I disagree. I run several -current boxes and they are stable. Please provide examples of what you mean by bleeding edge software or loss of stability in Slackware.
I run Slackware exclusively because the software introduced *is* tested and highly stable. Slackware is conservative by nature.

A. I do not agree it's "bleeding edge", it is not: some packages are spannig several releases now, while other distros seem to "jump the version" even only "TODO list" was growing in the cvs branch?

B. It really manages to put a *fresher* package where it does not tamper with system stability (the top most GUI layer for example) but it is always a *released* package and *never* a patched or pre-release version! - this is also not *bleeding edge* as far as I'm concerned.

C.What distro, out there, is more *conservative* while better *well tested* than a _recent_ Slackware release? Surely You don't compare obsolete to thoroughly tested?

D.*Stable*? In my dictionary it translates to "look up under "Slackware"

B)

E. Slackware current wasn't *ever* considered *stable*, usable yes, to a certain extent, but stable- never. It's a "peek over the wizards shoulder" kind of release and for the bug-hunters only.


Stevan C.

I will concede that Slackware-current is not for everyone and if you do use it you are expected to fix issues yourself if they arise. However, having said that I do find that the -current branch is remarkably stable.
I will take Slackware-current over other bleeding-edge distros that I could name. Stability is in the eye of the beholder.
Your comment "usable yes, to a certain extent, but stable-never" could imply that Slackware-current regularly breaks which is not the case at all.

It would be nice to have a preferred (an well-tested) install-version for a minimal "slackware from scratch" running just the basics and an minimal DE. This could be a good starting point for a personally customized slackware. For a beginner like me it is quite difficult to do this with the offered versions to install.

Hi,

Minimal System from SlackWiki will allow you to setup a minimum system then add as you wish to build the system. I generally do a full install then trim but have tags to create different installs.

Slackware provides the user with the means to work with a system design that fits the need(s) while allowing one to create things with a little effort which will provide a system that will go a long way.


The above links and others can be found at 'Slackware-Links'. More than just Slackware® links!

@onebuck, I expect an answer like yours and it's okay.

But I think, this thread should be a little brainstorming, where's nothing forbidden to talk about.

I tried out a "<xyz-linux> from scratch" with other distros and I like the idea, because a lot of people (like me) doesn't have the time and the experience to built a system from scratch.

Unfortunately, in my case, slack 13.1 has convinced me slack isn't going to be the home desktop setup as I had hoped. Even with fresh install, I had internet drops (fixed with networkmanager), internet hangs (not solved), no mv's in video (fixed with using a different encoder). These problems were consistent on a 64-bit capable desktop mb with slack32 13.1, slack64 huge kernel, slack64 generic, slack64 generic with multilib. The final straw was cd-r's not working (bad superblock). I wiped slack and installed a different linux distribution where everything just works, so it's something in slack that's not quite right for my desktop machine. At least it's staying in the older 32-bit laptop, and probably will until it dies (using xfce as it's lighter on the resources than kde).

By "stable", do you mean "won't change" or "won't blow up"? The first is what the word means to open source developers. The second is what it means to Microsoft developers.

Hi,
I never said anything about 'forbidden'. If you want to build a LFS then the means to do so are there. Cookbook however you wish. But I wouldn't expect nor wait for PV & Team to develop such.

I think a while back there was a thread about minimal system and a DE. So a lot of the work has been done for you. Search??

Well, hitest,
You have put it right, I meant to write it was _never_ considered stable, but i guess someone could conclude that it was never _performing_ stable.
This is just not true, as You wrote.

The expected annoyances are:
1. HUGE chunks of the OS become obsoleted over night
2. You happen to update to a package that ends up as broken and goes downgraded - rarely pulls Your system to death, but really can make You go "hiwire" on occasion...
3. You never know when You run a new Slackware release (happens so suddenly to me ) )
4. If You expect the system to go to pieces, sorry, only in Your screensaver (and that maybe)- it's Slackware!
5. Ah thee are those characters who mix up repositories of few Slackware-flavored distros into a -current and there You go (sic!) (but it's not a Slackware but a "gore" or even worse...)

:^)

Stevan C.

Thanks for the clarification, Stevan. Agreed. Slackware-current usually performs in a stable manner. Gotchas will pop-up from time to time(I'm not usually caught by surprise in -current as I read the -current changelog on a regular basis). Slackware-current is enjoyable to run.

Is this thread soliciting Slackware comments just to set people up to start an argument over something or other. There seem to be too many snap return comments, and no I am never going to respond specifically on that. Some people just need to stifle themselves and let the person have their say.

There used to be a "things you'd like to see in slackware thread" (which for the most part just got silly suggestions). That then led on to the opposite and more negative: "Things you don't like" thread. I think the original idea behind it was to identify areas that could do with a little work in the hope of stimulating some forward progress, but it never really worked out that way and it just turned into a place to whine an flame.

Has a single productive thing come out of this thread I wonder?

In some cases, perhaps, but you are saying that I should be able to post "Slackware sucks because it enables the --crash-PC kernel option and makes my computer crash all the time" without retort? Sometimes silly arguments that may deter others from using the distro from misinformation may be OK to correct. On the other hand there are multiple times when I get annoyed at the religious posters who seem to think there can be nothing wrong with their beloved distro...so it's a double-edged sword, but certainly saying "I may speak, but you may not argue my comments no matter how silly or incorrect they are" is childish at best.

Uh,oh ... another one.