I'm just starting out with Linux, but as a advanced OS X user I'm no newcomer to UNIX. Also, I'm majoring in computer science, so I can't afford to shy away from technicalities, nor would I want to. As such, I want to learn from ground up; I don't want a 'user-friendly' distribution to hold my hand - rather a system that'll teach me linux internals as I work with it. Minimalism, and structural simplicity & elegance are important. At the same time, I don't want a source based distro like Gentoo (and definitely not LFS). Maybe later, but not now.

That said, two distro's I'm considering are Arch Linux and Slackware. The Arch developers have made their philosophy very clear on their website, and everything fits in with my ideas very well. It's also a modern, bleeding edge rolling release system, with a good package manager and repositories - all of which are BIG plus points in my eyes. I also love the fact that I start with a minimal system and then build on it as required - I HATE bloat, and systems filled with stuff I didn't ask for, don't understand and can't use; I like keeping everything under control.

However, I hear of Arch's 'non-standard' configuration methods. I don't want to learn Linux in a manner that's specific to Arch, or any other distro. That means I'll have to unlearn things later. Then I heard the saying 'Study distroxyz and you'll learn distroxyz, but study Slackware and you'll learn Linux'. That's EXACTLY what I want to do - learn Linux. I've briefly tried both distros and both 'feel' good, though Arch seems easier to use - due to the centralized configuration and pacman. But 'easy to use' is of course, not my priority.

So what do you folks make of this? I've been trying to make up my mind for about two weeks, and really must make a choice now. Please advise. And PLEASE don't tell me to continue with both, that would almost count as bloat in my book

Thanks in advance.

I'm just starting out with Linux, but as a advanced OS X user I'm no newcomer to UNIX. Also, I'm majoring in computer science, so I can't afford to shy away from technicalities, nor would I want to. As such, I want to learn from ground up; I don't want a 'user-friendly' distribution to hold my hand - rather a system that'll teach me linux internals as I work with it. Minimalism, and structural simplicity & elegance are important. At the same time, I don't want a source based distro like Gentoo (and definitely not LFS). Maybe later, but not now.

That said, two distro's I'm considering are Arch Linux and Slackware. The Arch developers have made their philosophy very clear on their website, and everything fits in with my ideas very well. It's also a modern, bleeding edge rolling release system, with a good package manager and repositories - all of which are BIG plus points in my eyes. I also love the fact that I start with a minimal system and then build on it as required - I HATE bloat, and systems filled with stuff I didn't ask for, don't understand and can't use; I like keeping everything under control.

However, I hear of Arch's 'non-standard' configuration methods. I don't want to learn Linux in a manner that's specific to Arch, or any other distro. That means I'll have to unlearn things later. Then I heard the saying 'Study distroxyz and you'll learn distroxyz, but study Slackware and you'll learn Linux'. That's EXACTLY what I want to do - learn Linux. I've briefly tried both distros and both 'feel' good, though Arch seems easier to use - due to the centralized configuration and pacman. But 'easy to use' is of course, not my priority.

So what do you folks make of this? I've been trying to make up my mind for about two weeks, and really must make a choice now. Please advise. And PLEASE don't tell me to continue with both, that would almost count as bloat in my book

Thanks in advance.

Hello,

The general theory is that Slackware actually follows closest to true *nix standards. So what you learn on Slack should help you in any further linux/*nix ventures you may find yourself partaking.

Cheers.

So you want to be comforted in your choice...
Go for it, install Slackware, it is the best linux distribution, provides the most advanced linux experience, all other suck in comparison...
Don't use a toy, use a real system, use Slackware!

Try both, in fact try a whole bunch of Distro's and stick with whatever suits you best. Hopefully it will be Slackware

You certainly can't go wrong choosing Slackware (or Arch, for that matter), if you HAVE to pick a single one, but I strongly recommend you to try as many as possible.

1. Answer:

If in doubt between Arch and Slackware I definitely would choose Slackware.

You can use any distro you like to learn linux from scratch (even Ubuntu!). You will suffer with any of them...


2. About Arch:

I like Arch's philosophy too, and I think it is close to Slackware's (as far as I know). In fact, Arch's installation reminds me a lot of Slackware's. However, ** I ** think Arch gives still a feeling of work in progress.


3. About Slackware:

Slackware is the oldest one: that may be a plus in terms of experience, user base, and documentation.

Slackware is relatively simple to manage. It is just a compilation of original (unpatched) software with some managing facilities. It may sound funny, but I think this "feature" will become increasingly important nowadays: software traceability.

In Slackware what you get is what it is: original bugs included. Supposedly, Slackware's leader just discards that software which is too buggy to be included in the distribution.

A full Slackware installation should be enough for your basic needs. On the other hand, you may need other pieces of software and "go out" of the distribution. In that case, taking account of all software updates becomes more difficult.


4. About Debian:

I like Debian much too (also running it), but I think it is getting a bit bloated. Debian gives also as "feature" a patched compilation of software, along with great package management, dependency tracking, and huge package base: you rarely need "go out of the distribution". Thus, Debian is quite comfortable when keeping your packages up to date.

But in fact they are creating new versions of the same software; and the same does Fedora, for example. Some of the patches come back upstream, but with these distributions, most of the time you end with a "tree" of patched versions, one for each distro. When a bug happens, you may not know if it is due to original software or subsequent patches: nightmare.

Painful example: Debian's openssl bug.

Note: Ubuntu is a patched version of a patched distribution (Debian)


5. My favourite distro:

- Text based installation. As simple as Slackware's and as flexible as Debian's.

- Debian's package base, raw/original version. Use Debian development force to report/propose solutions upstream.

- Debian package management with optional dependency tracking. You may use it or not when installing a package.

