Why do you think Slackware "better" than ArchLinux?

Did you have a Slackware installation question that we can help you with?

14 members found this post helpful.

Reported as spammer!

2 members found this post helpful.

Because I know Slackware but I don't know ArchLinux.

1 members found this post helpful.

I actually like Arch quite a bit, but I prefer stability over bleeding-edge... and so, Slackware. I do like that neither of them are hand-holding distros, they force you to learn things.

2 members found this post helpful.

Because 64-bit Slackware puts the Python site-packages directory in /usr/lib64/python/site-packages, and 64-bit Arch puts the Python site-packages directory in /usr/lib. Slackware's arrangement is neater.

Really?

1 members found this post helpful.

i tried ArchLinux once in a while and it was driving me nuts when i left the system for 3 weeks without any update and then suddenly they migrated /lib to symlink few months ago and it breaks the system into unrecoverable system. Lucky enough it's just my old laptop with no data placed on it

i can leave Slackware for whole year and then i can upgrade it safely whenever i have time

5 members found this post helpful.

+1. Tried Arch a few years back, and even went so far as to put it on a few production desktops. Lasted a few weeks, until the first update, which left the whole system in a mess. And I'm definitely no lamer for RTFM.

2 members found this post helpful.

Did anyone else take forever to find out why their clock was wrong in Arch? Or did it only happen to me?

Personally, I think the question should have been worded better.
"I use Arch, but am interested to learn a little more about Slackware. So I would like to know the reasons you prefer Slackware over Arch."
That is an invitation for people to give honest assessments.
This looks like, "Why do you wrongly believe Slackware is better than Arch?" Which is fine if it is an attempt to troll, but a bad choice of words if looking for honest opinions.

6 members found this post helpful.

Arch is largely very good and its wiki is a great resource - bleeding edge means it can get broken by updates and that's a bit of a pain. It's easier to make Slack what you want it to be, so I find Slack more flexible.

I like Arch a lot though, I have it on my PC so I can use Gnome 3 now and again.

2 members found this post helpful.

I don't.

In fact, I don't think that I have ever read the words "Slackware is better than Arch" on this forum. Why do you ask this?

I like Slackware better, but I can't say that I have incredibly good reasons for this, since I haven't even payed attention to what Arch is doing for something like five years. It's enough keeping up with RedHat/CentOS/Fedora; By the time I've invested the energy there, I'm about done putzing with Linux. NetBSD and Illumos have been eating all of my UNIX hobby time lately, and Slackware is my commercial OS replacement and persistent friend.

I don't think I am alone in this use profile; Most of what I read these days comparing and contrasting Linux distributions are actually just descriptions of installers and bundled software or parroting of well-repeated truisms about the systems in question. Not many people seem to be in a good position to make well-reasoned, meaningful comparative analysis.

3 members found this post helpful.

Slackware is unix-like, Arch is systemd-like.

7 members found this post helpful.

I don't know if Slackware is better than Arch. We are talking about two great distro.
But slackware doesn't make become "lazy" and always learn

Spot-on! And there may be more ways to read your description than initially intended...

1 members found this post helpful.