Slackware 'like' OS Choice?
 

Hey All,
I have been running Slackware for years. I have been craving something new. In the past I have tried Redhat, but i didn't care for it much. Fedora doesn't boot. I was recommended by a friend of mine who had used Slackware for years to try PCLinuxOS. I will give PCLinuxOS credit. When they say everything will work on boot, they mean it. However that is part of the problem. EVERYTHING works. What does that leave me to fiddle with? NOTHING. Also, while using PCLinuxOS I came to the conclusion that RPM's suck. REminds me so much of Windows. Oh, lets click on the exe and let it do whatever it is programmed to do.... ON another thought, with PCLinuxOS you CANT install ANYTHING from source. That kinda pisses me off!

Anyways, here is what I am looking for. Like I said I have used Slackware for years and I love how it works. So I am hoping to find something that is at least Slackware-Based. I have heard of Vector Linux. Anybody have thoughts on that? Are there some others that somebody recommends? I love using linuxpackages.net, so an OS that uses TGZ's would be most preferred. That kinda goes with Slackware-Based. That is what I am looking for. Any thoughts?

Thanks,
DragonM15

I think I'd recommend Debian Sid and dipping into Experimental. Debian tends to work, but running the cutting (bleeding?) edge Sid and Experimental packages will keep you on your toes. You might find that .deb packages are as enjoyable as .tgz packages, albeit certainly different.

Before installing Debian, do enough studying to learn to do it right. Install only the base system, then only the particular X applications that you want. Build a system designed to your specifications rather than a "fat and flatulent" newbie distro that gets in your way more than providing for your needs.

Hehehe.

Try as many other distros as you can. You'll be back to Slack in no time.

That is definitely true. No matter how many distros you try, you always end up with Slackware.

I've just recently gone on a distro-experimentation binge, myself, which I haven't done in ages. Some of what I've played with this time are:

Vector - based on Slack, but seem to be drifting apart. I've tried this probably 3 or 4 times and like it less each time. There's something I can't put my finger on, but I just call it 'clunky' to myself. However, it should appeal to many Slackers, especially on older boxes. And it may be that this last time I tried SOHO - maybe the plain Vector would be better.

Zenwalk - also based on Slack - have to admire the thoroughness - they've basically decided 'we are going to build a stripped Slackware devoted to xfce (only slipping a tiny bit of gnome-isms and a few Zenwalk-specific things). Very limited and you have to love xfce (which I definitely don't) but if you are a Slack/xfce fan, you might enjoy it a lot.

Frugalware - a kind of unholy alliance of a modified pacman (Arch's package manager - and they improve it quite a bit IMO) and Slackware. It's really more like Arch than Slack at this point, but it's my favorite of the three.

That said, you might even try Arch or, better yet, Crux (which is basically what Arch is sort of inspired by/descended from, though it's technically an LFS-spinoff, IIRC). These are very stripped down and simple distros that appeal to the 'gimme my shell and editor and lemme do it' attitude, but have a spiffy package-management system, if you're into that.

There's also all kinds of other Slack-derivatives - from floppy distros based on ooold Slack like BasicLinux to things in the Vector ballpark. Check DistroWatch or the like for more.

And all *that* said, I'm playing heavily with Debian at the moment. I'm honestly really tired of compiling a third of the system myself and don't trust 3rd party Slackware packages (though why I should trust debs any more, I dunno) and there's been some bloat and weirdness going on in -current that I don't much care for. So I temporarily agree with rickh, except that I'm firmly on 'stable' at the moment, after anticipating 4.0 with 'testing' for a bit. And, ultimately, I agree with the guys who say you'll just end up with Slackware again. :)

I had a feeling like this after running Slackware for about six months. Even though Slackware was great and there wasn't anything at all I didn't like about it I thought there must be something else worth trying.

