LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - Newbie (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/)
-   -   Difference between Arch and Slackware? (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/difference-between-arch-and-slackware-4175460629/)

songlian 05-03-2013 08:43 PM

Difference between Arch and Slackware?
 
Hi,

From a total newbie perspective, what's the difference between Arch and Slackware Linux?

Thank you!

snowpine 05-03-2013 08:50 PM

There is a good "layman's terms" comparison of the Top 10 distros here: http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major

The biggest difference in my opinion/experience is that Arch is "rolling release" (meaning it gives you the very latest software) whereas Slackware is super-dooper-uber-stable (meaning it gives you software that has been thoroughly tested).

That is not the only difference, of course. I suggest you try both and make up your mind which is best for you. :)

However most beginners are happiest with a user-friendly distribution such as Linux Mint or Ubuntu. I am an advanced-beginner user, and I am quite happy with Mint. ;)

sycamorex 05-03-2013 08:52 PM

From a total newbie perspective:

- A full Slackware install provides a relatively fully functional desktop
- In an arch installation you need to install/configure a number of things to get a functional desktop

- Arch provides dependency resolution via pacman
- Slackware provides dependency resolution via the user

- Arch is a rolling distro
- Slackware is not (unless you use -current)

JWJones 05-03-2013 09:18 PM

Another comparison, from the Arch Wiki:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...ions#Slackware

TroN-0074 05-03-2013 09:52 PM

The difference is that they are two different Operating Systems.
Perhaps same kernel and even they could have the same graphical interface, and yeah ofcourse the same file hierarchy estructure. And sure their packages are in grand part under the GNU licencing.

But they use different package manager so you install packages diferently, Different ways to start deamons and service and the installer in Arch doesnt give you much other than the base bare system.

Try them both and choose the one you like best.

Good luck to you.

Timothy Miller 05-04-2013 12:12 AM

IMO, the biggest difference is that Slackware is stable, and Arch devs like to break the system every couple of weeks requiring you to get to a recovery console to fix it as they decide to go in a COMPLETELY new direction with Arch now than they were going last week.

kooru 05-04-2013 02:59 AM

Hi and welcome to LQ!
You can read these old tread ;)

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...s-arch-944506/
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...for-me-927837/
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...hlinux-808790/

Alpha90 05-04-2013 03:54 AM

Arch is not that buggy. I run Arch, Slack, and Debian. While Slack is stable in a static sense as well as a great traditionalist distro the biggest downside is slack is slow for bug fixes. On the other hand Arch is a bleeding edge distribution which is a double edge sword new bugs are introduced but patches are also introduced at a rather fast pace and generally the patches are vanilla from what ever software project is putting out their latest version of software X. The best suggestion to you if you want to find a distribution you like is to try any interesting candidate out.

onebuck 05-04-2013 12:01 PM

Member Response
 
Hi,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alpha90 (Post 4944630)
Arch is not that buggy. I run Arch, Slack, and Debian. While Slack is stable in a static sense as well as a great traditionalist distro the biggest downside is slack is slow for bug fixes.

Upstream is the slowness for bug fixes not Slackware. If the problem is Slackware base related then the bug is fixed very quickly for security fixes. As to Slackware -current, the bugs do pop up and most still are upstream related. PV stated to users that Slackware '-current' is in flux and should not be used on production hardware.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alpha90 (Post 4944630)
On the other hand Arch is a bleeding edge distribution which is a double edge sword new bugs are introduced but patches are also introduced at a rather fast pace and generally the patches are vanilla from what ever software project is putting out their latest version of software X. The best suggestion to you if you want to find a distribution you like is to try any interesting candidate out.

Yes, one reason to use caution when using Arch is the fact of 'rolling' release.

@OP

Slackware32/64 14.0 are stable and still get security fixes for upstream issues. I do run '-current' but on a test bed, not production machine.

I do find Slackware's package management is very good. 'pkgtool', 'sbopkg', 'src2pkg' and 'slackpkg' are very useful for a Slacker. Then you have Slackbuilds or SlackPackages By Eric Hameleers (Alien_Bob) for a wide choice of packages. Look here for more information: Slackware Builds, Packages & Scripts

I have been using Slackware since PV's first release because the UNIX-like feel for this Gnu/Linux fits my needs. Other Gnu/Linux that I use are mainly used for maintenance or diagnostic tools via LiveCD/DVD. Personally, I do not like having to depend on others to maintain my system.

As other members have suggested, try a Gnu/Linux and see how it feels for you. :)

jv2112 05-04-2013 05:08 PM

Arch is like building a hot rod from scratch. Frame ... engine block..transmission...wiring.......viola ....Hot Rod as unique as creative you are ....... :-)


Slackware is like mainataining and tweaking a classic hot rod


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:14 PM.