Okay, well I think im engaged (to slakware)! Currently I have Vista and Ubuntu (Karmic) using GRUB. Can I just use free space from my larger Vista partition?

No offense taken. I actually was just browsing the new posts, and this one caught my attention. As I have used Slackware, and the OP was asking a question as a Slackware newbie, I offered my opinion and personal experience.

My original post made no mention of Arch. I was amused that all these folks were suggesting the way to deal with the problem of manual dependency resolution was to install everything and the kitchen sink off the DVD. This seems so counter to K.I.S.S. and the point of having the increased control over your system that Slackware can offer, that I had to say something.

My second post, I was just pointing out that no distro is for everyone. The poster said they didn't understand why Ubuntu was considered noob friendly. Well, I happen to disagree, I would set up my computer illiterate friends with Ubuntu, and I would not do so with Slackware. Unless I wanted to play tech support for them. But ultimately, it's an individual choice. I only brought up Arch because 1) I use it and 2) in many ways Arch and Slack are similar, and yet strangely, I found Slackware overly difficult for me. It kept getting in the way of the things I like to do, one of those things being that I like to try different pieces of software...a lot. I install and uninstall software all the time. So for me, the dependency thing and the relatively small repos are a time consuming barrier.

If I had an important server or something that I just wanted to run, and never think about, I would probably put Slackware on it though. Actually, I've been thinking about putting Slackware on my main desktop, which I pretty much just use to watch movies and Hulu, because once it is setup, Slackware requires less maintenance than Arch.

@Alexvader You can downgrade in Arch sometimes, but it can be a problem if you need to downgrade a major library, since everything built against it would also have to be downgraded. The pacman config file allows you to specify packages or groups to hold back from upgrade as well.

I don't know that pacman is better than apt-get or yum, per se. Pacman is faster than those, even than apt, but then, it doesn't deal with configuring things. Pacman never overwrites config files and never tries to autoconfig anything, that's up to the user. It's also written in C, whereas yum is in python, so it's lighter and quicker there too. Not sure what apt-get is written in. Arch packages are just plain old tar balls. The build scripts are bash scripts and, to me at least, more straightforward than slackbuilds. There are some 3rd party pacman wrappers that offer a number of other nice functionality, access to the Arch User Repo and Arch Build System (a ports system), and using aria2 for segmented downloads and simultaneous downloads from multiple servers. They are also looking at implementing deltas, like Fedora is now doing.

1 members found this post helpful.

Slackware is going to use fdisk for partitioning which is fine, but it's a little unsettling to me when I'm trying to coexist. I would recommend at a minimum to free up the diskspace prior to starting your slack install. I prefer using gparted ("partition editor" in ubuntu) to prep partitions ahead of time in a multiboot setup, but I'm still fairly new to fdisk, or more like we're getting reaquanted after a 12 year seperation (nt, win98 days, and yes I know it's not exactly the same).

That is because you dont understand what this principle actually is. But i dont blame you.
It is a system design principle. Its about being maximal without sacrificing simplicity. Not being minimal in order to avoid complexity.
It's totally unrelated to having 100 vs 500 executables in /usr/bin/ and how many applications are installed.
You are talking about minimalism and only a very small part of it.

Resize your Vista partition, and leave the freed up space unallocated. Then use cfdisk (easier than fdisk) to create partitions during the installation of Slackware.

1 members found this post helpful.

It's a reasonable way to start out, as it prevents leaving out something vital. I wouldn't keep all the editors, window managers, and so on that are installed by default, but until/unless you know what you don't have to keep, it saves a bit of trouble.
I agree that a full install of Slackware is way more than most people will need; what I actually install would fit nicely on 1 CD...well, maybe not, after I get some things I like via sbopkg.

I think this whole "Do a full install" thing has been taken out of context and chanted as some kind of mantra for too long (as has the K.I.S.S thing but that's another story).

There is nothing inherently wrong with choosing to perform either a minimal install or a full install. It's a choice that Slackware allows you to make but it assumes that you understand the risks involved.

The "Install Everything" approach is aimed at those that either do not have the time/inclination/experience to completely understand the ramifications of excluding certain packages or those that just want to walk the "Path of Least Resistance". It may not be the most elegant or efficient method but it is simple.

A full install is the "Simplest" way of ensuring that all dependencies are met. If something does not work on a full install we can be sure it's either a bug or a configuration issue (hardware aside).

Many users trash their systems installing things that would have otherwise been included with a full install.

From a developers point of view it simplifies troubleshooting and is just one less thing we have to "second guess" when dealing with bug/problem reports.

Unlike gravity, It's just a "Good Idea(tm)" and not "The Law".

Arch actually uses the EXACT SAME APPROACH regarding the installation of the base system (base group) , as well as the base-devel group (gcc etc).
But people using Arch whining here about the Full Slackware installation dont know Arch well enough to even get that. You are assumed to have those installed. The only difference is it only installs 200mb of data rather than 4gb Slackware does.
Users may very well remove bash or better yet the kernel which isnt required in Arch's dependency tree by any other packages than kernel modules during installation. Naturally their system wont boot.
Even with automatic dependency resolution...

That has been my experience as well.

1 members found this post helpful.

@reed9

Arch has flaws. Slack does too. Arch has users, well slack does too. What does that tell you? Different people like different things. No point in trolling here. We have an epic thread for appreciating Arch in the Arch forum!

This is something Ive done many times over.
You can use vista to resize its partition. I like to use gparted to resize and manipulate partitions. It is rather easy.

If you want to keep ubuntu and vista, you will need to follow the following instructions....

I am not sure about ubuntu but debian lenny will not boot with lilo. It has something to do with size of the initrd file. Since ubuntu derived from debian, it may have the same problem. So having said that, if you want vista, slack, and ubuntu (in that order); I suggest to edit grub and not install lilo from the slackware disk. However, if you are putting slackware as the second partition, it may just change the labeled partition name for ubuntu preventing it from loading.

For example, labels of paritions in their sequential order
Similar to your original parition setup
Adding slackware
In this situation grub will only boot Vista once Slackware is partitioned and installed. You will need to use a live cd to edit /boot/grub/menu.lst in the ubuntu partition to be able to load all distros

or and another possibility...
Adding slackware
In this case, though Slackware is labeled /dev/sda4 it is still the second partition. If this is the case, ubuntu will boot but slack will not boot until /boot/grub/menu.lst (in the ubuntu partition) is edited to account for the new distro, slack.

Your addition to menu.lst, in this case, would look like:
Also remember that grub would be on the ubuntu partition so if you decide later to delete ubuntu, you will need to install lilo from slackware.

Guys. Ive made my decision. After considering Ubuntu (just sticking with it), Vector, Scientific, Fedora, and Slackware, I have chosen Slackware! I suppose ill need to create a new username! Anyhow, you guys are great, thanks so much for all the help...im sure I'll need much more. I just downloaded and burnt Slackware 13.0 64bit DVD. Hope to install this weekend.
Many Many Thanks.
Bradford.

Awesome! You'll have no shortage of people to help you, around here, with Slackware.

As for your username, why not just pretend you named yourself after that funny dog (or was it an emu?!) that was on the short 'station identification' messages on TV about 30 years ago (this is maybe a Canadian thing; plus, I don't know your age, so it may be before your time too, but if anyone remembers the exact channel that was on, do tell )

Best of success with Slack

And then this text to make the message long enough to post.

@ damgar -- YES! That's the one!