Many do find great worthiness in knowing how their computer is functioning and having a high degree of transparency of and control over the details that functionality. These people do not consider such knowledge "a waste of time". This is a conscious and determined decision, no forgetfulness is involved.

Most are well aware of the benefits to be had by having a CD automatically recognized when inserted, or having accelerated X drivers automatically installed. They are also aware of the problems, or even mere characteristics, endemic to these automated operations (such as pop-up windows, interrupts stuttering other process, anomalous graphical operations).

It is not "bashing" to say that one prefers to have functionality that is transparent and reliable over functionality that may be more feature-filled yet inherently less stable. Comments such as "you would be better off going to another distribution" or "that proposal will be like taking the heart out of Slackware" are not bashing, they are recognizing the worthiness and efficacy of doing things in a manner that they consider minimizes the problems of maintaining a GNU/Linux system even though the approach may be more demanding in other ways.

There is nothing wrong with using a distro which suits your needs; Slackware happens to suit my requirements of an ultra-stable distribution which adheres to the Unix philosophy of configuration being handled by editable plain-text files quite well. If your needs are different, you could try to convince Slackware to change (sort of the point of this thread); however, if you were successful then a new distro would appear the very next day which follows the Slackware philosophy. Would you then try to change that distro?

There are already plenty of distros which eschew the Slackware approach (actually, most all of them) -- and those distros have much to offer users in other ways -- but none of them offer the level of stability and lack of bugs provided by Slackware. Slackware has fewer problems because it does fewer things. Slackware does not target a dozen different processors, SW does not do dependency-based package management, Slackware does not automate configuration (certainly not to the degree of other distros). Nonetheless, what Slackware does do, it does right; and the user does not have to worry about solving problems in those other areas.

They are "Microsofting" in the way that everything is more and more supposed to be done with their graphical tools, and you're less and less allowed to deal with things in command line. That's OK for many people, especially people coming from Windows or Mac, but not always suitable for people with a more Unix background. For these ones, Slackware is probably much more appreciated.
In any case, this discussion has very little to do in a Slackware forum IMO. People who want Ubuntu's type of distros should just go for it. People who like Slackware like it, I guess, for the very reason it does not work like Ubuntu, but more like a Unix system.

Slackware is not for a new users, who don't wish to learn. Slackware doesn't make you stick with console. You can always use whatever DE you wish. You're Dropline maintainer, so what's the problem. Implement those features you think are necessary and problem is solved. Users happy, you happy, that's all. I can't see the problem. Slackware is base. You create whatever you want from it. You can't create anything from Ubuntu.

How come experienced user is so afraid that some distros are "microsofting"? Stay away from those distros. There is always slackware, gentoo, lfs etc. I think its a darn good thing that some distros are easy to use. Even if the benchmark result suck, and the system is more unstable, so what? You can stay away from them, and let the inexperienced user use them.

Some systems should be easy to use. Some users are scared to convert to linux because of "terminal". "You have to edit files to configure the system" some says. Well, then it's great that there is these graphical tools to help out. My girlfriend is happy with kubuntu. She would never use linux if she had to learn how to mount her external drive with commands. She would never use it if she had to recompile the kernel to get support for her hardware.

This christmas I installed linux on my dads computer. He would never accepted it if he had to manually tune it. Then it would be better to stay with the safe choice. Microsoft. Let them learn GNU/Linux with an easy distro. Those how want to tweak or find it interesting in how it works, are were welcome to use another distro. I would say that the overall responsiveness in any distro is better then MS, so the new user will be happy anyway. My dad don't want to know how to fix his computer if it gets broken. He want it to work so he can work with it. If it doesn't work, he calls support (Mostly me :P).

Why are apparently smart nerds like us afraid of GUI? It doesnt make us less "hardcore" just because we use automatic mounting. We still now how to configure and tweak the system. We can fix a broken system with a livecd with only bash and $EDITOR. Why stick with the screwdriver when there is a drill?

Edit:
GNU/Linux for the masses!

I was about to post something similar. We are now extremely fortunate to be in a 2 level situation - level 1 is for the new user/user who doesn't want to tinker. Level 2 is for those who like to tinker and want to get into the guts of the OS. Often people from level 1 become level 2ers and vice versa.

This is a good thing. You can now use one of the *buntus to learn what the system can do and then make the jump if you want to. When I started, getting an ISDN line to work in Mandrake involved internet searches and writing config files. Now it would just work.

