Many of these "reviews", are deliberately dishonest in that they set the bar at something like 'buntu and then down rank anything which doesn't measure up to the various "it-was-so-easy-I-didn't-have-to-do-a-thing" criteria.

If every Linux distribution / OS fitted Jesse Smith and others', ideal for relevance, then we would quickly reach a point where most of the distributions would have no point in existing. We'd only need Debian, Fedora and a few based on those. Back full circle to the old "there's too many distros" mantra.

While I actually do sometimes feel that there are "too many distros", not that it's any business of mine, there certainly are not "too many distros". In fact there are not many distros at all...

When someone like Lennart Poettering makes a statement like that, he's referring to Slackware, Arch, gentoo, Debian, Fedora, SUSE, etc as being "too many" - in his view there should be a unified base, package management solution, init system, etc to make it all so much simpler for IBM/Red Hat's clients. When I use that phrase I'm thinking of the thousands of Ubuntu or Debian spin offs with a different theme and logo... there's a huge difference.

Unfortunately people like Jesse Smith readily buy into this - where if a distribution is not Debian/Red Hat based, it's obviously not a corporate sponsored effort and clearly has no point in existing...

8 members found this post helpful.

Could not get over the comments about the bloatware. What bloatware?

Maybe his hard drive is stuck in the nineties.

3 members found this post helpful.

Actually I do understand about that. I would also feel very unhappy about installing a full system with all that stuff I would never use. Someone pointed out to me in another thread that it's only the filesystem that gets bloated, not the code in memory, because the software has been configured and built to run fast and disk space is dirt cheap nowadays. Fair enough. But it still feels vaguely wrong to me and perhaps to others too.

3 members found this post helpful.

Very much so!

It's one of the reasons I stopped using Slack way back, & switched to Debian, which was easy to just install what I needed, rather than have 'everything but the kitchen sink' put onto my disk, plus it had automatic dependency resolution, a big plus back when I started.

There have been some distros based on Slackware that have interested me, those with just the 'essentials' for a desktop system, but I always ended up sticking with Debian/Debian based distros, & now use Devuan, installing from the 'Live' version mostly on Intel, & a great basic setup 'image' on my RPi SBCs.

Not against you, and I fully understand what you mean. But one thing a lot of reviewers miss is you can get a full install of a Linux System without an internet connection. To me that is a big plus.

As everyone here knows, you get Games, Office Applications, Development Tools and many other things included, other distros require you to add extra packages you want via an internet connection.

I used Slackware for may years without an Internet Connection, I would download it at work and install at home, and when I had a CDROM drive, purchase it from the store.

In places were the internet is spotty or very expensive, the people there can get a full featured Linux as long as they can obtain the media from somewhere.

8 members found this post helpful.

Agreed that it is an annoyance. But to me, it is a worthwhile annoyance because of the flexibility it provides the package manager. Without needing to worry about confusing or breaking some dependency-resolving system, it is very easy to build your own packages or modify the existing ones. And as you said, the "bloatware" exists only on your hard drive. Unlike most other distros, things don't get automatically enabled just because they are installed.

Part of the problem with Slackware reviews by non-Slackware users is that they almost always fail to see the lack of dependency resolution in the core package management utilities as anything other than a crippling downside. Indeed, I thought this way before I started using Slackware too. It's because the way the system is used is completely different. In Slackware, you have a fairly small base (granted, it's getting bigger), and then you do have dependency resolution for most add-ons you might need with SBo. It works fine, unless one is anal about having the smallest possible root partition.

1 members found this post helpful.

But you miss Slackware, because if you dont you wouldnt be trolling about Debian/Devuan in a Slackware forum.
its like if i use Slackware and i go to a Devian forum and i say Debian sucks because its has automatic dependency resolution and i dont like that, i wouldn t do that because i know that is not the right place to say that, so why if you like Debian (which i dont have any problem) are you posting in a Slackware forum about a system you dont use anymore?

9 members found this post helpful.

How well he's read to reason against reading.

1 members found this post helpful.

