Hello,

I was a slack user back in the day, with versions 7, 8 and 9 and so. I have only recently gotten back into slack with Slack64, due to having a computer again. So...almost 5 years in between, perhaps a lot has changed.

One reason I always liked slack, was because it is a minimal system. Now, allow me to explain that. Some people got into defensive mode last time I said that, thinking I meant it was similar to LFS o Arch.

No. What I mean by minimal, is that with slack, you get the base system, with vanilla versions of all software, a nice selection of software, minimal config tools etc. You are presented with your system, and not much in between. I don't consider this to be the case for Fedora, Ubuntu etc, with Debian and Gentoo being in between.

Given the kind of users that may be attracted to this kind of system...it seems puzzling that a full install would be advocated. Yes, disk space is cheap...but if you install everything, most of which you will never use, what is the point? Why still use slackware? If you have everything installed and don't care too much what is running, why choose slack over Fedora or Debian?

Or, is the full install just advocated for newer users to make things simpler?

I'm not trying to troll here, I am just genuinly curious is the commnity has a different view from what I always pictured the view to be, or perhaps what it used to be.

Cheers

Because, Slackware installer doesn't check if the package selection that you made has no dependency issues, so if you remove packages you may remove something that you don't have to remove.

Also, when you ask about things in the forums, it's always good to have a full installation, because it makes life easier for the ones that are about to answer you - they know that the issue isn't because of missed package or modifications.

Hi,

You need to look at the install from a world or user view. Each installation usage may not be same as yours' or your neighbors'. Therefore to unify the use by everyone the Slackware team provides a lot of useful software for the end user to select from. You don't have too do a full install but it is recommended to a new user as most won't be familiar enough to select what is actually necessary for a operating system.

Just do a full install to confirm a valid installation then trim later.

1 members found this post helpful.

Well, it may be recommended to do a full install, but I have never done a full install going back to version 7 and I never have had a problem. I do install everything under the "l" directory (libraries), and that seems enough to keep me out of trouble.

When I get done with the initial install, it usually comes to under 1 GB of diskspace, not counting /home, and can be as little as 200MB, depending on service the computer is slated for. The stability and ease of use make Slackware my preferred linux distribution, even if I end up compiling most of my applications myself. I still haven't gotten LTSP5 working under Slack yet, though.

As was already stated, I do a full install and trim after-wards.
I however don't trim much as most of what is installed I do use on occasion or at a minimum plan on at least learning to use.
After my trimming though, I'll add probably another 50-60 packages.
My personal need and preference is a desktop intended for work from home as well as edutainment and entertainment.
Slack so far has been the only distro to make me comfortable enough to have that without a fear of losing something important I hadn't backed up yet.

Absolutely. Intermediate and advanced Slackers can safely customize their installations and have a fully functioning system. You know what you're doing.
For beginning Slackware users we prefer that they do a full installation thereby eliminating any dependency issues with their systems. A full install produces a working system out-of-the-box.
It makes it a lot easier for us to trouble-shoot problems here on LQ or ##slackware if we know that the installation has all dependencies met.
P.S. Edit: Added later. I always do a full install, then trim later if needed.

I learned the hard way that just because you CAN uncheck a package does not mean you SHOULD.
That said, I don't install everything, and I add some stuff later.

"Install everything" doesn't imply "use everything". But as already stated if something doesn't work, chances are you miss a dependency.

The official reason is actually given in the "Welcome to Slackware" email that you get when you log in as root for the first time.

Another reason is that the full install is the one that's tested.

Presumably the Slackware world has some awareness that many of us see this as completely backwards. I will quote from my experience with Arch, but I fully recognize that Arch can be criticized for the "rolling-release" approach. My perspective does not depend on this feature---ie Arch could have a static stable version and still follow the bottoms-up approach.

First, I can install and configure Arch faster than any distro I have ever tried. Partially because the initial install is so small, and partially because the process is so simple.

Second, building from the bottom up does not inherently create dependency issues or instabilities. It all depends on how well the packages are set up.

Third, I believe people should think about what they need, and not about what they don't need. Pick some random feature of modern SW--3D, desktop "effects", even sound or printing.... Why should we have to find our computer doing something we did not ask for and then have to figure out how to turn it off? In the bottoms-up approach, you add only what you specifically want.

Do I have problems with Arch? Of course. But, on every occassion that I attempted Slackware, I had MORE problems. (But v13 is on this computer, so who knows???)

[QUOTE=Josh000;3744916]Hello,

I was a slack user back in the day, with versions 7, 8 and 9 and so. I have only recently gotten back into slack with Slack64, due to having a computer again. So...almost 5 years in between, perhaps a lot has changed.

Hi Josh,

I'm kinda like you, I quit messing with X-Nix's for several years and have recently remembered how solid, fun and educational they are.

Back in the day when I downloaded Slackware onto roughly 45 1.44 MB floppies using dial-up over a period of 2 or 3 days,(93'/94'), you bet I installed everything that would fit on that 72MB MFM drive. :-)

Given the incredible amounts of cheap storage these day's (1 Terabyte for $99.99!), my response today to the 'Install Everything' inquiry would be, Why Not?


Cheers!

PB

I never do a full install.. but I spent a long time removing stuff until things broke to figure out what's actually necessary.. Some stuff I take special care to never let on my machine.. like sendmail.

Arch is a nice distro indeed.
I'm a Slackware, FreeBSD, and Arch user. For me anyway the distro that has always made the most sense to me is Slackware. I now exclusively use Slackware at home. Slackware has an elegant, logical installation routine.

The full install is really the only one that is easily supported. Pat goes to extraordinary lengths to make sure the full install is a "complete" install. By that, I mean that all libraries for all binaries are included, and that the full install will more reliably compile third-part source and generally just work better. Of course, all the tools are there to allow you to so a more minimal install if you want, but you should expect to be on your own when problems show up.

I totally agree with this.
It makes much more sense to me to build from the ground up.
You get a much better understanding of how dependencies work and you get _exactly_ what you want.