the fact that I'm new to Linux and I'm a home user (i.e. i don't install
web/ftp/nfs servers at all).

>
> I won't quote anyone unless they give me explicit permission. I'm just
> looking for some generic background info to weave into the article.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Al Canton
> President, Adams-Blake Company, Inc.
> Publisher, Adams-Blake Publishing (owned by above)
> www.adams-blake.com

--
Alex Haley was adopted!

Adams-Blake Co. wrote:

> The kernel is the kernel. It's the basis of all distros.

Not quite. Slack uses a plain vanilla "stable" kernel source, unmodified.
Other distributions may apply bleeding edge development patches, or patches
of their own, intended to provide functionality not (yet) found in the
stable kernel.

> 1. Is the concept of Slack being "more stable" an urban myth?

I'll leave this one to those who play with other distributions. I haven't
for years.

> 2. If not, what is it about (ie. what has been done to) Slack that makes
> it more stable than other Linux distros (in lay terms).

As with the kernel, Patrick tends to be cautious about packages included in
Slackware. Even popular packages (pam, for example) don't make it if he
considers them broken.

--
Old Man

NeoSadist wrote:

> You may quote me: I give you explicit permission.**But*be*sure*to*include
> the fact that I'm new to Linux and I'm a home user (i.e. i don't install
> web/ftp/nfs servers at all).
>


This was a good post and I appreciate your insight. But I simply can't quote
someone named "NeoSadist." No one in the mainstream media (and many of them
(especially the WSJ) do intense fact-checking... calling or writing those
quoted making sure they said what they said) will print anything said by
anyone named "NeoSadist." I have no problem with it... but I'm not an NYT
editor!

Al

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 04:08:40 GMT, Adams-Blake Co. <atakeoutcanton@adams-blaketakeout.com> wrote:
> Some of you know I'm a professional writer, publisher (and a "plonked"
> PITA).

Good to see you have kept your sense of humor about it. :-)

> I'm doing a piece about Linux distros. It should make it to some of the
> mainstream media in due time.

Fun stuff. The more exposure Linux gets the better, IMHO.

> The kernel is the kernel. It's the basis of all distros.

You would think that... but it's actually not totally accurate (below)

> Slack and Deb have a rep. of being more stable (fewer crashes) than other
> distros. I know about Deb (which tends to use much older WMs, and other
> apps.)

Debian-stable has to be the most stable distro there ever was, and ever
will be. It's crazy 'cause everything is so old of COURSE it is stable
by now.

Slackware isn't only stable, it's also fairly up-to-date.

> Questions:
>
> 1. Is the concept of Slack being "more stable" an urban myth?

No, I don't believe so. Slackware really is more stable than the other
distributions. As an example, my friend's RedHat server needs to be
rebooted every month and a half or so because it just starts degrading,
slowing down, until it is barely usable.

> 2. If not, what is it about (ie. what has been done to) Slack that makes it
> more stable than other Linux distros (in lay terms).

Essentially, nothing. Slackware is stable because it is just Linux and
some programs a guy compiled for other folks to use. Slackware isn't
riddled with patches to add special features and set itself apart from
the other distributions out there - those same patches other
distributions add lead to a less stable overall product because the code
isn't tested as extensively. RedHat, Mandrake, and the like use patched
software a lot. Even their kernels are patched to hell and back. They
do this to provide a 'different' product than what's already out there,
Slackware doesn't do this, so doesn't run in to the same problems all
those folks run in to.

If you take a look at the slackbuild scripts, you'll see how simple it
would be to compile Slackware from source, manually - without scripts.
It really isn't that complex because there aren't a bunch of funky
things done to the applications contained in it. Each package selected
is generally considered stable by the Linux community by itself... so
the sum of Slackware's parts give us one nice stable product.

> I won't quote anyone unless they give me explicit permission. I'm just
> looking for some generic background info to weave into the article.

Go ahead and quote me if you wish - although I don't think I wrote
anything quote-worthy. :-)

Email me if you want to quote my real name instead of AthlonRob.

