I am a slackware lover 100%, i love to compile and have this go the way i want them to,
but i find my self between a rock and a hard place some times.. so i try other distros all the time.. i havent found something similar to slackware ( that doesnt require 100+ hours of compile time to get the system up and running ) so i am looking for a good slackware alternative, slackware is a bit to outdated for my work I tried Gentoo but I dont like any distro that strips out the development files.. that includes debian ( love it for servers, but not for development workstations ).

Has anybody tested a more recent distro that has all the development files and is compile frendly like slackware is?

KDE is a plus.

cheers

Huh? Slack is as up to date as you want it to be surely?

My first thought was gentoo ... but you don't like that because the development stuff is not present (you have to install it after)... same with debian (but you can get an entire CD set, and the development files are there...)

I'm afraid it is not clear what you want here: you want the development files to appear on the same CD/DVD as the main installation? You want source-based (or at least so a source install won't mess the managed part) but you don't want to spend loads of time installing and configuring?

What is your work then?

The "complete" distros have tended to go the route of putting the development stuff in post-install too - otherwise fedora or suse sounds like you. Have you tried Yoper or similar "developer" distros?

I'd still suggest you go for the unstable end of debian.

Hmmm... googling for developer centred distros, I found the following: http://www.mslinux.org/

... have fun.

try arch, try Rubix, try frugalware, try zenwalk, try vector, even try voltalinux

LOL i meant no disrespect lol my line of work varies quite a bit, C dev for linux apps, then perl for webapps ( no problems there ) and some extra apps i need to compile that are in house, i have gone the debian unstable way before ( but again, i like having this there, like slackware does.. not having to install package after package trying to figure out if XX app or library is in that package or if it will mess up something else.. thats why i love slackware, its so nice like home to me.. maybe because its the first one i stared using way back when... but again.. i did try most i am currently downloading ROOT linux, i like things had so i dont quite get into the suse or fedora type distros.

But again, if slack comes out with a release im back on slack no questions asked.. i have see the current but it keeps crashing my workstation.. lol

i will try these also... ( i have a huge backbone here lol )

Cheers

I was/am a long time slackware users. My servers at the office run slackware, however for desktop /home use, Archlinux is becoming my distro of choice. Install is basically the same. Archlinux is as "up to date" with packages as gentoo, very stable. You can use abs and build your own packages or use pacman. Pacman is very similar to apt-get. It allows you to get precompiled packages. Generally archlinux packages are a day or two behind release. They have already moved to latest kernels, modular Xorg7, Gnome 2.14, etc. Its clean and fast.


Install the base system and pacman your way to a completely custom system. They are still below version 1.0(0.7.1, I beleive), so I wouldnt use it in production. However, I have never had an issue with stability.


My two cents


Soule

Of course Slackware is going to have another release, I am a little confused as to what you mean here.

The packages in Slackware 10.2 are too old for you, but -current is not stable enough? If that is the case, I would either look into using slapt-get with a site like LinuxPackages.net, or better yet, just upgrade whatever packages you need by yourself.

I think that is probably the thing I don't get about your situation, Slackware is, for the most part, about putting in the software you want, how you want it. Because of this, it is only as outdated or as bleeding edge as the user choses.

Granted, for things like keeping up with Open Office and FireFox releases, this can be a pain (compiling for hours does tend to suck), but that is where Linuxpackages.net comes in, if the software is popular, you can be pretty sure somebody will have the latest version packaged up within a few days.

Agreed. For the longest time, I have been running Slack 9.0 with upgrades wherever I needed them. I haven't actually done clean instill until recently (hoorah, new hard drive!!)

I have tried other distros before, but always seem to return to slackware. I think you might just be going through a "mid distro crisis". Slackware will be here waiting for you when you return

regards
...drkstr

I got Arch on my laptop, I would say it has a bit of the 'slackware-feel' to it.

hi there,
i put arch in my laptop as well. if you are a slackware user, arch will fit your needs. CLI,config files and a strong package management system.
regards,
slackie1000

Try KateOS.
Very close to Slackware, but whole on 2.6 kernel, and Xfce default desktop but you can also use KDE or GNOME.

Regards
mars(-ik)

I tried Arch Linux and I hated it. The quality control just wasn't there, and the way it stripped everything of documentation was both stupid and antithetical to the Linux way.

thewonka: Have you tried Fedora? It's very build friendly, comes with up-to-date packages and a dependency-tracking package manager. And since it's by Redhat and at version 5, I expect it to be quite stable too.

I have recently Tried Ubuntu which I thought it was pretty nice. The only problem with the distro I had so far was that you had to enable the root user. Other than that it looked great for a desktop.

I would however not use Ubuntu for a server. Instead I would stick with slackware. It runs extremely fast in my opinion and is just great. Yes it can seem daunting at times but that makes it better because you truly get to know the ins and outs of linux. (I agree that Slackware is only up to date as the user allows it to be.)

As for Fedora Core 5 and it was nice But It just seemed bloated. The installation took 6 hours and 55 mintues. I used to be a big FC fan but I am starting to lose faith. It has just way to many packages that I don't think I personally need.

So again If it was me I would first look at What I am trying to accomplish. Then choose the distribution that is right for the job.

Arch is kind of like having the simplicity of Slack with Gentoo like power(minus the Gentoo gcc screensaver)

And if nothing else fits your needs, you might also consider building your very own distribution. And if LFS is a bit too stony, try ROCK. ;-)

http://www.rocklinux.org.

gargamel

That's what I thought at first - but really, there is nothing you need the root user for, that you cannot do from your own normal user account.

These days I run Ubuntu without a root user.