I was trying my hardest not to comment, but this is a pertinent question, maybe even THE question when discussing Slackware.
It's true that it might seem like an anachronistic distribution in 2012. It was actually the first distro I ever used back in the day when I started running Linux full time and increasingly had to interact with it professionally, and while I've long since moved on to other distros for a myriad of reasons, I wouldn't trade the years I spent running Slack for anything in the world,for a very simple reason, and that is that the old adage is absolutely true: when you run Distro X, you learn Distro X. When you run Slackware you learn Linux.
The whole distro, from the package manager to the init scripts is built around the KISS principle. Take the init scripts for example, they're nowhere near as powerful as, say, Upstart, but they're orders of magnitude easier to troubleshoot, and if you take the time to read through them (and yes, they're actually readable and very well commented) you gain a great working knowledge of how Linux actually boots and gets everything up and running.
The same philosophy applies to every other corner of the distro. Want to learn how to compile stuff on Linux? Take a look at a Slackbuild script, everything is in there. Want to know exactly what goes on during a distro upgrade, like what packages have precendence and so on? Read UPGRADE.TXT (http://ftp.slackware.com/pub/slackware/slackware-current/UPG...). I can only dream that even a small percentage of so-called enterprise software I've come across had release notes and upgrade guides this clear and well written.
Another great thing is that they maintain a policy of minimal interference with upstream code. If you come across a bug, you can be fairly sure it's from upstream and not Slackware, instead of having to examine the gazillion patches other distros like Debian and its derivatives introduce into the package.
I could continue to wax poetic about it, but I think I've given you an idea. It's not an exaggeration to say that I probably wouldn't be working in IT today if I hadn't come across Slackware in the before time. It's fun, and if nothing else it's a great learning experience.
I have been using Slackware for ages. The advantage for me is this: prior knowledge (it's the distro I'm most efficient in), extreme stability, blazing fast, solid/secure as a rock.
Yes, there's no official "apt" but when managing servers, I view apt as the devil. Automatic upgrades and trusting someone else's install recipes are a great way to open security vulnerabilities. I'm of the camp that everything in production is best built from source and packaged internally.
A dependency-resolving package manager is an excellent tool, but I think it's most useful application is in the desktop world. People who want software generally don't want to sit around resolving dependencies all day. People who run production servers might be better off if they knew exactly what was happening under the hood. Not to mention, once you do get your base packages set up along with Puppet, you hardly have to think about dependencies at all. Apt is great for setting a box up initially, but after that the luster wears off in my experience. Either your package manager is on the bleeding edge and unstable/insecure or it only has outdated (although probably stable/secure) packages. Slackware forces you to build and package just about everything from source, but the base system is an incredibly stable foundation.
I know quite a few people disagree with me, and that's fine. I'm not saying my way is right, I'm saying for me, this is the benefit of using Slackware in 2012 (which I do). Also, like I mentioned, once you get your base packages and something like Puppet set up, the package manager you use fades into the background.
KISS leads to a lightweight and fast system and moves much responsibility back to the user, which means that the user has to learn how the system works. I wouldn't be, were i am, without using stuff like Arch and FreeBSD.
I know the usual answers - stability, KISS, etc, but as a newbie(ish) to Linux in general and Slackware in particular, I almost think this question (which comes up repeatedly) is almost missing the entire point of Slackware.
I've decided that the answer (for me) is that Slackware is the craft microbrew of Linux distros. Painstakingly created, tended, and bottled by one man (with some diligent helpers). No, it doesn't have the flashy ad campaigns of the majors, or the ease of (X), but you can tell someone has taken their time with this distro, and crafted it with care and love. Pat V. has a vision, and this is it. That appeals to me in intangible ways that a simple list of the technical 'advantages' of Ubuntu/Arch/etc does not. It's not to everyone's taste, but I don't think it was ever meant to be.
This question is subjective. Slackware is cool if you like to know how things work. It doesn't hide a lot of things that other distros automate for you.
So, in a sense, it has the advantage of keeping it simple and, thus, being a better platform for learning how Linux works.
It also offers an environment that resembles more a BSD system. So, if you like those systems, but cannot run those, maybe it is a better alternative than, say, Ubunto or Redhat (from a user perspective of course).
