Slackware made easy


Slack to the Future

Give a man Ubuntu, and he'll learn Ubuntu. Give a man SUSE, and he'll learn SUSE. But give a man Slackware, and he'll learn Linux. Well, so the old internet maxim goes, but while it's normally used with a touch of humour, there's a great deal of truth in it too.

If you've ever wondered what it is about Slackware that makes it so popular amongst Linux veterans, read on for a bit of history, and hands-on installation guide, plus some tips to help you get started...

Slackware is a curious animal, minding its own business while other distros roam the popularity plain and strive for dominance among their peers. It's not trying to win enormous desktop market share, nor is it loaded with blinking lights, hold-your-hand graphical wizards and package managers that change with every release. Slackware is about as pure a GNU/Linux system as you can get - at least, without all the arduous leg work of Linux From Scratch.

There are many reasons why Slackware has a devoted base of hardcore fans, usually Linux old-timers but occasionally newcomers too. The top four:

  • It's almost entirely developed by one man.
  • The packages are not patched to the hilt.
  • It's comfortable in its own distrosphere.
  • It's very, very, very stable.

Let's look at these in more detail. For most of its history, since the first release in 1993, Slackware has been largely the work of one developer: California-based 42-year-old Patrick Volkerding. Pat had some assistance from other paid developers in the distro's earlier days, but now he's a one-man band - albeit with the help of bug reports and patches from the community - and uses sales of Slackware boxed sets to fund his work on the distro.

An affable chap with a quirky sense of humour, Pat's down-to-earth geekness puts many long-time Linuxers at ease. Got a question? Try Pat. Got a suggestion? Try Pat. Want to file a bug report? Try Pat. Don't worry about mailing lists, project leaders and Bugzilla accounts - Pat's your man. Indeed, he's known as The Man in Slackware circles.

Unbefuddled software

With Pat's central role in Slackware firmly established, we come on to patches. Most distros take the original, upstream source code of a program and weld on patches - one, two, 10, often more - to fit it in with the rest of the software and distro. That's fine for many users, but if you want to be sure you're getting what the developer originally intended, you're better off with Slackware.

Now that's not to say that Pat is a patchophobe - some programs are tweaked in places - but by and large the software is left untouched and you don't feel like you're getting a distorted version of the original.

There's another side of package purity to consider as well. Contrary to what a lot of armchair distro-pundits may have you believe, Slackware does have a package management system. It's just based around very simple tarballs (.tgz files) rather than the dependency tangled, database-backed systems of RPMs and Debs. The upshot of this is that Slackware packages are extremely easy to pop open, fiddle around in and put back together.

Slackware's stringent focus on simplicity has led to a few software casualties in its history, most notably Gnome. In 2005, Pat decided that the work of building and integrating the vast mixture of Gnome packages and their dependencies was just too much. He said:

"Please do not incorrectly interpret any of this as a slight against Gnome itself, which (although it does usually need to be fixed and polished beyond the way it ships from upstream more so than, say, KDE or Xfce) is a decent desktop choice."

This kicked other developers into action, with the Dropline Gnome add-on desktop project starting shortly after the announcement. It's a great implementation of Gnome, but the message was clear: if you want your software to be included with Slackware, make sure that it's neatly contained and not a nightmare to build and distribute.

Know your goals

This brings us to our third point: Slackware has steadfastly remained a non-newbie distro. It's not hard to use - far from it - but it doesn't have a graphical installer or step-by-step wizards to automate every aspect of usage and installation. Slackware users are expected to have a fair grounding in the command line and editing configuration files, which returns us to the maxim at the start: if you decide to use Slackware, you aren't shielded from the workings of Linux under the GUI.

Slackware's installer isn't graphical, but you can Tab, Space and Enter your way to a working system easily enough.

Slackware's installer isn't graphical, but you can Tab, Space and Enter your way to a working system easily enough.

You get to learn the underpinnings of Linux, and because the distro doesn't have a huge number of customisations and patches to its software, you don't end up with countless distro-specific config files in guessing-game locations. If you learn the ins and outs of, say, Fedora, you'll be a Fedora guru (which is great). If you learn the workings of Slackware, you'll pick up knowledge that's transferable across many distros.

