"truer linux", slackware or arch
 

hi im a newbie to linux. i just installed a fedora 7 on my pc a month ago.
i find it a bit ridiculous that fedora actually takes up more time to boot than the windows xp on the same pc(im still dual booting until i can finally live without windows). so i looked around my fedora installation, and i noticed that there are too many programs installed in it(e.g. it has 2 msgr clients, pidgin and kopete). so what i want now is to really learn linux so i could "build" my own system and optimize hardware resources. i am currently deciding between arch and slackware.

here's the question (finally):
pacman aside, is arch as true to linux as slackware?
what i mean is, suppose i learn the "arch way" of doing things, would i be learning the "linux way" of doing things? or is slackware "truer to linux" and therefore teaches the "linux way" better in this sense?

thanks in advance.

I find Gentoo to be the best do-it-yourself/full-customization. Great forums, great handbook, endless options all set by hand in .conf files. I love it : )

as a linux noob a hardcore installation like gentoo or slackware or arch or debian or whatever can be a very steep learning curve. best way to learn some say. i disagree. using a more noobish distro can allow you to skip over some annoying problems allowing you to get used to the OS like installing apps, uninstalling, troubleshooting installations, configuring startup options etc. Especially if you have a dual boot setup with windows, its very easy to just give up if its too hard

@visaris
Looked around gentoo some time ago. Although the optimization brought about by compiling the system own pc was a big turn on, I don't think i can handle the waiting time for it. Also Im afraid of where gentoo might be going, hearing some things about their developers. Anyway, thanks for taking time.

@themanwhowas
you're right. actually ive given that some thought. but i figured, i might as well try and give up than not try at all. anyway, i could easily install windows and fedora 7 again and again in case i blew up something with the hardcore installs.

I don't think I'd consider Debian a "hardcore" distro.

Regardless, I guess it really doesn't matter, Gentoo, Slack, Arch, they are all gonna require a fair amount of user configuring, etc.

IGF

My first distro was slackware and I have stuck with it. It is not nearly as difficult to manage as people make out. True, you may have to configure xorg.conf but this only requires some basic knowledge about your hardware. My opinion is that slackware is in a way easier because the configuration is more transparent. There is some excellent help available on the slackware forum here.

Be ready to read and you'll be fine.

Slackware isn't all that difficult to get going, there's plenty of help in the documentation - i.e. CHANGES_AND_HINTS.TXT. If I can do it, anybody can.
:D
I've not tried Arch and Gentoo (yet!), but they seem to be a couple of rungs up the difficulty ladder from Slack.

if theres too many applications installed why change distros ? just uninstall what you don't want....

One reason I like the Debian distro. Can do a base install that is really bare bones. then build by installing just what you want.

Just FYI, you can always do a custom install with your FC7, you don't have to accept defaults.
You can also use the Add/Remove progs menu to remove stuff.
Finally (!) under the GUI is the full cmd line (CLI), avail via the (x) terminal option.
You can do everything by hand from there if you want....

If you want to "build" your own system go with Cross Linux from Scratch. Ig you can read, you can get it installed and running. You might not understand everything you're doing the first time, but you'll learn.

Linux is Linux, The biggest difference is in the Package Manager Or lack of one. Installing from source, live-cd, net-install, or having a complete cd set only has to do with getting it installed.

If you really want to learn Linux, get a distro installed what ever you like, and with whatever package manager you like. Get into the command line and start doing your work there. And once you get comfortable with it you will be able to use any linux. Some will disagree with me on this because of the gui front end but the time will come when the command line will be your only means of getting a system up and running.

Just throwing in my two cents, but my advice would be some kind of middle-of-the-road distro.

For the sake of being highly-compatible and to "just work", distributions like Fedora and Ubuntu tend to be a bit slower, as you've noticed. On the other end of the spectrum, distros like Gentoo (which I recommend after learning an intermediate level distro, not because gentoo is so great but because you're forced to learn how to do things that you'd never have to learn on a lot of distros, but there are plenty of alternatives to gentoo that do this as well) are leaner, at the expense of your time (is it worth an hour of your time for X to boot 3 seconds faster?)

I suggest something more intermediate, like Debian. I'm not altogether that up to date on distributions, but I'm sure there are others out there like Debian that are a nice blend of "sleek, only what you need" and "doesn't require constant TLC to stay up".

hehe! lots of replies but im afraid my question was misunderstood?

what i mean in a "truer linux" is this --- suppose i learn arch or slackware if you wish, how much of that knowledge would you consider to be "linux way" and thus can be used for other distributions?

im asking this question so that i can choose which one to learn. that way, maximizing what i learn of linux.
(i hope someone gets what im saying. im running out of english.)

thanks anyway for the previous replies. seems like slackware users are very friendly people.

I do not knoaw about Arch. Slackware is said to be a very pure form of linux. It is said that if you learn a distro you know that distro. If you learn slackware, you'll know linux. My guess is that if you learn slackware you will not want to bother with any other distro.