LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Slackware (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)
-   -   The appeal of Slackware (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/the-appeal-of-slackware-489626/)

Celeborn 10-05-2006 04:05 AM

The appeal of Slackware
 
I want to start this post by saying: I don't hate Slackware, and this is not intended to be an attack on it. This is just my personal experience and wonder in action.(Note: this will probably be interpreted as "I hate Slackware, and this is my attack on it." :))

I can't find an appealing aspect of Slackware. It has a large userbase, and people seem to love it, yet I can't figure out why. This makes me think it's something I'm missing, something dealing with me, not Slackware. It also seems like a lot of things I hear about being the "pros" of Slackware are contradictory to the actual system, but again, I'm thinking it's probably just me, and I'm asking for someone to shed some light onto my confused perspective.

1.First and foremost, I hear about Slackware being a "quick, basic" install, giving you only what you need, and letting you build your system from there. This is what I generally like to do with a Debian Net Install, so that was immediately appealing to me. When I boot the install cd, however, an install is "3+GB", and recommended. I imagine there's a way to slim down the install incredibly, but I'm really unsure about what's necessary and what's not, and there's one other thing that makes me think a small install with Slackware would be a horrid thing(read next point).

2.I have heard Slackware is "free from dependency hell" many times, yet in the handbook alone even it says that Slackware's package management tool doesn't check dependencies. A direct quote would be:
Quote:

Apparently many people in the Linux community think that a packager manager must by definition include dependency checking. Well, that simply isn't the case, as Slackware most certainly does not. This is not to say that Slackware packages don't have dependencies, but rather that its package manager doesn't check for them. Dependency management is left up to the sysadmin, and that's the way we like it.
That last part of the statement also hits a bad nerve with me, "...and that's the way we like it." This sounds ridiculously and immediately defensive, which is strange, because it's almost as if Slackware is giving recognition to the fact that dependency checking is a good thing, recognizing it doesn't have it, and already defending it's self without even anyone attacking it. I can't imagine how manual dependency checking is a good thing, but again, if someone can share with me maybe some postive points about this method, I'd be glad to hear them. This is another reason it seems like Slackware was almost DESIGNED for a full install, just so you don't have to go through the process of manually installing and fulfilling dependencies. It seems generally that Slackware's preferred method of installation is compiling from source, converting into a package, and installing. This really isn't any different from just "./configure && make && make install" on any other system, other than it keeps track of the packages a little better. To me, dependency checking is one of the key points of package management. I think a distro should use it's package-management (debian's apt-get, for example) first and foremost, and then if what you're looking for is not available, compiling from source should be the last resort. Compiling isn't unique to Slackware, it feels like Slackware just has source-based installation, while every other distro has their own, generally easier installation methods, and they still have the source method if you want to do it that way.

3.On the topic of attitude. People on these forums are generally very nice, but sometimes you wish for a more active, immdiately communicative environment, and that for me usually results in irc. I don't know why, but generally #slackware on freenode.net, to me, is full of the most cocky and non-informing type. Usually I wonder why some of them are in there. To type "RTFM" many times, while not even reading the fact that you've already read the manuals and are still confused about something? I don't account it to the number of users in the slackware channel, either, as I've used the #gentoo channel many times before, and it averages a higher number of users, and is generally much more friendly and helpful. I don't know if I'm generally just misconceiving this, and this doesn't really relate to the functionality of the distribution, but it bothers me. Why do Slackware users(in general, if I may) have a "greater-than-thou" attitude?

4."If you learn Slackware, you learn Linux." This statement makes no sense to me whatsoever. Slackware is different from every distribution I have used, just like every distribution is different from every other distribution. "Installpkg" to a .tgz file won't work in anything else, "xwmconfig" won't set up my window manager in any other distro. The only thing Slackware might be able to say, is that it forces users to do things the "hard way" and learn a method they might not be familiar with. I don't feel this is valid though. I learned how to compile a program for source just as well in Debian when something wasn't in apt, long before I had ever used Slackware. In most distributions in the past, I used the console to edit config files, because I felt like learning how to use the console. It seems that every other distribution has EVERYTHING Slackware has, and then some, and leaves it up to you if you want to do it the "hard way", or their easier way.

Again, I'm going to say, I don't hate Slackware. I'm just confused by it. I know there's something good about it, something maybe I'm missing, but to me it just seems like the most basic, unnecessary form of an operating system ever conceived. I've read other topics similar to what I've just posted about, and none of them seem to have any valid points whatsoever. I generally see points such as "free from dependency hell"(mentioned above) "stable"(choice of versions of software usually determines stability...) "it just works"(what?? Every distribution "works" in a sense, and usually with much less effort than Slackware. This, to me, is a statement like saying "Well, I can't think of any really great attributes it has, but I suppose it can get basic desktop computing done.")

If you managed to read through all of this, I salute you. All I ask now, if you're a Slackware user, is to shed some light unto my confusion, if you would be so kind. :) I would really like to believe Slackware is a great distribution that I could use daily over all of the other distributions out there. Tell me what you appreciate about Slackware, why you choose to use it over other distributions, and the frustrations you face with it. Tell me anything about Slackware you think I should hear.

vharishankar 10-05-2006 04:21 AM

Quote:

Why do Slackware users(in general, if I may) have a "greater-than-thou" attitude?
This can also be said about a part of the Linux community in general which gives the majority a bad name...

vbisis 10-05-2006 04:34 AM

Hi!

Alright, I'll try to tell you, what I like about Slackware and why I think it is better than any other distro ( well any other distro, I've tried. )

1. You could just install packages marked as required during install to get a small distro and there might be people who don't have a fast internet connection to do a netinstall, or people who might still have some dial up connection which is paid per online time.
But instead of those a debian net install might be something good.

2. There are some packages which have depencies that aren't really there - like just compiled with that library or that function, which requires something being installed. Because Slackware doesn't do depency checking I can install software anyway and use it exept maybe the one or another function, that I perhaps don't even need. It is possible to create a link to a library which is the wrong version and then check if a programm is running while it won't even install with depecie checking.
I can for example remove my xserver without removing kde, which might be good if I think my xserver installation is screwed up or just needs an update or something like this.
I can just temporarily install and remove software for testing or because I need a library for compiling which conflicts with something different and then install the previous version again without any trouble.
I think it makes things easier since it is my choice what to install and what to remove, and not the choice of some packetmanager - though I admit it is sometimes nice to have a program like apt-get doing this for you.

