Slackware vs. Debian
 

I tried googling this topic but I didn't have any really good results.

I was wondering in your opinions which distro would be better for me, Debian or Slackware.

-> I would like a fast and efficient OS
-> I would like to be able to keep it up-to-date, obviously apt-get would help here, I would also like to use a new (stable) kernel, I've heard that Woody uses an old one compared to Slackware
-> I would like to be able to do video-editing (multimedia support)
-> I have no problems using a console or "getting my hands dirty"
-> I would like to be able to upgrade the OS version easily, I've heard that upgrading to the new version of Slackware requires basically a new install, but Debian just requires an apt command
-> I would like to be in control (for the most part) of my OS

Based on these critera what OS do you think would be best suited for me needs? Currently I'm running a version of Slackware, but I'm wondering if Debian is in my future.

"I've heard that upgrading to the new version of Slackware requires basically a new install, but Debian just requires an apt command"

That's not true, read UPGRADE.TXT on CD1.

tbh, debian vs slackware is a tough call, debian tends to use stable but often old versions of things, while slackware uses the newest versions of stuff.

Apart from that there is little between them.

So is apt a reason to switch to Debian?I would like to use the new versions of tools, stable but new.

If you need a package manager that'll do what apt does then t's probably a reason, but slackware has a package system that works just fine;

So you think I should just stick with Slackware, because its not much different than Debian?

Re: Slackware vs. Debian
 

Originally posted by Garibaldi3489
I tried googling this topic but I didn't have any really good results.

I was wondering in your opinions which distro would be better for me, Debian or Slackware.

-> I would like a fast and efficient OS
Slack
-> I would like to be able to keep it up-to-date, obviously apt-get would help here, I would also like to use a new (stable) kernel, I've heard that Woody uses an old one compared to Slackware
Debian - you can upgrade kernels on either
-> I would like to be able to do video-editing (multimedia support)
Either - or neither. :)
-> I have no problems using a console or "getting my hands dirty"
Either, but Slack
-> I would like to be able to upgrade the OS version easily, I've heard that upgrading to the new version of Slackware requires basically a new install, but Debian just requires an apt command
Not true for Slack, but maybe Debian is still easier there
-> I would like to be in control (for the most part) of my OS
Slack

Based on these critera what OS do you think would be best suited for me needs? Currently I'm running a version of Slackware, but I'm wondering if Debian is in my future.

Basically, yes, Debian has better package management if you want a more automatic thing and a large repository of pre-compiled packages. I find any package management system (but Slack's, if that counts) confusing as hell, personally, and prefer a lot of source and the occasional tgz.

I find Slack faster, more efficient, cleaner, and feel more in control of it than anything other than LFS. Based on your criteria, it sounds like Slack might have the edge unless Deb's package management is really the deciding factor for you.

But this is *just* me and just my *opinion* based on a lot of Slackware use and only some Debian use.

Thanks alot, that's really helpful! I am going to stick with Slackware. BTW, do you know of an app that will "officially" register programs installed from source so they can be updated with swaret?

Hm. I'm not sure how swaret works, since I don't use it, but I assume it checks /var/log/packages to do its thing? Then checkinstall is the thing you want. It's in /extra, I believe. Like I say, not sure how it would work with swaret, but it's what I use for source.

Why Debian?
Policy.

I have switched to Debian from Fedora core and I've never regretted it for one moment, because Debian feels much more comfortable with its package management. Installing/uninstalling programs was hell in an RPM based environment.

However, I cannot comment on Slackware because I haven't used it at all, but from all that people tell me, Slackware and Debian are approximately equals in the Linux world.

i agree completely with digiot. slack allows more control by hand. debian is intended to be configured by interactive scripts (you can do it by hand but some things get back to debian mold during reboot if you don´t make sure they don´t).
however, i use debian now since for me it´s faster to try all fancy linux stuff with it.

checkinstall will turn a source installed program to a package

>> I've heard that upgrading to the new version of Slackware requires basically a new install
if you want to upgrade slack7 to slack10, then yes it would be easier to do a fresh install. if 9.1 to 10 or 10 to current - no problem here.

>> I would like a fast and efficient OS
i dont feel any difference in performance.

>> I would like I would also like to use a new (stable) kernel, I've heard that Woody uses an old one compared to Slackware

you can be as bleeding edge as you want using Sid(unstable) or be in the middle - Sarge(testing). besides nothing stopping you from compiling any kernel you want.

>> I would like to be in control (for the most part) of my OS
you have control in both distros. but debian and slack have different concepts on controlling stuff :)
personally i find slack "cleaner". the packages structure(/a , /ap, /n etc...) is clear and easy to understand.
package tools as simple as they get.
i like slacks init system - simple and readable. having separate directories for each runlevel in debian with a bunch of symlinks where one symlink strarts a process, another one kills... well, that doesnt make things easier for me. .
If you look through slacks's build scripts, you will see that Pat doesnt alter software in any way. I mean to enable mod_php in apache on slack you just edit the httpd.conf. in debian you use apache-modconf util...
compiling kernel the debian-way? i dont use precompiled kernels, i always build one which is on a separate /boot and never gets mounted and im not planning to apt-get a new one so why change something that just works.