I tried Debian (hated SYSV init to the point of tossing my PC off a bridge) Arch (just too wierd back then and no user community but I think things have improved alot since then) Gentoo (no luck there) and a few more. I decided there's NOTHING like Slackware. Everything works. You can make your own packages easily, you can build any Linux app with ease, it's just so good there's no other Linux distro that you can use after you become a Slacker ;) If you think Slackware is boring because there's nothing to do, Debian is 100 times worse in that way. The one thing that is nice about Debian is it's really quite lean for a Linux distro. Not lean like Slackware, but leaner than 90% of the other big distros that have package systems.

I like BSD alot too. I started with OpenBSD and I'm glad I did because in many ways it's the simplest of the BSDs to install and set up even though they try to scare you off. I also have FreeBSD and NetBSD systems. I see a lot of crossover from Slackers to FreeBSD many guys seem to run both.

I would say unless you're using Linux for your job and need to be knowledgable on a specific distro like RH or SUSE then just stay with Slack and start looking into BSD. There are a couple of problems with BSD that Slackers may find hard to take. FreeBSD and NetBSD use a special system of build scripts which manage dependencies so if you build the same apps on one of those as you have on Slackware, you will be using more disk space and have more crap lying around on your system then you would on your Slackware system. That really bothers me but other people don't care. The other thing is that since the main c/c++ compiler and build tools in the world right now are GNU and GNU is Linux (yes we all know GNU means GNU is Not Unix!) it's sometimes much much easier to build an app on Linux and if you just download the source on BSD and start compiling like you did on Slackware a lot of times it doesn't work and it's really annoying. FreeBSD has thousands of build scripts so you can build most apps with no problems. But just grabbing source like you can with Slackware is not a slamdunk on BSD. There are many good things about all the BSD, I haven't tried any live CDs but I run the three main BSD flavours and they all have their high points.

Like some of the guys said Once you Slack you can never go back ;)

Gimme shell/tor ;)

Sing it Randux!

Hi,

Why don't you try 'LFS'Linux From Scratch Forum. You could use Slackware as your base. The 'Welcome to Linux From Scratch' site would be another place to start.

Anything?
 

That would piss me off too -- if it were true. What have you tried to install from source? I've installed tons of stuff from source on PCLinuxOS. It's why I switched from Ubuntu ;)

Now, on the other hand, since PCLinuxOS was my first system, I should tell you I'm thinking of ditching it in favor of installing Slackware at home. The Control Center has just stopped working, and I'm having serious trouble finding the configuration files to alter in place of using the GUI. Plus, the documentation for PCLinuxOS leaves much to be desired.

Yes, Slackware will KILL your desire to find something better; it strongly corroborates the idea that ...

It's the best Linux distro ever and will continue to be for a long time.

Joel

If you want a Slack-like distro perhaps give FreeBSD 6.2 a try; I ran BSD for quite awhile. In FreeBSD you have the choice of installing packages or you can compile from source. I also run Debian Etch at the moment, it is a solid distro.
However, once you're a Slacker, you're always a Slacker. Nothing is as good as Slackware.

I agree, if you want Slackware-like ... try the BSDs.

Crux
 

CRUX is very nice ;)

I used to be a Slackware only person, but FreeBSD has kept Slackware off my server, and Arch, Slackware off my desktop for a significant amount of time now and I've not really felt the desire to return, unlike when I tried out other distros. Therefore I'd recommend either as an alternative to Slackware.

Hi, yeah!
* I don't get why you like using linuxpackages.net (Nothing Wrong With It) but if you've been using slackware for years you'd probably prefer slackbuilds or rolling your own :cool:
* I didn't like compiling a vanilla kernel nor installing nvidia drivers when i tried Vector, probably different now. It "gets in the way" too much for my liking.
* Trying Free/Open BSD could be enjoyable for a while, but for me (desktop user) FreeBSD pulls too much deps as Randux said, it didn't run as 'fast' as slackware and i ended up using linux emulation for lots of things (besides gcc as said before). I didn't take the time to learn from the porters-handbook, so finding a program on the web, grabbing the source and rolling my own was'nt as easy as it is on slackware or 'linux'. Anyway, the ports collection is huge! and their deps too :rolleyes: . I loved OpenBSD, but i also like some gaming+nvidia drivers, so gnu/linux fits my needs better. I'd definitely use Open or FreeBSD for a server.
* My vote goes for trying Arch, it is simple, has an apt-like package manager (pacman) and it's also easy to build from source with abs. 'rolling your own' seems easier than on *BSD. Here's Arch compared to other distros
* In the end, nothing matters till you try them all and make up your mind. I always keep a 4GB partition to try the 'next big things' or to check if the grass is greener somewhere else. It isn't, as they say, once a Slacker, always a Slacker!
Enjoy! :D

