on a system with less than 500mb memory slackware works best, even the so call lighter versions of ubuntu are sluggish on a system with low resources and won't work if the computer is really malnurished. On a system with plenty of computin power then it's a matter of preference.

Agreed. Slackware uses less memory than Ubuntu. I currently run 3 Slackware boxes at home, my slowest one, a Plll 866 with 340 MB RAM runs Slackware 12.2 with KDE 3.5.10 just fine. Ubuntu chokes with less than 512 MB of RAM if you're running the default desktop (gnome).

As posted earlier, you'll get a functional desktop more quickly with ubuntu. The packages are updated to later versions as well, but that may come back and bite you. I've noticed that the release quality has been very uneven with ubuntu. Some releases are great, others are quite unusable. Now on to slackware. I think slackware is better (for me a least) because it's very stable and it's not heavily patched. Pat uses a lot of vanilla packages so when you install a third party program, your system looks like what the developpers of that program expect your system to behave like. It's a very sane development environment. Everything is there as it should be, and programs will just compile without issues. I started in the linux world with ubuntu and ran into trouble compiling stuff frequently because their system is heavily modified. Oh, and upgrades won't break your system in slackware as it may do so in ubuntu. And did I mention that slackware is stable?

I think a better comparison or combination is slackware and debian-(sidux).
I am using slackware-current as my workstation (dual boot) and replaced ubuntu that I used rarely to try applications, with siduxlinux yesterday on the same box. I cannot notice any difference is speed, however it is an amd64_6000+ dual core with xfce DE.

After progressing from ubuntu to wolvix and then slackware I have no intention of changing, however the sidux-xfce-debian distro is the easiest I have ever loaded. The main difference is easier and bigger direct repositories and apt-get has dependency handling. I have never installed Debian, because it looks far more involved that slackware. Sidux is easier than ubuntu.

Nah, the net install iso that Debian uses is easier to install than Slackware. If you can install Slackware then Debian would be a snap for you.

They both use a ncurses UI (if you use Debian's text install), different colour schemes. Debian takes longer with having to download hundreds of files.

slackware is only as difficult as you want to make it. If you choose the one option that most other distros give you (that is install it all and then spend ages removing what you do not want) it takes no longer than ubuntu. Once you decide what you want to install from the Slackware ncurser list, a custom install can be quicker. I like to start with a graphical base system with xfce and install my extras later. The other thing I like is slackware talks to you when something is wrong - ubuntu leaves you with a coloured gui that looks like the rear end of an elephant.

Slackware needs more configuration when you start using it or configuring the box. After that the maintenance it needs is minimal. Ubuntu works out of the box, but the maintenance tasks could be more complicated.

Slackware is one of few final destination distros, here is why:


1. It is maintained by very few yet highly competent people.

2. It is FAST *AND* STABLE

3. It is consistent for a very long period of time, be it quality of issues, be it patches, be it support, You name it...

4. When something does not work out of the box (now pay attention ) there is a finite amount of knowledge and work needed and it can be either fixed or made to work. Mos of the times very modest amount of work and knowledge though.

the 4. so far left me short-sleeved every elswhere I went. Since i run Slackware, I finally have it *ALL*:

A. The speed of Sidux
B. The plentitude of Debian (by Slackbuilds.org and Linuxpagkages.net)
C. The beauty of PCLinuxOS
D. The stability of Fedora
E. The unique sturdiness of upgrade only Slackware has

And You just keep seeking, I found my "Grey-heavens"


P.S.
I'm a "fresh" slacker, since I'm "in" just since 10.0

I'm running Slackware-current as I post this. I agree with most of what you said with one exception. I stopped running Fedora at FC3 as I found it somewhat lacking in stability and a little too bleeding edge for my tastes (just my opinion on this).
Yep. Slackware does everything I want and it is my final destination distro.

Oh God.
I read four pages of this old thread when I find out that it is a question from 2005.
The one who asked this question already had give it up on linux.
His last post is from 09-24-05, 09:35 AM.

It is possible to avoid such resurrections?

Funny this thread came up.

Last week the HD on the laptop that my wife uses for surfing gave up the ghost so I decided to install Ubuntu and let her use that for awhile. She only surfs the web and gets on IRC.

This morning she asked me to install Slackware.

My wife's PC had XP on it for several years, then Debian. My wife's unit is now running Slackware 12.2 and she loves it. She is not at all interested about the software; she is happy that she can check her mail, safely do on-line shopping, and play Shisen-Sho. I love the fact that I can apply security patches to her unit, and forget about it, knowing the unit will reliably run until it has a hardware failure.
Me, I'm waiting happily for Slackware 13.0, and running -current.

I like Slackware because I can build my own packages, I was not swollen my balls with the dependences and I always know happens in my system.

My point of view:

I've tried Ubuntu (kubuntu, xubuntu too), Debian, Slackware, a bit of Suse and Mandriva. In my humble opinion, Debian and Slackware are the best I've found until now. They are stable, fast and relatively easy to install.

I really like both. At home, now, I have both installed. Now I am writing this under Slackware64-Current.

I would also like to try Gentoo. That's a pending subject. It looks good but it seems to take too long to install and the steps to do so are not very clear to me either.

Ubuntu is OK from those coming from Win and looking for something similar to that OS. I would recommend it as a first step in knowing linux. Applications run after installation and that's what a lot of people want to find when they are used to win.