Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
View Poll Results: Which one would you recommend ?
My advice: Try them both and see which suits you best.
Everyone's tastes are different and sometimes even the subtlest of aspects may put you off a distro. For me it was that Arch don't have a crypto-signing mechanism for their packages.
I have used both and I like both very well. I do like pacman and have chosen to stick with Arch over the last several months anyway, but I still boot up Slackware every once in a while. If you do not have an internet connection, I'd go with Slackware. It's a great OS and it's very stable. You can always download packages from slackbuilds.org and save them to USB to install on your machine later. Just my 2 cents
I knew some one would say so, but both these distros require huge amount of time to set up. That's why i preferred to know which one should i prefer to start with.
And i do want to start LFS soon, will my choice of arch or slack effect it ?
If you do not have an internet connection, I'd go with Slackware. It's a great OS and it's very stable. You can always download packages from slackbuilds.org and save them to USB to install on your machine later. Just my 2 cents
Thanks, but i was attracted towards Arch as it doesn't have even a GUI installed by default, it would have proved to be a great learning curve !
I've never tried Arch (yet), but it is a rolling release, which means more dependent on a constant internet connection. Try dual-booting both of them, eh?
I knew some one would say so, but both these distros require huge amount of time to set up. That's why i preferred to know which one should i prefer to start with.
Actually, Slack doesn't take as much effort as you might think.
I knew some one would say so, but both these distros require huge amount of time to set up.
Slackware is relatively quick to install and setup. Arch does take time to get your DE running etc. The actual install to your CLI doesn't take very long at all though
Actually, Slack doesn't take as much effort as you might think.
It does if you're not planning on performing full installs and would like just the "base system" (AAA or somesuch? haven't used Slackware in a while) + programs you directly use and their dependencies.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.