ArchLinux Noodle vs Slackware 10.2

Judland · Post by **Judland** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:50 pm

After listening to this week's show, I thought I'd give the latest version of Slackware (10.2) a try and see how I faired with it, now that I've learned quite a bit on configuring a Linux box from my experiences with Arch Linux.

Here's what I've come away with (comparing the two distros to each other):

Advantages with ArchLinux:

*Software and applications are "bleeding edge" - Recent updates to software appear in the Arch repository sooner than Slackware
*The Pacman package manager - although Slackware can obtain the same level of package management with Slapt-get, Pacman is available "out of the box"
*Optimized for i686 hardware
*Most system settings are configured in one configuration file - the rc.conf is a well thought out way of maintaining critical system settings

Advantages with Slackware

*More stable updates - less chance of breaking the system as packages in the repository have had more to to "cure"
*Works on a wider range of hardware
*Large library of packages available for installation - I'm assuming this, as I have not been using Slackware long enough to confirm

So, as Linux distros go, I'm sold on both Arch and Slackware. They are very similar to each other in more ways than you'd expect. Which one to use would be determined by situation and goals of each installation I'm faced with.

I'll say this, however, learning what I did by going through an Arch install really made today's install of Slackware a simple process.

snarkout · Post by **snarkout** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:45 pm

Unless something has changed, pacman and slapt-get aren't really comparable at all. Last time I installed slackware (6 months ago?) there was still no dep checking at all, which is a problem IMO. Maybe I'm just spoiled.

Judland · Post by **Judland** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:50 pm

Thanks, Snarkout. I really can't comment too much on the slapt-get at the moment. These are only my first impressions. I do know that, because of Arch, Slackware is now easier for me to understand.

Which is good, because I have an older PC and laptop that I was really wishing I could install Arch onto. However, Slackware is now a great alternative for me and I now understand what all is going on.

snarkout · Post by **snarkout** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:02 pm

It looks like slapt-get and/or swaret have begun to work on dep checking as well. That's good news since IMO slackware has always been a great distro, but I don't have the time or patience to deal with searching for lib files myself.

I'm glad you're enjoying it! I'd like to check out vector some time soon - it looks like they've done a good job of polishing slack up!

thetza · Post by **thetza** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:19 pm

Bleeding edge comes along with a little instability imho. I cast a vote for slackware + pkgsrc

Post by **Patrick** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:20 pm

Slackware is solid but it really needs an 'official' package manager that has dependency checking. I think in this respect it's fallen behind other distros.

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:26 pm

Patrick wrote:Slackware is solid but it really needs an 'official' package manager that has dependency checking. I think in this respect it's fallen behind other distros.

Yeah, or just have the option so that the user can choose whether he wants it or not, because believe me, because Slackware has been around for so long, if Pat V. changed something like that he'd get thousands of angry emails.

But yeah, I agree with you Pat, Slackware is cool, but for people that like going to kde-apps.org or something similar, and pick up a nifty new app and try it out, I think somehing like Kubuntu, SUSE, Mandriva, Mepis and similar are a much better option, especially if it's a person who really have a busy work schedule or are getting his ass fried in school

Wouldn't it be possible to take Slackware and just use dpkg and apt-get on it? I mean just using deb packages and keeping the rest Slackware?

Wally Balljacker · Post by **Wally Balljacker** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:43 pm

Tsuroerusu wrote:Wouldn't it be possible to take Slackware and just use dpkg and apt-get on it? I mean just using deb packages and keeping the rest Slackware?

Yeah, it's called slapt-get. It works exactly like apt does on Debian. Slackware has had it's own dpkg like utility called "pkgtool" that installs, upgrades, and removes packages just the same as dpkg for quite some time. To be honest, I don't mind that Slack doesn't have an official package manager, because having all these unofficial package managers like Swaret and slapt-get just gives people more choice and flexibility.

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:59 pm

Wally Balljacker wrote:Yeah, it's called slapt-get. It works exactly like apt does on Debian.

OK fair enough, the last time I tried it, holy moly, it just didn't work very well.

Wally Balljacker wrote:Slackware has had it's own dpkg like utility called "pkgtool" that installs, upgrades, and removes packages just the same as dpkg for quite some time.

I am aware of that, I have actually tried Slackware you know.

I think the problem is that the "core" of the package management system, pkgtool, doesn't do any dependency checking, I think the problem arises when 3rd parties has to do it, because they can often conflict with each other, of course that can also often happen with official package managers such as rpm/YaST in SUSE, rpm/urpmi in Mandriva. All in all, I've been using FreeBSD on a few older machines, and I've been like a mad man on the ports system, I've tried installing every weird-ass app I got, no dependency issue at all, not a single one, I think a reason behind that is that FreeBSD actually has an "official" package management system, actually the ones it has, has two components to it, packages and ports.

Wally Balljacker wrote:To be honest, I don't mind that Slack doesn't have an official package manager, because having all these unofficial package managers like Swaret and slapt-get just gives people more choice and flexibility.

