You might as well install slack and see for yourself, I'd recommend giving more than a couple of days though. There is a learning curve that can't be avoided.

As a guy who started with Ubuntu and then moved to Slackware (by way of Debian and Zenwalk) I can tell you that "dependency hell" will not be a problem in Slackware.
What may be a problem is your level of basic linux knowledge, and using linux commands in the terminal. When you install Slackware there is some post install configuration that is necessary that must be done in the terminal. It is not difficult. It is just different than in Ubuntu.
As others have said read the Slackbook. Read all of it before you install Slackware. You should also read the Changes_And_Hints.txt file that is present on the first Slackware install CD or the DVD. (Note, all the stuff about upgrading from a previous version of Slackware will not apply to you since you will be doing a clean install). The Slackware-HowTo file on the CD / DVD is also good to read.
And as others have also said, do a full install. If you want more stuff, then slackbuilds.org should be you first port of call for all third party packages. I get pretty much everything I need from there. The http://sbopkg.org/ makes compiling multiple slackbuilds easy.
As a bonus you will find that Slackware runs faster, and uses fewer resources, than Ubuntu.
In short, I have found that the the only limitation of using Slackware is my level of knowledge about it. This forum has been a huge help for that.

Yes. One of the many benefits of not having a dependency checking package management system in Slackware is that your system will run with lower system overhead than Ubuntu. On a full install of Slackware there are no dependency issues. When you choose to install third party applications from slackbuilds.org all dependencies will be clearly stated to ensure proper installation.
As previously stated please read all support documentation to ensure a successful installation of Slackware.

in simplest terms, use

sbopkg - get from sbopkg.org
- this is a utility to help you build & install packages from www.slackbuilds.org (SBo), you need to sync first. Package description/readme will tell you what few dependencies you need, which are all available from SBo.

(built-in-slackware commands)
pkgtool
installpkg
removepkg

(useful utilites from slackware dvd, go to extras directory)
wicd
flashplayer-plugin

It's not so bad, though, just look on slackbuilds.org(or sbopkg), you should be able to find most(maybe all) of what you need.

Install GSB, and you'll never worry about that again.

I think this is false. And from my experience it is the other way around.
On my netbook Slackware with KDE starts with ~0.3GB RAM usage while Kubuntu on the same machine starts with ~0.2GB.
Slackware has all uneeded services etc not started while i dont know what Kubuntu does cause the reason i installed it was having an OS i wouldnt have to deal with at all. I dont even know how to start/stop services.

I dont see how not resolving dependencies is relevant to using less resources, even if your experiences are different than mine.

Care to explain why my system will run faster without a dependency checking package management system? I'm assuming here you are not merely talking about the installation of packages. If that is what you meant, you should qualify that original statement!

All of my systems (2 slack64-current 2 ubuntu 9.04) tend to sit around 500MB RAM usage when I'm just doing the basic surfing/listening to music. For whatever reason though, the slackware boxes both run more nimble than Ubuntu or Mandriva on the same hardware. So while in my experience RAM usage is about the same, give or take, performance goes hands down to Slackware. It might also be worth mentioning that with Slack I run KDE with a TON of eyecandy (transparency, window switching effects, etc) whereas I just turned them off with Mandi and Buntu. But of course YMMV.

Manual dependency resolution is pretty easy overall. It takes a bit more time than letting apt try to decide what you want and doing it for you but after you get the hang of doing it yourself, it's all really easy and results in a lot more clean and transparent environment to you the end user. I've always thought Slackware is easy to use. I find it really strange that Ubuntu has a reputation for being the most noob friendly distribution. Personally I found it all way too confusing for pretty much everything. I don't really trust Debian repos all too much either. You never really know what they strip or what weird patches they use, I've heard too many stories.

Sorry just had to go on a little rant there, I just think the whole Debian/Ubuntu experience is unpleasant.

Everyone has different sensibilities, I think. I agree with you about Ubuntu, less so Debian. I found Slackware to be utterly confusing, and that it made simple things more difficult than it ought to, yet for me Arch Linux seems straightforward and almost intuitive. Go figure.

1 members found this post helpful.

Hi reed9

At first, i thought that slackware did not have installable/removable packages...

I just could not figure that something built and installed could be removed without something like apt, synaptic or yum....

I started by reading the Book... then I got some courage and installed the thing...

... started to build all my apps from scratch, built the dependencies either from slackbuilds or from source code,... and packaged them into slackware packages...

I built a "coherent" system, coherent in the meaning that everything installed satisfies some dependency, and the system is "complete"... without having to use less optimized precompiled binaries/libs like one uses in *buntu, or Debian or Red Hat/Fedora/Mandriva/suse...

So... for me Slackware is no Longer an unfriendly distro... i find it very intuitive BTW...


Alex

BRGDS

Can one make a downgrade in Arch...?

Seems to me that everything is pretty much "tied up" in Arch... innagine I want to downgrade a version of Python from 2.6.4 to 2.5.2.... will pacman allow this...?

Wont this break my system...?

In Slackware it did not...

Simply had to removepkg <this>, and installpkg <that>...

Why is pacman better than apt, or yum...? please explain... I know nothing about Arch...

Hi again

I thougt nothing could beat Slackware in terms of boot speed/ memory footprint/snappiness of use... till I tried Arch...

...man... Arch developers take the K.I.S.S. principles to an extreme...

... but i wouldn't advise starting straight with Arch for someone who never used any *NIX system before...

BRGDS

Alex

@ reed9

No offense but if you find Slackware confusing and you're using Arch Linux why are you posting in a Slackware forum? It seems we get a lot of Arch trolls here that don't even use Slackware, I don't understand why...

Hi amiga32

with all due respect, i disagree with you...

I will explain, I started using Slackware, have it installed in my lappy and in a desktop PC i have, started from absolute n00b to someone that "knows his way around..."

I have recently started posting in Arch forum, I find it confusing to me, because my knowledge of it is close to zero, so with all intellectual honesty, I ask these guys there ( Archer community ) about somthings that i find confusing or less clear...

... you see... i do not know, but I want to know... so i ask humbly those who know more than I do...

... does this make me "a Slacker Troll trying to start a flame war in any other forum..." ?

You see, I use Slackware, and I like it, I do not yet use Arch, simply because I do not know how to... does that mean that Arch is better than Slackware, or that Slackware is better than Arch, or that this is better than that, or that I am a troll...?

I think not IMHO...

BRGDS

Alex

You see, we're all falling leaves... Falling from absolute ignorance and utmost arrogance, to absolute knowledge and absolute humility...