Single file version available here.
Last updated on 2008-06-17.
To discuss, comment here.
Table of Contents
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup
> I have been using RH 6.0 for some time now, but I`m not satisfied with it, > so I`m going to change distribution soon. My problem is that I can`t decide > whether to choose Debian or Slackware...
> Debian is the only "distro" made by an organization, not a commercial > company, and it it developed entirely by volunteers via the net. That really > appeals to me. Slackwares' "mission" is to provide the most "UNIX-like" > linux distro, without all the fuzz, so that you *learn* the linuxsystem from > the bottom. That also appeals to me.
> So... I need some help on this one. Can someone who uses Debian or Slackware > tell me a little about the benefits and the problems - simply pros and cons > - of these distributions?
There are alot of different schools on this subject, but the truth is that most guys who knows what they're doing and got plenty of hair on their chests, use Slackware. As you said - no fuzz and most of the HOWTO's out there are written with Slackware in mind and almost and tool or utility found out there works without no hassle at all.
This is not saying debian is a poor choise, it's very good indeed, but we all have different flavors when it comes to our major tool of choise, as you soon will be aware after this posting.
Good luck chosing
/Punisher.
I've been using Debian for about two years. It most distinguishing features are it's software packaging method (deb packages) and the apt-get method of installing and updating the software packages - including upgrading the entire distribution without a reboot a reboot in most cases.
It's a very well designed distro. Solid and very stable. The one complaint some have is that the stable (current release) version often lags behind other distributions because a new version is never rushed out just to meet a marketing deadline - because there are no marketing deadlines. It's totally non-commercial.
However, you can always just run the unstable distro and be more current, especially for home systems where bugs aren't as critical. The "unstable" version of Debian is actually pretty stable most of the time though.
The other post had a good point - you can just try both and see for yourself.
Tom
Debian GNU/Linux is the best ;-)
Read the Distribution HOWTO (by Eric S. Raymond) at <URL:http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Distribution-HOWTO.html>.
Andreas
Well, I learned on Slackware (v3.0 … iirc). I think the main advantage of Slackware is that it forces you to learn more about your Linux system than other distros do. When you want to install software, you pretty much have to compile it, etc. Of course this eventually leads to Slackware's main disadvantage IMO. Eventually I tired of compiling everything under the sun, so I tried RedHat and some its varients, of which I cared for none. Then somebody suggested Debian, which at the time had just hit 2.0, and I've never used anything since. The biggest advantage of Debian is apt-get .. which is a program that allows for installation of Debian packages over the internet, including upgrades and whatnot. If you want some more info about Debian, check out www.debian.org, and if you're an irc person you can go to irc.debian.org, and ask questions in the #debian chatroom.
Sean
Well, you've heard from the Debian side, and they've given you a very good argument for Debian, so as a long-time Slackware user I'll just add in my two cents. :) Slackware does force you to learn to do configuration by hand, though there ARE some utilities to help you in that regard (pppsetup, whatever the network config is, etc). However, this is better, IMHO, because that way you're not tempted to use the nice graphical utilities as a crutch, and are a little less helpless when those utilities fail you for some reason or another. :) I've TRIED Debian, but I could never get into it. The two reasons are twofold: one, Debian, like a lot of distros, goes for an "everything-but-the-kitchen-sink" approach to what software they include with the distro. Slackware is a lot slimmer, by comparison. Second, neither Slackware's nor Debian's installation system is particularly pretty, but Debian's had me tearing my hair out. I just found it extremely arcane and unwieldly. That alone convinced me not to use Debian anymore.
Anyway, that's just my $.02. My best recommendation, though, would be to go to LinuxMall or Cheapbytes and buy $2 CD's of each, and try them both out. Decide what YOU like best. :)
Scott Bishop
>first off, there is less difference amonst them than most people seem >to believe. >1) they are all linux kernel with gnu tools. >2) you can install most anything by downloading source, configuring, > running make &c, in *any* distribution. >3) no distribution prevents you from diving into configuration and > editing it yourself.
How about counterpoint?
On the other hand, vis-a-vis installation, system configuration, and systems maintenance, they all maintain _quite distinct_ sets of code:
Slackware and Debian share the fact of not having a "venture capital" department to pay them to produce "barneyfied" install processes, with the attendant memory/disk bloat that results.
I'm getting quite convinced that there's a persistent need for them; there is a distinct place in the world for "mechanics-required" distributions.
Over the last year, the local LUG (NTLUG) has been inundated with newbies that have assortedly "fallen in love" with Mandrake, Red Hat 6.x, and SuSE.
Unfortunately, we're now noticing the pedagogical problems with their "friendly install" schemes, which is that they don't:
In effect, they:
Which has remarkable parallels to the Win9x thing of needing to reinstall every few months.
The _reasons_ may be a bit different; there is not the same forcible _need_ to reinstall to clean up the horrid state of the registry and of DLLs.
But it _does_ mean that the claim that you "don't need to reinstall Linux every few months" is not much of a reality.
cbbrowne@ntlug.org - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linuxsysconfig.html>