Slackware versus Archlinux
 

I have a Dvd of Slackware as well as an Iso image of Arch.

All i know about the difference between Slackware and Arch is the stability, i.e. Slackware is more stable than Arch !

Is that all or there is some other difference which should be considered ?

Which one out of the above two, should i go for and why ?

If you recommend any of the two, be kind enough to state the reasons too !!

Hello Anisha,

I've been using Slackware for almost a year now and am very satisfied with it. I didn't vote however because I haven't had the occasion to try Arch yet. But I came across this site which explains some of the basic differences.

Arch Compared to Other Distributions

Kind regards,

Eric

Thanks for bothering, Eric

I don't have an internet connection at home. Therefore i do not want the package manager of some distribution to start downloading packages from the net.

In short i want to preserve tar or rpm files of the soft-wares i need.

I have heard Slackware doesn't have a package manager ? Does this mean we have to download tar files from the net and install them from source ?

I voted Slackware, but I only used Arch for a few days in the past. I'll probably give it a try in the near future.

Hi,

Slackware does have a lot of tools to update, upgrade, install packages, such as slackpkg, pkgtool, and others (Slackware Package Management). There even are tools that connect to repos like SlackBuilds.org (although I'm not familiar with them).

Since you state you don't have an internet connection at home, I'd go with Slackware which updates very little (stable, not -current for as far as I know). You could download the software packages and dependencies you need at another location and install them at home at your convenience. As stated before I'm still a 'newbie' at Slackware so I imagine that other users will kick in pretty soon ;)

For what I read about Arch (no experience with it), it's bleeding edge and does lot's of updates on a very frequent base (rolling release), which in my opinion doesn't mean you have to update but in not doing so you'll take away one of the specific's of Arch.

Kind regards,

Eric

it has package manager,though it wont check dependencies for you.

Thanks to all of you for replying !

If i need to install Vlc player, not through the package manager though, will it be easier on arch or slack ?
Vlc has lot of codecs which i think need to be downloaded separately ? Am i wrong ?
Or installing Vlc on any distro will require the same efforts (Without internet) ?

Aha, Player! With Slackware you download it from Alien Bob's site, with Arch you just use package manager. However, MPlayer is better in extreme cases.

With Arch, you install MPLayer using the package manager, with Slackware it is preinstalled.

However, with some hardware MPlayer may work better on Arch due to its newer X server.

Thanks to you,

You mean we can download a tar/rpm of vlc player which includes all its codecs or do we have to install codecs separately ?

In Arch, you inly install what you need.

And its package manager handles dependencies.

It also has non-free codecs and Flash available in its repositories.

Thanks Mtk

but i specified earlier i don't have an internet, will i be able to install every software from tar or rpm in it ? If i do so, will i face dependency problems ?

Hi,

When using Arch, since it comes with it's package manager that takes care of dependencies, you'd have to be sure that all dependencies are fulfilled yourself when installing manual (without internet).

When using Slackware, you'll know what you need up front since you're the one who has to take care of the dependencies, hence you'll download and install the dependencies before the package itself.

Kind regards,

Eric

May i am dumb but what i understand from the above two statements is that in any case i have to make sure that dependencies are properly installed !!

If i am wrong kindly do bother to explain !

Eric Hameleers (Alien Bob) has two packages for VLC:

http://connie.slackware.com/~alien/slackbuilds/vlc/

http://slackware.org.uk/people/alien...ackbuilds/vlc/

This explains the difference:
http://connie.slackware.com/~alien/s...D_PACKAGES.TXT

Get libdvdcss from Eric's site(s) too.

Thanks brian,

i didn't download the packages right now. but i would like to ask whether all the codecs supported by vlc are included in the tar balls or they have to be downloaded and installed separately ?

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 :)

Thanks Gazl,

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 ?

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 !

Everything's included. All you have to do is run, as root:
That applies to any Slackware package, installpkg filename. Easy, huh?

Slackware boots by default into runlevel 3, no X, no GUI.

Thanks brian, that was a relief !

Can't do such things in Arch ?

Ok it means learning Linux will be same irrespective of whether i install arch or slack ??

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?

Offtopic:

I am not a native english speaker:
Do words like "huh" and "eh" denote scarsism ?

I've never actually timed it, but installing Slack doesn't take long.

No, not sarcasm.
Huh? and Eh? = Don't you think so? (more or less). Or:
Eh? = I can't believe you just said that.
Depends on context.

:)

Actually, Slack doesn't take as much effort as you might think.

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

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.

A full install would take less time than a selective one.

Hi Anisha,

You are correct, any which way you want to go, you need the dependencies installed properly. That's what in Arch is taken care of by pacman and what you do yourself in Slackware usually. Not using the automated way teaches you a lot about what depends on what. And since you say you plan on starting LFS, that's a great learning experience also (finished the LFS book myself little over a week and going through BLFS now, which really is an experience).

Kind regards,

Eric

Yes, which is what I've said, thanks.

Ah yes, sorry. I misread your post. :doh:

Thanks for the clarification, Though i was offended as i assumed it to be sarcasm ! I was about to PM you for ...

Thanks to all of you for bothering to reply !

When I said Slack and arch do take a lot of time to get installed, I meant that it would take time to :

install the GUI,
install the chm reader
install media players
install adobe reader
configure sound system
install gtkpod
etc...

If most of you think that installing all the above would not consume much effort and time then kindly let me know your opinions.

I promise to put a :rolleyes: in future posts when I intend to be sarcastic.
:)

Thanks for the clarification, Eric

If you say that manual installation and manually checking the dependencies teaches a lot then i think Slack would be better for me.

Actually i thought i could learn more from Arch as I've heard the configuration files need to modified every time you want to configure something on it.

Indirectly you are promising to hurt me in future posts then ? :D
Well that will be good for me, I'll learn that way what to say and what not to say ! :)

Several desktop environments are included in a full install of Slack.
chm reader: think there are packages and/or SlackBuilds.
Installing media players is easy: ready made packages or SlackBuilds
for most of them.
I haven't bothered with Adobe reader, usually use Okular (comes with KDE).
Configure sound system? Easy.
gtkpod? Probably package and/or SlackBuild.

Many thanks for the information !

If you want to try Slack, hang on and wait for 13.1 coming out. It shouldn't be long now.

Actually i already have the dvd of slack 12.2 that's why i was thinking of installing it. IMO i'll have to download the iso of Slack 13.1 from net which will take about 2-3 days and moreover i don't have a net connection !

Ah, well, 12.2 is OK, it's still supported with security updates, etc. No problem.

12.2 Slack DVD, I got free with Linux For you magazine, I am not seeing their magazine's latest issues on their home page now a days ?

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

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 :twocents:

Kind regards,

Eric

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.

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 :twocents: