I might have said it before, but i do not understand the reasons other people often compare Slackware to Arch or Gentoo.
IMO there are none.
Slackware is an operating system designed to work out of the box. It is not strictly a DIY distribution like Arch or Gentoo.
A full Slackware installation will give you a fully working KDE environment just by envoking startx (even as root).
Pat & the rest of the Slackware team take extra care making sure of that.
Slackware can be used as a DIY distribution as well, many people use it as such, but that only cause of its flexibility, the way it's designed, and many of the stuff contained to its list of "disadvantages" on the first post of this thread.
An Arch or Gentoo installation will leave you with nothing and you will have to customize everything. Slackware doesnt force you to do that.

Compared to anything

I dare say Slackware is one of fastest installing distros. Starting from booting your machine it takes ca. 20min to complete installation (on my box). If you have prepared packages for some important applications not included (as openoffice) it takes additional 5 minutes to complete.

Ubuntu needs to boot its graphical installer first (which takes some time) then the installer alone takes ca 40min to complete (on my box where slackware needs only 20min.).

I guess only Vector Linux (a slackware clone) is fastest than Slackware.

I started using Linux..i started with Slackware itself, sure the learning curve is steep, but with a some help i managed to get it up and running. To this day..i tried using distros like ubuntu, fedora, suse... neither lasted more than a few days. Compared to the above, i enjoyed the SIMPLICITY that came with configuring it. GUI tools do more harm than good, IMHO. System transparency is the best feature, i like having control over my system. Manual package management & dependency tracking go hand in hand with the KISS philosophy that Slackware commands.

Saying an Arch install leaves you with *nothing* is a small exaggeration.
An Arch install leaves you with a working Linux system. You do need to manually review and edit many system files on a base install. Also, you need to download, install, and configure xorg and a DE. Setting up Arch takes a lot longer than setting up Slackware. Linux is all about choices. Slackware does give the choice between a customized, PXE, and full install. I'm currently running Slackware 13.0 on four boxes and Arch on one box. Arch is interesting and *very* bleeding edge.
I prefer Slackware.

Wouldn't it be great if everybody who didn't like/use Slackware went off and played with their own favourite distro? And if those who have never tried it did so, and stopped taking notice of the myths about it spread by those who had tried it, perhaps many releases ago, and found it didn't suit them.

Yeah...I suppose, but, then we'd miss all of the epic flame fests that occur. I love a good debate!

Yeah, I enjoy flamewars, too...Ignore my previous post.

If they did then we wouldn't have threads like these.
If we didn't have threads like these you wouldn't have the opportunity to post what you did.
So basically you should be grateful, ROTFL!


//As an observation, what I still find odd is 0) the different arguments for using it (it's not like you all agree on say ten basic but unique selling points) and 1) the fact there's these threads anyway. It seems members in most fora just chug on doing something with their distribution of choice while overhere it's party time at least once a week. How come, I wonder?..

I am. It's fun. LMAO.


Well, we get fairly regular visitors asking why we run Slackware. I'm not sure if other distro users get pestered as much.

Please don't compare Arch and Slackware. It is not only inane but unreasonable. Both are distros based on two different philosophies. Arch is supposed to be bleeding edge. Arch is supposed to make their user do a lot of work. Upgrades may break your system and you must fix them. However all these can be avoided if you read the Arch news before doing a major upgrade and checking the forum regularly. Arch is not for everyone. Just like slackware is not for everyone. Human dependency management is something which scares off a lot of people from slackware who want to install a lot of third party apps which are not present in slackbuilds or otherwise. So you see, both these distros have their own pros and cons. You MUST RUN these systems yourself to understand the difference. I run all 3, arch,slack and gentoo and I love all of them for separate reasons, and I am not biased when I make my comments.

It's funny because your post compares Arch and Slackware right there :P

But I understand your point. Slackware's philosophy seems really interesting, and since I usually run such a simple setup, it shouldn't be difficult or problematic for me. I'm downloading the slackware64 DVD right now. What I really appreciate is the benevolent dictator model and all the effort Pat puts in. Package versions selected for their stability yet still being modern, and it's amazing how easy it is to just shoot Pat an email if necessary (or so I've heard); that's much more difficult and involved with the developers of some other distributions.

I feel

Yep. I run can run a windows game, voip client, and listen to music simultaneously. Author DvD's convert video formats, use my digital camera or video camera. The above quote hit the nail on the head. You can manage your packages but you have to resolve them.

You want stability, speed, and convenience. Pick any 2. Its inconvenient to have to resolve packages sometimes (so far in slackware my record is 21, I've had worse in fedora) but the program will run fast and stable. To me the pros outweigh the cons. I've run other distro's on this same box, but not all of them, but that rule of thumb seems to ring true in the ones I have used.

Slackware really isn't as archaic as the word around the campfire has it, IMHO.

It is not only Slackware software/os, it is the 'crew' maintaining it. They are on the road for a long time, do not forget =]

You can install, config and rest assured that your session will start every time, every boot. With time being, the system fade to background and you can just focus on production/work.

You have some room to experiment. The simplicity to type two command lines and restore some mistake or software bug is very hard to beat...

I'm surprised so many people apparently switched to slack after simply having some problem with one of the other more popular distros. Instead of apparently trying to solve the problem and learn from it, which is exactly the approach encouraged in slack.

How odd.

As is often the case, the negative aspects you stated are misconceptions.

Slack is a minimalistic system, with an easy to understand layout, with everything being well documented and making sense. In the age of GUI and wrapper services obfuscation, this is refreshing. To know everything that is going on in your system, can also be appealing to some.

We have good package managment, just not dependency resolving package managment. Considering I have never ever had a problem with this, I don't know why that is an issue. In fact, I think I prefer it.

I don't see what is complex about the upgrade procedure, anymore than you make it. backup yor data and upgradepkg away.

As for a lack of support..what nonsense. Slack ships with stable software...not outdated, like Debian stable, and not as bleeding edge as arch or gentoo. A nice medium.

I'm similar. Mosty console stuff, for coding and network auditing, X and fluxbox for the odd movie or webbrowsing, maybe some virtual machines etc..

I've found Slack to be perfect for this. You can have a minimal install, learn more as you get used to it(more than most other distros allow for), and in general have less problems using your system.

It sounds ideal for you

I would say Slack will absolutely do anything you ever want it to, without too much of a problem. Depending of course, and what it is you want to do... ;P

Where did you read negative things about slack package management? I plan on writing a blog post soon to try and disspell that myth, so would be curious to read it.

By what metric?

These days, if you do any sort of guides install, most distros seem to take the same amount of time, dependent solely on what is being installed, as they tend to have the same few steps that require manual setup.

Well...there are many.

I remember when Gentoo came on the scene....it grabbed the interest of quite a few slackers. It was something new and interesting, that provided complete control over your OS. Which can be an appeal of slack for some.

The main difference is of course the source based, compiling approach. However, this aside, I think there are more similarities than differences.

I was not around to see the emergence of Arch, but I think it is a similar thing. I'm not sure how cutting edge it has to be, but the fact that it can be a minimal system that is clear and consistant, reliant on hand configuration etc...

Comparisons are apt.