Slackware too Complex to use?
Slackware is notoriously known to be more Complex all over the net by bigots. However to me (a novice) user I seem to move around the shell much easier then an Ubuntu or Debian Platform with my limited knowledge. For example ubuntu doesnt even allow root login.
I might agree that configuration may be more difficult in slack. But I guess when you master that its easier to change stuff that you messed up... Is that how Slackware works? For example in Ubuntu I messed up the whole system over Dependency issues and had no understanding of how to fix the problem due to complexities. I am going to bring up the dreaded Redhat word again but how can you compare the Shell commands and structure of redhat to Slack besides (systemd and system v init). I have not come across much problem with centos terminal and installs etc. as of yet. I could not spot the difference between the complexity in centos and Slack in terminal usage as a "novice user" other then init customization. How is Slackware superior to CentOS when it comes to terminal usage? I have decided to reinstall centos on my system with its new 6.3 release just to compare the differences between the 2 systems. I would appreciate if anyone can point out Slackware's superiority and simplicity over CentOS other then its "bsd style /etc/". That way I can put in my resume why Slackware is preferable to Redhat and try to get a job as a Slack User LOL It just really depresses me to see nothing but redhat jobs out there and it seems like I am pushed towards the Redhat system. Its like a bourne again Microsoft or something... Monopolizing in the US job market. I have no interest in Debian due to what I am aiming towards however, Redhat keeps saying things in the back of my mind every time I try to focus on Slackware. I am not even too looking towards FreeBSD because of its lack of kernel support. Slackware seems the best but I guess I am speaking for the masses when I make my questions as well. Because there is a lot of insecurities I have read from Slack users that I think by bringing to the surface to answer will help us all understand them better. Especially Novices like myself are just quite frustrated when it comes to choosing 1 distro and sticking to it. I am really exhausted from switching and jumping distro to distro... That is why I need more explanations to make a more solid decision on what to choose and keep working on. I don't care if Redhat is running things as Corporate. Honestly what I care is if it works or not. I am into Stability and Simplicity. I have heard from this forum that Slack beats Redhat in Simplicity. However I have not heard the reason of why other then the System V init structure. All I have heard is because its Corporate and oriented for Business in different ways other then the differences in init structure. Can someone please provide more concrete examples of this? Why is Redhat less simple in Command Line other then init configuration? Yes I agree Slackware is more easier to configure. But when it comes to simplicity what makes Slackware more simple then Redhat? Please don't take this as a threat. I just need more knowledge I think choosing a good distro is important for me. |
This is that whole "user friendly" argument that I hate. Each flavor of Linux is like a different car manufacturer, some people prefer to drive a Ford F-150 and some prefer a Prius. Find the one that you feel comfortable in and that's the best distro for you.
|
You should stop to search for things that are superior or inferior in distros. There aren't such things. They are different.
Do I think as a Slackware user that Slackware is superior? No, I don't. Do I think that it is the best distro for me? Yes, I do. But other people have a different point of view and want different things from their distro. So they like different distros. That makes those other distros better for them, but in no way superior or inferior. Regarding Red Hat and other commercial distros: Get over it. If you want to have a job in a large company as Linux server admin it is very likely that you have to learn Red Hat. In the same way as you most likely will have to deal with Windows and Office if you are a secretary. It is a job, if you want to be good in it you have to learn your tools. You don't have to like the tool and you don't have to use it at home. |
Actually for me when I started out on Linux, I started with other distributions like Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSE, etc. and found them extremely annoying and hard to use. I tried Slackware out and found it extremely easy to use.
Root login allows you so much freedom to self-administrate the system at the foundation level. You have real control, not a pseudo-control level. The more simplistic a design a system is, the easier it is to use. Slackware's philosophy has been always that. KISS - Keep It Stupidly Simple. Slackware comes with all it needs out of the box for a general usage. The rest is up to you, and with the additions from SlackBuilds.org, you can semi-tailor make all the software you'll need for your system. It's about like dealing with PC-BSD. It comes with everything you need, doesn't include bloat, and just works. Slackware just has better driver support.:p |
I once wrote up some thoughts on Slackware's apparent 'complexity' on my blog. I'd probably pick another analogy these days but it still basically sums up what I believe:
my.opera.com/ruario/blog/2011/03/13/slackware-a-simple-and-easy-to-use-linux-distribution And for a follow up, 6 months later I wrote about Slackware's often under rated packaging: my.opera.com/ruario/blog/2011/09/26/slackware-package-and-dependency-management |
Quote:
Also another difference I can spot is that Slackware is more "user centric" as opposed to Redhat being more "system centric" however for a systems engineer this does not make a big difference as does "simplicity". |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
@Mercury305: Read my first link above. I think it answers some of your questions. Whilst I compare Slack to Ubuntu the comparison would be equally valid with Red Hat.
All that said, if I were you I would learn Red Hat (via CentOS). I used to work at Gartner and I can tell you from my experience speaking with their clients (typically pretty large organisations) it really does dominate the enterprise computing market. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
... As someone torn between two cakes and asking someone else which one he prefers.
|
@Mercury305: You worry too much. Why not choose both. The cost is pretty low, particularly if you use a Red Hat clone like CentOS or Scientific. You will learn a lot more this way and be a more rounded admin for it.
I think TobiSGD said it best. This is no special, better than everything else, for every person and very use case, almighty distro. They were each created to fill some niche that the original developer felt wasn't fulfilled elsewhere. Celebrate the diversity! If you don't like diversity maybe it is Linux that isn't for you? Personally I'm glad that the Arch lovers, Magiea fans, Unity aficionados, openbox enthusiasts, VI devotees and EMACS freaks all have an OS they can call their own. |
Quote:
So why is my question so difficult to answer? |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 PM. |