Slackware article

[Patrick]

Mostly deals with installation:
http://distrocenter.linux.com/article.p ... 17/1538202

[Patrick]

And an opinion piece from our 'biggest" fan, Al C.:
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5206957474.html

[snarkout]

Considering he didn't even get the ubuntu quote right, I'm going to have to take everything else with a grain of salt.

[jackson1995]

There is a comment in the forums to that article (towards bottom)

http://www.linux-watch.com/cgi-bin/boar ... 0&Session=

that describes how this dude didn't do good research on another article in which he bashed Slackware. Seems like he has something again Slackware to me.

[treehead]

And an opinion piece from our 'biggest" fan, Al C.:
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5206957474.html

"<b>Yes, slackware DOES still matter!</b>"
by cRaig

Unfortunately, rather than give quantifiable, well-thought reasons as to why Slackware may no longer be a viable distribution (an assumption which I infer from the title), guest Alan Canton has simply taken nearly 500 words to express what could have been summarized in one sentence: "Linux, as an operating system, is too complex for me." Rather than simply bash him further, I prefer to take on his arguments (read: opinions) point for point. Given the tone of the article in question, you will forgive me if my rebuttal is similarly tongue-in-cheek.

<i>"Slackware advocates always exclaim: "Slackware is easy once you understand it." The trouble is, there are so many other distros that are just as stable, and just as fast, and which you can use without having to get a Ph.D. in order to understand how to get your work done."</i>

First, the idea that something is easy once you understand it goes without saying. What slackware advocates are telling you is that in order to truely appreciate Slackware for what it is, you must learn how Linux works first. Secondly, I would question what other distros are faster than Slackware after a default install that Al would consider administrable. Damn Small Linux? It is certainly faster, but easy to install and administer? No more than Slack. And certainly not Gentoo... which is the only distribution I have heard used in the same sentence with "Ph.D." (prior Alan's assertion, of course).

The mistake that Alan makes is not defining from the outset what constitutes a viable distribution to him. At least I assume that this is what his contention with Slackware is. The only support given against it is seemingly that other distros are more popular, and that they are because they are easy to administer.

I would assert that a distribution's viability is based on its usefulness to a userbase, regardless of that userbase's size. Since when has the financial remuneration provided by Free Software or the degree of corporatization of it equated to its value? Linux, GNU, and thousands of other free software projects thrive because of <i>passion</i>. That's right, passion. (And questioning Patrick Volkerding's income simply to name drop is just positively bad form--especially given Pat's recent health.)

Still not convinced? Alright, let's take on the numbers game....

Slackware survives on DistroWatch's Top Ten for a reason. Similarly, Slackware survives as the oldest distribution of Linux still maintained for a reason. These two simple facts alone are enough to counter the statistical assertion that Slackware doesn't matter. Certainly, Slackware's installer doesn't win any beauty contests, but it's fast, it's easy, and it's stable. And what's this about package management? Slackware's package management may not come installed, but that's because on Slackware, *<b>you have a choice of package managers</b>.* Swaret? Slapt-get? SlackUpdate? Take your pick, Al! In fact, I would venture to guess that given its agnostic design, more packages are installable on Slackware than any other distribution.

<i>"Slackware has become the distro of choice for both a hard-core group of hobbyists and a highly professional group of Linux server administrators. And I say "highly professional," because that's what you have to be in order to know and understand how to admin this beast."</i>

Al? What's so difficult about downloading a program and typing "installpkg" and the package name? That's a close as you're going to get to "Windows ease of use"--which, forgive me, is what it sounds like you want. Installing Mozilla Firefox this way, for instance, is nearly three times faster with this method than using the provided installer.

<i>"I think Slackware has a lot going for it... but not enough for it to sustain itself should Linux become as popular as the pundits say it will. To those who run and who love Slackware, that's fine. To the rest of us, well, it doesn't matter."</i>

That may be true, but then, that could be said of any other distribution as well. SUSE makes no bit of difference to me... or Mandriva, or Linspire, or.... but this is what makes Linux so great! CHOICE! If I hate Microsoft's installer, guess what? Too bad. If I don't like Mac OS X's user interface, guess what? Yep, you guessed it! Tough luck. Linux is a success because it is the only operating system flexible enough to be all things to all people.

So Al, I think you've missed the point entirely. Oh, and by the way, I write this article as a Linux newbie, straight out of the Windows world. I chose Slackware as my "distro of choice," and you know what? I love it. I chose Slackware because I disliked other distributions' bloated installs. I chose Slackware because it's fast. I chose Slackware because I wouldn't be stuck in "RPM Hell," or tied to a single set of packages or package management system. I chose Slackware because Slackware lets *me* choose. I chose Slackware because it is a full system distribution that respects the software it distributes and installs it as closely to what the authors intended as possible. I chose Slackware because it is the nearest to Plain-Old-Linux as anyone can get, I that's what I wanted to learn: Linux.

So, does Slackware matter? Simply put, yes. Slackware matters because Slackware IS Linux.

;treehead

All quotes from: <a href="http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS52069 ... tml">Guest opinion: Does Slackware still matter?</a>