As any distribution it depends on your taste and convenience. This is why there are so many - peoples tastes and circumstances of convenience vary greatly.
To be specific about Slackware I think people who enjoy it like its lack of branding, conservatism in package management and configuration tools and the focus on package stability (users are assumed to dislike new features, unless they consent explicitly to them.). People who dislike it probably do for the same reasons.
Also the community is important - tastes and convenience are acquired through friends and the environment you are in.
A Slackware install is extremely stable. As in, there are not system upgrades every week. So it's unlike Arch in this respect, and more like the rest of the stable distros. (E.g. Debian, Ubuntu, etc...)
However, with a stable distro one often finds themselves hankering for an update for a specific package or adding source-based packages. Rolling your own packages with Slackware is extremely transparent and using its tools to do so is dead simple.
There is no single "advantage".
Some people just like it, I ran Slackware 13.37 in my laptop for some time: didn't really like it, but the community is nice and I like the "feel" of the distro, the package management wasn't that bad either (using SBOPkg).
Some people might say it's old and unnecesary, I say there are still people who love this distro, and maybe you will love it if you try it.
i wish i am brave enough to use slackware, the idea of a rudimentary package manager seems plausible
with ubuntu, there is too much majic, i dont run a server, but for example i dont think anyone should install Postgresql sql on running production server by running
sudo apt-get install postgresql
slackware i believe would force more discipline, i wonder how reasonably large companies run/admin their servers (do they apt-get everything)
that would definitely be a nice book to read, someone should write it
It's grokkable magic :) The Debian package format has nice functionality for deploying software such as the seed database, the script hooks and dependency checking via apt.
Keep in mind it's also possible to run your own apt repositories and have your machines source from those, allowing you to define what specific software runs on your farm, down to the smallest detail.
All in all apt can give you a very flexible setup :)
Slackware comes with slackpkg which is (in terms) similar to apt-get, but for non standard apps you need slackbuilds or compile code manually.
Btw using Slackware on one server in production and i must admit that small specific systems are perfect match for Slackware (VoIP, routers, ...). And ofc non-production systems (laptops, testing and development environments, etc).
Pardon a trip down memory lane: Slackware was was my first distro. I spent several days (including a weekend) downloading the minimal bits to run over a 2400baud modem (in 1993?). My wife and kids almost killed me for hogging the telephone :-)
[+] [-] pervycreeper|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onosendai|13 years ago|reply
It's true that it might seem like an anachronistic distribution in 2012. It was actually the first distro I ever used back in the day when I started running Linux full time and increasingly had to interact with it professionally, and while I've long since moved on to other distros for a myriad of reasons, I wouldn't trade the years I spent running Slack for anything in the world,for a very simple reason, and that is that the old adage is absolutely true: when you run Distro X, you learn Distro X. When you run Slackware you learn Linux.
The whole distro, from the package manager to the init scripts is built around the KISS principle. Take the init scripts for example, they're nowhere near as powerful as, say, Upstart, but they're orders of magnitude easier to troubleshoot, and if you take the time to read through them (and yes, they're actually readable and very well commented) you gain a great working knowledge of how Linux actually boots and gets everything up and running.
The same philosophy applies to every other corner of the distro. Want to learn how to compile stuff on Linux? Take a look at a Slackbuild script, everything is in there. Want to know exactly what goes on during a distro upgrade, like what packages have precendence and so on? Read UPGRADE.TXT (http://ftp.slackware.com/pub/slackware/slackware-current/UPG...). I can only dream that even a small percentage of so-called enterprise software I've come across had release notes and upgrade guides this clear and well written.
Another great thing is that they maintain a policy of minimal interference with upstream code. If you come across a bug, you can be fairly sure it's from upstream and not Slackware, instead of having to examine the gazillion patches other distros like Debian and its derivatives introduce into the package.
I could continue to wax poetic about it, but I think I've given you an idea. It's not an exaggeration to say that I probably wouldn't be working in IT today if I hadn't come across Slackware in the before time. It's fun, and if nothing else it's a great learning experience.
[+] [-] orthecreedence|13 years ago|reply
Yes, there's no official "apt" but when managing servers, I view apt as the devil. Automatic upgrades and trusting someone else's install recipes are a great way to open security vulnerabilities. I'm of the camp that everything in production is best built from source and packaged internally.
