Is Slackware 64-bit being designed?

Printable View

10-18-2005
TomX

Is Slackware 64-bit being designed?

Hey,

I'm buying an AMD Athlon 64-bit processor and to fully utilize this I wanted to run a 64-bit Linux distribution build. Since I use Slackware I had kind of hoped it would have a 64-bit version but having checked the website, it doesn't exist.

I've seen reviews for SlAMD64 and would rather not use that, so, will Slackware 64bit ever be built officially and if not, am I best finding a distribution which utilizes it fully or is the difference (between using a 64-bit processor on a 32-bit or a 64-bit distribution) negligable.

Thanks
Tom
10-18-2005
techieMoe

Re: Is Slackware 64-bit being designed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomX

I've seen reviews for SlAMD64 and would rather not use that, so, will Slackware 64bit ever be built officially...

I'm not a heavy Slacker, but as far as I know, Patrick has no plans to make an AMD64 version, much like he insists on using the 2.4.x series of kernel by default. Read into that as you will.

Quote:

and if not, am I best finding a distribution which utilizes it fully or is the difference (between using a 64-bit processor on a 32-bit or a 64-bit distribution) negligable.

Thanks
Tom

At the current time, there isn't any real significant advantage to using a 64-bit Linux on your AMD64, unless you just like having a distro compiled for your architecture. The immediate problem you run into is that even if there were a slight increase in performance (which there will eventually be, once developers start using the new features) you still run into certain applications that just don't come in 64-bit yet (such as Macromedia Flash), and it can be difficult sometimes getting 32-bit apps installed on a 64-bit Linux. Most programs run fine, but some require special effort to get installed.
10-18-2005
TomX

Thanks for the reply, it's a shame (though maybe even due to the whole philosophy of Slackware) that he's not building a 64-bit version of Slackware.

For now I will use a distribution which has a build for the 64-bit architecture, such as Debian, Ubuntu or even Gentoo, as to which I don't know yet but I'm sure Google will provide enough arguements for each distribution to give me another dilemma. I suppose I could try each of them.
10-18-2005
techieMoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomX

For now I will use a distribution which has a build for the 64-bit architecture, such as Debian, Ubuntu or even Gentoo... I suppose I could try each of them.

That's what I usually recommend. I've only played with SuSE, Fedora Core 4, and Ubuntu's 64-bit editions personally.
10-19-2005
Master of Reality

whoa whoa... there is an 'unofficial' version of slackware for 64bit.
Slamd64 Http://slamd64.com
10-20-2005
techieMoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master of Reality

whoa whoa... there is an 'unofficial' version of slackware for 64bit.
Slamd64 Http://slamd64.com

Yes, and the original poster is fully aware of that. He said (if you'll re-read the first post) that he's not interested in using it. He's asking about an official AMD64 Slackware release, of which there are none currently.
10-20-2005
desertViking

Could one use the kernel source and recompile it for the desired target?

There's more to it than that I realize, but perhaps the kerenl would at least take advantage of the 64-bit instructions, though the rest would not.

Just an idea.
10-20-2005
techieMoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by desertViking

Could one use the kernel source and recompile it for the desired target?

It's at least possible in theory. I know distributions like SuSE 64-bit aren't completely made up of 64-bit packages.