I'd say that my experience with Slackware isn't that it's hard -- but rather that it's messy. Say what you will about Red Hat being a sissified OS or something, but there generally is a plan behind where files are installed. Slack just seems to have the philosophy of throwing in any package without caring how it's installed. This is a nightmare for admins of multiple machines. Also, some of the niceties (especially certain scripts in /etc/sysconfig) in RH simply have no analog in Slack.
Personally, Debian and Fedora are my distros of choice. -- Brian C. Merrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, J. Milgram wrote: > David Zakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > When was this? You know, things have advanced slightly in the past 3 > > years or so... Slack is still using a 2.4 kernel by default > > Last install I did was a couple of months ago. I recall that 2.6.x is > an option at setup time, but I may be wrong. The RH foray was many years > ago. > > The Slackware install does require beginners to understand concepts like > "default", "option", and "choose". Probably an issue with most distros, > though. > > As for GUI's... it's true that curses apps aren't as snazzy and the > stark simplicity of the Slack setup program may turn off new users > raised on dancing paper clips. > > Distro religion aside, if New User is reading this, note we all agree > that you have to look to see what your guru is running. I sense that the > best advice givers on this list these days aren't necessarily Slack > users (there was a time...) so Slack may not be the one for you after > all. > >