3. Don't know about irc, since I have never been in #slackware, but I think users on the forum are great
4. Well Software in Slackware is the way it is intended by the developor, not by the distributor - so it is the way it should be. Since there are absolutly no nice gui-tools to configure something you have to work with shell and texteditors and read about config files. It might not always be neccessary with other distris like suse or fedora.

Apart from that it is just the fastest and most stable linux distris I have ever used. Kubuntu had been almost as stable, but never taht fast, and the not set root password was annoying for me, though it is easy to change.

Others like RedHat or fedora are so much customized that it has nothing to do anymore with how the developor wanted his software to look and feel - I just don't like that. To me it is as if someone is telling me what is wrong or right and I just don't have the choice.

Hpoe I could help

rkelsen 10-05-2006 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
1.First and foremost, I hear about Slackware being a "quick, basic" install, giving you only what you need, and letting you build your system from there. This is what I generally like to do with a Debian Net Install, so that was immediately appealing to me. When I boot the install cd, however, an install is "3+GB", and recommended.

A full installation of Slackware-11.0 comes to 3.7Gb. It is made up of 544 packages. In this modern day & age where a full installation of Fedora, Mandriva, Suse, etc. will take up 15Gb and install ~2000 packages, the Slackware installation is comparatively small & basic!
Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
I imagine there's a way to slim down the install incredibly, but I'm really unsure about what's necessary and what's not, and there's one other thing that makes me think a small install with Slackware would be a horrid thing(read next point).

One word: Zipslack. It's on the CDs. This is a very slim installation of Slackware (~150Mb) to which any bits you want from proper Slackware are easily added.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
I have heard Slackware is "free from dependency hell" many times, yet in the handbook alone even it says that Slackware's package management tool doesn't check dependencies.

I see where you're coming from. The truth is, the Slackware system "just works." I know it sounds incredible, but I can honestly say that dependancies have never been an issue for me in over 7 years of using Slackware.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
Why do Slackware users(in general, if I may) have a "greater-than-thou" attitude?

That's a fair-sized generalisation you've made there, and (if I may ;) ) in all honesty it's a bit rich coming from a Debian user.

I'd say that most Slackware users don't have this attitude, and many prefer to solve their own problems without help. Many of the people you see on IRC or forums are not representative of the general Slackware community. Regardless, if you read the Slackware forums here, I'm sure you will find them helpful. There are many Slackers here with lots of experience.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
Again, I'm going to say, I don't hate Slackware. I'm just confused by it. I know there's something good about it, something maybe I'm missing, but to me it just seems like the most basic, unnecessary form of an operating system ever conceived.

I don't know what you're trying to achieve with statements like these. If you don't like it, go back to a distro that you do like. It ain't rocket science. Slackware isn't for everybody. If it was there wouldn't be any other distros.

And BTW - If you think Slackware is basic, you should try a *BSD.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
All I ask now, if you're a Slackware user, is to shed some light unto my confusion, if you would be so kind. :)

I've tried, but you don't seem the 'persuadeable' type.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
I would really like to believe Slackware is a great distribution that I could use daily over all of the other distributions out there.

I believe it is. Whether you do is entirely up to you.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
Tell me what you appreciate about Slackware

First and foremost: Its simplicity. I've found that if there's something you can't figure out under Slackware, you're over-thinking the problem.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
why you choose to use it over other distributions

What else would you recommend? I've tried everything else. Nothing else is as quick or simple to install & configure. Nothing else offers me anything that Slackware doesn't.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
and the frustrations you face with it.

I don't know. Originally I switched to Slackware from RedHat-6.0, which still holds the record as the most frustrating OS I've ever used. Upon installing Slackware, I was gobsmacked and awestruck that Linux could be so good. It instantly struck a chord with me. I gave up trying other distros, because I'd use them for a week and always end up deleting them. Slackware is my home. It doesn't second-guess me. It stays out of my way. It makes my computer do as it's told when I tell it. Unlike many other distros (and Windows even) I've never found myself staring at the HDD led wondering what it's doing, because I know what it's doing all the time.

If, after all that, you still don't get it: You gotta have slack to "get" slack. ;)

Ilgar 10-05-2006 06:04 AM

Here's my collection of topics from this forum (I'm using it for propaganda purposes elsewhere :)). You'll find hundreds of comments on why people like Slack so much:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=423693
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=288054
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=400397
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=382941
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=419546
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=420829
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=388016
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=398078
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=394396
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=116051
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=345616
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=386562
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=420829
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=443288
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=446177
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=439498
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=456022

AtomicAmish 10-05-2006 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkelsen
It makes my computer do as it's told when I tell it. Unlike many other distros (and Windows even) I've never found myself staring at the HDD led wondering what it's doing, because I know what it's doing all the time.

If, after all that, you still don't get it: You gotta have slack to "get" slack. ;)

Excellent explanation, rkelsen. Mysteriously accessing my HD is a pet peeve of mine. Any distro does that is in the garbage, pronto.

coldbeer 10-05-2006 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkelsen
A full installation of Slackware-11.0 comes to 3.7Gb. It is made up of 544 packages. In this modern day & age where a full installation of Fedora, Mandriva, Suse, etc. will take up 15Gb and install ~2000 packages, the Slackware installation is comparatively small & basic!

I have been a slackware user since 2000. My current version is 10.0. This comment explains alot of my disappointment with slackware 11.0. I am floored at how slow it runs in terms of bootup and the new KDE 3.5. I got rid of the hotplug and run fluxbox on my 10.0 and its damn fast. But my KDE3.3 is no where near as slow as KDE3.5.
I guess its what you alluded to namely that unfortunately Linux distros are now going through a bloatware phase. That is really unfortunate in my opinion because the first thing anyone notices when comparing Linux to Windows is the speed.
I was so disappointed I put 10.0 back on my computer. I was also disappointed that 2.6 wasn't the default kernel.
I think this should have been Slackware 10.3 not 11.0.

manwichmakesameal 10-05-2006 09:20 AM

I feel the need to chime in here about the "slacware makes you learn linux" part of your post. I think slackware does indeed make you learn somewhat. It doesnt have all the fancy gui config options, so you actually have to edit the *.conf file. Once you start learning about all the config files, you start learning more about how things actually work on your system. But thats just my 2 cents.

vharishankar 10-05-2006 09:23 AM

Quote:

feel the need to chime in here about the "slacware makes you learn linux" part of your post. I think slackware does indeed make you learn somewhat. It doesnt have all the fancy gui config options, so you actually have to edit the *.conf file. Once you start learning about all the config files, you start learning more about how things actually work on your system. But thats just my 2 cents.
I've said it before and I'll say it again...

