My point was that if you are a Gentoo or Slackware user you will have much more to do when you do your maintenance if you include system updates.
I did overreacted a little with my statement, but the point was to show how much different can be the maintenance between distros like Mint or Ubuntu with other more advanced user distros like Gentoo or Slackware.

I should have included "if you are an update freak" in my line. Let's face it. Updating Ubuntu or Mint is normally resumed to one mouse click action. The same cannot be said about Gentoo or Slackware.

I guess my line did sound like "you are going to have problems every day", so it was an unhappy one, since it was not what I've meant.

Hi,

Well said!

But, how many times has that one click turned to multiple interactions when the system is broken? If you break something in upgrading or installation when in Slackware then you had better know what's going on. Recovery is not difficult as long as you step back in order completely.

As an example, I have been working to get 'X' working for a 'Dell 1501' laptop. Sure, 'X' would work but getting the 'ATI Xpress 200M' controller to do direct render has been a pain. I'm no 'X'pert but know my OS. In trouble shooting I had inadvertently left a state which I thought had been reverted. Well, this thing was starring at me but oversight. Spinning wheels and such. Another pair of eyes awakened me to the mistake. How many experts would be available to you when you run into problems with *buntu?

My point is to get into the intrinsic aspects of setting something up are very important. Slackware, you had better know where, what and when. With *buntu or the like you had better know when to re-install.

Security, software bugs or improvements are handled well with Slackware. If memory serves me the updates are still back to 8.
Live updates are nothing but nightmares!

So my operating Slackware installs merrily go along and provide a stable, solid operating system.

Agreed. I also find easier to maintain a Gentoo system than an Ubuntu or even Debian.

The advantage of my system is that I have full confidence that I can solve any problem, since I know my system like I known my hands. I know, every single package on my Gentoo box since I've compiled and configured all. Every single feature that it has it was my choice.

On Ubuntu every time I want to change a configuration file, there's a line saying "#Do not Edit this file directly" denoting an automatic configuration tool somewhere.

Automatic configuration tools don't give me the same raw power as edit the confs files. So my normal knowledge on how to fix a Linux box normally doesn't apply.

I know that If I change today to Slackware or Arch or even LFS(I already tried the 3), I will be like a fish in water after a few days. The same I can't say with more automated distros.

My distros are solid and stable as I like them to be. I have CentOS on one box, Debian on another, a hardened Gentoo server, and a Gentoo desktop. Each one I've made very different decisions and have very different maintenance. I don't upgrade my server every day, or every week, or even every month. On the other hand I do like the latest KDE on my desktop, and also the latest kernels. That's because I maintain several programming projects and I like them to compile with no trouble with the latest gcc, Qt libraries, etc.

Hi,

Bleeding edge is not Leading edge.

Seriously though, if you want to use something that's under works and beta for fun then that's OK by me. But, if you are testing on production machines then that is on you.

There's loads of people (mostly newbies) that get trapped by utilizing such things on machines and wonder why things get broke. I for one don't upgrade that often but when a new Slackware major release is made then that's another story. I will install '-current' on a bench machine to play with and will note when any upgrade is necessary. Sure, security changes are made when necessary. I've got some running IBM 760 that are still running 10/10.2/11 as controllers. Running is the key for these old girls.

I heard that Slackware does not have any GUI configuration tools and so it is much harder to use, and that it is the least Windows-like and the most UNIX-like, so I was a little afraid at first, but I tried it before and it was great! I did not find that it lacked a single tool that I often use (I guess it turns out I used the UNIX command-line way from the start, in fact the first time I tried Linux and stuck with it instead of giving up in a few days was that I spent all day reading how to use the command-line!).

But I ended up switching back to Fedora because I really, really missed a way to install packages with dependencies, and Fedora just released 12 anyway. I also once tried to install Gentoo, but emerge got hung up installing the kernel. I also looked into LFS, but it is still probably a little to advanced for me.

One day I will write a book in how I've became a(n almost)"Linux Guru" in about one month. It involves LFS for those who are curious. Of course my previous area of expertise did help.
Now seriously, I bet that after you've tried Slackware you found Fedora much easier. Give LFS a try for a month, and I garantee to you that after, you will find Gentoo a newbies playground.

You are absolutely correct. I have a rule of thumb about production machines. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it"(citation needed). I have enough already to be worried about. On websites(not my own), I even don't fix critical security patches, if I feel that they are not a risk in the current configuration. I did have one website cracked one time(shame), but it was completely my fault(I've permitted password logins on ssh, and didn't put a very strong password).