That I can agree with.

that reviewer really doesn't like going out of his comfort zone, does he?

That bit about KDE4 was the only sensible part of the article. He's probably in league with that woman who gave 12.1 a bad review and attracted a lot of flak off Slackers.

Since the reviewer stated that he prefers an out-of-the-box distro, then logically he shouldn't be trying out anymore versions of Slackware, should he? I also don't really like to leave my comfort zone, and Slackware is that comfort zone.

I wouldn't really call it sensible, he doesn't even give a reason why he doesn't like kde 4. If you are going to critize something, you should at least give it constructive critisism.

Relatively sensible - compared to the rest of the article. He obviously keeps reviewing every Slackware release in the hopes that it has become Ubuntuified.

Hi,
The reviewer doesn't even note anything about what was read to help solve his issues other than a 12.0 link. All the documents are there for the user to reference. There are loads of wiki information for wifi, one would be Alien_Bob's 'Configuring your network in Slackware'.

Help your self!

Yes but he says

So he explicitly describes what he is looking for and given that, his conclusion is consistent. As long as he's honest and logical about how he comes to his conclusion that's fine with me. No need to be so harsh with him, we can simply add that many people think Slackware can be useful & fun despite not strictly meeting his criteria.

The guy does not even pretend to write a review (i.e. open mind, constructive criticism), it's a rant. See his disclaimer

Personally I can live with a guy ranting about Slackware because he just enjoys downloading, burning and testing an ISO (please read his disclaimer).

I'm just a bit disappointed that this rant was referenced as a review on Slackware's distrowatch page. Let's just hope that he had the decency not to submit himself his rant (because that's what it is) to Distrowatch.

I know eh?, if you are going to review a distro like slackware, ubuntu is not an apt comparison, slackware is not made for everything to be super easy

Ah, yes. Just read his disclaimer. Distrowatch must be at fault here for claiming it as a review.
All reviewers should realise by now that attacking Slackware is like cutting your finger and jumping into a pool full of piranhas. :D

Most people write reviews just by trying distros in vmware for a couple of hours.

Well I don't care whether it's a rant or review -- after all they're all basically opinions. People reading "review"s usually do this to get the author's opinion about the distribution, not to check whether version X.Y of software Z comes with it or not. They just want to get a feeling of how that distro is, and what you call a "rant" does that job equally well. As long as it doesn't contain any misinformation (like the SCO FUD campaigns) we should welcome these. A conscious reader takes into account whether he/she agrees with the reviewer's hypotheses/criteria or not; and those who don't are dumb anyway :).

Besides, Slackware has a very prominent philosophy built into it, which means it must be repelling to quite a lot of people, since it's impossible that everyone shares the same taste about everything. This guy in question is one of those, and judging by his words in the review/rant and disclaimer, he is trying to be as honest as he can. Let people rant that Slackware isn't Ubuntu. I and probably all the target userbase of Slackware would consider it as an advertisement in the right direction. At least that's one of the things that I would like other people to know about Slackware.

Yeepee!! Slackware seems getting better and better! :)
I've just upgraded to 12.2 and noticed the performance
increased. The hardware support is excellent! Much of my hardware are now supported! No need for extra modules!
The additional packages are also great!
It didn't break any of my software/configurations.
The new kernel seems performing much faster than before.

And btw, my wine now runs more applications(MS games :D) than before.
I think the upgrade really is a must have for all slackers out there!
And if you're not a slacker, give Slackware 12.2 a try! HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!

And for the crappy reviewer, please don't waste your time blabbering around, just install UBUNTU! If UBUNTU still can't hold your hand, go to your baby-sitter REDHAT!
Slackware is for people who enjoys LEARNING! Well, LINUX is a product of LEARNING afterall! :)

BIG thanks to Pat V, RWorkman, slackbuilds.org, helpful slackers(that's you) :), other contributors of SLACKWARE, and of course
this wonderful site! Without you guys there's no SLACKWARE, hence, no playground for us. My hats off to you guys! :)

For me it is a joy that I can configure my Slackware so easily, rather than rely on third party point and click tools.
When all "obscure" text files are maintained under /etc, then it is easy to maintain custom configuration from from release to the next.

