1) Slackware just works very well. It's rock stable from my experience, and the performance is splendid. For an oldschool distro like Slackware, it runs extremely smoothly.
2) pkgtool and Slapt-get kick ass
3) It's a good learning experience when you screw something up. Once you know how to fix it, you automatically learn _why_ you fix it that way. I've learned a lot from using Slackware by just messing around
4) Pat Volkerding is the Man
5) Slackware-current is surprisingly stable.
6) Installing Slackware isn't harder than installing Debian for example. Give it a full installation from CDs and you'll get truckloads of good software (and remove the excess stuff with pkgtool)

-A

And no net connection required. Debian apt-get and BSD ports pretty much means you need the internet.

I think that when you install FreeBSD from CD, you get the ports along with the whole shebang, but you can't update them without the net. I might be wrong though..

And AFAIK, you can create a custom repository on your HD where you can throw in debs and install via apt-get. It was the case with yum (Fedora, ..) and with slapt-get. I might be wrong though too..

-A

Slackware combines the flexibility of source-distros such as Gentoo or Linux-from-scratch and the efficiency of bloated distros such as Ubunutu or Mandriva. You have complete control over your system without the need to spend time compiling everything.

This is my choice of distro. However, this may not be my first choice if I am setting up a Linux systems for large-scale deployment. Although it can be configured much easier than other distros, Slackware would take too long to configure each computer. It's too similar to Gentoo for that.

<_<

A Slackware install is _much_ heavier than an Ubuntu install.

That is my point when I say I wouldn't use Slackware for deployment. However, the reasone why Slackware is much heavier is because it is a base distro like Debian. Slackware and Debian are not customized for a anything. If you want a Ubuntu equivalent for Slackware, use VectorLinux.

Murdock

Slackware has been around a LONG time. It's one of the oldest distros and at least one other mainstream distribution is built off of it.

I don't use Slackware because its name isn't "cool". I uses it because its minimal, stable and solid. I've used it in the enterprise environment in the past with no issues.

Lastly, I've seen Pat himself state that he has issues with 2.6's stability. He's said this in IRC and the -current changelog. If you've been tracking Slackware over the years, you know there's a reason its considered rock-solid: it's because Pat is under no time constraints or pressure to be as up-to-date as other distributions. Frankly, if you want 2.6, its always available at kernel.org and Pat keeps a version in /testing, I believe. There IS a reason to ship 2.4 as Slackware's main kernel: When Pat feels the 2.6 kernel is up to his standards, he'll swap 2.4 with 2.6. Until then, you're going to have to deal with your issues with his decision to keep 2.4. Personally, 2.4 is no issue for me. I've yet to run into a situation where I need 2.6's features instead of 2.4's.

I've never been fold of the "latest is greatest" mentality.

It sounds like you mean the default (as in install everything) install is heavier. I believe Slackware gives you the option of selecting which packages you want to install instead of installing everything. Even if you install EVERYTHING, minus DEs, it's probably a bit over 1gig of space used. I find it hard to believe that Ubuntu will install in the same amount of space. I can't see using Ubuntu on servers unless it is stripped of alot of its GUIs. Slackware doesn't rely on GUIs for maintenance and administrative purposes like the other distros seem to do. I don't know about Ubuntu, but I've customized RHEL to admin remotely without the GUIs on many machines. I'm sure it could be done with any distribution. My experience with RHEL wasn't bad but it was far easier to do this with Slackware.

You have the option of installing the ports on your system or not. If not, you can still use pkg_add to get ports (with dep packages, if that's what you want) remotely. The same goes for OpenBSD (not sure about NetBSD though).

I think that points out a basic pragmatic difference between Slackware and Debian based distros. While Ubuntu will not make a good server because of its bloat, Slackware's equivalent desktop distro, VectorLinux, can run a server fine with providing a user friendly desktop environment similar to Ubuntu.

Murdock

Well, the main reason I've never seen GUIs on servers is because I'm in the IT security field. I've worked in shops and with clients that are very security-oriented. We tend to strip the install of everything that is not essential to the machine's operational mission and any type of windowing system gets the axe first (at least with the *nix machines).

I've worked in shops that scan themselves heavily with enterprise-level vulnerability scanners. Anything that triggered scanning alerts were usually stripped from the machines...including Xserver, unless there was an operational need. In most instances, X software was usually stripped unless the party could justify an operational need...VNC servers also, although servers running locally were considered OK.

The machines I saw running extremely resource-intensive tasks NEVER had DEs, as they were under such a high load that there wasn't much room for anything else that was resource-intensive (although, I suppose someone could've run Fluxbox or some light WM instead of a heavy DE).

My experience is all security-oriented though...dunno how other non-security shops do it.

I love Slackware because it's a system I can explore, configure, and tinker with, and enjoy doing it. I feel like I can make this sytem do whatever I want very comfortably. I feel like I have unrestricted freedom.

I've used redhat, Debian and Suse, and none of them held my interest the way Slackware has. I haven't really bothered to try any other distros simply because I can do everything and anything I want in Slackware. And I know how to do it.

All I can really say is overall I simply love Slackware. It's fast, stable, fully customizable... it's fun for me. I don't want to use anything else.

Not to mention I FINALLY figured out how to get bootsplash FULLY working on Slackware 10.2 (this is INCLUDING a moving progress bar)

I use Slackware because I feel at home while I use it. It's my first distro, and I'm using it since Slackware 3.5.

Anybody remembers Koules?

From unixfool:
Well, I kinda do like to keep my -current "bleeding edge". Yes, I occasionally have issues like upgrading python & having gramps no longer start, but that just makes me be sure that I have good backups before I do anything. The great thing about Slackware is that I can be as bleeding edge as I want while unixfool (& others) can be as conservative as they like with their installation. Thank you, Pat.
Regards,
Bill

If you keep stable, you NEVER have to worry about upgrading python or having progtrams not start, and backups are rarely needed.


Also, i'd say that almost EVERY single distro in existence has a "-current", "testing" "unstable", etc branch too.