Hi - been thinking about changing linux distro. I had a look a the
slackware site, but it seems very 'bare bones' compared to suse, gentoo,
fedora core etc. Is this OS just for pros? or can it be used by beginner
home users like me?

thnaks

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:21:13 GMT,
kitt <kitt@home.net> wrote:
> Hi - been thinking about changing linux distro. I had a look a the
> slackware site, but it seems very 'bare bones' compared to suse, gentoo,
> fedora core etc. Is this OS just for pros? or can it be used by beginner
> home users like me?

I don't think it really matters if you're a beginner or not, but rather
on what you want to get out of your OS. If you're interested in learning
about Linux and learning how to set things up your own way, then
Slackware is probably a distro you will like.

If you decide to take the plunge, I suggest having a look at the
Slackware Linux Essentials, which is at <http://slackbook.org>.

--
Mark Hill

kitt wrote:
> Hi - been thinking about changing linux distro. I had a look a the
> slackware site, but it seems very 'bare bones' compared to suse, gentoo,
> fedora core etc. Is this OS just for pros? or can it be used by beginner
> home users like me?

IMHO, it is true that Slackware isn't for each and everybody. But the
point is not how experienced you are, but your motives for using it, and
your attitude towards an OS.

Slackware is about Doing It Yourself, Being In Charge and Knowing What
The Fuck You're Doing.

For the quick I-want-this-running-without-thinking-about-it, SuSE and
Mandriva are probably better. But if you are interested in how stuff
works, or fed up with other distros dictating and restricting your
usage, then you are a Slacker at heart

A quick note on Debian: Debian is for people who think they're good
enough to be a Slacker, but still need to have someone (apt-get) to hold
their hands and can't deal with vanilla versions. 'Nuff said

~Mik

--
Tabula materna combusta est!
// My motherboard's toast!

From "Informational Latin" by Henry Beard

20 Aug 2005 15:21 UTC, kitt typed:
> Hi - been thinking about changing linux distro. I had a look a the
> slackware site, but it seems very 'bare bones' compared to suse, gentoo,
> fedora core etc. Is this OS just for pros? or can it be used by beginner
> home users like me?

Slackware is great. Looks a bit rough round the edges but it's very well
put together. No more difficult than any of the other distros.

--
Email: News <news@highspeed.flyer.co.uk>

The network is down because: Those damn raccoons!

kitt wrote:

> Is this OS just for pros?

Yeah, pretty much.


> or can it be used by beginner
> home users like me?

It CAN be if you are willing to spend a lot of time reading the manuals,
asking questions, and learning how to do the configuration (i.e.
sound/video, apache, mysql, etc.... if you need them) And then you will
have to learn how to use Slack's arcane and antiquated package manager when
you want to add new software or update what you have. (Note, the package
system is not bad, it is just a hell of a lot more complex than Debian's
Synaptic/ pt-get or Gentoo's version of ports (taken from BSD.)

There have been lots of beginners who have started with Slackware and have
been successful and happy with it. But I would advise against it. I think
the best route for a newbie is to start with one of the live CD distro's
such as Ubuntu or Mepis or Kanotix. If you don't like any of those, after
you get a 'taste of Linux' moving 'up' to Slackware will be much easier.

It's just a long learning curve for a Linux newbie and unless you are
willing to commit to many, many hours of reading docs and asking questions
on help-sites (use LinuxQuestions.org, not this NG... as this group is
mostly newbie-hostile ... the kirtan's maha mantra here is 'RTFM') you will
be better served with a choice of a distro that is more newbie-friendly.

The progression I'm seeing these days is that people start with Ubuntu
because it gets lots of press, and has won accolades for being easy to
install and use (it's a LiveCD). Then I see a lot of folks give my
favorite, Kanotix a try... mainly because it is blazingly fast (optimized
for i586 hardware). Then, when they feel comfortable, they move to Debian
proper. I'm not sure WHY they make the move to Debian from the
Debian-forks, but a lot of folks do.

Like Debian proper, I'm not sure why anyone moves to Slackware anymore, but
lots of people make the switch. The only reason I run it is because it's
the only distro that runs WELL on some older hardware I have.

Bottom line, you don't 'move' to Slackware.... you commit to it. It has a
unique 'way' of doing things and a very unique community... most often
hostile to newbies who ask dumb-ass questions... like the one you
asked. :-) :-) :-) <g>


Al C.

