I don't see the point in it. Why do people answer: "Slackware is better, because it is more up to date."?
The question was "What is more stable?" and not "What is more up to date?".
This question can only be answered by people that have run both systems over a long period of time. When I see answers like "I once tried XXXXX and it broke after short time." I think to myself "Well OK, chances are high that the poster broke the system itself, because he dealt with it as would it be system YYYYYY".
I think that a Slackware or Debian Stable installation which is set up by a person who knows what he/she is doing, will hardly ever break.

When I install Slackware, I can start my work immediately. When I install Debian I have to update (on some way) packages because most of them are so old that they are no longer compatible with the current version. While trying to update things in Debian it happens some time that your system breaks. (Don't ask me why, it's just what I've experienced.)

Of course Debian is stable but if it breaks if you try to do your work then I wouldn't say it's as stable as Slackware which runs out of the box quite well.

Stable doesn't just mean it "won't break", it also means there won't be any radical changes, only security updates, to the software included. Both Slackware and Debian stable releases are solid as rock. I prefer Slackware, but that's down to personal taste. Objectively, they are equal winners.

Use netinstall and everything will be up to date after install.
Never happend to me with a stable install.
+1 for this.

slackware will obviously win, because this is the slackware forum

+1 ;)

I've been a Debian user for a while, but this thread makes me curious to try Slackware! Thanks for the info, everyone... giving it a go in VirtualBox right now. :)

I used netinstall every time. My problem was possibly that I chose the stable repos.

It happened already two times after I was changing the repos from stable to testing because I needed some new software -- like Pidgin.

I never broke a Slackware system by installing or upgrading software. So in my opinion is Slackware more stable in sense of using it a longer time -- and of course changing some things in the system.
You obviously have another experience with Debian. ;)

My VirtualBox Slackware install is done and looking very nice! I have used text installers and partitioning before, so that was not intimidating. I have a spare computer currently running Ubuntu 9.04 (which goes end-of-life next month) and it just might become a Slack box. :)

Mixing Stable and Testing repos is a big Debian no-no. Better to use Stable plus Backports (and yes, there is a newer Pidgin in Backports).

Yeah, but no knowledge about slackware, I think I should give it a try.

By the way, if you need newer software in lenny the recommended way is to use backports. Changing the repositories to squeeze will give you a testing-system if you do it right, so no stable anymore. :)

I have used both. I found Debian was a lot easier to learn and get comfortable installing new programs when your inexperienced. Just because of so many people writing about it. Slackware is a lot easier after you read the manual and get comfortable with nix. Simple and it works very well. I had Debian break on updates for me a couple of times over the years, leading to headaches. I've never had an issue with Slackware.

I originally made the jump from windows, as honestly I'm too lazy to keep up with how fast it changes. Getting my files corrupted etc. I just wanted something to install and forget except for security updates. For that, IMO Slack wins hands down. It's what I use to store all my important stuff, online shopping etc.

Well, I did vote for Slackware, but Debian is also a very good, stable choice. These are probably the two most stable distros out there.

I didn't find Debian any easier to install than Slackware, but once you read the manuals, it's easy. It's also easier if you have used another easier distro before slackware. I don't know how many people have used slackware as their first distro, but I'm sure it's not that many. Or, if it was their first distro, I'm sure they will have at some point switched to another distro then back to slackware. I suppose this may be something unique to slackware, it may not appeal to you at first, but later you'll always be drawn back to it.

I started with Slackware and never left. I did download Ubuntu and test drive it as a KVM guest. I didn't like it so off it went to the bit bucket. Does that count?

Slackware (10.0) was the first distro I installed. I wasn't aware of its reputation for being "difficult". As far as I knew at that time, all distros were the same.

Well, I think it is rare, or maybe I should make a poll.