Go for Slackware. I never learnt anything from Redhat while I used it, however, since I started using Slackware I learnt a hell of a lot more. Right now, I use a distribution called Yoper. I've found it pretty impressive so far, but I still have my reservations about it... Stick with Slack.
Cheers,
cgkanchi
I fail to see what one gains from downloading and installing Slackware over ... let's say Redhat... if he hasn't the slightest idea about Linux (nor do I for any matter), why does one distro weigh above another?
RedHat holds your hand and gives you a hand job, Slackware ties you up and beats your ass.
For future reference, if you don't know **** about Linux, don't call ME an idiot.
How does Slackware tie you up and beat your ass? And how does Redhat hold your hand? If you're talking about installing them, granted. But from there, opening a bash shell and learning the commands, I fail to see how one "holds your hand".Quote:
Originally posted here by gore
RedHat holds your hand and gives you a hand job, Slackware ties you up and beats your ass.
For future reference, if you don't know **** about Linux, don't call ME an idiot.
I've yet to call you anything except a fatty, okay fatty mc-fat?
RedHat has GUI tools for almost everything, Slackware has... Vim. You edit the config files by hand in Slackware. In RedHat you use a pussy GUI tool to do the same thing only it takes more RAM, runs slower, and an idiot can understand it.
Free BSD is about the same, you edit the things you need with a text editor the way UNIX was intended to be used, while redHat has a GUI tool for a lot of it, Mandrake has Wizards that don't work, and SUSE lets you choose how you want to do it and it actually works. And Gentoo..... Well you don't have time to edit config files, you're to busy downloading security updates.
Hmmm... you apparently don't know how to use a text processor in Redhat... very sad. Little sidenote, you know you don't have to use those handy dandy tools that make life quicker, you can just as easily open up pine or whatever floats your boat and edit your little (or should I say cholesterol filled) heart out.
Next, Slackware has just as many user interfaces as Redhat... your little shin dig on how you get a pussy tool for everything in Redhat is inane and a joke. I can basically find a interface for everything that Redhat offers.
FreeBSD might be different, haven't tried it other than FreeSBIE.
Very well said.Quote:
Originally posted here by ;TT
Hmmm... you apparently don't know how to use a text processor in Redhat... very sad. Little sidenote, you know you don't have to use those handy dandy tools that make life quicker, you can just as easily open up pine or whatever floats your boat and edit your little (or should I say cholesterol filled) heart out.
Next, Slackware has just as many user interfaces as Redhat... your little shin dig on how you get a pussy tool for everything in Redhat is inane and a joke. I can basically find a interface for everything that Redhat offers.
FreeBSD might be different, haven't tried it other than FreeSBIE.
FreeBSD is not much different either. Assuming what ou are looking made it into "ports"..:)
GORE: I have never seen anyone so willing to puke out every single Linux vs. Windows or Slack vs RedHat cliche they come across.
STFU already!!
A 3rd run level in any of them with a common shell will provide you with VERY similar results.
Sure one may have a particular library ready to run where one may need to have one compiled
but really they are closer to the same than not.
Each can be installed with a very small footprint and but for a few location differences, they are
all too similar.
They can each be setup to use the SAME window managers, same "GUI" tools blah blah blah.
I do know **** about Linux and I suggest you try using it for more than having a jerk over that
sweet blond on your Monitor at your mamas house!!
Hello,
I will simply avoid the RH vs Slack battle and state this: I chose Slackware after evaulating every other freebie and found it closest to traditional UNIX. This for me was the deciding factor. I haven't really found much difference in any of the versions I've tested except the preference level. At this point in my Linux adventure, I don't use any package manager opting for downloading the source and compiling it to my system.
IMHO, after you have evaulated each of the different versions, it boils down to one basic premise: You have to run it and maintain it. Pick what you feel confortable with.
The argue of slackware versus Redhat is not about tools or the amount of tools. That point alone is moot merely because the Red Hat developers specifically program extra configuration tools beyond what typical gnome/kde will offer the user. No argument there about which offers more "no brainer tools".
The true argument is about file structure, how the OS handles program installations, and common-sense OS progression. RedHat/Fedora has always been known for it's horrible capability with RPM installations, even with yum and (apt-get ported) merely because of how unclean a system can quickly become. It has also been known to install some things to /usr/bin and some to /usr/local/bin without following any sort of standard. Sure, it's just another operating system based on linux, but the differences in how the OS itself operates and is founded on are what make it quite different from slackware.
Slackware has a file/folder structure much more identical to the BSD/origonal UNIX system. In which specific things go in /usr/bin and will always be there. Specific things go in /usr/local/bin and you can guarentee that they will always be there. No guessing, no "I wonder if it sticks to the UNIX standard", you know the moment you install it that it does. While you can edit files in Redhat manually (vi, pico, nano, ed.. take your pick) redhat doesn't have the level of in-file documentation about each configuration option. Slackware configuration files not only keep updated README's, INSTALLS', but also incredibly detailed configuration files. Whereas RedHat can still do things manually, the file system and way they handled their configuration files merely hinder the manual system. It's almost as if they want to encourage the GUI-based interface configuration.
Slackware encourages the user to choose. It gives them enough information and encouragement to be able to configure everything in vi if they wanted, and not hit nearly as many bumps do to "in system" documentation. They also still give the user plenty of interface choice and packages that will allow in-depth GUI control.
So, when arguing redhat/slackware, let's not blow holes up one another's ass about "can't do it manually". Every Linux system can still be done manually. The argument needs to be about "Which is naturally built to help people read, learn and test?". Redhat encourages direct gui usage for typical home users and thus focuses their primariy development towards gui configuration options. Slackware encourages the user to find a balance they are happy with, and thus focuses their primary development on makign sure there are enough gui configuration tools and enough documentation on specific manual configuration changes.
Each distro has their reasoning for being different, and each user needs to decide what it is they are looking out of an OS. Learning and choice meets simplicity? Slackware. Easy configurability without having to learn too much meets "It usually just works right the first time"? Redhat/Fedora
UNIX has always been about many small tools.Quote:
Originally posted here by a morning chill
[B]No argument there about which offers more "no brainer tools".
Are You saying applying a gui to them is a mistake? Seems like more options to me.
Here we use Linux, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, and SCO for many different reasons.Quote:
The true argument is about file structure, how the OS handles program installations, and common-sense OS progression. RedHat/Fedora has always been known for it's horrible capability with RPM installations, even with yum and (apt-get ported) merely because of how unclean a system can quickly become. It has also been known to install some things to /usr/bin and some to /usr/local/bin without following any sort of standard. Sure, it's just another operating system based on linux, but the differences in how the OS itself operates and is founded on are what make it quite different from slackware.
Each one chooses to put lots of things in different places than the other.
The expectation of a standard in UNIX is naive and LINUX is no different.
I'm game for some learning...Quote:
Slackware configuration files not only keep updated README's, INSTALLS', but also incredibly detailed configuration files. Whereas RedHat can still do things manually, the file system and way they handled their configuration files merely hinder the manual system. It's almost as if they want to encourage the GUI-based interface configuration.
I don't choose to use either day to day but lets take a look.
I have created a fresh Slack 10 install and a RHEL3 install
May I have some examples to compare?
I have been using Linux a long time.Quote:
"Which is naturally built to help people read, learn and test?"
In my experience, Slackware has not been about learning and encouragement but about
elitism and hubris.
To a beginner, difficult forced choices and steep learning curve does not always translate into a quality learning experience.
I have been to alot of LUG meetings and install fests and have never heard Slackware being
suggested as a great operating system for users new to LINUX or UNIX.
SGS