Username or EmailPassword
I liked your article. However, you seem to compare Slackware to a lot of other things. Then again, we're all permanently scarred from the Microsoft experience (i.e. having to translate "where's Windows Media Player?" to "what audio players are there?")
I love Slackware very much, because it is not controlling. Mandrake, Redhat, all newbie-friendly distributions tend to make me have to use their configuration tools. On Slackware, I can just read the program's documentation and edit the config files myself. I love that. It feels like "the right way" to do it.
As to dependency checking, I'm against it, because of my bad experience in RPM-dependency-hell (when both "rpm -Uvh" and "rpm -e" are lying, but you can't tell which one lied first). Slackware is for doing things "the right way", or at least the "slackware way" -- you check dependencies by going through the documentation of the program you want, reading the requirements (dependencies), then checking on your system if they're installed (in which just changing to /var/log/packages directory and running ls to look for it is MUCH easier than rpm IMO). I also like being able to compile programs on the fly, i.e. without downloading and/or installing tons of *devel*.rpm packages.
But I'm against anyone telling Patrick Volkerding what to do. Let him have his Slackware, and if we like it, we'll use it. I like it, so I use it. I like how it's elegant in its simplicity.
Including open office might be nice, but you can install it yourself. Dropline might be nice, but you can install it yourself. I feel like Slackware's power comes in how it doesn't tell you how to do everything, so you go learn to do it yourself, and you basically empower yourself along the way. While using Slackware I learned IPTables, I learned shell scripting, I learned to configure Samba, and the list goes on. I owe you, Pat