Well, think of it this way.. You spend that night configuring that special thing just once.. It would probably be the same for years to come .. That's not duplicating effort... That's saving time not re-learning where the distro moved that file, or how it now handles a specific configuration file..

And no, LFS is great for learning how Linux is build.. but it's not an option for any production ready machine if you build and test it just on your own.. Let's be serious, distro-mantainers spend a lot of time and effort and have a lot of people that test their "product"... That simply can't be done in a short period of time with an LFS build that it's meant to be your own custom linux.. In my mind, Slackware is almost the middle ground between my own system build from scratch and a system in which how I like things to be almost doesn't matter...

Well, if it we're my choice, yes... There's nothing more easy to maintain, in my mind, actually.. Ohh, and there is SalixOS as a desktop-prepared version .. (binary-compatible with Slackware and all that, basically an extention)

Anyway, with Slackware out of your choices, I would recommend to give openSuSE a try.. Really, as a desktop I like Mint, but if it we're to be something that should fit both desktop and server and not Slackware, then SuSE... It also has that easy to config thingy of his which last I used made quite an impression (YaST, I think)

I think a lot of people would disagree with you on that. I think the odds are low that most of the people would do well with a new Linux desktop they never used before, if it was Slackware or Arch.

Judging by what you have posted already, I think you might do well to follow Debian unstable (sid). In my experience (and many others), it is more stable than testing, and significantly less boring than stable. You get a good rolling release, updated packages, and access to tons of readily available software in the repos. A friend of mine has had the same installation of Debian sid going for several years, without reinstalling. I think he updates/upgrades once or twice a month.

Slackware has been with me for over 10 years. I see no reason to change it as my main.

I use LFS/BLFS as well, but only to continually rebuild and test it for sh*ts and giggles. I'm going to start using FakeRoot style package management so I can actually keep a rolling release going.

Slackware and LFS provide me with level sanity in a Linux world that seems to be trying to go in 10 different directions at once with no absolute goals in sight.

My 2 cents goes to Arch (currently using a derivative called Manjaro). The package manager and wiki are both top notch.

I am adverse to most distros that require a complete update to a new version as I always seem to have to perform
a large amount of touch ups afterwards (that's assuming the upgrade worked in the first place ... I have had a lot fail)

So Slackware and Arch type distros with rolling updates of individual products seem to work best for me.

While this thread is mildly old it's not yet stinky soo..

I won't use a distro that requires a full reinstall, I won't use Slackware because of the community, which leads to fewer choices. I'm much to anal to want anyone's pre-installed anything so really that leaves me with Gentoo and Arch. I can have a running GUI Arch install in ~20 minutes, my last escapade with Gentoo was at 6 hrs and I wasn't done yet so that kinda tampered my desires for that. So I just stick with Arch.

Debian 1 Blu-ray or 3 DVDs even 8 or more CDs [plus non-frees for poor hardware choices] -
Jessie or Wheezy maybe even Sid ("danger, Will Robinson, danger,") after a netinst!

Slackware comes with Xfce and just about as much software to be fully functional not just as a server, but a desktop, and a build system. Once you learn Slackware, you'll learn the true fundamentals of GNU/Linux and be better prepared for other distributions that don't teach these principles.

Antix Taught me. Meta package installer has KDE, XFCE, pretty much any Desktop you wish.
apt-get,aptitude,wajig, what ever your druthers are.
smxi, inxi,sgfxi, plus cool custom team scripts.

I have a AntiX 11 Base iso install on a Emachine 3507 wireless Desktop that purrs on Fluxbox and Huffs and Puffs on KDE. Still current on Sid.

Debian Stable, Testing, or Unstable is the choices for repos on the installer.

If Wanting a no brainer. MX-14 comes with XFCE. If not liking Qupzilla. Install another browser from the Meta Package installer.

AntiX is 32 or 64 bit. Comes in core (build your own),base (fluxbox), or full isos (Icewm,Fluxbox,JWM, .

MX-14 is 32 bit only. Based on Debian Stable with some AntiX massaging feathered with Mepis repos.

Both MX-14 and AntiX fit on 1 CD.

64bit bit AntiX flies like the wind on my IBM M57 wireless Desktop Computer.

I guess I am a AntiX fanboy just like the Slackers,Archers, Debianites,Puppyians,Gentooers,BSD'rs,SolydXK'ers,Xubuntians,MepisLovers,CentO'ers,RedHatters, Fedorians,and anyone else I forgot to mention, (sorry-my bad ) in this forum,

Right now I am trying SolydX, just for fun. No crippling bugs, but a good amount of little buglets that will probably get resolved when the cows come home. Buglets mostly related to lightdm and xfce, but they won't get solved in-distro. That's the problem with these lesser known "quick" distros, as I mentioned before.

Next I'm going to be trying Scientific Linux, but the reviews for that don't look so hot.

^ This guy seemed to like it pretty well:

http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/s...linux-6-5.html

tl;dr... stable, if somewhat boring for desktop users...

Stella would be a good choice, too.

Slackware would have been my first choice. Failing that, Debian Sid.

What do you mean by this?

What do you think it means?

If i knew i wouldn't have asked.
I can only infer that you think Slackware needs to be reinstalled to upgrade. I have no idea what you mean by the community leads to fewer choices.