What's with this "learning" thing? Doing routine system maintenance is not learning unless you plan to be a full-time system administrator or a Linux specialist.

Equating learning = installing some drivers + making your sound work + configuring xorg and video + compiling applications is just stupid.

Learning has more to do with doing something actually productive on your computer and not just routine maintenance.

I get tired of this argument after a while.

b0uncer 10-05-2006 09:29 AM

These topics are so boring -- whether they are "I hate" or "I just don't get it" or "I love it" type. Think a little. Linux is basically just the kernel, and a distribution is a kernel plus apps (GNU on most cases), so basically you're just arguing about something that is built up of the very same pieces as something you are not arguing about. Stupid, eh? Especially when you think that the things that make distributions differ from each other are not so big after all..they all get to the same goal: a usable operating system, and they all use the same pieces: kernel and programs.

It's like if you're arguing about a pizza - you're actually just arguing about the way it's laid, and that has nothing to do with you since you can choose a better layout. The pizza itself is just a flat thing with stuff on board, and if you don't like the stuff, switch it. Or alternatively, if you hate the flat thing itself, why even talk about it -- you could as well use that time on something that matters.

Foolish..

EDIT: and if you want to know why you should like the stuff, or the flat thing itself, don't ask it from the others since they can't possibly know. Go and taste, if you don't like, switch the stuff and taste again. Or switch the flat thing and don't taste again.

vharishankar 10-05-2006 09:30 AM

b0uncer I couldn't agree with you more. I dislike both the fanboy kind of posts as well as the "constructive" criticism kind of posts each targetting a particular distro or Linux in general.

But that's the bane of online forums...

swampdog2002 10-05-2006 09:37 AM

I have tried many other distros as well, but Slackware seems to be the only distro that I can actually configure, for the most part, to do what I need it to do. I have found it interesting that many many people feel that Slackware is difficult to install and configure, due to its very basic installation procedure, as opposed to those of the likes of SuSE and Fedora. I have tried to use these distributions, and have had nothing but trouble with them, so I have come back to Slackware each time. While the installation and/or configuration problems I have had with SuSE and Fedora Core are most likely machine-specific to me, Slackware has been much more user-friendly in my case. In a few words, Slackware just works for me! If it doesn't work for you, then as someone else suggested, find something that does. There is no sense, at least in my opinion, to add unnecessary frustration to your computing experiences.

dive 10-05-2006 10:33 AM

My first slack was downloaded via 56k dialup. There used to be a guide that told you which packages you absolutely needed to be able to get up and running, although I can't find it now.

Total download was very small for an OS - around 100mb I think.

But on the whole I agree with b0uncer here. If it ain't for you then that's ok. Just try other distros until you find what you do like. The main difference will be in package management and configuration utilities.

Ilgar 10-05-2006 11:16 AM

The original question was
Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
Tell me what you appreciate about Slackware, why you choose to use it over other distributions, and the frustrations you face with it. Tell me anything about Slackware you think I should hear.

So it's only natural that you see pro-Slackware responses here. This has nothing to do with being a fanboy etc. Nobody told Celeborn that he must use Slackware. Like everyone, he has a taste of his own and can of course go with his choice of distribution. Upon his request, we're explaining why Slackware is our choice, that's all.

folkenfanel 10-05-2006 11:33 AM

blue, green, milk, burgers, ...
 
Hi there

I like blue and green but not pink (when it comes to clothes). I don't eat cheeseburgers. I like lemon juice. I dislike anything spicy. My brother in the other hand does not eat whitout chili...

Can't see how different that is from the way people like Linux distros (and in general, operating systems and to a greater extent, everything). Every distro has a "focus". I think the focus here is to let you do pretty much whatever you want. In Slackware that's the way I feel it and that's the way I like it. In RH the focus is enterprise, in Mandriva the focus is easiness, in Kurumin is absolute easiness, etc. etc.

Actually there is no distro that I like 100%. But Slackware is the closest. What I do NOT like about Slackware?... No GNOME, the default kernel is 2.4, it's mostly i486 optimized and all my machines are i686 (not a big issue, but that's the way I like things). So I remasterized my own Slackware. Have I considered using LFS to do that? Yes. But Slackware is pretty functional and I did not want to reinvent the wheel. I took what I liked, added what I needed, deleted what I didn't use. Keeping most Slackware features because I liked it that way. Hey, if you like orange+apple+grenade juice, mixed, don't you mix them and make some sort of cocktail? About the deps tracking: I like not having them checked. If you like to check dependencies, well there are plenty of utilities that could be "ported" to Slackware (or maybe should consider using Debian or something else ;) ). I like compiling from source and Slackware gives me a sturdy platform to play my games.

If Slackware ceased to exist I would use a custom Debian. I have been in contact with Debian and I like it too (not as much as I like Slackware but I do like it; I "touched" Debian before knowing nothing about politics- to be honest I don't care about the issue of Debian and politics I just say it's technically good to me). About the looks and feel and easiness, ANY distro can be as easy to use as one would want and with modern desktop environments most of them look the same (even other OSes like Solaris, BSD, .....). But it's ultimately a matter of taste and that's why www.linux.org says distros are like "flavors" of Linux.

As a wise man once said, have fun! (and make love, not war ;) )

Greetings

anakin 10-05-2006 11:36 AM

I don't think that the "Slackware vs other linux distros" discutions are good...people are different all over the world...what I think it's best, someone else thinks it's crap...the same is with linux distro's...I find Slackware the best fit for me..it's not perfect but it's the best for me...instead of this maybe some slacker would tell me why the hell can't I install subfs file system on my fresh Slackware 11 with 2.6.17.13 kernel..PS: I tried all kernels and I cant install it..and it worked perfectly in my Slack 10.2...

folkenfanel 10-05-2006 11:37 AM

high resistance
 
I forgot to add that Slackware is (and probably all Linux distros are) very good for all the people watching (legal) XXX stuff. No viruses, that's like going out having intercourse whitout protection being pretty much immune to anything! (except of course running out of memory)

Go XXX!

hrp2171 10-05-2006 11:47 AM

I have been using Slackware since 8.0 and liked it and would not try any other distribution. However, just recently a Debian-based distribution piqued my interest: Ubuntu. So I ordered the CD, played with in LiveCD mode, but didn't quite like it. Kubuntu came along, so I gave it a try. Now Kubuntu is my main distribution on my laptop. I have the "distro scars" to show that I'm experienced with Linux and now it's time for me to actually use and not worry about configuring it at all.

