Slackware user looking for opinions on a possible switch
 

I am a long time slackware user and love the distro. I love the fact there are no dumb installers, menus, etc. just the config files. I like having the security updates through slackwares security mailing list and using swaret to upgrade my packages.

With that said, I have a coworker who used to use slack and is now on Debian. Talking to him is making me debate trying Debian out. I'm about to rebuild my computer and am thinking about taking my linux box out of my virual machine (vmware) and making it my real computer (using WinXP as my VmWare host).

I'm looking for Debian ex-Slackware (or ex-Debian Slackware) users to share what they think about the switch. The fact that more pre-built packages would be available would save me some time (I don't mind building from source, but it is slower, and not easy to get security update notifications).

I also use XFCE for my X environment on XOrg (while running some KDE programs). I don't suppose that should be an issue though.

What are the pros and cons of the two Distros?
Anyone think that I would miss anything in slackware that debian doesn't have?

I'll try to turn this into a poll to get "lazy" quick opinions (please respond only if you have both slackware and debian experience, thanks)

i like to test and play with other distros on occasion, but i always find my self gravitating back to slackware, if you have plenty of disk space keep an extra 5 gig parition just for testing other distros and you wont have to mess up your main OS...

Tried Slack once, on a laptop, never got it to work. That happened last year, I admit it was an older laptop, but I'm using Debian Stable for about 18 months now and I have not much to complain about :)

debian - when you still want complete control but want a few things simplified and automated :)

The most "dumb installer" trouble I've ever had with Debian is the occasional package that's referred to incorrectly by another package's description, so you have to fumble a bit with the name or look it up before you can install one of the "suggested packages" for a program's optional extras (such as unrar for file-roller).

I have both installed on the same machine (Debian etch and Slackware 10.2.) My observation is this:

1. Slackware seems to be a little quicker (at least on my machine) and is a little more streamlined. By that I mean the more simple tasks seem to be a little easier to accomplish (network printer setup, SSH, etc.) It also seems to be easier to customize if you want a lean or fat installation.

2. In my opinion, Debian has the better package management. Apt-get and the GUI Synaptics are efficient, fast and easy to maintain. I find keeping my installation-wide updates in Slackware just a little more difficult.

3. Slackware has taught me more about pure Linux navigation, that is, how to find the pertinent maintenance files, and, I suppose, because of this I have found Slackware a better ¨learning tool¨. I have since discovered Arch and am now exploring this distro for learning purposes and have found it to be equal or better than Slackware for this purpose.

4. Debian works with newer hardware better. I had to do quite a bit of configuration to get things to work in Slackware the way they did ¨out of the box¨ with Debian (i.e., usbsticks are mounted automatically in Debian and I have to manually mount them in Slackware, though I am sure I could configure Slack to do this, I didn´t have to in Debian.)

I do not use my machine for anything mission critical. I am simply learning Linux to highest degree that I can and I am experimenting with a number of distros. However, if I do require this in the future (and I expect to soon), I feel secure with either distro, but with a very slight edge going to Slackware because I perceive it to be slightly more stable.

My thoughts,

Bob

if you are really a slackware user, you will know the difference and also which one's the BEST.

Interesting...
 

I totally admire Slackware and Debian
and think that most people that have ever tried and liked Debs
would love Slack just as much.
Trying out both years ago, multitudes of times just to gain knowledge
and to see what the go is, I stuck with Debian, firstly cause it was a bit easier
for someone that wanted to jump in and have a go at Unix Core Distros...
Debian is good for getting your hands dirty and being a noob.
You can't do too much damage.
Slacks brilliant for jumping in and learning.
Regarding the original point about going from Slackware to Debian,
I think it only depends on what you need for your system,
if I ever end up being a Unix Gun,
I'll have a good go at Slackware.
I have learned a lot from Slack users, ( thankyou )
Give Debian a go, if you don't like, fall back to Slack,
either way, I can't see you going wrong.

This subject has been discussed at plenty of length, and with mixed degrees of friendliness often on these forums. My own position is that, "If you want to learn Linux, use Slack; if you want to learn to use Linux productively, use Debian." No malice toward Slackware is intended by that comment ... I consider Debian and Slackware to be the only two distros worth choosing. The issue is that with Slackware, much time is spent with the OS, and with Debian, the OS 'just works,' and time is spent using applications. I am a confirmed Debianite, myself, but I certainly don't want to antagonize any Slackers.

