LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Search this Thread
Old 07-12-2012, 09:11 PM   #31
Mercury305
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2012
Location: Rockville, MD
Distribution: CrunchBang / Ubuntu
Posts: 540

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled

Quote:
Originally Posted by kikinovak View Post
My company (http://www.microlinux.fr) provides 100 % Linux and FOSS solutions for town halls, public libraries, schools and small companies. If you want to work as a professional, you just have to know your way around at least the major distros, at least RHEL/CentOS and Debian (in addition to Slackware, of course). I've been using Slackware for a few years, even on client's production machines. Our local school here is running two Slackware servers with twenty Slackware clients (complete with centralized authentication via NIS+NFS). I'm currently taking a forced break on Slackware because my editor wants me to do an update of my 530-page book on Linux (http://tinyurl.com/no254g). The first edition was based on CentOS, and they wanted to know if I could base the second edition on Debian. I complied, and since I think it's best to eat your own dog food, decided to use it on a daily basis. Oh, and my last client (a geophysical calculation office) wanted me to design a calculation machine for them. The software (edited by Halliburton) is only certified - and only runs on - 64bit Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.x.

"Learning Linux" is like learning to drive a car or a motorcycle. You don't learn to drive one single model, you just have to know your way around all of them. With motorcycles, you'll even notice that when you have driven two dozen of very different models (from enduro to hypersports) you'll learn something from every single specific bike you drive.
Judging from your experience and knowledge using many Distros I believe you have good enough knowledge to gear me towards the right direction. What do you consider more simple to manage for a server side developer Slackware or CentOS. Just asking your opinion thats all. Its usually better to get an experienced persons opinion in such a case.
 
Old 07-12-2012, 09:17 PM   #32
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,582
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4037Reputation: 4037Reputation: 4037Reputation: 4037Reputation: 4037Reputation: 4037Reputation: 4037Reputation: 4037Reputation: 4037Reputation: 4037Reputation: 4037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury305 View Post
I am kind of stuck between the 2 and it seems my best bet is to use each one some more to understand because it rubs people the wrong way when I try to get their opinion on it.
Other people's opinion on those distros are not relevant. You stated this in an earlier post:
Quote:
My end goal is to be a Systems Developer for Servers
To achieve this goal you have to have knowledge on every relevant server distro. RHEL/CentOS (and maybe Oracle) are definitely relevant, Debian also and maybe Suse. You will have to learn them, regardless which opinion we have about those distros.
Which distro you use at home is a totally different thing. But our opinion is here also not relevant, you will get the same answer as any newbie that asks for recommendations: Try and decide for yourself, only you can decide. Choosing a distro is not a thing that can't be changed afterwards. If it would be I would still use Ubuntu. Or Debian. Or Arch. Just try.
 
Old 07-12-2012, 10:02 PM   #33
Mercury305
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2012
Location: Rockville, MD
Distribution: CrunchBang / Ubuntu
Posts: 540

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
Other people's opinion on those distros are not relevant. You stated this in an earlier post:To achieve this goal you have to have knowledge on every relevant server distro. RHEL/CentOS (and maybe Oracle) are definitely relevant, Debian also and maybe Suse. You will have to learn them, regardless which opinion we have about those distros.
Which distro you use at home is a totally different thing. But our opinion is here also not relevant, you will get the same answer as any newbie that asks for recommendations: Try and decide for yourself, only you can decide. Choosing a distro is not a thing that can't be changed afterwards. If it would be I would still use Ubuntu. Or Debian. Or Arch. Just try.
They have a saying, once you go slack o never go back. LOL
But I agree with all you have told me Tobi, and thanks for your help.
 
Old 07-13-2012, 03:07 AM   #34
honeybadger
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2007
Location: India
Distribution: Slackware (mainly) and then a lot of others...
Posts: 847

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
@Mercury305, forgive me if this seems to be offending. But to me it looks like you are either posting something that would start a flame war or something that has been discussed endlessly on this forum (the windows vs linux thread on this forum lasted for about seven years and I doubt anyone is any more wiser for it).
I have been reading your posts since your introduction (I do not believe anyone here has had 3 pages of introduction) and sometimes it seems like you simply go over the edge. The mods here are (as you know) _very_ linient and will let you say anything as long as they feel that you have a valid reason to say so.
Please tell me why anyone should give any damn for you _feeling_ slackware is better than ubuntu.
But, please, when I looked at your first post I felt here was someone who would add some value to the forum, help the firs time posters with their issues, give insight to some issues that have pestered even the seniors and in general share his wealth and knowledge of *nix. Honestly, I am disappointed.

