Its not a myth to me either. I've tried out other distributions and always come back to Slackware. I find it stable and flexible on desktops, laptops and as a file server. Its simple and consistent to install and setup. And its easy to add the applications I want.

I think it depends upon what you're looking for, how much time you're prepared to put in or how much time you have already put in to learning other systems.
I've tried Slackware and I almost, but not quite, got things working as they do under Debian (mostly). However, because I've already learned how to sort (or work around) multilib, PuleAudio or any given other thing I use under Debian to get Slackware to that point would take a good deal longer. So, for me, I could probably, with some help from remembered google searches, install Debian in an hour or so and have almost everything I use working with the rest a simple apt-get away, usually.
So, as things stand, I don't have much to gain from using Slackware besides the fun of installation itself but I find myself too lazy to take the time. I hope I will as of all the distros I've messed with I find it the least "fiddly" (apart, for some reason, from the locale settings and getting keyboard layout to agree in console and X, oh, and having to work out in advance which font to use during install. But I realise this is just me) to install and use.

Slackware = cool

It's like going to a car show with a '69 mustang or a chevelle

Ubuntu = Prius lol

1 members found this post helpful.

Wait, are you telling me that Ubuntu is modern and more environment friendly, while Slackware has a cool look but is horribly inefficient?

That's a very big can of worms you are moving towards the electric can-opener there.
I think though that it has been shown that using a car for long enough to become a classic is less harmful to the environment than building a Prius (or any new car) from scratch (It may not be true -- I am speculating for metaphor's sake -- see my leading sentence). But I can't get the metaphor to work with that, sadly.

IMHO, there is no good car analogy for Slackware. All the modern cars are too blackboxy. Look, here's a computer analogy. It's like a barebone desktop system. Components are not flashy, but super-reliable. Assembly is neat and thoughtful, with every component easily accessible in a place where you expect it to be, and lots of space for expansion. It's an almost inside-out configuration. There is no car like that on the market today, but there should be. (May be 3D printing will change that?)

2 members found this post helpful.

I think that distro fanboy arguments are largely rooted in myth.

In the end, most of us end up running our software of choice just fine regardless of the distro that we run them on. I run mine on Slackware. It boils down to this: I'm comfortable enough using Slackware and I would rather remember how to do certain things manually than remember where the configuration program is in a gui menu (which may change come next release...). I could perform all of my work, leisure, and hobby related activities on Ubuntu but I don't really feel like it (this is a half-truth - if I were going that route I'd probably go back to Mint but you get the idea).

In summary... Once you go Slack, you never go back. Unless you want to go back. Or somewhere else entirely. Do whatever you want. It's not my computer.

1 members found this post helpful.

I think he's telling you that a '69 Mustang doesn't come armed to its teeth with an armada of electronic assistants that think for you, watch out for you, decide for you, drive for you, shift gear for you, brake for you and ultimately crap on you and render your car useless. My motorbike is an '88 BMW, my car is an '89 Mercedes, my Linux is Slackware. For similar reasons.

1 members found this post helpful.

I am not sure the OP meant exactly this but your interpretation echoes my opinion about Slackware.

If the default install fits your needs Slackware is the coolest and most efficient distro. But if it doesn't you soon realize how horribly inefficient Slackware can be.

Cheers

But dude, this goes word for word for any distro. Of course there is always a use case where a $distro_of_your_choice will drop the ball pretty horribly. If that's what you mean, then yeah, sure.

Indeed. Blow out that install, mate. Set-up a dual boot. Have the best of both Worlds. Just a thought.

It seems to me that, in this context, "inefficient"="it sure is annoying to have to admin your own computer."

But I"m old and cranky and sitting in a hotel room watching Law and Order CI reruns because I'm back in Philadelphia, which is as much home to me as where I grew up, to visit First Daughter and glad to be here. And I'm writing this on a computer running Mint 17.1 MATE because it's a long story.

(Actually, it's short story. I ordered the box from Zareason with Slackware, but, when it arrived, I found out that Slackware did not like the sound card. Zareason--where real live human beings answer the telephone and menu options have not recently changed imagine that!--suggested updating the kernel. I was too lazy to do that, so I threw Mint on it, because testing with a live CD showed that the sound card worked with Mint. I can be lazy with the best of them, and Mint is a fine distro. Eventually, though, this box will run Slackware, because every box I have eventually runs Slackware.)

I would suggest that the unofficial official Slackware support forum, populated with known Slackers, is not a good place to post theoretical criticisms of Slackware unless one's intention is to generate attention for one's self. Were that the intention, it has been actualized.

1 members found this post helpful.

I was going to post my 2 cents on "why Slack" but as that is more work than shuffling off to the fridge for a beer...

2 members found this post helpful.

If you are already shuffling, you might want to rethink that beer.

(Sorry, couldn't resist! Have a good night.)

I don't agree. The use cases where the default Slackware install fits are far more limited than any other major distribution. It is basically a primitive SOHO setup or some LAMP in the middle of nowhere.

Most of the time one needs to roll his own set of packages. And that means fighting with dependencies taking care of the updates and so on. Just look at the sticky MLED topic and how many extra packages are needed to provide a functional desktop. Do you think it's efficient to maintain them on your own. All of them are in the default (not extra) repositories of every major distribution.

Not to mention the complete lack of central authentication, single sign on and active directory integration.

Cheers