I don't think so. With rpm can you download and install ALL the dependencies? No you can't. With apt you can, so I'd advise sticking with debian (ubuntu rather, because woody gave me hard time installing because I have a SATA HDD and the kernel on the CD didn't recognise it)

this rpm thingy is a bit off-topic sorry but apt and yum are applicable in rpm scenario that's the cool stuff about it, someone to tell about those two revisions of Debian? woody and forgot the other one

sarge

Remember that apt and synapic also work with rpm. There is alo yast2, urpmi and yum that do the same thing as apt on rpm based distros.

so what's the main diversion?

I remember getting a screenful of dependency errors back when I used Redhat.

Yeah, years ago rpm based distros didn't have tools that automatically resolved dependencies but now they are there and package managment is a lot easier.

If you are big into the "manual configure" thing and you don't mind the down-and-dirty, often repetitive tasks of installing dependencies by hand, editing configuration files manually and so on, use Slackware.

Slackware is the "hacker" oriented approach to Linux. It's clean and is tailored to allow you manual configuration of your system. GUI tools are minimal for most configuration tasks. There are 3d party package manager tools for Slackware, but your success will be 50-50 with automated tools.

It's logical approach can be easily learnt though, though you might start wearing of installing dependencies by hand as your system builds up

With Debian, you get convenience and power (if you choose to use it). Apt package management will give you 99.99% success if you choose to use only the official repositories and are relatively conservative the chances of breaking your system are nil.

As with Slackware though, system administration can be done manually, but you do have the choice of installing *a lot* of tools from the huge repositories of Debian and this might help to administer a Debian system more easily than Slackware.


Debian == Easier to maintain, upgrade and manage. Suited for general purpose power users with a wide range of needs. If you are the kind of user who wants to constantly keep installing/uinstalling/upgrading/removing software from your system, choose Debian.

Slackware == Suited for tweaking and learning, can be more involved when you upgrade. Suited if you don't need too many applications and if you aren't going to constantly install/upgrade/delete applications. Tailored to be lightweight, configurable and yet powerful.

Both are excellent mainstream distributions each focussed in different areas and each following a different set of priorities and philosophies.

Woody is now officially obsolete (as opposed to just being obsolete by default hehe.. worked fine still, but could be hard, if not impossible to install on newer hardware) and Sarge is now the "new" (as in just released and can be installed on new server hardware, Debian is not, and has never claimed.. nor aspired to be.. a cutting edged desktop distro) stable Debian release.

If "rpm rulez" then why is it that almost everything I've read generally reccomends to do a fresh install to migrate to a new version of an rpm based distro instead of being a simple and seamless procedure for upgrading such as Debian provides? There may be similar tools, or ported tools from other distros that work similarly (though not 100% as native), but that does not change the limitations that rpm aparently still has. It seems that things have gotten a bit better in the rpm camp, but I have no desire whatsoever to go there.

Harishankar, that was an excellent post on the differences between Slack and Debian. Good job!

Thanks for the compliments, Deeze.

I'm planning to put that post up in my blog so that I can refer to it when people ask for the differences.

Regards.

Firstly, i agree with what Harishankar said.
An excellent post.

Let me be a bit more specific.

I am talking about Slackware current and Debian Testing/Unstable (I haven't used woody).
Debian Unstable is unfair name. It is very stable (now after the release of sarge all the major
progs will be updated so some problems may arise, but other than that is very stable)

Now for the differences:

1) Package Manager.
Slackware has pkgtools. They are some shell scripts that untar the .tgz files and also write
the contents of the package in /var/log/packages. It doesn't handle dependencies.

Debian has apt-get/dpkg
I have used Slackware,Mandrake,Suse,Redhat,(Free/Net/Open)BSD,AtheOS,DGUX,Solaris,CRUX,YellowDog
It is imo the best package manager that exists in the unix world.
Many will say that RPM is good. First RPM doesn't handle dependencies well.
For the majority of People who use Redhat/Mandrake/Suse/etc RPM is good
For people like me who mess with the OS to see how it works, i have broke RPM many
times and even render my system unusable (glibc :P)
I have yet to break apt/dpkg. Whatever i do it simply works.
Gentoo's Portage/Emerge is also very good and handles dependencies, but apt is 10 laps ahead in F1 terminology.

1 point to Debian

2) RC System
Slackware uses BSD init scripts. That is some scripts in /etc/rc.d
Debian Uses SystemV init scripts. That is the scripts are in /etc/init.d
and there are symbolic links of them in /etc/rcX.d for the X runlevel.

SystemV are not difficult and with the rc-update and some RC editors, they are very easy,
but I (my opinion) prefer Slackware's

1 point to Slackware (Subjective Point)

3) Completeness
Debian is a complete os (especially good for a desktop system)
for example. You install the "elvis,vim" packages in both Slackware,Debian.
In Slackware vi symlinks points to elvis and if you want you change it to vim.
Debian has the "alternatives" system.
Thatis /usr/bin/vi -> /etc/alternatives/vi -> /usr/bin/elvis
There is the "update-alternatives" command which changes the symlink to which one you like.
Very good solution imo.

