I never though I'd find a distribution of Linux better or on par with Slackware, but I think I have with ArchLinux. In fact my old Laptop now runs ArchLinux full time.

While I will say Slackware is a bit simpler of a system to use, whereas ArchLinux requires more involvement with setup, configuration, and customizations, both distributions really have a lot in common.

Both keep the system very simplified, though ArchLinux can really be slimmed down to be a very small distribution outside the core of the OS, the philosophy is fairly much the same. Keep it stupidly simple, document as needed, and have resources to fall back on.

Now I will say ArchLinux is a different beast being more of a fulltime rolling release system, and it does trend itself to use more up-to-date and bleeding edge software like systemd, but for what it does, I'm not complaining. My system works fairly well. It's a good solid distribution that follows many of the principles of Slackware and other systems.

I could honestly say if Slackware did vanish tomorrow, I know I have a distribution to migrate to, but lets just hope it doesn't because Slackware still does teach some stuff to the user ArchLinux doesn't, whereas ArchLinux does teach a lot that Slackware doesn't.

I agree with every word of the above. Both are very good distributions.

Le sigh. I don't understand the point of the post or the value of any possible response to it (including this one).

5 members found this post helpful.

I concur as well but fell "dirty" whenever I have something other than Slackware installed.

1 members found this post helpful.

Learning about Linux does require some branching out at times. Slackware's good for learning the basics, but often higher level administration does require knowing how to craft scripts and custom made initialization files rather than just using what's already there.

ArchLinux is more for advanced users and advanced learning, but I still will say my disto of choice is going to always be Slackware, but I do admit getting your hands even dirtier using ArchLinux does teach you things not often taught even by Slackware.

True. Arch is a nice distro; I have run it on several occasions. Enjoy Arch. Each to his own. Slackware forever for me.

I like how ArchLinux is now installed. Using actual commands and very hands on, just makes the system seem more like you do all the work. However, not a lot of stuff works out of the box on ArchLinux and you have to setup everything for each user.

Slackware does kinda spoil you.

Arch64 is in my opinion the best of the distros that use a package manager.
I have 1 box that triple boots Win64 7, Slack64 and Arch64. I can say that when it's working good it's superb.
However I will say that when pacman screws something up it can be more difficult to fix than Slackware.
When things go wrong I find Slack much easier to figure out "what" went wrong and fix it. I have a rather low computer skill level and Slack is just easier for "me" to fix.

I truly do not understand how this is made any easier in Arch than Slackware, or differs in any distribution. They all include bash, perl, python, tcl, clisp, lua, etc. If you don't know how to write scripts in one distro, using another will not magically change this. Certainly Slackware is not a distro that downplays scripting in any way. As for custom init files, Slackware's init scripts are just bash scripts. You can follow the bootup from the init script in the initrd (if you use one) to inittab to rc.S to rc.M, the latter two referencing the other init scripts in /etc/rc.d. There is no custom format, there is nothing Slackware-specific to learn -- it is all just bash. Arch has a similar init style but with custom Arch-specific hooks. If anything Slackware's init scripts are more straightforward (and thus easier to modify without learning anything about Slackware) but both are simple enough.
Slackware keeps most stuff vanilla. Arch mostly does as well. Configuration of software is not significantly different so I can't even comprehend this statement.
doesn't magically make you a low-level system guru. Similarly to the above situation, Slackware's SlackBuilds are all 100% transparent bash scripts. Arch's PKGBUILDS are 100% transparent files but with custom Arch-specific hooks. If anything Slackware's build scripts are more straightforward (and thus easier to modify without learning anything about Slackware) but both are simple enough.
Slackware makes you use (c)fdisk, allows you to setup filesystems manually if you so desire (eg. you can mkfs.ext4 on a partition and choose not to format later in the installer), and doesn't do much else aside from installing the packages. If you want to setup LVM and/or RAID and/or LUKS encryption, it's all manual (but documented). You have the option of configuring LILO manually if you wish by skipping the automatic setup. You can manually identify each package that you want to install. Both Slackware and Arch are minimal in terms of automatic configuration.
The only thing Slackware does to spoil you is to include a large chunk of software by default in a full installation. Obtaining this software (automatically) from pacman is just another way of obtaining software...

