I still don't see any anti-Slackware sentiment there as such. And just because you haven't replied to me, it doesn't mean that I cannot address a point you've made or clarify my point.

All I understood from that was that Arch = similar to Slackware + optimized for i686 + package management + bleeding edge software. Not one criticism of Slackware anywhere or a hint that Slackware be changed. I guess he was just trying to describe Arch as he sees it with relation to Slackware.

If we could now get back to the topic on hand: that is, Arch opinions from users of Slackware who have used or tried Arch Linux?

P.S. If Slackware users don't want this thread here, that's fine for me. I'll ask it to be moved to the main distro forum.

Only thing is some of you here seems to take the smallest/minutest criticism of Slackware to be a full-blown attack and derail the topic. I request you not to. Only each and every one of you can keep this thread on track.

Thank you so much!

<Corrected>Original text removed as it was meant to go to another thread<Corrected/>

SORRY, please ignore, my keyboard seems to have a bad day... 8-(


gargamel

I haven't used Arch, but the discussion indicates that anybody who has an i686, installs swaret or slapt-get, and uses the linuxpackages.net repository would get to about the same place as Arch. I am wondering, though, does i686 optimization make any noticable difference? Seems that if you have an i686, it would be too fast to tell the difference between something happening in 400 and 600 clock cycles. It is still probably important for compiles and games cause they do use more processor than most normal office-type tasks.

I'd like to correct the imperfect formula "ArchLinux = Slackware + perfect package manager + i686 optimization" by my view.

ArchLinux = Slackware + PM with automatic dependencies handling + i686 architecture + larger set of packages - absence of stable branch ( - much younger i.e. not so proved)

PM: For many (less experienced) users, automatic dependency handling for packages is a bless, for me and few other is a non-essential obstruction.

i686 architecture: Both distros are optimized for i686 CPUs. Arch binaries are using instruction set of i686 (pentium pro) processors whereas Slack of i486. In reality there are very special cases when it can boost running speed, but for these a small plus for Arch is given.

Set of packages: Slack has a nice set of packages but in comparison to other distros including Arch it's often not able to satisfy user needs and so one is forced to compile from sources(annoying) or use third-party packages(dangerous). Big plus for Arch.

Stable branch: Arch's lack of stable release with security updates only is something very disqualifying for enterprise deployment. Even for home servers and some desktops may be the wild nature of "rolling updates" system something to be avoided. I understand many adventurous users wish to be on the "bleeding edge" and believe, sometimes wrong, the latest mean the greatest. Big minus for Arch.

In addition Slack has something what Arch has to build yet. It's more then 10 years of history while keeping the image of one of the most secure and stable distros and at the same time it still belongs to the top most used. Slack principles including "dreaded" package management have not changed too much in the whole era and it still serve well - it means something.

linuxpackages.net and others are not really more dangerous than official IMO partially because the bleeding-edge part is overwhelmingly dangerous compared to unofficial packagers. I think the problem with Arch would be that it doesn't offer anything useful that a little bit of tweaking in Slackware couldn't fix.

I would agree with you except for the fact that 3rd party packages are pretty dangerous. You never know if the packages work correctly, or worse what the person could have bundled into the software. Worst case scenario, someone creates a script that does an "rm -rf $HOME" and names it gmplayer, puts it into an mplayer packages, so when you download it, it's the correct size, but when you execute gmplayer all of your personal documents are gone.

First party wins for that reason.

EDIT: Now granted i'm not saying this is GOING to happen, but it is possible. Perhaps i'm just paranoid when it comes to using possibly untested packages made by complete strangers over the internet with nothing to lose if they hose your system.

That kind of thing can happen, but the same kind of thinking can be applied to normal software or even distros. I know I don't look at the source at all when I compile stuff. What if PV put in the Slackware installer something that irrecoverably destroys a system?

Even if you are very paranoid, you have to trust some people. And it's much easier to trust proven long-time distro maintainer then some anonymous/reckless identity from Internet. Or isn't ?

Exactly right. I'm certainly not saying that Slackware should change to be just like Arch. There are lots of things I like about Slackware and for some purposes I would without a moment's hesitation use Slackware in place of Arch (anything besides my desktop, basically).

I've used Arch. The pacman package manager seems pretty good if you like that sort of thing. I prefer manual package management (that's just me).

Arch just seemed a little too unstable to me. Overall it seemed good, but some packages created a few problems, and the lack of a stable release is, to me, a problem as I prefer to use my machine thatn troubleshoot it.