LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Slackware (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)
-   -   Going Slack! (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/going-slack-4175447887/)

jessejazza 01-30-2013 02:53 PM

Going Slack!
 
This is a general query on the Slack (and derivatives).

I'm thinking of making the switch and am unclear why
a] slack and derivatives are so fast (just installed Salix, had a look at Zenwalk a while back).
b] file system why nfs when all the others seem to be ext4
c] Slack would appear to be the better choice as it has wider distribution and larger user base.

I've been a xubuntu user for 6 years and it seems that bugs don't seem to be dealt with which makes me wish to consider another. Debian seems slow on updating apps like Emacs 24 (probably be another 6 months at least before it's available). Fedora seems a bit unstable like *buntu family these days. I thought i'd found what i was looking for in Centos or Scientific Linux except that... there are fine for a server but not really a desktop as one has to use other repos for apps like Abiword, prioritising yum to look in the individual repos for updates - bit dodgy to me it seems and yet they are main distros but i think only for server.

Out of the slack family i don't know which to choose. Arch or Slack as the larger user base would seem a better move but i'd be grateful for advice. As for Salix... perfect install no problems but i don't know if Salix carries out full repo updates etc as it's such a small community. As for Arch i don't know i like what i've read about Pacman... is it possible to use a different package manager.

sycamorex 01-30-2013 04:23 PM

Your best bet is to try all 3 distros and decide for yourself. My personal opinion is that I don't see any need to use Salix if I can use the "real thing" ie, Slackware. I don't use Arch because.... I prefer Slackware. Arch is a fine distro but I just feel more comfortable with Slackware.

PS1: I don't know what you've read about Pacman
PS2: Sorry If I have misunderstood the last bit of your post but just to be clear: Arch does NOT belong to the Slackware family.

jessejazza 01-30-2013 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sycamorex (Post 4880928)
PS2: Sorry If I have misunderstood the last bit of your post but just to be clear: Arch does NOT belong to the Slackware family.

I thought Arch had the similar packaging.... and so belonged to the Slackware family. I'm just trying to see 'the wood for the trees'. I couldn't believe it when i tried Centos as a desktop... one's got to manually select the 3rd party repo for stuff like Abiword as opposed to server.

sycamorex 01-30-2013 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jessejazza (Post 4880940)
I thought Arch had the similar packaging.... and so belonged to the Slackware family. I'm just trying to see 'the wood for the trees'. I couldn't believe it when i tried Centos as a desktop... one's got to manually select the 3rd party repo for stuff like Abiword as opposed to server.

Have a look at this article and the division of Linux distro categories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._distributions

Yeah, CentOS is predominantly a server distro so it's not optimised for desktop users by default.

Didier Spaier 01-30-2013 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jessejazza (Post 4880898)
b] file system why nfs when all the others seem to be ext4

On Slackware the default is ext4. But you can choose among ext2, ext3, ext4, ReiserFS, JFS and XFS.

jessejazza 01-30-2013 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didier Spaier (Post 4880971)
On Slackware the default is ext4. But you can choose among ext2, ext3, ext4, ReiserFS, JFS and XFS.

Why should Salix have chosen nfs? (just wondering that's all) I was surprised i thought virtually all distros chose ext*. I thought it would have something to do with being universal OS like Debian but that's not the case... similar to Slackware.

slackass 01-30-2013 08:29 PM

I've used all of the distros you mentioned and I would say that for stability and flexibility Slack is the better choice “for me”.

Salix is a dam good little distro that is in fact completely backwards compatible with Slack. I play with it from time to time but has no advantage over Slack and the last time I played with it you cant log into kde as root which for most people is a non issue but I don't like my distro telling me what I can or can not do.

Arch (I'm guna get flack for this) is stable most of the time but I've had pacman break stuff on an update, and then fix it a few days later. If you have to depend on package with a lot of deps you can bet pacman will screw it up for you from time to time. But as I said pacman will normally fix it again on the next update.

With Slack, your packages are separate from system packages. This is a HUGE plus when something goes wrong because you don't have to depend on a repo to fix it for you. You can chase down the problem yourself and fix it. It's very seldom that a stable update with mess up your packages, I can't remember the last time a stable update borked one of my packages. Mostly your packages will get borked once in awhile when running current.

Try all of them and eventually you'll be running Slack.

jessejazza 01-31-2013 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slackass (Post 4881021)
Try all of them and eventually you'll be running Slack.

In other words "Go slack... and you'll never go back!"

