LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Slackware (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)
-   -   Slackware too Complex to use? (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/slackware-too-complex-to-use-4175416397/)

Mercury305 07-12-2012 03:38 PM

Slackware too Complex to use?
 
Slackware is notoriously known to be more Complex all over the net by bigots. However to me (a novice) user I seem to move around the shell much easier then an Ubuntu or Debian Platform with my limited knowledge. For example ubuntu doesnt even allow root login.

I might agree that configuration may be more difficult in slack. But I guess when you master that its easier to change stuff that you messed up... Is that how Slackware works? For example in Ubuntu I messed up the whole system over Dependency issues and had no understanding of how to fix the problem due to complexities.

I am going to bring up the dreaded Redhat word again but how can you compare the Shell commands and structure of redhat to Slack besides (systemd and system v init). I have not come across much problem with centos terminal and installs etc. as of yet.

I could not spot the difference between the complexity in centos and Slack in terminal usage as a "novice user" other then init customization.

How is Slackware superior to CentOS when it comes to terminal usage?

I have decided to reinstall centos on my system with its new 6.3 release just to compare the differences between the 2 systems. I would appreciate if anyone can point out Slackware's superiority and simplicity over CentOS other then its "bsd style /etc/".

That way I can put in my resume why Slackware is preferable to Redhat and try to get a job as a Slack User LOL

It just really depresses me to see nothing but redhat jobs out there and it seems like I am pushed towards the Redhat system. Its like a bourne again Microsoft or something... Monopolizing in the US job market.

I have no interest in Debian due to what I am aiming towards however, Redhat keeps saying things in the back of my mind every time I try to focus on Slackware. I am not even too looking towards FreeBSD because of its lack of kernel support. Slackware seems the best but I guess I am speaking for the masses when I make my questions as well. Because there is a lot of insecurities I have read from Slack users that I think by bringing to the surface to answer will help us all understand them better. Especially Novices like myself are just quite frustrated when it comes to choosing 1 distro and sticking to it. I am really exhausted from switching and jumping distro to distro... That is why I need more explanations to make a more solid decision on what to choose and keep working on.

I don't care if Redhat is running things as Corporate. Honestly what I care is if it works or not. I am into Stability and Simplicity. I have heard from this forum that Slack beats Redhat in Simplicity. However I have not heard the reason of why other then the System V init structure. All I have heard is because its Corporate and oriented for Business in different ways other then the differences in init structure. Can someone please provide more concrete examples of this? Why is Redhat less simple in Command Line other then init configuration? Yes I agree Slackware is more easier to configure. But when it comes to simplicity what makes Slackware more simple then Redhat? Please don't take this as a threat. I just need more knowledge I think choosing a good distro is important for me.

Kustom42 07-12-2012 03:58 PM

This is that whole "user friendly" argument that I hate. Each flavor of Linux is like a different car manufacturer, some people prefer to drive a Ford F-150 and some prefer a Prius. Find the one that you feel comfortable in and that's the best distro for you.

TobiSGD 07-12-2012 03:58 PM

You should stop to search for things that are superior or inferior in distros. There aren't such things. They are different.
Do I think as a Slackware user that Slackware is superior? No, I don't. Do I think that it is the best distro for me? Yes, I do.

But other people have a different point of view and want different things from their distro. So they like different distros. That makes those other distros better for them, but in no way superior or inferior.

Regarding Red Hat and other commercial distros: Get over it. If you want to have a job in a large company as Linux server admin it is very likely that you have to learn Red Hat. In the same way as you most likely will have to deal with Windows and Office if you are a secretary. It is a job, if you want to be good in it you have to learn your tools. You don't have to like the tool and you don't have to use it at home.

ReaperX7 07-12-2012 04:06 PM

Actually for me when I started out on Linux, I started with other distributions like Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSE, etc. and found them extremely annoying and hard to use. I tried Slackware out and found it extremely easy to use.

Root login allows you so much freedom to self-administrate the system at the foundation level. You have real control, not a pseudo-control level.

