Arch vs Slackware

Hiko96786 · 2007-10-13 18:03:44

Aloha,
This was posted on linuxquestions.org and I was wondering if it is true?
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions … ch-591460/
I would like to get a good understanding of Arch so that I can post a reply here as well. Arch works very well for me and has taught me a lot.
Mahalo,
Edward

ProzacR · 2007-10-13 18:13:51

Yea it is possible to hear that Slackware is real Linux, and what is different from Slackware in other distros is not good because it is "distro specific" and learning that is useless. Only with thease talks and with old respect Slackware can be topdistro. But who cares? We install system for using it not for learning about useless things.

Arch is not Slackware.

ozar · 2007-10-13 19:13:45

I see no reason to pit either distro against the other. They both have their pros and cons, and there's enough room in the world of Linux for both of them.

It's better to simply try both, then make up your own mind.

Have fun with Linux!

byte · 2007-10-13 19:28:58

Damn, and I thought this would be about a Quake3 match between Slack and Arch users...

Hiko96786 · 2007-10-13 19:37:07

Aloha,
It was mostly about this statement made in the other thread on linuxQuestions..
"Some of Arch Linux's configuration setup is a bit nonstandard"
and I wanted clarification on that.
Mahalo,
Edward

Dusty · 2007-10-13 19:44:30

Nonstandard is not quite the right phrase... "a different standard" might fit better. Personally, I find Arch's system to be much easier to use than any other distro I've tried (but Slackware is not on that list).

Dusty

.:B:. · 2007-10-13 20:30:10

A lot of thought has been put into Arch's configuration and setup, whereas Slack (no disrespect) has its configuration all over the place.

I like Slack and its derivatives very much, if Arch wouldn't have been here I would run something slackish. However, the package management downright sucks. That's one thing where Arch is lightyears ahead of Slack.

Misfit138 · 2007-10-13 21:45:46

I like both distros very much. Slackware is very old, very cool and has the coolest name by far of any distro.
Arch is better for me, because Slack requires me to sit in front of my computer for longer than I want to. (Not as long as Gentoo requires, though.) Slack takes more time to manage packages. It is designed with a huge assortment of libs in place so that compiling source tarballs is hassle-free.
Slack repos are quite limited compared to Arch. Arch suits me better because installing binary packages is a no-brainer, whereas Slack requires me to think about something that I feel I should not have to, and it requires more steps and patience.
Both are very light and fast. By 'light' I mean they have very little overhead. They are responsive.
Slack is a few degrees more manual, whereas Arch is a few degrees more automated.
Try both.

Basu · 2007-10-14 04:02:03

Arch was the first distro where I learned to ditch the GUI and get down to the code (or at least the config files). I haven't used Slackware (and I probably never will) mainly because of the package management. I loved Arch's simple pacman the first time I saw it while Slackware's package management (or lack thereof) downright scared me. Like Misfit138, I believe that package management should be as automated as possible. In the end, it really doesn't matter what other people say, it matters what your experience is and what you learn to love.

elgatofelix · 2007-10-14 05:00:35

conclusion: ARCHLINUX WINS hands down!

Notturno · 2007-10-14 05:34:55

just my two cents.
In my still short Linux experience I have tried quite a few distros (in order redhat, debian, slackware, vectorlinux, yoper, gentoo and arch).
There is no doubt in my mind that arch is by far the best distro.
First off, it is very easy to install, upgrade an maintain.
You'll find just about any package between the official repos and AUR.
It is very flexible and versatile, allowing you to set up your system as you like.
It's lightweight, meaning it takes less space on disk than other distros.
Its very fast and i686 optimized.
There are several arch specific packaged (my favorite being kdemod) which make my life alot easier.
Last but not least, it's very well documented, great wiki, great forum and you can see every detail has been taken into account and laid out rationally.
Using arch I have been learning and improving my Linux understanding.
I must say using arch its quite exciting and I can't foresee changing distro in the near or far future.

Magician21 · 2007-10-15 11:31:21

I first cut my teeth on Linux with Redhat and Slackware. At the time (~1999), all commercial books used Slack as 'the' Linux distro. Once I learned a lot, Slack was great. It was so simple, and I came to dislike RH/Fedora quite intensely.