Also, the scripts of every program are very complete.
For example, sendmail' script (/etc/init.d/sendmail) even checks if i have a dialup connection
and when it is up it configures the sendmail.cf with my new dynamic hostname.

1 point to Debian.

4) Dependencies
As i said, Debian honours dependencies while Slackware does not.
This good both good and bad.

The good of dependency checking is that when you check a program in Debian all its
dependencies are calculated automatically and installed too. With Slackware you must find
what they are and install them (from the website or Readme or ./configure )
The bad thing is that sometimes you get to install some things that are not necessary.
For example, when i tried to install mjpegtools it needed the libdv library which is not
absolutely necessary for the program to work and in Slackware i didn't compile it. This is
again because Debian wants to be complete so it enables all the dependencies of each
program when compiling.

I guess 1 point to Debian for most people (although i prefer to have an option like
Slackware gives me)

5) Point of view
Debian is a complete os (have i said it again ? :P). It has an awful large amount of packages
(15490 according to Debian Website, but more if you count the "unofficial" packages in
www.apt-get.org)
Slackware is a minimalistic os with the point of view that i give you a simple os and you install
only what you want from there (NetBSD is the same)

1 point to Debian for desktop system.
1 point to Slackware for server system (Also subjective. Some may disagree)

6) Installation Difficulty and Time
Both use simple ncurses interfaces with description and everything so they are very easy to
install. (I don't know why many people say they are hard)
Debian Installer is more complete and it has many translations (Although many computer
terms are always english it feels good to install in your native language)
Debian takes more time to install because of the huge amount of packages you have to
choose from (for a custom installation)

7) Packages Update
Debian is updated very frequently (Testing/Unstable).
Slackware was being updated very frequently too,but now due to Pat's health reasons it has
fallen behind a little.

Slackware tends to be among the first distros to include something.
Debian wants to be stable than to be bleeding edge, so some packages take a little longer
to be included. (Also, for a package to be included it must be stable for all architectures is
mentioned in the policy i think, so that takes time)
for example Debian Sarge uses Xfree86 4.3.0 while Slackware uses Xorg 6.8.2

1 point to Slackware


I hope i helped you and didn't confuse you more :P

I believe (and i think that many people will agree with me) Debian and Slackware are the
best Linux Distros that exist. Many other distros contain many unused packages and they
tend to crash more than "the OS which is not to be named".

I use both distros (Slackware since 3.X, Debian since after woody) but cannot suggest some
of the two(I myself have not conluded which is better)
I guess someone must test both to decide which is better for him.

Slackware is better to work with. Debian is better to maintain. A simple command
"apt-get update/apt-get upgrade" and you are current.
I like Slackware's freedom much better than Debian and i love apt. I guess the best distro
for me would be a Slackware with apt system

For P.S i quote Harishankar's words which with few words explain everything.

imitheos,

You have said everything much more precisely than I did. I agree with you.

I request your permission to put your post in my blog with credits to you (don't worry ). You make some good observations.

Today a very unfortunate incident/accident happened and I wiped out my Debian partition by mistake.

However, this gave me an opportunity to install Debian again and this time I used the more "minimalist" approach, removing Gnome entirely and loading just what I needed. I even dumped the display manager and got it to boot up to a text console instead of xdm, kdm or gdm.

Similarities to Slackware are amazing when you customize Debian during the installation to resemble a minimalist distro.

With Debian, you can take it and make it either into a Fedora or a Slackware. You can load all the junk you don't need or you can do a minimal install and get it to resemble Slackware.

Except the config files/init systems and such, Debian can be made to resemble Slackware very much.

Debian can also be made to resemble Fedora or Mandrake if you choose to do so.

That is the reason why Debian is a "general-purpose" distribution. Today I learnt a lot more about Debian than before.

Slackware is a more "focussed" distribution, I suppose.

You didn't need to ask. Of course you have my permission.


Of course. That is the beauty of Debian. The installer installs only the base system and then you can install anything you want.
It is not bloatware like other distros.

One thing i didn't like it is that everything is installed in /usr (I guess to be FHS compliant), and you end with a huge /usr.
For example KDE which includes many progs could be installed in /opt/kde like slackware and other distros do. It doesn't change
anything it is just more tidy.


The More we use Linux, the More we learn.
Debian & Slackware rulez.
As an old Greek proverb says. "Use Mandrake leads to learning Mandrake.The same with Redhat,Suse,etc.
Use Debian||Slackware leads to learning Linux"

No offence to other distros meant.

With Debian, you can take it and make it either into a Fedora?? you trippin'?

He means that Debian gives you the choice to install any package you want.
So, one choice you have is install only the necessary programs and have a minimalistic os that
does what you want it (like Slackware) and you can also choose to have a system full of programs
and guis which make your life very easy (like Fedora).