LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 06-10-2024, 12:11 AM   #1
linuxuser371038
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2024
Posts: 83

Rep: Reputation: 1
Please comment on if slackware sounds a good fit for my use case


If you read my other thread that tells of my current issues and gripes I have with arch and have read several recommendations for slack to perhaps better suit me.

Said all the main points there so please read that and comment here as I guess a new thread is better to keep it related to slack specific.
 
Old 06-10-2024, 01:00 AM   #2
henca
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2007
Location: Linköping, Sweden
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,024

Rep: Reputation: 688Reputation: 688Reputation: 688Reputation: 688Reputation: 688Reputation: 688
Slackware with its stable releases might be a good choice for you. Even though the releases are stable you are supposed to update your installations with security updates, but those updates don't make any drastic changes to your systems, they will act and feel like before. The only thing to be careful about is when there is a kernel upgrade among the security updates. Failing to update the configuration of your bootloader and any initrd might cause problems.

regards Henrik
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-10-2024, 01:05 AM   #3
Daedra
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Springfield, MO
Distribution: Slackware64-15.0
Posts: 2,735

Rep: Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400
Based upon your post in the other thread I would say Slackware stable "might" be a good fit for you. Stable releases of Slackware have a nice long life cycle that you are looking for. You have to keep in mind that Slackware does not have dependency resolution or SystemD like arch. So even though you have been using Linux for 8 years, moving to Slackware will require a higher learning curve since Slackware has it's own way of doing things. If you like having total control over your system and enjoying "tinkering" then I think you will like Slackware. But if you just want to get to work and not have to worry about much in the way of setting up your system, then Debian might be a better choice. And just like you mentioned in your other post Arch users and Slackware users are VERY much alike in that they can be grumpy and do not suffer fools gladly. This is a very helpful community but we can get annoyed real quick when it looks like someone is not trying to figure out things on their own and are wanting us to do their homework for them.

Last edited by Daedra; 06-10-2024 at 01:07 AM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-10-2024, 01:31 AM   #4
hazel
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 7,702
Blog Entries: 19

Rep: Reputation: 4503Reputation: 4503Reputation: 4503Reputation: 4503Reputation: 4503Reputation: 4503Reputation: 4503Reputation: 4503Reputation: 4503Reputation: 4503Reputation: 4503
Reasons for using Slackware:

1) It's very stable and good-tempered and you have already said that you don't like bleeding edge.
2) As an Arch user, you already have a basic knowledge of how Linux works and how to use the command line. Like Arch, Slackware is a hands-on distro.
3) In spite of what daedra said, I find the community friendly and not hoity-toity like the Arch people.

Reasons for not using Slackware:

1) You say you don't like bloat. With Slackware you are expected to do a full install, which will include a lot of programs that you may not be using. Patrick builds his software economically so there is not much runtime bloat, but it does have bloated storage requirements.
2) Other distros allow you to start small and then add in what you want, but that requires a package manager which understands dependencies, like pacman or Debian's apt. Slackware doesn't do dependencies officially, so you need a full install (unless you are willing to spend time doing your own dependency checking).
3) Slackware versions tend to hang around for a long time which isn't to everyone's taste. I remember that 14.2 definitely outstayed its welcome. When that happens, more and more people start using Slackware-current, but then you're back on the bleeding edge again.

Last edited by hazel; 06-10-2024 at 01:33 AM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-10-2024, 01:57 AM   #5
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 4,813

Rep: Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451Reputation: 4451
FWIW I used 14.0 for almost 3 years after 14.1 was released and I had no problems with the age of 14.2 until the last few months before 15 was released largely because I update kernels by custom building them when I want and key software, too, like Firefox. It's just not very difficult to compile from source or slackbuilds.

I've used Arch, anARCHy and Manjaro and they didn't behave "un-bloated" compared to Full Install Slackware. On the same machine Slackware used less resources and was and is snappier, even in gaming benchmarks, than any systemd distro I've ever tried including Arch and it's derivatives.

Having spent over 20 years with Slackware as my Main on a multiboot system I am almost certainly biased in favor of "The Slackware Way" of editing human readable config files instead of having to run binaries to do simple jobs, but from my POV the only downside of Slackware compared to systemd distros is the slow updates to Pipewire. I despise Pulseaudio and will be grateful when it's dead and buried. There is nothing else I like better on other distros...nothing. That said, it will likely be a challenge for you for a month or so adjusting to the very different init system.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-10-2024, 02:14 AM   #6
Daedra
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Springfield, MO
Distribution: Slackware64-15.0
Posts: 2,735

Rep: Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400Reputation: 1400
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
Reasons for using Slackware:

1) It's very stable and good-tempered and you have already said that you don't like bleeding edge.
2) As an Arch user, you already have a basic knowledge of how Linux works and how to use the command line. Like Arch, Slackware is a hands-on distro.
3) In spite of what daedra said, I find the community friendly and not hoity-toity like the Arch people.

