New age Slackware.

It used to be said that Slackware was the best all round fit for both server installations an desktop systems. It was also said to be the best fit for both old, older and new systems. In the days of yore many, if not most, of its users were command line junkies. Nowadays though, almost none of that holds true.

Sure, the venerable Slackware distribution can be, and is, used on a few servers here and there with the desktop components not being installed but my own findings are that Slackware is nowadays mostly found on desktop installations. That assumes one can find anyone outside of the clique that makes up its current user base who is actively using it. This change of direction came around the time Gnome2 was dropped from the distribution and the horrible KDE became the main desktop GUI. This was a major choice by the creator of Slackware and not one that was popular. My dislike of KDE is because of its QT dependency. I dislike QT with a passion which means I dislike KDE too and anything else that depends on it.

Slackware, rightly, has a reputation for being staid in its choice of software. Some of the software that makes up the distribution is not bleeding edge. This gave Slackware a reputation for being solid in use. Slackware has always shipped with a choice of desktop Gui's but the dropping of Gnome was a minor disaster for Slackware which ultimately lost it a few users to other distributions that did include Gnome. There are also a few people that built Gnome for Slackware almost making a mockery of the Slackware authors claim that Gnome2 was hard to build and maintain.

In the latest release, due real soon now, the use of a default 2.6.x kernel, and the tools that go with it, also shows a leaning by its creator towards desktop installations. Many users, or potential users, of Slackware are now told to use an older version if the system it is being installed on is an old one. How old is old? Well, my reckoning is any CPU from the pre 2004 days. That move to a 2.6.x kernel combined with the dropping of Gnome2 excludes a lot of users.

So, with the combined dropping of Gnome2 and now the move to a 2.6.x kernel, Slackware stands to lose a few more users. I have no idea just how many installations, server and desktop, comprise of Slackware installations but my findings indicate the number has dropped dramatically in recent times, which is a shame because it is a fantastically stable distribution.

Added to this the Slackware creator has gathered together a bunch of people who he is hoping will take up the slack (no pun intended) should the creator decide for whatever reason, he has had enough and quits. Not all of these people are popular amongst its current user base and will I reckon lead to even less usage of Slackware in the next few years. Some of these people are arrogant, something the creator of Slackware has never been seen to be. They stomp all over other peoples work by stealing it. They never give attributes where due. Work that they gave away for free on various web sites dotted here and there. Web sites that in some cases have been around longer than some of these people. They jump on anyone who might have something bad to say about Slackware itself or the creator of, even if that something has merit.

I have used Slackware since around 1993 when it was born from the soon to be ashes of the SLS (Soft Landing Systems) distribution and have followed it not only by usage of it, but also with a general interest when compared to other distributions. Nowadays I have a 64 bit CPU which Slackware itself does not support but other distributions based on Slackware do. Of these ports I find Bluewhite64 to be the best fit as it directly mirrors, save for the 32 bit compatibility layer, Slackware itself. So, the transition from 32 bit Slackware to 64 bit Bluewhite64 via Slamd64 seemed to me to be an obvious one. I took it and find that Bluewhite64 with Gnome2 is the best of breed. I just find it a shame that the Slackware creator dropped Gnome2 from the distribution. Through my own scripting of the Gnome2 build process, and all its various dependencies, and the usage of other peoples scripts to build it, that the claim it is hard to build and maintain is laughable. However, it is, and was, his choice as it is after all his distribution that one assumes mirrors his own usage on the desktop at least and that is something I respect.

It has hurt to write this post because I honestly think that Slackware and the none sanctioned 64 bit ports of it are the best distributions by far, but that said, what I have said here is based around my observations of how the distribution has developed in recent times. It does not make good reading if you are, like me, a stout and devoted Slackware user but it is my view of the current state of play.

Gnome2 >2.20.0

I am unsure when Gnome2 started using PolicyKit which itself relies on SELinux and/or PAM but in my honest opinion this is a bad bad move.

I don't know how people who are building third party Gnome2 packages for Slackware are going to build it without PolicyKit. Every man and his dog knows that Slackware's author, Mr Volkerding, regards PAM as a huge security hole so does not and has said he will not include PAM in his distribution.

I have liked Gnome since its first incarnation many years ago. While I currently use the always improving without adding bloat Xfce4 I often revisit Gnome2 to see what is going on there. KDE simply does not get a look in because I have never liked QT.

But, this new reliance on PolicyKit which in turn relies on PAM and/or SELinux to be able to do its work is going to prove to be a massive turn off for me and no doubt a lot of Slackware users and for that reason alone unless I, and others, can find a way to build the latest version of Gnome2 without PolicyKit then Gnome2 will simply fall by the wayside as so many other DTE's and WM's have done over the years. Xfce4 will be the only DTE (DeskTop Environment) left on my system for those times I load up X.

