From what i have tried, i enjoy slackware. I am a person who wants to make everything customized to my taste and not have it automatically configured. Also i believe that slackware helps people develope the analytical skills that some people could use ( i know i need work on them). I think that everyone has their own needs and if people want a do-everything-automatically distro then i would say *ubuntu. if they want something to learn linux on then i would recommend Slackware. I think in the end it all comes down to personal choice and how much control you actually want over your system in terms of customizing and custom built programs.

Note that you don't have to stick to one operating system, and therefore you don't have to decide which one of the two, or something else, is good for the end user. The end user may decide that all by himself.

An operating system should be transparent, not the purpose itself.

EDIT: if you want control over your system and so on, and maybe learn from it, try LFS. I did a couple of days ago, and can't blame it.

I've installed both Ubuntu and Kubuntu at various times during my Linux tenure, but have always used Slackware on a long term, recurring basis. I agree that whatever distribution is chosen is a matter of personal preference. So far, I have Debian Etch, Slackware 11.0 (on two computers), Slackware 12.0, openSuSE 10.2, openSuSE 10.3 installed on multiple computers, but utilize the Slackware machines the most. The reason I have all of these distributions installed is that I like to experiment with different versions and test what might work in one distro that does not appear to work in another, and other things such as this. Also, since I have the machines, I like to put them to good use. One of the main aspects that I do admire about the Ubuntu releases is that they are the only distribution (that I know of anyway) that offers official installation CD-ROMs free of charge. I remember some time ago where I ordered about 30 Ubuntu CDs and distributed them to people I knew to broaden their horizons in Linux by attempting to persuade them in using something other than MS Windows.

Most of what has been said here is correct. Just some posts may give the impression, that Slackware is the only distro that can be tailored to any need, which is wrong.

Debian and its South African cousin Ubuntu can certainly be configured to ones need, just as well, I guess, and I know that I always got SuSE to do what I want.
The approaches are very different though, but if a system is well maintained and the concepts for installation, configuration and administration are based on a thorough and consistent design, it is valid choice.
Although I agree immediately, that Linux gives users a lot more 'Control' than other OS's, it's not something where Slackware scores so much higher than other distributions. However, there are a few things that make Slackware unique among the major binary distros (Source based distros are a special case, and certainly not the best choice for ever purpose; I would never use Gentoo on a production server, for example, but it could be an excellent choice on a development machine). I like three other things about Slackware's design:

1. The KISS philosophy built into it is so effective that Slackware is the *ONLY* distro where I never missed a GUI tool for system administration tasks (with the exception of X11 configuration, a point where SuSE's SaX shines, and just about every distro offers more help than Slackware...; in fact, I have SaX create xorg.conf on every new hardware first, then copy it over to Slackware)

2. Slackware avoids vendor patches as far as possible. This makes it, IMHO, the best choice for software developers. On Slackware I was able to compile ROCK Linux targets without major problems, while SuSE failed on this, several years ago. On Slackware you can (cross-)compile just about everything, even the latest and greates operating system for your brand new Zeroconf WLAN toaster... Also, command line tools behave exactly as described in man pages.

3. The design is conservative, continued over many years and consequent.

gargamel

Too true, you can *theoretically* make any distro behave like any other. The problem then is, how difficult and how much time does it take to set up *just the way I like it*. This, IMHO, is not really important because the point of computing is not setting it up, is using it. Unless you're a Sysadmin, then go with one of the "enterprise" distros.

But realistically speaking, I have never been able to make *buntu behave like Slackware from the point and click user's (mail, web, doc processing) point of view. Guess which was plagued with random crashes and unexplained slowdowns... OTOH, Guess which one had the most problems with wireless on the laptop?

OTOH (just how many hands do we have, anyway?), getting slackware to behave more like Ubuntu is fairly straightforward, at least as far as the look-and-feel, if you're in to that sort of thing. I've set up slackware on several desktop machines with bootsplash and various window managers and implemented some auto-updating tools. Not exactly my cup of tea but the work was well appreciated by the users and it was no trouble for me.

Personally, I prefer to be up close and personal with my Linux distro and, for all of the reasons stated in earlier posts above, slackware is, for me, quite ideal. It is eminently stable, flexible, and -- well, palatable. I haven't found any other that fits so many of my varied requirements.

You know that there are repositories for Slackware, right? I personally build most of my packages from scratch using SlackBuilds and trust a select few sites (I trust packages from Robby and Alien Bob and SlackBuilds from slackbuilds.org), but I think slacky.eu is a GREAT resource. I know how to create a SlackBuild from scratch (and did and still do sometimes), but I'm very lazy, and often use slackbuilds from slacky.eu (available with each package) as a base and modify it to suit my needs. And, just so you know, both efax and efax-GTK (a front-end) are available at slacky.eu as packages and slackbuilds.

I could care less if you use KUbuntu (if it works for you, great), but don't bash a distro unnecessarily.

Yes, true and I've found Alien Bob's package usually worked the best. However, just because you download a package or do a SlackBuild, that doesn't mean you have all the necessary dependencies. Some programs, especially those involving multimedia, have 3, or 4, or more dependenices that have to be installed separately.

Not bashing Slackware. I've used it for years. It was the very first Slackware distribution I ever used, back in 1995. Still have the CD.
However, I've grown tired of having to do, "by hand," what many other Linux distributions automated some time ago. If that is what you like, great, I'm happy for you, but I no longer care to do it.