So Slackware doesn't try to be the best pond for Linux toe-dipping; it strives to be a great all-round distro for those who know exactly what they want and don't want the distro getting in their way. (An example: SUSE's Yast, while undoubtedly a highly powerful tool, can give experienced users a headache by stomping over config file changes.)

Regular reliability

Finally, let's look at Slackware's stability. Without the colossal developer base of Debian, you'd think Slackware would be more prone to problems, but that's not the case. Pat is generally conservative when it comes to integrating new software: the Slackware 12.2 release, for instance, arrived in October 2008 with KDE 3.5, even though KDE 4.1 had been released three months earlier.

Having one man at the helm provides a stability boost too. Multiple teams and developers can lead to a discrepancy between the quality of patches, whereas Pat builds the whole lot before a release and therefore maintains a wide but hands-on view of the distro. Sure, big distros such as Debian need large teams and in that context the approach works well, but for Slackware the 'one man doing it all' approach has done an equally good job.

So there we go. That's Slackware. It's not immediately the newbie's best friend, but it's still a much-loved distro after 15 years and no intermediate-or-above Linux user should go without trying it at least once. Just be aware of one other snippet of wisdom from Slackware circles: "Once you go Slack, you'll never go back."

KDE and Gnome packages are available, but a speedy distro deserves a nippy desktop such as Xfce, we reckon.

KDE and Gnome packages are available, but a speedy distro deserves a nippy desktop such as Xfce, we reckon.

Try it now!

Slackware requires at least a 486 CPU and 48MB of RAM, so it's useful for reviving dusty old machines, but if you want to use a modern desktop we recommend a 1GHz CPU and 256MB RAM. From the Slackware website you can get ISO images of the latest release - you only really need discs 1 and 2. Burn these to CD-Rs; they include the base Slackware system, Xfce desktop and various apps, then follow the steps below.

Installing Slackware

Boot Slackware

Boot Slackware: Boot your PC from the first CD-R and you'll see an info screen. Read all the text, so you can make informed choices. Type huge.s for an old pre-Pentium Pro machine, or just hit Enter for the default kernel on a more recent box. At the prompt, log in as root.

Partition your drives

Partition your drives: Now you'll need to partition your hard drive. Enter cfdisk to bring up the partition manager - the keybindings for options are shown at the bottom. We recommend a minimum 5GB Linux (number 83) partition with a 512MB swap (number 82) partition.

Run setup

Run setup: Write your partition changes and exit cfdisk. Then enter setup to start the menu-driven installation utility. Choose the ADDSWAP option in the menu to get the process going and begin by selecting the swap partition you created previously.

Define the root

Define the root: Next, choose the partition you want to use for root. You'll be given a choice of filesystem options - if you've never explored this aspect of Linux before, just stick with ext3. Then the installer will ask you for a media source, so choose CD-ROM.

Select software

Select software: You'll then be prompted to select the range of software you want to install. You can go down the list, hitting Space to select or deselect options. Press Enter when you're done. (KDE isn't on discs 1 and 2, so deselect it here - you can add it later).

Finishing touches

Finishing touches: The packages will be installed; if you're asked for disc 3, hit Cancel - everything you need is on discs 1 and 2. Now you'll be prompted for a default screen resolution, network settings and root password. Exit the installer and hit Ctrl+Alt+Del to reboot into your installation.

Get graphical

Slackware doesn't try to pre-empt you - it doesn't attempt to guess what you want to do and what you're using the installation for. You might be running it as a server or router, in which case the default boot-up mode (to a text login) is perfect. Chances are you'll want to use it in graphical mode, though, so follow these instructions to get it working to your liking.

At the login prompt, enter 'root' and then the password you specified during the installation process. To bring up the X server (graphical mode), enter startx and the desktop or window manager you chose during the installation will appear. Note that you're running as root right now, so anything you do could potentially botch our system - as such, it pays to be uber-careful!

If you want Slackware to boot into a graphical login screen, edit the /etc/inittab file using the editor of your choice, for example, Nano or Vi. Look for this line:


This defines the default runlevel that Slackware boots into or, in other words, which background services and daemons are started. Above this line, you'll see a commented list of runlevels and you note that runlevel 4 is used for X11. So change '3' to '4', reboot and you'll get a graphical login screen.

Add a new user

Running as root all the time is a bad idea, so the next step is to create a normal, restricted user account for your day-to-day work. Open up a terminal window and enter adduser. You'll then be prompted for a username, home directory location, default shell, password and other options. You only really need to bother with setting the username and password - adduser will fill out the rest with sane defaults.

Manage your packages

Let's explore the package management system in more detail. As mentioned earlier, Slackware's packages are just .tgz tarballs with some meta-information provided via text files inside. You can extract them the usual way (tar xfvz filename) and look around inside to see how they work - they're extracted into the root (/) directory so you'll see files to go in /etc, /usr and so forth.

Also, you'll always find an install directory in the package, which tells Slackware's package tools what to do on installation ( and what the package does (slack-desc). Note that normal Slackware packages don't include dependency information; the distro assumes that you know what the software does and needs beforehand. This may seem annoying initially, but when you've got tired of other distros pulling in a jillion recommended dependencies of dubious value just to install one program, you'll value the complete control you get with Slackware.

If you've got a .tgz package that you want to install, the simplest method is:

installpkg filename.tgz

A more elegant way to go about this is using pkgtool. This brings up a menu-driven interface for viewing the list of installed packages, installing multiple packages from a directory and removing packages. Another system you can use is slapt-get ( which, as the name suggests, is a Slackware workalike of Debian/Ubuntu's apt-get. This enables you to retrieve packages from various sources on the internet such as the official Slackware archives and, and includes some basic dependency resolving if you need it.

As root, enter pkgtool to bring up a menu-driven interface for adding to and removing from yuor collection of packages.

As root, enter pkgtool to bring up a menu-driven interface for adding to and removing from yuor collection of packages.

Read more

On this site you'll find the Slackware Book. This meaty 284-page PDF guide to the distro covers the topics of installation, configuration and administration in great depth with some excellent Slackware wit and bizarre sci-fi references thrown in; it's the first place you should turn to if you have any problems. Indeed, it's well worth having a thorough read once you've got the distribution installed to explore the system further. As the guide itself says:

"We hope you'll lend it to all of your friends when they come asking about that cool Slackware operating system you're running. While this book may not be an edge-of-your seat novel, we certainly tried to make it as entertaining as possible. With any luck, we'll get a movie deal."

Update: Slack to the Future

If you liked the artwork at the beginning of this article, zip on over to our wallpapers page where you can download it at 1600x1200 and 1920x1200!

First published in Linux Format

First published in Linux Format magazine

You should follow us on or Twitter

Your comments


I am a Slack addict however I think that Slax has made a great implementation of Slackware. I updated about two weeks ago and used Linux live scripts. One advantage is loading modules on the fly without downloading, compiling etc.It only works in live mode. There is a way of saving the live directory and make it as a module so the next time you boot it has everything you had in the previous section. Also its less than 200 mb compared to ovber 3 gigs for Slackware. I still use the installpkg and I have a script called src2tgz that will build a package from source code.

Great aticle by the way.

I would rather try Arch Linux than Slackware

I have tried Slackware 10.0 earlier, to be honest I was not happy with the package management. Although it is the most BSD like distro and follow KISS.

Now I would recommend using Arch Linux for desktop if u like Slackware style.

gentoo ?

gentoo ?

Slackware... what else is there?

I've tried 'em all. Slackware is my primary operating system and has been for nearly three years. I am a SLACKER! Wouldn't have it any other way. :)

Question about Arch...

Arch Linux is based on Slackware, right? So my question is as follows: what advantages and disadvantages does Arch have to Slack that would make me prefer either one?

I'm using an Eee PC as my main rig, by the way. So speed and efficiency are high on my list of important things.

Slackware - Just keeps getting better.

Slackware is a rock solid and reliable Linux distrubution. I have used it for a number of years and see that it's still developing with new tools being added. We now have Slackpkg - a tool to help package management along with the established pkgtools. Slackware's package management doesn't get in your way as it can with other distros trying to be helpful. I would recommend, as stated by the reviewer, everyone tries the oldest surviving Linux distribution at least once. There is a lively and helpful community on Linux Questions to help. Slackware's not hard - give it a go !

Always meant to try slack

I always think "when I break this install, I'll move to distro X", but I never get round to breaking this install :P Currently I mean to switch to Slack. Last month it was Mint, before that it was Arch. I really need to make up my mind :P

@DaVince I believe Arch Linux is based on LFS, not Slackware.

Slackware is a drug. I'm addicted!