The more simplistic a design a system is, the easier it is to use. Slackware's philosophy has been always that. KISS - Keep It Stupidly Simple. Slackware comes with all it needs out of the box for a general usage. The rest is up to you, and with the additions from SlackBuilds.org, you can semi-tailor make all the software you'll need for your system.

It's about like dealing with PC-BSD. It comes with everything you need, doesn't include bloat, and just works. Slackware just has better driver support.:p

ruario 07-12-2012 04:08 PM

I once wrote up some thoughts on Slackware's apparent 'complexity' on my blog. I'd probably pick another analogy these days but it still basically sums up what I believe:

my.opera.com/ruario/blog/2011/03/13/slackware-a-simple-and-easy-to-use-linux-distribution

And for a follow up, 6 months later I wrote about Slackware's often under rated packaging:

my.opera.com/ruario/blog/2011/09/26/slackware-package-and-dependency-management

Mercury305 07-12-2012 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobiSGD (Post 4726385)
You should stop to search for things that are superior or inferior in distros. There aren't such things. They are different.
Do I think as a Slackware user that Slackware is superior? No, I don't. Do I think that it is the best distro for me? Yes, I do.

But other people have a different point of view and want different things from their distro. So they like different distros. That makes those other distros better for them, but in no way superior or inferior.

Regarding Red Hat and other commercial distros: Get over it. If you want to have a job in a large company as Linux server admin it is very likely that you have to learn Red Hat. In the same way as you most likely will have to deal with Windows and Office if you are a secretary. It is a job, if you want to be good in it you have to learn your tools. You don't have to like the tool and you don't have to use it at home.

My end goal is to be a Systems Developer for Servers (however long that will take to be). I didnt mean superior as a whole because if I compared to Ubuntu it is superior in desktop ease of use. However, thats not what I need. I only meant for "simplicity sake". I think it would be best for a "systems developer" to keep things "simple". I have heard this is where Slackware stands apart from other distros. Slackware has a SIMPLE design which makes things quicker and faster for a systems developer which I agree. But does that mean that "Redhat" is less Simple? Honestly, I don't know from personal use and that is what I want to know. If someone can just show me why redhat does not carry the beauty of Slackwares simplicity that will end my doubts from the back of my skull. But all I here is that it is more Simple without an explanation. From my personal use in terminal I could'nt spot that. Yes, there is a difference in rpm but its just like slackpkg to a degree not much different. Also the Sys V init structure doesnt seem to get in the way with me. I just want more knowledge thats all.

Also another difference I can spot is that Slackware is more "user centric" as opposed to Redhat being more "system centric" however for a systems engineer this does not make a big difference as does "simplicity".

Mercury305 07-12-2012 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7 (Post 4726391)
Actually for me when I started out on Linux, I started with other distributions like Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSE, etc. and found them extremely annoying and hard to use. I tried Slackware out and found it extremely easy to use.

Root login allows you so much freedom to self-administrate the system at the foundation level. You have real control, not a pseudo-control level.

The more simplistic a design a system is, the easier it is to use. Slackware's philosophy has been always that. KISS - Keep It Stupidly Simple. Slackware comes with all it needs out of the box for a general usage. The rest is up to you, and with the additions from SlackBuilds.org, you can semi-tailor make all the software you'll need for your system.

It's about like dealing with PC-BSD. It comes with everything you need, doesn't include bloat, and just works. Slackware just has better driver support.:p

I totally agree with you. Might I mention Slackware was the first distro I used back in 1998 LOL... I had a long computer break since then. I still remember using Redhat and prefering Slackware to it. However times have changed and now when I use CentOS I am less of a complainer as I used to be it didnt seem as complex using it when I tried it out. Everyone including you are telling me Slackware is more SIMPLE to use then Redhat. Can you please explain why you feel so with examples? To me simplicity and UNIX Philosophy is very important if not most important on my list.