I still hope when I read your next post I would understand or learn something of value.
I apologise agian if I hurt someones feelings.
 
Old 07-13-2012, 05:27 AM   #35
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,817

Rep: Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817
@Mercury305, honeybadger does raise some valid points. I must admit I am also getting kind of bored of all your constant Slackware Red Hat disscussion. Particularly when you already know what you should do, since you already have an answer that I suspect you like (you wrote it):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury305 View Post
Do you want to be a server admin working for corporate interests? I would stick to Redhat. Do you want to be a freelance developer and into the inner workings of a Linux system focused on writing system software and being a power user? Then Slackware. Do you want to run your own home based server? That is debatable to many options. Also if you just want to do desktop but enjoy a Linux environment you have Ubuntu. Me personally I find Slackware to suit me best for me. But I guess this changes based on what you want from your OS which is the Beauty of Linux and the choices available.
Also, you already started four threads that seem to be primarily about about discussing "Slackware Vs. Red Hat":

KISS Principle in Redhat
Slackware too Complex to use?
Introduction to myself and thoughts of Slackware and its future
Redhat emerging dominance in net servers

Why are you asking the same questions again and again, when you apparently already know the answer?

You also resurrected another thread on the same topic, that had been dead for more than a year just to say you liked it (presumably hoping for yet more discussion):

"Difference between centos and slackware" and "also how to install scratch on centos"

Additionally, you have brought up various Red Hat/Fedora/CentOS comparisons in a numerous other threads:

Help me understand Patrick's words
ATI Radeon™ HD 6250 Graphics Support (thread started by you)
Slackware Command Line Manual (thread started by you)

Perhaps you should give it a rest for a bit. I don't think any of the rest of us are that interested in discussing it any more.

Last edited by ruario; 07-13-2012 at 05:47 AM. Reason: removed a duplicate link
 
Old 07-13-2012, 05:30 AM   #36
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
It depends on where you are coming from and what you want out of it.

If you are a Window$ user and want something that works exactly like Window$ (probably because you don't have enough money and are afraid to pirate it) and works out-of-the box and has wine installed so you can run all the trial software/malware you use in Window$ on Linux. Oh, and by Linux I mean *buntu, because to Window$ users *buntu = Linux. Slackware will seem impossibly complex, difficult, awkward, backward, ancient, outdated, archaic, anachronistic, and useless. Not to worry tho, because you will likely go back to Window$ soon.

If you want something other than / nothing like Window$ and clones or knockoffs of it like *buntu, then you'll try the better distros like Slackware, Arch, Debian, Gentoo, etc. These are for power users and for those who want to learn more and do more. Slackware may seem complex at first, but you'll quickly get the hang of it. Out of all of these, I think Slackware is the best for what I need. I want something that is easy and quick to install (that rules Gentoo and Debian out) and that is close to what I want to end up with so I just have to compile a few programs and it's up and running. I do like the Slackware package manager better than Arch's so I use Slackware.
 
Old 07-13-2012, 05:31 AM   #37
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 6,967
Blog Entries: 52

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Yes, I'm inclined to agree with honeybadger & ruario.
 
Old 07-13-2012, 05:50 AM   #38
Didier Spaier
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2008
Location: Paris, France
Distribution: Slackware{,64}-{14.1,current} on a Lenovo Thinkpad T61 6457-4XG
Posts: 4,189

Rep: Reputation: 1023Reputation: 1023Reputation: 1023Reputation: 1023Reputation: 1023Reputation: 1023Reputation: 1023Reputation: 1023
So do I.
 
Old 07-13-2012, 08:56 AM   #39
hitest
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD
Posts: 4,163

Rep: Reputation: 527Reputation: 527Reputation: 527Reputation: 527Reputation: 527Reputation: 527
Both CentOS and Slackware are excellent distros. I really appreciate the fact that Red Hat gives back to the community by making Red Hat Enterprise Linux source available for free in the form of CentOS (wonderful)! It really depends on your needs. Slackware meets my needs. Slackware does assume that you will take the needed time to thoroughly read and understand the available documentation for installation, configuration.
 
Old 07-13-2012, 09:52 AM   #40
Mercury305
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2012
Location: Rockville, MD
Distribution: CrunchBang / Ubuntu
Posts: 540

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
It depends on where you are coming from and what you want out of it.

