Can any one make a distinct comparison between Slackware and freeBSD
after reading so many forums, it seems confused enen more.

Slackware is like Jelly while FreeBSD is like marmalade.

Did that clear it up? lol

Seriously though, slackware tends to be more like BSD than any other linux but it is still very much a linux system. The places where slackware is similar are particular enough that they are really dissimilar by the time you take a look at them. Let me try and explain. Slackware uses a startup system that is very close the the BSD way of doing things. It doesn't use the S03blahblah K90yadayada type scripts that most Linux distros use. But!!! This is close to BSD's method but not BSD's method.

Sorry for being clear as mud here. If you like Slackware then you will probably like the BSD family. But you are still going to run into the same issues that most linux people moving to BSD run into (like needing to be in the wheel group to su root -- for example).

You should probably check out the sticky thread at the top of this forum

Slackware = Waste of time and dependancy hell not to mention bloatware. They are up to what 2 cd's now for the minimal install?

FreeBSD = For people who actually want to get work done instead of searching for dependancy X which is needed to compile or install packadge Y.

Summary: Slackware is for hobbiest who somehow have been told they are cool if they run an operating system that makes you hunt down dependancies. As slackware people like to say "Slackware is for 1337 linux users"

Slackware is basically an attempt to replicate a BSD style system using a Linux kernel and GNU libraries. There isn't much else to say.

is there any database installed together with freeBSD?
Sorry, I'm a newbie, may the question is so foolish ........
but after I installed BSD I realised that it seems that I was stucked .
no su no db even the port seems not treat me well ........
I do need some words that keeps me going on....

thanks

What kind of db?

You need to edit /etc/group and add your username to the wheel group
wheel:*:0:root,username

What is going wrong in the ports tree? Usually it is a simple "make install" and you are set.

However, more and more people from this forum are becoming "1337 users" everyday, specially when they insist their hatred towards linux and their daily use of MS products in every single new post.

well not entirely true, cd2 just contains kde, gnome, amd the excellent slack live, and also no dependency checking = good system, if you happen to know what ure doing that is, it allows you the choice of installing from source and/or pre-compiled packages, without problems.

Slackware is all about control, simplicity and security, i thought that is what BSD was all about?

How do you gain control by not having a packadge management or source management tree? Simplicity by forcing people to hunt down *.tar.gz? Oh and security is a real laugh considering slackware has all the same flaws as all other distros of linux. Same kernel means same exploits... How is slackware any more secure than any other linux distrobution?

Yeah because if you know what your doing you really want to hunt down X packadge of fonts so you can install program Y.

I know you want to show your irrational hatred (though *why* I don't know) but I doubt you want to show your ignorance like that.

Most obviously and unavoidably, Slackware's latest release ships with 2.4.26 while many ship with 2.6.x. Why? Patrick didn't think it was stable enough. So he went with the kernel that's seen the most time in the field.

Secondly, Mandrake and LG CD-ROMs collided with each other and LG drives broke. Slackware systems with LG drives didn't. Why not? Mandrake made an innocent patch that happened to rub LG drives the wrong way, exposing a flaw in the hardware. However, many distros patch many different versions of kernels in many different ways. Slackware tends to produce things as the maintainers intended. Slackware tends to be more secure.

And if OpenBSD can be more secure than NetBSD can be more secure than FreeBSD (or whichever order you'd like) I'd think it was obvious even to the most hate-filled zealot that not all kernels/distros/anything else are alike. Slackware does have flaws. Everything has flaws. Slack has fewer than most.

And personally, I just have to add, I use Slack for many reasons and one of them is the init style but that and shipping 'fortune' hardly makes Slack 'an attempt to replicate a BSD style system'. Sorry. I know there's this subconscious envy where people would *like* to think Slack was a BSD-wannabe at the same time they knock it but, sorry - Slack is Linux. Just Linux.

If you want 'package management' from Linux - from a distro that possibly *still* isn't a BSD wannabe but certainly took a massive chunk from it, there's Gentoo. Tried it. Not impressed. That's deferring system administration upstream and playing with a superfluous superstructure. Slack dispenses with it because it's simply not necessary. I also went so far as to try that FreeSBIE thing. Again - not impressed.

But this doesn't make me hate BSD. Just mighty annoyed at many BSD users who confuse 'hatred of others' for 'love of self'. Over a frigging operating system, no less. Use BSD. Love it. Be happy. Do not post flamebait and personal attacks as that's against the spirit (and rules) of LQ.

Truce guys.

It's a matter of taste that is all. If we keep this up then we are going to have another vi verses emacs type of holy war going on. Please do not attack the distribution. Post differences and explain why these are different. Or post areas they are similar. But enough venom.

digiot -- I know you are trying to diffuse this thread a little (thanks). And it should be diffused -- we are talking about freaking operating systems here... it is all about choice.

You still havent explained why slackware is automagically more secure than other linues. Anyways your comment smack of complete ignorance. Did you even know the BSD kernels are nothing alike? I mean the FreeBSD kernel is really close to the OpenBSD kernel. Surprise! The kernels havent been the same for decades. Each group develops its own kernel unlike the shared kernel of linux. But heh dont let that stop you from believing your little fantasy.

