I don't think that the "Slackware vs other linux distros" discutions are good...people are different all over the world...what I think it's best, someone else thinks it's crap...the same is with linux distro's...I find Slackware the best fit for me..it's not perfect but it's the best for me...instead of this maybe some slacker would tell me why the hell can't I install subfs file system on my fresh Slackware 11 with 2.6.17.13 kernel..PS: I tried all kernels and I cant install it..and it worked perfectly in my Slack 10.2...

I forgot to add that Slackware is (and probably all Linux distros are) very good for all the people watching (legal) XXX stuff. No viruses, that's like going out having intercourse whitout protection being pretty much immune to anything! (except of course running out of memory)

Go XXX!

I have been using Slackware since 8.0 and liked it and would not try any other distribution. However, just recently a Debian-based distribution piqued my interest: Ubuntu. So I ordered the CD, played with in LiveCD mode, but didn't quite like it. Kubuntu came along, so I gave it a try. Now Kubuntu is my main distribution on my laptop. I have the "distro scars" to show that I'm experienced with Linux and now it's time for me to actually use and not worry about configuring it at all.

I'll probably go back to Slackware once the 2.6 kernel and KDE4 are made defaults and not extras or test.

Here are two examples of what I like about slackware, compared to the only other distro I have used a lot. Mandriva.

1. Once you get it running, it's easier to use. Example of installing software.

Mandriva: Go to Mandriva control centre -> sign in as root -> go to packages -> go to install software -> search for package -> select package -> install package -. go back to control centre -> exit.

Slackware: Download package -> installpkg *.tgz (as root).

You can of course use urpmi from the command line, but I never learnt how to do that as it wasn't necessary.

Which brings me nicely to my second point.

2. Dependency checking. Example - installing hplip for printer. If using Mandriva urpmi, it would automatically download and install all dependencies. For the hp-toolbox gui, QT and some kde packages are required. They are absolutely unnecessary, but as they are listed in the mandriva rpm package they will be added. They are solely for the toolbox which tells you how much ink you've got among other things. If you don't have kde on your system, this would involve a massive download including qt, kdelibs and kdebase. With Slackware you just installpkg hplip.

There are two good reasons why I prefer Slackware to Mandriva (Mandrake).

That's because you don't understand the argument - the argument is that Slackware helps you learn linux. It's not saying it helps you learn algebra, learn how to tie your shoes, or anything else - it helps you learn how Linux operates under the hood.

It's like someone who buys a certain car because it's easy to do routine maintenance on it, whereas someone else buys the same car because they like the seats. The first person could very well say that this car helps one learn how cars work, whereas the second person takes it to a shop for every oil change. The second person could say the first is wasting their time learning something that they don't care about, but it doesn't change the argument that the car is good for learning.

Anyway, if you don't like these types of threads why do you always seem to read them and respond?

It allows me to run Dropline Gnome.

100% true. I do NOT understand why it is called Slackware 11.0 ...

I'd like to say, I'm glad this is causing at least some discussion, which is what I was hoping for Thank you for all the replies.

Could you tell me how you generally install packages on Slackware? I've run into dependency issues almost solely on Slackware, and I'd like to know how to avoid them. My usual process was to first look through linuxpackages.net first, then if I can't find it there, I'd download the source, untar, ./configure , make, and then use checkinstall to make it into a .tgz, then installpkg. I'd do this down the line with dependencies as well. Then, when something doesn't work, even when I think I have all of the dependencies covered, that's where it gets confusing.

I apologize for that remark, and I knew it was a very big generalization, it was just my bitter experiences creeping up on me and through the keyboard. It wasn't meant as an attack, there are certainly friendly and unfriendly users in any distribution. To judge them solely on one part of the group wouldn't be fair.

I didn't have a goal with statements like those other than explaining my current mindset. It's certainly not fact, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Just explaining myself and why I'm confused(as part of leading up to my questioning )

On the contrary, I'm quite light-hearted, and this post was (supposed) to be made in that manner, though I'm sorry it came off quite differently to you. I very much appreciate your response


This is a good example, because I too wonder sometimes when my computer is making noise, and I'm not doing anything, what it's doing on it's own


Thank you! My goal wasn't to say "X distro is better than Slack", instead, I tried to explain my thoughts about it, and then asked what the "Appeal" of Slackware was, to you. I realized it was a request, and I tried to present it as such, after posting my current thoughts and feelings, to give a general sense of how I felt about it. I ask that if any one doesn't like my question, to please just not respond in a negative manner. It's only opinion, and I was of course expecting more pro-Slackware responses than "my frustrations with Slackware" type responses in the Slackware user forum I do, however, like to read both about what people like, and dislike, about something Also, thank you for the links, I'll be looking through them

b0uncer, I apologize for making a topic you don't like - and the reason I'm asking from others is that I'm interested in reading about people's views, experiences, and thoughts about Slackware. I have used Slackware before, and I have formed opinions about it, but I want to know what the appeal is to other people who use Slackware daily(which I don't do) and are experienced and knowledgeable about it.