If you are a Window$ user and want something that works exactly like Window$ (probably because you don't have enough money and are afraid to pirate it) and works out-of-the box and has wine installed so you can run all the trial software/malware you use in Window$ on Linux. Oh, and by Linux I mean *buntu, because to Window$ users *buntu = Linux. Slackware will seem impossibly complex, difficult, awkward, backward, ancient, outdated, archaic, anachronistic, and useless. Not to worry tho, because you will likely go back to Window$ soon.

If you want something other than / nothing like Window$ and clones or knockoffs of it like *buntu, then you'll try the better distros like Slackware, Arch, Debian, Gentoo, etc. These are for power users and for those who want to learn more and do more. Slackware may seem complex at first, but you'll quickly get the hang of it. Out of all of these, I think Slackware is the best for what I need. I want something that is easy and quick to install (that rules Gentoo and Debian out) and that is close to what I want to end up with so I just have to compile a few programs and it's up and running. I do like the Slackware package manager better than Arch's so I use Slackware.
Thanks, I have tried Debian and I agree with you so I stayed away from it. Unnecisarily complex is how I can rate Debian so I put it out my selection. Fedora is crazy. Arch I haven't tried but I prefer Stability over cutting edge so that's out as well. Gentoo, I won't even touch with a stick from what I hear lol. Ubuntu? I prefer Windows over Ubuntu, at least I have better support and hardware integration.
But overall I actually like Slackware a lot otherwise I would not even be here. I also liked the stability of CentOS to be honest. Currently I am using both all though I prefer Slackware, I have gotten a few good opinions on the 2 that will give me a better idea of the differences of the 2 distros and eventually I believe I will end up shifting towards 1 of the 2. It seems like comparing distros really rubs people the wrong way to go after you as opposed to the question so I am just gonna hold back and no longer compare the 2 in this slackware forum. For example one of the users has gone as far as to look at my posts in the Redhat forum about my comparisons. But I already gave up on it... I will just decide my own and that will happen through experience.

(Edit)
BTW, I have tried the Ubuntu 12.04. Its really not that bad in stability compared to Windows lately. I think it is definitely catching up to Windows. Have you tried the latest version? I guess if I did not have an invilink wifi and other hardware difficulties I would prefer Ubuntu over Windows. For example Ubuntu runs great on my Asus UL30A. I am actually gonna get rid of that and install Slackware onto it however because I know that Slack won't give me a problem with my Asus. Its just the 2 Acers I have that have been giving me the problems.

Last edited by Mercury305; 07-13-2012 at 10:16 AM.
 
Old 07-13-2012, 10:00 AM   #41
solarfields
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Outer Shpongolia
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 468

Rep: Reputation: 118Reputation: 118
Quote:
Arch I haven't tried but I prefer Stability over cutting edge so that's out as well.
give it a try out of curiosity -- it's worth it. You can learn things. Also you can give CRUX (arch is based on ideas from it) a try -- then you will learn things for sure :P
 
Old 07-13-2012, 10:12 AM   #42
Mercury305
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2012
Location: Rockville, MD
Distribution: CrunchBang / Ubuntu
Posts: 540

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitest View Post
Both CentOS and Slackware are excellent distros. I really appreciate the fact that Red Hat gives back to the community by making Red Hat Enterprise Linux source available for free in the form of CentOS (wonderful)! It really depends on your needs. Slackware meets my needs. Slackware does assume that you will take the needed time to thoroughly read and understand the available documentation for installation, configuration.
Yup, I am just like you on all you said. Love both in different ways.
 
Old 07-13-2012, 10:28 AM   #43
dfwrider
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2010
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 32

Rep: Reputation: 17
I'm experienced with Slackware and RHEL.

10 plus years ago, before I went full Slack, I used to setup redhat boxes for clients, many of them being web developers. It didn't take long before I noticed a trend that most of my clients had very specific requirements and behavior from the OS. It seemed that they always wanted some behavior from some daemon, library, or other piece of support software that hadn't made it into redhat yet, because whatever version of the software, library, etc was too new.

I learned about building rpms, and dealing with dependencies, and working around redhat updates while having wholesale ripped out the existing version of software like php, sendmail, and countless libraries... all the while trying to keep up with security updates, and fixes.

I tell you what, maintaining redhat servers with special tweaks was a real pain in the arse.

It was about 2004, when I had already been using Slack for my desktop, when a buddy of mine wanted a server put together, and on a whim I decided to use Slack. When the server was done, and he had been poking around for a few days, he told me that he needed a different version of postgres. After a little bit of reading, I was able to look up the earliest version of postgres that supported the feature that he wanted, and it turned out to be only a couple of point releases newer than what was already in Slack. I found it ridiculously easy to upgrade postgres in slack.

