Getting more on topic: regarding the Rute User's tutorial quote, I think that kinda goes for any K.I.S.S./Source-based distro. I've got two computers: a) my Ubuntu machine (the one I'm posting from right now), which I sort of think of as my "Windows replacement" (I know, there really is no such thing, but Ubuntu is geared more towards the average desktop), and b) my Arch machine, which I suppose is like my learning platform (Arch being a K.I.S.S. distro, it's kinda teaching me some of the ins and outs of GNU/Linux ).

The plus side of that, though is that you do learn something...so it's not all bad.

To each their own. I would maintain that you'll spend more time fighting with Ubuntu than you will learning Slackware. Just been my experience. It will continue to be true if they keep pushing out the garbage that Ubuntu has been releasing lately. It's more trouble to try to save your data or setup your system from scratch than it is to use something that doesn't hose itself in the first place. As I say, just been my experience.

Maybe I'm getting too crusty. Maybe I've been around too long to be even remotely objective.

Love Slackware - haven't regretted moving from Windows XP/Debian last August one little bit. Slackware is a curious distro - it assumes you are an intelligent user, but it is also very simple. So far in Slackware I have a local Postfix-Dovecot IMAP mail server; a KVM host with multiple guest OSes; a tmux session with slrn, elinks, tail -f { various }, mutt, tcpdump and more; Samba, DHCP, OpenNTPD, local DNS and local web servers; a Squid proxy with squidguard ad blacklists to keep the crap out of my beloved Opera; and more.
This is what I want Linux for - to learn, and to keep learning. Slackware fits in very well with that philosophy. Yes, I know I can do all that with other distros, but for some reason it never came together for me. Since I moved to Slackware everything has come together for me. That's the only way I can explain it.
I must add however that my first steps in Linux were with Debian, and I remain fond of that distro.
A distro I highly recommend for new users is Mandriva. I wouldn't touch Ubuntu with a barge pole.

Hmm, maybe you could add an "Easiest to use Desktop" next year, and then maybe PCLOS would have a chance. It doesn't get any easier than this.

The last decent Ubuntu release in my opinion was 8.10 (Intrepid). In every release since then, the Ubuntu developers, as if in a competition for fastest boot speed and extra window-dressing, have included Beta software by default. There's no excuse for that in a distro intended for newcomers to Linux!

Hopefully they'll come to their senses and quit using newbies as guinea pigs and lab rats.

For a newcomer I would choose a rock-solid, uber-stable, tried-and-proven as well as newbie-friendly distro like Mepis. I'll never recommend Ubuntu or anything based on it again to a newbie, as long as they insist on Beta software by default in their releases.

-Robin

Jaunty has it's improvements over Intrepid, IMO, but for me Karmic is the disaster for them - it's their version of Vista to XP, where it's Karmic to Jaunty instead.

Slackware, on the other hand, has just managed to win me over easily, and I haven't even begun to customize it yet. I don't know why I didn't use it before.

(Slackers be happy, you found another convert right here.)

Actually, once you learn how to install Slackware (and always read the Changes And Hints.txt like any good Slacker!) installing and configuring Slackware is pretty easy. It is really just another routine thing that you get used to. There is some post install configuration that is necessary, since Slackware does not force you to accept any standard setup like so many other distros do. In Slackware, everything is your call. So you have to spend some time making those calls.
The end result is that you get a system that is exactly everything that you want, and has nothing that you don't want. There are other distros, like Arch for example, that offer a similar amount of freedom and choice in setting up your system. Arch also takes a bit of time to install and configure. Once you are set up the way you want it though. Both Arch and Slackware are very easy to maintain.
Slackware is 100% rock solid stable also. Because Arch is bleeding edge, sometimes things break. This is a choice you make when choosing a distro though. Remember, linux is all about choice.

Hi

What are your opinions on

Slackware vs Arch vs Crux...?

I am a slacker, and this rolling distro thing never appealed much to me...

you take yr time to build your Arch, configure and build everything from scatch ( like you do in Slackware with Slackbuilds ) and suddenly, an upgrade and some packages may get broken... a bit frustrating no...?!

Never used Arch though... but I guess this may happen... a kernel or a Glibc update... and all yr work goes down the drain..

I guess Crux is much more Slackware-like in this point ( it is not a rolling release )

What are your opinions on that...?

I am an ARCH and Crux n00b... that is why I ask...

BRGDS

Alex

EDIT

Plus, Crux gives you the option of installing a package, or compiling one from ports...

IMHO, 8.04 was the last good release of K/Ubuntu.
Kubuntu 8.10 was the worst release of any operating system I've ever used. I couldn't believe they would do something like that to their user base. About 4 months later they released an updated version of Kubuntu 8.04 trying to make amends, but by then I was completely turned off K/Ubuntu and had gone back to Slackware.

Hi I have just installed xubuntu, ubuntu, kubuntu and was very disappointed. I have been using linux for more than 14 years (Slackware 96, redhat, fedora, debian) and found Ubuntu very restrictive for the following reasons:

1. You can't login as root. You can do a sudo -i but no root account.

2. You can't install it without X windows.

3. You can't purge gdm it fails with an error, so hence you can't boot into a login shell without going through X windows first.

4. The network manager controls the network and if you customize /etc/network/interfaces it is ignored.

5. The install takes a really long time compared to Debian's text install which is much faster and more flexible and more robust.

And the pros?
The desktop has very pretty colours if that is important to you.

I'm really surprised it won, I must be missing something.

Rob

I actually wanted to report this but slip-clicked the quote so i will just rant over it


A. Schoolkids love it (so there is future for Slack )

B. Mid aged users love it (I consider me a such)

C. Users of "ye ol' days" love it (Slackware has a lots of history)

From the dusk 'til dawn of Linux there will a place for a distro like Slackware is. Lucky us we don't miss it...


Despite being afraid of unknown, there are ever more computer owners coming to try Slackware. And ever more finding in it be the safe havens of day to day computer use.

P.S.
"No more file system sudoku for me mamah!"

Even people who are in late-middle-age (what?!) like me enjoy using it.

Stop spouting nonsense. If you had done a little reading, none of this would have been true. I'm getting so tired of all the people clicking their way through without ever looking at the options, then telling us that there weren't any. Does the F key mean anything to you? What is difficult about sudo passwd? And how hard is it to purge gnome-network-admin? Oh yes, it would have required a bit of research and thinking. We all know that's beyond the self-proclaimed non-noob audience.

Personally, I think Ubuntu is one of the ones good for people new to it, but once they've got the idea, move to something else. Alright, you'll have to learn some more, and learn some things over again, but once you've got that down pat, try something else. And then again.
So far, for me, I've currently stopped at Slackware, because I'm learning more from it than I have any other... and interestingly it seems to run far quicker and far better than any of the others. That's not to say I won't find some other distro later that won't grab my attention for a bit.

(Though Slackware has supplanted Debian systems as the one to keep coming back to, now.)

I have been a Slack user since 10.0, but, until UB 9.04 came along, I have not recommended any Linux distribution as a desktop for any novice computer user. I now often give out UB install disks to my clients to try. I have it on my son & wife's computers too. I mostly still use Slack, and have no plans to change, but, UB appeals to my lazy side... :-)

That said, I am actually surprised that Slack did as well as it did against UB. Guess the fact that most of us have a strong tech background has a lot to do with it.