While we are at it, Kubuntu has been on my computer for 5 days now and it hasn't blinked. I'm absolutely amazed at the difference in appearance of the KDE desktop, yet I'm using the same monitor, graphics card, graphics drivers and screen resolution.
Whatever they do to KDE over at Ubuntu gives it a more "polished," for lack of a better word, appearance.

Early this morning I stumbled across a post on a Ubuntu forum that outlined how to setup WINE to install and run ms-office. Works.

Last night I found a alpha release of a 64 bit version Opera and it works extremely well and is very fast.
There are not many, if any 64 bit plugins for 64 bit browsers, but Xine, running in Konqueror, takes care of most multimedia things I come across while browsing. That in itself was a surprise because it was worthless, as in barely worked in my Slack setup.

Edited the Grub boot manager and turned off the splash screen so I don't have to look at "Kubuntu" as it boots up and shutdown.

So far, so good. It has been one of the most positive, as in hassle free (easy to install and use) computer experiences in the last 20 years.
La Gawn.

So you are basically saying you want slackware to be kubuntu?

Sounds to me like you are. If you're dissatisfied with Slackware - why use it? It's not a capital offence to dislike it. If you prefer Kubuntu - OK - to each his own. That's the good thing about having so many distros available, something to suit every taste and need.

No.
What I am saying is that at this point in time, there are some configuration items like sound, video, internet/network access, printer ports, serial ports, file system access (ntfs), and setting up users in various groups so they can use the cd/dvd drives, scanner, etc., that should be automated during installation.
If, afterwards, you want to make changes and do a custom configuration, fine, great, that is one of the hallmarks of Slackware, configurability, and that should not be changed or it wouldn't be Slackware.

However, I also think all packages should be complete, i.e., they should include all the necessary dependencies so a user doesn't have to chase all over the Internet to find them.

That's what I was trying to say too. If you don't like Slackware, that's great, go use something else, but don't start a whole new thread to say:
Slackware sucks, use Kubuntu.

What if everyone were to do this for every distro they didn't like ? I know I've used lots of distros, and most do suck, so what do I do ? Should I go to their respective forums and post there a thread 'Slackware versus <insert distro here>' ?

Maybe it's just me, but this statement sounds contradictory. If the installation were to setup everything automagically, what would be left for the user to configure beyond desktop appearance? Even more, what would there be to motivate the user to configure anything? Part of the Slackware experience is using the CLI and reviewing config files to tweak the system. EDIT: In recent versions Slackware does a pretty good job of setting up sound, video and network.

I can't speak for other Slackware users, but two of the reasons I chose Slackware were the manual configuration and less point-and-click. If I wanted to boot my computer and watch the OS to do everything for me I'd still be using Windows.

That's a nice thought, but can you imagine the sizes of the packages? How many different packages would include the same libs or required programs (plus their dependencies!)? See how it can snowball?

I recently installed Songbird, which requires gstreamer, which requires several different plugins. I already had many of the required plugins because of the media players I already have installed. You're saying the Songbird package should've included gstreamer, gst-plugins-base/good/bad/ugly, liboil, libcddb, libcdio and a dozen others? Most people who have a Gnome setup and Totem properly configured already have the dependencies. And what if you run into a compatibility problem after upgrading one or more of the dependencies?

Also, the list of dependencies is different based on where you get the package from. A package on linuxpackages.net is built on a different computer than one found on slacky.eu. And if you build a program from source the original source code you may not need any dependencies because the program will configure itself to use what you already have.

I just don't see how it would be better to bloat a package and risk upgrading/installing something that could cause, for example, all of a user's media players to black out. There are already numerous threads about something becoming broken after installing the dependencies for an unrelated program.

Well if all of those conditions were met the resulting distro would not be Slackware. That is what is wonderful about Linux. You can choose a distro that meets your needs:-)
Enjoy Kubuntu:-)

Very nice! It's been running on my Slackware box for months now (and on a former Slackware box for about a year). This most certainly is not a (K)Ubuntu-specific thing. Really. Plus, SlackBuilds for wine (and any dependencies it may have) are available at slackbuilds.org, so installation is a breeze (and anything you do further to get it to work would be identical on all distributions). Again, I have no problem with you (or anyone else) liking Ubuntu. In fact, I'm about to install Ubuntu on my mom's computer because she keeps getting pissed off at Windows (but time will only tell if she will get pissed off at Ubuntu too). But there really isn't anything wrong with Slackware. Installation really wasn't that difficult for me. As a relative power user (compared to normal people, not gurus here at LQ) I like to choose exactly what I install. During installation of Slackware I chose what packages to install. Lilo installation was a snap (although I had experience here). xorg.conf configuration was easily done using xorgconfig. Installation of nVidia drivers was also easy (download, run). I also chose my own partition setup (as I would with any distro). Slackware makes that easy using fdisk (never tried cfdisk). I created a user and added them to the appropriate groups and everything is set up. Not really that difficult and everything works perfectly for me. Most software is available from some repository somewhere, either in SlackBuilds or a .tgz package. Or you can compile your own from scratch.

Slackware has tons of options available to the user, and you aren't stuck with anything. It includes several WMs/DEs so the user has a choice. The default is the easy-to-use and fully functional KDE. You have the choice not to install any of these, or any other application. You can choose the partition layout. Basically everything is full of options, which is great. A default install is more than sufficient for most people (including myself), and dependency hell usually only comes from rare, unpopular apps that no one else has packaged or created SlackBuilds for. I will admit that sometimes I get pissed off when I have to install 12 dependencies for one program (has anyone tried installing cinelerra?). However, this is more of an exception than the rule.

You don't like Slackware? Don't use it. But you don't have to complain how KUbuntu is what Slackware should have been, because it has its limitations as well.