What is slack like

mecon · 2007-06-27 23:24:10

I'm about to dual boot arch 64 and Slack I know it is verry KISS but i want to know what it's like to use slack.
Slack is a verry well liked distro and it is verry stable. So I would use it in servers and such.

RobbeR49 · 2007-06-28 01:09:14

The wiki gives a pretty good rundown on the differences between arch and slack

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arc … _Slackware

it's been a while since I've used it but I remember liking it a lot. If you're used to arch then you should be right at home.

mecon · 2007-06-28 02:32:04

I was just asking what your openions are about slack. I used it before but I was not ready yet; but I think Slacks Package Management Is better than RPM and DPKG.

Acid7711 · 2007-06-28 06:35:44

What package management??? Aside from the 3ed party utilities there is none that comes 'stock'. I started on it wayyyyyyy back in the days of slack 1.0, so I can't knock it, but after Arch I'll simply never go back to it. (and yes, I've tried)

Last edited by Acid7711 (2007-06-28 06:37:15)

dolby · 2007-06-28 08:06:04

im running slack on another pc since 12.0 rc1 came out, and i have to admit that its not that easy to get used to after a year running only arch.
what i dont like about it most i think is that if u want to run gtk applications but dont want to install gnome (which is not part of the distro anyway) u'll end up compiling many packages.
also as far as a package manager u can use Slackbuilds to make tgz's which i find is fairly easy in many cases but tougher than making pkgbuilds in arch.
another fact is that finding Slackbuilds for all the apps u might want to use is more difficult than finding pkgbuilds, maybe because there is no official place for them. i think thats one of the reasons slackers stick mostly to whats provided in the installation disks.
last but not least slack doesnt have a rolling release circle which is a big minus imho.
personally at this point, i feel like arch is a very advanced slack. or maybe how slack could be in an ideal scenario.

Last edited by dolby (2007-06-28 09:06:51)

cry0x · 2007-06-28 21:18:43

Slackware was my first distro, at least the first that I had installed on my hard drive (knoppix was technically my first.) It taught me a lot about GNU/Linux and the way it worked. I used it for a good solid year until I found Debian. Online package repositories? Excellent! You'll find a lot of comparisons between Slack and Debian, since Debian is also dedicated to stability, yet it's more bleeding edge (lol) that Slack.

Plus the fact that Slackware is maintained by one guy, and he still recommends the 2.4 kernel. I'm not bashing, but I'm of the opinion that Slackware is a dinosaur. It had its days of glory, but they are numbered now.

Husio · 2007-06-28 21:29:09

IMO CRUX is some kind of Slackware++ becouse it's also very simple. But CRUX has some kind of ports and you can build your packager faster than in slack.
In Arch, you can do the same, but we're all so lazy... just use pacman

Hide · 2007-06-28 22:15:14

Man, CRUX doesn't even have cfdisk (or it isn't mentioned in the handbook), so you have to partition manually... Plus you have to do A LOT of things by hand (e.g. create .xinitrc file??)! Slack is MUCH easier to work with...
Sorry for the offtopic

Last edited by Hide (2007-06-28 22:15:41)

ndlarsen · 2007-06-28 22:21:22

Here is how I experienced Slackware. In short, easy/simple to use, a pita to maintain. Often had to google unsatisfied dependencies and manually install every single package needed. Aggravating if there is more than just a few. Almost impossible to upgrade successfully due to the few-featured manager, ruined quite a few running systems on that behalf. If you are obsessive about simplicity, Slackware is the way to go As for servers, I have heard of quite a few Slackware based servers running reliably for years with virtually no maintenance (which includes no major upgrades). It is an ultra conservative distribution, having it's pro's and con's as such. Most Slackware users probably never noticed the unfortunate udev/devfs/udev switch as the related kernel version came and went without being implemented into Slackware. Special needs usually require massive recompilation. Everything is properly tested, tested again and then perhaps implemented. Release cycles are usually rather long, likely caused by the, for better and worse, strict centralized/dictatorial development/maintenance model. Latter probably spewed the semi-idolization of Patrick Volkerding amongst many Slackers. In my experience, criticism of P.V./Slackware is not handled well by the Slackware community, constructive or not. It seems to be both iconized and canonized.
Do not get me wrong on this, I am neither ranting nor flaming, I liked Slackware a lot when I used it and, seconded Arch, it is the distro I have used for the longest coherent period of time. Now, whether this is any help to you I know not, just thought I would leave a few cents in the pot.

mecon · 2007-06-28 23:07:32

I'm back in arch, because the install is quicker, also i like the more aggressive upgrades / and never needing to upgrade using an iso. I also couldn't get my dual boot working with both.

Last edited by mecon (2007-06-28 23:08:18)

Arch Linux

#1 2007-06-27 23:24:10

What is slack like

#2 2007-06-28 01:09:14

Re: What is slack like

#3 2007-06-28 02:32:04

Re: What is slack like

#4 2007-06-28 06:35:44

Re: What is slack like

#5 2007-06-28 08:06:04

Re: What is slack like

#6 2007-06-28 21:18:43

Re: What is slack like

#7 2007-06-28 21:29:09

Re: What is slack like

#8 2007-06-28 22:15:14

Re: What is slack like

#9 2007-06-28 22:21:22

Re: What is slack like

#10 2007-06-28 23:07:32

Re: What is slack like

Board footer