There is a saying (paraphrased) 'Learn Redhat, and you learn Redhat; learn Slackware and you learn GNU/Linux'.

Some years ago, I had also seen a GNU/Linux or Slackware page that at the end had statements about various distributions at the time, like Slackware, Debian, Redhat or Fedora, Gentoo, etc. It said something like Slackware was oldest & best, and the rest said what each was considered best at, but then said that they actually have to use Slackware for what they are best at--something like, if it was a server distribution, it was not as secure, so the developers actually had to use Slackware for their site's server, or if it was a distribution that developed gcc (sort of like how Redhat was described), it was less stable, so the developers needed to use Slackware's gcc, or if it was a distribution where you could compile everything how you wanted (sort of like how Gentoo was described), it took too long to compile (or had bugs doing so), so the developers needed Slackware to compile their distribution, and so on, for every single major distribution (maybe almost 10 or more). Does anyone remember this, or have it written down or a link? I would just like to read it again, because it would be helpful in discussing with people who do not understand the #1 OS (of course not meant by popularity rather than quality, since what is popular is often actually crass).

As I said before, I used Slackware since 1997, now continually as a desktop for almost 10 years, and there is not much else I would be satisfied with, except maybe the oldest or some of the most oldest BSDs still being developed. However, one day, I do want to try Freeslack more, which is not a distribution, but a documentation project about how to run a completely Free/Libre version of Slackware, like with Linux-Libre... I tried it, and it did not work sufficiently for my video/graphics devices, which is also not something I really want to get into trying non-standard kernels for, or fixing right now, so I will continue to use official Slackware. I am a FSF member, but I still see enough value in Slackware that in recent years, I bought a t-shirt, donated, bought a Slackware DVD subscription. Nevertheless, what was said about the distributions I am asking about, I am sure I can say about all the FSF-approved distributions (from some first-hand experience, and the rest just knowing what they are based on).

I found myself appreciating Slackware's fullness again today.

One of the recent Linux Voice issues has an article about the smartctl disk monitoring tools. The article started with a description of how to install smartctl (to a Debian-based system).

I wandered over to one of Slackware boxes and, lo!, smartctl was already installed out-of-the box. I could start exploring it immediately.

Yes, that's one of the nice things about slackware: if its useful, chances are you already have it installed. Maybe not true for the larger, desktop apps, but it seems to be the case with the smaller cli utilities and such have you.

Isn't it potentially dangerous to have so much installed though? For example if apache is installed by default, but not configured to run, a malicious person can set apache running if they wish. I'm thinking along the lines of the old advice to remove compilation tools from servers so that an intruder has no way of compiling their exploits.
Genuine question, by the way, so if I'm thinking about this the wrong way please feel free to educate me. While I don't use Slackware day-to-day I'm very impressed by it and continue to play with it and count myself a a fan of the distribution.

Only if they already have root access, and if that's the case, it's already Game Over.

As if exploits are somehow difficult to compile elsewhere, or "compilation tools" are somehow difficult to obtain

The other side of the coin is that if you have a minimal system and something goes wrong, you don't have the tools to fix it. This happened to me at work when an old Debian minimalist server went down. I had to find workarounds for everything I needed to do because there were no tools installed on the machine. It was a royal pain. I managed to get it to a state where I could get data off of it and replaced it with a Slackware based machine.

1 members found this post helpful.

I think its more about slowing the actor down rather than preventing access to the tools. It may only take an additional 5 minutes to download and install compiling tools but that 5 minutes plus another 5 here and there getting everything else he needs. Its just to delay enough for you to respond to your intrusion detection alert.

Some group GNU/Linux distros by the package managers e.g. the rpm based (Redhat, Fedora, Mageia) & debian based (Debian, Knoppix, Ubuntu, Mint). Some classify it by commercial/non-commercial e.g. (RHEL, SuSE) & (Fedora, Ubuntu). A recent classification that I liked is CLI-oriented distros (Slackware, Gentoo, Arch) & GUI-based (Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora).

What a stupid classification (the CLI vs GUI one).

Real Slackware users only use X11 as a terminal multiplexer!

Perhaps Desktop and Server would be better designations.

Very good saying.

"Slackware people prefer their nineties stuff"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdRmnSHHVw4#t=495

1 members found this post helpful.

Real Slackware users are still dubious about vim as being a bit radical maybe.

1 members found this post helpful.

It's nice that Slackware comes with everything you need and then some for any purpose. Development, server, desktop, etc. it's not a perfect one-stop-shop distro, but it is customizable to however you want it.

And frankbell.... it's nano or nothin'.

1 members found this post helpful.