arch linux and slackware
 

whats the difference between these two? I've read about them and they seem pretty much the same to me.

They are really like the same. I can describe Arch as a Slackware with Pacman. Slackware doesn't have a package manager that handles dependencies. With Slackware you'll spend a lot more time installing and updating software, that's it. Other than this fact - it's hard to notice any real difference.

thanks

Arch is a rolling-release, you don't get Arch 6 or 7, etc. You install the latest release, then that is constantly updated - forever, hopefully. Slackware has two versions, the stable numbered release (now 13.37), and current. The stable release only gets security updates to its software, whereas current is where new software or newer versions of software are tested for the next release. Thats roughly it. :)

Not as obvious but a few things to consider documentation is amazing for arch not sure about slackware as I haven't used it in years but I'm guessing the community feeling is slightly different as with any distribution. Already mentioned but one of the best things about arch is always current and rolling released. Both require you read and learn a bit of what you are doing. Slackware is way older than arch if you're looking at length of time being around. Sorry for any typos writing this on my phone.

There's quite a lot of documentation out there for Slackware. See the link in my signature. Useful stuff for Linux in general, too.
I like Arch. Tried it a while ago in VirtualBox, and I've got ArchBang in VBox now.

cool will check out the link thanks Brian.

I have been using both for awhile now, and most of my ARCH installs sometimes "break" or something goes wrong with Pacman, especially if running testing, except for my ArchBang install, which has never broken so far.
So, IMO Slackware is far more stable than any other distro and gives the user the freedom to do whatever, and the big plus is that creating your own packages from source, etc on Slackware is much easier than other distros.

heres some stuff I read too
http://beej.us/blog/2009/12/arch-vs-slackware/

http://www.osnews.com/story/8761

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...ions#Slackware

Good articles you linked to, linus72. Thanks.

I like both.

When you install Slackware, you install a fully functional distribution with a complete software load. You may choose to add additional software and many Slackers do, but you have all you need to hit the ground running.

With Arch, you build your system piece-by-piece, installing only what you want. When you first install Arch, you have a terminal. It's up to you to install X, a window manager, etc.

I started with Slackware. From time to time I've strayed, but I've always come back.

With slack just do the 4GB install and you're ready to do most things. Including disconnect from a network.

With arch it's difficult (impossible) to add things unless you're connected and stay connected.

Being forced to stay connected raises flags for me. Constant updates can be a boon and a bane at the same time.

You can download repos.

I've kept my arch setup disconnected for almost a year went online read the announcements and updated accordingly. Not impossible or difficult but yes it does work better when online and you in general want to do the initial setup online but as mr alex said it's not required.

When I try a distro, I always run the main programs from a terminal to see what Bash has to say. The last time I tried Arch (2010), Firefox alone gave 23 warnings, 6 labeled critical. You don't get that in Slackware! As I said in my review, "After a day's work I had a GUI, 3 applications, and a dead Alt key."