Which is why when you want to update your kernel you need to download and install the slackware version right? The kernel in Slackware is the same one you will find in distrobution X no matter how much you would like to believe otherwise.

linux = everyone uses the same kernel
BSD = 3 different kernels

Oh and unfortunatly for you, you fail to understand the concept that slackware is just a linux kernel slapped into a GNU enviroment. Surprise the kernel is 100% exactly the same as all other linuxes that run the 2.4.26 kernel and therefore your argument about security is up in smoke. Repeat after me: Same userland, same kernel, same packadges = 98% of flaws are shared. I challenge you to prove to me that the same admin with redhat and slackware will somehow have a more secure linux if he uses slackware. Good luck!

Too bad you cant hold a decent argument and go crying flame bait the second someone does not agree with 90% of the forums. Where are the personal attacks? Did i even mention a name? No but heh if someone is guilty of a personal attack it would be you. Sorry but it looks like you just cant hold your head level and discuss points.

PS: There is a report post button for a reason and chort never fails to tell me when i am out of line so if i am guilty as charged report my post and quit telling the users how awful a user i am.

To the OP, I use FreeBSD and Slackware. What I see........
FreeBSD:
Ports system.
Really good on-site documentation.
IPFW firewall is readable.
I like the kernel config and compile method.
Stable! But so is Slackware.
petty, but. I don't like /etc and /usr/local/etc.
Desktop stuff like flash is harder to setup than in Linux.
Need Linux compatible working for some things.
Great for servers.
Can be used as desktop, but requires more work and some geekness.
If you go this route, I highly recommend The Complete FreeBSD 4th. by Greg Lehey.
-and this forum.

Slackware:
I happy with the package system. But then again I don't need to install everything on the net.
Documentation: Search through what loaded and numerous Linux web sites. Not as polished as FreeBSD, but boat loads of information.
iptables takes a while to digest. But there are many GUI frontends that take the hurt out of configuration. Guarddog is one.
Kernel compile, works but I like FreeBSD.
Stable! But so is FreeBSD.
petty: I like one /etc... yeah I know /usr/local/etc is used for 'some' things, not much.
Lots of desktop stuff and easy to setup.
Linux compatibility built in.
Great for servers.
Great for desktops.
If you go this route get Running Linux 4th edition.
-and the Slackware forum. Nice guys.

okay, What do you want to do or learn and what's your computer background?

So you want to tell me that Linux is all identical. First, this begs the argument that somehow Linux of any manifestation is less secure than BSD of every manifestation. Let's grant that Linux is completely identical and BSD is utterly distinct. (Funny - I usually hear the argument that BSD is orderly and organized and all of a piece and Linux is a chaos of difference. And even *there* there's the assumption that homogeneity is somehow superior and diversity is somehow inferior - never argued; just assumed.) So, BSD's are all completely incompatible and Linux is absolutely identical. I'm not convinced of any BSD superiority even in difference.

Now let's *not* accept the identity of Linux. The code is the same when you download the tarball but when you patch it (or don't patch it compared to others) it's no longer the same. And let's say it is the same but is configured differently. Then it's not the same. And let's say it's configured differently but then you go into how everything else on the system is compiled. But let's say that's the same. So you go into default services and how *those* are configured. And on and on. You can't seriously tell me all boxes are created equal, all distros, all kernels. That's patently ridiculous. And that was the (minor, secondary, trivial) point. Slackware is more secure than most.

And the idea that 'Surprise the kernel is 100% exactly the same as all other linuxes that run the 2.4.26 kernel and therefore your argument about security is up in smoke.' is again patently ridiculous. *Again*, even granting all 2.4.26's are identical, they damn sure aren't identical to 2.6.x. But none of this was particularly my point.

---

No, you did not mention a 'name'. You simply issued a blanket condemnation of *all* Slackware users as 'hobbiests who don't want to get anything done but who want to be l337 and who've been told they can be if they use bloated Slack.' Yeah, all Slacker's are just l337 posers who think they're cool by running Slack. What are you on? More of us probably think we're weird archaic ascetics than l337. I'm about as far from l337 as it's possible to get. Has it never occurred to you that people might not give a flip about l33tness and just find a (relatively) small and simple system that can be managed with bash and vi to be a Good Thing. Something (relatively) understandable, manageable, trouble-free, and transparent. I like Slack because I don't have KDE or Gnome on my box and I don't have GUI wizards in my face and I don't have to deal with RPMs and I don't have to deal with stupid SysV inits. You ever considered Slack might be a nice system and people might just use because they *like* it? I sure do think that of BSD. I *could* say BSD users are a bunch of cloistered egomaniacs with inferiority complexes and kin to Mac weenies but I don't. I don't even think that about many Mac users. That was my point. If Slack is insecure, cite the exploits that it suffered due to its unique failures when nobody else suffered those exploits. Be factual and calm and say 'Hey, it's not for me.' No need to engage in blanket character assasination and vague claims.

---

---

Very next post:

No wonder you've changed so much since the last time we spoke, after getting slapped down like that. He obviously didn't think you were out of line and I did. Why am I going to report you to him when I've already seen his reaction? I didn't 'go crying flame bait'. I stood up and told you I thought you were out of line. *That* was my main point and arguing the Identity of Indiscernibles of Kernels is really beside the point compared to that.

As frob23 noted (thanks), I felt this wasn't a very LQ-spirited thread and would like it toned down a bit but that doesn't really seem likely. I've said my piece and that's all I can do here.