We should not be afraid of the system becoming simpler - there will always be a distro for whatever your needs are and the distros do cross-pollinate. Being a purist is also good, but we should not do down other distros for not being what we want.

At heart, Linux is Linux is Linux, hand compile the kernel if you want to or upgrade it via a package manager if that's what you want. The important and essential thing is that it be used.

I like the stability of Slackware as it is. I also like the ability to either download packages from linuxpackages.net or compiling from source. I run slackware on a dedicated box that sits in the corner sharing multiple ISO's and listening to music. Eventually it will be put out on the Internet as a web server.

I have to admit that when gnome was dropped I had to switch to a different distro. I use gnucash and I have not been able to find anything to replace it.

I find with the other distro (okay Mandriva 2008.0) that I spent a lot of time in a GUI doing tasks that I do in slackware on the command line. Usually the fist thing I do after putting in the password on my slack machine it open a console. ...weather I need it or not.

-JJ

My faith is back with me, thanks to the thread.

with every slackware distro comes with a large selection of kernels to boot when you start the instal on sl 11.0 I used the huge26.s and had know problems it saw all my usb drives sata and Reiserfs partition no problem.

That is the truthand amen to these words.

I second that amen, that's a damn good post saulgoode, very well put.

I say, the distros are there to give you a choice (and what a choice you have, there are SO many), if you have a problem with one distro, try another and another until you find it. Slackware is a unique distro, unlike any other, don't try to change it to be more like some other distro, why not go use that distro instead if you idolize it so much ?

I was thinking of a standalone system and what I meant was things like having to add user names (family members for example) to the etc/group file so they can use the scanner, fax, etc., and editing the etc/sudoers file so they can sign on and off the DSL connection with something like RPPPPoEK.

Enjoyed your "motorhead" analogy and that pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject.

There was a time, about 100 years ago, when if you owned an automobile, you had to be able to personally repair and maintain it. Even in the early/mid 1960s if you owned a VW Beatle and you maintained it properly, you had to crawl under it every 1,500 miles and adjust the valves. In wet weather it might not start and you would get out and push and then jump in and pop the clutch to get it started. Been there, done that. Bought the T-shirt and the coffe mug.
It is now the year 2008, and I doubt there is a modern automobile engine made the requires manual adjustment of the valves. They might be a few diehard purist, running old engines in their weekend project cars, but really, gentlemen, those days are over. People, most people, just want to get in their cars, turn the key, have the thing start, and get them where they need to go.

When I bought my first copy of Slackware in 1995 ("linux READY-TO-RUN SLACKWARE. The Internet's favorite 32-bit multisuer operating system for the Intel 386+. OFFICAL VERSION. INCLUDES KERNEL 1.2!") from Walnut Creek CDROM, I was writing scripts to make a dial up connection, compiling the kernel, etc., etc., etc.
Once, again, it is now the year 2008. I'm older and I don't have the time nor the inclination to do the tweaking that was "required" 13 years ago. It is time to be able to load Slackware, "turn the key" and have it do what needs to be done without having to "adjust its valves" and/or "pop the clutch."

I may be a counter-example, although I agree with your basic point. When I started with computers, I spent a lot of time configuring and customizing DOS and Windows (actually, just DOS at first, Windows came later). One of the major selling points for me in the Windows vs. Mac debate was that I could customize Windows a lot more easily than a Mac. Although I used both extensively, I like the Microsoft way better.

Not long before Windows 95 came out, I started reading about Linux. It sounded really cool, but harder to use. Over time, with Windows 95 through to XP and Vista, I've gotten increasingly frustrated by how difficult it is to customize a computer to meet my expectations, versus having to change my preferences to meet the developers' preferences.

For me Linux, and Slackware in particular, is the nearly perfect compromise between ease of use and the ability to customize the system. For me, Ubuntu (versions 5.10 and 6.4) and OpenSUSE (10.2) both felt too restrictive, too complex, and hard to fix compared to Slackware 11. I've now got Slackware 12 on my laptop, and think it's nearly the best of the lot that I've run.

My one major wish is that Slackware would include the latest version of Emacs, and would do something to make setting up wireless easier and more reliable. WPA_supplicant seems to have some bugs when it comes to roaming. Bugs that I would be happy to work around if I could get me wireless connection working. I'm having trouble even after doing my best to follow Alien Bob's excellent directions on his web site.

