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.

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 ) 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®'.

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