slack or slamd64? - Slackware

This is a discussion on slack or slamd64? - Slackware ; I'm getting closer to upgrading to a new box from this century. I have settled on an amd64 cpu. My question is, would I be better off using slack in 32 bit mode or should I commit to slamd64. Or?.... ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: slack or slamd64?

  1. slack or slamd64?

    I'm getting closer to upgrading to a new box from this century. I have
    settled on an amd64 cpu. My question is, would I be better off using
    slack in 32 bit mode or should I commit to slamd64. Or?....

    nb


  2. Re: slack or slamd64?

    On 2007-07-23, notbob wrote:
    > I'm getting closer to upgrading to a new box from this century. I have
    > settled on an amd64 cpu. My question is, would I be better off using
    > slack in 32 bit mode or should I commit to slamd64. Or?....


    What do you hope to get out of 64bit linux? The typical advice is that
    if you have a lot of memory, and have a process that will use a lot,
    64bit will be better at addressing that memory space, but otherwise
    there's not a huge difference between 32bit and 64bit.

    OTOH, if this isn't a critical system, you might consider slamd64 just
    to help their development.

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  3. Re: slack or slamd64?

    notbob wrote:

    > I'm getting closer to upgrading to a new box from this century. I have
    > settled on an amd64 cpu. My question is, would I be better off using
    > slack in 32 bit mode or should I commit to slamd64. Or?....


    I run Slack on my 32 bit boxes, and Slamd64 on an AMD 64 laptop. Slamd64 is
    definitely quicker on the 64 bit box than Slack, but probably not by enough to
    make it an issue. I do a lot of video work, so I need the thing to run as fast
    as possible. You will need a minimum of 1GB of ram - 2 if you can afford it!

    I haven't found any hardware yet that won't work in 64 bit, provided it will
    work in 32 bit. Even the winmodem worked after a bit of fiddling about (thanks
    to the ALSA developers!). There seem to be more drivers for 64 bit Linux than
    there are for 64 bit Windoze (Hee! Hee!).

    There is a small degree of divergence between Slamd64 and Slack, but nothing
    that would affect 99% of users. I suspect its more to do with differing legal
    attitudes here in the UK compared to the US.

    Slamd64 is a nice stable system. At the moment the -current installer is a bit
    broken (fixes are discussed on the forum), but that should get fixed properly
    when Fred (the developer) recovers from his end of year exams!

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

  4. Re: slack or slamd64?

    Peter Christy wrote:
    > I haven't found any hardware yet that won't work in 64 bit, provided it
    > will work in 32 bit. Even the winmodem worked after a bit of fiddling
    > about (thanks to the ALSA developers!). There seem to be more drivers for
    > 64 bit Linux than there are for 64 bit Windoze (Hee! Hee!).


    Very true - Windows x64 is a bit of a joke.

    > There is a small degree of divergence between Slamd64 and Slack, but
    > nothing that would affect 99% of users. I suspect its more to do with
    > differing legal attitudes here in the UK compared to the US.


    If you're referring to the z/ series, that was removed a long time ago. The
    only differences between Slackware 11.0 and Slamd64 11.0 are that Slamd64
    is missing a handful of packages (many of which don't apply to x86-64
    anyway). (I can't compare 12.0 releases, since Slamd64 12.0 isn't out yet).

    > Slamd64 is a nice stable system. At the moment the -current installer is a
    > bit broken (fixes are discussed on the forum), but that should get fixed
    > properly when Fred (the developer) recovers from his end of year exams!


    The current delay is that Fred is committed to paid work by a Google Summer
    of Code project for KDE (and since it's paid, it takes priority).

    -Carlos
    --
    E-Mail: cathectic@gmail.com
    Web: strangeworlds.co.uk
    GPG Key ID: 0x23EE722D

  5. Re: slack or slamd64?

    On Jul 23, 4:21 pm, Peter Christy wrote:
    > notbob wrote:
    >
    > There is a small degree of divergence between Slamd64 and Slack, but nothing
    > that would affect 99% of users. I suspect its more to do with differing legal
    > attitudes here in the UK compared to the US.
    > --
    > Pete
    > chri...@NOattglobalSPAM.net
    > (make the obvious amendments to reply!)


