Bluewhite64

[Wally Balljacker]

So I decided to try out Bluewhite64, one of the main two Slackware ports for the AMD64 arch (the other being Slamd64). I love Slackware and my main desktop is 64-bit capable, so I just had to try it. I was previously running Debian unstable, and while Debian is great, it just doesn't have that same feel that Slackware has.

The installer is pretty much identical to the Slackware 12.1 installer, with a few tiny modifications. The install went without a hitch and the machine booted into a shell prompt just like regular Slack. After doing the standard stuff like adding users and installing graphics drivers I was up and running with a KDE 3.5 desktop. Pretty much all the standard tools for administering a Slackware box are available in BW64; slackpkg, pkgtool, checkinstall, etc. The only thing missing is sbopkg, which I use on Slackware proper to access SlackBuilds.org. This repository is i486 only unless you like hacking build scripts.

So all in all I'm pleasantly surprised by how well it runs. It feels like regular Slackware, and so far I haven't hit any issues unique to this distro. It contains 32-bit compatibility libraries, so it was no problem getting Flash to work with Firefox, and any other legacy 32-bit app should run just fine.

I really have no idea why Pat V hasn't started developing this himself. Clearly 64-bit is the future, and at this point it's more than mature enough for desktop or server usage.

[Patrick]

Clearly 64-bit is the future, and at this point it's more than mature enough for desktop or server usage.

Totally agree.

[allix]

Funny how you love slackware over the ease of use of apt-get . I remember using slackware and getting pissed of with compiling packages.
Sometimes the application compiled fine but when it came to runtime, they did not start. That was when I decided sado-masochism is not for me.

[snarkout]

It's funny how long x86_64 has been around and how little traction it has gained. Multicore 32 bit systems are kicking ass all over it, saleswise. Most people I know who have 64 bit systems end up running 32 bit OSes or at the very least 64 bit OSes and a shit ton of 32 bit apps underneath. I expect 64 bit will be the standard about 10 years after IPv6 is standard and just around the time Duke Nukem Forever hits the stands.

[allix]

hehe yeah, the biggest obstacle is flash, skype, a few other apps and games.
nspluginwrapper is not a solution for flash...

[Wally Balljacker]

hehe yeah, the biggest obstacle is flash, skype, a few other apps and games.
nspluginwrapper is not a solution for flash...

How are these things obstacles? Every 64-bit distro that I know of provides a 32-bit compatibility layer for legacy applications. And since x86_64 is just an extension of the existing x86 instruction set, there isn't any performance loss when running 32-bit binaries. It's fundamentally the same architecture.

I can understand Windows users avoiding 64-bit like the plague due to driver issues and a lack of available software, but one of the advantages of open source is portability. Linux runs on everything, and a driver written for x86 will work equally well on PowerPC or AMD64. Not to mention Linux apps can be compiled to run on anything from embedded devices to IBM mainframes.

[Chess]

I would encourage you to try out Slamd64. Fred Emmott, the developer of Slamd64 is a friend/acquaintance of Patrick Volkerding's and was with the Slackware crew at the KDE4 event at Google. Fred's work was the first 64 bit Slackware porting effort.

There has been some anti-BlueWhite64 buzz in the Slackware community because the developer (someone unknown in the Slackware community) has apparently tried to pass off some of Patrick Volkerding's and Fred's scripts as if they were his own, and there was something about a Tuxmachines interview in which he said he was the first 64 bit port when it was actually Fred's Slamd64. Overall, I think BlueWhite64 is sort of on the "outs" if you know what I mean. If you are interested, you can go to the slackadelic.com blog and search for bluewhite64 and read more about it.

As far as official 64 bit support, I think it's coming. After all, http://www.slackware64.com resolves to slackware.com.

By the way, I am glad you find sbopkg useful.

[Wally Balljacker]

I would encourage you to try out Slamd64.

I have looked into Slamd64, but as I type this, 12.1 is still nowhere to be found. I went with BW64 simply because it has newer packages.

As far as official 64 bit support, I think it's coming. After all, http://www.slackware64.com resolves to slackware.com.

By the way, I am glad you find sbopkg useful.

Wasn't the old Alpha port of Slackware referred to as Slackware64? In any case, I hope an official AMD64 port is on the horizon.

And yeah, sbopkg is great, it makes installing extra software much easier. My only question is, is there a way for sbopkg to tell me if there are updates available? Reading the changelog is a bit of a chore.

[Chess]

I have looked into Slamd64, but as I type this, 12.1 is still nowhere to be found. I went with BW64 simply because it has newer packages.

Yeah, Fred is working on it but development does seem to happen faster with B&W.

Wasn't the old Alpha port of Slackware referred to as Slackware64? In any case, I hope an official AMD64 port is on the horizon.

I am not sure about that. I know there is a slackware.com/ports/alpha page (and even a ports/sparc page). I think Patrick mentioned to me that slackware64.com is a relatively recent domain registration (within the last 2-3 years maybe?).

And yeah, sbopkg is great, it makes installing extra software much easier. My only question is, is there a way for sbopkg to tell me if there are updates available? Reading the changelog is a bit of a chore.

Hehe, yeah, lots of people have asked me for that. I am working on it, but it's actually harder than it seems. But I'm hoping to add that feature at some point.