Reasons for not using Slackware:

1) You say you don't like bloat. With Slackware you are expected to do a full install, which will include a lot of programs that you may not be using. Patrick builds his software economically so there is not much runtime bloat, but it does have bloated storage requirements.
2) Other distros allow you to start small and then add in what you want, but that requires a package manager which understands dependencies, like pacman or Debian's apt. Slackware doesn't do dependencies officially, so you need a full install (unless you are willing to spend time doing your own dependency checking).
3) Slackware versions tend to hang around for a long time which isn't to everyone's taste. I remember that 14.2 definitely outstayed its welcome. When that happens, more and more people start using Slackware-current, but then you're back on the bleeding edge again.
I don't want to OP to think we are not a friendly and welcoming community, and I personally always try to make new users feel welcome. I am just saying that after 20 years on here I have seem some unnecessary attitude given to new users who don't follow proper post etiquette. I meant it as a heads up not a warning. We are saints here compared to the short fused edgelords in places like Stack Overflow.

Last edited by Daedra; 06-10-2024 at 05:32 PM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-10-2024, 03:41 AM   #7
fatmac
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Upper Hale, Surrey/Hants Border, UK
Distribution: Mainly Devuan, antiX, & Void, with Tiny Core, Fatdog, & BSD thrown in.
Posts: 5,534

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
If you don't want the full installation, but still want to use Slackware, consider Salix, or one of the other distros based on Slack.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-10-2024, 07:51 AM   #8
Gerard Lally
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Leinster, IE
Distribution: Slackware, NetBSD
Posts: 2,205

Rep: Reputation: 1781Reputation: 1781Reputation: 1781Reputation: 1781Reputation: 1781Reputation: 1781Reputation: 1781Reputation: 1781Reputation: 1781Reputation: 1781Reputation: 1781
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxuser371038 View Post
If you read my other thread that tells of my current issues and gripes I have with arch and have read several recommendations for slack to perhaps better suit me.

Said all the main points there so please read that and comment here as I guess a new thread is better to keep it related to slack specific.
I highly recommend Slackware. Learn to use sbopkg to make up for whatever is lacking in the default install. sbopkg queues will handle dependencies for you.

Contrary to what most people here will tell you, you don't need to do a full install. You can leave out emacs, faq, kde and xap.

After installing sbopkg and setting up the configuration, go ahead and sync the main slackbuilds repository :

Code:
sbopkg -r
To generate queue files for all the software at slackbuilds dot org :

Code:
sqg -a
This will take a while.

Queue files take care of a package and its dependencies.

To install a package and its dependencies :

Code:
sbopkg -krqi icewm
If Slackware doesn't suit, then try FreeBSD, ALT or Calculate.

Don't touch the systemd distros with a barge pole.

Last edited by Gerard Lally; 06-10-2024 at 07:58 AM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-10-2024, 08:18 AM   #9
kgha
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2018
Location: Sweden
Distribution: Slackware 64 -current multilib from AlienBob's LiveSlak MATE
Posts: 1,097

Rep: Reputation: 766Reputation: 766Reputation: 766Reputation: 766Reputation: 766Reputation: 766Reputation: 766
Is disk space a serious problem for you? A full slackware-15.0 install requires at least 17 GB (although a / partition of 30 GB is probably a good option - larger if you need to do some heavy compiling stuff). A program installed but never used consumes no resources other than disk space.

As Gerard Lally mentions, you could skip some parts without any disastrous consequences:
/e (emacs)
/f (faqs)
/kde (but if you want the sddm login you should install that particular package)
/y (some simple games)

Depending on your needs, you might also leave out /t (texlive)

/xap contains a lot of applications that you might do without, but also a few that you might need, e.g. the BT manager Blueman.

Personally I would go for a full install and remove unnecessary stuff later on.

Last edited by kgha; 06-10-2024 at 08:32 AM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-10-2024, 08:26 AM   #10
linuxuser371038
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2024
Posts: 83

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
Reasons for using Slackware:

1) It's very stable and good-tempered and you have already said that you don't like bleeding edge.
2) As an Arch user, you already have a basic knowledge of how Linux works and how to use the command line. Like Arch, Slackware is a hands-on distro.
3) In spite of what daedra said, I find the community friendly and not hoity-toity like the Arch people.

Reasons for not using Slackware:

1) You say you don't like bloat. With Slackware you are expected to do a full install, which will include a lot of programs that you may not be using. Patrick builds his software economically so there is not much runtime bloat, but it does have bloated storage requirements.
2) Other distros allow you to start small and then add in what you want, but that requires a package manager which understands dependencies, like pacman or Debian's apt. Slackware doesn't do dependencies officially, so you need a full install (unless you are willing to spend time doing your own dependency checking).
3) Slackware versions tend to hang around for a long time which isn't to everyone's taste. I remember that 14.2 definitely outstayed its welcome. When that happens, more and more people start using Slackware-current, but then you're back on the bleeding edge again.
Hmm it was all sounding good until the required full install part. However someone below mentioned more minimalist distros built on slack which might fit better.

Seems wasteful to install a bunch of stuff I won't use. The modular approach is definitely up on my list of wants.
 
