Since its first release in April of 1993, the SlackwareLinux
project has aimed at producing the most UnixLike LinuxDistribution
out there. Slackware complies with the published GnuLinux
standards, such as the Linux File System Standard. We have always considered simplicity and stability paramount, and as a result Slackware has become one of the most popular, stable, and friendly LinuxDistribution
available. And SlackwareLinux
can run on 486 systems all the way up to the latest x86 machines with 32 or 64 bits. For more information on SlackwareLinux
go to http://www.slackware.com/
Stable, sure .... Popular and simple, maybe .... But friendly LinuxDistribution
Seems like every time I fuss with RedHatLinux
I end up in an RPM death loop. (Can't install xyz 'cause it's already installed. Can't uninstall xyz 'cause it isn't installed.) That makes Slackware look pretty friendly to me.
This is attractive when coming from an RPM system, but it loses its luster when coming from a deb system, since deb-based dependency tracking has a much better track record. Slackware, by default, does no dependency tracking, and that simply isn't how I want to maintain my system. It isn't flexible enough to allow software to be added and, more importantly,
Yes, the Debian way 'forces' me to use the AptGet software. Slackware forces me to do everything by hand. That isn't very usable.
I have maintained a Slackware system in the past. It was too much work. I don't see that as a personal failing.
Redhat doesn't force you to use the RPM system. I always use Redhat, but install things from source.
As opposed to with DebianLinux
, whereas you are (almost) forced to use APT, otherwise many things cannot find dependency resolutions -- the main reason I switched. -- ArlenCuss
Slackware might have a steeper learning curve than Redhat, Mandriva or Ubuntu but it is very transparent. It makes it easy to troubleshoot, apply general issue identification method. It has less 'customizations' than other distributions, making it easy to follow generic documentation. -- Pierre
If 'friendly' means 'usable', Slackware is very friendly. If 'friendly' means 'pretty', Slackware isn't 'friendly' at all. All in all, I'd rather have usable.