I like Arch Linux. Seems to be the easiest. There are several different kernels to choose from that are already compiled and you just pacman -Syu to update. The base system is so small that I only need to remove lilo, and some filesystem specific tools likes reiserfs stuff because I use ext3. I used to use rubix linux which in my opinion was awesome. Slackware + modular startup + pacman. It was great. :(

For all those that have tried FreeBSD, how does it compare to Linux vs the other BSDs? It seems like FreeBSD is the most Linux-like of the BSD variants.

Also, I agree with the people that said Slack is the best. If you stay Linux, there is nothing better. :cool:

There are some nice things about it - I like stuff like 'vidcontrol', but the tools are generally either 'more unix-y' or 'old-fashioned and less-featureful' depending on your angle. Hardware support is generally not as good - good, just not *as good*. Also, I have weird problems with my external USB drives that I don't have with any Linux. Apparently the IDE driver now handles USB instead of the USB driver (or whatever), so maybe it's better now. Slackware and *BSD get compared a lot but, IMO, Slackware's better. The thing FreeBSD is most like is Gentoo. Or, rather, Gentoo is most like FreeBSD.

Also, since FreeBSD is made up of gcc and groff and the X Window System and lots of other things and, as far as Linux goes, the FSF makes coreutils, bash, and a bunch of other junk, I find the 'Linux is a mishmash and BSD is a single coherent system' arguments to be overblown. Still, you do get a more coherent *feel* from the main source tree, the unified presentation of core man pages (unlike the hideous crap they generally are on Linux since the FSF likes to butcher them in favor of info), and so on.

If you've got run-of-the-mill hardware that is high-spec enough to compile a lot or you don't mind it in general and you're curious, then it's definitely worth a shot.

As far as it being the most Linux like in general, I dunno - I haven't tried the other BSDs except PC-BSD, which is frighteningly Windows-like. (Some people slam 'user-friendly' Linux distros with that but this isn't a slam at user-friendliness - I'm saying it's like a clone, complete with goofy messages, click-next software installations, gratuitous reboots, and so on.) But I gather NetBSD would be like Debian in a sense and OpenBSD would like some security-centric Linux distro. I don't know that you can say it's the most Linux-like - just the most suitable of the three for an x86 desktop. But, as I say, that could be wrong, based on general rep. I know people *do* use Net or Open as desktops.

I say if people want an OS like Windoze ... why not the real deal ? Why bother with Linux clones of Windoze ?

None of the BSDs are Linux-like- BSD is pure UNIX, you could say (and it is said) that Slackware is the most UNIX-like Linux.

All the BSDs have many similarities since they're all more or less related as forks of each other or predecessors. The main difference from a user's view is how packages are built and managed.

Beautifully said. The gnu gcc toolchain is the biggest thorn in BSD's side. Unfortunately, creating a compatible toolchain that will work with autoconf and all the other tools is not likely to happen. Because of this, Linux actually feels better integrated than BSD as soon as you start to compile anything manually. I suspect only a kernel dev would be able to see where BSD's overall integration is better. For the user, even a power user, he's not likely to see it.

I don't think NetBSD is like Debian at all. It's like any other BSD, only with a better package manager. pkgsrc is the best of the lot. OpenBSD is also not like Linux- it's like BSD, but everything is usually done with precompiled binary packages. The BSDs are much closer to each other (they're all related) than they are to any Linux. It's not hard to move between them except that OpenBSD does things a little bit differently in some areas than Free and Net.

