The "default" Slackware install is the one that occurs if the user accepts the defaults.
This results in a full installation of all package sets.

I miss the point. Why the author compares Debian with Ubuntu? And where are Gentoo, Mandriva, openSUSE, RedHat (or CentOS)?

I think he intentionally mixed 2 type of distros: Debian, Slackware / Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, Fedora, Sabayon. The target users are not the same. And the results are false.

Nobody can realistic compare the Ubuntu installer with Debian installer and with Fedora installer. And what's wrong with Slackware installer? IMHO, nothing.

About security ... Security is not only a firewall and open/closed/filtered ports. I think security starts with users education. In Slackware you must learn a lot before setup a firewall. In PCLinuxOS you can learn about iptables or not (by the way, in this distro, firewall is disable by default).

About security updates: National Vulnerability Database, CVE-2007-0493 and CVE-2007-0494 (BIND) - 25.01.2007

29.01.2007 - Debian and Slackware update for BIND
30.01.2007 - Fedora and SUSE update for BIND
06.02.2007 - Ubuntu update for BIND

But that is not a rule. In another situations (imagemagic) Ubuntu released security update before Slackware. Who can compare this situations and can tell "This distro has the fastest security updates"?

And nothing about package manager? The old story about lack of packages management in Slackware?

Ultimately, it comes to this:
You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into.

I take all reviews - distros, books, films, whatever - with a pinch of salt. Try a few distros for yourself and settle for the one that suits your particular taste and needs. I like Ubuntu, I like Debian, but I like Slackware - in spite of what Linux Format says - a lot more.

Slackware doesn't provide an automatic partitioner tool with an easy GUI. Based on my experiences with the people I helped install Linux, that seems to be the biggest obstacle. An average user can't even begin to install Slack because he has no idea about partitioning. Apart from that the installer is just as good as others; IMHO it doesn't make much difference to click a button with a mouse or press the "Enter" key.

As several of us remarked, different distros target different user groups so comparing Ubuntu and Slack is like apples vs. oranges. Slack is supposed to have a different philosophy than Ubuntu and those who understand what Slackware is for also know that it does its job perfectly well.

This is about time wholesaling

I when I first started up with Linux I purchased every issue of Linux Format for about two years. I stopped buying it about the time I started using Slackware as my sole distro and stopped installing everything that came on a cover disk.

Slackware is not mass market. Linux Format is. Hence it caters to a different market which, I would expect, is concerned with things that most Slackware users are not concerned with. After all what difference does it make how long it takes to install the distro, you do it once you may as well take your time and do it right. Are we just talking about instant gratification or good software.

Speed, size of install? .... Sounds like fast food distro selection.

I've never used everything that came with a full default install of Slackware but I can remember as a newbie taking over an hour sorting through the individual package secletion of a Mandrake 6 or 7 something when I didn't have a clue. When the thing was finally installed I had all these services running that were unnecessary but I was too afraid I'd break something turning them off since I was gun shy after having taken an equally long time trying to figure out how to convince a gui wizard to help me make a dialup connection.

Speed, size and security, maybe we're talking about sex.

Remember this .......... commercial newspapers, magazines, television, and radio are about wholesaling time. Wholesaling your time which is captured as a reader/viewer to advertisers who are willing to pay for the priviledge of waving their wares in front of your eyes once the time wholesaler has has captured your attention.

Rent on that spot in front of your eyes is determined by how many pairs of eyes the time wholesaler can quantify as being captured by his media.

Linux Format isn't written for Slackware users, it's written to appeal to people coming from a windows background and considering linux as a desktop alternative. It may be read by system admins and other tech types but that is not really the target market.

Remember Linux Format is a time wholesaler, not a Slackware promoter. There's no money in that. It gathers in the the masses and presents them to the advertisers. Thats where the money is.

As far as security is concerned does Ubuntu install with root being passwordless? I believe it does. Not having to mess with giving a password for root privileges might very we'll appeal to a large chunk of the mass market but it would be anathema to a Slacker. Yet to give credit where it's due, Ubuntu did fix a freetype overflow threat promptly.

CVE-2006-1861 may or may not have been a serious threat, Maybe more so to one distro that another. However I'd place money that if a thorough well thought out analysis of security and patch response time for these distros was undertaken, something meaningful, if not different, would have been presented.

But such an analysis is to expensive and time consuming and certainly not very interesting as far as target market is concerned if all you are doing is wholesaling time.

Mass market buys cheap wine, opens it up and throws it down. Someone who knows wine looks at it, thinks about it and appreciates it.

I don't think most of the people who would base their decisions on that poll would know what a well made distro was if it bit them in the ass. They probably only buy quaffing wine, ... two buck chucks.

