Why Slackware Still Matters

An anonymous reader writes "In a rebuttal to the recent opinion column "Does Slackware still matter?" at Linux Watch, cRaig Forrester provides insight into Why Slackware DOES still matter--and not just to "hard-core group of hobbyists" or "highly professional" Linux server administrators--but desktop users and newcomers too."

Comments

It's a good first distro

[kavachameleon]

Slackware was my very first distro. After Slack, I tried suse and mandrake, but found that when I had problems with using the GUI or configuration tools, that the experience I had gained in Slack was my most useful tool in solving the problems. No, I'm no Linux guru. I use XP on my box for various reasons: particular software availability being the primary reason, and ease-of-use quite honestly being the second. I just don't have time to learn a new OS as well as I know Windows. I use the tool that works best for my situation. Frequently, this means OSS. Sometimes, it means Microsoft. Oh well. But anyway, just gauging from my own experience, Slackware definitely has a place, even for new Linux users.

Re:It's a good first distro

[garcia]

It's a "good first distro" like DOS was a good first OS. I don't mean that in a good or bad way. It's just the way you may approach and then grow while using any OS.

With DOS/Slackware you have to actually know some structure, commands, and have a bit of basic knowledge to do anything more than whatever the base install can do. Sure, plenty of people can use Slackware, type startx, and use a window manager just like you could have typed "win" when you booted your DOS OS and gotten to the same thing.

Slackware was my first Linux distro and I learned a ton from it. I learned how to compile my own kernels (after screwing them up 100s of times), how to make sure my system stayed in order, and how to edit my own .conf files. DOS taught me quite a bit of the same stuff.

I run Debian now (after trying various other distros but mainly RH 5.1, 5.2 and 6.0) and with the knowledgebase I gained over the years running Slackware I'm comfortable using maintained packages while still being able to know what the fuck is going on in my system.

Problem is that people don't typically want to "learn" how to "properly" use their OS. They want to turn on the machine and surf the web. That's fine. Slackware is not all that great for that. I would recommend something more modern for that type of user.

So, if you're looking to actually *learn* about Linux, use Slackware first for a couple months and then switch to something else that's fancier... If you're looking to use Linux to replace your XP experience and you don't want to fuck around with a bunch of work, use something modern right off.

Reading good

[PetriBORG]

I don't know abotu anybody else, but when I first read this headline I read "Why Slackers Still Matter" to which I thought to myself, "Of course Perl programmers still matter!"

In all seriousness though, I will always feel that Slackware (and others like Gentoo, or home-rolled linux) will matter because installing and using these sorts of distros really do give you an understanding into how Linux works(tm), and maybe more importantly, how to change how it does something. You can't make improvements to something as complicated as Linux without first understanding how it works.

Why Slackware

[everphilski]

Slackware doesn't suffer from all the bloat the "other distros" seem to suffer from. From the simple but sufficient text installer, to just the right number of packages - its not bloatware. They also tend to stay a step or two behind the other distos with respect to upgrading libraries and such so your applications tend not to break as often...

Besides, what other distro has aSmoking Tux Logo?

-everphilski-

I mean this in the nicest way, but...

[devphaeton]

....slackware does matter. I am seeing a trend of ppl who try out linux first with either Mandrake or Fedora core. Nothing wrong with that, but as n00bs the do the usual thing such as install everything and turn everything on. Nothing wrong with that either-

-however-

Instead of going the classic route of tuning a 'big' or 'bloated' installation to fit their needs, they seem to be tossing it all aside and jumping on the Gentoo bandwagon. Not a bad thing in itself, but by comparison Gentoo will *seem* faster to them because the only experience they had was their Mandrake box running KDE, Apache, Samba, et all and having all these background services running. It perpetuates the Gentoo Myth and creates some zealotry. (or maybe the zealotry is unavoidable regardless, i dunno).

Very "straight forward" distros like slackware and debian will always have a place for advanced users to build the linux they need. It also serves as a good demonstration that the benefits of linux aren't unique to Gentoo. Whether Gentoo's model is good or bad is up for debate, but it is good to have different philosophies and different development strategies.

Besides, Slackware is classic.

Rules for Me, Rules for You.

[Franciscan]

I've noticed that a lot of tech pseudo-journalism boils down to the following:

(1) I like technology X, Y and Z.

(2) I don't like technology A, B, and C.

(3) A,B, and C shouldn't exist, because by existing, they distract people who don't know they really shouldn't like A,B, and C, and if I could just force them to see things my way, they'd do as I do.
I find it amazing that people bother reading the original article, to which this article responds, and dignify it by any response at all. Slackware will exist as long as at least one slackware developer/maintainer finds it useful, pleasant, or in some way desires for it to continue to exist, and thus Slackware, or something very like it, is likely to continue to exist. It's the oldest surviving linux distribution, with a longer history that even RedHat or Debian, if I remember correctly.
I'm a Debian fan. I like their packaging, I like their stable/unstable/testing partitioning. I like the community and the debian process. That doesn't mean I feel any need to impugn the Fedora/RedHat fans, or the Slackware, or any other Linux distro fans. Guess what guys, it's splitting hairs. I have compiled thousands of tar.gz (tarballs) containing thousands of software packages, on over 100 different versions of over 20 different distributions, and the differences are so vanishingly small, compared to amount of things that are the same, that any kind of "my distribution is better than your distribution" discussion ends up mostly moot. If Ubuntu has some better feature than basic Debian, or if Slackware people invent something neat, chances are most of the rest of the Linux world will borrow, adapt, and absorb whatever they can into the environment they prefer.
These people who claim it should be otherwise should go to Apple, or Microsoft, and say, "here's my money, now control everything and make it uniform, and make sure everybody does things the same way, all the time". Those who are attempting to do this in the Free Software World, suggesting that something is irrelevant, dead, unimportant, or detrimental to the free software world, because it exists, are idiots. Ignore them.
If technology really has become irrelevant, it requires no commentary to establish it. Anybody remember Yggdrasil Linux? I can now dare to say that Yggdrasil Linux is probably pretty close to dead. Anyone want to disagree with me?
Regards,
Warren/Franciscan

Re:A number of years ago

[phantomfive]

Slackware has package management. If you read either of the articles, you would have noticed that. In addition, you can choose between package managers. From the article:

On Slackware, you have a choice of package managers! Swaret? Slapt-get? SlackUpdate? Take your pick! In fact, I would venture to guess that given its agnostic design, more packages are installable on Slackware than any other distribution.

Personally, I like Slackware because it is clean, simple (once you understand it), and easy to administer. With Slackware, I can understand everything going on in my computer, and that makes me feel happy.