Linked by Michael Hall on Thu 15th Jul 2004 07:35 UTC
Slackware, Slax My first experience with Slackware Linux came with version 9.1, after 4 years of using various versions of Red Hat and SUSE Linux. I disliked the general direction these distributions were moving in and didn't see their increasing focus on the "big end of town" as auguring well for either myself or clients of my small one-person IT consultancy business. I quickly became a Slackware convert and have since used it exclusively for all my server deployments. Check in for more and 15 screenshots from Slackware 10.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by anybody on Fri 16th Jul 2004 05:24 UTC

I won't use it, although I have tried both 9.1 and 10 on my test system. It's good if you just need a simple server.

But it makes a poor desktop and a worse enterprise server. If people like you were honest, then the needs of different users would be better served. Why didn't you address the specific points I raised? How easy is it to create a multi-disk Raid 5 Array on top of LVM so that you can resize partitions at will? And I know how to do it by hand, that is not the point. The point is that an error-prone operation of that nature should be automated by a good tool.

If your rpmdb was to be corrupted, you rebuild it. That has never happened to me, by the way.

By the way, why is it a poor desktop? If you install Gnome and KDE, there is no single unified menu, the menus are a sprawling mess of applications and the whole thing just feel like a disjointed thing that somebody threw together, not like an OS.

Slackware 10 would have been an incredible OS in 1996, not in 2004. Is it stable? Sure, it's Linux. But we demand more than stability these days from Linux.