Slackware does still matter and is a reasonable option in business because of several manners.
Slack is what it aims for - a good and stable unix-like system. The only thing i personally don't like very much about slack are the package categories. Actually, that's why i switched from slack to arch. I mean "a, ab, k, l, n t, x, y" .. don't name what the categories are thought for. So more than less - i dislike the naming sheme. Regards, Georg On Thursday 24 November 2005 13:07, Martin Lefebvre wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 08:41:58PM -0200, Newton B. Costa Junior wrote: > > http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/05/11/23/1744237.shtml?tid=166&tid=106 > > > > Funny thing is that Arch Linux is mentioned on the first post!! > > And even the wiki is mentioned! > > Glad to see someone writing something to negate the "negative effect" of > the first article, whose author is a total doorknob. > > And having used slackware since 1997, I found that the original article > "Does Slackware still matter?" had the look and feel of something > written by someone who got frustrated because they have no clue what > they're doing, and their poor little under-developed brain cannot grasp > the whole thing that Slackware is. _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