I'll probably go back to Slackware once the 2.6 kernel and KDE4 are made defaults and not extras or test.

simcox1 10-05-2006 12:23 PM

Here are two examples of what I like about slackware, compared to the only other distro I have used a lot. Mandriva.

1. Once you get it running, it's easier to use. Example of installing software.

Mandriva: Go to Mandriva control centre -> sign in as root -> go to packages -> go to install software -> search for package -> select package -> install package -. go back to control centre -> exit.

Slackware: Download package -> installpkg *.tgz (as root).

You can of course use urpmi from the command line, but I never learnt how to do that as it wasn't necessary.

Which brings me nicely to my second point.

2. Dependency checking. Example - installing hplip for printer. If using Mandriva urpmi, it would automatically download and install all dependencies. For the hp-toolbox gui, QT and some kde packages are required. They are absolutely unnecessary, but as they are listed in the mandriva rpm package they will be added. They are solely for the toolbox which tells you how much ink you've got among other things. If you don't have kde on your system, this would involve a massive download including qt, kdelibs and kdebase. With Slackware you just installpkg hplip.

There are two good reasons why I prefer Slackware to Mandriva (Mandrake).

ciotog 10-05-2006 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harishankar
I've said it before and I'll say it again...

What's with this "learning" thing? Doing routine system maintenance is not learning unless you plan to be a full-time system administrator or a Linux specialist.

Equating learning = installing some drivers + making your sound work + configuring xorg and video + compiling applications is just stupid.

Learning has more to do with doing something actually productive on your computer and not just routine maintenance.

I get tired of this argument after a while.

That's because you don't understand the argument - the argument is that Slackware helps you learn linux. It's not saying it helps you learn algebra, learn how to tie your shoes, or anything else - it helps you learn how Linux operates under the hood.

It's like someone who buys a certain car because it's easy to do routine maintenance on it, whereas someone else buys the same car because they like the seats. The first person could very well say that this car helps one learn how cars work, whereas the second person takes it to a shop for every oil change. The second person could say the first is wasting their time learning something that they don't care about, but it doesn't change the argument that the car is good for learning.

Anyway, if you don't like these types of threads why do you always seem to read them and respond?

frodo 10-05-2006 06:57 PM

The appeal of Slackware
 
It allows me to run Dropline Gnome.:)

LiNuCe 10-05-2006 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coldbeer
I think this should have been Slackware 10.3 not 11.0.

100% true. I do NOT understand why it is called Slackware 11.0 ...

Celeborn 10-05-2006 08:16 PM

I'd like to say, I'm glad this is causing at least some discussion, which is what I was hoping for :) Thank you for all the replies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkelsen
I see where you're coming from. The truth is, the Slackware system "just works." I know it sounds incredible, but I can honestly say that dependancies have never been an issue for me in over 7 years of using Slackware.

Could you tell me how you generally install packages on Slackware? I've run into dependency issues almost solely on Slackware, and I'd like to know how to avoid them. My usual process was to first look through linuxpackages.net first, then if I can't find it there, I'd download the source, untar, ./configure , make, and then use checkinstall to make it into a .tgz, then installpkg. I'd do this down the line with dependencies as well. Then, when something doesn't work, even when I think I have all of the dependencies covered, that's where it gets confusing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkelsen
That's a fair-sized generalisation you've made there, and (if I may ;) ) in all honesty it's a bit rich coming from a Debian user.

I apologize for that remark, and I knew it was a very big generalization, it was just my bitter experiences creeping up on me and through the keyboard. It wasn't meant as an attack, there are certainly friendly and unfriendly users in any distribution. To judge them solely on one part of the group wouldn't be fair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkelsen
I don't know what you're trying to achieve with statements like these. If you don't like it, go back to a distro that you do like. It ain't rocket science. Slackware isn't for everybody. If it was there wouldn't be any other distros.

I didn't have a goal with statements like those other than explaining my current mindset. It's certainly not fact, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Just explaining myself and why I'm confused(as part of leading up to my questioning :))

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkelsen
I've tried, but you don't seem the 'persuadeable' type.

On the contrary, I'm quite light-hearted, and this post was (supposed) to be made in that manner, though I'm sorry it came off quite differently to you. I very much appreciate your response :)


Quote:

Originally Posted by rkelsen
I don't know. Originally I switched to Slackware from RedHat-6.0, which still holds the record as the most frustrating OS I've ever used. Upon installing Slackware, I was gobsmacked and awestruck that Linux could be so good. It instantly struck a chord with me. I gave up trying other distros, because I'd use them for a week and always end up deleting them. Slackware is my home. It doesn't second-guess me. It stays out of my way. It makes my computer do as it's told when I tell it. Unlike many other distros (and Windows even) I've never found myself staring at the HDD led wondering what it's doing, because I know what it's doing all the time.

This is a good example, because I too wonder sometimes when my computer is making noise, and I'm not doing anything, what it's doing on it's own :confused:


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilgar
So it's only natural that you see pro-Slackware responses here. This has nothing to do with being a fanboy etc. Nobody told Celeborn that he must use Slackware. Like everyone, he has a taste of his own and can of course go with his choice of distribution. Upon his request, we're explaining why Slackware is our choice, that's all.

Thank you! My goal wasn't to say "X distro is better than Slack", instead, I tried to explain my thoughts about it, and then asked what the "Appeal" of Slackware was, to you. I realized it was a request, and I tried to present it as such, after posting my current thoughts and feelings, to give a general sense of how I felt about it. I ask that if any one doesn't like my question, to please just not respond in a negative manner. :) It's only opinion, and I was of course expecting more pro-Slackware responses than "my frustrations with Slackware" type responses in the Slackware user forum :) I do, however, like to read both about what people like, and dislike, about something :) Also, thank you for the links, I'll be looking through them :)

b0uncer, I apologize for making a topic you don't like - and the reason I'm asking from others is that I'm interested in reading about people's views, experiences, and thoughts about Slackware. I have used Slackware before, and I have formed opinions about it, but I want to know what the appeal is to other people who use Slackware daily(which I don't do) and are experienced and knowledgeable about it.

