LinuxQuestions.org - Is Distrowatch's Description of Slackware Fair?

- Slackware (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)

- - Is Distrowatch's Description of Slackware Fair? (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/is-distrowatchs-description-of-slackware-fair-809559/)

Is Distrowatch's Description of Slackware Fair?

I was browsing Distrowatch and reading the various distro descriptions. Of course it mentions the text installer (although I really think it can be called graphical, just not X) and the vanilla packages, etc. But then I got to the last paragraph which says:

Quote:

While this philosophy of simplicity has its fans, the fact is that in today's world, Slackware Linux is increasingly becoming a "core system" upon which new, custom solutions are built, rather than a complete distribution with a wide variety of supported software. The only exception is the server market, where Slackware remains popular, though even here, the distribution's complex upgrade procedure and lack of officially supported automated tools for security updates makes it increasingly uncompetitive. Slackware's conservative attitude towards the system's base components means that it requires much manual post-installation work before it can be tuned into a modern desktop system.

I know that many of these things are the typical idea of slackware, but I was wondering if other Slackers felt it was a fair assessment. I run current and with slackpkg I don't find upgrading to be difficult in the least and while there is of course some configuration to be done, I don't find it to be particularly heavy. I mean the common extra configuration I can think of is basically alsamixer/alsactl and changing inittab if you want a graphical login. The rest is just customization which I would do with any other distro, I'd just have to use distro-specific tools to do it instead of the vanilla "most of these things will work with most other distro" that Slack uses.

Now to be fair, I'm new to linux (9 months) and started using Slackware with 13 after first using Mandriva and Ubuntu for a few months, so maybe I'm missing some history. But I was wondering if people that actually use Slackware find the quoted bit to be fair.

Distrowatch doesn't have to be fair: http://ubuntusatanic.org/news/banned-from-distrowatch/

I enjoy Slackware and happily use it because it functions perfectly on my PCs. If a reviewer on Distrowatch doesn't like Slackware because it takes them outside of their comfort zone then so be it. I don't give a rats ass what they think. I've used most of the distros out there and Slackware meets my needs.

Screw distrowatch. What they say doesn't matter. Anyone who uses them as their primary means of choosing a distribution would probably not like Slackware anyway.

People who do not choose to use Slackware (or FreeBSD, or Solaris, I guess . . .) will never understand people who do.

In the same way, I suppose, I will never truly understand people who choose to run Ubuntu. I've used it and, to me, it's clunky and lame, but, hey, that's just me. I'm sure that an Ubuntu fan would say that Slackware is unwieldy and lacks polish.

To each his own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by damgar (Post 3978050)

But I was wondering if people that actually use Slackware find the quoted bit to be fair.

No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by damgar (Post 3978050)

Now to be fair, I'm new to linux (9 months) and started using Slackware with 13 after first using Mandriva and Ubuntu for a few months, so maybe I'm missing some history. But I was wondering if people that actually use Slackware find the quoted bit to be fair.

Hell No!

Source:http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?res...view-slackware

Quote:

In a nutshell, Slackware has chosen to keep it simple. Please note that "simple" should not be equated with "easy to use." Indeed, much the opposite is true. While other distros have loaded on Windows-like (or Macintosh-like) features such as graphical installers and point-and-click system administration tools, Slackware has decided to stick to its roots. Part of the Slackware philosophy is to be as Unix-like as possible. The definition of "Unix-like" can be a little tricky to pin down, but basically it means that Slackware shuns bells and whistles that newbies tend to like.

To put it another way, what Slackware users mean by "simple" has more to do with the underlying operating system. From a programmer's prospective, Slackware is indeed simple - bells and whistles add complexity and the potential for software bugs. However, for system administrators, Slackware requires more effort than user-friendly distros such as SUSE or Mandrake. Aspiring Slackers can expect to spend a fair amount of time working at the command line, using esoteric commands such as "groupadd" and "userdel." Furthermore, it will be necessary to manually edit a few configuration files such as /etc/rc.d/rc.inet1 and /etc/hosts. And then there is the issue of software installation - expect to spend time compiling source code and manually resolving dependencies.

