and which is better and lighter

Most importantly Debian has systemd and package management, and slackware doesn't. Which is better depends on who you are and what you want from linux.

Only one way to know for sure, try both. Plus you should define "lighter". WEB searches is the best place to start and/or you can go here:

https://distrowatch.com/table.php?di...tion=slackware

https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian

Neither is better. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Debian was built around a very proactive package management system which is designed to provide, alongside each application, whatever ancillary packages are needed to ensure that it works. This is very convenient but also quite complex and therefore prone to going wrong. Slackware was designed for simplicity; it doesn't track software dependencies but if you do a full installation, it should "just work". Both require more hands-on work than newbie-oriented distros like Ubuntu and Mint (both of which are based on Debian).

Debianistas used to say, "When you install Ubuntu, you learn how to use Ubuntu. When you install Debian, you learn how to use Linux." I used to like Debian a lot, but now I think that Slackware is closer to just "using Linux".

Curiously, both were influenced (in opposite directions) by a very old distro called Softlanding System (SLS). Slackware is derived from SLS, Debian was a deliberate reaction against it.

Half correct, half wrong.

Slackware does not have systemd; thank goodness. It has tried and proven init scripts that work, and can be changed to suite the user. You and not easily change the actions of systemd.

Package Management, Slackware has. What it doesn't have is automated dependency resolution. For anyone running Slackware, it doesn't matter. The install doc will tell you to do a full install. The system will be complete, stable, and reliable.

Adding packages can be done through Slackbuilds, you compile and install them on your own system. There are several repos what have pre-compiled packages supported by the community. You and easily build the dependency's for Slackbuils, they are called queue files. Running a queue file will build the dependencys in order and the application. This is different from most other distros, yes, it works well.

I'm not starting a flame war, just correcting misleading information.

2 members found this post helpful.

I would say the difference is: slackware is longer than debian by 3 letters. Otherwise exactly what do you mean by better, what do you mean by lighter?
What do you want to do with it, what kind of environment (hardware) do you have, and what skills and experience do you have?

Both Debian and Slackware offer a very wide range of software packages. How light your Linux system will be depends on what packages and how many packages you choose to install. Whether you choose to use Debian or Slackware is pretty much irrelevant to how light your installed system will be.

Back in the 1960s I worked for IBM in developing operating systems for their mainframe computers. When systemd first came out I was very favorably impressed with the systemd design because it was very similar to the proven IBM control software. Unfortunately the initial releases of systemd were buggy and several distributions forced systemd upon their users anyway. The complaints about systemd evolved into a very bitter personal dispute between the systemd developers and some of the complainers. I was one of the complainers but I never got personal with my criticism.

Eventually systemd got straightened out. I very much like systemd after it got debugged. But unfortunately the bitterness over systemd still carries over. People who don't use systemd are usually proud of the fact that they resisted the heavy handed attempts to force a buggy systemd down their throats.

Also I agree with camorri's comments about systemd. The init.d system is much easier to customize than systemd. So if you want to change the startup procedure or you want to enhance the error recovery procedures when a program fails then you will find init.d much easier to work with than systemd.

So if you want systemd then use Debian. If you want init.d then use Slackware.

Not quite. The Debian package management system makes it easy to start with a very basic system and then install only what you want and no more. It is much more difficult to cut down Slackware, which is designed to be installed in full, to a desired minimum. I did it because I had plenty of time on my hands and this was a hobby project. I doubt if many people, especially those who have jobs, would want to do the same.

1 members found this post helpful.

Debian and Slackware address different needs.

Debian is a mainstream OS. It is readily customizable and can be anything the user wants. Debian installations are all different.

Slackware is a modern Unix system. It does things in the way that Unix always did. People with Unix experience already know how to use Slackware.
Ed

No.
One is not better and lighter than the other, and each depends upon the user and what options they make in using the distribution to build the system.
Debian is arguably more complete with more options, and supported by a far larger (if shrinking) community, but both can be better and lighter because neither is a fixed target.