To everyone else, I appreciate your sharing. I hope this topic remains a civil discussion :)

LiNuCe 10-05-2006 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
I can't find an appealing aspect of Slackware. It has a large userbase, and people seem to love it, yet I can't figure out why. This makes me think it's something I'm missing, something dealing with me, not Slackware.

If you can not figure out why Slackware is good for you, that's simply because it does not fit your needs. So you can use another Linux distribution without worrying about Slackware.

Quote:

To me, dependency checking is one of the key points of package management.
If you think so, that's simply because Slackware does not fit your need of a package management with dependency checking. So you can use another Linux distribution without worrying about Slackware.

Quote:

The only thing Slackware might be able to say, is that it forces users to do things the "hard way" and learn a method they might not be familiar with. I don't feel this is valid though.
If you think so, that's simply because Slackware does not fit your needs by requiring you to do things the hard way where other Linux distributions do all the hard work for you. So you can use another Linux distribution without worrying about Slackware.

Quote:

Again, I'm going to say, I don't hate Slackware. I'm just confused by it. I know there's something good about it, something maybe I'm missing, but to me it just seems like the most basic, unnecessary form of an operating system ever conceived.
You get a point ! Slackware is a base Linux distribution which each user customises accordingly to his/her needs. So you did not miss anything about Slackware : it simply does not fit your needs to get a ready-to-use Linux system without much configuration. So you can use another Linux distribution without worrying about Slackware.

Quote:

I've read other topics similar to what I've just posted about, and none of them seem to have any valid points whatsoever.
The only valid points about Slackware are those that each user gives it accordingly to her/his needs. Everything else is nonsense. And that's true for every software in the world. So, for example, you can spend hours explaining why Debian is better than Slackware, for me it will be "why Debian is better than Slackware for you", because your needs are not mine.

Quote:

I would really like to believe Slackware is a great distribution that I could use daily over all of the other distributions out there.
Slackware is not a great distribution : it simply fits my needs.

Quote:

Tell me what you appreciate about Slackware, why you choose to use it over other distributions
It simply fits my needs because it is so reasonably bare and simple that I can customise it the way I want it to fit my needs.

Quote:

(...) and the frustrations you face with it.
GNOME removal is my main frustration about Slackware.

Quote:

Tell me anything about Slackware you think I should hear.
Slackware is definitely not for you ;o) However, your message was an interesting one (at least for me).

Celeborn 10-05-2006 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiNuCe
...YOUR...

Touché good sir :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiNuCe
It simply fits my needs because it is so reasonably bare and simple that I can customise it the way I want it to fit my needs.

That is good, and I actually like my systems more bare to let me set them up how I like them. It would seem Slackware would actually be a good system for me - but as I explained, I felt Slackware actually came with quite a bit, and wasn't sure how to slim it down. I suppose this could be remedied by using "pkgtool" and manually removing unneeded packages after the install? Perhaps a prompted package-by-package install as well. Hmm. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiNuCe
...your message was an interesting one (at least for me).

I'm glad you found it so :)

Z038 10-05-2006 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilgar
Here's my collection of topics from this forum (I'm using it for propaganda purposes elsewhere :)). You'll find hundreds of comments on why people like Slack so much:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=423693
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=288054
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=400397
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=382941
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=419546
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=420829
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=388016
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=398078
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=394396
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=116051
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=345616
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=386562
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=420829
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=443288
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=446177
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=439498
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=456022

You forgot this one

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=453528

Celeborn, see my two posts in the above thread, especially my Ford pickup truck analogy.

Franklin 10-05-2006 09:17 PM

Well put LiNuCe.

I can't really figure out why Slackware users are so often asked to defend their choice of distro. Then when you try to explain why, they tell you you're wrong. Then when you get irritated they say you are full of yourself.

Please, anyone else who wants to ask this question again, just go try Slackware yourself. If you like it, great. If you hate it, that's fine too. What ever you decide, just keep it to yourself.

Please. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiNuCe
GNOME removal is my main frustration about Slackware.

Are you planning on creating a minimal Gnome install like you did with Slackware 10.1? It was one of my favorite Gnome options at the time.:)

regis_n_bits 10-05-2006 09:22 PM

In response to the OP:
Quote:

I want to start this post by saying: I don't hate Slackware, and this is not intended to be an attack on it. This is just my personal experience and wonder in action.(Note: this will probably be interpreted as "I hate Slackware, and this is my attack on it." )

I can't find an appealing aspect of Slackware. It has a large userbase, and people seem to love it, yet I can't figure out why. This makes me think it's something I'm missing, something dealing with me, not Slackware. It also seems like a lot of things I hear about being the "pros" of Slackware are contradictory to the actual system, but again, I'm thinking it's probably just me, and I'm asking for someone to shed some light onto my confused perspective.
You don't hate Slackware, but you can't find anything appealing about it? If you can't even think of just one aspect about Slackware that you like, then you obviously don't like it. Just say that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions (even wrong ones). ;)
Quote:

1.First and foremost, I hear about Slackware being a "quick, basic" install, giving you only what you need, and letting you build your system from there. This is what I generally like to do with a Debian Net Install, so that was immediately appealing to me. When I boot the install cd, however, an install is "3+GB", and recommended. I imagine there's a way to slim down the install incredibly, but I'm really unsure about what's necessary and what's not, and there's one other thing that makes me think a small install with Slackware would be a horrid thing(read next point).
Slackware's approach to installation is very straight forward and open to the user (this is one of the good points about Slackware). You can either install all packages, or use the menu installation to pick the ones you want. Required packages get installed automatically. Check out the 'tagfile' in each install subdirectory to see which packages are required or optional.
Quote:

2.I have heard Slackware is "free from dependency hell" many times, yet in the handbook alone even it says that Slackware's package management tool doesn't check dependencies.
Well no OS is ever free from dependency checking. But Slackware has chosen a simple and sensible approach. A package will either already include all of the required files needed, or else the package documentation should identify its dependencies. The Sysadmin has full control over what is installed, with no hidden package installs in the background.
Quote:

