Oh lord, Here we go again...

4 members found this post helpful.

Not necessarily. While it doesn't take much effort to toss mainstream into the grinder set to puree, basically saying, it brings up a good example of where things done right cater to real users of UNIX and UNIX-like systems, and things slapped together are easily outed and subject to ridicule. If that doesn't show how well a system like Slackware will be always put together far more cleanly and consistently than CoreOS ripoffs with their flavor of package manager and packages, then nothing will.

You don't have to like that statement or agree with it, but considering the test of time Slackware has faced, it's not too far from the truth.

1 members found this post helpful.

I honestly do not know what you see on Slack folks !

software fossilized

a pain to install any package

humongous kernel

1 members found this post helpful.

Yep. I like and prefer Slackware, but, I also like OpenBSD and a few other operating systems. Live and let live.
I continue to stick with Slackware because I like how package management works (there's no mystery). I trust our maintainer to choose a sane development pathway while also keeping our software up to date.
Still Slacking after all these years.

1 members found this post helpful.

We see what you very clearly don't.

6 members found this post helpful.

I took the liberty of enumerating your list so that it's easier to respond to.

1. Slackware's packaging system makes it easier than any other distribution does, to solve this by building your own packages. Also, a lot of people here are running -current, which has consistently recent packages.

2. Why is it a pain to enter "sboinstall <name of package>"?

3. Really? I thought Slackware's kernel was not "humongous" but "average", especially if you switch to the "generic" kernel that's included. And in any case, I don't see it as a problem.

2 members found this post helpful.

Looking at his previous posts it seems me that giving un1x an answer (let alone a reasoned one) is making him an undue favor.

1 members found this post helpful.

un1x, did you previously have a different account here? Your posting style sounds familiar.

The simplicity of Slackware's design has always invited ridicule from those who don't understand UNIX's underpinnings and KISS philosophy. It might take a genius to understand UNIX's simplicity, as Dennis suggested, but on Slackware, which is pure Linux (and itself is modeled on UNIX), it just takes a person willing to Google documentation, read it once they've found it, and follow it. Experimentation is key here. One cannot be afraid of failure; I think this is what most complaints/flames/trolls about Slackware boil down to. A user new to Slackware, having come from the aforementioned mainstream distros (where everything is done for them), makes a few attempts, fails, and then concludes that it's too hard for anyone to use (because it's too hard for them to use, and they can't imagine anyone else figuring it out), and then take to the forums to let everyone know that.

I have seen far too many new users of Slackware rave about its power and simplicity, and relate that all it took to learn it was to read documentation and play with Slackware for awhile, to ever believe that Slackware is genuinely too difficult to learn for a newbie. They enjoy the fact that it "just works". I sure do, every single time I turn on my computer. Granted, I have been working around computers for 30+ years, but even people half my age are learning this stuff. It's not that hard, really. It just requires a little thought and an adventurous spirit.

3 members found this post helpful.

Hi,

I totally agree. It's just like having a standard transmission for a vehicle. You need to coordinate the clutch and shifting so enable the vehicle motion. Not everyone can use a standard transmission so they opt for a automatic. Just like a point and click system you only need to know 'D' is for drive and 'R' is for reverse. Simple but people still have problems driving a automatic safely. Some text while driving or put makeup on so they are not doing a 'good driving habit but they are merrily moving along.

If you drive a standard you do need to know how to coordinate motion into traffic and when to shift up or down. Over time a person using a standard will get comfortable with the stick/shift & clutch. But a person with a automatic will accept that the transmission will do all the work so they can easily fall into traps while on the road.

Slackware will require a user to learn basic principles in order to keep the system functional. While someone with a Hold-Your-Hand distribution will rely on the maintainers to keep things working in an automatic sense.

Slackware is a stable modern distribution that will meet a user's needs once they learn a few things about Slackware. To me Unix-Like is important since I do come from a UNIX environment at the University. Very comfortable with Slackware. Appreciate the rock solid work that PV & team place into Slackware to keep it UNIX-Like.

I have been using Slackware since PV's first release and will remain a loyal user of Slackware.

Hope this helps.
Have fun & enjoy!

4 members found this post helpful.

While I have not tried a large number of distributions, I have tried Mint & Ubuntu in a dual boot setup with Slackware.

Mint did have some initial appeal, while I got used to Slackware after having gone back to Windows for a number of years, but once I got comfortable, I quickly ditched Mint. Nothing wrong with it really, but Slackware works much better for me. I'm tired of point & Click OS's that do everything behind the scenes for me so I don't have to understand what's going on.

Even point & click Linux is better than any variant of Windows though. There's something for everyone, and to each his own. If what your using works for what you need, that's what counts, whatever the situation.

I can't repair my car, and I just depend on it to get me from point A to point B. Nothing wrong with that, as far as I'm concerned.

There is of course nothing wrong with using what you find most useful and/or comfortable, I don't think anyone is advocating against that here.

As for mint, while I have not used it, I do find posts like this quite concerning.
https://lwn.net/Articles/676664/
Excerpt:

4 members found this post helpful.

While I don't use Mint and have no time for anything derived from Ubuntu, I really think this critic should declare his own interests before doing a hatchet job on Clement Lefevre and Mint. Does this person work for a rival, perhaps?

A second point I would like to make is that Mint is far from the only distro to have a blasé attitude to security and stability problems. I suspect the vast majority of Linux distributions are a dog's mess of bugs, security-related and otherwise, in proportion to how far they have diverged from upstream to put their own stamp on the distro. It's hard enough for developers to keep their software bug-free and secure, but when the likes of Red Hat, Debian and Ubuntu then decide in their wisdom to add to the complexity of this upstream software by wrapping it in their own layers upon layers of crud we end up with problems far worse and far harder to resolve.

Thankfully this selfishness and stupidity has not infected the saner heads in charge of Slackware and Crux!

4 members found this post helpful.

I see a beautifully articulated system with a design that works well under any condition it meets, is easily resculpted to fit the needs of system administrator, self sustainable in model, and works without a hedgerow of countless issues, instabilities, broken packages, and untested, unwanted, and useless garbageware people describe as "hip, cool, or rad".

Slackware is a system made for real UNIX administrators and real work. It's not a stupid hipster toy piece of trash like every other sick joke of a Linux based operating system out there.

Painful to install packages? Are you [removed] kidding me?! I'm sorry your crapfest of a ToyOS didn't emphasize building from source to some extent, but that's not Slackware's problem, that's the problem of what lies between the chair and the keyboard.

2 members found this post helpful.

And I almost made one. Thanks Mr. Spaier!