About the review...

It occurs to me that the problem in reviewing slackware (and possibly other distros) is that the context of the review is not clear, sometimes not even to the reviewer!

To make an analogy, an excellent sports car isn't going to fare well if it gets included in a round up of off-road vehicles. Few car mags and websites would make such a mistake, but it appears to be all too common when reviewing distros.

Thats all because of what i said above.
Say im an Ubuntu user. I install vmware, try Slackware or any other distro for 2-3 hours. Then i write a blog post about it on the internet.
Distrowatch posts it on the reviews links.
Its wrong and unfair towards the distributions.
Reviews should be written after actual use.

Finally upgraded to 12.2. Few complaints.

I didn't like current version of UPGRADE.TXT. Problems:

1)
Isn't needed. 12.2 uses same version of pkgtools as 12.1

2) Using --install-new is actually a very bad advice. IN my case it returned all stuff I removed from 12.1, including kdevelop, quanta plus and some other software I removed in the past. It also installs all kernels, and even using:
Isn't good idea. using --install-new makes some sense because many new packages were added, but it is wrong idea, because it installs everything.

How upgrade process could be improved in the future:
In addition to human-readable texts there should be 3 text files that could be fed to installpkg/upgradepkg using xargs or any other means:
new_packages.txt, removed_packages.txt, changed_packages.txt. Each file should contain 1 package name per line so user will be able to feed "removed_packages.txt" to removepkg, "changed_packages.txt" to upgradepkg (without --install-new switch, which will prevent appearance of junk), and "new_packages.txt" to installpkg. those three files can be generated automatically by many means (diff, python, shell scripts, anything) when time of release comes.



I can also say that with new 2.6.27.7 kernel feels slower than with previous 2.6.25.7 custom-built one. I don't think it is distribution fault, but I hope I will be able to fix that by recompiling kernel with optimizations for my CPU.

Hi,
This is editorial discretion for Distrowatch. You can expect them to police themselves? :)

As for reviews from people that actually use the distribution? Do you think you can be objective with something? That is the problem whenever anyone composes an experience for anything. Rather difficult to remain objective. I know that I could not compose an objective review of 'Ubuntu' nor even my favorite 'Slackware®'. :rolleyes:

Onebuck, that's a good question. I've written a fair number of reviews, both of books and Linux software. I think I do a pretty good job -- people at least keep sending me assignments and paying me. :)

So how objective can a reviewer be? A lot of it depends on what is being reviewed. If I'm reviewing an application that fits into a broad category of applications I'm very familiar with (like page layout software, for example), then I can pretty objectively compare a new application to others in the category.

Operating systems, on the other hand, tend to: (1) impact every interaction with the computer; (2) have a somewhat steep learning curve; and (3) require time to set up "just right." As a result, people tend to get pretty emotional about their choices, even (especially?) if they had to overcome significant obstacles when first starting to use it.

I used Ubuntu for a year (which I replaced with Slackware on my desktop) and OpenSUSE 11.0 for a year (on my laptop, which also eventually got Slackware) and generally had a good experience with both. But my personal computing style is much more hands-on than either distro would allow me to get; hence my move to Slackware, starting with version 11.

Doing a good objective comparison/review of a Linux distro really involves looking at the intended audience. Differences between distros are a lot like the differences between a book and a movie made from that book. People who love the book quite often hate the movie, while people who love the movie quite often find the book dull.

So it really boils down to the following questions:

• How well does the distro achieve its stated objectives?
• How is the hardware support?
• Is a good mix of software included?
• Is it relatively easy to add software not included?
• Is it stable and secure?
• How well does it meet MY needs or expectations?

The first and last questions, especially, are where the reviewer can deal with his or her biases. The others are also subjective (how do you define "a good mix of included software?"), but if the reviewer confronts the biases head-on, readers get a better review.

