I just downlaoded two Linux Distributions, Debian and Slackware. I heard alot of good things about both but I got an impression that Slackware was more..up to date. Anyways, Debian comes on 7 CD's and Slackware on 3 CD's, would that mean that :

Debian is bloated ?
or
Debian contains more useful tools & apps ?

If the second one is true then I guess Debian makes better desktop OS, what do you think ? ( I'am about to switch from Win XP Prof. 2002 ver. )

The second.... the full set of debian CD's ship with 3000 odd apps and libraries.
Most likely you'll only really need the first one or two, since you can install everything else directly from one of debians apt mirrors...

Yikes. As far as the Debian CDs are concerned, you only need the first one. The packages on the CDs are out of date (the CDs came out well over a year ago) so after you install the distribution, your going to have to download new software updates. The reason Debian has more CDs is that it includes more software packages as part of its distribution. If they came out with a new version today, it would be more than 7 CDs. I can't comment on Slackware, but from what other people write, I would say that you can't go wrong from using either one. Debian's installer is a pain though. Last year, I read that someone was trying to port Anaconda over to Debian to smooth out the install process, but I think the project died down. An alternate method of installing is to install Knoppix(which is based on Debian) and then upgrade your sytem to Debian. If you have never installed Linux before this might be a better option because using the regular installer requires you to know all the drivers that your system will need.

It means Debian comes with 7 CDs and Slack comes with (3?) 2. What I mean by that is that you only need one to install either of them, really. And you can load either of them up as much as you want or cut them both down. The *tendency* is for Slack to be slimmer but it's making a fine desktop for me. Debian just misleads you into thinking you have to download a whole lot more. If you've already got them both, install them both and find out.

Oh, but yeah, Slackware is definitely more up to date. An abacus is more up to date. (That, too, can be fixed, though.)

I think that in general slack is more unix like and when you're trying to get help you can get more "here, this will work" help rather then "you go into this gui and look around. Oh, you want to do something that isn't there? Uh, ask someone else."

It is also "more stable" alough my slack is definantly not stable in kde. If you choose a bulky but pretty desktop environment like me then you'll have troubles occasionally. The base slackware is awesome, if you're willing to work at it if you want to do something that is not so simple of a task.

If you load either you'll have a functional linux. If you load debian you'll have a ton of software on top of that. If you load slackware you'll have to go out and find the software(making a decision on your own about which is best for the task) and get to customlize stuff a little more.

can someone tell me if you have to use .deb packages to install in debian or can you also install from source. I would assume you can, but I'd hate to assume.

I don't see why its not possible

So the feeling that I'am getting from all this is that Debian is slightly more out of date and the reason for the 7 cd's is inclusion of additional software. With slackware I will most likelly have to install additional software separatelly and it;s more up to date.

Hmm, kinda sounds like Slackware wins ( now If I can only install it ).

Sigh.... the software ON THE CD'S is out of date.

If you want up to date packages you get them from testing or unstable. (Testing, as of the time of writing this, is basically rock solid and will soon become the stable branch)

I use unstable (otherwise known as sid) on my desktop and have never had reason to complain.

Downloading all 7 cd's was basically a waste of time, all you needed was the first, enough to get a basic system going, which can then be painlessly upgraded to testing or unstable, installing any and all required packages directly from the net.

I was ferering to software contained on the cd's of the stable version in All posts.

I'd go for Debain, use the frst cd and get everything from the net..
I haven't used Slackware since late 98 or so.... So i'm a bit out-dated there..

Debain works fine and They're working on the new installer...
*saw some screenshots of it here the other day*
I even out one of them as my desktop at school... *laughs* Guess if the teacher was wondering what i had running in the background...... )

Anyway, if you're thinking in the terms of outdated software on cd's then all cd's are outdated..
There's always some new thing fixed

Dude - trust me, Slackware is NOT hard to install. I've tried several different distros, and Slack was no harder nor easier overall than any other distro. Why it seems to be stuck with that rep is beyond me. The only difference between Slack and everything else is that the Slack menus are pretty primitive looking, rather than the fancy graphics that so many other distros use, and that with Slack you will need to do a small amount of typing (such as specifying which mountpoint should be associated with each partition instead of selecting it from a drop-down list like in Redhat). But there really is nothing hard about it. Give it a shot, I think you will be impressed by the end results. -- J.W.

Tried installing slackware today, could not finalize it 'couse my 2nd. CD is corrupted but I really have to say that the installation process, as crude as it is was completelly painless. I'am clueless as to why anyone would think this is difficult. You get hints about everything, it's fairly straight forward, just that the text based interface looks very intimidating to some at the first glance. Just in case I did a seach on google and printed out instructions ( with screenshots ) that someone posted on the net ( just in case - it was soupossed to be hard to do ).

I tried installing Debian ( after finding out that my second slackware CD is corrupted ) and I have to say that i found the install much harder to figure out and very confusing. Slackware seemed more...logical.

And this is from a guy that never in his life even saw a live screen with linux on it

The only problem I found was to get my USB mouse working

Did you get it working in the end?

*smiles*
Slackware was the first Linux i installed....
*goes too lok at the cd* Slakware 3.5 october 1995
It worked then and i'll guess it wil stil work

Go for what you like.. after all it's your pc