Time and time again I have dabbled with PAM. Built it, installed it, configured it for my needs but always I have felt that PAM is simply a security bolt on that is not needed on a properly configured system. Because it is a bolt on this alone makes it a security hole. Look at PAM's record on vulnerabilities and you will see just how poor a record PAM has in this area. After a week or two usage with PAM running on my systems and adding a patch or 3 to cover some hole within it or updating it yet again because of a vulnerability I get fed up with it and remove it. Look around the Internet and you will see problem after problem regarding PAM and now we have parts of Gnome2 relying on it. If I feel this way how many others out there feel the same?

I downloaded the latest, at time of writing 2.21.2, Garnome (that is how I have tested various versions of Gnome2 for quite some time. Garnome itself is a wonderful tool as it allows you to test Gnome2 without actually installing it system wide) and because I have no PAM or SELinux installed it will not build. I have edited various files within the Garnome environment to try and eliminate the need for PolicyKit, PAM and SELinux but every effort resulted the same. It simply will not build.

This reliance on PolicyKit, PAM and SELinux is a shame as I said earlier on, Gnome2 has been one of my favourite DTE's and because of these reliances I will soon be consigning it to the bin.

X is NOT KDE!

Or put in pure Linux/Unix terms: X != KDE. Or Gnome, XFce4, Fluxbox etc etc.

As Linux (Linux defined here constitutes an entire distribution. In real terms, linux of course is the kernel only and a distribution, like Slackware, RedHat, Ubuntu etc are collections of programs which include the kernel.) grows exponentially in popularity there are many misnomers cropping up regarding what is what. While these misnomers are mostly harmless they do make diagnosing problems that may crop up harder for us more knowledgeable long time users.

For example. I saw a discussion recently on a forum where the user with a screen blanking problem kept referring to "The screen blanker in KDE." After much discussion going back and forth it eventually transpired that he/she was using Ubuntu. Ubuntu hides the underlaying console that all distributions have and boots straight into Gnome, by default, or KDE. This user had changed the default so instead of logging directly into GDM (the gnome login manger) from where he/she could log into Gnome or KDE he/she automatically booted directly into KDE.

Nothing wrong with this method and can in fact save a little bit of time logging in. This method also facilitates booting ones machine then walking away to do something else. On return the machine will be sat on the Gnome, KDE etc desktop so one can start work immediately upon returning to the station.

Where this sort of auto login does become an issue is when, for whatever reason, ones X or Gnome/KDE has been irreparably broken so that instead of being sat on the desktop one is sat at a scary black screen with nothing more than a bit of text at the bottom.

And so this discussion went. He/she was not having a problem with KDE but did have a problem with X blanking the screen. however, his/her constant use of "The screen blanker in KDE" kept throwing us old timers off the scent of where the problem really laid.

In very simple terms the boot process boots in 3 separate stages. First, the console, second, X and third ones chosen GUI which can be any one of many but most new users tend to use Gnome, KDE or XFce4. To blank or stop blanking the monitor each one of these stages should be addressed separately. Of course if one never uses the console directly that stage can be missed out. None of the GUI's have screen blanking themselves. Instead they offer, via their setup or configuration applets, options to setup the default GUI screen blanker which is a program called xscreensaver.

So, for console blanking we use 'setterm -blank <time in seconds>. If the value of (time in seconds> is set to 0 then blanking is disabled. Any other none negative value will blank the console after those minutes of inactivity.

For X this is a little more tricky insofar as how one goes about setting this up, but works fine once set up. If one does not add these options to /etc/X11/xorg.conf the default options, which are for X to blank the screen after 5 or so minutes of inactivity, kick in. To set X to blank the screen after so many minutes of inactivity, open /etc/X11/xorg.conf in your editor of choice. We need root access for this so use 'su' to gain root privilidges or 'sudo'. Add the following lines to 'Section "ServerLayout"' in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.

Option "BlankTime" "0"
Option "standby time" "0"
Option "suspend time" "0"
Option "off time" "0"

These options totally stop X from blanking the screen.

The third part is simple and for a new user probably the easiest way to blank or stop blanking the screen. Gnome, KDE, XFce4 or any desktop environment or any window manger for that matter do not contain any screen blanking code beyond offering configuration options for the xscreensaver program. By setting these options up one can disable screen blanking in your chosen GUI environment.

I hope you found the information given here useful and please, new users to Linux, try not mixing up the various parts that make the whole and we old timers will be better able to help you with whatever problems you may be experiencing.