Same here.

I'm going to start doing Linux from scratch soon, I really want to see how this is all done now.

Why use Slackware?
Control. It hits the sweet spot between the pain of creating your own distro and the pain of using different, incompatible admin tools. If I might use an analogy; Ubuntu is a ready meal, Slackware is a collection of wholefoods.
You are the admin, and have the distro's permission to mess around. Just be sure you've learned a bit before you dive in (This is why I currently run Zenwalk; I'll be back when I've learned not to fear messing around)

Sounds good to me, I've used several distros over the years and I've been thinking of installing 10.2. I'm going to install on several different platforms, from my oldest PII to my newest PC. I have the Slack install guide on my laptop so I can track along at my own pace. I really like what I've heard here and think I'll like Slack.

I really think you'll like Slackware! I've run 10.2 on my Pll 266 with 128 MB RAM, it ran very well using XFce4. Right now I'm posting this message from my main box, an IBM eserver, Plll 800, with 256 MB RAM, using KDE. I'm totally sold on Slackware. I'm like a little kid in a toy shop waiting for Patrick to release 11.0.

I agree. I have 2 Slackware boxes; one is a P4 1.5GMhZ with 512MB of RAM, but the other one is an old Sony VAIO 266Mhz with 128MB of RAM and KDE runs surprisingly well on that machine.

I've got an old laptop here 300mhz w/96mb ram on slack 10.2 w/kde is definitely usable.

I tried putting slack current on there. KDE in that version of slack seems too slow and unresponsive. I get beeps about 30 seconds after a pop-up lol. I tried for a few hours to tweak it, cutting down graphics, etc. I think on slack 11 I'm going to start using blackbox as I finally found a nice webpage that tells you how to customize the menu's in blackbox.

I'm not sure what version of XFCE he is going to put into current, I should've tried that before I put slack10.2 back on the laptop. That new XFCE is almost as slow as KDE in 10.2 it's so gnome sluggish yuck! But I liked the new file manager, but I couldnt get lan browsing w/out manually mounting the smb shares.

Slackware is all I know.

As many others have mentioned, previously, part of Slackware's appeal is that it isn't anything "special" where Linux distributions are concerned. It doesn't have GUI's to do all sorts of things for you. You have to learn how to do many system administration tasks on your own, and, as a side-effect, that increases your understanding of how Linux works in general.

I think what doesn't seem like anything special is what makes Slackware special.

I started using Slackware around the 3.2 release; I was 17 and I had scratched my Windows 95 (B version) disk all to hell and couldn't get it to install on my system. I couldn't afford to buy a new windows disk, so I bought some gigantic Slackware Unleashed book for $29. I thought it would be as easy as using Windows, it wasn't. I ended up polishing the Windows 95 CD until it would install and going from there.

However, after upgrading to 98, 98 Second Edition, and so on and so forth, I got tired of playing the Microsoft game. I actually like Windows in certain circumstances, but having to pay to upgrade from 98 to 98SE annoyed me. So, I decided to check out Slackware. Pat and the Slackware Crew had just released 7.0, and it installed just fine on my old K6-2 300mhz (IIRC) machine with 64MB of Ram and didn't eat up all of my 5GB hard disk.

There was a big learning curve, but eventually, I had it configured to do everything I could do with Windows. I mean, all I really did back then (and still largely do now) was browse the web, chat on IRC, MUD, IM, and write papers for school (Uni now, but hey).

IceWM looked enough like Windows that even my computer-illiterate mother could figure out how to browse the web and send e-mail without needing help.

I eventually bought an Apple iBook (G3/600 with OS X 10.2). After that died (thanks to shoddy manufacturing), I bought an entry-level Inspiron 1000. I've used Windows XP since I bought it, but I just recently switched back to Slackware. I had everything up and running just as I like it after a few hours.

I hadn't used Linux, of any kind, since late 2003, so I had a lot to re-learn. I had no idea about ALSA or the new features of the 2.6 kernel, or any of the various other new-fangled things. However, I couldn't abide by Debian or Fedora or Ubuntu. For me, Slackware defines Linux. Linux, to me, is clean, simple, and unobtrusive. It lets me use my computer the way I want to use it.

I have to say, I thought I'd miss Gnome, but XFCE4 is what I remember Gnome being (while Gnome is apparently not what I remember it being like).

It has already been said that Slackware intalls on old hardware. However, I keep wondering what some people consider 'old'. A PII is not that old or slow in my opinion. I installed Slack 8 on my (really old) 386 DX40 with 8MB RAM and it's running without any problems. No X of course, but still. And since not much has changed since Slack 8, I think Slack 10 would also install just fine. Try that with windows or most other linux distros.

I guess it depends. My aunt gave me an old laptop with a 550MHz K6, 64 MB RAM, 5 GB HDD. It came with Windows ME, but I installed Slackware 10.2 on it and it runs great. I have it set up with Fluxbox, Firefox and Gaim and it works just fine.

Slackware is simply "the best!" I've tried various distros before. How I got started with Slack is a weird story. I always noticed that whenever I would read OSNews.com and there would be a post about Slackware the reviews were always GREAT and the responses from the comments were ALWAYS positive. That can't be said about most distros. Sooooo, I tried it. I've loved it ever since.

When you dig down, you'll find that every other distro is Slackware underneath.