3.On the topic of attitude. People on these forums are generally very nice, but sometimes you wish for a more active, immdiately communicative environment, and that for me usually results in irc. I don't know why, but generally #slackware on freenode.net, to me, is full of the most cocky and non-informing type. Usually I wonder why some of them are in there. To type "RTFM" many times, while not even reading the fact that you've already read the manuals and are still confused about something?
Rude people on IRC? Well I have never heard of such a thing. ;)
Quote:

4."If you learn Slackware, you learn Linux." This statement makes no sense to me whatsoever. Slackware is different from every distribution I have used, just like every distribution is different from every other distribution. "Installpkg" to a .tgz file won't work in anything else, "xwmconfig" won't set up my window manager in any other distro. The only thing Slackware might be able to say, is that it forces users to do things the "hard way" and learn a method they might not be familiar with. I don't feel this is valid though.
Yeah, this quote is a little bit presumptuous. I think a better quote would be "Slackware lets you learn the basics of a Linux system from the start." The FAQs and man pages provide lots of helpful information to the user about configuring Slackware. And the configuration files are filled with lots of helpful comments and examples for any user. This lets users learn the basics of Slackware as they are using it.
And knowledge that someone gains from configuring and administering a Slackware system should help them understand any Linux distribution a little better. Is there any better way to learn about any OS than from the basics?

LiNuCe 10-05-2006 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
It would seem Slackware would actually be a good system for me - but as I explained, I felt Slackware actually came with quite a bit, and wasn't sure how to slim it down. I suppose this could be remedied by using "pkgtool" and manually removing unneeded packages after the install? Perhaps a prompted package-by-package install as well. Hmm. :)

If you really want a very minimal Slackware system which can at least boot, you should install only required packages of the A serie in expert mode. You can also read this section of the Getting a Slackware root filesystem documentation : it lists the packages you need to get a very minimal Slackware system which can boot. It is so minimal that the only work you can do with it is editing text file with elvis :)

Celeborn 10-05-2006 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franklin
Well put LiNuCe.

I can't really figure out why Slackware users are so often asked to defend their choice of distro. Then when you try to explain why, they tell you you're wrong. Then when you get irritated they say you are full of yourself.

Please, anyone else who wants to ask this question again, just go try Slackware yourself. If you like it, great. If you hate it, that's fine too. What ever you decide, just keep it to yourself.

Please. :rolleyes:


I apologize, I'm not asking for anyone to defend their choice of Slackware. I'm simply asking more experienced Slackware users to share with me(and others) their Slackware experiences - what makes it appealing to them, what difficulties they've found with it, how they compare it to other distributions, and what they'd like to be different about it. It's all simply a matter of opinion, and a request made by me, so do not feel obliged to reply, or read it, if you don't want to. As I said, I just appreciate the replies because I think it makes for interesting discussion :)


Quote:

Originally Posted by Z038
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=453528

Celeborn, see my two posts in the above thread, especially my Ford pickup truck analogy.

Both of your posts in that thread were very insightful, thank you :)


Quote:

Originally Posted by regis_n_bits
Slackware's approach to installation is very straight forward and open to the user (this is one of the good points about Slackware). You can either install all packages, or use the menu installation to pick the ones you want. Required packages get installed automatically. Check out the 'tagfile' in each install subdirectory to see which packages are required or optional.

I will most certainly go back through the install. I recognized, while doing the full install, the "Optional" and "Required" tags at the bottom of the screen, but I didn't know there was a way to view them all before hand to check which are required and not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by regis_n_bits
Rude people on IRC? Well I have never heard of such a thing. ;)

:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by regis_n_bits
Is there any better way to learn about any OS than from the basics?

That's a very good point. To learn anything in the world, it's always a good method to start with the basics, and then work your way up from there. I suppose the part I was struggling with was the thought of: "Why, after learning the basics, would people stay with such a method, when newer ones are available?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiNuCe
If you really want a very minimal Slackware system which can at least boot, you should install only required packages of the A serie in expert mode. You can also read this section of the Getting a Slackware root filesystem documentation : it lists the packages you need to get a very minimal Slackware system which can boot. It is so minimal that the only work you can do with it is editing text file with elvis

Well, maybe not that minimal :D

vharishankar 10-05-2006 09:36 PM

Quote:

That's because you don't understand the argument - the argument is that Slackware helps you learn linux. It's not saying it helps you learn algebra, learn how to tie your shoes, or anything else - it helps you learn how Linux operates under the hood.
That argument is plain flawed as I've explained tons of times before. No, you don't learn linux because you learn to ./configure, make and make install neither do you learn Linux because you learn modprobe snd_intel8x0. A chimp can be taught to do that (no offence to a chimp's intelligence).

These tasks are not productive tasks. They are routine maintenance tasks and I cannot see why people need to brag about it all the time as though it's some special achievement. And they get old when you need to keep doing them again and again.

Learning is when human intelligence is used to understand and analyze problems. Not by typing or memorizing a few commands or editing config files.

I get sick and tired of people saying "Oh, you need to understand how your computer works under the hood. You're in complete control of everything etc. etc. etc." If that's what you want, you should learn Microprocessor architecture and pursue computer hardware engineering.

Franklin 10-05-2006 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
I apologize, I'm not asking for anyone to defend their choice of Slackware.

No need to apolgize. My statement was more a general observation. I just find it odd.

I did some un-official research via google and discovered the following:
Code:

Debian sucks:      682 hits
Red Hat sucks:      718 hits
Slackware sucks:    817 hits
SuSE sucks:        836 hits
Ubuntu sucks:      2430 hits
Fedora sucks:      2940 hits

So, if anyone has some explaining to do it those pesky Ubuntu and Fedora fanboys! ;)

slackhack 10-05-2006 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harishankar
That argument is plain flawed as I've explained tons of times before. No, you don't learn linux because you learn to ./configure, make and make install neither do you learn Linux because you learn modprobe snd_intel8x0. A chimp can be taught to do that (no offence to a chimp's intelligence).

These tasks are not productive tasks. They are routine maintenance tasks and I cannot see why people need to brag about it all the time as though it's some special achievement. And they get old when you need to keep doing them again and again.