Didier Spaier 07-12-2012 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercury305 (Post 4726395)
My end goal is to be a Systems Developer for Servers (however long that will take to be)

Then I don't see the purpose of this thread, as you should be(come) fluent in any distribution anyhow and able to configure it properly.

ruario 07-12-2012 04:25 PM

@Mercury305: Read my first link above. I think it answers some of your questions. Whilst I compare Slack to Ubuntu the comparison would be equally valid with Red Hat.

All that said, if I were you I would learn Red Hat (via CentOS). I used to work at Gartner and I can tell you from my experience speaking with their clients (typically pretty large organisations) it really does dominate the enterprise computing market.

Mercury305 07-12-2012 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didier Spaier (Post 4726407)
Then I don't see the purpose of this thread, as you should be(come) fluent in any distribution anyhow and able to configure it properly.

See this is an example of the type of replies I am trying to avoid. "dont worry about the distro choice"... No, I am worrying about what distro I want to invest my time in and I have many reasons why. I am confused between Slack and Redhat and I just need help choosing thats all.

Mercury305 07-12-2012 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruario (Post 4726410)
@Mercury305: Read my first link above. I think it answers some of your questions. Whilst I compare Slack to Ubuntu the comparison would be equally valid with Red Hat.

All that said, if I were you I would learn Red Hat (via CentOS). I used to work at Gartner and I can tell you from my experience speaking with their clients (typically pretty large organisations) it really does dominate the enterprise computing market.

Yes, I have read both of them. It makes perfect sense vs Ubuntu but not in the case of Redhat from my personal (and limited) use. I have not been able to find Red Hat "Overly Complex" or more complex then Slack. The Sys V init doesnt necesarily make it more complex... it only makes it harder to configure "by hand" and to custimize it. But it doesnt have the complexities that Ubuntu has with the file system structure and all the craziness in userland. I also find Debian overly complex as well. But between redhat and slack is this the only difference between the 2? init scripts? I would love to read someones opinion with experience on Redhat that has preferred Slack over the latter.

Didier Spaier 07-12-2012 04:39 PM

... As someone torn between two cakes and asking someone else which one he prefers.

ruario 07-12-2012 04:42 PM

@Mercury305: You worry too much. Why not choose both. The cost is pretty low, particularly if you use a Red Hat clone like CentOS or Scientific. You will learn a lot more this way and be a more rounded admin for it.

I think TobiSGD said it best. This is no special, better than everything else, for every person and very use case, almighty distro. They were each created to fill some niche that the original developer felt wasn't fulfilled elsewhere. Celebrate the diversity! If you don't like diversity maybe it is Linux that isn't for you?

Personally I'm glad that the Arch lovers, Magiea fans, Unity aficionados, openbox enthusiasts, VI devotees and EMACS freaks all have an OS they can call their own.

Mercury305 07-12-2012 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didier Spaier (Post 4726426)
... As someone torn between two cakes and asking someone else which one he prefers.

Perhaps, I don't have good taste? Being a Novice. I need someone that has "good taste" to tell me the flavors... But what I am really trying to get at here is a Simple to use System. Ofcorse you are going to say Slackware that I agree with. But why is my question? Is it just because of System V,systemd init and BSD scripts?

So why is my question so difficult to answer?

Mercury305 07-12-2012 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruario (Post 4726429)
@Mercury305: You worry too much. Why not choose both. The cost is pretty low, particularly if you use a Red Hat clone like CentOS or Scientific. You will learn a lot more this way and be a more rounded admin for it.

I think TobiSGD said it best. This is no special, better than everything else, for every person and very use case, almighty distro. They were each created to fill some niche that the original developer felt wasn't fulfilled elsewhere. Celebrate the diversity! If you don't like diversity maybe it is Linux that isn't for you?

Personally I'm glad that the Arch lovers, Magiea fans, Unity aficionados, openbox enthusiasts, VI devotees and EMACS freaks all have an OS they can call their own.

I guess I value my time... Something that happens when you get older... I cant just spend my time with all different distros hopping from 1 to the next... Its time consuming. I just want to get to the point... Thats all. But if you can't answer my question on "simplicity betwen Redhat and Slackware" then I can understand and move on to find out my self by trying both and wasting more time...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:01 AM.