🚀 go-pugleaf

c9220321@cs.newcastle.edu.au (Patrick Breen) writes:

>Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au) wrote:
>: >FatMan (fat.man@hunterlink.net.au) wrote:
>: >: Hi, i'm about to start a small isp and i wanted to know which
>: >: kernal is currentaly the most stable....  THANKS
>:
>: linux 2.0.0 is the current stable release.  It's good.  Get it.  Also
>: get either debian 1.1 or redhat (which is almost as good as debian
>: but much easier to find on cd at the moment).  Avoid slackware like
>: the plague.

> I wont bother quoting the rest of the post, but you mention several
> times that slackware should be avoided, incurs heavy maintenance
> costs, and is unstable.  Pardon my ignorance, but where did you get
> these ideas from?

well, i don't think i said slackware is unstable.  i just said it was crap.

but to answer your question: i got these ideas from having to upgrade
far too many slackware systems.  Upgrading from one broken version of
slackware to the next takes at least a day of tedious work & hassle -
you have any custom programs or config files or data that you want to
keep.  This is barely tolerable when you only have one machine that
you want to upgrade. it's intolerable when you have a network of linux
machines, or several clients who all want the latest versions of their
favourite software.

here's the difference: 

1. the slackware method of "upgrading" (and i use that term very loosely):

 - backup your important data including /etc /home and /usr/local.
 - reformat. 
 - install new version from scratch. 
 - tediously merge in your old stuff.

downtime: 1-2 days.

2. the debian method of upgrading:

 - dselect

you don't have to reformat. you don't lose your config files. or your
data. or any programs you've compiled and installed by hand. you don't
even have to reboot unless you've installed a new version of the kernel
and want to use it straight away.

downtime: negligible, if any.

You can also upgrade individual packages at any time by hand with 'dpkg'
if you want to.  new version of pine released?  no problem, just download
that package and install that...no need to wait for the next CD release.

sick of sendmail, and want to try out smail instead?  no problem.  just
use 'dpkg -r sendmail', followed by 'dpkg -i smail'.  or vice-versa.


want to install tk4.0 but not sure what you also need installed?  or what
it's incompatible with?  dpkg will tell you:

$ dpkg --info /debian/unstable/binary/devel/tk40-dev_4.0p3-3.deb

 new debian package, version 2.0.
 size 496812 bytes: control archive= 424 bytes.
     396 bytes,    12 lines      control              
 PACKAGE: tk40-dev
 VERSION: 4.0p3-3
 MAINTAINER: David Engel <david@ods.com>
 DESCRIPTION: The Tk toolkit for TCL and X11 v4.0 - Development Package.
  Tk is an X11 toolkit that provides the Motif look and feel and is 
  implemented using the Tcl scripting language.
 DEPENDS: tcl74-dev (>=7.4p3-3), tk40 (=4.0p3-3)
 CONFLICTS: tk, tk-dev
 PROVIDES: tk-dev
 ARCHITECTURE: i386
 SOURCE: tk40
 SECTION: devel

dpkg & dselect use this information to work out dependancies and
conflicts between various packages.

(the CONFLICTS: line in this example is a special case.  In the old
days, the 'tk-dev' package was just called 'tk-dev'. now it's called
'tk<version>-dev'. lots of old packages depend on tk, so this package
both provides & conflicts with tk to ensure a smooth transition between
the old naming convention and the new)



redhat has a similar package system (but last i heard didn't support
the notion of conflicts between packages), which also allows upgrading
without reformatting.


> Ive been running slackware since its inception and apart from one release
> (I think it might have been 2.2?) 

i was running slackware from the time i upgraded my SLS 1.03 system
to one of the earliest slackware release. can't remember what version
number.  Slackware was a vast improvement over SLS...but it's derived
from SLS and it's heritage shows.

2.0 was bad.  2.1 wasn't good.  2.2 was a nightmare.  2.3 was reasonable
if you had been through the 2.2 release and knew where to start looking
to fix the problems.  3.0 was mostly ok.

> Ive found it to be a very suitable distribution of linux, and as for
> uptime, I have a machine which I use as the gateway (amongst other
> things) for my network, which has an average uptime of over 50 days a
> pop - and downtime has never been due to an OS related crash.  Ive been
> using linux for 3 1/2 years and the only distribution that I can think
> of that you would be describing would be SLS (Which I believe is long
> dead, although I could be wrong).  Feel free to enlighten me.

my main gripe with slackware is that it is a major hassle to upgrade it.

my next main gripe with slackware is that you have to spend several days
(if you're experienced - several weeks, otherwise) fixing all the stuff
in the distribution which should have been fixed before it got released.

after you've fixed all the problems, yes it is quite stable. it is a
linux distribution after all :-)

i've had slackware systems run for over 150 days - after i'd spent ages
fixing all the broken stuff.

Craig