Old 06-10-2024, 08:27 AM   #11
linuxuser371038
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2024
Posts: 83

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
FWIW I used 14.0 for almost 3 years after 14.1 was released and I had no problems with the age of 14.2 until the last few months before 15 was released largely because I update kernels by custom building them when I want and key software, too, like Firefox. It's just not very difficult to compile from source or slackbuilds.

I've used Arch, anARCHy and Manjaro and they didn't behave "un-bloated" compared to Full Install Slackware. On the same machine Slackware used less resources and was and is snappier, even in gaming benchmarks, than any systemd distro I've ever tried including Arch and it's derivatives.

Having spent over 20 years with Slackware as my Main on a multiboot system I am almost certainly biased in favor of "The Slackware Way" of editing human readable config files instead of having to run binaries to do simple jobs, but from my POV the only downside of Slackware compared to systemd distros is the slow updates to Pipewire. I despise Pulseaudio and will be grateful when it's dead and buried. There is nothing else I like better on other distros...nothing. That said, it will likely be a challenge for you for a month or so adjusting to the very different init system.
How do you mean a full slack install can be less bloated than a barebones arch system?
 
Old 06-10-2024, 08:30 AM   #12
linuxuser371038
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2024
Posts: 83

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daedra View Post
I don't want to OP to think we are not a friendly and welcoming community, and I personally always try to make new users feel welcome. I am just saying that after 20 years on here I have seem some unnecessary attitude given to new users how don't follow proper post etiquette. I meant it as a heads up not a warning. We are saints here compared to the short fused edgelords in places like Stack Overflow.
Haha, yea they just take the cake over there. I remember making an account there at the beginning of my linux journey and after a couple of posts getting immediate downvotes within a few minutes I deleted the account details in chagrin.

Reddit subs nurtured most of my learning experience up to now however I find the downvoting system on there so toxic - but that is mainly for the politics/general subs and the hivemind brigading and so have boycotted that now coming back to oldschool forums like this.
 
Old 06-10-2024, 08:31 AM   #13
linuxuser371038
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2024
Posts: 83

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatmac View Post
If you don't want the full installation, but still want to use Slackware, consider Salix, or one of the other distros based on Slack.
Sounds promising as the full install as standard does sound rather a turn off to me despite the possible positives.
 
Old 06-10-2024, 08:33 AM   #14
linuxuser371038
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2024
Posts: 83

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerard Lally View Post
I highly recommend Slackware. Learn to use sbopkg to make up for whatever is lacking in the default install. sbopkg queues will handle dependencies for you.

Contrary to what most people here will tell you, you don't need to do a full install. You can leave out emacs, faq, kde and xap.

After installing sbopkg and setting up the configuration, go ahead and sync the main slackbuilds repository :

Code:
sbopkg -r
To generate queue files for all the software at slackbuilds dot org :

Code:
sqg -a
This will take a while.

Queue files take care of a package and its dependencies.

To install a package and its dependencies :

Code:
sbopkg -krqi icewm
If Slackware doesn't suit, then try FreeBSD, ALT or Calculate.

Don't touch the systemd distros with a barge pole.
Do you recommend this way to avoid full install or rather a slackware based more minimalist distro as recommended by post #7, from fatmac?
 
Old 06-10-2024, 08:37 AM   #15
linuxuser371038
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2024
Posts: 83

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgha View Post
Is disk space a serious problem for you? A full slackware-15.0 install requires at least 17 GB (although a / partition of 30 GB is probably a good option - larger if you need to do some heavy compiling stuff). A program installed but never used consumes no resources other than disk space.

As Gerard Lally mentions, you could skip some parts without any disastrous consequences:
/e (emacs)
/f (faqs)
/kde (but if you want the sddm login you should install that particular package)
/y (some simple games)

Depending on your needs, you might also leave out /t (texlive)

/xap contains a lot of applications that you might do without, but also a few that you might need, e.g. the BT manager Blueman.

Personally I would go for a full install and remove unnecessary stuff later on.
Wow 17gb! I think arch prides itself on being able to be installed on only a few hundred mb. At least that was the case at one point a few years ago from what I remember.

I only have 64gb on this laptop I was recently gifted. Regardless of space limitation even if I didn't have them I would have a hard time justifying such space usage on programs I probably would not use. What is taking up all that space?

So while slackware may be king of the hill in terms of stability it seems it is making no attempts to be lightweight? Are the recommendations from fatmac in post #7 going to achieve both goals?
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Using comment symbol for matching comment sections Faki Linux - Newbie 9 11-03-2021 09:50 AM
LXer: Fit for purpose: The case for the purpose-built database LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 07-26-2021 05:22 PM
System sounds don't work as well as sounds through a browser Bagmeijer Linux - Newbie 1 03-03-2008 11:53 AM
system sounds, yes - media sounds, no bean target Linux - Newbie 3 02-14-2006 07:57 AM
Recorded audio sounds horrible, but the untouched line-in sounds ok? justin218 Linux - Newbie 1 10-14-2003 05:11 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration