Because GUI is a more friendly and limited way of tweaking. People do not usually edit conf files if they can use GUIs for it.

Just have to add my 2 pennies...

I am a noob, and have tried just about every distro over the past 6 months. Ubuntu just works. Finds every bit of hardware. Sets everything up. Real easy installation and you have something you can email, and word process, and surf and do all those things. Much easier than Windoze. And there are any number of applications available that are real easy to install.

NOW: Try to set up an obsolete terminal server and an obsolete multiport serial card on an obsolete machine. Try to install a few applications that are not in the repos.

Give up!

Install Slackware - marginally more difficult - all those things that were just about impossible on the 'easy' distros are suddenly simple - just because the kernel isn't modified and everything is in a standard place.

So I have to think a little, and I have to rely on the excellent advice from this forum. I know which I prefer.

I have tried Ubuntu, I agree that it is hard to "get under the hood." I think a lot of that is because I know where "all the parts are" "under the hood" for slackware.

-JJ Back home with slackware

Slackware its great like the above people have said

Why not dual boot Slackware and Ubuntu?

The real problem with every other linux distro I have used is all the auto configuration (and hence much more complicated)configs.

Even for example, open your boot loader config file and SUSE or Ubuntu have all these safe modes and things set up.

This can make simple changes or tweeking for complicated for the less genius like myself to figure out

Also another part of this is the fact that many distros put things in non standard locations. Slackware does not do this as far as I undestand.

that is linux for you... unless you want to play games you can easily find a distro that fits your needs...

I personally like Ubuntu. It has easy GUI config tools, but everything is there as on a normal Debian System if you want to install it. I think of Ubuntu as a basic Debian installation.

Having said that, any Debian based system is going to be completely different from Slackware and you will never get a positive response from a dedicated Slackware user.

As someone else suggested, dual boot between Slackware and Ubuntu. When you partition, it is best to create an ext3 data partion (mount to /data), and then link that to /home for each distro. This way, you will avoid config conflicts. I also suggest that you install Slack first, and then Ubuntu, since Ubuntu uses Grub and Slack uses Lilo. Grub tends to be easier than Lilo to set up.

--Ian

in my machine i have enough space i am thinking to try ubundu and suse along with slack (some 5 gb for each and no other partition only /, share swap) but slack have seperate home
that will conflict,
also slackware10.2 s reiserfs if very bad tht calused me problems in many places and i need to reinstall everything with ext3, but 10.1's was very perfect.
install lilo to the root partition of your slack
same to other distro also, add entry to your slackware-lilo, i think this is slackers way.

Come on, now. I've used both Debian & Ubuntu in the past and found both to be a great environment to work in and have enjoyed each very much. But as you mention they are very different from Slack and so the comparative differences could go on for quite a while. None of these distro choices are inherently "better" than the other. It just depends on how you like your system to function, as well as other preferences which will vary between individuals, and as such have no subjective worth on their own (although people often phrase them as if they might).

I'm really tired of all these "which is the best" threads anyway. Pointless.

rkrishna: Sorry, I meant link /data to /home/<username>/data.
That is the only way I have found (so far) in avoiding such conflicts. Merely sharing data should never conflict.

--Ian

I use and like both. Ubuntu works far better than Slackware on my laptop (2.6 kernel?).

It is much easier to have upto date packages on Slackware. Ubuntu is stuck with 1.0.7 Firefox and a pre-release of OpenOffice2. There is no real equivalent of Linuxpackages

Just to add some more factors to your choice, Slackware 11.0 should be coming out soon (you can already preorder it from the Slackware store).
If I were you I'd just dual boot Ubuntu and Slackware, but if you only had to use one, I personally would prefer Slackware (obviously ).

I don't know what was your problem but there is nothing like "Slackware's reiserfs". Handlig of reiserfs is a matter of kernel and Slack use it in its original unmodified form.

I use both Slackware 10.2 and Ubuntu 5.10 and enjoy using both of them more than other distributions I have used (including Red Hat, Fedora, Mandriva, SUSE).

I have learnt a lot about linux from using Slackware, but I think it is more difficult to use than Ubuntu if you are new to linux (assuming a Windows background).

It's very easy to install Ubuntu and it does an excellent job of downloading and configuring software for you via its package manager. On the other hand, there are things I can do on Slackware that I can't seem to get to work on Ubuntu (I find that compiling programs usually goes much better on Slackware, for example).

So in summary I have invested more time in Slackware (and think that was worthwhile), and find Slackware configuration more straightforward - but I think Ubuntu will let you get on with your work faster.

If you have the space, install both!

Another view:
If you do much multimedia, please try Kanotix and/or PCLinuxOS. I have every distro already mentioned. When it comes to plugins/etc., you can't beat these two distros. I also have the other *big name* distros, but they were too much bloat for me. If you like gui, then pclinuxos gives you the PCC (control center) which was based on MCC with Mandriva. It is a complete control center. You can do anything from it.

Ubuntu is a user-friendly (bloated) spin on Debian. Slackware is nitty-gritty and requires some manual configuration, but in my opinion Slackware is quicker and quite stable, much more than Ubuntu.

When I ran Ubuntu I followed a guide that was quite helpful, and if you choose the same, here it is:

http://ubuntuguide.org/

Either way, have some fun.

-Onelung02