    You are saying there's not much difference between Slack and Slamd64?
    You must be tripping in something! There's quite a big of
    difference. Slack is well put together, and Slamd64 is a joke for the
    most part. I would somewhat recommend ZenWalk, which comes in both
    32- and 64-bit versions. Then again, the last updates I did last
    months seem to have been badly done and screwed up some initialization
    scripts. Ended up switching to Xunbutu (64-bit version) for the time
    being! All the Slack-based, 64-bit editions I've tried suck one way
    or another. There's simply nothing like Slackware, but it only comes
    for 32-bit machines. All Slack derivatives don't seem to be worth a
    dime.

    Sorry, if the comments sounded a little bit rough, but it's very
    frustrating the state of these distros...


  6. Re: slack or slamd64?

    ajam wrote:

    > You are saying there's not much difference between Slack and Slamd64?
    > You must be tripping in something! There's quite a big of
    > difference. Slack is well put together, and Slamd64 is a joke for the
    > most part. I would somewhat recommend ZenWalk, which comes in both
    > 32- and 64-bit versions. Then again, the last updates I did last
    > months seem to have been badly done and screwed up some initialization
    > scripts. Ended up switching to Xunbutu (64-bit version) for the time
    > being! All the Slack-based, 64-bit editions I've tried suck one way
    > or another. There's simply nothing like Slackware, but it only comes
    > for 32-bit machines. All Slack derivatives don't seem to be worth a
    > dime.
    >


    thank you for saying this, I was going to write the same.
    if you need 64 bit stick on Debian (And I would pay for an official 64 bit
    slackware on my servers)

    --
    777 fanno 21, arriva la volante e non c' nessuno

  7. Re: slack or slamd64?

    ajam wrote:

    > You are saying there's not much difference between Slack and Slamd64?
    > You must be tripping in something! There's quite a big of
    > difference. Slack is well put together, and Slamd64 is a joke for the
    > most part.


    I'm afraid I have to completely and utterly disagree with you on that one.

    Yes, Slamd64 has its faults, and is not perfect, but it is certainly not a
    joke.

    -Carlos
    --
    E-Mail: cathectic@gmail.com
    Web: strangeworlds.co.uk
    GPG Key ID: 0x23EE722D

  8. Re: slack or slamd64?

    Carlos Corbacho wrote:

    > I'm afraid I have to completely and utterly disagree with you on that one.
    >
    > Yes, Slamd64 has its faults, and is not perfect, but it is certainly not a
    > joke.


    would you put it on a production server?
    if so tell me your experiences, I've been looking for it a long time

    bye


    --
    777 fanno 21, arriva la volante e non c' nessuno

  9. Re: slack or slamd64?

    motion musso: aka sathia wrote:

    > would you put it on a production server?
    > if so tell me your experiences, I've been looking for it a long time


    Well, I wouldn't know about that. I'm not a sysadmin - I just use it for my own
    home purposes. I would agree that the -current installer is broken - though
    this can be worked around - but I would say that for everyday use, it is every
    bit as stable as my Slackware install.

    Indeed, I've been extremely pleased with just how well it does work, especially
    compared to some others out there. I tried Kubuntu 7.04 64 bit briefly. Very
    briefly! I couldn't get on with it at all. Half my software wouldn't work, and
    I couldn't even get my printer to work with it due to the faulty drivers
    supplied! And parallel boot or not, it was very slow to boot compared to
    Slamd64!

    Slamd 64 is a good stable distro for what I use it for. I have no hesitation in
    recommending it!


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

  10. Re: slack or slamd64?

    motion musso: aka sathia wrote:
    > would you put it on a production server?


    I don't have a production server.

    In any case, no, I would put plain, tried-and-tested Slackware on such a
    server, for two reasons:

    First: Slamd64 is not a full time job for its developer, so I cannot depend
    on security patches and updates to be released as quickly as they are for
    Slackware.

    Second: i386 is a much more mature and stable architecture than x86-64 -
    there are still plenty of 64 bit bugs out there to be ironed out,
    regardless of the distribution.

    > if so tell me your experiences,


    I have run Slamd64 for nearly two years now on my laptop as my main system;
    and on my desktop since upgrading it to an AMD64 processor a few months
    ago. I use Slamd64 because it's fun to do so - no, I don't really "need" a
    64 bit operating system (and to be perfectly honest, most people don't),
    but it's fun anyway (In much the same way that I have enjoyed using
    Slackware for the past few years).

