No. That's like asking if any particular [food book film whatever] is better than another. Depends on the chooser's tastes and needs. For me, Slackware is better. For anybody else? Don't know and don't really care. They can choose what they want.

2 with one blow -
Yes, especially compared to the *Bunutus mangled kernel, Slackware's kernel is "vanilla", right from kernel.org with no patches to accommodate mere dependency convenience (and often, Hell) at the expense of power, compatibility, speed and stability, and mere convenience makes one soft and weak.

Try compiling a kernel direct from kernel.org on your *buntu box and watch how much stuff won't work. Then compile a few programs form source or install from a 3rd party installer, and listen for the ticking time bomb that will sooner or later blow up in your face. Slackware never gives apps priority over the base system.

It's speculation and uninformed when one is not speaking from the basis of direct experience.

This.

The questions TigerLinux started this thread to ask have already been answered. There is no reason to continue it.

TigerLinux, going to distro-specific forums and saying that you "choose" other distros is not constructive. Especially when the specific distro that you "choose" keeps changing. This is apparent not only from this thread, but from your overall posting history.

Going to distro-specific forums and demanding that the people there argue why that distro is better than another distro is not constructive. It is, in fact, actively destructive, and everyone with even a passing familiarity with Linux forums knows that.

Posting replies that have nothing to do with anything else said previously in the thread is not constructive. Most of your more recent replies in this thread fall into this category.

People, if TigerLinux continues this behavior, don't bother replying further. Instead, just click on "Did you find this post helpful? No" and move on.

In addition to being Unix-like, Slackware is a pure open-source distribution: Slackware ships with no closed-source software such as proprietary graphics drivers or Adobe's Flash player. Everything in Slackware can be recompiled from the included source code. I view that as a strength.

People who want proprietary software can always install such software after installing Slackware.
Ed

Slackware is for people who like to do everything manually,
Ubuntu is Out of the Box, for lazy people like me?

0 members found this post helpful.

Actually Slackware is much less concerned with that sort of thing than projects like Debian. I suspect the only reason Pat doesn't ship flash is that he's not allowed to by its licence, rather than due to any sort of pro-openness political stance.

Slackware is also for people who don't like buggy, unstable software. Unlike Ubuntu users, who don't seem to care if each new release ships half-broken.

Oh, Jesus... now I'm feeding the troll.

Slackware ships with multiple products that are open source but with restrictive (non-open) licenses (xv, pine/pico, etc.) and it ships the precompiled binary version of Firefox, for example. If you are an open source zealot you'd have to do some system pruning or switch distros.

is this a version of slackware?
http://www.bluewhite64.com/general-info.html

Perhaps you can read the link you gave?

Kind regards

you can download it here
http://ftp.slackware.pl/pub/bluewhit...te64-13.0-iso/

(expletives deleted)

1 members found this post helpful.

I've got a suspicion that this is one of those "Chatbot Eliza" things, specifically engineered to enrage Linux users.

1 members found this post helpful.

TigerLinux just likes asking questions...answers are irrelevant... LOL