I didnt read all the replies, so maybe this was said.
I would think that anyone installing slack would have done a little research and would know that they have to spend some time setting it up, as with any distro. Installing is not slow, Did they install all the distros on the same exact system?
The installer is close enough to a gui to make it easy for anyone with a little common sense to get it installed.

I read a bit more about the review and so far it appears just as most of you had said that it's targeted for the masses. I don't even think that Slackware install is slow... although I install it from my USB-drive where I hold all the latest packages of -current (Big thank you for Alien's rsync script).

I usually distro surf a bit but I always return to Slackware as it's quick to install and configure.

Ubuntu and distros like a very nice to use but once you start to try configure them the way you like it they start to be quite troublesome.

I for example appreciate Fedora as it's the most Linux of Linux. It follows all the standards and provides all the features like SELinux etc. I tried Fedora a while back but it just froze in the GUI and it had disabled Ctrl-Alt-F1 combination so I was forced to reboot my laptop. Combine this with the slow package manager I quickly returned to Slackware.

I started this thread because I was worried abot the Slackware's security as the distro comparison article appeared to point out. After reading through the article's security section I start to notice that the article doesn't provide very deep investigation for the security issues. They only inspected one vurnerability, didn't state which ports where found open etc. Quite incomplete article now when you read while your brain are awake
Never should I read one of those 4AM... it's just not right.

Here's my sixpence:

> The review went through such areas such as:
> -Installation time

I can install Slackware faster than anything else I've ever installed (including Arch, Debian, etc) except for OpenBSD and NetBSD. A lot of the speed of Slackware's installation has to do with how much you choose (compare apples and apples- if you want a full Slackware install with over 3G of packages then compare it to a similar install of Debian with 3G worth of rubbish). I can install a slim system between 10 and 20 minutes, a full install (for me, I don't use KDE and alot of the other packages) takes less than 30 including setting up LILO and rebooting.

> -Default installation size

There aren't really any defaults in Slackware, which again make it a little hard to compare. You can take the "everything" installation which just takes a long time slapping down packages. Other distros (and especially BSD) have "developer installs", "minimal installs" etc which are often useful but the only perfect install for you is the install where you select each individual package and Slackware does a lot better than average in offering this option from the installer. With most other distros you have to do that from the package manager after you've installed.

> -Bootup speed

Depends on services. Since Slackware uses vanilla kernels it's hard to argue it's faster or slower than other distros. Mine comes up plenty fast enough. You want something that really screams? Try Slackware with jfs for all your filesystems and get the **** out of the way

> -Security

Never had a problem so I don't know. If you want to argue theoretical exposures that's also fine.

> -Release speed

In my business releases have a very long cycle because we're dealing with very large amounts of code and complex products. I have never been impressed with frequent releases and I think it's a false goal. I'm extremely pleased with the way Pat "The Man" does releases. Send it when it's ready, not because you have some stupid/meaningless schedule to meet and then send out a hundred security and crash patches over the next x months.

> -Open ports

Yawn.

-Community

I've found none better than Slackware, although BSD is also pretty good.

> -Packages

Yawn. I used to think I wanted a huge package repo and then I realised I don't trust rubbish slapped together by people I don't know. It's trivial to build almost anything on Slackware- I roll my own packages unless Pat already has one and so does every other Slackware user (this is not news to anyone.)

Rock on, Pat, rock on Slackers! "Slackware- what else is there!" -- Randux

Googling after something tonight and I came across this link:

http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Slackware

It seems that at least a couple of the staff at Linux Format view Slackware in somewhat favourable terms.

That's good to know. Those reviews I would agree with much more.

The way to fix this is to make them try to install FreeBSD or OpenBSD. Once they see the partitioning steps (and disklabels) in those installers they'll come screaming back for Slack

I like the distro chooser in TexMex's kitchen-sink of signatures. I figured, let's have a laugh but it actually came out with Slackware as the top choice. I think they may just have something!

I like to compare slackware to a chopper. Slackware gives you a bare chassis, you finish it. No 'user unfriendly' system admin tools like YUM or Yast to get in your way.
I don't know about anybody else, but I like to build thing's, and that is exactly what Slackware let's me do. I also like to break thing's so I can figure out how they are made and how to fix them, something else Slackware let's me do.
It's not that I prefer 'vanilla', it's that I like to flavor it to my tastes.

I've run a lot of distros and Slackware will always be my favourite. I also run Debian and FreeBSD( occasionally).
I love the blistering speed that an installation of Slackware has. The mysterious negative review is BS. Many people that slam Slackware do not take the time to read the support documentation that is available.
Stable, secure, perfect.................Slackware:-)

Yeah, that's actually the only one I found that gave me Slackware. The others always gave me Fedora or Debian or Gentoo ... never Slackware ... hmmm ... I wonder why.