    Yes, the early Slamd64 10.2 releases were very rough around the edges. So
    rather than sit around and complain, I did something about it and actually
    helped out (spotting and fixing bugs, porting packages from Slackware to
    Slamd64, etc).

    Hence when I say Slamd64 11.0 is quite close to Slackware 11.0, I say that
    because I actually helped and contributed to Slamd64 11.0, so know that for
    a fact. When I say Slamd64 12.0 will even closer to Slackware 12.0 than the
    11.0 releases were to each other, I don't say that because I wish it were
    so; I say that because I have followed the development of 12.0 and have
    complete confidence in the developer and maintainer, Fred Emmott, and I
    have again helped out as best I can, so that I know this is the case.

    -Carlos
    --
    E-Mail: cathectic@gmail.com
    Web: strangeworlds.co.uk
    GPG Key ID: 0x23EE722D

  11. Re: slack or slamd64?

    Carlos Corbacho wrote:

    > I'm afraid I have to completely and utterly disagree with you on that one.
    >
    > Yes, Slamd64 has its faults, and is not perfect, but it is certainly not a
    > joke.


    When I installed Slamd64 11.0 it just worked and the whole process was
    _very_ similar to Slackware with no issues. Yes, there are a few less
    packages available - but that was not a great problem. I can compile and
    install stuff just like Slackware and Slackware 32 bit packages just work.

    Obvious question is whether Slamd64 could 'de-fork' into Slackware? I
    suppose the last comment is rehtorical as I can think of several reasons
    why not for practical and organisation reasons.

    Pete


    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

  12. Re: slack or slamd64?

    notbob wrote:

    > Will an amd64 cpu run reg slack in 32 mode with
    > absolutely no probs?


    Yes - all the AMD64/ x86-64 CPUs are still just as backwards compatible with
    the 20 year old i386 and all it's quirks/ deficiencies as all the x86 CPUs.

    -Carlos
    --
    E-Mail: cathectic@gmail.com
    Web: strangeworlds.co.uk
    GPG Key ID: 0x23EE722D

  13. Re: slack or slamd64?

    On 2007-07-24, Carlos Corbacho wrote:

    > Yes - all the AMD64/ x86-64 CPUs are still just as backwards compatible with
    > the 20 year old i386 and all it's quirks/ deficiencies as all the x86 CPUs.


    Whew!

    Thnx, Carlos. That's mighty comforting.

    nb

  14. Re: slack or slamd64?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    _.-In alt.os.linux.slackware, notbob wrote the following -._
    > Will an amd64 cpu run reg slack in 32 mode with absolutely no probs?


    I have been doing it for over a year now with no OS related problems.

    - --
    =()==()==()==()==()- http://fauxascii.com
    \ \ \ \ \ \ ASCII artist
    :F_P:-O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- Get your ASCII Art T-Shirt:
    http://www.keystroketshirts.com/asci...-fullView.php#
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFGprsaSJec2PH9pbURAnhuAJ0TSK+xiAY5gIkBuwUV53 +HbUcPtwCfQ6sU
    sNCGWT0X7905xaCouKuI0JQ=
    =RNV/
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  15. Re: slack or slamd64?

    Faux_Pseudo says:
    >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >Hash: SHA1


    >_.-In alt.os.linux.slackware, notbob wrote the following -._
    >> Will an amd64 cpu run reg slack in 32 mode with absolutely no probs?


    >I have been doing it for over a year now with no OS related problems.


    Is that right? Well the stuff below makes it look like your
    computer puked.

    >- --
    >=()==()==()==()==()- http://fauxascii.com
    > \ \ \ \ \ \ ASCII artist
    > :F_P:-O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- Get your ASCII Art T-Shirt:
    >http://www.keystroketshirts.com/asci...-fullView.php#
    >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    >Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)


    >iD8DBQFGprsaSJec2PH9pbURAnhuAJ0TSK+xiAY5gIkBuwUV53 +HbUcPtwCfQ6sU
    >sNCGWT0X7905xaCouKuI0JQ=
    >=RNV/
    >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


    Isn't that amazing? Is there a more ugly sig in usenet history?

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  16. Re: slack or slamd64?

    notbob wrote:
    > I'm getting closer to upgrading to a new box from this century. I have
    > settled on an amd64 cpu. My question is, would I be better off using
    > slack in 32 bit mode or should I commit to slamd64. Or?....


    Just my 2 cents:
    unless you need (and GOT) the big RAM 64-bits allows, there's normally
    not that much advantage of Slamd64 over Slackware. And Slamd64 is
    maintained _less_ then Slackware (i.e. there is not even a rc for 12.0
    out, with Slackware 12 being there already for almost a month now).
    Last update in slamd64-current is still from June 19

    On the other hand, you can run most 32-bits programs in Slamd64 too,
    so there isn't too much penalty in running slamd64 either.
    It IS larger though, both on-disk and in-memory so you generally need
    a "somewhat larger" computer for it (get at least 2 GB of RAM, for
    instance).

    But with large RAM (4 GB or larger) slamd64 comes into its strength,
    especially when you get all YOUR applications in 64-bit versions too.
    --
    ************************************************** ******************
    ** Eef Hartman, Delft University of Technology, dept. EWI/TW **
    ** e-mail: E.J.M.Hartman@math.tudelft.nl, fax: +31-15-278 7295 **
    ** snail-mail: P.O. Box 5031, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands **
    ************************************************** ******************

  17. Re: slack or slamd64?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Eef Hartman wrote:
    > notbob wrote:
    >> I'm getting closer to upgrading to a new box from this century. I have
    >> settled on an amd64 cpu. My question is, would I be better off using
    >> slack in 32 bit mode or should I commit to slamd64. Or?....

    >
    > Just my 2 cents:
    > unless you need (and GOT) the big RAM 64-bits allows, there's normally
    > not that much advantage of Slamd64 over Slackware. And Slamd64 is
    > maintained _less_ then Slackware (i.e. there is not even a rc for 12.0
    > out, with Slackware 12 being there already for almost a month now).
    > Last update in slamd64-current is still from June 19


    And have you read the previous messages in this thread? Fred is
    maintaining slamd64, but is currently working on a paid project for KDE
    for the Summer of Code. as slamd64 is his hobby, plus does it outside
    of his studies, everyone can clearly understand if paid work takes
    precedence over a hobby. No doubt if you were in his shoes, you'd do
    the same. I'm pretty sure if he wasn't working on that, slamd64 12.0
    would be out by now.

    > On the other hand, you can run most 32-bits programs in Slamd64 too,
    > so there isn't too much penalty in running slamd64 either.
    > It IS larger though, both on-disk and in-memory so you generally need
    > a "somewhat larger" computer for it (get at least 2 GB of RAM, for
    > instance).
    >
    > But with large RAM (4 GB or larger) slamd64 comes into its strength,
    > especially when you get all YOUR applications in 64-bit versions too.


    I agree completely. This is where it excels, plus like
    Slackware, doesn't come in the standard bloated form as Debian and
    others, nor comes with bloatware.

    And as I have been running slamd64 since 10.2 (and 11.0 since
    it came out), I'll go on record and state that it is just as stable as
    Slackware. I have had no problems with it at all and would back it on
    any production machine as wholeheartedly as I would back Slackware on a
    production machine; in fact, I have it running on such a machine now:
    LAMP, plus hosting an audio feed for LiveATC.net.

    BL.
    - --
    Brad Littlejohn | Email: tyketto@sbcglobal.net
    Unix Systems Administrator, | tyketto@ozemail.com.au
    Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
    PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFGpvv5yBkZmuMZ8L8RAncaAKDPr8dbz+1nch2Ygam55N XxxSIWHwCg9wqx
    xC96vD8JfwQnfJDJkdNlF6w=
    =07yL
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  18. Re: slack or slamd64?

    notbob wrote:
    > On 2007-07-24, King Beowulf wrote:
    >
    >> So my recommendation is
    >>
    >> 32 bit hardware and production - Slackware 12
    >> 64 bit hardware - SLAMD64 11 (and soon 12)
    >> older hardware - either Slack 11 or 12 depending on CPU.

    >

    --------------snip-----------

    Will an amd64 cpu run reg slack in 32 mode with
    > absolutely no probs? Or should I continue to search for a P4 combo?
    > I'm looking for the Slack benchmark of stability and reliability more
    > than any kind of gamer whiz-band speedo crap. I'm not looking for a
    > server only system, just a workstation with server stabiliy.
    >
    > nb


    Yes, slack runs just fine on AMD64. I have MS DOS, Slack 11, SLAMD 64 and WinXP all
    on my AMD64.

+ Reply to Thread