I second BgEddy. Slackware is all about stability and power. I always use slackpkg to upgrade my packages (believe me, it's so easy!). Another interesting feature of slackpg is "clean-system" where I can optionally remove any 3rd party package that is installed on my system. Pretty cool isn't it? Team-up with pkgtool, package management in Slackware is fun and a piece of cake. :)

Wired and Wireless networking is also easy with wicd!
Slackware is highly customizable and it will not get in your way (no auto-updates, etc.) expect that you have 100% control of your system.

I highly recommend Slackware for everybody! Don't worry about the installation because it's so easy as long as you know how to partition your hard drive. Slackware's installer is a menu-driven, reliable, and bug-free experience that will give you a stable and powerful Linux distro in more or less than 30 mins.

Give it a try! :)

The Slackware 12.2 gave my laptop an out-of-the box support for all its hardware.

Slackware is a drug. I'm addicted!

I second BgEddy. Slackware is all about stability and power. I always use slackpkg to upgrade my packages (believe me, it's so easy!). Another interesting feature of slackpg is "clean-system" where I can optionally remove any 3rd party package that is installed on my system. Pretty cool isn't it? Team-up with pkgtool, package management in Slackware is fun and a piece of cake. :)

Wired and Wireless networking is also easy with wicd!
Slackware is highly customizable and it will not get in your way (no auto-updates, etc.) expect that you have 100% control of your system.

I highly recommend Slackware for everybody! Don't worry about the installation because it's so easy as long as you know how to partition your hard drive. Slackware's installer is a menu-driven, reliable, and bug-free experience that will give you a stable and powerful Linux distro in more or less than 30 mins.

Give it a try! :)

The Slackware 12.2 gave my laptop an out-of-the box support for all of its hardware.

Arch is not based on Slack

DaVince (not verified) - June 25, 2009 @ 1:23pm
Arch Linux is based on Slackware, right?
WRONG...Arch is an independent project. It however shares some principles with Slackware eg: KISS. Its something like different religions sharing some universal humanitarian principles.

So my question is as follows: what advantages and disadvantages does Arch have to Slack that would make me prefer either one?
In my opinion, the major difference is package management. Arch has a powerful package manager called 'pacman' much like Debian family's 'apt-get' or Redhat family's 'yum'. Slackware doesnot have such package manager...atleast to my knowledge.

I see... Sorry for being

I see... Sorry for being wrong about Arch, thanks for the info. The article mentions slapt-get for package management, but maybe I'm better off trying Arch (I noticed it's got a very similar install tool)...

Old is good!

I still have quite a few of pI's and even a few 486's. I can not see spending hundreds of dollars on new sbc's and the like when those old systems will do the job just fine. I started with slackware and I may go back for those older systems. It is a shame for Redhat and the other distros to abandon the old pentium I. I have been able to really sell linux with the support of the os for those old machines as thin clients and special projects such a electronics controllers (i.e. security and robotic systems). I do have a few 486's motherboards. I could always go to bsd also. We need to be green in these tight times and therefore repurpose older equipment for reuse. Save our schools and small buinesses from being extinct in our hurting economy. Some developers (non-slackware) have told me that those old machines are relics and no used to support them. My feeling os these same people have become slaves to proprietary type bloatware and are not good enough to make a lean and mean os. They have forgotten what linux is all about. In the area where I live there are still thousands of those fine antiques that still have plenty of life in them especially as diskless thin clients.

Praise to Slackware!!!!!!!!!!!!


In addition to Sai's comments

Arch's upgrade strategy is very aggressive, so u will like it if u have symptom of upgrade obsession;-)

Also, be prepared for the upgrade side effect.

About Slackware...and Arch

Arch it's a great distro, it's like a Slackware with state-of-the-art package manager and the latest software (you should be willing to update at least once a month in order to use Arch, and as has been said, be prepared for the worst or read a lot before updates).

I've never tried Slackware (once...but too many years ago), I'm a long time Arch linux user (once you use Arch you really never get back), but this article makes me feel to try again in a Sempron with 512. BSD Style rocks! (*)

(*) BTW, I think you should mention that Slacks uses BSD style init scripts and not the SystemV nightmare!

barbie linux?

What do you give women? A mop and a broom? Oh I know, Barbie Linux because it's pink.

Anticipating the usual objections-- if gender doesn't matter, then you won't mind using female pronouns as the default?

