Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 24th Sep 2003 01:45 UTC
Slackware, Slax For almost a week now, I've been using Slackware 9.1 (RC-1 released today), and I am having a blast. Slackware doesn't have more than 6-8% of the Linux market these days, but it used to be one of the most-used distros back in the day. Today, many think of Slackware as a true classic, a thought that is often accompanied by a feeling that Slackware is not a user-friendly or an uber-modern Linux distribution. There is some truth in that statement, but there is always the big "But". Read on for our very positive experience with Slackware 9.1-pre. Update: In less than 24 hours since the RC-1, Slackware 9.1 RC-2 is out.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE None
by Clinton on Wed 24th Sep 2003 19:39 UTC

I was going to comment on this earlier, but I figured it would be moderated down, so I didn't. Since it wasn't moderated, I will reply (question for OSNews: Why is it that hyperbolic remarks regarding Linux are usually moderated down, but more often than not, ignorant, trollish remarks like those by NONE are left up as "alternative points of view"? Personally, I would appreciate a less-biased standard of moderation.)

Now, on to None's remarks:
Linux is slower and less stable than windows.

That's interesting. The longest I have gone without having Windows either die, or its performance degrade to that of frozen treacle, is about one month. The longest I have gone without a reboot on Linux was 2.5 years; and I only shut the system down then because I was leaving that job. I'm sorry, but my personal experience and a lot of other real-world evidence refutes your claims.

My windows box uses about 40 megs of ram to boot, Linux uses about 175 (and Linux is a monolithic kernel)

What version of Windows? XP certainly doesn't boot into 40M of RAM. What version of Linux? Mine doesn't boot into 175M of memory.

Linux crashes much more often than windows, way more
The few Apache/MySQL vs IIS/MS SQL tests I have seen have been won (sometimes dominated) by Windows


That cracks me up. Part of my job is to run both Windows/IIS/Exchange and Linux/Apache/Postfix servers. Guess which ones I NEVER get emergency calls for? Windows/IIS/Exchange suck, plain and simple. Anybody skilled person who has to administer them will tell you that.

I'm going to skip a bunch of the other nonsense because I really don't care.

Ease of use for the newbie is not as important as ergonomics for powerusers, but Linux has yet to bring an environment to the table that I can efficiently get work done it.

So now we see the real point of your post. You personally don't know how to make Linux work for you, therefore, it must be a stupid OS.

WinXP Pro comes with a 480 meg CD, Mandrake is 3 CD's and SuSE is 7

And WinXP Pro comes with almost no useful applications. The distributions you mentioned, on the other hand, come with development languages, debuggers, IDEs, and other tools, office programs, drawing programs, multimedia utilities, games, etc.

NTFS is much more stable than any Linux file system, hard shut down in Linux and watch it fsck your box

Or, hard shut down your Windows machine and watch it CHKDSK /F your box. Duh! Are you saying you want a filesystem that doesn't keep anything in memory and doesn't self-repair when it detects a problem? Interesting.

Installing software on a Linux system is badly broken, often you end up fixing make files, chasing dependencies, or in situations where you can't update a library with out breaking other apps

Or, you can install apps in Windows with the fancy InstallShield interfaces and take comfort as tons of junk gets inserted into your registry, bogging down your system. Have you ever tried to get all that crap out of there when you want to upgrade or uninstall something? Now THAT is a design that is badly broken.

, many libraries are not very backwards compatible and someone still has yet to write an installer for Linux.

apt, urpmi, portage, etc.

Developers will often use GPL just so they can avoid having to create and test separate packages for the last 3 versions of every major distro, GPL lets someone else do it.

Oh come on! The GPL has nothing to do with testing!

You know nothing about Windows development do you? I have worked for Microsoft itself and many other Windows-centric development companies and ALL of them beta test their stuff on their users, AND, as a user, you get the privilage of paying for it. Geez!

Say what you will of LSB but I can think of no reason to have all 15 or so text editors in seperate directories, where is /apps/texteditors when you need it?

They aren't in separate directories. They are usually in /usr/bin, Just like all of Microsoft's editors are in C:Windows

None, basically it appears to come down to the fact that you don't know how to use Linux. Fine. Why can't you be a big man/woman and say that you don't like Linux because you don't know how to use it and are therefore more comfortable with Windows? The truth is a lot better for everyone involved, rather than shoveling a bunch of inaccurate embellishments regarding both operating systems onto the OSNews forums.