- That is, a "Slackwarized Debian" .

I have used many distributions over the past years, but I have always stuck to Slackware which was my first distribution and always is my primary distro whenever I have the choice.

It is good to play with other distributions - it gives you a better feel of the differences as well as the similarities. Also, you can learn a few tricks by using something else than your primary distribution from time to time. For me, my work 'forces' me to use Redhat, SuSE and Ubuntu which is good. Talking to people who use these distributions on a daily basis (or better, are part of their development temas) will make you appreciate the use and proliferation of Linux even more. Not every discussion between users of different distros needs to be hostile by default.

But, I advise you to pick one and use that primarily, because ultimately you want to be versatile and knowledgeable. If you do not focus on one distribution you will spread yourself thin. Slackware is ideal as a primary distro because managing it requires generic Linux skills. What you learn here, can be applied to almost other distros as well. The reverse is not always true.
The way Slackware is built, it is easy to "get under the hood" and get to know it as more than just the OS that runs your applications.

Eric

I've got to say, by asking that question in a slackware forum, you were only ever going to get one answer.

Do a bit of distrohopping to start with, try as many distros as you can. Then settle for the one that suits your taste and needs, or more than one if you want variety and have the space.

Firstly, thanks everyone for your prompt and informative replies.

keefaz, do I really sound like I've already chosen Slack? That's interesting, and I must have made the choice subconsciously, but maybe you're right. Why else would I post in a Slack forum?

Eternal_Newbie and brianL advise me to try out many distros. The truth is, I already have. In the past few weeks I've tried openSUSE, Ubuntu, Fedora, Zenwalk, Mandriva, Knoppix, Mint, Sabayon, LFS and even non-Linux distros like PC-BSD, openSolaris, Nexenta, Bellenix, apart from of course Slack and Arch. I won't bore you with my reasons for rejecting each, but the bottom line is, only Slack and Arch remain in the boxing ring. Truth is, I've done so much distro-hopping lately that I'm tired of it, and want to settle down to a 'primary distro', like Alien Bob advises.

El Nigromante, thanks for your reply, which taught me the significance and importance of the concept of software traceability. However, it may interest you to know that Arch also uses unpatched software. You have said that you'd 'definitely' choose Slack over Arch. Could you share a few reasons for that with me? And about your vision of a Slackwerized Debian, don't you think Arch actually comes quite close to that? Arch has a text based installation too, and a package manager (pacman) that gives apt-get a run for its money. Plus, it has large software repos.

Also, I was searching the net for some good books on Slackware and I was absolutely APPALLED to see that, apart from the Slackbook, there aren't any! The latest editions of 'Slackware Unleashed' and 'Slackware for Dummies' were published in 1997 and 2000 respectively. I could not find a Slackware book published on or after 2005! This makes Slack look like a bit of a dinosaur, doesn't it?

I'm wearing my armor, so I can say this here.....

Start with Arch. It is easier for a newcomer and will give you a taste of building a system just the way you need it.

I have installed both on several different machines----the current setup is Arch primary, and Slackware in the playpen.

From my experience only:
Arch:
+ Easier package management
- Rolling release--eg you get Firefox 3 whether you want it or not

Slackware:
+ More standard, stable, etc.
- Harder to find and install SW

The reason there aren't any new books on Slackware is because they would just repeat what's already been written. While Slack does keep up with new software changes, the basic system itself is pretty much the same except for newer versions of the software.

Slackware is still in development and continues to evolve while sticking to it's primary KISS principles. Personally, it's that very KISS idea that makes Slack what it is and why we prefer it over the more bloated distros. It's amazingly easy to configure, despite it's reputation to the contrary, and maintaining a Slack system really is a piece of cake.

While bleeding edge may seem cool it also means lots of breakages and headaches. Slack software is by no means outdated, but it's as close to original as possible without tons of patches. Slack is very stable unless you make it otherwise.

There are package management tools for Slack. Pkgtool is the package manager for Slack. Slackpkg is included in extras and works with Pkgtool. Slapt-get can be downloaded and installed and works very much like Apt-get. Many of us prefer to do things the Slack way, which means not using something like Slapt-get, although many people do use it and swear by it.

I disagree about it being harder to find and install software for Slack. I've never had any problem there at all. Admittedly, it can take more time to download and install all dependencies manually but many of us view that as a good thing from a control standpoint.

In the end, the choice of a distro is a personal choice. No distro is right for everyone and you have to make your own choice.

I haven't tried Arch...yet, but I intend to. Really though, you'll have to try both for yourself. No one else can say which you will prefer.

That's what I meant by "harder". (Should have said "more time".

I really DO see the merits of Slackware, but--at least for me--it has been difficult to get "over the hump" in the learning curve. But I am still working at it......

Slackware, Slackware, and...oh did I mention Slackware?

Arch is all well and good, but if you're in a comp.sci program and you want to learn Linux, Slackware is the way to go. I recall reading, somewhere, that one of Slackware's covenants was to change as little as possible from the standard Linux and SVR4 layout and especially changing as little as possible when it comes to installing programs (from source).

Aside from Slackware's provided .TGZ packages, the two ways I install programs are through SlackBuilds, and src2pkg. SlackBuilds is a slick archive (available through FTP and rsync) of scripts that compile and package up a program for you. src2pkg does the same thing, but is a little more generalized - SlackBuild scripts are custom written for each program.

When it comes to installing Slackware, I highly suggest installing everything (every package) and then removing them as you see fit, after the system is up and running. Another selling point on Slackware, due to its age, is the community-based support. If you can't figure something out, there's some guru or monk out there who knows the fix.

One quote to describe Slackware, "keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler." I can't remember who said it, but it's decent quote.