--
Rob | If not safe,
Email and Jabber: | one can never be free.
athlonrob at axpr dot net |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/o1nzhm6KEoOOAe0RAiLFAKC0AtZpGgVIFZkED6Y6gr0L5GsMCg Cgr1qU
XMhxR2IpOW+VOUrxZK9K8rA=
=TnTU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Adams-Blake Co. wrote:
> Some of you know I'm a professional writer, publisher (and a "plonked"
> PITA).
>
> I'm doing a piece about Linux distros. It should make it to some of the
> mainstream media in due time.
>
> The kernel is the kernel. It's the basis of all distros.
>
> Slack and Deb have a rep. of being more stable (fewer crashes) than other
> distros. I know about Deb (which tends to use much older WMs, and other
> apps.)
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Is the concept of Slack being "more stable" an urban myth?
>
> 2. If not, what is it about (ie. what has been done to) Slack that makes it
> more stable than other Linux distros (in lay terms).

QA.(Quality Assurance)
The kernel is supervised by one person and released as "stable" on his word.
The same about the distro called Slackware.
So it looks rather dictatorial but in this case no external influences
determine the decisions as the people involved are not dependant on
economic or publicity reasons to release what they consider inferior.

And judging by their past performances, we can trust them.

>
> I won't quote anyone unless they give me explicit permission. I'm just
> looking for some generic background info to weave into the article.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Al Canton
> President, Adams-Blake Company, Inc.
> Publisher, Adams-Blake Publishing (owned by above)
> www.adams-blake.com
>
>
Stanislaw.
Slack user from Ulladulla.

One other thing that has been overlooked in the other messages here is the
absence of a "wizard" type installer......!

These things are great when they work - the problem is that more often than
not, they don't! Any wizard type installer will make a "best guess" at what
type of hardware you have. If it guesses wrong (and in my experience this is a
frequent occurence) you end up with either drivers you don't want, or
misconfiguration of ones you *do* want. This is particularly true of "new"
hardware that the wizards aren't aware of, yet!

Sometimes these errors don't show up for quite a while.

One of the nice things about Slack is that doesn't make many assumptions. It
assumes you know what you've got and are capable of telling slack about it.
Thus, by and large, you only get what you ask for!

IMHO this is one of the areas that causes windoze users so much grief. At least
in Mandrake, SuSe, et al, you can dive in and sort things out if it has
guessed wrong - windoze won't even let you do that half the time! However, in
Slack you don't have to bother! It will only go wrong if you feed it duff
info!

Just my 2p worth.......

--
Pete
christy@NOattglobalSPAM.net
(make the obvious amendments to reply!)

pgp trash troll delete

This posting violates usenet .sig guidelines. Please be a good
netizen and remove the pgp trash.

AthlonRob <junkmail@axpr.net> wrote in message news:<hllvnb.96f.ln@dsl-gervais-88.web-ster.com>...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 04:08:40 GMT, Adams-Blake Co. <atakeoutcanton@adams-blaketakeout.com> wrote:
> > Some of you know I'm a professional writer, publisher (and a "plonked"
> > PITA).
>
> Good to see you have kept your sense of humor about it. :-)
>
> > I'm doing a piece about Linux distros. It should make it to some of the
> > mainstream media in due time.
>
> Fun stuff. The more exposure Linux gets the better, IMHO.
>
> > The kernel is the kernel. It's the basis of all distros.
>
> You would think that... but it's actually not totally accurate (below)
>
> > Slack and Deb have a rep. of being more stable (fewer crashes) than other
> > distros. I know about Deb (which tends to use much older WMs, and other
> > apps.)
>
> Debian-stable has to be the most stable distro there ever was, and ever
> will be. It's crazy 'cause everything is so old of COURSE it is stable
> by now.
>
> Slackware isn't only stable, it's also fairly up-to-date.
>
> > Questions:
> >
> > 1. Is the concept of Slack being "more stable" an urban myth?
>
> No, I don't believe so. Slackware really is more stable than the other
> distributions. As an example, my friend's RedHat server needs to be
> rebooted every month and a half or so because it just starts degrading,
> slowing down, until it is barely usable.
>
> > 2. If not, what is it about (ie. what has been done to) Slack that makes it
> > more stable than other Linux distros (in lay terms).
>
> Essentially, nothing. Slackware is stable because it is just Linux and
> some programs a guy compiled for other folks to use. Slackware isn't
> riddled with patches to add special features and set itself apart from
> the other distributions out there - those same patches other
> distributions add lead to a less stable overall product because the code
> isn't tested as extensively. RedHat, Mandrake, and the like use patched
> software a lot. Even their kernels are patched to hell and back. They
> do this to provide a 'different' product than what's already out there,
> Slackware doesn't do this, so doesn't run in to the same problems all
> those folks run in to.
>
> If you take a look at the slackbuild scripts, you'll see how simple it
> would be to compile Slackware from source, manually - without scripts.
> It really isn't that complex because there aren't a bunch of funky
> things done to the applications contained in it. Each package selected
> is generally considered stable by the Linux community by itself... so
> the sum of Slackware's parts give us one nice stable product.
>
> > I won't quote anyone unless they give me explicit permission. I'm just
> > looking for some generic background info to weave into the article.
>
> Go ahead and quote me if you wish - although I don't think I wrote
> anything quote-worthy. :-)
>
> Email me if you want to quote my real name instead of AthlonRob.
>
> --
> Rob | If not safe,
> Email and Jabber: | one can never be free.
> athlonrob at axpr dot net |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE/o1nzhm6KEoOOAe0RAiLFAKC0AtZpGgVIFZkED6Y6gr0L5GsMCg Cgr1qU
> XMhxR2IpOW+VOUrxZK9K8rA=
> =TnTU
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Adams-Blake Co. wrote:
> Some of you know I'm a professional writer, publisher (and a "plonked"
> PITA).

