Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Apr 2008 22:30 UTC
And Slackware too puts out a test release. Patrick writes in the changelog: "OK, we're going to call this Slackware 12.1-rc1, though there is still some more minor work to do." So there. Just so you know.
Thread beginning with comment 308214
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-07-15
ArchLinux?
It lacks quality, it lacks stability, it lacks reliability, it lacks experience within the developers. It has got pacman but this alone doesn't make a good distro or something UNIX-like. KISS as excuse for the lack of any quality is a really poor excuse. So Slack with e.g. pkgsrc beats ArchLinux in no time.
RE[4]: Comment by Oliver
by Laurence on Sun 6th Apr 2008 11:20
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Oliver"
Member since:2007-03-26
ArchLinux?
It lacks quality, it lacks stability, it lacks reliability, it lacks experience within the developers. It has got pacman but this alone doesn't make a good distro or something UNIX-like. KISS as excuse for the lack of any quality is a really poor excuse. So Slack with e.g. pkgsrc beats ArchLinux in no time.
It lacks quality, it lacks stability, it lacks reliability, it lacks experience within the developers. It has got pacman but this alone doesn't make a good distro or something UNIX-like. KISS as excuse for the lack of any quality is a really poor excuse. So Slack with e.g. pkgsrc beats ArchLinux in no time.
That post smacks of somebody whos never used Arch properly.
I've found the quality to be excelent, along with the stability and reliability.
It's no less UNIX-like than slackware (both prefer config files to GUIs, both use BSD style inits). Arch doesn't install anything but the bones of the OS, expecting users to install their desktop and applications separately (again, very much like ever other UNIX build i've used and hardly KISS-like as you blindly suggest).
When every other distro these days are going towards default desktop installs (often even a customised version of KDE/Gnome) with fancy GUI configuration tools and the lark, it really shows that you haven't a clue about what you're talking about when you accuse Arch of doing exactly the same when in reality it's really leaning the complete opposite way.
Member since:
2007-03-26
Actually, Xenix and AT&T Unix 3.2 for 386 and 3B2, back in the 80s, had more sophisticated package management, and reasonably good menu driven administration facilities. So maybe Slackware is more of a 70s style Unix-like distro.
I've got to agree with you.
I love Slackware's philosophy and for a long time Slackware was my favourite distro.
Recently ArchLinux has taken over on my Linux boxes. It has the same kind of "feel" as Slack but without a lot of the arsing about.