Learning is when human intelligence is used to understand and analyze problems. Not by typing or memorizing a few commands or editing config files.

with slack you also seem to learn a lot about editing config files and solving problems that are applicable in other distros that you wouldn't learn with just a gui distro, imo. you don't just learn ./configure, make, and make install. ;)

LiNuCe 10-05-2006 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franklin
Are you planning on creating a minimal Gnome install like you did with Slackware 10.1?

Yes, I am :) I'm currently using my own GNOME 2.14.3 packages for Slackware 10.2 : when I switch to Slackware 11.0 (probably in one or two days), I will release GNOME 2.14.3 packages for Slackware 11.0. However, I don't plan to build GNOME 2.16.x package in the near future as it does not worth the trouble(s) : I don't have time for now and GNOME becomes more and more time-consuming to properly package from scratch.

vharishankar 10-05-2006 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slackhack
with slack you also seem to learn a lot about editing config files and solving problems that are applicable in other distros that you wouldn't learn with just a gui distro, imo. you don't just learn ./configure, make, and make install. ;)

No, actually Slackware's config file placement and formats are totally different from many distros. Also many other distros use SystemV init.d and Slackware uses BSD style rc.d scripts.

Compare Slackware, Gentoo, RedHat and SUSE for instance-- all of them are completely different in terms of configuration. Each are different in their own right and Slackware doesn't kind of represent "Linux" as a whole. That is my point. So you have many differences...

Slackware may be better - I'm not disputing that or even bringing forward that argument. I'm just saying that Learn Slackware = Learn Linux argument is old, outdated and sounds condescending and elitist.

Celeborn 10-05-2006 09:57 PM

I edited my post from before in the thought of not wanting to double-post, yet I found many new replies already posted by the time I finished :D I like this progress :D

On a side note, Franklin, I really like your screenshots. I must admit the Slackware "S" logo looks better than many others, and fits well as a sort of start-bar button(only speculating - maybe it does something else) ;)

slackhack 10-05-2006 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harishankar
No, actually Slackware's config file placement and formats are totally different from many distros. Also many other distros use SystemV init.d and Slackware uses BSD style rc.d scripts.

but i didn't say anything about their placement, did i? ;) the fact seems to be that using slack encourages one to do bare bones text editing and configuring of apps that often doesn't occur in other more gui-based distros. if your experience is different, that's fine. have fun with what you like. :)

vharishankar 10-05-2006 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slackhack
but i didn't say anything about their placement, did i? ;) the fact seems to be that using slack encourages one to do bare bones text editing and configuring of apps that often doesn't occur in other more gui-based distros. if your experience is different, that's fine. have fun with what you like. :)

I do agree with that but what does that have to do with learning?

In my book,learning is about using your brains to solve problems which lead to productive results.

I don't say it's not fun. It might be fun the first time you do it. It just gets old very fast and using a text editor certainly does not count as learning in my book. Anybody who brags about using vi/vim or editing text files are sad people who constantly need peer approval for boosting their self-esteem.

Franklin 10-05-2006 10:14 PM

Quote:

On a side note, Franklin, I really like your screenshots. I must admit the Slackware "S" logo looks better than many others, and fits well as a sort of start-bar button(only speculating - maybe it does something else)
Ya, I replaced that butt-ugly kmenu icon (ick).
I should update those as I have changed it a little bit. I didn't use that wallpaper very long - too XP-ish. ;)

trickykid 10-05-2006 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harishankar
I do agree with that but what does that have to do with learning?

In my book,learning is about using your brains to solve problems which lead to productive results.

I don't say it's not fun. It might be fun the first time you do it. It just gets old very fast and using a text editor certainly does not count as learning in my book. Anybody who brags about using vi/vim or editing text files are sad people who constantly need peer approval for boosting their self-esteem.

Actually, I have to disagree to a certain degree..

To Learn is defined by acquiring knowledge or skills by instruction, study and or experience. It's also memorization, becoming informed and even then, you can learn something totally by accident.

I think when people say "Slackware teaches you about Linux" is because manually editing a file gains you more knowledge of what causes the effect or change you just made to your system.

Take this example. Say you have two computer users, they're already familiar or have learned how to use a mouse and navigate with it, point and click, click on panels and open applications.

One installs Fedora and the other Slackware. Fedora has a configuration option to change the runlevel of your system by clicking on the menu, navigating to a system configuration application and simply clicking the runlevel by reading, assuming both users have learned or know how to read. But when the user clicks the new runlevel option, it changed a configuration file by processes already obtained from previous learning experiences using computers.

Now the user who installed Slackware, if unaware of what file to edit has to search, read documentation, ask questions online and or learn to use a command line editor (unless they use a GUI application for text editing but then again, Slackware doesn't start X by default so they might not know how or what file to edit to change the runlevel) to edit the inittab file.

I'm sure there are Fedora or any other GUI driven Distro's out there where the users don't even know what the inittab file is or does. In such cases, I would consider that acquired or knowledge obtained, so in essence, Slackware lacking the point and click tools that most distro's might come with is teaching the end user more about Linux and how it works by editing those configuration files instead of relying on the GUI interface, point and click, something they already know how to do.

And this is why I think distro's like Slackware do in fact teach users how to use their OS. I can change a tire on my car, considering that changing a tire is knowledge, but that doesn't mean I need to know how they make the rubber the tire is made of. You'd be suprised at the amount of people who can't change a tire on a car, I'm sure some don't even know they have a car jack in their trunk that comes standard when they buy a car..

-trickykid

rkelsen 10-05-2006 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
Could you tell me how you generally install packages on Slackware?

Let me say right off the bat that I always run a complete installation of Slackware. That gives you at least 90% of the requirements for most packages. Most of the stuff I've compiled myself has no special requirements outside the packages supplied with Slackware. It isn't hard to read a README file and find out a package's requirements and see if you have them.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
I've run into dependency issues almost solely on Slackware, and I'd like to know how to avoid them.

Please provide examples.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
I apologize for that remark

Thanks for your apology.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Celeborn
I didn't have a goal with statements like those other than explaining my current mindset.

Maybe your current mindset isn't suited to Slackware. To me, it sounds a lot like you're trying to apply another distribution's philosophy/methodology to Slackware and it just ain't working for ya.

tuxdev 10-05-2006 11:09 PM

Okay, let me see if I can do an informal proof of the statement "Slackware is a good distro of learning sysadmining in general".