[allix]

I used slamd64 for a while, and do remember the bw64 as basically a slamd64 rip off. I remember Fred saying on irc that he did not mind him using if only he mentioned the original authors. As Troels will tell you lot free software at least with gpl work, it does not stop anyone from borrowing your efforts providing you acknowledge the author. Basically I can not re-write the linux kernel code and call it mine.

I would guess the reason that its slower is because Fred is a student and was properly doing a big dissertation this year.

[Wally Balljacker]

I used slamd64 for a while, and do remember the bw64 as basically a slamd64 rip off. I remember Fred saying on irc that he did not mind him using if only he mentioned the original authors.

I don't understand this whole "ripoff" mentality. Every Linux distro out there is a derivative of something else, with a handful of distros being an exception. This is the beauty of the GPL. Anyone can take GPL source code and improve or modify it to tailer it towards more specific needs. Bluewhite64 is a perfect example of this. Slackware has a large user base, many of those users have 64-bit computers, and he is filling a niche left by the Slackware project. If you want to call BW64 a ripoff, you might as well call Ubuntu a Debian ripoff, or the Linux kernel itself a ripoff. After all, Linux is a clone of UNIX.

From the "info" page on the BW64 website:

This project was started in May 2006 and was built from Slackware -current sources using the existing 64-bit multilib toolchain from the Slamd64 Linux (thanks Fred!) to create a new 64-bit non-multilib toolchain in order to build the rest of the programs. The Bluewhite64 project goal is to imitate the same user experience of the Intel distribution as closely as possible and includes all of the same software, configuration scripts plus the needed 64-bit patches.

He clearly mentions and thanks the original author.

http://www.bluewhite64.com/general-info.html

[Tsuroerusu]

As Troels will tell you lot free software at least with gpl work, it does not stop anyone from borrowing your efforts providing you acknowledge the author. Basically I can not re-write the linux kernel code and call it mine.

Actually, you only have to give attribution if the author of the code you are distributing requires you to do so, by having an "Additional term", as it's called in GPL-speak. So since GNU coreutils does not have an attribution clause in it's licensing, you can kick the GNU project in the nuts and totally beat a dead horse about how a distribution of GNU and Linux, is nothing but "Linux".

I used slamd64 for a while, and do remember the bw64 as basically a slamd64 rip off. I remember Fred saying on irc that he did not mind him using if only he mentioned the original authors.

I don't understand this whole "ripoff" mentality. Every Linux distro out there is a derivative of something else, with a handful of distros being an exception. This is the beauty of the GPL. Anyone can take GPL source code and improve or modify it to tailer it towards more specific needs. Bluewhite64 is a perfect example of this. Slackware has a large user base, many of those users have 64-bit computers, and he is filling a niche left by the Slackware project. If you want to call BW64 a ripoff, you might as well call Ubuntu a Debian ripoff, or the Linux kernel itself a ripoff. After all, Linux is a clone of UNIX.

Could not agree more, even if I tried! This is the entire point with free software. What the heck is the point of freedom, and then not utilizing it for something you want to do?

[allix]

I think you two guys are missing a point, if i went through ubuntu and stripped out the authors name and put mine in place and released it, i would be violating and pissing of a lot of people by claiming i wrote it all.

The reason BW64 said that Ben was because they were pretty much forced to , at least online.
I could imagine Fred had a bloody good talking to whoever runs BW64 whereby the guy felt guilty and added what you posted.

AFAIK the only license that allows anyone to wipe out the authors name and put their own is the public domain license.

[Wally Balljacker]

I think you two guys are missing a point, if i went through ubuntu and stripped out the authors name and put mine in place and released it, i would be violating and pissing of a lot of people by claiming i wrote it all.

Ever heard of gNewSense? It's essentially a carbon copy of Ubuntu 8.04, minus the non-free bits. Or what about the Ubuntu Muslim Edition, or Satanic Edition? There are a ton of these Ubuntu derivatives, and half of them do nothing more than strip out the Ubuntu branding and repackage it for their own purposes. This is what the GPL is made for and should be celebrated not abhorred.

[Tsuroerusu]

I think you two guys are missing a point, if i went through ubuntu and stripped out the authors name and put mine in place and released it, i would be violating and pissing of a lot of people by claiming i wrote it all.

The reason BW64 said that Ben was because they were pretty much forced to , at least online.
I could imagine Fred had a bloody good talking to whoever runs BW64 whereby the guy felt guilty and added what you posted.

AFAIK the only license that allows anyone to wipe out the authors name and put their own is the public domain license.

Well, did they strip out the name in a "CREDITS section" or did they strip out the original author's copyright statement? If it was the former, there's nothing but ego-related reasons to that. If it was the latter, OK fair enough, then that would be a GPL violation.

I think you two guys are missing a point, if i went through ubuntu and stripped out the authors name and put mine in place and released it, i would be violating and pissing of a lot of people by claiming i wrote it all.

Ever heard of gNewSense? It's essentially a carbon copy of Ubuntu 8.04, minus the non-free bits. Or what about the Ubuntu Muslim Edition, or Satanic Edition? There are a ton of these Ubuntu derivatives, and half of them do nothing more than strip out the Ubuntu branding and repackage it for their own purposes. This is what the GPL is made for and should be celebrated not abhorred.

CentOS is an even better example of that.