I was slackhappy. but reiser4 crashed... and now im using debian. i have a sucky 64kbps international and 640kbps-1.2mbps connection within my country with 3 local debian repositories with all the software...
well sure you have linuxpackages and swaret(dont use it, it *DOES* brake things) but its not debians repos and apt-get. and in the end its pretty much ./configure && make && checkinstall + google for deps and if it still doesnt compile - you have to tweak around if still no go - fsck it :rolleyes:

Slack and debian are different. Slack is nice in one way, debian in another. If i have to reinstall again i dont really know...
If slack works for you - why fix something thats not broken.
Just my :twocents:

Tried Debian for a week before switching back to Slackware 10 with kernel 2.4.26
Debian is no match for Slack, sorry, neither at speeds nor in performance

interactive scripts are nice for making things simpler unless you know where to go to modify a conf file.

Thanks for your long reply, its very helpful. For using checkinstall do you just use that during your regular src install, ./configure, make, then checkinstall, and then it makes a tgz package which I can install with kpackage?

Do you have any benchmarks or anything or could you just tell that Debian was slower.

yes. you use "checkinstall" instead of "make install" . (default action is "make install" but if software you are compiling requires a different action - then use "checkinstall whatever_that_different_action_is")
checkinstall installs that software, makes an entry in /var/log/packages so you can remove/upgrade it using slackwares package tools.+ it makes a .tgz package you can use to reinstall that app or install it on a different pc.

i know this thread is old, but I stumbled across it. I just think that Arch Linux is just about exactly what the original poster is looking for. It's not obfuscated at ALL (think /etc/init.d/ startup instead of deb's lovely array of confusion), it's lightwieght, easily configurable, and has an EXCELLENT package manager.

Really, I don't know why it's not more popular. Well kind of. If you install it off the 0.6 or pre0.7 iso, do a CD install, and update your system and add packages later.

The Arch idea isn't a bad one. Sounds like it is just what you are after. If you want a quick view of life with post-install Debian, try Ubuntu.

Well... You can upgrade everything in Slackware using Swaret... Weekly I upgrade my Slackware with any problem or issue... Swaret will donwload, remove old package, install the new one and look for dependencies...

Slackware has a great control for everything... you have many packages options and can install .tgz, .rpm and .deb,

Slackware has a great community...

Slackware is the finest Linux ever... the first one and with great compatibility with others Unix systems...

But, this is a discussion that who likes one votes in this one...

Slackware was choosed as the distro of the year here in Brazil... but Debian is a great rival, nor like Fedora and Mandrale that are a miles and miles behind....

ahhh... and Slackware has more users here.... hehehh

Sure it's nice, but I don't really like it since it tried once to downgrade my system. But than I found another one - SlaclUpdate (http://128.173.184.249/slackupdate/). It works fine and it made me write my own script for update ;)

enjoy

swaret <shudder>

If you like to configure stuff by hand, the use Slackware. If not, use something else. It always seems like stuff just works right in Slack. Using my palm worked easily in Slack. In Debian, it seg faults on me. But Debian is so easy to install software and keep things up to date and Slack has nothing as powerful. So there are pros and cons. Try them.

just my .02, you will never get the answer you are looking for... A slackware person is just that, a slackware person. A debian person is just that a debian person.

so you will have two opinions.. Slackware all the way.. or debian all the way.

I've used both and I think slackware is the way to go always. Debian has its fine points but i feel slackware has more of those fine points.

and based on the citeria you mentioned... either one will give the results you are looking for.

Slackware is far easier to use. Package management is good when it works but compiling from source is more straightforward. One still has to install a few things from source, like Mplayer. Besides, using the computer is to do something with it, not to comment on its features. In this respect, one has to spend much more time to get a Debian system working than Slackware.

With Slackware, changing files manually is made very easy by the instructions given in them. And then, a few other 'niggles' such as starting services, which, although not difficult, is not as easy to do as in Slackware.

However, if one is a Gnome person, there is some advantage in using Debian, as I have done the hard way, and regret it. Nothing worked initially. DMA had to be enabled with a kernel compile. But I guess, once all this is over, one gets a system that is never to be reinstalled.

Ubuntu is a nice way to put Debian. Install with Ubuntu and then install software from Debian. There was very little trouble in doing so.

I am getting a powerbook soon and hope not touch Debian, but will probably end up using Debian anyway because of four cds sitting here, and the goodness of a configured system.

Slackware is good, but probably more suited for users who want a lighter system with less programs and who will probably not be doing much updating. Personally I don't find anything in Slackware that would want me to convert from Debian to Slackware.

Debian is good, but more suited for users who will want to try out new programs, uninstall and install software frequently and who want to keep their system updated often (using the "testing" branch or "sid" branch).

Both are rock solid, stable distributions with sound official policies and solid user communities.