I think there is a major point missed in this whole issue. I agree 100% with gauchao:

Only I'll say it in a different way. I think there are alot of people here who use other distributions because they can install almost any application they wish. But they like the stability of Slackware. There have been many times with historical versions of Slackware when I got frustrated because I wanted to install apps and it was clear that the effort to install that application was more than I wanted to put into it. This is the typical sentiment:

Here's your reason: Stability. What's missing here is the realization that other distros are unstable because they choose leading edge over stability. Everything on other distributions works good until it doesn't - then the problem is much bigger than it would be on Slackware. So erroneously, people feel that if they could have the flexibility of Distribution X and the stability of Slackware... that would be the best of all worlds. That's not going to happen, because if Slackware did that then Slackware would be just as unstable as other distributions. If and when systemd becomes stable, and PAT decides to include it then that's fine by me. I run Slackware for one reason - it works consistently in situations where other distributions get flaky.

Now if you come back at me saying other distributions are just as stable as Slackware then please include the reason why you're here...

4 members found this post helpful.

Debian isn't less stable than Slackware and it was always very stable and is used on many good web servers (I've never seen slackware there). Reason? Very simple, already mentioned: package management, package format, simple package building, oftener updates (since I'm using it on a desktop and not on a server).

So if Debian is stable and it does everything you want, why aren't you just using Debian? Why waste your time with a distribution that, as you say, doesn't do want you want and is no more stable? And I'm not being snotty. I'm seriously wondering why so many people who don't use Slackware are here insisting that PAT deviate from his process that has made Slackware the great distribution that it is for the people who have adopted it.

Frequent updates on Debian is a relative statement as some packages in the stable branch are very old. I don't have a problem with older packages as long as the included packages are stable and secure.
I think it is safe to say that Slackware and Debian are both stable operating systems.

I've said it two times already. I like slackware's package management (package format and simple package building) more than the debain's one.

2hitest
Sorry, I think I said it ambiguously, I meant, that slackware makes releases with fresh software more frequently than debian. And debian testing can cause sometimes problems, therefore I prefer Slackware stable.

Where have I said, that Slackware "doesn't do what I want"? It does and does it very well. Everything I said, I won't cry if it switches to another init system.

Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

No worries, mate. Thanks for the reply.

• http://osteo-montpellier.net/
• https://mail.osteo-montpellier.net/
• http://scholae.fr/
• https://mail.scholae.fr/
• https://www.scholae.fr/
• https://compta.scholae.fr/
• http://www.villa-figaret.fr/
• https://mail.villa-figaret.fr/
• http://www.radionovak.com/
• https://mail.radionovak.com/
• etc.

Hosted on Slackware64 14.0.

Thanks for the links. Good to know. In Germany I mostly see Debian and Ubuntu (Personally I wouldn't use the last one for a server).

I ran a couple of public servers on Debian and was quite happy with it, though their support cycle is a bit short. I also gave Ubuntu LTS a spin, but I had some unnerving instabilities. I decided to move my servers to Slackware (around 13.37), and there's not even a single little hiccup. The provider only offers to preinstall the usual suspects (Debian/CentOS/Ubuntu/...), but I managed to install Slackware using a rescue session.

I can only repeat the adagio from a few posts above: stability, stability, stability.

Stability is a loaded term when it comes to talking about Linux operating systems.

Are we talking about stability(1) - not prone to crashing, low on system-killing bugs, etc. "This system is really stable, I have a three-year uptime!" or stability(2) - updated infrequently, upgrades to latest versions only when necessary rather than as a matter of course, like debian-stable, LTS distributions of the kernel... Many enterprise systems still run on the 2.6 kernel. I'm sure we all see systems still running 2.4...

I haven't had a problem with stability(1) on any Linux system. Stability(2) is why I like Slackware.

So you are indeed new here.

I don't even remember my first Slackware version number. It had a 1.2 or even older Linux-Kernel for sure. Definitely there was no support for loadable kernel modules.

And I don't agree with you, too.

Maybe because I have a hard time seeing all this "more and more good LINUX software". My impression is, that good software becomes more sparse these days.

Of course, there is still good free and open source software, but it is not tied to Linux in any way, and even less to uselessd.

2 members found this post helpful.

Implied.

I'm not worked up, you see I'm not the one who jumped to claim strawman, you however did. I often see people claim strawman and it most often turns out they don't know what a strawman is or they claim it, when it doesn't exist, to turn the argument around.

You say I'm getting worked up and attacking you for what you say yet you attack my reading ability. You are the ultimate fanboy, you cannot take counter arguments and have to resort to personal put downs as a means of exit.

1 members found this post helpful.

And I have no problem being new. One generation replaces another and bring in new ideas (it works the same in science, for example for physical theories, that theories become accepted first then the generation of physicians changes). And it isn't like the thread author means that "young developers ... break unix phylosophy". Such a nonsense. Young developers don't break anything. And the modern software is ten times better than what we had 5 or 10 years ago on Linux. There are less problems with drivers, less problems with multimedia, document editing and everywhere. Linux now is just the best Linux ever and if someone says, that Linux software isn't tied to Linux (maybe because I don't need to spend a week anymore to get something working), ok; how can one argue against that? (it is a rhetorical question )

1 members found this post helpful.

Says everything.

2 members found this post helpful.