Time passed...
The 2.2 and 2.4 kernels never supported all my laptop hardware, despite hundreds of kernel recompiles. 2.4 was still being used in the Slack 11 release. Slack dropped Gnome support and other projects were slow to fill the void. It was irritating only being able to find rpms of applications and converting them to the .tgz Slack package format. For the i486 platform, no less. In 2004. Too much DIY for me. I stayed away from Gentoo and LFS for a reason

I love command line and simple configuration files. GUI has its place, but I wanted something that would squeeze every last CPU cycle out of my machines - not waste it on fancy UI elements.

I tried Arch on a whim. It took me (sadly) almost a year to learn how easy it could be, because I kept trying to make it into Slackware. Once I caught on to "The Arch Way", I never looked back. Almost everything I can think of is in the pacman repositories and it's all compiled for i686. No manual resolution of dependencies, and a full system upgrade without a re-install. Arch is now my distro, and I'll never go back to Slack.

Cipher · 2007-11-15 01:28:48

w00ky wrote:

hello every body... i new in Archlinux and i think Arch is the BEST SO...
i was used Ubuntu 5.10/ 6.20 , Debian Sarget/Etch/Lenny/Sid , Suse:rolleyes:, Gem 1.0 , DreamLinux and Archlinux.
the first time were i installed Arch i was thinking what i learn from this SO ?
for my surprise all is so easy to configure, are many tutorials and help in the web and so simple, fast and stable;
but my wireless card was the only thing not configured.... but yesterday i installed and all is configured and running perfectly
I never do that so simple, easy and faster. Archlinux is more what i was thinking ... is the best SO that i was installed in my desktop
Sorry for my expressions, i'm from Chile --> Southamerica, next to Argentina
Archlinux rules

que buena, aguante chile

the best that you can do, is try Arch/slackware/debian/etc and then, you can have a better idea of wich distro is a good choice for yours tasks, etc.

ralvez · 2007-11-15 02:57:02

I came from Slack. The last version I used was Slackware 10.
I think that both, Arch and Slackware, are good and have their own strength and weaknesses.
Using a distro, or Linux for that matter, is about choice and a choice that best fits the way we work. In that regard I switched to Arch because it works in a way that best suits my working style and **not** because I was unhappy about Slack.

Both distros expect a lot from the end user and both have same peculiarities that make them unique. Slack has the "honorable distinction" of being the "most Unix like" of the Linux variants but that is not to say that it is "better" than any other distribution because it also have some "trends" that it took from BSD.

If Arch did not exit I would be a Slacker ... but then again Arch **does** exit!

Thanks to all (developers, users, community) for a great distribution.

R.

dhave · 2007-11-15 06:58:40

You'll benefit from either Slackware or Arch. You'll be up and running a little faster with Arch, probably, but you'll learn the inner workings of the system more with Slack. If you're a patient person highly motivated to learn about Linux, I would start with Slack for at least six months, then, when you've got your sea legs, try Arch.

From reading these forums for several years, it looks as if everyone who has spent time with Slackware testifies to the great benefits of using it, but many people eventually prefer to move to a more convenient, but still hands-on distro like Arch.

Once you know Linux, Arch will free you from some of the more tedious chores but still allow you tremendous control over your system. That's the right balance for me.

A lot of people who are interested in Linux spend some time with Gentoo along the way, and most people give LFS a shot, as well. I don't recommend LFS as a way for a beginner to learn about Linux, however. I got more out of working through the LFS book after I was fairly familiar with Linux. When I first tried LFS as a relative newby, I managed to complete the exercise, but I was mainly typing instructions at my keyboard without much understanding of what I was doing. When I went through LFS after 18 months or so with Linux, it made a whole lot more sense and was far more beneficial.

Slack and Arch both have good docs and good communities. Both are essential to learning your way.

Last edited by dhave (2007-11-15 06:59:31)

sH · 2007-11-15 08:09:16

B wrote:

A lot of thought has been put into Arch's configuration and setup, whereas Slack (no disrespect) has its configuration all over the place.
I like Slack and its derivatives very much, if Arch wouldn't have been here I would run something slackish. However, the package management downright sucks. That's one thing where Arch is lightyears ahead of Slack.

For me, package management like pacman or apt is the one BIG advantage of linux operating systems over windows. It should be as "one-clickish" as possible. I have no experience with slack other than zenwalk. When you find packages in their repo you are lucky, but installing something that is not there consumes a lot of time.

.:B:. · 2007-11-15 11:29:32

I prefer one-typish .