Regards,
-Drew

whoops. double post

If distros = cars
-> Ubuntu, RedHat, Mandriva, and their derivatives = GM, Ford, Toyota, ...etc. Designed and built by committee.
-> Slackware = kit car. Final assembly is left up to the end user.
-> Gentoo = Auto parts mega warehouse. Has everything you need to build a car.
-> LFS = Machine Shop.

I never liked that either, which is one reason I created a shell script to help me automate the update process. I edit the script with each release to manually add/delete files listed in changes_and_hints. Then I do not use --install-new.

That sounds like a step in the right direction. Send an email to Pat with the suggestion.

I can't confirm slower but the newer kernel has caused headaches for more than a few people as witnessed here at LQ. Mostly little things. I realize 2.6.27.x provided many additional drivers, but for a non "dot-oh" Slackware release I wish Pat had stayed with the 2.6.24 series and placed 2.6.27 in testing. Something changed from 2.6.24 to 2.6.27 . . . .

No human can be completely objective, that is impossible. Every human has certain biases and prejudices, and embraces some kind of worldview and belief system. I thought the TechieMoe review was acceptable. He stated he expects a point-and-click experience. The stock Slackware does not provide that. Therefore I thought his review was fine.

Could you share it?

Hmm, okay. But I hoped he checks LQ occasionally.

Except for the slowdown I haven't experienced much problems. I've built optimized kernel, but haven't tested optimized kernel yet, maybe it will be faster.
--EDIT--
With optimized 2.6.27.7 kernel performance is similar to what I had with optimized 2.6.25.7. No other troubles so far.

Not today. :) I never intended the script to be used by anybody other than me. The script is in no shape to be used universally. There are many comments and notes embedded in the script. Further, with every Slackware release I continually edit the script as Current gets closer to final release. For example, within the script I copy or delete various *.new files after I validate them. I maintain a /etc/rc.d-$NEXTVERSION directory when I start testing Current. Then I copy the latest rc.d.*.new file there. In my script I copy those files without the .new extension into /etc/rc.d during the update. This reduces the final number of *.new files I have to check. That works okay for me but would cause many problems in a generic script used by other people. In other words, there remains some manual work with the script. I run this update in a virtual machine and when Current starts looking solid (usually after tool chain mods stop), I test the updating on some testing partitions too.

On the other hand, I'll think about posting something generic that others could modify to their needs. That would help me improve the script for my own needs too. :)

He does, but I don't think he follows every thread. Keep the email friendly and constructive and he is good about replying.

---snip---

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a bad idea. For one thing, I'm pretty sure either the Slackbook or one of the readmes makes it pretty clear that --install-new installs everything. For folks like me who maintain a full installation of Slackware, this is absolutely desirable.

Of course, that can be a pain for people with more selective installations like yours. Your next point makes a lot of sense:

Perhaps a better solution would be for upgradepkg to have some sort of a "--upgrade-installed" switch. That's what the "upgrade" switch does in slackpkg. I haven't used slackpkg since I was on version 11, but I recall that it worked pretty well.

Regards,
-Drew

Darn, double post.

I will restate a point that has been made in this forum many times before. The only supported Slackware system is the full install. When you start selectively dropping packages you are on your own. There can be unexpected consequences.
As an example, to try to create space on an old system running reiserfs, I tried deleting packages to do with ext3.
Then I lost the output from the mount command, as the required library is part of the e2fsprogs package.

Agreed!

I remember also being able to use slackpkg to update from 12.1 to 12.2 (full ;) and everything was just fine.

I really think that it's was suppose it as the word itself tells (install-new would install everything that is not present because it would consider it new to you).

I understood what you wanted it to do, install everything new except those packages that were already present on a default installation but wasn't in yours. It would be great if something like this was possible but the point here is: the tool does what is supposed to do. If we had some lists like a guy said back in posts would be just wonderful.

Linux.com's 12.2 review is very positive.

Hi,
That is a objective review for Slackware®.

That kind of view will always be subjective. I don't think it's all that positivie since it overlooks a few important points.

I, for one, am leaving Slackware after 3 years of using it and NEVER imagining me using something else. But it turns out I am sick of it.