Despite the lack of cute and cuddly graphical tools, many system administrators swear by Slackware and would use nothing else. Why? Because they understand Unix and it makes sense to them. Because they can learn the nuts and bolts of the operating system (if nothing else, running Slackware is educational). It should also be mentioned that Slackware is fast, stable and secure.

And besides all that, graphic utilities are for wimps.

Copyright (C) 2003 Robert Storey
Verbatim copying and distribution of this article is permitted in any medium, provided this copyright notice is preserved.

Quote:

Slackware is a core system according to multiple distros that fork off of Slackware without ever producing a 'true' fork that is no longer dependent on the original. I wouldn't say that it still justifies the quote but I can see where they are coming from. There have also been multiple distributions that have completely forked but I wouldn't say they really use Slackware as a base anymore...

The complex upgrade procedure is manual and reduces potential problems that can completely break your system because you are doing each step manually, yourself -- and in theory anything you bork should be reversable. However I get their point.

I do believe the next point is out of date though. It is true that there wasn't (in the recent past) an official automated tool for security updates, but slackpkg has been in extra/ for quite a long time and is now (and has been for a while) part of the base system. I don't see how you can get any more automated than slackpkg for security updates when it is setup...

More work post-install? It's subjective. Not including installing additional software, I spend less time...and if you use KDE it's the same across most distros. Setting up the network and X I suppose are what they would refer to here, as well as installing additional software.

I would say perhaps that article reflects the situation a few releases ago (though obviously through the eyes of someone who doesn't agree with Slackware's philosophies). It is perhaps out of date but it doesn't send me screaming to the hills either. It's par for the course in terms of people who don't use nor like Slackware trying to summarize the distro. If every Linux user used Slackware...there would be a lot fewer Linux users. So though I like Slackware and seeing its propagation is always nice, you also can't just promote it as the perfect distro for everyone.

Slackware is the only distribution that didn't give me a trouble in updating. The patches to stable releases are trivial to apply. When there is a version upgrade, you follow the UPGRADES.txt file and everything works afterwards.

The blurb in the OP is the result of comparing the slackware to other distributions, rather than judging it on its own merrits.

Slackware has slackpkg, and even without that it is not at all difficult to update and apply security patches.

The package managment is very simple. I agree Slackware is a core system, and I like it for that. I have my base install, and choose to add on additional software, rather than having my distro include and manage everything for me.

Slackware is what you make it, the flaws the reviewer percieved to exist, don't.

Sometimes I wonder if these writers are rehashing old reviews/articles, maybe from when they checked out Slackware 8.1, rather than actually testing a new release.

Ladislav Bodnar.

I use distowatch.com and have over the years found Ladislav to be reasonable and fair...
All operating systems are difficult if you are really trying to understand them... !

I've never really taken much notice of Distrowatch IMO it's not a brilliant website to be honest.

You think if we send him an e-mail each, he will change it ? Well, I will later today, why not. He probably won't, but at least it's worth a try in the name of truth and justice.

Ok, I found where that quote is from:

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20070416

It looks like "A weekly opinion column", so this kind of stuff is allowed.

The real summary is here:
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=slackware

Quote:

The Official Release of Slackware Linux by Patrick Volkerding is an advanced Linux operating system, designed with the twin goals of ease of use and stability as top priorities. Including the latest popular software while retaining a sense of tradition, providing simplicity and ease of use alongside flexibility and power, Slackware brings the best of all worlds to the table. Originally developed by Linus Torvalds in 1991, the UNIX-like Linux operating system now benefits from the contributions of millions of users and developers around the world. Slackware Linux provides new and experienced users alike with a fully-featured system, equipped to serve in any capacity from desktop workstation to machine-room server. Web, ftp, and email servers are ready to go out of the box, as are a wide selection of popular desktop environments. A full range of development tools, editors, and current libraries is included for users who wish to develop or compile additional software.

I think that's good enough for me. No e-mail needed.

So, it's a quote from a 3 year old article (thanks for the full link h_tex). Damgar just quoted the most negative paragraph. Read the one directly before it (or better yet the full review) and you'll get a very different view.

It's age also explains why slackpkg isn't mentioned.

The only issue I'd take with it is that I don't think the upgrade process is all that 'complex'.