When you install software in Debian, you normally do so with Synaptic or apt-get. That is installing software compiled by someone else. Slackware has several good repositories, such as slacky.eu, that I use with gslapt to install binary packages. Debian has more binary packages available.

The alternative is to compile the package yourself. There are SlackBuilds provided for Slackware, i.e., slackbuilds.org. You download the SlackBuild, execute it, and you have a package that can be installed using Slackware's installpkg. I've not found any way to make packages so easily with Debian.

All I was referring to with regard to latest versions is that Debian's binary packages are not immediately updated when a new version of the software comes out. As an example, the most recent version of LyX is 1.5.5, released May 11.

Debian Etch offers LyX 1.4.3, released Sep 2006.
Debian testing offers LyX 1.5.4, released Feb 2008.
Debian Sid offers LyX 1.5.5.

You therefore have a choice: use Debian Etch, which is easy and will not fail you, and use the old LyX, or use Debian Sid, which regularly experiences breakage, and get the latest LyX. Or you can use Slackware, have a completely stable system, and update LyX by changing the version number in the SlackBuild and rebuilding.

I know you can rebuild Debian packages, but it is not (at least for me) anywhere near as easy to do.

Why not Ubuntu?
Ubuntu will never become stable, as long as it ships unstable packages like Firefox (Iceweasel or whatever) beta.
It's a pain in the ass to install and make a Ubuntu box ready, since it installs a lot of crap you are absolutely not interested in, and have to search through several repositories to get basic features you need.
Ubuntu releases come pretty often (every sixth months) and the upgrade procedures are well known for breaking your system. I even know about one person which got his laptop melted after a dist-upgrade in Ubuntu.
The community is very unexperienced, and might suggest solutions when they don't know what they are talking about, or solutions which aren't recommended at all.

Why not Debian?
Debian unstable and testing are too unstable to be used for anything at all.
You might have to wait for three years between every Debian release (woody -> sarge for example), which makes your system very outdated, and will lack must-have-features as the development of computer software happens very fast.
Debian does major changes to packages like apache, which might make general documentation useless, and you have to search for documentation on how this is done in Debian.
Complex procedure and hard to learn how to build .deb packages.
Some tasks become very challenging because of the complexity of the distribution.


What is different in Debian and Ubuntu?
Debian and Ubuntu have dependency solving built into the packages (pros and cons whith this feature).
Debian and Ubuntu split each package into several packages, while Slackware leaves them like the author did.
Debian and Ubuntu make major changes to some packages, while Slackware does nothing unless there is a very good reason to do so.
Debian and Ubuntu have larger officially supported package repositories.
Debian and Ubuntu have larger communities. Ubuntu has official forums and a wiki. The Slackware community is a very experienced one, and are used to solving problems by reading the different projects official documentation pages.

Why Slackware?
Slackware is very stable, uses software which are declared stable by its authors. The packages are pretty up to date, and Volkerding is focusing a lot on security.
The system is very fast
The documentatation is easy to find in /usr/doc/ (and other smart places), the slackbook is on the isos and is also available on slackware.com
Simple to build your own packages either by writing your own buildscript, or using those found at slackbuilds.org
The simplicity makes it really easy to understand what's going on, and may also do it easier for you to do complex tasks.
When running Ubuntu you will learn Ubuntu, but running Slackware will make you learn Linux. This is a very good picture on how thing are done in Slackware.

Well said Mellar!

There are just way too many distros to choose from these days, and I'm not a guy who does well with too many choices. All the bells and whistles were overwhelming me. In the end I just settled on the oldest, most stable, most unix-like linux distro, and with Slackware as a base I can build any system I want. Thank christ for Slackware or I'd still be doing the distro-of-the-day dance. Yikes.

That's exactly how I am. I wish there were 10 distinct (and awesome) choices to choose from when it comes to distros. I chose Slackware for the same reasons. I always get people telling me to use LFS instead though... and I don't really know anything about it to be honest.

If you follow LFS from the beginning till the end and add a package manager you'll end up with something that looks very much like Slackware, Solaris or BSD. If you have the time and motivation to do so, it's a good thing to recreate/rebuild your system from scratch at least once because you'll find out how the system is put together.

If you only want or need a stable binary x86 distribution, you're advised to stick to Slackware itself since it does all that you'll probably need from an operating system.

This is the case. Anyhow unSpawn, point taken, Sorry.

Thanks for the advice. I'm just beginning to use Slackware though, so I'll save that project for a later date. I know I can handle Slackware though, but I'm just "learning my way through it" right now. Eventually I'll try out LFS, I'm sure.

Oh, and Slackware definitely provides all I need from an OS.

Because the Slackware maintainer provides stock packages and does not try to presume how to configure my system.