Is it said in documents on slackware dvd?

What bad can happen if you uninstall kdevelop, quantaplus, radeon-tools (which you didn't need in the first place on NVIDIA card) and joe?

Bad example. You could try deleting kernel modules since they take space, and you could get same effect.

My cautionary advice was given due to the fact that modern computer systems routinely have hard disk drives with excess capacity when compared to the size of the full Slackware install. If you have the disk space, then a full install will give you assured functionality. It is unrealistic to expect the Slackware maintainers to support anything other than a full install. They can make no assumptions about a users hardware, needs and level of experience.
For people running older systems, (including me!), then it can be advantageous to remove packages that are not required. I know that not loading KDE can save an enormous amount of space if you can conduct all necessary operations without that desktop environment, as I do with some lightweight gateway/fileservers.
Further space can be be reclaimed by removing other functionality, such as development tools, editors, alternate web browsers and hardware specific packages. But each removal makes the setup less general and if taken too far can lead to a consequence like I described. Perhaps it is a bad example, but it is certainly a real example from my own experience.

Thanks for the link:) That is an objective, positive review.

Well, I am dropping Slackware for exactly the reason pointed out in that Techie Moe review (or rant, whatever): Slackware is an INCOMPLETE Linux system. I'll explain that idea towards the end of this post. First let me introduce my experience with Slackware and other distros.

I discovered Slackware in 2001 and always had it in a dual boot system. Then I used nothing but Slackware on my desktop from January 2006 to December 2008. Three full years. But I often felt that something was occasionally missing, and problems began to get worse since version 12.0. Unstable network. Very unstable USB, with external drives disconnecting at random. Lack of decent wifi management. Lack of advanced package and repository management. Lack of support from the few initiatives that support Linux since they only care about Ubuntu, Fedora and Suse (sometimes, Mandriva). Bluetooth non-existent except a few odd/dismantled packages that never worked for me.

So after years despising the other distros, I thought that maybe I should try them again. I used the slack I get (no puns intended) around the holiday season to test several of them: Suse, Fedora, Mandriva, PC-BSD and Kubuntu (old version: 8.04). Here is a small report:

- Plug-and-play wifi setup, including user-friendly GUI: they all have it, Slackware has none. Techie Moe's review is absolutely right about that.

- Plug-and-play Bluetooth setup, including user-friendly GUI: they all have it, Slackware has none. Techie Moe's review should have mentioned that too. In some distros, it was not installed by default, I had to fetch additional packages. But no configuration whatsoever other than pairing was ever needed, unlike Slackware.

- Removable media support, including user-friendly GUI: they all have it, and just a little bit better than Slackware.

- Installation with partitioning assistant, including ability to create encrypted partitions and/or reuse existing encrypted partitions: Suse, Fedora and Mandriva have it. Kubuntu (old version) and PC-BSD don't handle encryption, but they are still better than Slackware.

- Package management, including dependency resolution: they all have it. Slackware has none. The pkgtools do not qualify as "management" in my book. That is surely the most notorious flaw in Slackware: the world-infamous Linux's "dependency hell" is still going strong in Slackware while the other distro users have seen almost zero of it since several years ago. These other distros I tested run circles around Slackware in that department.

The only thing that ruins all these other distros is the infamous KDE 4, gently being forced down our throats despite not being ready and kindly making us all feel like Windows users having to put up with Vista. Have friends unhappy about Vista? Don't just feel sorry. Get KDE 4 now and actually feel their pain. Another score in Techie Moe review's tab.

Now let's discuss the INCOMPLETE part. That's what it is. Slackware is incomplete. But rather than just admit that Slackware is incomplete, Slackware fans will often justify all the problems with a remarkably smug geekier-than-thou attitude.

