4 ms·
If you need something more practical, but still challenging, try Slackware. Use the advanced install feature and only select the packages you need. Build the o
by wheelerof4te 3y ago
If you need something more practical, but still challenging, try Slackware.
Use the advanced install feature and only select the packages you need. Build the other software yourself. You can choose your own difficulty this way. You can also follow the distro's way of packaging up software (build scripts), or build it the software developer's way. The main advantages of building software yourself are:
1. You are a developer who wants to customize the software.
2. You want to practice.
3. You want to contribute to a project.
4. You want to have a better understanding of what the code does.
Slackware 15 is a modern platform to build upon.
- boomskats 3y agoI haven't run Slackware for maybe 20 years, but I remember running 7.2 at uni and recall really _enjoying_ building everything and having that level of control. It taught me so much about how Linux works. Conversely, I remember finding my initial experiences with dpkg and rpm quite frustrating in comparison.
- ilyt 3y agodpkg had a bit weird experience, because the "easy" way of building (binary)package is literally "just put files that need to be deployed in one directory, and some metadata in the other and run a command to package it", i.e. extremely easy and entirely independent on how you build it. But the "proper" way includes million scripts and checks that make sure your .dpkg is "distribution grade" and it can be quite complex
- Shared404 3y agoIt seems to me that slackware + flatpak could make a _really_ stable base for a desktop, but I've not got deep experience with either so could be making stuff up.
- qorrect 3y agoCame here to mention Slackware, my first distro and introduction to linux back in the late nineties. I thought they had abandoned it , glad to see it's still around. IceWM gang anyone ?
- Koshkin 3y agoThe vanilla Slackware has been a perfect distro for me. No systemd; easy to keep up to date with slackpkg and sbopkg, without the dependency hell. It has been a daily driver for me both on a Thinkpad and an (oldish) Mac Mini for years now.
- itomato 3y agoEven more practical; Buildroot
- mrweasel 3y agoLooking back picking Slackware as my desktop OS 20+ years ago was such a great career building move. I ran Slackware plus an obscure and now defunct source based package manager for 10 years and the experience and mindset has stuck with me ever since, even if I don't use Slackware anymore and newer ran it in a professional setting. Slackware doesn't try to hide anything from you, it takes the long way around, but it does so in order to do the correct thing, and in a way where it's clear to you why things function the way they do. In some ways Slackware is hard to use, but it's also less frustrating and you don't hit exceedingly hard problems where you feel like the OS is fighting you.
- ilyt 3y agoNah https://buildroot.org/ https://buildroot.org/ Slackware was underdeveloped PITA back then and it is now
- WesolyKubeczek 3y agoI love Buildroot for unashamedly being the peak Makefile.
- F-W-M 3y agoNever heard of buildroot. Interesting!