On 2005-08-20, kitt <kitt@home.net> espoused the following:
> Hi - been thinking about changing linux distro. I had a look a the
> slackware site, but it seems very 'bare bones' compared to suse, gentoo,
> fedora core etc. Is this OS just for pros? or can it be used by beginner
> home users like me?
>
> thnaks

kitt, I am just an average home user, not in the IT biz in any stretch of
the imagination. I would try several different distros including
Slackware. You have nothing to lose by trying. Slack will require a bit
more of a time commitment than the big distros. But the trade off is that
you have a more stable system, IME.

Good Luck,

Scott Cole

--
Only trust pipesmoking penguins.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

kitt wrote:

> Hi - been thinking about changing linux distro. I had a look a the
> slackware site, but it seems very 'bare bones' compared to suse, gentoo,
> fedora core etc. Is this OS just for pros? or can it be used by beginner
> home users like me?
>
> thnaks

Kitt, go for it! In some respects Slackware does things differently to
other distros, so for that alone you might want to try it just to see what
its about.

Personally I found using Suse 7.0 tricky, too many packages, too many sub
packages, so many dependencies and bugs, I found it difficult to learn how
to use and very difficult to add my own stuff / change things.

Then I tried Slackware 8.1, after giving up on Suse, it was a breath of
fresh air. It worked, and I could change things quite easily. It was a
steep learning curve as I had no idea what I was doing, but it was
Slackware which got me hooked on Linux and OSS.

Is it right for you, well, theres only one way your going to find that
out

Chiefy blithely blithered
> 20 Aug 2005 15:21 UTC, kitt typed:
>> Hi - been thinking about changing linux distro. I had a look a the
>> slackware site, but it seems very 'bare bones' compared to suse, gentoo,
>> fedora core etc. Is this OS just for pros? or can it be used by beginner
>> home users like me?
>
> Slackware is great. Looks a bit rough round the edges but it's very well
> put together. No more difficult than any of the other distros.

function rant() {

I dont know where you're buying your CDs from but go somewhere else.
"Rough around the edges"? I dont even know what that means. Slackware
has never gone haywire on me for no particular reason. It hasn't changed
much in the years I've been using it, so I'm pretty much finished with
the learning curve. Almost everything compiles on it properly the first
time and if it doesn't, I didn't need it in the first place. Compared to
the other OS on my computer (it didn't even come with a compiler!) it's
so smooth around the edges it's practically a perpetual motion machine,
just roll it down the street. I've seen pool balls with edges so rough
in comparison I could use them to sand my deck with. Slack, in a
nutshell, rocks.

}

rant

--
Some programming languages manage to absorb change but withstand
progress.

kitt <kitt@home.net> wrote:
> Hi - been thinking about changing linux distro. I had a look a the
> slackware site, but it seems very 'bare bones' compared to suse, gentoo,
> fedora core etc. Is this OS just for pros? or can it be used by beginner
> home users like me?

Main difference is the packaging system. Other distros break up
packages into many sub-packages, which is the very reason for many of
the dependency problem that you hear about. Whereas, Slackware tends to
have packages as self-contained as possible.

Also, in other distros, you are given choice of "server", "workstation",
etc. installation types. No such concept exists in Slackware. Whether
a machine is server or not, depends on whether or not it runs server
program. That's all. Initial label during installation has nothing to
do with it.

What I do (and recommend) is install everything from the 2-CD set to
harddisk. Then, configure which services (/etc/rc.d/rc.*,
/etc/inetd.conf, etc.) you want enabled.

--
William Park <opengeometry@yahoo.ca>, Toronto, Canada
ThinFlash: Linux thin-client on USB key (flash) drive
http://home.eol.ca/~parkw/thinflash.html
BashDiff: Super Bash shell
http://freshmeat.net/projects/bashdiff/

On 2005-08-20, kitt <kitt@home.net> wrote:
> Hi - been thinking about changing linux distro. I had a look a the
> slackware site, but it seems very 'bare bones' compared to suse, gentoo,
> fedora core etc. Is this OS just for pros? or can it be used by beginner
> home users like me?
>
> thnaks

Contrary to what you may read in this thread, Slackware is rock solid, a
good choice for dedicated users.

The biggest hit against slackware is that its package manager is old or it's
only good on some older machines.

That's utter bullshit, the mumblings of amateurs.

Slackware only requires that you use some of those gray cells between your
ears...it requires you to think and read. It's as simple as that.

ken