I do appreciate your replies. My thoughts on smaller distros (as in lower user base) is that release updates may not be as frequent as they should be. At least that has crossed my mind. Having said that the smaller distros like Salix, PCLoS etc often seem to put out a fine release. I did once have a problem when i tried Mint xfce - no updates for a while and then i discovered that the maintainer's wife was seriously ill and he wasn't able to cope with the distro. So i always wonder with the smaller distro cover for illness and unforeseen eventualities. Main distros have enough folk to cope.

Another important reason for considering the KISS family is that one will force oneself to learn more about the OS. I've planned to do a Linux From Scratch or similar but didn't get round to it. So having found an good book last night on Arch
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arch-Linux-H...9622741&sr=1-1
Good to get hold of and won't break the bank. But will be worth while for the learning exercise.

But having tried Salix i'm certainly going to give Slack a go with a more serious intent of using it in future. Ubuntu and Fedora these days seem to have too many bugs and problems which makes me not want to bother. Ubuntu put Abiword 2.9.2 a buggy development version in the last two releases instead of the stable version 2.8.6.

brianL 01-31-2013 04:36 AM

You could try dual-booting Slackware and Arch.

Bazzaah 01-31-2013 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jessejazza (Post 4881177)
In other words "Go slack... and you'll never go back!"

I do appreciate your replies. My thoughts on smaller distros (as in lower user base) is that release updates may not be as frequent as they should be. At least that has crossed my mind. Having said that the smaller distros like Salix, PCLoS etc often seem to put out a fine release. I did once have a problem when i tried Mint xfce - no updates for a while and then i discovered that the maintainer's wife was seriously ill and he wasn't able to cope with the distro. So i always wonder with the smaller distro cover for illness and unforeseen eventualities. Main distros have enough folk to cope.

Another important reason for considering the KISS family is that one will force oneself to learn more about the OS. I've planned to do a Linux From Scratch or similar but didn't get round to it. So having found an good book last night on Arch
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arch-Linux-H...9622741&sr=1-1
Good to get hold of and won't break the bank. But will be worth while for the learning exercise.

But having tried Salix i'm certainly going to give Slack a go with a more serious intent of using it in future. Ubuntu and Fedora these days seem to have too many bugs and problems which makes me not want to bother. Ubuntu put Abiword 2.9.2 a buggy development version in the last two releases instead of the stable version 2.8.6.

Slackware is much easier to install than Arch and if you follow the installation and beginners guides on Slackdocs, you'll be up and running in no time. As BrianL suggests you could dual boot. I have Arch but rarely use it - it does run well. The Arch wiki is excellent and should provide you all you need if you go that route. I wouldn't buy a book on using a Linux distro, unless it was to support that distro.

BroX 01-31-2013 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jessejazza (Post 4880898)
b] file system why nfs when all the others seem to be ext4

You must be mixing things up, as NFS stands for Network File System [wikipedia.org]

hitest 01-31-2013 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jessejazza (Post 4881177)

But having tried Salix i'm certainly going to give Slack a go with a more serious intent of using it in future. Ubuntu and Fedora these days seem to have too many bugs and problems which makes me not want to bother. Ubuntu put Abiword 2.9.2 a buggy development version in the last two releases instead of the stable version 2.8.6.

I predict that you will really like Slackware once you try it. I suggest that you read the book and the ample available support documentation before you install Slackware.

jessejazza 02-01-2013 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroX (Post 4881315)
You must be mixing things up, as NFS stands for Network File System [wikipedia.org]

yes i understood that but why are all other distros ext4 (to the best of my knowledge!). It seems Salix chose nfs for some reason... only thin gi can think of that it would be the same as windows (think that's nfs) and so would work perhaps better on a network?

Alien Bob 02-01-2013 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jessejazza (Post 4882042)
yes i understood that but why are all other distros ext4 (to the best of my knowledge!). It seems Salix chose nfs for some reason.

Check again. What you imply is impossible.

And no, it is not true that all distros have chosen ext4 as the filesystem type to install on. Slackware has ext4 as default choice but it is not a mandatory choice.

Eric

sycamorex 02-01-2013 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jessejazza (Post 4882042)
yes i understood that but why are all other distros ext4 (to the best of my knowledge!). It seems Salix chose nfs for some reason... only thin gi can think of that it would be the same as windows (think that's nfs) and so would work perhaps better on a network?

You mean XFS, not NFS. One letter and a hell of a difference

Quote:

The default filesystem is now XFS, but as always, users doing a manual install, instead of selecting the autoinstall option, can choose between Btrfs, ext2/3/4, ReiserFS, JFS and XFS filesystems.
http://www.salixos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4150


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:13 AM.