For me, in the beginning that meant Slackware was a beast to learn. Now, however, I am comfortable with Slackware. I routinely recompile my kernel (just finished doing that based upon some powertop recommendations). Slackware is not flashy and could use some updating at certain spots, such as video detection to auto configure xorg.conf, or updating the setup scripts, but I'll take that rather than try to undo some distro maintainer who tries to outguess everything I do.

I first cut my teeth on Lycoris (Build 46) and then Mandrake (9.0). I then tried Peanut and Vector Linux. I just got tired of undoing everything. When I tried Slackware I knew I found a distro I could grow with, despite facing what was then a steep learning curve. I have no regrets.

I have had my days when I considered leaving Slackware, but then I reconsidered when I realized I would have had to start outguessing distro maintainers who tried to outguess me. I can't fathom using Ubuntu, for example, with the obsession to "sudo this" and "sudo that." Just let me "su root" and get out of my way. Working as root does not rattle me in the slightest. Additionally, Slackware ran modestly well on my old hardware and I could not then imagine trying to run some of the more bloated distros.

I don't run any package management tool with Slackware. I run a modified-to-taste version of Eric's rsync scripts to update patches and maintain my current branch tree. I decide which patches to install and when I'm ready to test current.

I'm not fond of group-think and bandwagons. Slackware is not shiny and likely never will be. Yet Slackware lets me configure my box the way I want. Yes, that means more work on my part, but I'm basically a DIY person anyway. I'm now running KDE 3.5.9 on 12.1. No related issues. I'm content.

Lastly, I'm no different from other humans or animals on this planet. That is, I dislike change for the sake of change. And I am not a distro junkie. My computer is essentially a tool for me. Therefore stability is important to me. After the past several years of running and configuring Slackware the way I want, moving now to a different distro would me too much work. Slackware works the way I want and I'm unlikely to change.

Now, where's my pipe?

Well-said, man:-)

Sounds good, being a newbie, I will try three or four distros, apart from dsl.

And kde is very good?

I will have to give Slackware a try. The Demos look good too.

Ubuntu folks make a big deal about their Long-Term Support (LTS) badged releases. I've always found this quite amusing as every release of Slackware is effectively a LTS.

Slackware treats all releases the same. The most recent set of security patches included patched versions for all releases back to and including Slackware 8.0, and that dates back to around 2002 if my memory serves me. This may not seem like a big deal to some, but the flexibility of being able to hang back a release or two and to choose when you schedule an upgrade on your own terms can come in very handy and is essential when you're dealing with more than a handful of systems.

Add the fact that Pat V can do this without all the financial muscle that Mark Shuttleworth and Canonical have available to them, and it's all the more impressive. This if nothing else really shows that the Keep It Simple. approach is absolutely the right way to go about these things.


For all the other points, I tend to agree with what both Mellar and Woodsman had to say above.

Slackware is the only Linux distro for me.

Slackware has a steep learning curve, but once you know how to configure it, there doesn't seem to be much reason to switch to anything else. Every now and then I try one of the hot new Linux distributions, and there is always something that doesn't work. I recently tried Kubuntu 8.04 and it stuck me in 640X480 mode the first time I used the desktop utility to change my screen resolution. I then had to manually edit xorg.conf to get my desired resolution. Having to do this negates the supposed advantage of using Kubuntu, ease of installation. If I have to screw with a distribution to get it to work I might as well keep using Slackware because I know where to look when things go wrong.

When I do manage to get my hot new Linux distribution working I usually find that it doesn't provide anything that I don't already have in Slackware. Most Debian based distributions give you the bare minimum you need to get started. You then have use the package utility to download additional software. If you have a dial-up connection this can be a real problem. I gave up on Kmahjong when it turned out to be a 65mb download.

Slackware, on the other hand, gives you a huge amount of software including the entire KDE package with all the games and utilities. If you are into software development you get just about any compiler you could ever want including FORTRAN and ADA.
In fact one of the confusing things about Slackware is the sheer volume of software you get to choose from.

I originally started using Slackware because I liked the idea of having my own UNIX box to play around with. Slackware is the most UNIX like Linux distribution that you can get. I have always considered the X-Windows stuff to be a bonus. If you are primarily looking for a user friendly windows substitute you may be better of with Kubuntu.

Welcome to the Slackware forum, GVrooman!
Yeah, every once in awhile I look at another distro and I try it for a time, but, I always come home to Slack.
There is no substitute for Slackware:-)

I learn Linux only with Slackware, and I love
to get my hands dirty. But the only problem
with every Linux distro is that, I can't
enjoy the features of my yahoo messenger.

I wish there was a new version of YM messenger
for Linux.

Anyway, every time I use Linux, Slackware usually,
I use gaim.