One of the things you will hear most from Slackware fans is: "Slackware is not meant to be ready out of the box." Oh, really? Then would someone explain why it comes with the whole KDE desktop environment, probably the most bloated of them all (or is Gnome the most bloated? I never know). Why not just let users download and install it? Why not let them freaking BUILD IT, like they do in Gentoo? Why does Slackware come with most of the network setup ready out of the box? What about HAL? Why doesn't it come with HAL broken apart so that slackheads will put removable media mounting together with their own scripts (like I did myself once). What about pkgtool? You already have installpkg and removepkg, and you can always knock out a 'for' loop in the command line, what on Earth would you still need pkgtool for?

Have you ever tried NetBSD? A command line (csh - with not even tab completion to help you find the commands), twm and ftp, that is what you get. Everything else you have to download, install and configure yourself. Even getting the Internet connection up and running so you can use the ftp may require some struggling. THAT is a not-out-of-the-box distro. Ubuntu is an out-of-the-box distro. Slackware is neither, Slackware just can't decide between the all or the nothing.

Another thing you will hear from Slackware fans: "Slackware is suitable for learning." And some of them actually believe that kind of bullshit. "Suitable for learning" is a book on the subject and just about any distro in the world, preferably one that works to the fullest, not an incomplete distro. Being incomplete has nothing to do with learning unless it provides "stages" and top-notch manuals like Gentoo does. THAT is a good distro for learning. Slackware should be a good distro for using. Which it is, but not as much as some other distros are, not as much as it could be.

"There is a cool geek vibe about using Slackware." Holy cow, how old are you and what decade are you still living in? That's tantamount to wearing a mohawk hoping that the hairdo alone will make you a punk. Reading and actually learning will make you a good geek, not using this or that particular distro. Grow up and forget such foolish fairy tales.

Face the truth: Slackware is understaffed. And considering that, then Slackware does do wonders. It's just Patrick and a dozen (occasional?) helpers. He doesn't have Novell, Red Hat or Canonical behind him to push things much further. And Patrick still does a better job in a few aspects because lone riders can often do a better job than committees, but there is only so much he can do. Lone riders are more intelligent, but committees have more muscle. Given credit where credit is due, he does a lot of things right, but can only go so far. I understand the Slackware love, I've had it myself for quite some time, but I suggest that everyone who still hasn't now let go of foolish notions of superiority, geek cred or intended suppression of features. Slackware is great but incomplete, that's just what is. No wonder it won't pass muster in a few reviews.

Until recently, there wasn't a decent network manager application without gnome dependencies, and if you look at lots of user feedback on NetworkManager, you might reach the conclusion that it doesn't qualify as "decent" either. Wicd came up on my radar late in the 12.1 development cycle, and I've done a lot of work with upstream on that to help it reach a point where it would be a candidate for inclusion in Slackware. As of 12.2, it's in /extra, and I'm hoping that we'll be able to shove it in the main repository with the next release.

Of course, with the new NetworkManager not needing a bunch of gnome any more, it's perhaps going to be an option too, but that depends on what we do with HAL and friends. The jury's still out on that one.

Long story short, though, there is a decent gui network management application available now - you just have to install it.

I can't speak for the other guys, but I personally don't have any bluetooth hardware, so I'm unable to do any work in this area. Since you do, and it obviously annoyed you that it didn't "just work," why didn't you try to make it better?

What do they do different?

Encrypted installations are relatively new to Slackware, so work is still ongoing in this area. Again though, the point above still holds true - patches are accepted if they're worth a damn.

If you feel the package management is a weakness, then you're better off with another distribution - that's not changing, as it's part of what makes Slackware Slackware.

Deleted the remainder of the illogical rant.

Exactly what is incomplete about it? Your definition of "incomplete" might not match another person's. In the context of its intended goals, it *is* complete.

People with compatible mindsets and adequate skills and desire to help can make it go much farther. Unfortunately, it seems that those people are far outnumbered by those who choose to only complain about what's lacking.

As someone stated in a previous post, reviewing a sports car in an off-road contest is always going to result in bad marks for the sports car.

IMHO Slackware isn't incomplete, it has got everything I need for my work (Office, Compilers, STABLE networking (it's easier to use my usb wireless lan stick with Slackware than using it with openSUSE), simple administration and many things I don't need).