The question is how light do you need, and what do you need to accomplish with it, and how hard do you want to have to work to complete the build. Once you decide that you can figure out of one is better, or if you should take a different option or direction entirely.

2 members found this post helpful.

These answers are dancing around the topic and being all nicey. I'll tell you straight.

Debian splits its tool kits up into many, many packages (4, 6, 8?) but with Slackware you usually get one or maybe two. Compare OpenSSL for both to see what I mean. Or look at glibc.

Debian does the "dev" separate packaging thing but in Slackware you get the full thing in case you have to compile something. This means you can ignore those "you have to install *-dev first" advice you find online when building something.

Debian has dependancy hell: you wanted foo? Well, it needs baz-1.1.2-4 and you have baz-1.1.2-6, oops, sorry. Slackware has the Holy Full Install.

Debian is better supported if you need to set up something. If you want to a set up guest in a virual machine, the instructions you'll find from people are almost always for Ubuntu, Debian, or maybe Mint. You'll rarely if ever find Slackware. You'll have to interpret the instructions yourself.

Debian seems to have a bigger software library. Someone a few days ago wanted something that wasn't in Slackware and had to look to Debian.

Debian does more for you, Slackware assumes a competent system admin.

Debian has systemd, basically an operating system within an operating system. Slackware doesn't.

Debian can use SELinux, Slackware as far as I know doesn't have SELinux.

Debian has old software. Slackware has newer; Slackware-current is mostly in line with upstream. As such, Debian is debatably more stable then Slackware versioned, certainly more than Slackware-current.

Lastly, be careful with DistroWatch. Some of it is inaccurate and outdated. It claims amdgpu isn't in Slackware-current but it is.

Separation is very real advantage if you need small and efficient and do not do development. Debian supports both.And yet, I have not run into a dependency hell with Debian since 2008. You have to be doing or using something odd or unstable to run into it these days.Although the slackware user group has some of the BEST documentation on "how to do it" if you can find it!A bit deceptive, because Debian STABLE has older and more tested software, Testing has the newer but is a bit less stable, and SID is in constant cutting-edge flux and has the very latest but may cut you. Debian has three tiers of stability and currency to satisfy multiple use cases and needs. Distrowatch is as current as the contributors make it. IF a distribution maintainer or the users make an effort it will be pretty good, but if not the information often lags behind. The numbers are almost NEVER valid, but just indicators based upon what comes directly through the Distrowatch servers and links. (Which is still very useful, but do not assume accuracy when you look at the download numbers.)

Slackware often lags well behind some stable distributions, and all of the true cutting-edge distributions. That is actually a good thing. IF you need cutting edge something based on ARCH might do you better. (Manjaro is arch based, but markedly more friendly and less "cutting" while not lagging behind.)
Slack is a developers distro that supports installing/building from code and that (with the resulting performance and fit to the hardware) is one of its great advantages but can be rock solid once you finish with it. Cutting-edge distributions may die on you during an upgrade.

Debian WAS a complete solution for building the system you wanted/needed WITHOUT having to compile it yourself, but it has recently reduced the hardware platforms supported and the range of software solutions offered. IT still have a HUGE amount of choice.

Back to the original post:
Why? What are you looking for?
What is your use case and requirement list?
There is a lot of good comment here, but without knowing why you are asking and what you really mean by the question it is difficult to give directed advice.

The world of Linux gives you actual choice, and this does take a little getting used to.

One suggestion would be to set up a few virtual machines on your host and just ... try them on for size. Kick the tires. Install the tools you think you'll need and see how it goes. In the end, you will select the one that you prefer. But VMs make it very easy to experiment without the possibility of damaging anything.

It's ironic--this thread is about my two favorite distros.

They are my favorites because of one of the things they have in common: they are both rock-solid stable.

1 members found this post helpful.