Advice to everyone out there: take that review with a pinch of salt...no, a bucket full.
Try Slackware for yourself. Read the documentation. Follow the instructions & recommendations.
Avoid PEBCAK.
Ignore FUD.
You know it makes sense.
End of sermon.

Or, every time we see something said badly about Slackware, we donate to Pat. Be like a virtual "cuss" jar

2 members found this post helpful.

And make an account here on LQ
you will be welcome
there is food and drink

And we would all be bankrupt very soon.

1 members found this post helpful.

Hello,

I am astonished with how badly the review was taken and how people talk about Jesse. He does a review of Slackware every single time it goes out. And for the first time he points out some issues he encountered and some people here and on distrowatch comment section are reacting like he is trying to sabotage Slackware. He _is_ a veteran with Slackware and knows UNIX. It's uncool to not keep a cool head in front of criticism and worse to use ad hominem.

I don't think he was being so unfair and agree with Bindestreck. I am one of those who didn't jump the -current wagon and was waiting for slackware 15 for long, it was a problem, but I chose to be in that position. In the end Slackware is not for those who want an ubuntu or mint experience.

tc,

3 members found this post helpful.

The review makes me feel disheartened on behalf of Pat and all the team who have worked so hard to produce Slackware 15.0.

Especially Pat, it is an inaccurate review of what is essentially his life's work.

What can we do though? Show our appreciation by donating.

We can also try to set the record straight by writing an accurate review on distro watch. Slackware has a rating of 9.1 on there currently. If there are a slew of high ratings and accurate reviews on distrowatch then the original inaccurate review is surely undermined.

2 members found this post helpful.

Please allow me:

Haters noun: a tried and true proof of one's success.



However a bad review is still that: a bad review - a person that doesn't use Slackware as its goto distro has already made a statement - he already picked the outcome. After that we only can wait how he explains we all are fools for picking the other way.

As someone already mentioned here, Slackware is on an perpendicular course compared to the so called mainstream distros (some of those have perished by now - that's how much being mainstream accounts for...) - and has outlasted quite few of the crazes back in the day - my guesstimate will continue to do so in the foreseeable future...

1 members found this post helpful.

i agree 100%

1 members found this post helpful.

Last time I checked, consulting a review wasn't a necessary step for booting up a distribution. I understand there are ever increasing roving packs of 5-start-review-only believers out there who will blindly consume bull excrement. That's okay. Good for them. Either way, Slack on!

I don't agree. This sounds like fanaticism to me. The more you are gonna bark with comments about how "wrong" the review is, the more fanatic you sound.

I think we should see this as an opportunity to what we can improve, to attract more people that never heard or tried Slackware before. Someone said:
"How is he going to run SlackBuilds without development tools? " because of "
I kept most things I figured I would need, excluding only the Xfce desktop, games, development tools, and Emacs...". Maybe the user does not know this? If it is important to do a "Full install", then maybe we should not allow the user to chose packages, or at least show some info like "We strongly recommend to install all packages" and so on.

Cheers!

2 members found this post helpful.

Agreed. People on here act like any criticisms of the distro are insults to them personally. While I don't agree with some of the criticisms brought up in the review, it is also helpful to hear the perspective of someone who is not a long-time Slacker. It's not like it was a full-blown troll job, it was a short review with a few criticisms and overall somewhat negative impression. Some of the criticisms were objectively fair, and others mere opinion, but that will always be the case in a review.

4 members found this post helpful.

It's a typical Jesse Smith review - 50% or more of it talks about the installer, then it's fluff and padding and words to the effect that "it's not like 'buntu/mint". Click bait.

I haven't bothered to read his reviews of 14.2 and earlier releases, but I'm sure the lack of a graphical installer and dependency resolution would have come up in those as well...

4 members found this post helpful.

I've never understood all the fuss about Graphical installers. Seems completely unnecessary.

The best installer I've seen was OpenSolaris. It asked me.
"Which partition do you want to install Solaris to?"
... and that was it.

4 members found this post helpful.

As long as reading the docs will be seen as retarded we will face complains that sounds unfair to us, readers.

Out of the box cannot be universal. You will find corner cases. Even with wide spread distros.

Let's go on, continuously solving problems as they raise and improving with our shares (I think creating documentation).

1 members found this post helpful.

The package manager is one of the essential elements (if not the essential) of a distribution
From my point of view, you can't make a review on Slackware by pointing out the lack of dependency management. (Since this is more or less the reason why packages never break)

It would be like reviewing Gentoo and saying "Oh my god, 15 years later they're still compiling their binaries".

6 members found this post helpful.