Why do people still use Slackware?

[darkrose0510]

One of the things I like about slack is that is doesn't have an all-singing-all-dancing package manager, so I don't have to worry about installing something from source and breaking the package manager, or being overwritten by the package manager installing something, or not being able to install something due to the package manager not knowing it's dependencies are installed.... etc, large chunks of my system are built from source, but I still use slackware packages on somethings (like when I really don't feel like building firefox from source).

I like having control of my system, and the minimal package management in slack gives me that.

[Alien51]

All that said, I don't understand why someone would use Slackware and then destroy all that beautiful simplicity by installing KDE4.

LMAO! I've been using Slackware since version 7. I still have nightmares about KDE3's infamous /opt directory and Gnome moving to GTK2+. I just avoid the whole DE trainwreck with window managers like E17,E16 or Afterstep. The E's play quite well together if you compile them in separate directories and call them with absolute paths.
Everyone talks about Slacks stability but it's also very flexible. I've used it for everything from a webserver to an automated backup system for Windows.

[carlosponti]

curiousity i guess, i dont use it as my main distro but i like to install it our of plain curiosity and always will since it was my first.

[daark.child]

I don't use Slack these days (or Gentoo), but when I did I liked the fact that it was easy to customise to my needs and there weren't universal defaults like in many distros (just install what you need and you are good to go). Another thing I liked about it was the simplicity, right from the installer, package management etc.

[Deach]

I use it on my older dell laptop 600 mhz with 384 of ram becaue it's the only thing I've found with enough features that will run right on the thing. I'm sure there are other (tiny distros) that would work but not with the ability to do what slack does.

[Dapper Dan]

Because J. R. "Bob" Dobbs commands us to.

[88guy]

I started tinkering with Linux, in my old age, to host my own web sites. I'm always baffled by the posts I see, around the net, that describe Slackware as "difficult" and not "user friendly". I'm an idiot in math and science and, still, no Linux wizard. But once you spend a bit of time with Slackware - to me, anyway (maybe I'm crazy) - it's simpler to configure than any other distro I've tried. And I started learning this stuff when I was 50 with virtually no background in computer technology. If I can use Slackware....well, anyone can (easily).

Slackware doesn't have a graphical installation mode, but, apart from using cfdisk to partition your drive the installation is damned near brain-dead (and I figured out how to use cfdisk by trial and error - it's very intuitive, to say the least). My Linux journey started out as a hobby - I 'm primarily a web designer who wanted to host his own sites - and now the Linux server stuff is a large part of why I have a decent job. I like the fact that I compile things and, therefore, I understand what comprises the various packages and I have a degree of understanding as to how the various components are integrated.

In my case, the last thing I want is some damned Linux version of Window's "Automatic Updates" downloading something that might hose my system (I've got numerous ecommerce sites and a lot of people depending on everything working). Slackware is fast and stable and has a great release cycle (and the releases rarely include anything that isn't working fine - which I view as a good thing...). Save that experimental stuff for, well, you darned kids!


As Linux has evolved I think more and more people are using it as something of a Windows replacement (e.g. Ubuntu); I probably represent the minority of folks using Linux, now, but I'm using it as a production server - and, for that purpose, Slackware is excellent.

I'm not any sort of zealot - I use Linux, Windows, and the Mac OS for various
purposes. And for the average user, something like Ubuntu is probably great. I installed a recent version and thought, "Wow, this is pretty damned cool". But it doesn't suit my purposes. One bizarre note: I suppose it verges on the comical but it drives me absolutely wonkers to have to type "sudo" before I do anything on those types of systems. It's as if I won't make the mistake I'm about to make as long as I know enough to type "sudo", first. It reminds of all those Vista questions (e.g. "Are you really, really sure you should be doing this????"). Or, to put it another way: sudo-apt 'ol Guy don't get. It's my computer - can I stop declaring my ownership and competency for Pete's sake...?

I think much of it boils down to why, and how, you're using your computer. Slackware has a very elegant, simple design that - as I've said - makes it a great server. And, even though I don't care about such stuff, it plays movies and music and does pretty much everything that other Linux distros do with little or no futzing around (based on my experience). That's my 2 cents - I think it was actually more like a buck-and-a-half.

Long live Slackware........it's given me hours of enjoyment.

[Freston]

All that said, I don't understand why someone would use Slackware and then destroy all that beautiful simplicity by installing KDE4.

Fair enough. KDE 3.5.10 is available for Slackware 13.0 for this reason.

[reed9]

Fair enough. KDE 3.5.10 is available for Slackware 13.0 for this reason.

Perhaps I should have said KDE of any sort. KDE3 is just as bad as far as I'm concerned. I preferred GNOME to KDE3 when I first started with linux. By the time KDE4 rolled around I had pretty much given up on desktop environments, but it lured me in for a bit, a couple of weeks, around KDE 4.2, and I actually preferred KDE4 to 3. But a couple of weeks was about all I could take before going back to the comfort of pekwm. (At the time pekwm, back on openbox now.)