There are essentially only two ways to configure a Linux system: GUI tools, GUI-ish tools made by the upstream developers (e.g. alsaconf, xorgcfg), or config files. GUI tools are distro-dependent, and thus fail to provide a general solution to configuration. Therefore, only text files can be used to learn Linux configuration in general. The GUI-ish tools that are provided by the upstream developers are not distro-dependent. These tools are also appropriate for learning configuration in general.

Slackware, through sane and predictable placement of config files, and because of good commenting in config files to guide the sysadmin, is conducive to use of config files. Slackware has minimal distro-dependent config helpers. Therefore, no energy is wasted from learning distro-dependent knowledge, because there isn't any. Alternatively stated, Slackware is a good distro for learning sysadming in general.

Whew.

The next step would be showing that learning sysadmining in general is connected to learning Linux, but I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader for now.

There are also two extra plusses to Slackware. Slackware is still extremely close to the progenitor of nearly all distros, SLS. Because of how Slackware is designed, the generic HOWTOs from tldp apply particularly well with minimal distro-dependent adjustment.

harishankar, even though you may think that config files are boring, to me they are the easiest and fastest way to just get the job done with minimal fuss. Also, they are pretty much the only way to configure a server using SSH and no X Window System.

P.S. OT: I've commented on a couple of your LQ articles as per your invitation.

vharishankar 10-05-2006 11:31 PM

I certainly am not disputing the fact that Slackware is ideal for certain kinds of learning. But i also think that kind of learning is only applicable if you want to become a system administrator by profession -- which was the point I made in my first post. And you certainly need knowledge beyond config file editing if you want to become one...

The point I made was that as a normal user of Linux, I wouldn't consider all that system configuration as part of my learning.

And forcing normal users to "learn" this way is what I think is wrong logic. You can give them other reasons to use Slackware, but telling them "you need to learn how to do this to use this system otherwise hard luck" is a wrong approach I think. Like the saying goes, you can take a horse to water, but cannot make it drink.

Don't mind me. :) I use Slackware because I am a Linux enthusiast. Plain and simple...

Ilgar 10-06-2006 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harishankar
...but telling them "you need to learn how to do this to use this system otherwise hard luck" is a wrong approach I think

I don't think this is what the people here are saying. They're saying that they learned more with Slack, and that's why they like it.

Btw, when they say "learn", they mean learning as they understand it, not you. Let me remind that Celeborn did not ask us to explain whether we like other people's opinions or not. He wants us to explain why we do or don't like Slackware. Please try to give an answer to that one.

manwichmakesameal 10-06-2006 01:07 AM

Sorry for the late post, but
Quote:

Learning has more to do with doing something actually productive on your computer and not just routine maintenance.
If it's something you've never done, then it is productive, hence learning.

easuter 10-06-2006 01:27 AM

@ harishankar

you haven't chosen the easiest distros out there either. why is that? maybe because they were more chalenging than installing fedora or suse?
and did you only install them once and that was enough to never ever forget anything about how to set them up? with you, possibly, but i have only been using linux since february and only been using slackware since about 3 weeks ago, and until about a week ago i had no idea what system-v or bsd-like init scripts were.

Microsoft has done a nice job of keeping people in the dark, so that when something goes wrong with a user's computer, there is a huge "mistique" about what happened. virus? spyware? bad drivers? who knows....but what they do know is that they have to take their computers back to the shop, or call a technie. and what happens after that? windows is normaly just reinstalled, like MS suggests it should when things go wrong, and the user coughs up 70€

maybe this sounds out of context, but its what i ised to do because i had no option. even when i installed fedora: when i screwed something up, i would just reinstall the etire system because i had no idea where to start fixing.

after using slackware for this short period of time, i no longer panic if things go wrong and have to go through a tedious reinstallation proccess.
by getting to know right from the start what makes the OS tick does make a difference.

and because i have learned all his new stuff, i am compelled to learn more. i want to try gentoo in my christamas hollidays, and have already ordered a book on bash scripting.

2cc

vharishankar 10-06-2006 01:37 AM

Quote:

you haven't chosen the easiest distros out there either. why is that? maybe because they were more chalenging than installing fedora or suse?
Not because they were easier, but I chose my distros out of circumstances because

1. I got Debian on a DVD a long time ago with a magazine. I only reinstalled once in 3-4 years and that too because I accidentally deleted the Debian partition when I was trying out Arch Linux.
2. I could download Slackware easier because it's just 2 CDs (and only 1 required for installing a basic system) while others are not and requires more CDs.
3. As for Gentoo, I plain admit that I was intrigued by it because it was different from the rest.

As I said I am a Linux enthusiast, I've tried Fedora, SUSE and RedHat in the past and I finally settled on Debian. The only major distro I've not tried yet is Mandriva (or Mandrake).

I unashamedly claim that I am not the average user... I'm a Linux enthusiast. :)

All I am saying is that it's all very well to ask users to "learn" their system inside out, but the fact is a majority don't consider that as a "learning" process and I quite agree with that when it's not something that increases their idea of productivity. It's only a few users like us who actually want to learn how the computer works. For the rest, its a tool to get the job done. So yes, there are alternatives for everybody.

The other thing I wanted to point out is that the fact that we're using Slackware is no reason to feel superior to other users just because we know a little bit more about the system.

easuter 10-06-2006 01:46 AM

Quote:

It's only a few users like us who actually want to learn how the computer works. For the rest, its a tool to get the job done.
yeah... so i guess we could call slackware is the linux enthusiast filter :D ;)

vharishankar 10-06-2006 01:49 AM

Yes, so there's definitely enough choices for all of us. I'm definitely a newbie in many aspects of *nix. :)

Hyakutake 10-06-2006 06:22 AM

Like a genious once said: It's all relative.
 
Slackware seems to catch your interest so what best way to resolve your problem than trying it? It wont do any harm! (or are you afraid to become a slacker? :) )

For me slackware == challenge, I guess that explains why I like it.
Hard to learn, true, but when you now your way around everything becomes more clear.

Slackware is like any other distribution, it has its own audience ;)

Bottomline is use what you like.

BTW: people with an attitude are everywhere, theyr like fungus, growing everywhere :p :p :p


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 AM.