Other than the off-putting beginning, a very nice article. Slackware is a fine distro that deserves more attention.

Slack and Arch

I have them both running at the moment. Here are some datapoints.

Slack most definitely does have package management. It is nowhere near as "sophisticated" as Arch's, but Slackers view this as an asset. Dependencies are not tracked on purpose; Slackers hate dependencies. This works fine in practice.

Slack rollouts are tested and deliberately well-managed. You get latest release (13.0 is coming up) and upgrade to it. New package releases are for security only until the next major release. (You can get these security updates with "slackpkg update; slackpkg upgrade-all"). Software doesn't tend to be cutting-edge, since Slackware wants to be stable.

Arch rollouts are non-existent since they're always on a rolling release. I upgrade my Arch machine every couple days with the latest; the pacman package manager makes this a one-line event ("pacman -Syu"). Arch packages are VERY cutting-edge and hugely up to date. There is no security flaw tracking system; you just keep upgrading everything and security fixes come with it. This makes Arch relatively unsuitable as a server unless you want to either A) upgrade your server all the time, or B) manually track security issues.

You'd think that upgrading Arch all the time would lead to stability issues, but in my experience over the last 4 months, this hasn't been the case. There was only one time a massive KDE update failed, and that was because one of the Arch guys forgot to push one package out. Aside from that, it has been totally stable for me.

Three words: Arch User Repository (AUR). There is a GIGANTIC amount of software ready-to-go with Arch that is missing from Slackware. In the AUR, there are build scripts for some 12,000 packages maintained by users (I maintain two). These are packages that are beta, commercial, or for some other reason unsuitable for or unwanted in the official repos. AUR's implementation is very very slick and, IMO, exactly what it should be.

For comparison, Slackware has the independent project (SBo), which serves a very similar purpose. The main difference is that SBo is centrally managed, and AUR is a distributed free-for-all. This is probably why AUR covers much more software and is more up-to-date than SBo. That being said, SBo actually tests the packages that are submitted, while you're on your own with AUR. Note that this fits well with the "latest and greatest" vs "stable as possible" ideas behind Arch and Slack.

If you want to get more cutting-edge with Slack, you can keep up with the "-current" tree, which is where the dev and testing go on. I do this, and in practice it's quite stable. I wouldn't recommend it for a server, though.

I've used Slackware for 15 years, but I admit that it can be a pain to run out and create your own build scripts for everything that's not found in Slackware or at SBo... and every package I've ever looked for (save one) has been in Arch or in AUR.

In terms of simplicity of overall implementation, Slack and Arch are comparable. Arch's scripts are generally more structured and cleanly-designed than Slack's, but I think that's mostly Slack's history showing through (plus Arch makes ample use of bash-isms, while Slack is POSIX shell compliant.) Both systems expect you to edit config files by hand (Arch even dumps you into an editor during the install to do initial configuration!)

If you like running cutting-edge all the time on your desktop or laptop with lots of apps, Arch is a nice choice. If your system dies after an upgrade for some reason, you just have to say, "Well, that's what I get for running Arch."

If you like periodic upgrades and stability on your server (or laptop/desktop, for that matter), with a fair number of well-tested apps, Slackware is a nice choice. If you can't find a prebuilt package or build script for something you want, you just have to say, "Well, that's what I get for running Slackware."

If you want to learn the details of how a Linux system runs, I think both systems are excellent.

Nice distro better than Linux from scratch

Done the Linux from scratch, it has its strength (you learn how to build packages from scratch as well as a whole distro)
but slackware is definitely a bit easier to manage although it could use a bit of improvement. Like for instance i had to install proper libraries to play dvds and also had to redo the kernel for realtime so i could game (Diablo II amongst others) with wine. Still i was able to adapt it with a bit of work and it works quite well thanks.

Long Live Slackware

The first Linux distro I installed and used was Slackware. This was probably 6-7 years ago. I have tried many other popular distro's such as SuSE, Red Hat, Fedora, Ubuntu, etc... While they all have their advantages and fancy gizmo's, I have always gone back to Slackware for its simplicity. Yes, simplicity, with Slackware I know where everything is and how everything works. For a programmer, Slackware was always the best choice. If I couldn't find a package, I would compile the source. I learned a lot using Slackware. I would recommend it to any programmer or linux enthusiast. I agree it's not for everyone, but if you take the time to learn it, you will never want to go back.