I totally agree, that 'once you had Slack you never go back'. However, the lack of dependency tracking in the package management had been annoying me for ages.

Then I discovered Zenwalk. Slackware through and through, except the netpkg utility has dep-tracking. Only works with packages from the Zenwalk repo. The packages are in tgz-format, and the dep-tracking is handled by metafiles. You will still be able to install standard .tgz packages, only, dependencies won't be tracked.

After having moved to Zenwalk, I will truly never consider another distro again.

I haven't seen Zenwalk so I don't know if this is true but it seems that all of the package systems that manage dependencies end up dragging piles of rubbish along you don't want. For example if I build ROX-filer in Slackware from source, I can create a package with nothing but ROX-filer in it, and it works. If I build the same app on FreeBSD then I get a few thousand other packages that are considered dependencies:

ORBit2-2.14.7_1, atk-1.18.0, autoconf-2.13.000227_5, avahi-0.6.18, bitstream-vera-1.10_3, cairo-1.4.6, cdrtools-2.01_6, dbus-1.0.2_1, dbus-glib-0.73, dmidecode-2.8, expat-2.0.0_1, fontconfig-2.4.2_1,1, freetype2-2.2.1_1, gamin-0.1.8, gconf2-2.18.0.1, gdbm-1.8.3_3, gettext-0.16.1_1, glib-2.12.12, gmake-3.81_1, gnome-mime-data-2.18.0, gnome-vfs-2.18.1, gnome_subr-1.0, gnomehier-2.2, gtk-2.10.12, hal-0.5.8.20070403_1, hicolor-icon-theme-0.10_2, intltool-0.35.5_2, jpeg-6b_4, libIDL-0.8.8, libXft-2.1.7_1, libbonobo-2.18.0, libdaemon-0.10_1, libdrm-2.0.2, libiconv-1.9.2_2, libvolume_id-0.75.0, libxml2-2.6.27, linc-1.0.3_6, m4-1.4.9, p5-XML-Parser-2.34_2, pango-1.16.4, pciids-20070425, perl-5.8.8, pkg-config-0.21, png-1.2.14, policykit-0.1.20060514_3, popt-1.7_3, python24-2.4.4, samba-libsmbclient-3.0.24, shared-mime-info-0.21_2, tiff-3.8.2_1, xorg-fonts-encodings-6.9.0_1, xorg-fonts-truetype-6.9.0, xorg-libraries-6.9.0_1

WTF!!!

but they aren't required at all, it's just a necessity of how to do package management when you have to consider other apps and it takes 10x the disk space. I'm not criticising FreeBSD, it's a great OS. It's just to point out that dependency management has a price that alot of people don't want (or can't) pay.

Because of this I think most of the Slackers prefer to manage their own dependencies. I've broken things a few times, but I also fixed them :p If you don't like package bloat, Slackware rules.

The other problem with Zenwalk is the "one tool for one job" mentality. A very bad one I must say. Let's face it, tools break often :) If you have only one for the job, you are screwed :( That's why I always have at least 1 backup program at hand for a certain purpose, just in case. Of course, this is all IMO, believe whatever you want. From my experiences, "one tool for one job" is bad idea.

I find Slackware package management and its lack of dependencies solving infrastructure often misunderstood. It's very simple, smooth and functional nevertheless.

• Common installs are intended to be full so there is no case when stock package will miss some dependency whereas 99,9% of dependencies are solved by installing library packages from l/ subdirectory.
• Even if full install is not realized, dependecies are to be manualy solved only once and then it's just about brainless upgrading with updated packages from patches. To be correct almost brainless, reading ChangeLog.txt never harms - there are rare cases when upgrade might break something.
• In case of custom packages one need to track dependencies by himself like it does any package maintainer at other distro vendors like Debian or RedHat.

To sum up, there's no urge for dependencies mechanism to be included because Slackware is designed to get along without it and remain as simple as possible at the same time.