Hi,
I am interested why all of you are using slackware?
Why this distribution?
Slackware pros and cons.
Where Slackware is better then RedHat or debian?
Is Slackware more like FreeBSD?
I googled all day and there is not much about slackware, I mean it is not 'popular' distro, why?
I heard slackware is a good distro to learn Linux, why?
Reading thru LQ forums I found slackware forum more 'hands on' then other distros forums, can I catch that here ;-)

Thanks,
Peter

hmm...have you tried www.google.com/linux ? anyway there's a good review of slackware, what makes it unique, and why people love/hate it here at distrowatch: http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?res...view-slackware

it was a review of 8.1 i think, but still very relevant. basically, slack is simple (in terms of structure and design), stable, and unix-like. if those things appeal to you, and the thought of sitting in front of a command prompt for hours at a time excites you, then slackware is the way to go.

mcd said it well: stable as hell, simple structure/design, easy to work with if you're comfortable with the command line. great distro for learning the basic ins and outs of linux.

cons include poor package management, smaller user/support base than some distros (rh/suse/debian, etc.), and hard to work with if you don't like the command line. slackware's stock packages are i386, so it also can be slower to comparable setups running the same software packages (e.g., same programs on arch or gentoo).

Just a few threads from here:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...hreadid=288054
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...hreadid=289450
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...hreadid=213496

...and did you really use google ?

quote google :
----
Results 1 - 10 of about 6,150,000 for slackware. (0.06 seconds)
----

egag

Actually Slackware's packages, for the most part, are i486 . Even then they are compiled using -march=i486 -mcpu=i686 -O2 CFLAGS, so they are compiled for broadest compatibility (i486) but contain optimizations for the i686 CPU so the binaries created during the compile will take advantage that CPU as well.

Also, I keep hearing this stuff about Slackware being "difficult", but I disagree. Having said that, I do remember the first time I installed it and all the trouble I had, then I RFM and found out why . Truth be told the install of Slackware is one of the simplest I've seen, once you get past the "OH MY GOD WHERE IS THE MOUSE POINTER!!!". It ain't Windows, Red Hat, Fedora, Mandrake, et all, so it doesn't make any decisions for you, you actually have to use your head for something other than a hat rack.

The only reason I spend "hours" in front of the command line is because I want to. Most of the Slackware installs I've done worked pretty much out of the box. Yes I had to set alsamixer so that I'd have sound, if I want to update I have to use the Command Line. Most of the time spent in front of the CL if for "myself" now, compiling programs and creating SlackPacks of the stuff I want. Whereas, used to I would just download a package from www.linuxpackages.net or www.slackcare.com (which is shutting down BTW a pity too) and then, again using CL, use installpkg to install the program, then run it from the GNOME Applications menu. Other than that I pretty much never really did much command line stuff, but then I only wanted to "use" my computer after I quit "abusing" it .

Later,
MMYoung

Quote from... who knows where.... "If you know Slackware, you know Linux. If you know Red Hat, all you know is Red Hat". This is true. It kind of MAKES you learn what you're doing.

Also, Slackware default installations include only stable releases of programs. Basicly, if Patrick doesn't feel it's right to be in Slackware, it's not. If you want everything you have to be completely up to date, you can always upgrade to Current.

A lot of the configuration is done at a command line since it doesn't include certain gui tools like other distros. This makes it so you know your configurations have taken effect instead of being lost between KDE and the inner-workings if your system.

If you want to truly know and understand the pros and cons of Slackware, you should try it. Personally, I've tried switching to another distro... I'm back on Slack and here to stay.

--digitalhead

What you said about packages i386 and i486, does it mean Slackware is still in I486 era, and installing it on spanky fresh Athlon XP 2800+ may not perform good as RedHat 9, Redhat enterprise or Debian?
Is that what you mean?

I think that I must be the only person that'll say this, but I'm using Slackware (again) because, on the laptop I've currently got, it was the first distro to 'Just work' out of the box in all particulars, from video to audio to wireless.

That said, I'm really impressed with it in general. It can be very stripped down, and very efficient indeed.

The packages may be compiled for 486, but they run faster than *&%&^$%^ on a fast box.

By the way, that )(&(*^*& above, is not some sort of Perl script, so don't even try. : )

The beauty of a distro like Slackware is that you can take the latest release and load it on
your old 486 that you use as a firewall/NAT router/whatever. And then load the same packages
on your Quad super fast Xeon box. And then use the command line configuration tools because they
don't get in the way of you doing what you want.

It's all good.

Nope, you didn't FULLY read my post (if I am the one you are addressing). Most Slackware packages are built to be installed on anything from the i486 and up. Just because you and I have latest "whizz-bang" processor on the market (or close to it anyway ), doesn't mean that everyone does and there are still a LOT of servers out there that are running on 486/586 hardware. However EVERY package, where I've looked at the build script anyway, adds the -mcpu-i686 flag for gcc when compiling. What this allows the package maintainer to do is build his/her package so that it will install and run on an i486 but will take full advantage of the i686 processor as well, best of both worlds. Will there be a performance "hit" by doing this, short answer is yes. Is it noticeable to the "nekid eye", not hardly.

On the other hand, I compile my PERSONAL Slackware program packages using the following gcc options:
CHOSTS="i686-pc-linux-gnu"
CFLAGS="-march=i686 -mcpu=athlon-xp -O2 -pipe -fromit-frame-pointer"
CXXFLAGS="-march=i686 -mcpu-athlon-xp -O2 -pipe -fromit-frame-pointer"

This way all of MY packages are compiled to ONLY install on i686 CPU's and will take full advantage of my Athlon-XP 3000+ CPU. And I could use the -O3 (and that a capital "oh" not a zero) but it increases the package file size and I really don't see that big a difference in the startup speed.

BTW, last I looked most of RH/FC RPM's and Debian's .deb files were i386. However the same thing applies to them as well, IIRC.

Just my thoughts,
MMYoung

Naw, I said pretty much the same thing in post #6.
So I couldn't agree with you more

Later,
MMYoung

thanks for clarifying that (and in your second post). in my packages directory are a mix of i386 and i486 packages, mostly i386 it looks like, but maybe there are more 486. but i didn't know you could compile for a lesser architecture and still have the program take advantage of i686 processors.

To quibble (and don't we all love that?) most of the boxes you installed Slack on, probably would have worked okay with Fedora Core 2 or Xandros or something more glamourous but less interesting than Slack. Interestingly, they didn't on my laptop, where Slack did everything, right, the first time. I was re-impressed.

I have go than, I got old book about Linux (Slackware) 'Linux Unleashed' by Kamran Husain and Tim Parker. I bought this book last week, cuz is from 1996 (lol) and I can find some helpful info there. I looked at some new books but they all seems to be KDE or GNOME orientated and there is not much about shell.

43%[=====================> ] 294,123,564 89.34K/s ETA 1:12:04

Above yet to go to the end of the second slack iso so I have a read yet.
I will come back here anyway when I will be in trouble.

Thanks All,
Peter