A dependency-resolving package manager is an excellent tool, but I think it's most useful application is in the desktop world. People who want software generally don't want to sit around resolving dependencies all day. People who run production servers might be better off if they knew exactly what was happening under the hood. Not to mention, once you do get your base packages set up along with Puppet, you hardly have to think about dependencies at all. Apt is great for setting a box up initially, but after that the luster wears off in my experience. Either your package manager is on the bleeding edge and unstable/insecure or it only has outdated (although probably stable/secure) packages. Slackware forces you to build and package just about everything from source, but the base system is an incredibly stable foundation.
I know quite a few people disagree with me, and that's fine. I'm not saying my way is right, I'm saying for me, this is the benefit of using Slackware in 2012 (which I do). Also, like I mentioned, once you get your base packages and something like Puppet set up, the package manager you use fades into the background.
[+] [-] ushi|13 years ago|reply
KISS leads to a lightweight and fast system and moves much responsibility back to the user, which means that the user has to learn how the system works. I wouldn't be, were i am, without using stuff like Arch and FreeBSD.
Know your system, especially in 2012.
[+] [-] cenazoic|13 years ago|reply
I've decided that the answer (for me) is that Slackware is the craft microbrew of Linux distros. Painstakingly created, tended, and bottled by one man (with some diligent helpers). No, it doesn't have the flashy ad campaigns of the majors, or the ease of (X), but you can tell someone has taken their time with this distro, and crafted it with care and love. Pat V. has a vision, and this is it. That appeals to me in intangible ways that a simple list of the technical 'advantages' of Ubuntu/Arch/etc does not. It's not to everyone's taste, but I don't think it was ever meant to be.
[+] [-] alberich|13 years ago|reply
So, in a sense, it has the advantage of keeping it simple and, thus, being a better platform for learning how Linux works.
It also offers an environment that resembles more a BSD system. So, if you like those systems, but cannot run those, maybe it is a better alternative than, say, Ubunto or Redhat (from a user perspective of course).
update: typo
[+] [-] dimitar|13 years ago|reply
To be specific about Slackware I think people who enjoy it like its lack of branding, conservatism in package management and configuration tools and the focus on package stability (users are assumed to dislike new features, unless they consent explicitly to them.). People who dislike it probably do for the same reasons.
Also the community is important - tastes and convenience are acquired through friends and the environment you are in.
[+] [-] natex|13 years ago|reply
However, with a stable distro one often finds themselves hankering for an update for a specific package or adding source-based packages. Rolling your own packages with Slackware is extremely transparent and using its tools to do so is dead simple.
[+] [-] dysoco|13 years ago|reply
Some people might say it's old and unnecesary, I say there are still people who love this distro, and maybe you will love it if you try it.
[+] [-] pi18n|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wakeup|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] thisisstupid|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] systems|13 years ago|reply
with ubuntu, there is too much majic, i dont run a server, but for example i dont think anyone should install Postgresql sql on running production server by running
slackware i believe would force more discipline, i wonder how reasonably large companies run/admin their servers (do they apt-get everything)that would definitely be a nice book to read, someone should write it
[+] [-] jiggy2011|13 years ago|reply
It seems the most sensible way to install software, since it will automatically be upgraded with everything else.
[+] [-] pwg|13 years ago|reply
The only thing holding you back is your own fear.
If you don't want to commit a full machine, try it out in a VirtualBox instance.
[+] [-] jvdb|13 years ago|reply
Keep in mind it's also possible to run your own apt repositories and have your machines source from those, allowing you to define what specific software runs on your farm, down to the smallest detail.
All in all apt can give you a very flexible setup :)
[+] [-] popee|13 years ago|reply
Btw using Slackware on one server in production and i must admit that small specific systems are perfect match for Slackware (VoIP, routers, ...). And ofc non-production systems (laptops, testing and development environments, etc).
[+] [-] mark_l_watson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] japaget|13 years ago|reply
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=slackware
http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=07475
[+] [-] protolif|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spitfire|13 years ago|reply
I wonder who's still using that in some deep dark corner of their infrastructure.
[+] [-] protolif|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nux|13 years ago|reply