OK... I'll bite:

One of the best features of slackware is that it's lack of graphical installer forces a new user to pass the test of being able to read and follow excellent documentation. Follow the instructions, and it works. Users who are unable to follow documentation and just want everybody to do it for them, are weeded out from the start. This keeps the slackware gene pool pure. So many new users are hopping around the distros with the graphical installers, and some of them start to answer questions on the relevant distro's forums, and often their answers are misinformed. I feel the density of informed posts and intelligent threads is higher on this slackware forum, than on the ubuntu forum, which was, incidentally, recently hacked. This high density of informed responses is because our install process is a rite of initiation that keeps our gene pool pure

Slackware is educational. This is a good feature. Thanks to slackware, I have some clue as to what's going on under the hood. A distro where I can learn is definitely a distro where I would want to stay.


I don't want my computer to change unless I change it. I used to use proprietary OS's, and everytime I had to give them more money for the latest edition, the layout completely changed, and I would have to relearn it... Preferences would be called Settings, and vice versa, and show up at different locations than where they were before. Even my android phone is constantly changing itself when it upgrades. But every time I upgrade slackware, my xfce desktop is exactly the way it was before--the way I customized it to my liking. By "tracking down" dependencies, I think Jessie just means downloading. Because their all listed at slackbuilds, with links to their sources... how is that tracking something down? I find, that while I'm downloading slackbuilds, I often learn about new software that I was unaware of. This process just keeps me more informed of not only what I've installed onto my system, but what is available for different purposes. This intimacy with a system is zen, and it is good.

Thus all those "obvious flaws pointed out by other reviewers" are indeed assets.

5 members found this post helpful.

For those who want to pile on the writer of the review, I'll mention an old saying...

5 members found this post helpful.

Had I not already been familiar with DOS fdisk (which was very similar to cfdisk), I probably would not have managed to install Slackware that first time. But I was and I did.

That said, I'm glad I did, because Slackware teaches you to understand Linux. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Slackware teaches you how to figure stuff out, and that is a skill that transfers to any distro you might wish to try.

5 members found this post helpful.

There have been many excellent posts in this thread, but, IMO, the above underlined phrase says it best.


A very good point, and it was a year or two or three ago that distrowatch.com made a similar contribution to Slackware, i.e., Mr. Volkerding.

4 members found this post helpful.

Sure but are not the Distrowatch donations completely randomized? I don't think that anyone there gets to choose who gets the donation.

No, they are not.

I have read Mr Smith reviews. He is a Debian fan and used to heavily patched packages and sophisticated package managers.
Once I installed Slackware for the first time, I had to track dependencies and manually download stuff and configure my system for couple of days. But, I was happy with that approach as I learned many useful things by reading info files and docs and it gave me full control over my system.
Mr Smith doesn't like that procedure and his opinion is respectable. He is aware of third-party tools (paragraph 20) but his problem is "defaults" not "options" and in this regard, pointing out those tools as the solution is absolutely wrong because further question would be "then why PV doesn't add them to Slackware?"
That review is useless, and that ParanoidPenguin review is useless either. Both have nothing to do with Slackware market share as they don't meet minimum requirements for an informative review. Today every windows migrant knows that Slackware follows KISS principles and it doesn't support dependency resolution. I don't like Dedoimedo's attitude but he has a more professional style for distro reviewing. Users want to know what new thins like newer kernel, PA and eudev will brings to their system and what are their probable collateral effects.
IMHO, a4z is absolutely right. You want to help Slackware to enhance it's market share? write fair and informative reviews with enough experience. You can point out to Niki's "Ten reasons to choose Slackware Linux" as introduction. Instead of urging newbies to use third-party tools try to explain why Slackware doesn't support dependency resolution and why doesn't need it or at least refer to Ruario's article in slackdoc. Let people know there is project to localize Slackware installer and package managers. Talk about Alien, Roby, Willy, Ponce and other third party repositories and their goals and usages. Provide a nice comparative review about third-party package managers and their pros and cons for impatient people.
Don't like to write reviews? then try to enrich slackdoc. There are many areas which need to be documented and many outdated documents which should be modified. I bet your works will help Slackware and I think that is what this community supposed to be.

Talked too much. let's get back to work after drinking a cup of Iranian tea.

2 members found this post helpful.

Genuine questions for anyone here who cares to answer: What would be the aim of a Slackware review? Would it be to 'onboard' recent dissatisfied and technically sophisticated users of Windows, or would such a review aim to explain the Slackware approach to those who have already switched to a Linux based distribution?

Tea... excellent idea.

2 members found this post helpful.

Now that is an excellent question, for those who will consider it!

Ah! My tea water boils...

1 members found this post helpful.

Explain how it is like BSD, supports the Unix philosophy, but uses the enhancements and conveniences found in the Linux kernel. I think the distribution angle should be downplayed because of the huge differences developing between Slackware and the other Linux distributions regarding goals and vision. Its becoming even more its own thing like Android. People don't slam Android for not being like the rest because it isn't expected to because people see it as something else regardless that it distributes Linux. They could make Slackware into a BSD but its still Slackware. They might decide to do that when/if they reach that fork in the road. What is a Linux distribution beyond distributing the kernel?
http://www.infoworld.com/article/270...tribution.html

2 members found this post helpful.

This shows me that Jessie is concerned with dependencies more than anything else

https://www.distrowatch.com/weekly.p...140210#feature

3 members found this post helpful.

I find that with our IT people and incorporating Linux into our work environment they are doing so because they are finding pre-packaged distros with the included features they are after. It's what they become familiar with due to their training seminars and what they end up deploying due to familiarity. When they find something that works, it's hard to sway them to jump ship and roll their own to accomplish the same thing when the end result is similar and time is limited. I believe the hurdle with Slackware is really the notion it's too "difficult" for new users; however, I've found that most people who are interested beyond click-click do catch on with Slackware and come to love it, they just need to be given some re-assurance until the fundamentals click. I'm pretty much at the point that internet reviews of distros will not sway much more than a small percentage of prospective new users, it takes some leg work to get people hooked on Slackware now days.

2 members found this post helpful.

Future reviews of Linux distros will only be about desktop environments, bundled packages and appearance. Which is basically what it already has become since the underlying OS is basically be the same across the entire field, except for Slackware and the few other still UNIX-like distros. (And of course the BSD's)

3 members found this post helpful.

Skaendo, due to the influence of freedesktop.org all Linux distributions end up being the same, it is only a matter of time. Perhaps it would be good to have two versions of the Slackware distribution, one for the desktop (more or less what currently is now) and the other version more like Unix, which has its roots in servers.

1 members found this post helpful.

..... and since systemd turns out to be a "tempest in a teapot" does very little for SOHO Desktops and Workstations either good or bad, other than potentially, the ONLY readily visible difference between Slackware and Redhat, Debian and all it's derivatives, IS automated dependency resolution so is it really a wonder that a long time user of one of those focuses on "Dependency Hell" (a misnomer if there ever was one, other than that caused by automated breakage) as the major drawback?

I try to never speak on a distro I haven't used for a month or two but lately have given that up since it is just not long enough to really "feel" the distro. It takes many months if not years, to realize, for example, that in Slackware I spend far less time "hunting down dependencies" than fixing auto-dependency errors and major breakage on such distros. I don't think it is possible to communicate that in any meaningful way to anyone who has not experienced it.

The best review I ever got for Slackware was the simplest and the one that convinced me to give it a try -

It was true almost 20 years ago and still is today.

7 members found this post helpful.