RE: Slack and Arch

Wow Beej, this was great comparison of both Arch and Slackware. Very true and informative, better than in most reviews than you can find on the internet.

My first linux distro is

My first linux distro is slackware and I don't feel any disadvantage about it,
It doesn't have any special config or special task, everything is common
I had tried ubuntu, fedora, madriva, in the end i don't feel satisfied while compiling and running something, they always lack of some library

first and actual

I started with linux years ago, I ran into Slack as a first distro (were the times of 10.0). I was almost a newbie, but I never managed to crack it down or break the system. I ran through several big updates, kernel modifications and patches, every sort of tweaking that you can imagine but it's still here, rocking solid every time I turn on pc.
If you can't find a package, just build it from source, shouldn't be so difficult!

Won't change it for anything


I go back to Slackware when Linux was available from someone in the NW US on Colorado Jumbo Tape archives. Ah, Yes the A1-4 and N1-4 floppy disks and losing my cherry with X (not the films)

Another slacker

Yup, I have tons of respect for Slackware. It even turns out the workstation I'm entering this comment on is running an old version of Slack. Over 10 years ago I switched to Slack, and never ran anything else for years.

But then I decided I wanted a rolling-release distro, so went primarily to Gentoo. Gentoo has many plusses, but good QA is not one of them, *sigh*. Love the forum community, though. Clueful, respectful, helpful people. Am about to try Arch... that seems to be the natural evolution... Slack->Gentoo->Arch... what next, LFS? :) Anyway, I'm old-school (first used Unix in the late 1970's) so Slack/Gentoo/Arch just feel right. They are *nix.

I installed Edubuntu on my daughter's machine... she loves it. (Why yes, I *do* teach 9 year old girls that typing SQL on the command line is perfectly normal as well as loads of fun :) Ubuntu rubs me the wrong way, for a number of technical reasons. But the killer is the forums. The community forums are full of nice people that happily answer basic questions, but crumple if you ask them anything slightly escoteric. After 30 years, I've figured out the asnwer to most of the basic *nix questions, so my forum posts tend to be about corner cases. The Ubuntu forums are like trying to carry on a conversation with a room full of bubbly, blonde cheerleaders. They're well meaning, but unlikely to offer much help with your diff-eq homework.

Anyway, Slack rox. Try it if you haven't yet.


I should mention also that Slackware supplies security updates a long way.
Recently I received the following:
"New dhcp packages are available for Slackware 8.1, 9.0, 9.1, 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 11.0, 12.0, 12.1, 12.2, and -current to fix a security issue with dhclient."
Slack 8.1 was released in June 2002.


And now Slackware 13.0 is out for your pleasure and challenge. Get it!

It's There Somewhere, but...

Not running at the moment. My current distro of choice is Ubuntu. Reading this, I think it's time to boot to the Slack partition and update that puppy.

My goal is eventually to use my Slackware environment to do the initial work to build an LFS system. Then I'll feel like I've accomplished something.

Ive been using Ubuntu for

Ive been using Ubuntu for about a year now and have become comfortable enough with Linux to try out new distros. Slackware has always sounded interesting. The word on the "street" is though that slackware is an incredibly tough distro that is only recommended for advanced users. Is that a fair assessment?

How is dependency checking yourself a good thing?

Isn't this sort of thing for masochistic programmers? What about all the time-saving effort gone into reusable code libraries? It is said that slackers prefer to track their own dependencies, since downloading copious dependencies automatically like in other more user friendly distributions isn't the preferred method. I've been running slackware 13 for about 1 month now. I appreciate the KISS principles implemented in the OS itself, and all the security updates, but how does spending a whole afternoon trying to install evince make slackware worth using? I know what evince does, but some of the dependencies down the trail seem pointless. Please, someone call me out and correct me.
Out of box slackware is great. I must admit arch can be sketchy at times, but it makes software updating a breeze.
- Rusty

If you want things working then this is it

I am running Slackware 13.1 with entire Hard Drive Encrypted - don't feel any thing slow -

all apps Wireless, Ethernet, suspend Hibernate etc - all 9 yard - Working

planning to install 3D desktop - at the moment XFCE is running...

what else can i ask more





Annoying comment

@Maung maung: I'm going to send you an e-mail, it seems that you got a problem with your capslock key.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Username:   Password: