What is more stable: Slackware or Debian Stable ?
 

Matter of tastes and appreciation, there is no ultimate response, maybe statistics could be interesting:

What is more stable: Slackware or Debian Stable ?

I,m not playing this one because its like saying whats the most valuable...

A dollar note or a dollar coin !

I say Slackware easy
cant remember how many times I've broken Lenny installs
and have never broken a Slackware install yet, not even -current

Debian stable is stable when its out of stable, ;)
Slackware has always been, weather current or else....

Matter of choice, taste, etc. etc.

Slackware unless you don't use unofficial repositories in Debian.

It's like asking whose children are more beautiful/intelligent.

Since I'm a Slackware user, I have no idea how stable/unstable any Debian distribution is.

Silly question, like almost all the polls here.

I've used 'em both, and my opinion is Slackware.

I mainly use fedora on all my boxes, except for my "mess around" machine, which I'm running slackware. So IMO, slackware.

For this one, I'm voting Debian, because most of the stuff in the stable branch has been quite literally 'tested to death'. However, for those of us who don't like our software old and crusty, Slackware would be a better choice. Slack has been around for quite a while (18 years!?) and the dev team still manages to keep up with all the other modern distros. Of course, this is all beside the point. Under the hood, both distros are still powered by our favorite penguin and gnu.

I've used both distros and I can say that they are both excellent. I'm quite biased towards Slackware as things rarely if ever break on my Slackware boxes (including my -current boxes). In the final analysis a lot depends on end users and how effective they are with maintaining their boxes. Equally valid arguments can be put forth claiming superiority for each of these distros.
I vote Slackware.

Have been using Slack since 7.0, and found it to be the best distro for me. Over the years, only the KDE branch has crashed on my machine, although seldom. So I don't install KDE anymore, and haven't had any system crashes. :) Can't comment on Debian, as I've only rarely found use for it. Slackware suffices for all purposes.

For the sake of comparison put the same poll on the Debian Forum and then notice that the results will be almost diametrically opposed.

samac

For the sake of comparison put the same poll on the Debian Forum and then notice that the results will be almost diametrically opposed.

samac

All right so I have slept on it...I never make any big decisions any other way... and Slackware wins it ... LOL

Thanks samac that helped tip the balance...

I have been using Slackware since version 11. I have been using Debian since Sarge. I would say that Slackware and Debian-stable are the 2 most rock solid stable distros in the linux universe.
However, Debian typically goes much longer than Slackware between stable releases. So Slackware stable is always much more up to date than Debian stable in my experience.
Also, since Slackware's package manager does not resolve dependencies, if you want the latest (and hopefully greatest!!!) version of a package then you just install it. There is no need to mess with the complexities of managing a mixed stable + testing +/- sid system as in Debian, if you want newer packages.
Using the slackbuild scripts at slackbuilds.org and sbopkg at sobopkg.org for extra Slackware packages makes installing extra packages on Slackware very easy.
Plus, the Salix repos have binary packages that are fully compatible with Slackware.
So Slackware stable has the best of both worlds: Slackware is both rock solid stable, and it can be as up to date as you want it to be.

Well, to answer this question I burned a debian lenny DVD and also a slackware 13.1 (64 bit) DVD.

Both were extremely stable on my first test.

Then I rotated the disks by 90 degrees and tried to balance them on their edges and I have to say that both became incredibly unstable, even my beloved slackware.

CentOS ;)

Solaris?

Very good answer...

Well then, it seems that even Slackware can not defy the laws of gravity and physics, at least not yet anyway.
I bet that Pat Volkerding is working on fixing this "bug" even as I write this ;)

Maybe Slackware does win but to be fair Slackware's official package base is tiny compared to Debian's. Considering how large the official package base is for Debian I would say that Debian's stability is more impressive than Slackware's.

Both are extremely stable but I vote for Slackware because of its more up-to-date packages and simplicity in managing packages.

I've already use all the distros and who tries slack stops on it.

slack is more stable cause patrick doesn't change anything on programs code = kiss(keep it simple stupid)

I tired installing debian once but the packmanager chocked on "no libc installed"
while installing libc
when I tired to force the package manager to install libc it
just kept reporting no libc installed

Debian has a very stable bare bones server setup. It's once you begin to install most of the GUI apps, a person is bound to run into trouble. For some odd reason Debian tends to believe they can write better code than upstream, and their ideas must be imposed upon the user. Occasionally (not always ;) ) these patches have been known to cause a few stability issues, notably with multimedia packages.

Another issue with these Debianified packages, is that if there is an upstream bug with a trivial upstream patch released to fix the issue - it is not a simple method to build, patch, and package an official Debian package. You're at the whim of one of the 10,000's Debian packagers. Then you need to hope this fix gets back ported, or try your luck running mixed repos and play with apt-pinning, worry about the dependency tracker stating somelib1.2.2-debian3 is different than somelib1.2.2-debian2 even though the source is exactly the same, and the Debian diff only reads +somelib1.2.2-debian3 -somelib1.2.2-debian2, which causes apt to tell you to update 550 packages only to get the bug fix for mousepad's find function :banghead:

There's another issue with Debian stable. Once Debian Stable is released, a great deal of the software is outdated, and will become antiquated (in software terms) before the next Stable release.

Slackware also has an extremely stable bare bones server setup. Due to Pat and the team's critical evaluation and testing of other packages - only those which they choose make it through to current, then onto stable. Slackware's nature is to patch only if absolutely necessary. This greatly limits the ratio of packager caused bugs, and adds the ability to directly track upstream. Should a released package have an upstream bug, in which upstream does release a patch for, it's extremely simple to add the patch command to the SlackBuild, and build an official proper Slackware package. Slackware also has the pleasure of some what new and current packages, with a release just about twice a year.

So, on the onset, both Slackware and Debian are each extremely stable. It's the maintainer-ship, longevity, and ability to self administer in which Slackware whoops up on Debian :D
System stability is more than getting a login prompt 2 minutes after installation.

I voted Slackware anyway :D

This is like asking which is bluer, the sea or the sky. It depends on what you consider "stable". Debian stable hasn't had a new release in years, that's definitely stable. My Slackware -current box only gets rebooted when I upgrade my kernel or need to unplug the machine for the most part. That's also stable, but definitely not the same. I'd like to vote for Slackware because it's my personal favorite, but it would be like telling the prettiest girl in high school how pretty she is......it's already been said.

Last times I installed Debian stable it broke within hours since it has only ancient software that probably don't work properly (e.g. Pidgin/GAIM with ICQ).
Slackware just runs and it's software isn't that old so you can do your day-to-day work. :)

So I vote for Slackware.

I don't see the point in it. Why do people answer: "Slackware is better, because it is more up to date."?
The question was "What is more stable?" and not "What is more up to date?".
This question can only be answered by people that have run both systems over a long period of time. When I see answers like "I once tried XXXXX and it broke after short time." I think to myself "Well OK, chances are high that the poster broke the system itself, because he dealt with it as would it be system YYYYYY".
I think that a Slackware or Debian Stable installation which is set up by a person who knows what he/she is doing, will hardly ever break.

When I install Slackware, I can start my work immediately. When I install Debian I have to update (on some way) packages because most of them are so old that they are no longer compatible with the current version. While trying to update things in Debian it happens some time that your system breaks. (Don't ask me why, it's just what I've experienced.)

Of course Debian is stable but if it breaks if you try to do your work then I wouldn't say it's as stable as Slackware which runs out of the box quite well.

Stable doesn't just mean it "won't break", it also means there won't be any radical changes, only security updates, to the software included. Both Slackware and Debian stable releases are solid as rock. I prefer Slackware, but that's down to personal taste. Objectively, they are equal winners.

Use netinstall and everything will be up to date after install.
Never happend to me with a stable install.
+1 for this.

slackware will obviously win, because this is the slackware forum

+1 ;)

I've been a Debian user for a while, but this thread makes me curious to try Slackware! Thanks for the info, everyone... giving it a go in VirtualBox right now. :)

I used netinstall every time. My problem was possibly that I chose the stable repos.

It happened already two times after I was changing the repos from stable to testing because I needed some new software -- like Pidgin.

I never broke a Slackware system by installing or upgrading software. So in my opinion is Slackware more stable in sense of using it a longer time -- and of course changing some things in the system.
You obviously have another experience with Debian. ;)

My VirtualBox Slackware install is done and looking very nice! I have used text installers and partitioning before, so that was not intimidating. I have a spare computer currently running Ubuntu 9.04 (which goes end-of-life next month) and it just might become a Slack box. :)

Mixing Stable and Testing repos is a big Debian no-no. Better to use Stable plus Backports (and yes, there is a newer Pidgin in Backports).

Yeah, but no knowledge about slackware, I think I should give it a try.

By the way, if you need newer software in lenny the recommended way is to use backports. Changing the repositories to squeeze will give you a testing-system if you do it right, so no stable anymore. :)

I have used both. I found Debian was a lot easier to learn and get comfortable installing new programs when your inexperienced. Just because of so many people writing about it. Slackware is a lot easier after you read the manual and get comfortable with nix. Simple and it works very well. I had Debian break on updates for me a couple of times over the years, leading to headaches. I've never had an issue with Slackware.

I originally made the jump from windows, as honestly I'm too lazy to keep up with how fast it changes. Getting my files corrupted etc. I just wanted something to install and forget except for security updates. For that, IMO Slack wins hands down. It's what I use to store all my important stuff, online shopping etc.

Well, I did vote for Slackware, but Debian is also a very good, stable choice. These are probably the two most stable distros out there.

I didn't find Debian any easier to install than Slackware, but once you read the manuals, it's easy. It's also easier if you have used another easier distro before slackware. I don't know how many people have used slackware as their first distro, but I'm sure it's not that many. Or, if it was their first distro, I'm sure they will have at some point switched to another distro then back to slackware. I suppose this may be something unique to slackware, it may not appeal to you at first, but later you'll always be drawn back to it.

I started with Slackware and never left. I did download Ubuntu and test drive it as a KVM guest. I didn't like it so off it went to the bit bucket. Does that count?

Slackware (10.0) was the first distro I installed. I wasn't aware of its reputation for being "difficult". As far as I knew at that time, all distros were the same.

Well, I think it is rare, or maybe I should make a poll.

I'm another one. Started with Slackware 2.0.1 and never left. Tried various 'new' distros as they came into existence, but never really found one that had a convincing enough reason for me to change.

The thing is, in order to make me change, a distro not only has to be better, but it has to be so significantly better that its advantages outweigh the value of the familiarity I have with Slackware, and that's a tall order.

Having thought about this for a while my final answer is "yes".

The only distros that I like other than Slackware in no particular order are: Arch, Debian, and FreeBSD. But, I don't like any of them enough to use them on a regular or permanent basis.
My distro is and always will be Slackware. Once in awhile I'll load up something gnarly in a VM, but, Slackware just works for me. :)

Dev team? I thought there's only Patrick...

There is a development team, rworkman and Alien Bob, are two members of the Slackware team.