mralk3:

Thanks for the clarification on what Ubuntu provides compared to Debian in terms of newer software versions. Thank you for the list of distributions that are better for older equipment. I tried MX-14 on live CD and found it gave better support for my graphics card than Debian (more stuff runs).

I have read enough about Slackware as an alternative that it worries me: not having software support to deal with dependencies -- if I am reading things correctly -- means a significantly greater demand on the user to keep things working. I am an aerospace engineer and regard my computer as a means to an end. I keep the OS up to date with weekly updates, but I don't relish dealing with OS problems.

descendant_command:

My Debian wheezy installation is using the nouveau nv28 driver, which the installer must have selected. It's mostly functional, but not everything works (using iceweasel). I tried MX-14 from live CD, and it worked better than Debian for some video web pages. The machine doesn't have a DVD drive and doesn't support booting from its USB devices. If I can get a live jessie that fits on a CD, I'll give that a shot. There also may be BIOS upgrade for USB booting. I am aware of the PLOP software, too.

jens:

The list of Nvidia drivers is interesting. I see it gives the 96 driver for wheezy. Ubuntu 12.04 had that driver installed, and it was mostly satisfactory. I see it's not listed for jessie. Good info. Thanks.

Glad the list was helpful.

You are not reading things correctly. This is a myth about Slackware that is entirely inaccurate. I understand the concept is tough to wrap your head around as a Ubuntu or Debian user where you are conditioned to think the package manager is doing all sorts of handy things so you will not have to. It was daunting to think dependencies would not be handled by the operating system, when I first took the plunge into Slackware. This is not the case.

As a long time Debian user who has switched exclusively to Slackware, I can assure you that dependencies are not an issue. Slackware is designed as a full installation. Which means that there will not be any dependencies in the core operating system that are missing.

The exception to this statement is if you do not copy everything from the installation media to your hard drive during installation. Minimal installations are only recommended for advanced users. Minimal installations are for servers, network devices, routers, persistent USB devices, and Live CD/DVDs anyway.

I forget what the OP was about, as it's been some times since I've read the entirety of this thread. However, I seem to remember you are only planning on using Slackware casually on a desktop or laptop.

A full installation of Slackware64 uses around 8GB. This includes 2 whole desktop environments, and a few different window managers. Disk space is not an issue in this day and age where 500GB is considered a small hard drive.

Some will argue against this fact. In truth though, a minimal installation in any distribution of Linux lacks features. You will most likely end up installing a full system in the long run over time as you realize your minimal installation is missing functionality.

I suggest you investigate Slackware a bit further in a virtual machine. You might be surprised and realize that dismissing it based on this premise is a mistake.

EDIT: grammar

1 members found this post helpful.

mralk3:

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this. I got called back to work from retirement for a week or so (bummer!).

I appreciate your setting me straight on Slackware's handling of dependencies. I guess I had dismissed it as an alternative based on misinformation, which I have helped propagate here. I'll read the Slackware documentation in more detail.