But I agree. The beauty of binary linux is package management, and that's where Slackware horribly fails. No big repos, no compulsory dep checks, etc. There was a time - after my experience with RPM dependency hell - that I wanted to avoid built-in dep checking at all cost. Slack systems provide a haven then. I know better now - proven and tested

Arch on the other hand has not only big repos (when you count community), but also a lot of tailored builscripts (AUR). That ports-like system is just great. All it takes is compilation time, and maybe some personalisation.

dolby · 2007-11-15 16:19:03

there are many sites for slackware providing slackbuilds (ala AUR) and binary packages as well. the only problem is they 're not official and cant really be trusted 100% to not break anything etc.
there also gnome. or should i say, theres no official gnome version. its provided by external sites as well.
the lack of a package manager not resolving dependencies is not that much of a drawback imo, if u leave out the fact that its exactly that fact that prevents u from having a decent installation. meaning u are obliged to install all packages , or at least the most part of them in order to make things work. if u dont some apps might not be useable, as u might have missed a dependency or two.

Last edited by dolby (2007-11-15 16:19:33)

Misfit138 · 2007-11-15 17:30:53

Very true. Slack is a great base, but I crave the big Arch repos (growing all the time) and pacman.
Adding software is so easy in Arch, it's hard to go to anything else.

grte · 2007-11-15 21:29:05

Before I say anything, let me say that I actually do like Slack. If there were no Arch, it may very well be what I'd be using.

But when people say that the Slack way is the standard way, what they really ought to be saying is that it's the archaic way. Some who consider themselves purists seem to regard a lack of progress as an important part of that "purity". It's not.

There are better, more modern distros. Like this one.

Zerathidune · 2007-11-16 02:30:50

For a couple of years, slackware was my distro of choice. I was never completely satisfied with it - I craved bigger repository and package management - but for a long time it was the best I could find.

Actually, having to handle dependencies myself wouldn't have been much of a problem for me, except that I got into a situation where I was afraid to remove packages I wasn't using because I wasn't sure something I was didn't depend on them.

then I was having trouble installing slack on my laptop (this weird problem where the 2.4 kernel was reffering to my sata hard drive as hda) and I had by then heard of arch in passing, I remember someone on some forum had said that they use "slackware for servers, archlinux for desktops" so I thought I would check it out. I read about it and it seemed like everything I had been looking for. I tried it, and indeed it was. I have since never looked back.

That said, I learned most of what I know about linux from slackware. it's an excellent distro to learn with, and it is incredibly stable.

.:B:. · 2007-11-16 06:49:01

Well, for starters... Try removing the 'filesystem' package and your card-specific Xorg driver . Pacman won't complain at all. But don't think you'll be able to boot without the filesystem package .

sH · 2007-11-16 09:52:38

dolby wrote:

there are many sites for slackware providing slackbuilds (ala AUR) and binary packages as well. the only problem is they 're not official and cant really be trusted 100% to not break anything etc.

Yeah, in zenwalk it took me only 2 weeks to break my system. The packages you'll find sometimes are rather old. I think every distribution has it's good sides, but for those who want bleeding edge there is nothing as cool as arch.

loosec · 2007-11-16 10:57:32

So, now that this has been discussed, is it time to update the Wiki's POV on Slack vs Arch?

Arch Linux

#1 2007-10-13 18:03:44

Arch vs Slackware

#2 2007-10-13 18:13:51

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#3 2007-10-13 19:13:45

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#4 2007-10-13 19:28:58

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#5 2007-10-13 19:37:07

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#6 2007-10-13 19:44:30

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#7 2007-10-13 20:30:10

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#8 2007-10-13 21:45:46

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#9 2007-10-14 04:02:03

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#10 2007-10-14 05:00:35

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#11 2007-10-14 05:34:55

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#12 2007-10-15 11:31:21

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#13 2007-11-15 01:28:48

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#14 2007-11-15 02:57:02

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#15 2007-11-15 06:58:40

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#16 2007-11-15 08:09:16

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#17 2007-11-15 11:29:32

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#18 2007-11-15 16:19:03

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#19 2007-11-15 17:30:53

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#20 2007-11-15 21:29:05

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#21 2007-11-16 02:30:50

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#22 2007-11-16 06:49:01

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#23 2007-11-16 09:52:38

Re: Arch vs Slackware

#24 2007-11-16 10:57:32

Re: Arch vs Slackware

Board footer