| | Does Slackware still matter?
The article and its rebuttle come from linux-watch.com
***********************
Does Slackware still matter? Quote:
Although Slackware was THE distro in the mid-90s (which is why I always say it's the best 1995 has to offer), at the present time it has conceded the corporate market (but of course Linux is not about market share, the Slackware zealots always remind me!) to Red Hat and SUSE, and the rest of the market to the many Debian derivatives, with the result that Slackware is now just a niche distro used by a very small minority of Linux users.
Of course, the word "small" is relative here... because I believe the current Slackware user base is in the area of 50,000.... maybe even as high as 100,000.
Unlike Slackware, most Linux distros have by now moved on toward newer and better (IMO) package management systems, as well as either full-fledged GUI admin modules or a collection of easy-to-run scripts that you can use to configure your system. Only in Slackware do you actually have to go in and edit xorg.conf. Just about every other distro has a GUI module or a script that will easily let you set the resolution or dpi of your display. That's NOT to say that editing xorg.conf is difficult... because it is not... but new Linux converts don't want to mess with it, and they WANT an easy, visual way to make these settings. They won't (maybe never?) find that with Slackware.
Slackware advocates always exclaim: "Slackware is easy once you understand it." The trouble is, there are so many other distros that are just as stable, and just as fast, and which you can use without having to get a Ph.D. in order to understand how to get your work done.
Slackware has become the distro of choice for both a hard-core group of hobbyists and a highly professional group of Linux server administrators. And I say "highly professional," because that's what you have to be in order to know and understand how to admin this beast.
I don't know the economics of Slackware, and whether it continues to provide Patrick Volkerding with a sustainable living, but I have to assume it does. Whether it will continue to do so, given the competition with distos like Kanotix (which is what Debian would be if it were Slackware ... or is that vice versa?) and Ubuntu, is anyone's guess. (As it is so often repeated on the net, "ubuntu' is an African word meaning "I can't figure out how to configure Slackware.")
If you want a Slackware distro that approaches the "modern age," I think you want to look at Vector. It's the only thing out there that has a chance against the hot new Debian distro derivatives.
I think Slackware has a lot going for it... but not enough for it to sustain itself should Linux become as popular as the pundits say it will. To those who run and who love Slackware, that's fine. To the rest of us, well, it doesn't matter.
| ***********************
And the rebuttle: Quote:
It was unfortunate that in his recent opinion piece, Does Slackware still matter?, rather than give quantifiable, well-thought reasons why Slackware may no longer be a viable distribution (an assumption which I infer from the title), guest Alan Canton simply took nearly 500 words to express what could have been summarized in one sentence: "Linux, as an operating system, is too complex for me." Rather than simply bash him in defense of Slackware, I prefer to take on his arguments point-for-point. Given the tone of the article in question, please forgive me if my rebuttal is similarly tongue-in-cheek.
Canton: Slackware advocates always exclaim: "Slackware is easy once you understand it." The trouble is, there are so many other distros that are just as stable, and just as fast, and which you can use without having to get a Ph.D. in order to understand how to get your work done.
First, the idea that something is easy once you understand it goes without saying. What Slackware advocates are telling you is that in order to truely appreciate Slackware for what it is, you must learn how Linux works first, because Slackware is just unadulterated Linux. Secondly, I would question what other major distros are faster than Slackware after a default install that Al would consider administrable. Damn Small Linux? It is certainly faster, but easy to install and administer? No more than Slackware. And certainly not Gentoo... which is the only distribution I have heard used in the same sentence with "Ph.D."
The mistake that Alan makes is not defining from the outset what constitutes a viable distribution to him. At least I assume that this is what his contention with Slackware is. Seemingly, the only support for his position is that other distros are more popular, and that they are so because they are easier to administer.
I would assert that a distribution's viability is based on its usefulness to a user-base, regardless of the size of that user-base. Other distributions do indeed cater to an audience that enjoys as little administrative effort and customization as necessary. And as the vast majority of users are not Hackers or Geeks (in the idiomatic sense), that is why other distributions enjoy the lion's share of popularity. Alan seems to have some other ideas....
Canton: I don't know the economics of Slackware, and whether it continues to provide Patrick Volkerding with a sustainable living, but I have to assume it does. Whether it will continue to do so, given the competition with distos like Kanotix (which is what Debian would be if it were Slackware ... or is that vice versa?) and Ubuntu, is anyone's guess.
Since when has the financial remuneration provided by Free Software or the degree of corporatization of it equated to its value? Linux, GNU, and thousands of other free software projects thrive because of passion. That's right, passion. Perhaps this is why we don't see Richard Stallman being driven around in a Bentley, or why Linus Torvalds doesn't house himself in a deep underground bunker like the creators of some competing operating systems do. They created Linux from a passion. Maybe that's why I don't see Debian suffering due to Katonix or Ubuntu either.
Still not convinced? Alright, let's take on the numbers game....
Slackware survives on DistroWatch's Top Ten for a reason. Similarly, Slackware survives as the oldest distribution of Linux still maintained for a reason. These two simple facts alone are enough to counter the statistical assertion that Slackware doesn't matter: it has a significant, consistent user-base.
Canton: Slackware has become the distro of choice for both a hard-core group of hobbyists and a highly professional group of Linux server administrators. And I say 'highly professional,' because that's what you have to be in order to know and understand how to admin this beast."
What's so difficult about downloading a program and typing "installpkg" and the package name? That's as close as you're going to get to "Windows ease of use" -- which, forgive me, is what it sounds like you want. Installing Mozilla Firefox this way, for instance, has to be multiples faster than using the Mozilla installer. Certainly, Slackware's installer doesn't win any beauty contests, but it's fast, it's easy, and it's stable. And what's this about package management? Slackware's package management may not come installed, but that's because on Slackware, you have a choice of package managers! Swaret? Slapt-get? SlackUpdate? Take your pick! In fact, I would venture to guess that given its agnostic design, more packages are installable on Slackware than any other distribution.
Canton: I think Slackware has a lot going for it... but not enough for it to sustain itself should Linux become as popular as the pundits say it will. To those who run and who love Slackware, that's fine. To the rest of us, well, it doesn't matter.
That may be true, but then, that could be said of any other distribution as well. SUSE makes no bit of difference to me... or Mandriva, or Linspire, or.... but this is what makes Linux so great! CHOICE! If I hate Microsoft's installer, guess what? Too bad. If I don't like Mac OS X's user interface, guess what? Yep, you guessed it! Tough luck. Linux is a success because it is the only operating system flexible enough to be all things to all people.
So Al, I think you've missed the point entirely. Oh, and by the way, I write this article as a Linux newbie, straight out of the Windows world. I chose Slackware as my "distro of choice" and you know what? I love it. So Al, and all the naysayers that say Slackware doesn't matter... listen up: Here are some real tangible reasons Slack still matters to the desktop user....
I chose Slackware because I disliked other distributions' bloated installs. I chose it because it's fast. I chose Slackware because I wouldn't be stuck in "RPM Hell," or tied to a single set of packages or package management system. I chose Slackware because Slackware lets ME choose. I chose Slackware because it is a full system distribution that respects the software it distributes and installs it as closely to what the authors intended as possible. I chose Slackware because it is the nearest to Plain-Old-Linux as anyone can get, and that's what I wanted to learn: Linux.
So, does Slackware matter? Simply put, YES. Slackware matters because Slackware IS Linux.
| Note, in the rebuttle, paragraphs or sentances that start with Canton: are reffering to quotes from the original article. |
AdminFusion
»
Does Slackware still matter?
11-24-2005, 12:41 AM
Similar Threads 
Linear Mode