Regards,

-Drew

I totally agree with this. I think the true hardcore computer "motorheads" would more likely be working with LFS or some tweaked out Gentoo. Working with and tweaking Slackware is more like changing your oil, replacing your seats with leather ones, installing a sweet audio system, etc. Sure this is more work than simply turning a key and driving, but it is nothing like restoring an old car. When I install Slackware (particularly 12) most things do work out of the box. Most tweaking that is done is primarily for preferences and not to have a working, usable system.

If you use the car analogy on the Microsoft world then you could say you are simply leasing a car; you never really own it and the dealership might complain if it finds out you are modifying it.

As mentioned previously, I like the fact that when you need to configure software for Slackware you can do it the vanilla way (the way the software maintainers tell you), but with some other distros you have to do it in a distro-specific way. Likewise, some of the GUI based distros even limit what you can normally do through the commandline.

I've seen this mentioned many times. This sounds like something that, if added, could make Slackware even stronger as a laptop/desktop OS while still maintaining all the other goodness that is Slackware.

IMHO, this is a wide-spread misconception. I don't know the *buntus too well, but I use (open)SuSE in parallel to Slackware. While I have learned that most Slackware users think that YaST is something like a contagious disease, please accept that you can do everything in SuSE without it, on the command line, if you prefer. You are definitely allowed to "deal with things in the command line"!

I also don't agree, that Slackware is about minimalism, like someone said. Damn Small Linux is, Puppy is, but Slackware is a fully-fledged multi-purpose distribution. Over the years it has become my favourite distribution mainly for one reason:

It is so damn well maintained!

One example is the trinity of D-BUS, HAL and udev. While these three were integrated in SuSE Linux years ago, they became part of Slackware with the release of version 12.0 only recently.
Because all three were moving targets for a long time, users of SuSE were confronted with (mostly minor, but sometimes annoying) inconsistencies when they were working with removable media. Slackware hasn't had this problem. As long as it wasn't possible to get all three to work together consistentyl, they weren't integrated. When Slackware 12.0 came out, it all worked out of the box, perfectly (for me, at least).

The quality of releases of Slackware is unrivalled.

But how can I tell you that I like SuSE, then?
Because of many reasons. For now I would like to put the focus on Xorg configuration.
I agree with all of you who say that it is more the useful to know at least the basics of how Unix systems work, even for end-users. I even agree that it makes sense to know the client-server architecture of X. But I don't agree that it is useful to know the exact parameters of a particular hardware in order to make the middle button of some input device that more or less resembles a small rat in shape work. I know, there are people who like to know this. But it has nothing to do with Unix. You may know every detail of your hardware, and where to put all the parameters for optimization, without knowing a bit of Unix, ie how processes are created and forked, what "filemodes" are and so on.

That's why the first system I run on any new machine is SuSE Linux: It has tools like SaX for auto-generating a highly optimized xorg.conf for the respective hardware. Then I copy the generated file over to whatever the target system finally is. This is quicker for me than finding out details that are really hardware specific, and have NOTHING to do with Linux/Unix.

Noone can be an expert for everything. And if you know the optimum configuration for an ATI graphics card, you cannot usually use the acquired knowledge on a system with an NVIDIA graphics adapter, and in most cases not even on an earlier or later generation of ATI graphics cards.

Of course, this is now only a problem, if you insist in using "free" (open source) drivers. For NVIDIA cards, the NVIDIA driver setup tool provides usually excellent results. However, there have been security issues with these commercial drivers.

That's why I would like to see something like SaX in future versions of Xorg. And that's where this issue has to be addressed: It's not a distribution issue, it's an issue of the garbage tools packaged with Xorg: These tools fail on even the most basic hardware to deliver proper results.
The Slackware philosophy here is quite right: Don't solve problems in Slackware that are caused elsewhere. Tools like SaX are workarounds, from that perspective, not solutions (although the results are excellent).
On the other hand, as long as Xorg doesn't come with better tools, workarounds of the quality of SaX can be very helpful...

gargamel


@evilDAGMAR: Excellent post!

I won't agree. Installing gentoo requires lots of time. Installing Slackware almost none. You can tweak things already having usable system.

LFS & Gentoo = building machine from the parts
Slackware = getting already built machine, but then replacing the seats, the gears and the engine