This is the best thread about how bad Slackware is doing these years. I admire your masterpiece :-)

In the hard disk installer of my liveslak scripts (setup2hd) I added a failsafe. It is a call to a script that allows the user to partition the hard drive(s) if she forgot to do so before running 'setup': https://git.slackware.nl/liveslak/tree/SeTudiskpart.tpl
All it does is present a list of available hard drives and run the appropriate partitioning tool for every disk you select. The partition scheme is completely up to you. The script does not support LVM/LUKS/RAID because I lacked the time and motivation to add that functionality. The goal was not to drop the user into a console prompt after running 'setup2hd'. Likewise another script is called to create the primary non-root user account and set a root password. All using curses dialogs.

1 members found this post helpful.

It's ok to do manual installation. Some distros don't have installation program at all, like Gentoo, CRUX, Arch. They just document installation procedure which is pretty straightforward. I install Slackware manually like I would do with CRUX.

I just don't get why Slackware provides this setup script which is obsolete, incomplete and confusing. It's just misleading scam and crap. Let's be honest with it. It's not installer, it's a bad joke.

While network installs can be seen as merely a personal preference, usually for those "bleeding edge" or rolling release distros, I have little concern for those and therefore can't see that "limitation" as ... well, limiting, let alone archaic.

However I am intrigued by what "complicate(d) partitioning schemes" with which you have found Slackware to "not work well". Could you expand, and be clear and specific please?

On the Meta tip, I have installed hundreds (literally!) of Linux distributions in 22 years and I have found what to me is extreme frustration with all of them excepting Slackware.

They commonly won't let me choose to boot to Multi-User CLI (runlevel 3 in Slackware) won't let me install LILO from their Installer just to name two limitations, have often dense partitioning apps seemingly designed on purpose to influence me to "just let them handle it", and come in a "Live" Installer that really is just an advertising skeleton that assumes I would ever install a system that I know nothing about and have no need of a REAL Live distro like LiveSlak that is far from barebones....

Yet oddly I have never felt the need to go to those distribution's sub-sections and complain there for many pages of mostly silliness.

2 members found this post helpful.

I think there are good ideas to took inspiration from elsewhere. For instance there are things I like in the Anarchy installer. Which doesn't mean I will clone it for Slint

Contrary to you, from my own experiences, I am quite satisfied with all major Linux distributions. And about their installers, well... some are fancy and others are pragmatic.

Generally speaking, any major Linux distribution is probably easier to install (think about click-click-click) some permits to automate the things and to do unattended installation, which is a cool feature when you sell computers and you have 3 tech guys while you sell 300 boxes per day. Try to do that with Slackware, when those boxes are quite different, and you are dead. A dead business.

However, what I love at Slackware is that it is versatile. Not as customization of installed software - I consider Slackware plainly a monolithic 15GB operating system, but as versatility to customize its installation like in: where and how you install Slackware.

As an example, I love my portable Slackware from my external USB hard drives. I like very much also Ubuntu, but trying to install it in an USB enclosure hosting an SSD is the perfect way to have headaches. Because this Ubuntu just bites back your hand.

Some people here considers archaic any installer which does not do Crypt/RAID with LVM.

I for one, I am indifferent about the Slackware installer -anyway I do not used it since release 13.0, BUT I believe that nobody needs LVM in their boxes. Today, because maybe the LVM was a thing 20 years ago. However, either Ubuntu or Fedora insists to use LVM for my encrypted device, which I want just to be partitioned.

I know well that LVM have snapshots, BUT dear Comrade Igor, I don't want the LVM's snapshots and even if I will want device snapshots, I will do it right with the Device Mapper. Even for snapshots I will not need this archaic thing named LVM.

BTW, did you know that LVM was inspired from a thing named Windows Logical Disks?

Like I said, meanwhile Slackware leave me alone and accepts my setup with a partitioned crypt device.

The thing is, that you need to use the right tool for the right job.

And I believe that NO Linux distribution is perfect. Including here also Slackware, which have its liabilities and even misfeatures - like the lack of PAM and Kerbers in no past released version (yet).

BUT, no thing made by The Man[1] is perfect, right?


[1] as species.

1 members found this post helpful.

Agreed! The thing is "perfect" does not mean Universal. In fact it most often means "Specific". There is a long standing joke that a Harley Davidson Tool Kit consists of a hammer, a spool of bailing wire, and a Vise-Grips. That may well be quite Universal and flexible but also a certain way to end up with a completely unreliable mess. The inside part of that joke is that Harleys are so basic and rugged, even with such foolish tools, they will still putt along happily.

In operating systems, since they are virtual, it actually is possible to have a Ferrari built like a tank.

THAT was my reason. Except that Slackware fitted me so well (or vice-versa, I can't be sure) that I never took the second step.

I was first introduced to Slackware with version 3 and all the floppies. I had C64's, and Amiga 500. Bought a 386 to try IBM OS/2 Warp 3 & 4. Then a friend told me about Slackware and I read about FreeBSD and OpenBSD. I've used them one way or another ever since.
All I can say is thank God for FREE systems and the people that put them together. I've tried a great number of distros and systems over the years. It's easy to change systems if I don't like something and a lot of times get help if I search and ask questions.
So I thank you PV and the crew for all you do.
lol, I'm near to 70 yrs old and don't need/want a lot of hassle installing/using a system. Slackware and the *bsd systems haven't failed me. I'm happy with how easy Slackware installs and how easy it is to use. Yes, I have questions and problems at times, but no big deal, and for being free, I'm extremely satisfied. And I do donate $

Thanks again Slackware team!

2 members found this post helpful.

I enthusiastically agree with you on all. I'm proud to be a Slackware Patreon supporter.

I like the ability to pvmove extents from a physical volume that I am going to replace. I like the ability to maintain a pool of storage that I have not had to use yet but am nonetheless able to allocate on the fly as needed (and perhaps return to the pool when the need is no longer there).

I happen to like the level of abstraction provided by LVM, at least as I use it. (I still use software RAID to assemble the physical devices provided to LVM, so I obviously don't care for all of LVM's abstraction layers.)

Your mileage may vary. Just because I like X means neither that you must like nor even should like X.

I have a motherboard with 8 SATA ports -- 6 attached to an AMD controller and 2 attached to a Marvell controller. (Could be the other way around; it's late and I'm not going to check.)

I also have an Adaptec PCI-E add-on RAID card, which has another 2 slots.

I have 4 disks -- 2 x SSD in software RAID + LVM for the OS + VMs, and 2 x SATA for /data and /backup.

2 x Blu-ray drives as well.

Every time the "enterprise" heavies release a major update I give them a spin to see what's new. CentOS, Debian and OpenSUSE, mainly.

I can't begin to tell you how often each of these gets the disk order wrong. Unless I'm extremely careful installing these distros I run the risk of wiping data.

That has never happened with Slackware. I can trust it to get the disk order correct every time. Complex partitioning and assigning mount points is one thing I can do with my eyes closed in Slackware; not so in the "enterprise" distros.

6 members found this post helpful.

I've been on Slackware for the past 15 years or so and haven't really played with the other distros much (less than a handful over the years). So, I am somewhat curious as to what complexities @igadoter is referring to as far as the installer? My partitioning scheme is fairly 'busy' with 2 nvme's, and 7 HDDs (4 in software raid).

1 members found this post helpful.

Which is completely wrong. You don't have to install everything to have a functioning system. As I said in the other thread, I have servers with nothing more than the A, AP and N series on them. 2.5Gb of Slackware, and it does everything that is needed... without the GUI or development tools.