I used (and occasionally still fire it up) Windows - unlike Slackware it has not bloated my drive with unneeded software and was not lacking dependencies resolution:

2 Gb for the base OS
1 Gb for the office
add a bitmap editing software equal to GIMP
add Visual studio so i can develop (like in Slackware)
add service pack or two
add the very least security features so i can surf ad nauseam
Mozzila foundations Browser and email solution to stay on pair with Slackware

Where do i stand with disk space compared to Slackware now? (are we honest?)

Do i have (simple yes/no) dependencies resolution here?

Okay, now Debian:
Install the very minimum OS everyone is bragging about:
1. kernel (this is above 150 MB nowdays already so just you know (firmware, modules and bzimage)
2. KDE (since KDE is the standard for "modern distros today, right?) there goes at least 1GB with no "dev" files whatsoever - only the stripped "runtimes"
3. GIMP and office - would you install goffice on KDE - of course you need libre/open- office and there goes at least 1 GB along too
4. "we don't need development tools" - 1 GB spared
5. "we want FlatPacks" it's the future - and there you farted out loud (see 4)

And in the end you shaved off some 1 or 2 GB max off an install (vanilla Slackware fits a 5GB give or take 1 GB up or down) while you get an "clean and lean" 3GB install on that 1TB drive you can't even recompile a kernel or build a driver for a USB dongle you bought this year (has out of tree driver).

The only and single reason a shaved down install would justify spared 2GB is virtualization - and we have quite a lot slimmer solutions for Slackware in that regard, but OMG RTFM and search this forum is so haaard

Dependency resolution is overrated and Slackware is the pudding of proof - only free-riders rely on it to skip due homework and i stick my guns to it.

2 members found this post helpful.

Hmm, Slackware is so easy I wouldn't have to do a thing. I do things, but it's easy to do those things on Slackware. Try being me on Manjaro and tell me how easy it is lol (but at least I can work with that... I gut and maintain a lot of my packages myself and have a more old school configuration etc.)

If I just did a lazy, full install of Slackware and used what it gives me, I'd feel guilty it would be so easy :-)

It really depends on what you're used to. I don't like Ubuntu based distros, for example. For me there's nothing that I've had in the last decade that fights me more than Ubuntu. (I haven't personally used Fedora since Core 3, where it was just starting to get too silly to even consider, so it's not included in that statement)

I find Slackware a bit too onerous for a gaming system though. I need access to more crap for that (yes, crap... I curse at some of the rubbish I have to have, not just for games, but game clients)

I don't care whose feelings it hurts, I find most Linux distributions to be ridiculous. So they can go ahead and run their mouths ridiculing Slackware. It's me laughing at their shitware.

5 members found this post helpful.

As I understand it, Slackware includes a large base install to minimise dependencies.

As a result Slackware does not need a package manager that automatically resolves dependencies eg apt.

This leaves Slackware users free to choose how to install extra packages - slackbuilds, sbopkg or whatever.
Well, this freedom to install packages how I want is one of the main reasons I use Slackware.

If I wanted a package manager and automatic dependency resolution there are so many other distros to choose from.
But surely the whole point/philosophy of Slackware is that it does things differently, which gives us this choice.

If this means a few Gigs extra on my hard drive, well that's okay with me.

3 members found this post helpful.

You can have a very minimal system if you want, you are not forced to use Kde or xfce (i dont use them) and you can install a minimal base and start from there.
One of the best things of Slackware is that is very flexible and you dont have to fight with a package manager.
quoting Alien bob:

1 members found this post helpful.

People really are delicate these days. Criticism should be taken on board.

It seems that Slackware users are expected to do so, but when the shoe is on the other foot, and Slackware users respond critically to this Distrowatch review, their criticism all of a sudden becomes an unacceptable argumentum ad hominem.

Toughen up, snowflakes.

9 members found this post helpful.

As has been pointed out several times already, his "review" completely missed the point. It was bitter, forced and for someone who is a self-proclaimed "veteran" quite naive.

It reads as though he begrudgingly wrote the review because his boss forced him to do it.
... and doesn't know how to open mplayer. I'm sorry, but if anyone (let alone a veteran user), cannot figure out how to play a video in Slackware then perhaps their knowledge of the system is insufficient for them to be reviewing said system?
If the criticism is justified, then yes, you're right... But if someone were to buy a carving knife and then post a review online saying that it doesn't work well for cutting branches off trees, then is criticism of the reviewer not justified?

5 members found this post helpful.