To start my WLAN device, I only need to configure wpa_supplicant (2 lines in a config file) and type to keep it working, when I configure this device with YAST2 at openSUSE, it doesn't work. It crashes, then I have to kill the wpa_supplicant, restart it and use dhclient for an ip adress.

I like a system without a package management with dependencies, because many programs have dependencies I don't need and Slackware is one of the distributions which doesn't split between base and development libraries, for example ncurses: Debian has got many ncurses packages, Slackware has got only one. That's great, because I don't have to install many additional packages when I'll compile a program.

Thanks you, Pat and the Slackware-Team for this great distribution

Best Regards
Christian

I first thought ´incomplete´ means something like - missing dependency: gift or gift-add-collection.pl and GNU Image Finding Tool - when trying to browse "System Administration/Image(or picture?) index" in Kde Control Center in Slack 12.1 or inability to run Kde4 Package Manager due to Smart being omitted in Slackware current.

Thats the only incompleteness i have found, but i´m not sure i´d ever use these missing Kde features. Then again, i do not use bluetooth or wifi either.

I never leave any OS in "out of box" condition for too long but customize it rather extensively until it finally is complete ;) .

Why people can't switch distributions without writing rants? As if they feel obliged to write public excuse. Fine, go away. Don't let the door hit you.

I guess you never fought automatic dependency resolution. Oh well.

Imo, it is BS. Make full install, and it will work with desktop. Of course with different sets of hardware experience might differ.

Just use whatever you like and go away already.

You are making wrong assumptions about why people use Slackware. Motives of other people might be different from yours. If you were using OS for "notion of superiority" or "feeling of geekiness"- this is your own problem. I use Slackware because it (unlike Ubuntu) is quick to install, easy to configure, it doesn't get into my way when I want to do something, and because I'm comfortable with it (again, unlike ubuntu or other distributions).

Are you aware how how you're coming across?

I've certainly felt frustrated at times with a variety of distros. I like to try out different operating systems from time to time.
But, I always come home to Slackware. For me once a Slackware box is set-up to my tastes everything works flawlessly.
This poster seems very angry, but, I'm not sure why.

To my experience, when on the internet people are leaving forum, unsubscribing from newsgroups, switching from distribution, or doing anything similar - i.e. when they leave community they spent some time with, some of them feel the need to write angry "final post" that will piss off everyone in the group/community. I'm not sure why this happens (perhaps it is similar to "burning bridges behind you", so they wouldn't want to come back), but I saw it more than once. I think this is the case here.

"Slackware, because it works." No matter what difficulties i face with, final is always perfect and this satisfies me. On account of Slackware i understood how an operating system works, this is important for me. I tried many Linux distros and with most of them i felt like a car driver without knowledge of engine. My windows days was like that also.

That makes sense to me:-) It seems odd though why anyone would want to burn their bridges. It makes it difficult to return to a community if you royally flame everyone in the community.
Each to his own I guess. Slackware does the job for me:-)

It's really just another form of trolling. The fact that they are "leaving" just makes it easier to cross the line. I don't think that the person believes they are trolling when they do this, but that doesn't change things. The effect is exactly the same.

As the saying goes: If it quacks like a duck ...

Maybe lucmove is just bored with Slackware and is looking for a challenge with *buntu's, dependency hell and some broken pkgs after updates, that will keep you busy. He'll be back eventually...........they all do.

Why does it have to decide? The choice to fill the middle ground is just as valid as the two extremes. There are people out there for whom "Some assembly required" is exactly what they're looking for. If you've decided that this is no longer for you then fair enough, but that doesn't make slackware any less valid a choice for others.

I looked through lucmove's posting history, and most of his posts were sarcastic, abusive or unreasonable ("I changed things in my kernel config at random and now it can't read my encrypted partition. Give me the exact kernel option that fixes this"). I hope he doesn't come back.

RE: lucmove
 

OK, let's see if I get this:

Slackware is good, so good that you "use nothing but Slackware....for three full years", but since it isn't the *perfect* linux distro for you, then there is obviously something wrong with Slackware.

Is that a fair summary?