From that point forward I started using Slack for servers wherever I could. I had been tinkering with a custom postfix mail server solution on redhat for a couple of months, and when I decided to start over and do it on Slackware, I got it done in 3 days. Again, I would research the software that I needed, and I would pick the oldest stable versions of the sources (often newer than anything that had been rolled directly into any distro) that would contain the behavior I needed, and build it on the Slack box, and it "Just Worked". It was beautiful.

How does the terminal differ from redhat to slackware? I never really noticed a difference in the "terminals". The terminal is just my interface to managing the OS at a low level. It's the structure and layout of Slackware that makes it a pleasure to use the terminal. For example, I remember reading something about the possibility of log files going to binary on some of the mainstream distros. That's totally unfriendly to terminal users. So it's not the terminal itself that is different, it's the fact that Slackware's layout/architecture lends itself to being very friendly to manage from the terminal.

d
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 07-13-2012, 10:36 AM   #44
hitest
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Prince Rupert, B.C., Canada
Distribution: Slackware, OpenBSD
Posts: 4,163

Rep: Reputation: 527Reputation: 527Reputation: 527Reputation: 527Reputation: 527Reputation: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury305 View Post
Arch I haven't tried but I prefer Stability over cutting edge so that's out as well.
I've run Arch on several occasions, it is absolutely bleeding edge and has an amazing package manager. It does require more tinkering than Slackware and breakage does happen. I would recommend Arch as an educational experience in a VM.
 
Old 07-13-2012, 10:38 AM   #45
Mercury305
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2012
Location: Rockville, MD
Distribution: CrunchBang / Ubuntu
Posts: 540

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfwrider View Post
I'm experienced with Slackware and RHEL.

10 plus years ago, before I went full Slack, I used to setup redhat boxes for clients, many of them being web developers. It didn't take long before I noticed a trend that most of my clients had very specific requirements and behavior from the OS. It seemed that they always wanted some behavior from some daemon, library, or other piece of support software that hadn't made it into redhat yet, because whatever version of the software, library, etc was too new.

I learned about building rpms, and dealing with dependencies, and working around redhat updates while having wholesale ripped out the existing version of software like php, sendmail, and countless libraries... all the while trying to keep up with security updates, and fixes.

I tell you what, maintaining redhat servers with special tweaks was a real pain in the arse.

It was about 2004, when I had already been using Slack for my desktop, when a buddy of mine wanted a server put together, and on a whim I decided to use Slack. When the server was done, and he had been poking around for a few days, he told me that he needed a different version of postgres. After a little bit of reading, I was able to look up the earliest version of postgres that supported the feature that he wanted, and it turned out to be only a couple of point releases newer than what was already in Slack. I found it ridiculously easy to upgrade postgres in slack.

From that point forward I started using Slack for servers wherever I could. I had been tinkering with a custom postfix mail server solution on redhat for a couple of months, and when I decided to start over and do it on Slackware, I got it done in 3 days. Again, I would research the software that I needed, and I would pick the oldest stable versions of the sources (often newer than anything that had been rolled directly into any distro) that would contain the behavior I needed, and build it on the Slack box, and it "Just Worked". It was beautiful.

How does the terminal differ from redhat to slackware? I never really noticed a difference in the "terminals". The terminal is just my interface to managing the OS at a low level. It's the structure and layout of Slackware that makes it a pleasure to use the terminal. For example, I remember reading something about the possibility of log files going to binary on some of the mainstream distros. That's totally unfriendly to terminal users. So it's not the terminal itself that is different, it's the fact that Slackware's layout/architecture lends itself to being very friendly to manage from the terminal.

d
Wow! Thank you! This is definitely a GREAT REPLY! I am seeing things clearer now from your experience I won't have to repeat it. That is exactly what I want in a distro. Something that you can control and do easy without hassle. Yea, its true Redhat dominates the corporate world. But does that make it Right? In my opinion NO! What is more Popular is not always the best Solution... In that case I would have went with just windows for everything. Yes about the compilation issue, did you know that systemd that Redhat is planning on adopting will get rid of the init files with a compilation base? That will make it impossible to hand edit /etc/ init files.
 
  


Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SOLVED] Complex commands hexapla Linux - Newbie 6 10-10-2011 01:06 PM
Complex routing axelgenus Linux - Networking 7 05-19-2010 12:28 PM
complex password sachin1361 Linux - Enterprise 2 04-01-2008 02:46 AM
Somewhat complex piping procedure Tralce Linux - Software 5 02-17-2007 09:00 AM
gsl_complex vs <complex> darknails Programming 0 02-27-2005 10:24 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:08 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration