If you do install it, ask any questions in the Slackware forum here. Loads of experts there, all of them know more than me.

1 members found this post helpful.

Well one more off topic question:

I am not a system administrator but I am interested in knowing the core of Linux.

I am planning to install Slack and do LFS solely due to my interest in Linux.

but

Can i also add this to my resume, will it help somehow ? as by profession i am a programmer.

Hello Anisha,

From my personal point of view, every relevant thing you can put on a resume can improve the impression it has on future employers. However listing experiences with distinct distros in my opinion doesn't add any value. Companies are more looking to specific knowledge when reviewing a resume, for example high availability, reduncancy, distributed storage and things like that appeal nowadays a lot more then a list of distros you have experience with and which will hardly be used by the larger companies (most of them use RedHat, Debian, OpenSUSE, the big boys).

What would give you an advantage mentioning LFS, Arch, Slackware, is if you are referring to it to indicate troubleshooting skills in my opinion.

Just my

Kind regards,

Eric

1 members found this post helpful.

Without internet connection it doesn't make sense to install a "rolling release" distro like Arch IMHO. Apart from that, I'd definitely go with Arch, it's probably one of the best documented distros (wiki, forum), and the community is friendly and very helpful. Print out the beginners guide and you won't have much trouble installing Arch.

1 members found this post helpful.

I have both on the laptop I'm posting from (also Debian Lenny and Sid). For me, Arch was a little more difficult to install, but if I was forced to choose between the two, I would choose Arch. I really like the rolling release.

Without an internet connection, however, Slackware wins hands-down, IMHO. I think you will have less difficulty keeping packages current. My

1 members found this post helpful.

Yes. That's a fair point. As much as I like Slackware, if someone wants a minimal install, I'd be inclined to point towards Arch or debian. It can be done on Slackware with some care, but the 'full' install is really the recommended way to run Slackware.

Slackware. The rolling release nature of Arch is too buggy and unstable. You could run Slackware as a production distro, Arch, I don't think so.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks for the enlightenment, Eric

chilebiker, brucehinrichs, naikon89

Thanks to all of you for giving informative replies

Which have you chosen?

I have chosen Slackware but still i am worried about the version i am having i.e. 12.2

I don't know whether it is very stable or not ?
I don't want to get in some mess at the very starting point !

Yes, it's stable. It's still maintained with security patches.

1 members found this post helpful.

Eric,

Kindly explain in more detail the terms "high availability and redundancy" In what context you are talking ?

I think i have guessed wrong that's why i am asking !

12.2 rocks bro

just make sure you have SLackBuilds setup and src2pkg
what desktop?
xfce?

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks,

Off-topic:
When we say "It's still maintained with security patches.", is this related to viruses/hackers or unstable softwares ?