If you read some of the READMEs for slapt-get, swaret or something, they always tell you to read a README before installing stuff, they don't advice you to just install away, I think that's a drawback.

Judland · Post by **Judland** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:19 pm

Just for conversation sake, this is what the Slap-get website's FAQ has to say...

First of all, slapt-get does not provide dependency resolution for vanilla
Slackware packages (ie, official Slackware packages that come with the
distribution).

However, slapt-get does provide a framework for dependency resolution for
packages that follow the Slackware package format, while still being backwards
compatible.

More at the FAQ

Wally Balljacker · Post by **Wally Balljacker** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:19 pm

Tsuroerusu wrote:
Wally Balljacker wrote:Yeah, it's called slapt-get. It works exactly like apt does on Debian.
OK fair enough, the last time I tried it, holy moly, it just didn't work very well.

Well, I haven't had any problems with dependencies. The only thing I like about standard Debian over Slack is the massive repositories it has. But then again, Slackware gives me Java, MP3 and alot of other essential, and non-free stuff out of the box, so I don't have to go hunting for too many extra packages.

Tsuroerusu wrote:
Wally Balljacker wrote:Slackware has had it's own dpkg like utility called "pkgtool" that installs, upgrades, and removes packages just the same as dpkg for quite some time.
I am aware of that, I have actually tried Slackware you know.
I think the problem is that the "core" of the package management system, pkgtool, doesn't do any dependency checking, I think the problem arises when 3rd parties has to do it, because they can often conflict with each other, of course that can also often happen with official package managers such as rpm/YaST in SUSE, rpm/urpmi in Mandriva. All in all, I've been using FreeBSD on a few older machines, and I've been like a mad man on the ports system, I've tried installing every weird-ass app I got, no dependency issue at all, not a single one, I think a reason behind that is that FreeBSD actually has an "official" package management system, actually the ones it has, has two components to it, packages and ports.

Debian's Dpkg utility doesn't fulfill any dependencies either. It will tell you if there are failed dependecies, but it doesn't fetch them for you.

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:33 pm

Wally Balljacker wrote:Well, I haven't had any problems with dependencies. The only thing I like about standard Debian over Slack is the massive repositories it has. But then again, Slackware gives me Java, MP3 and alot of other essential, and non-free stuff out of the box, so I don't have to go hunting for too many extra packages.

Well, so does SUSE and Mandriva, just to mention a few, to my experience this thing of including Java and Flash, is not that uncommon these days, either people make an agreement with Sun and Macromedia or just pisses on the non-free licenses.

Tsuroerusu wrote:Debian's Dpkg utility doesn't fulfill any dependencies either. It will tell you if there are failed dependecies, but it doesn't fetch them for you.

Same thing with RPM, I didn't say that dpkg fulfilled dependencies, but it does some dependency resolution in the sense that it will tell you what packages you need for something to work before you can install it.

I don't understand the whole "RPM hell" a lot anymore, because these days you don't use RPM the old way with the "rpm -ivh...." command, the same way you don't use dpkg like "dpkg -i" that often today, you use a wrapper of some sort that does all the dependency checking, fulfilling and all that happy stuff.

RPM Wrappers:
YaST
urpmi
apt4pm
yum
smart

DPKG Wrappers:
apt-get
smart

Chess · Post by **Chess** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:51 am

Regardless of whether one uses slapt-get, or swaret, or slackpkg to update Slackware, I think it is really, really important to keep up with PV's changelog. The -current tree is just that: current, and therefore potentially unstable. I know that PV is working on some xorg7 issues that are plaguing everybody (see the Arch forums on xorg7 problems). As long as you are careful about what you upgrade, then everything works fine. This is one instance where, at least for me, automatic dependency checking can sometimes be problematic. For some people, it can lull them into a false sense of security and people just upgrade blindly, whether they do a dist-upgrade in debian or whatever. IMHO, this is where Slackware shines: you can see what's going on in PV's changelog and as long as you know the current status of things, your upgrades will be painless. Once -current becomes stable at 11.0, everything will just work.

I am really, really enjoying Arch on my laptop and on my second workstation. However, I am surprised that the Arch folks moved xorg7 from testing into current so quickly. I have not upgraded to xorg7 because of the issues that appear to be prevalent. Still, Arch is now my second favorite distro after Slackware. I just have to be more careful with Arch than with Slackware because of the fact its so bleeding edge.

Anyway, just my $0.02, FWIW.

snarkout · Post by **snarkout** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:58 am

Yeah, I'm posting this from a newly broken box, thanks to xorg7. It's taken me several hours just to get it to the point I can post from it w/o getting a horrible headache from a flickering screen. My fonts are still fscked-up, and I've already done all of the fixes from the wiki. Lots of other stuff still isn't working right.

Judland · Post by **Judland** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:00 am

I have avoided upgrading Xorg on my Arch boxes as well. The benefits of upgrading certainly don't out-weigh the effort - at least for me - at the present time.