not by me. i just move on to the next post when i find you're ranting
again. (but you're not the only poster i do that with. ;-)

> I'm doing a piece about Linux distros. It should make it to some of the
> mainstream media in due time.
>
> The kernel is the kernel. It's the basis of all distros.

but many distros patch the kernels they ship. i once tried to apply an
official kernel upgrade patch (from 2.2.x to 2.2.x+1) to a SuSE kernel and
was shocked by all the errors i got...

the patches other distros apply offer specific functionality, but because
they do not undergo the same testing process that the standard linux kernel
undergoes, they may also be more unstable.

> Slack and Deb have a rep. of being more stable (fewer crashes) than other
> distros. I know about Deb (which tends to use much older WMs, and other
> apps.)

there are actually three debian versions at any one time: stable, testing
and unstable. stable has been tested so extensively that it probably
doesn't crash at all. but it also contains very old software. testing
hasn't been tested as extensively as stable, but i get the impression from
the debian zealots i meet in NG's (especially in dutch linux NG's) that many
find it stable enough to run it on production servers unless they are
really mission-critical. testing contains more recent software that stable.

with the unstable branch of debian, there are no guarantees. but many
debianistas appear to run it on their home boxen.

> 2. If not, what is it about (ie. what has been done to) Slack that makes it
> more stable than other Linux distros (in lay terms).

that's not really the right question. you have to ask what has been done to
other distros that make them less stable. slack is basically just a bunch
of compiled kernels, a bunch of compiled programs and a few installer tools
to put it all together. the whole process is overseen by one man, and he
decides what goes in and what does not, and he also decides when it is
ready. his main consideration (and i sometimes think his only
consideration) is how secure and stable the distro is.

other distros have other considerations: (perceived) ease of use, being
"hot" (i.e., incorporating the latest and the (hopefully) greatest) and
making money. in order to achieve these goals, they add a lot of stuff on
their own: patches to software, very new software, even beta releases
(i.e., testing releases of software: a beta release is done to find bugs),
and fancy installers and maintenance tools. the patches and beta software
introduce instability, because they haven't been tested as extensively. and
the fancy installers and maintenance tools make the system more complex and
less transparent. this decrease of transparency increases the risk of
introducing bugs.

the thing that's different about slackware is that pat doesn't make his own
patches for software: he provides the software as released by the
developers; he rarely includes beta releases (and if he does, he usually
also includes the latest stable release of the same software) and his
package tools provide just the minimum necessary, nothing more. by doing
this, pat eliminates the factors that are most likely to introduce bugs,
and as a result the distro is more stable.

> I won't quote anyone unless they give me explicit permission. I'm just
> looking for some generic background info to weave into the article.

quote me if you like. hope the info is useful.

--
Joost Kremers
since when is vi an editor? a discussion on vi belongs in
comp.tools.unusable or something... ;-)