In short, I don't understand any of your statements. There are a number of real differences between Slackware and Arch, but your above list doesn't include any of them. I've seen people claiming that Slackware somehow allows you to learn more than eg. Debian...but Slackware just forces you to learn the vanilla way (excluding the init scripts and package manager which are Slackware-specific but are just bash scripts) while Debian just forces you to learn the Debian way. Arch forces you to learn the Arch way, which in many cases is the vanilla way (like Slackware) but in others is not.

6 members found this post helpful.

I really like Arch as well. The primary difference as I experienced it was the installation. In a "If Slackware </unmentionable>" future I would probably run Arch as well, but a lot of the things I really liked about Arch are also things that keep me using Slackware.

I hate to admit it, but I've grown to REALLY appreciate Slackware's release cycle. Although I tend to run -current on my main machine, and like to see movement in the -current tree, I like to be able to just sit in place for awhile. My laptop (which I admit dual boots with Win7 which I like for certain tasks) still runs 13.1 with GSB. I know Arch doesn't HAVE to be updated frequently, but it seems to me that it is MEANT to be. My server usually runs the newest release of Slackware a few months after it's released, my main machine generally runs current, and my laptop is used mostly for work and to ssh into the other two machines when I feel like sitting on the couch - so I don't feel compelled to upgrade it. Really for me, Slackware is the distribution that lets me, well Slack. Be lazy. Install it in 20 minutes (I LOVE the full install from the start approach), configure it in 20 or 30 copying FROM if not just copying OVER my existing config files, and on with my day. Although I'll admit with Arch, at least the last time I ran it, I was able to copy much of my config over from Slackware. Arch just feels like work to me.

Having said that, Arch really is a good distro. For learning though, I think LFS really is the way to go.......if you can prevent yourself from falling into the "just get the damn thing built" trap and actually pay attention to what's being done and why that is.

I've tried Arch in VirtualBox, it's OK, but Slackware suits me better. I have to confess I'm too lazy for rolling-releases. If you like both, why not dual-boot?

Arch is a good distro but it takes work to look after it properly. While both Arch and Slack are simple distros, I don't think they actually have much in common, beyond a common approach perhaps.

I stopped using Arch a few months ago and reinstalled Slack. Now and again Arch will (almost inevitably) release some software that isn't ready for production use - it's a drawback of the rolling release model they use. I've been narfed by something each time I've used it. That said, it's easy enough to roll back changes and prevent pacman from upgrading certain packages.

In my view Arch provides less of a learning experience than Slackware and the cutting edge software comes with some disadvantages to your system's stability (not major necessarily).

If something happened to Slackware, I'd use Debian.

I agree with all of this. Arch was fun and nice to use, but I don't like the sinking feeling that you get when you pacman -Syu . It's reassuring to know that Pat and the team are checking the packages out before releasing them. Arch always gave me the impression that they just spewed out the newest package and by installing it, we were beta testing. Now, I don't mind that so much when I know it's beta (like -current, which I find much more stable than Arch), but it does seem they expect you to update often, and those updates regularly bring issues.

Also, enough with the upgrading the kernel constantly. I agree with previous posts; it's just too stressful a system to use because of the rolling release style.

Still, there are definite merits to it, and I do like pacman (especially compared to apt, which I find a behemoth). Thiat being said, if they had an 'Arch Stable' which waited a bit to release packages until they fix the issues that the 'beta testers' have found make the system unbootable, I'd definitely give that a try.

But then, I could just run Slackware-current.

I've also tried Arch and it was pretty good to me, although initial setup is a little trickier to complete than Slackware's. The only major thing I don't like about Arch (and most of the other major distros) is the fact that the base install is rather small. I'd much rather be stripping software away from a base install than be stuck trying to get everything I need after the system is running on my machine (especially true when said machine doesn't have network access).

Apples vs oranges again... So boring... Time for a little nap in my case, see you later.

2 members found this post helpful.