To everyone else, I appreciate your sharing. I hope this topic remains a civil discussion

If you can not figure out why Slackware is good for you, that's simply because it does not fit your needs. So you can use another Linux distribution without worrying about Slackware.

If you think so, that's simply because Slackware does not fit your need of a package management with dependency checking. So you can use another Linux distribution without worrying about Slackware.

If you think so, that's simply because Slackware does not fit your needs by requiring you to do things the hard way where other Linux distributions do all the hard work for you. So you can use another Linux distribution without worrying about Slackware.

You get a point ! Slackware is a base Linux distribution which each user customises accordingly to his/her needs. So you did not miss anything about Slackware : it simply does not fit your needs to get a ready-to-use Linux system without much configuration. So you can use another Linux distribution without worrying about Slackware.

The only valid points about Slackware are those that each user gives it accordingly to her/his needs. Everything else is nonsense. And that's true for every software in the world. So, for example, you can spend hours explaining why Debian is better than Slackware, for me it will be "why Debian is better than Slackware for you", because your needs are not mine.

Slackware is not a great distribution : it simply fits my needs.

It simply fits my needs because it is so reasonably bare and simple that I can customise it the way I want it to fit my needs.

GNOME removal is my main frustration about Slackware.

Slackware is definitely not for you ;o) However, your message was an interesting one (at least for me).

Touché good sir

That is good, and I actually like my systems more bare to let me set them up how I like them. It would seem Slackware would actually be a good system for me - but as I explained, I felt Slackware actually came with quite a bit, and wasn't sure how to slim it down. I suppose this could be remedied by using "pkgtool" and manually removing unneeded packages after the install? Perhaps a prompted package-by-package install as well. Hmm.

I'm glad you found it so

You forgot this one

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=453528

Celeborn, see my two posts in the above thread, especially my Ford pickup truck analogy.

Well put LiNuCe.

I can't really figure out why Slackware users are so often asked to defend their choice of distro. Then when you try to explain why, they tell you you're wrong. Then when you get irritated they say you are full of yourself.

Please, anyone else who wants to ask this question again, just go try Slackware yourself. If you like it, great. If you hate it, that's fine too. What ever you decide, just keep it to yourself.

Please.

Are you planning on creating a minimal Gnome install like you did with Slackware 10.1? It was one of my favorite Gnome options at the time.

In response to the OP:
You don't hate Slackware, but you can't find anything appealing about it? If you can't even think of just one aspect about Slackware that you like, then you obviously don't like it. Just say that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions (even wrong ones).
Slackware's approach to installation is very straight forward and open to the user (this is one of the good points about Slackware). You can either install all packages, or use the menu installation to pick the ones you want. Required packages get installed automatically. Check out the 'tagfile' in each install subdirectory to see which packages are required or optional.
Well no OS is ever free from dependency checking. But Slackware has chosen a simple and sensible approach. A package will either already include all of the required files needed, or else the package documentation should identify its dependencies. The Sysadmin has full control over what is installed, with no hidden package installs in the background.
Rude people on IRC? Well I have never heard of such a thing.
Yeah, this quote is a little bit presumptuous. I think a better quote would be "Slackware lets you learn the basics of a Linux system from the start." The FAQs and man pages provide lots of helpful information to the user about configuring Slackware. And the configuration files are filled with lots of helpful comments and examples for any user. This lets users learn the basics of Slackware as they are using it.
And knowledge that someone gains from configuring and administering a Slackware system should help them understand any Linux distribution a little better. Is there any better way to learn about any OS than from the basics?

If you really want a very minimal Slackware system which can at least boot, you should install only required packages of the A serie in expert mode. You can also read this section of the Getting a Slackware root filesystem documentation : it lists the packages you need to get a very minimal Slackware system which can boot. It is so minimal that the only work you can do with it is editing text file with elvis

I apologize, I'm not asking for anyone to defend their choice of Slackware. I'm simply asking more experienced Slackware users to share with me(and others) their Slackware experiences - what makes it appealing to them, what difficulties they've found with it, how they compare it to other distributions, and what they'd like to be different about it. It's all simply a matter of opinion, and a request made by me, so do not feel obliged to reply, or read it, if you don't want to. As I said, I just appreciate the replies because I think it makes for interesting discussion


Both of your posts in that thread were very insightful, thank you


I will most certainly go back through the install. I recognized, while doing the full install, the "Optional" and "Required" tags at the bottom of the screen, but I didn't know there was a way to view them all before hand to check which are required and not.



That's a very good point. To learn anything in the world, it's always a good method to start with the basics, and then work your way up from there. I suppose the part I was struggling with was the thought of: "Why, after learning the basics, would people stay with such a method, when newer ones are available?"

Well, maybe not that minimal