Linux & Slackware versions

[jsaylor at mit.edu (John Saylor)]

Hi
[x]

Somone wrote asking for help:
>> I've got a CD w/ Slackware 2.3, a 1.2.x kernel, and XFree386 3.1.1 . Should
>> I get a more up-to-date CD with Slackware 3.0? Isn't there a newer (and
>> stable) XFree386?

At 08:05 PM 5/7/96 -0400, Adam Holt wrote:
>Consider RedHat, which is much more maintainable because of its "rpm"
>package manager and incidentally, gaining mindshare fast.  www.redhat.com

Well, I wouldn't be too sure about that. I had a red hat installation [2.1]
which I removed in favor of a slackware one [3.0] and I am much happier. The
big problem had to do with the iBCS [Intel Binary Compatability
Specification (?)- a module that allows you to run binaries for other i386
UN*Xes on your linux box. Through my attempts to get it to run I found out
that RedHat has revamped many of the system library files, such that things
don't [and won't] compile unless you're willing to rewrite lots of code.

If you have an Alpha, it's probably a good idea to go with red hat; but for
"the rest of us," I think slackware is a better choice. After all, it's
probably the distribution that most stuff is tested against- especially
since you don't have to buy it!

And if you're just starting, a older distribution is probably not a bad
idea- once you can figure out what you want from a newer distribution, then
it's time to get it.

And for X- the commercial servers are going to be better, but I've never had
a problem with mine. I even learned something about monitors by setting it
up correctly. Then again, I'm running on a 386 with a VGA monitor- still
[stop snickering!], it works quite well, no surprises.
\jsaylor