Here is a nicely written Debian overview from a person with Slackware experience. Also, on comment #32 of this thread, one of the best Debian support people on this forum, outlines a good way to set up a 'lean and mean' Debian system aimed, loosely, at Slackware users.

Edit:I'm not voting on your poll, but if you do decide to install Debian, by all means, use the Etch net installer.

Yea, debian can be as lean/bloated as you want to make it and it is easy to do either way. I like things just a little easier so I go with debian. Can't go wrong with either one of those though. Much better than some choices that are out there IMO! :)

<pre>
I did the same switch a year ago, when I tried to install anjunta2-alpha
on Slackware, and run into the
configure ... error( missing packageX ) ... download packageX...configure ...
If you don't test/play with software alot, then Slack is ok. As mentioned above,
I find it slightly faster than debian/unstable.

OTOH, if you want to get a package installed right away, debian is the choice.
It has a lot of packages( see packages.debian.org/unstable/ ) that they are configured right
away( using `dialog` if you want to keep the slack feel ).

Hope to helped you make a decision :)
</pre>

Having used both Debian and Slackware, it seems to me that they are just tools. Both Linux distributions allow you to compile from source. Both allow you to change any file on the system. So both are fully customizable to the extent of your ability.

I first tried RedHat, and wouldn't wish that on anyone -- if it were the only Linux distro, I'd use Windoze without a shadow of a doubt.

If I had known how to compile from source when I ran Debian, rather than only knowing their package management system, I probably would not have switched to Slackware.

IMO either can be a great distro for server or desktop environment; but they have some differences. This makes a comparison between them apples and oranges. They're both tools -- look at it as a left or right handed mouse -- use the one which is most comfortable to you.

As someone else stated, I'd only use one of these two or build a LFS box.

I didn't vote either, since I wouldn't recommend any of those choices.

i agree with Chinaman. it's an excellent point that, in the end, they both are just tools. i have a slackware and a debian system, i prefer slackware on the desktop because overall for me it seems easier to work with, but the debian system is well-suited for what it does (apache, mysql, php, etc.), and does all of that well. i probably would have had a lot more difficult time with those things on slack, because apt-get made everything easy. so it depends on personal preference, how you like to work, etc. and what you want to do. the only way to tell for sure what works best for you is to try them both and then decide. maybe you'll find you like both.

The verdict
 

Thank you all for your opinions. Go ahead and still reply/vote if you want, but I have chosen my next course of action. I am going to install a "testing" virtual machine using VMWare and play around a little. If I feel that the package management is worth the change in the distro. I will build my computer with debian when I get a chance to rebuild.

If I find it too unfamiliar or I am missing Slack. too much (not work the package management) I'll stay with slack on my rebuild.

My primary (and really only) reason for looking into Debian is the package management and community behind that. Slackware has ~ 700 packages, Debian has ~ 15,000 packages. I find that linuxpackages.net is just a poor resource - not well maintained, not always updated with security patches, etc. The idea behind a large community supporting Debian and keeping it up to date sounds great. I am also going to be using new hardware, and thought that Debian should handle that better out of the box (dual core 64, SATA II NCQ, etc.)

I don't expect there to be too much difference between the two, so I should probably like both distros (BTW - I have used RedHat in the past as well, and the comment about not wishing it on anyone really made me laugh -- I agree, RedHat is the bane of Linux and RPMs should be nicknamed Real Pain Management or something of the sort). I was just hoping that Debian would be similar to slackware, but just easier to maintain than slack (more time using, less time updating/maintaining).

I'd like to point out before you have any experience to taint you, that support for a 64-bit CPU, SATA II NCQ, etc. is entirely the job of the kernel. So with either Debian or Slackware, you're going to have to compile a custom kernel, and probably wait a while before you get good support. I believe Debian does have a 64-bit OS, where Slackware does not. Do they also have reliable packages compiled for 64-bit?

Those are two areas of interest for me. I have an Athlon 64-bit CPU in this box, and I've been using SATA drives for years now. But support in the Linux kernel for SATA is still very poor. If you have hardware to purchase, you might want to read Jeff Garzik's SATA for Linux pages.