Slackware and other linux distros

Trojan · 22-08-2001 4:13pm #1

Hey all,

Anyone know how the latest Slackware pans out against the other distros, particularly Mandrake, RH and SUSE?

I used to work with Slackware (96) and it was pretty sweeet, but I'm concerned particularly with h/w support since I'll be putting it on my lappie (which had no problem with Mandrake 7.0).

Any advice/comments?

Al.

Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.

You really should you know.

tHE vAGGABOND · 22-08-2001 5:23pm

to be honest there is not a big difference..

Its all the same Kernal, KDE or Gnome and all the usuall GNU tools...

I have always used RH, but installed Suse 7.2 yesterday - the only difference is that its 'newer' then the RH I had on, so I get a new Kernal, KDE 2 etc

Catch_22 · 23-08-2001 1:47pm

back in 96 slackware was pretty much the main distro around, however these days my personal opinion is that it is not as good as some of the others out there.

I installed the latest version of mandrake during the week and my conclusion is that suse is probably about the best distro going

Hecate · 23-08-2001 3:57pm

From what I've heard about Slackware, and from installing it myself I'd say it's the most unix like of all the distributions in that it's the closest to the original version of Linux.

Red Moose · 24-08-2001 2:56am

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Hecate:
From what I've heard about Slackware, and from installing it myself I'd say it's the most unix like of all the distributions in that it's the closest to the original version of Linux.</font>

What does that mean? "closest to the original version of linux"? "Most unix-like of all"?

I would really like an explanation here. Is my Bash that is a recompiled version from Mandrake not as "unix-like" as the Bash that SLackware comes with?

All distros are as POSIX-like as each other. I have a 1024x768x16 frame buffer to make use of the large display, but does that make it less "unix like".

I could take Slackware and make it look like my own Mandrake-based installation and does that change it somehow? I am really wondering what makes Slackware more "unix like".

Also, where can I get this "original version of linux"? What is that? Version 1.0? Version 2.0?

The Vagabond said: "to be honest there is not a big difference..

Its all the same Kernal, KDE or Gnome and all the usuall GNU tools..."

Finally someone who also realises that the distro doesn't matter a damn because it's all out of date even when you are installing it, and all distros get the source packages from the open community anyway.

Why not just keep one CD from whatever distro just to be able to get a system insatlled, and make your own other CD of all the latest packages from everywhere?

Hecate · 24-08-2001 2:12pm

er, ok

Just think Slackware is a good distro thats all

amp · 01-09-2001 2:05pm

For those interested in getting the most Linuxy looking distro of Linux

, the Slackware 8.0 iso's are on the October DVD edition of PC Plus.

And I'm going to install it on to a Cyrix 233mhz based PC for fun

Lunacy Abounds! GLminesweeper RO><ORS!
"[amp] may have the respect of the plebs on the other boards" - WWman

flamegrill · 01-09-2001 7:17pm

theres no point in sayin which disto is best.

its all down to personal opinion. Lots of people will tell you use redhat or mandrake, some people will even say use Corel or suse.

But its not down to how good they are.

as Red Moose said they all have the same or similar kernel just different versions and they all have the gnu utilities.

What i will say about the different distros is some are better for different purposes.

The likes of Mandrake and Redhat have nice fancy GUI installs. and will work out of the box as they say. slackware then has been kept clean of all the junk and the weight of those distros and provides the user with a text based install. simple and easy to use.
what I like most about it though is its robustness. I think its better server material than the others yet it makes a great workstation aswell.

I have installed slackware 8.0 on a few machines now. One of them now hosts my website and several others. I like it alot and I recomend it to anyone who wants to learn linux. This is my opionion.

Flame
http://dahomelands.net

Kopf · 02-09-2001 11:10am

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by tHE vAGGABOND:
to be honest there is not a big difference..

Its all the same Kernal, KDE or Gnome and all the usuall GNU tools...

I have always used RH, but installed Suse 7.2 yesterday - the only difference is that its 'newer' then the RH I had on, so I get a new Kernal, KDE 2 etc</font>

Not very true, there's quite a huge difference I've found between using Mandrake or RH and Slak, mainly that Mandrake and RH are just a headache.. The way they're set up, their /etc tree, is quite different and I must say, I much prefer slakware's way of doing things. RH came with gcc 1.96 which doesn't compile a lot of software I've come accross, 'cause it's full of bugs.

To me, RH and Mandrake seem to be much more GUI orientated, intent on getting linux on the desktop, slakware is known as a more unix-like distro (/me looks at red moose) because it's more about an operating system to be used as a server.

That's just how it seems to me, anyways.

Slackware and other linux distros

Comments