Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Wed 3rd Nov 2004 07:07 UTC
To paraphrase one of the best "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episodes, "Best of Both Worlds", both Arch Linux and Slackware represent the best of all the OS worlds: the power of traditional Unix, the elegance of BSD and the ease of mind of Mac OS X. This is an article outlining the differences between --what I believe-- are the two best Linux distros around today. Mind you though, "best" doesn't always mean "easy".
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
I have used both, Arch and Slack, and I have to say, that Arch has dissappointed me often. I very much liked the System concept, the system wide configuration with rc.conf and stuff; this was pretty neat, but for the half a year (or year) I used Arch, every 4 weeks I had broken packages on my system. Sometimes it took the developers some time to repair the broken stuff and I sat there without a working kde. I know that stuff like that can happened, but if you need a working system right now, this can really piss you off.
As Slackware 10 came out, I switched, and never ever looked back. Slack has sane defaults, fairly good hardware detection, a good package selection in its repository and via linuxpackages/swaret/checkinstall upgrading or installing new software is a breeze.
It just works. I never used any distribution I could say that it and really meant it. I need a distribution which delivers current packages, is stable (no unstable patches in slackware!), updated often and doesn't break down while using it - a reliable workhorse and something to play with when I am bored. With slack, I can have both.